|
Why would the privileged be against economic stagnation? Under anarchy, how could someone with low net-worth take up entrepreneurship or homesteading before succumbing to the time preference of their stomach? What happens to those unable create enough value through work to survive? How do you make a seedless watermelon? Give Jrode a vasectomy.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think a major source of the problem is that you continue to maintain that what exists in the United States, particularly in sectors of the economy like healthcare, is something approximating a libertarian free market... When people accuse you of not engaging with arguments, this is some of what they're talking about. People have granted, multiple times, that healthcare in the US today is not a truly, or even approximately, a free market. What they are saying is that healthcare in the US today is more free than other developed nations, yet is producing worse outcomes. If I recall correctly, your previous response was to compare healthcare in the 1950's in the US to healthcare in the US today and point out how it was cheaper. Then a number of other people chimed in with how it's more expensive today due to increased tech and services available, not due to new government regulation. And even if that was the case that doesn't answer the original question; Why is a freeer healthcare system producing worse results than a more socialist/collective/whatever one? Buried alive fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Well let me tell you about mutual aid societies... *we all fall screaming into the abyss as the thread loops on itself once again and finally collapses into a singularity*
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
If profit is the only motivation for innovation, how do you explain Linux, Wikipedia, r, or any number of other projects?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It just could not be more apparent to everyone that the most entrenched and important form of disadvantage by far is basic inequality, and that inequality is primarily driven by economic models that leave capitalism alone and unattended. What do you think is driving inequality over the last couple decades? You have to draw a clear distinction between market entrepreneurs and political opportunists. The larger the State grows the greater is the incentive for market entrepreneurs to eschew concern for consumers and rely upon State privilege to gain and grow their wealth. Under political crony capitalism the wealth of the capitalists does frequently come at the expense of the middle class and poor. This is the opposite of market entrepreneurship, where the satisfaction of the consumer is paramount. Inequality is much less because those that become wealthy must be bringing along others with them since they add value and regular people direct production lines and capital investment based upon their purchasing decisions. Central banking is a MAJOR issue that contributes to economic inequality. Since 1971, the United States has severed all ties of the dollar to gold. What this meant is that there have been no practical restraints on the expansion of government power or of the money supply. In economics there is a phenomenon called the "Cantillion Effect". When new money is created and spent by government, or more directly passed along to corporate contractors who do the governments bidding, the money has more value than when that money circulates throughout the economy and prices rise. Those who spend the money first can buy up property and material goods while the money has its maximum value. Prices rise only later, as much as a few years after the new money has been in circulation. The poorest receive the money last and by that time significant price inflation has robbed the money of much of its original value. What occurs is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through inflation. This exacerbates income inequality. Even if you think a commodity money standard like gold is a crazy idea, you really ought to have some ideas about monetary reform and some way to curb the creation of new credit by the central bank. Because nearly every negative economic phenomenon in the past thirty to forty years that progressives attribute to deregulation and free markets has much more to do with loose monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. You ought to lay much of the blame at the feet of Alan Greenspan and a great deal with Ben Bernanke as well. Just if you look at the economic statistics from the year 2000 and compare them to statistics in 2015 you can see the dramatic drop in good jobs, in manufacturing, and the rise in prices for basic commodities. Its been going on for a while but the trends have only been accelerating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Inflation doesn't transfer wealth to the rich you dumb watermelon fucker inflation benefits debters, which virtually every low to middle class person is, and punishes wealth that is left to accumulate rather than be spent or invested. The market right now is designed to have a slow controlled inflation specifically so money moves instead of accumulating, because money that doesn't move doesn't help the economy. And no, the subprime mortgage crash wasn't a central bank issue, it arose, SPECIFICALLY from deregulation of financial derivates contracts, which let several investment firms essentially sell financial snake oil, with no legal method for the SEC to intervene,since without regulations, what Goldman Sachs did isn't illegal! just really lovely. Someone tackle his goldbuggery my break is over
