|
You based all of your attacks on deceptive or weak arguments:
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Well the idea is that the price of everything will have also fallen. But considering that income inequality will still exist and will only exacerbate, if prices do fall they'll fall much, much slower than the lowest wage. Any decrease from minimum wage labor will be offset or mitigated by the rents/wages for skilled labor increasing/staying the same. This has to be true since, remember, total GDP = total income, so costs for 'resources' are going to workers extracting that resource, renters/owners of machinery and deposits, etc
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
A good example of the role of early states in the economy is the Incan empire. The Incas were probably the first imperial power to establish themselves in the Andes. They were incredibly expansionist and attempted to assimilate a lot of people. Their economy also had a limited internal market. All economic organization was controlled by a kind of extended family structure, that provided both social services and controlled labor. Taxes to the central state was not paid in currency, but in both surplus food and corvee labor/military service. This kind of model wasn't unique to the Incas either - early sumerian and egyptian empires followed a similar structure. There are literal accounting records for the Third Dynasty of Ur which show, for groups of citizen, a running account balance of the amount of goods produced, which was converted in worker-days using standardized prices. If they fell below quotas, they would be forced to pay back that debt with civil service/indentured servitude. A big mistake of libertarians is to assume that fiddling around with financial structures constitutes progress, but in truth it's technology that drives social organization. The industrial age begins not with the joint stock corporation, but the invention of the steam engine, itself the result of important advances in metallurgy. Even today, the most important advance of the finance industry is...the ATM.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Hot drat, good find. That's more significant than you know, because that little dodge there is a window into the jrodefelds thought process. There's no way he could have added 'owners' in there accidentally, he had to have recognized the pattern and then intentionally subverted it. So for those that read PJ's schizo thread, this is a little glitch in his 'outer narrative' (the structure meant to persuade, not actually be believed). Had it been his inner narrative, he would be forced to confront the contradiction. I'd like to know what really motivates him, but of course if you ask you'll get more blowhard rhetoric. But you can get a glimpse if you look carefully: notice that he derails himself in the OP from his 'rising tide' rhetoric to attack democracy as an institution, with the method of attack focusing on the idea that 'no one has final say', therefore inefficiency. That's kind of a strange attack, isn't it? Not simply because it ignores actually existing cooperatives, but that somehow the same logic doesn't apply to shareholders. I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest jrodefeld is a libertarian because he has a fetish for Great Leaders, which conversely leads to a disdain for committees or popular rule, because these programs stifle individual ambitions (by design). The idea of 'power corrupting' is ignored, and substituted with 'being poor is corrupting' - giving rule to 'mobs' under this framework is suicidal (Bread and circuses! Flatscreen TVs! etc etc). Everything else, first-owner-principle, non-aggression-principle, whatever pseudo-scientific bullshit is deployed, is centered around the goal of justifying the demobilization of mass politics. To put the genie back in the bottle. Until he can admit that, or reveal what his real motivations are, the game of this thread + the other thread is going to go on forever. Dodge, throw out decoys, convenient fairy tales, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 10:30
|
|