by JustinFrankl » Fri 16 Sep 2005, 21:06:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')The only long-term workable economic system is stability, whether static or dynamic. Anything else is a fairy tale.
Dynamic stability is a contradiction. And there is no such thing as a completely sustainable long-term economic system. On a long enough timeline the sun will die, the Earth will be destroyed, the universe will end. Change is the nature of existence, change must be part of the economic system.
No, not a contradiction. Dynamic stability is common in chaotic systems, where a system does not settle into one state, but changes between many intermediate and unpredictable states, all within certain bounds.
But, yes, I get your point about entropy. All good things, etc., etc.
by Concerned » Fri 16 Sep 2005, 22:45:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'I') am regular visitor of Mises.org and sometimes participate in their discussions, having actually read Mises' theory of economics. I have also read Debunking Economics. Combined with my thorough education in economics I am in a better position to provide insight in economic issues than anybody here, and that's obvious in how no one seems willing to take up the challenge of explaining how their policies work.
Jaws the problem is you don't provide any insight at all. You just drone on with your ideological dogma and as far as you being in a better position than anybody here
Arrogance, condescending?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Your lack of understanding is obvious when you complain about the impossibility of pure capitalism. The first thing that the Austrian school asserts is that there is no such thing as a perfect economic system because the economic system centers on man and man is flawed. Capitalism works better than socialism BECAUSE man is flawed. Socialism cannot work without perfect rulers, and democratic socialism is even worse, putting power in the hands of the worst rulers of all, the voting public.
You are hamstrung by your ideological beliefs, you unwillingness to consider information from other sources and continious droning of anti socialism, clearly shows where your understanding and bias lie.
You honestly think you're going to get the one right answer for an economic system that you can fit everywhere for any society on earth on an internet forum? Someone here or at mises is just going to type it up in a few paragraphs and post it? Get real.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
by jaws » Sat 17 Sep 2005, 00:19:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '
')Jaws the problem is you don't provide any insight at all. You just drone on with your ideological dogma and as far as you being in a better position than anybody here
Arrogance, condescending?
First you accuse me of being dogmatic and not being enlightened by your unorthodox sources, then when I point out that I am familiar with them you, well, accuse me of being dogmatic and unenlightened. What have you read about economics that puts you in a position to understand the nature of economic organization? Oh that's right, you people don't even BELIEVE in economics. Why do you waste your time arguing in an economics forum?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You are hamstrung by your ideological beliefs, you unwillingness to consider information from other sources and continious droning of anti socialism, clearly shows where your understanding and bias lie.
You honestly think you're going to get the one right answer for an economic system that you can fit everywhere for any society on earth on an internet forum? Someone here or at mises is just going to type it up in a few paragraphs and post it? Get real.
I considered the information from THE SAME SOURCES AS YOU. That you refuse to even consider the fact that this information would lead someone to conclude that socialism is ruinous exposes how little thought you gave to the issue. And why would you even think about it at all? In your mind economics is non-knowledge. All you were really looking for in these sources was a condemnation of economics. Whatever positive contributions they made to the field is of no importance to you.
There is one right answer for an economic system for all men because all men are fundamentally the same. Those who refuse to accept the advances in economics have condemned their people to perpetual poverty and decline. This is not the same as saying that economics is simple. Mises' theory, Human Action, which you really should read before even hinting that you know anything of Austrian economics, is 900 pages, not a word wasted.
The divide between the rich countries and the poor countries traces back to those countries who were first to discover the origin of wealth. In Europe the classical economists tore down every barrier to progress against the outcries of conservatives who declared that it was against culture and religion. Today conservatives of the same type defend the institutions holding their people in poverty in the Islamic world and socialist holdouts. There is only one way to catch up in wealth, and that is to catch up on the science of human action which inevitably concludes that liberal capitalism is best for all.
by Macsporan » Sat 17 Sep 2005, 04:03:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'M')acsporan you continue to disappoint me and your cause. By not revealing the specific policies that you support you simply expose yourself as a verbose man with no insight into the functions of society. Your statements are completely empty. You repeat over and over how you stand for GOOD and against BAD. Well duh. So do I, and so does everyone else. The difference between you and me is that I can always explain how my stance achieves good. You cannot, and that is why you refuse to accept my challenge.
Let's just start with the simplest exercise we can find. How would you end child prostitution and general child exploitation? It seems to be a topic you take particular interest in, you must have some sort of plan.
This is the fourth or fifth time I've noted the fact that you aren't reading my posts and seem deaf to anything except the sound of your own voice.
Please read them and you'll notice the following:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am advocating a Mixed Economy with Private Enterprise regulated by international conventions to ensure that capital flows within and between nations are invested in the public interest, not irresponsible speculation, and the provision of State Welfare to take the edge off the instability and inequity of the Capitalist System. This was, and in some place still is, the most successful socio-economic arrangement ever devised. Of that there can be no argument.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')carcity can be significantly alleviated with money and redistributive taxation and social programs. Inequality ditto.