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Well one of the things about being a Marxist is the realisation that big business and states ganging up on the little man is an inexorable part of the system. You make the mistake of believing it's the problem of the state alone, and that the market is not the problem. The Marxist realises that it was the market that made the modern state in the first place, and the fate of the two are inextricably linked to one-another. They're two sides of the same historical coin, ye fool! Putting Marxism to one side: jrodefeld posted:What do you think is driving inequality over the last couple decades? You have to draw a clear distinction between market entrepreneurs and political opportunists. The larger the State grows the greater is the incentive for market entrepreneurs to eschew concern for consumers and rely upon State privilege to gain and grow their wealth. Under political crony capitalism the wealth of the capitalists does frequently come at the expense of the middle class and poor. Yes, the mechanisms of the state can be co-opted by the powerful to gently caress the weak - or even the strong, like a fellow member of an oligopoly. Nobody denies that. However, you seem to think this hazard merits the destruction of the state, which simply does not follow, for two reasons: 1) You fail to examine the possibility that it may be easier for wealthy individuals to co-opt a stateless situation to their own advantage - or, if not the wealthy, than some other elite category, such as the strong. 2) You fail to examine the possibility that the state can be co-opted by an alliance of other forces to minimise the possibility of crony capitalism. Like for example, in a lot of Western & Northern Europe, where it is substantially less of a problem. 3) You fail to examine the reality that crony capitalism is generally a much bigger problem in states that are small, or at least ones where there is limited regulation of the power of corporations and wealthy individuals in general; these states also tend to have a great capital inequality between rich and poor. jrodefeld posted:Central banking is a MAJOR issue that contributes to economic inequality. Not so. The era before central banks was much more unequal, as was almost all of the economic period on gold as the currency standard. jrodefeld posted:Since 1971, the United States has severed all ties of the dollar to gold. What this meant is that there have been no practical restraints on the expansion of government power or of the money supply. Central banks, however, have generally helped to address financial crises in ways that demonstrably help the poor. It's in the economic interest of almost everyone to avoid a bank run, you know. jrodefeld posted:In economics there is a phenomenon called the "Cantillion Effect". When new money is created and spent by government, or more directly passed along to corporate contractors who do the governments bidding, the money has more value than when that money circulates throughout the economy and prices rise. Those who spend the money first can buy up property and material goods while the money has its maximum value. Prices rise only later, as much as a few years after the new money has been in circulation. The poorest receive the money last and by that time significant price inflation has robbed the money of much of its original value. Printed money goes in to bank balance sheets for lending purposes in today's universe. It does this because direct distribution to the poorest people by means of helicopter is much more inflationary. Your scenario is somewhat farcical. In any event, that banks should print money and that there should be no gold standard is accepted by almost every economist in the world. jrodefeld posted:What occurs is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through inflation. This exacerbates income inequality. The primary cause of inequality is not inflation, that's farcical. The great inflationary period of the 20th century was its great period of inequality in the post-war era, when because of some slightly erroneous economics, wage increases in the economy were funded by inflationary policies. Inflation is bad for the rich. That's one of the reasons the ultra-wealthy love the gold standard. It will protect the value of their already existing money supplies. If you have 0 money, you don't give a poo poo about the relative value of your $1,000,000 dollars relative to the total number of dollars in circulation. In any event, it is proven to be impossible to get away from debt problems by trying to pay down your debt by running surpluses in a crisis. You have to inflate away the value of debt while simultaneously growing. Not that debt is a major economic problem, of course, for states that borrow in their own currency. jrodefeld posted:Even if you think a commodity money standard like gold is a crazy idea, you really ought to have some ideas about monetary reform and some way to curb the creation of new credit by the central bank. It's never a bad time to think about how to be better at central banking, but ending QE is not the answer. QE saved a lot of people's bacon in this last depression, and we need more, not less of it in Europe. We don't have an inflation problem despite printing shitloads of money in Europe, both in and out of the Euro. Japan, Britain, the Euro: we all have deflationary pressure. We need more demand, not less inflation! jrodefeld posted:Because nearly every negative economic phenomenon in the past thirty to forty years that progressives attribute to deregulation and free markets has much more to do with loose monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. You ought to lay much of the blame at the feet of Alan Greenspan and a great deal with Ben Bernanke as well. Bernanke's biggest mistake was not to be activist enough. Greenspan was the thrusting force behind huge deregulation in the economy, so yes, he does deserve a lot of blame for that, and for mishandling tax rates. That's what you get if you let a close associate of Ayn Rand be the chair of the world's most powerful central bank - instead of someone like Bernanke, who actually understands economics. Just if you look at the economic statistics from the year 2000 and compare them to statistics in 2015 you can see the dramatic drop in good jobs, in manufacturing, and the rise in prices for basic commodities. Its been going on for a while but the trends have only been accelerating. [/quote] jrodefeld posted:Just if you look at the economic statistics from the year 2000 and compare them to statistics in 2015 you can see the dramatic drop in good jobs, in manufacturing, and the rise in prices for basic commodities. Its been going on for a while but the trends have only been accelerating. Inflation is not everywhere a monetary problem, no matter what people would have you believe. Prices for everything should naturally be increasing a small amount: a small amount of inflation is healthy, say 2%. That way you can have a positive interest rate without risking deflation, which is a disaster. It also means businesses do not need to do nominal wage cuts, which is a functional impossibility. They can just freeze wages. Things happened between 2000 and 2015, though: Globalisation is ending manufacturing jobs, not voodoo magic in central banks Energy prices until recently massively spiked, driving inflation Wars have occured Food scarcities have, on occasion, been caused by things like massive fires in Russia etc. