Go start a dog thread in GAL.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[/quote]
I tried to find it , I couldn’t
I will also say what I have heard and could understand ( Sounds like a thick German Accent) I disagree with .And I admit I am no expert on Keynes either . I do not pick up Keynes would promote anything but a strong Market place
I pick up he believes that only Libertarianism is the only way an economy can work . did I pick this up right .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[/quote]
I tried to find it , I couldn’t
I will also say what I have heard and could understand ( Sounds like a thick German Accent) I disagree with .And I admit I am no expert on Keynes either . I do not pick up Keynes would promote anything but a strong Market place
I pick up he believes that only Libertarianism is the only way an economy can work . did I pick this up right .
[/quote]
Thats the Nobel Price banquet speech, but there must be a longer one.
He does not so much believe that libertarianism is the way to go, he believes that there is no other way to go because noone could possibly have all teh information required to plan even parts of the economy.
He calls it the “pretense of knowledge”, which is the nicest way of saying that someone is full of shit that I ever heard.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
I’d dispute the idea that it was greatly older.
IM informed O, capitalism per se is the result of liberal economic policies, or rather liberal attitudes towards economic changes, that occured, oh, roughly during the 18th century.
Feudalism and the crude (and often, at the time, illegal) forms of capitalism that flourished during the renaissance are substantially different from modern capitalism.
To be really general, my understanding is that under feudalism, the means of production is in theory the sole property of (in this country) their royal majesties the kings and queens of England. In the renaissance, this falls apart due to a growing mercantile class, but in this cruder capitalism, the means of production is still the purvey of a relatively small group of people.
Under modern capitalism, the means of production is under the control of anybody with the means to obtain it, or so I understand?
[/quote]
You are incorrect, and your definition of Capitlism is severely inaccurate. In fact your definition of Capitlism is the very same one that was given to it by it’s opponents, of which Smith was one of them. SEE: Physiocrats and their philosophy to understand why, and then review Smith’s final volume.
Smith sowed the seeds of Socialism and the eventual Marxism with his work. He was not a true Liberal of the era, as he was a Physiocrat.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Double entry accounting pre-dates the theory capitalism by Smith. [/quote]
Capitalism is older than Adam SMith.[/quote]
Yes it is. The theory however is not. [/quote]
The Theory of of Capitalism predates Smith by almost 200 years. Smith was a borderline plagiarism, and was nothing more than a fanciful Physiocrat.
I am one of it’s opponents, and my definition is not innacurate. It accurately describes a facet of capitalist practice, whether it prescriptively defines either its theory and practice or not.
Is this the orthodox view, or is this just babble that you’ve made up?
Errr… what? The fairy godfather of capitalism sowed the seeds of socialism? I agree with you that Smith is damned- after all, he was a scotsman, a philosopher, etc. But c’mon, that’s just bizarre.
What if mothers stayed home to raise their kids? Fewer women in the workforce would mean more jobs for men and more competition to hire them which would raise wages so that a family could, as it once did, survive on one income. Not only would the man’s income go up but family expenses would go down.
I know it would be hard because women would feel useless or whatever but the funny thing about that is the ones who make women feel like they should be ashamed to stay home are other women. I think most husbands would have no problem with their wives staying home, provided they could afford it, and would not look down on them at all. My mother didn’t work outside of the home and I never looked at her negatively because of it. Who would you rather have raise your kids? Some stranger at daycare or your wife?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Go start a dog thread in GAL.[/quote]
If you look real hard , you can see his Halo 
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Double entry accounting pre-dates the theory capitalism by Smith. [/quote]
Capitalism is older than Adam SMith.[/quote]
Yes it is. The theory however is not. [/quote]
The Theory of of Capitalism predates Smith by almost 200 years. Smith was a borderline plagiarism, and was nothing more than a fanciful Physiocrat. [/quote]
Says who?
Smith is called “The Father of Capitalism,” for a reason. I’ve never heard any different anywhere.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I strongly disagree that economic prosperity is tied to government programming. Nor do I think wages are tied to government programs.
lots of gov = bad idea[/quote]
I did not suggest that. What I am suggesting is that government taps resources and distributes them better than capitalism . Capitalism is a Crucial instrument in the economy. .
