- Joined
- Jul 11, 2013
- Messages
- 15,192
- Reaction score
- 2
There's never been real capitalism. All this "too big to fail" crap is what gets us into trouble.When has capitalism worked without a huge state supporting it?
There's never been real capitalism. All this "too big to fail" crap is what gets us into trouble.When has capitalism worked without a huge state supporting it?
Again, I'm talking about American neoliberalism. It's Do you know what that means? Should I lecture you about the Hayekian flavor or should I critique Friedmans more radical position? I see you skirting the issue about government control of capital by trying to talk about socialism. I get it, you don't know what i'm talking about so you're trying to define it by what you think its opposite is.
I
you are a symbol of how poorly educated some Americans actually are
Im giving you the opportunity to embarrass me like you said you would...... as yet youve failed to take the bait. Im disappointed in you kiddoYou posted "Europe is far from capitalism" and this is both wrong and stupid to believe so. The rest of your babbling I could give two fucks about.
I am just stating that your general premise is wrong so you are only doomed to do nothing than shitpost after that.
"Ad hominem is the first, last, and only weapon of the seriously limited thinker" - Judge
There's never been real capitalism. All this "too big to fail" crap is what gets us into trouble.
You posted "Europe is far from capitalism" and this is both wrong and stupid to believe so. The rest of your babbling I could give two fucks about.
I am just stating that your general premise is wrong so you are only doomed to do nothing than shitpost after that.
LOL, please tell me how Europe is far from private ownership of property and business.
Allow me to clarify then. The US gov't is majorly in the business of artificially inflating assets. Their meddling in the loan markets caused the great recession. They basically fund all the research supporting big pharma and subsidize every thing from the banking system to pork bellies to gasoline. We may be a lot of things, but a free market is not one of them.That's the economic equivalent of a physicist saying that the Earth is flat.
Allow me to clarify then. The US gov't is majorly in the business of artificially inflating assets. Their meddling in the loan markets caused the great recession. They basically fund all the research supporting big pharma and subsidize every thing from the banking system to pork bellies to gasoline. We may be a lot of things, but a free market is not one of them.
its the libertarian dream.... that thankfully wont ever come to fruitionHow does this free market world that you imagine look like and how does it hypothetically function?
Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. If something is too expensive to produce, then people do without it. You mentioned that radical Milton Friedman in a previous post so I know you're familiar with the concept at least.How does this free market world that you imagine look like and how does it hypothetically function?
consumer protectionNow its my turn, why do you feel it is required for the government to interfere with natural markets?
Go onconsumer protection
well to reference the conversation Joe Rogan had with Dave Rubin.... building regulations for example. Without them builders could scam anyone they want and they wouldnt find out until years later when the house(or whatever it is) falls down. Food safety regulations are another one, but we take those far more seriously than Americans do..... hence why we dont import a lot of American foodGo on
its the libertarian dream.... that thankfully wont ever come to fruition
Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. If something is too expensive to produce, then people do without it. You mentioned that radical Milton Friedman in a previous post so I know you're familiar with the concept at least.
But let me give you an example of the free market doing what some people claim it can't. I referenced the gov't funding research that benefits pharma companies. Most people think this is great and they say we wouldn't get this knowledge otherwise. Well did you know the phone company invented the transistor? They did so not for some altruistic cause, but for their own purpose. They needed a high speed switch to replace the mechanical ones they had. Vacuum tubes were a possibility but they ran too hot and failed too frequently. So they invented a new device that forms the basis of all modern electronics. We wouldn't have computers w/o it. And the invention was so important the inventors won the Nobel Prize in physics for it. So we know a company can fund its own scientific research and the rest of us benefit from it.
Now its my turn, why do you feel it is required for the government to interfere with natural markets?
"Theme of the west" my ass. It's the theme of humanity.Nah capitalism is for the big boys. The peons are manipulated into a variety of behaviours that ultimately hold them down. Lack of self discipline is the theme of the west.
"Theme of the west" my ass. It's the theme of humanity.
You're right, workers are not equipment. They have agency, they are free to develop new skills and pursue a better offer.It would plunge the world into chaos. Fuck that.
I'm familiar with Friedman and how he was a hypocritical piece of shit that helped radicalize an already Frankensteinish system.
One key critique, as always, of those ideas that you seem to favor: workers are not abstractions equal to equipment, interest rates, shipping costs, and "resources." The laborer is also a political being instead of a tool of the capitalist. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom wrote that workers would act democratically during moments of economic crisis and would overturn market principles.
So...without the state to protect capitalists during moments of crisis, what would occur to this free-market that you envision? Or are workers, economic crisis, and rebellion rendered unthinkable in that system?
Without building codes you code put in the contract that a neutral party would verify that the building is up to an agreed upon standard. If it doesn't measure up, you don't close. On food safety, your reputation depends on you delivering a safe product. If people got sick off of it, you'd see it on your bottom line.well to reference the conversation Joe Rogan had with Dave Rubin.... building regulations for example. Without them builders could scam anyone they want and they wouldnt find out until years later when the house(or whatever it is) falls down. Food safety regulations are another one, but we take those far more seriously than Americans do..... hence why we dont import a lot of American food
none of those adequately protect the consumer. Buildings can not show shoddy workmanship until years later..... contaminated food products may not cause damage until years later. Im sorry but if thats the best you can come up with its a total joke.Without building codes you code put in the contract that a neutral party would verify that the building is up to an agreed upon standard. If it doesn't measure up, you don't close. On food safety, your reputation depends on you delivering a safe product. If people got sick off of it, you'd see it on your bottom line.
I'm not opposed to these standards though. I'm sure that our current system is full of corruption, but that's just how it goes I guess.