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Central banking is a MAJOR issue that contributes to economic inequality. Since 1971, the United States has severed all ties of the dollar to gold. What this meant is that there have been no practical restraints on the expansion of government power or of the money supply. In economics there is a phenomenon called the "Cantillion Effect". When new money is created and spent by government, or more directly passed along to corporate contractors who do the governments bidding, the money has more value than when that money circulates throughout the economy and prices rise. Those who spend the money first can buy up property and material goods while the money has its maximum value. Prices rise only later, as much as a few years after the new money has been in circulation. The poorest receive the money last and by that time significant price inflation has robbed the money of much of its original value. This is breathtakingly idiotic. When new money is minted, government contractors aren't the only ones in the entire economy being paid. The rich, middle class, and poor are still receiving money, and each dollar of that money is worth the same as each dollar of newly minted money at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Globalisation is ending manufacturing jobs, not voodoo magic in central banks Incidentally, everybody except watermelon fucker might find this analysis that was posted in the Canadian Politics thread. Arguing that what we are seeing in regards to underemployment is in fact not due to central banks, but the slow death of capitalism and the profit motive as a viable mode of production. I found it really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:03
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:This is breathtakingly idiotic. When new money is minted, government contractors aren't the only ones in the entire economy being paid. The rich, middle class, and poor are still receiving money, and each dollar of that money is worth the same as each dollar of newly minted money at that time. He thinks the order in which they receive the money (because it filters down) is of major importance, not realising that (a) It's done that way to prevent the inflation he is so concerned about and (b) The order isn't that important. Of course the financial institutions gain more purchasing power from this policy, but who gives a poo poo. It's an emergency measure, and for the most part they don't use the money to purchase, they use the money to improve their internal gearing ratio so they can lend. It allows them to de-leverage to increase liquidity overall - they were overleveraged before. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
I take it you meant to say there should be no gold standard, Disinterested
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I take it you meant to say there should be no gold standard, Disinterested I'm sold On purestrain gold
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:21
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I take it you meant to say there should be no gold standard, Disinterested Quite right. It's one of the few things virtually all strains of economist agree on. That and free trade are the two biggest orthodoxies, maybe, in all economics.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
The two biggest issues with the gold standard that I can think of is: 1. It has no intrinsic value. It's a shiny metal, it isn't magic. It's probably more valuable as a material to use (like for semiconductors or the gold foil radiation shields NASA puts on satellites) than sitting in a vault as gold bullion bars. 2. There literally isn't enough of it to even cover the amount of currency in circulation today. I don't mean for the world, just the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:03
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:2. There literally isn't enough of it to even cover the amount of currency in circulation today. I don't mean for the world, just the United States. The quantity doesn't matter. You don't have to make the money out of the gold, and states maintain gold reserves.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Yes, everyone look at the majestic stability of the economy when the dollar was tied to metal you dig out of the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The quantity doesn't matter. You don't have to make the money out of the gold, and states maintain gold reserves. It's still nowhere near enough gold in the world to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It's estimated there is about $7.1 trillion worth of gold mined in the world. The total assets of the US economy is about $188 trillion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:18
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:It's still nowhere near enough gold in the world to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It's estimated there is about $7.1 trillion worth of gold mined in the world. The total assets of the US economy is about $188 Trillion. You don't need to be able to cover the whole value of the economy in gold, what are you on about?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Goldbug talk is a trap and a refuge for those with nothing substantial to say on economics except as some sort of bludgeon as to yet another trick The State is pulling over on the "witless masses".