Furthermore I would advocate the strengthening of Government and Organised Labour at all levels, local, regional, national and international to save mankind from the tyranny of uncontrolled and irresponsible capitalism, the great evil of our age.
Human Rights, Enviromental Regulations, Labour Rights must all take the place of the deceitful and slimy dictates of Capitalist economics as the guidebook of mankind.
You say "I can always explain how my stance achieves good."
The only reason you can smugly claim to have all the answers is that you don't acknowledge the reality of any of the questions. You give no sign of having any understanding of anything I've said to you. Stupidity and dogmatism are closely related.
"Let the Market do everything", is the doctrine of the lazy, the heartless and the self-interested pseudo-simpleton. It requires no thought, no ingenuity and no adaptation to circumstances, just like the religious dogma it is.
The political and legislative program I propose would be complex but most of it has already been instituted in the past via the Bretton Woods system and the basics of Social Democracy. It would need further improvement and updating to fit with the Information Age, but it would not have to be conjured out of thin air.
This you know full well, all dishonest pretence aside.
Speaking of dishonest pretence, I notice that in our epic stouch you are both retreating and claiming victory.
I have in fact comprehensively refuted all your dogmatic and unrealistic bumkum.
If this is the best the defenders of Laissez-faire Capitalism can do then the future is Social Democratic.
Oh yes I note your arrogance, elitism and authoritarianism shining though with your utterance, "democratic socialism is even worse, putting power in the hands of the worst rulers of all, the voting public."
Suddenly those customers who can do no wrong in the sentimental Capitalism you espouse become "the worst rulers of all" when they enter the polling booth and vote Social Democrat.
You have at least shown that Capitalists are basically opposed to Democracy and hence fascists. Strangely enough this is exactly what the historical record demonstrates.
"The divide between the rich countries and the poor countries traces back to those countries who were first to discover the origin of wealth."
For this stunning piece of historical falsehood and simple-mindedness much thanks.
The three-masted sailing ship, gunpowder, metalurgy, the compass, close- order tactics and social cohesion had as little importance as religious fanaticism and poverty back home; no it was all just Adam Smith and capitalist dogmatism that gave Europe dominion of the world.
The only thing wrong with this heart-warming, Western chauvinist fairy-story is that is isn't true: Smith wrote in the 1780's, while European expansion began three centuries earlier.
Furthermore if either the theory or practice of Capitalism had anything to do with it one would have expected it to have been undertaken by the most commercially and financially advanced people of Europe: the Italian city-states and those of modern-day Belgium and Holland.
In fact it was led by the Spanish and Portuguese, the least modern and most medieval of the West Europeans.
By the 1780's Christianity was no longer respectable as an intellectual defence for the maniupulative, Imperialist parasites of Britain, France and Holland, and a new one had to be devised. This is where economics comes into the picture.
It is a very poor religion, as I have previously noted, but it served the purposes of lauding and applauding the deeds and schemes of those cruel, corrupt upstarts who derived their fortunes from the Slave Trade, the Carribean Sugar Gulags, and the plunder of India--the very same people in fact to provoked the American War of Independence.
For the people's of Africa, Asia and the America Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" manifested itself as the Mailed Fist of the ruthless mass-murdering Imperialist plunderer. Throughout this period the Capitalist used the armed forces of the states they domintated to do their dirty work for them.
For their descendents to blame the State for all the world's ills when it is used by Social Democrats for purposes of Social Justice and redistribution, is the height of ingratitude and hypocricy.
Lauding and applauding wealthy parasites continues to be the function of economics to this very day.
In other words, the Europeans may well have invented Economics because they conquered the world, but they did not conquer the world because they invented Economics.
Thus your historical perspective is as bankrupt as your moral, social, political and intellectual arguementation.
With such ignorance defending it the capitalist cause is doomed.
by Raxozanne » Sat 17 Sep 2005, 05:54:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'R')emember, ours is the only right way to live.
CONVERT OR DIE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES; CONVERT OR DIE
YOU WILL BE ASSILMILATED, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')September 14, 2005
HARARE: The Bushmen of the Kalahari, among Africa's last indigenous peoples, are on the verge of losing their ancestral homeland after the Government of Botswana stepped up a campaign to force them into squalid resettlement camps.
"The Government seems hellbent on finishing them off this time. The situation is very urgent. Unless circumstances change through outside intervention, this could very well be the end of these particular people."
A fine example of government theft of property if there ever was one. There's some socialism for you.
This should really belong in the Africa thread.
I was wondering if this is the governments 'socialism' wrong doing and you say that socialism is *bad* and free market is *good* if I understand correctly. I was wondering what would happen if there was no government or no national army? Would there be a police force and a law? If armies were privatised and any company could buy an army what would stop the companies from commiting actrocities if they could afford it? Who would police it? Would there be a law to enforce?