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You don't need to be able to cover the whole value of the economy in gold, what are you on about? https://books.google.com/books?id=O...tandard&f=false
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
This supports what I am saying. Of course, most libertarians want to use specie and not a fractional system, which is yet more absurd. But then again you can use silver and copper and poo poo, I suppose, not that it's a good idea.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Sorry to butt in. I've got some questions. I feel they're straightforward, but please let me know if you have trouble understanding them, Jrod. 1. Jrod, you seem to think that libertarian forms of government are superior to non-libertarian forms of government. I am confused as to why. Is it because libertarian forms of government protect valuable rights better than non-libertarian forms of government, because libertarianism makes everyone better off in appreciable, material ways, or both? I ask this because, from my perspective there are valuable rights that I have that aren't captured by libertarian principles. For instance, I think every child has a right to be fed, clothed, and housed, but if you are correct I'm just wrong. So either you think A. those rights aren't worth protecting (I think you have a right, broadly construed, to dump pollutants into the river on your property, but that the state has good reasons to actively violate that right, because others have overriding rights to good clean accessible water), B. that they aren't rights, or C. that they are better met by the free market. I've got no evidence for C, and based on things you've said I don't think you do either, so you must think A or B. Which is it? 2A. If you think that it's A, why do you think this is true? Specifically, why do ownership rights override all other rights? For example, you are standing on a street I own, and I'm in my car down the way from you. I hammer the gas pedal and run you down, killing you. You were not threatening my life in any way. It is obvious to almost all that I just did you serious harm, but you were violating my property rights by standing on a street I own. Surely here your rights override my right to keep you off my property. 2B. If you think that it's B, you may want to rethink, well, almost everything, because come the gently caress on. Then again your favorite libertarians are apparently okay with thinking of kids as property, which raises a whole mess of incredibly silly issues that it's probably an incoherent position, but whatever. Bite that bullet, man! 2C. If you think that it's C, then your arguments are worse than you think and completely irrelevant to the material benefits Glorious Libertopia will bring to us all. Now you may say that libertarianism is just a theory about what the state can do, but your apparent basis for that is just property rights, and so I don't know why the various ownership and non-interference principles libertarians love don't apply to everyone. I can commit an injustice against you even though I'm not the state. And for your, and everyone else's perusal, here's an article by a libertarian that endorses egalitarianism and is rather left-wing in its economic conclusions. However silly I think its foundations are, you should at least consider why you think markets markets markets!!! are the outcome of libertarian first principles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
I want Jrodefeld to go back in time and tell William Jennings Bryan that the gold standard is a boon to the poor and a bane for the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This supports what I am saying. I think even with the fractional system you'd see a massive devaluation of the US dollar if we went back to the gold standard. Not to mention the industrial uses gold has now like I said before. The price of anything that uses gold as a semiconductor would go through the roof. Jewelry would be expensive as poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:It's still nowhere near enough gold in the world to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It's estimated there is about $7.1 trillion worth of gold mined in the world. The total assets of the US economy is about $188 trillion. IF we decided gold was the backing of everything, then all the gold in the world would be worth $188 trillion. Because it would be declared to be so. The problem is that this would then make gold cost far too much in current uses like electronics, and other such things. And the massive price jump would suddenly lead to people breaking into houses to scrap computers and the like just to get the newly 27x as much worth gold. It would be havoc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
If you draw a Venn Diagram for the groups "believes that the gold standard helped the poor instead of the rich" and "believes that water fluoridation is a mind control plot by the lizard people who run our shadow government" you almost get a perfect circle
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:IF we decided gold was the backing of everything, then all the gold in the world would be worth $188 trillion. Because it would be declared to be so. Lets just base our currency on carbon-fiber and watch what happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
A hypothetical gold standard would only need to cover MB since currency is what's being backed, not even close to $188 trillion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Gold is no less a fiat currency than the money we have now and no less prone to banks being able to just print more money. If everyone agreed that every picogram of gold was worth a quintillion libertarian fun bux you'd have the exact same problem as if you printed an equal amount of USD. Gold backing is inferior to our current system in nearly every way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Company towns were fine, what are you talking about? Don't you remember that old song? This is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
First, let me just say that I concur with the analysis/response Disinterested also gave on this post. Thank you, comrade.  jrodefeld posted:I think a major source of the problem is that you continue to maintain that what exists in the United States, particularly in sectors of the economy like healthcare, is something approximating a libertarian free market, or that in the fairly recent past free market anarchy was the order of the day. It is only through this confusion that your position has coherence. If our economy really resembled a decentralized, libertarian anarchy at the turn of the twentieth century, then what were those individualist anarchists screaming about? I have no issue in conceding the point that the 19th century United States was a historic move towards principles supported by libertarians, with not at all insignificant caveats, but we had so far to go. So many systemic problems, artificial privileges and oppressed minorities who were not granted full and equal rights. This comparative free market economy did indeed produce a lot of wealth that enriched not just the capitalists but the workers and everyone else, but to claim that what we had really was the result of laissez-faire is, I think, grossly unfair and ahistoric. And you would be wrong to think that, just as you were wrong when you claimed that von Mises' book wasn't published until that evil, evil Keynes had taken over all of academic publishing or whatever you tried to suggesting, when here in the real world von Mises was published, well before Keynes, and you're just as wrong here. Laissez-faire economics was the principal driver of economic inequality and capitalist exploitation, with company towns, union-busting, child-labor, the 16-hour workday, monopolies, and on, and on, and on; a whole list of abuses and degradations that only ended when the state stepped in and finally said "enough". Seriously, Jrode, your understanding of what happened during the 19th and early 20th century is so off the mark as to bordering on being not even wrong. jrodefeld posted:As a Marxist though, I am curious. Are you one who opposes the State? The end goal of Marxist analysis is, after all, the withering away of the State. Marx saw the State as a tool of oppression serving the ruling class. This is possibly the first thing you've said about Marx that even approaches being correct, and yet you're still wrong. Marx postulates that at the end of capitalism's natural evolution, the state will belong first to the elites, then be taken over by the proletariat, before the rise of the classless society. He makes no prediction as to how the classless society will be organized, and there has to be some form of societal organization. So no, I am not implacably opposed to the very idea of a state, because I think some form of government will likely always be necessary. jrodefeld posted:Asking this another way, supposing we modified our understanding of property rights such that the sort of exploitation you think exists under capitalism no longer exists, would you be comfortable disassembling the State? See, this is your problem. That bolded part, right here. Look at this sentence. Look loving closely at this sentence. What you seem to be saying here is: "suppose we magically redefined exploitation out of existence without actually doing anything to address the problem" would I be okay with disassembling the state? No. No I would not. Because you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to actually solve the problem, you've ignored and dismissed it instead. jrodefeld posted:I personally think Marxist class analysis theory is entirely absurd. Marx was correct in viewing the State as a tool of oppression by a ruling elite, but he was dead wrong in thinking that the employee/employer relationship is by definition exploitative. The potential for profits is the interest owned to the entrepreneur for assuming all the risk in new, untested ideas. Without the potential for profit, innovation will dry up and the economy will stagnate. How many times have we been over this bullshit already? Seriously, I refer you to the entirety of the thread so far, where these subjects have been beaten to death, resurrected, then beaten to death again, and your bullshit about time-preference, innovation and how state regulation stifle the magic powers of the ~*~Free Market~*~ have been refuted each and every time. jrodefeld posted:There are far more paths to a productive occupation under anarchy, and we should expect and encourage methods beyond just wage labor to a large business. More social experiments and contractual market arrangements can be expected to proliferate under such conditions and wage labor will be one of many different means rather than the dominate means as it is today. ...  Do go loving on. I would love to hear what this poo poo is about. Because none of the things I can think of are any good for the laborer. jrodefeld posted:I am not trying to trick you into accepting libertarian ideas by rebranding it as leftism. Yes you are. And it's not gonna play. jrodefeld posted:What I am trying to get across is that there are left-libertarians and there are right-libertarians and your conception of what the term means, namely as a group of far right corporate shills and racists is not only inaccurate on its own terms but horribly limited as far as the scope of individualist anarchy and the liberal tradition is concerned. See, here's a funny thing. I actually know real-life anarchists. I've spent quite some time with them, discussing their ideas over a pint, getting into the nitty-gritty of how to make an anarchist society work, the challenges it would face, what the optimum size of a commune would be, how to ensure that common property was truly equally available, to what extent private property - if any - should be allowed. I have read Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin and discussed them with real people actually living their teachings, so I am uniquely qualified to tell you this: You are full of poo poo, and a shill for everything these people stand against. Were they to meet you, they would laugh in your face the moment you pulled out your usual bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Guaranteed paycheck v. entrepreneurship is probably the best ethical solution to the issue of surplus labor, but there remains the ever-expanding nature of capital and Marx's is as opposed to his ought.TLM3101 posted:I actually know real-life anarchists. Lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Actually, let me just bring this back up, since it got lost when Jrode ducked out the last time. And while I hope that he'll answer, I'm guessing that her won't, as per usual.TLM3101 posted:Okay. Since Jrodefeld likes to argue morality and ethics when it comes to business and wages, here's a moral conundrum I would very much like to see him answer, in light of the previous answers he's already given. Moving on! Hi. Let me introduce you to Blitz. They're a weird amalgamation of a lot of different left-wing ideologies, but they're still a going concern after 33 years, so I'm going to give them kudos for that. e: Actually, I would pay good money to see JRod show up and try to peddle his bullshit there. The only question is whether or not they'd laugh him out of the building, or defenestrate him. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
That isn't even touch the fact that the Gold Standard was heavily exploited and manipulated by companies which contributed to its frequent crash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That isn't even touch the fact that the Gold Standard was heavily exploited and manipulated by companies which contributed to its frequent crash. It wasn't even companies, James Frisk tried to corner the gold market during the Grant administration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I personally think Marxist class analysis theory is entirely absurd. Marx was correct in viewing the State as a tool of oppression by a ruling elite, but he was dead wrong in thinking that the employee/employer relationship is by definition exploitative. The potential for profits is the interest owned to the entrepreneur for assuming all the risk in new, untested ideas. Without the potential for profit, innovation will dry up and the economy will stagnate. You're confused here, for a reason that should actually be familiar to you: 'exploitation,' for Marx, is a technical term with little or no connection to the common sense of the word. (You would know this if you had even a passing familiarity with the topic)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 09:29
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You're confused here, for a reason that should actually be familiar to you: 'exploitation,' for Marx, is a technical term with little or no connection to the common sense of the word. (You would know this if you had even a passing familiarity with the topic) His criticism addresses it in the technical sense though, since exploitation is rate of the removal of surplus value by the exploiter, which he here is taking to be justified.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haUWlal6nL0
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
I mean, if you're going to assert the gold standard is a good idea, you're going to have to find an alternate explanation for the Great Depression other than the gold standard, because that is the standard Friedmanite position on the issue, as well as being the orthodox belief of central bankers everywhere. You can't co-opt Friedman's dislike of the fed and then not understand why he disapproved - he disapproved because it enforced a gold standard that prevented an expansion of the money supply! Disinterested fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 12:12
|
|