An example would be Africa .has vast oil reserves . The oil companies are going in bribing the right officials and the people are not getting squat for the oil being extracted from their property . Not only are the not getting squat they are also being run off their own property
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[/quote]
I tried to find it , I couldn’t
I will also say what I have heard and could understand ( Sounds like a thick German Accent) I disagree with .And I admit I am no expert on Keynes either . I do not pick up Keynes would promote anything but a strong Market place
I pick up he believes that only Libertarianism is the only way an economy can work . did I pick this up right .
[/quote]
Thats the Nobel Price banquet speech, but there must be a longer one.
He does not so much believe that libertarianism is the way to go, he believes that there is no other way to go because noone could possibly have all teh information required to plan even parts of the economy.
He calls it the “pretense of knowledge”, which is the nicest way of saying that someone is full of shit that I ever heard.
[/quote]
It is kind of like Beans article that says economics are basically irrelevant . He does not only discount others he discounts himself as well.
I find nothing that refute that Capitalism minus Keynes = feudalism
I will say that I feel that Government can not exceed a certain point of that capitalism generates . And we are dangerously close or have exceeded that point
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I strongly disagree that economic prosperity is tied to government programming. Nor do I think wages are tied to government programs.
lots of gov = bad idea[/quote]
I did not suggest that. What I am suggesting is that government taps resources and distributes them better than capitalism . Capitalism is a Crucial instrument in the economy. .
An example would be Africa .has vast oil reserves . The oil companies are going in bribing the right officials and the people are not getting squat for the oil being extracted from their property . Not only are the not getting squat they are also being run off their own property
[/quote]
If the government taps & uses resource better than capitalism why don’t socialist countries thrive and how do you explain the millions of dollars wasted by the IRS (as one example) on training?
How do you explain the fact that those in “poverty” in the US are more wealthy than the majority of people in both 3rd world and socialist countries?
Your example is a perfect example of why government is NOT better at distributing resources. Companies have to bribe THE GOVERNMENTs of Africa to drill and THE GOVERNMENTs of Africa are holding the people down. ExxonMobile isn’t driving folks off their land, but the government that is gettig rich off drilling is.
I can’t believe you think the fact Africans are being exploited over natural resources has anything to do with capitalism… It’s the opposite of capitalism.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you explain the fact that those in “poverty” in the US are more wealthy than the majority of people in both 3rd world and socialist countries?
[/quote]
third world countries is easy to explain , it is third world and most people are poor . I am not sure which socialist counties you are talking about . My experience in Europe was I saw Zero poor with the exception of Romanian immigrants . I believe it was Belgium . They were said to be illegal
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t believe you think the fact Africans are being exploited over natural resources has anything to do with capitalism… It’s the opposite of capitalism. [/quote]
Capitalism buys it resources as cheap as it can . Whether it is labor or oil , no difference , it is a commodity to exploit period.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[/quote]
I tried to find it , I couldn’t
I will also say what I have heard and could understand ( Sounds like a thick German Accent) I disagree with .And I admit I am no expert on Keynes either . I do not pick up Keynes would promote anything but a strong Market place
I pick up he believes that only Libertarianism is the only way an economy can work . did I pick this up right .
[/quote]
Thats the Nobel Price banquet speech, but there must be a longer one.
He does not so much believe that libertarianism is the way to go, he believes that there is no other way to go because noone could possibly have all teh information required to plan even parts of the economy.
He calls it the “pretense of knowledge”, which is the nicest way of saying that someone is full of shit that I ever heard.
[/quote]
It is kind of like Beans article that says economics are basically irrelevant . He does not only discount others he discounts himself as well.
I find nothing that refute that Capitalism minus Keynes = feudalism
[/quote]
I can still not find any evidence that Jupiter is not orbited by a pink teapot, that does not make it so.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t believe you think the fact Africans are being exploited over natural resources has anything to do with capitalism… It’s the opposite of capitalism. [/quote]
Capitalism buys it resources as cheap as it can . Whether it is labor or oil , no difference , it is a commodity to exploit period.
[/quote]
I don’t mean to speak for usmc, but I believe he is stunned that you blame CAPITALISM for GOVERNMENT FORCING people to give up their land for less than its value.
Capitalism is merely the recognition of human nature. Statism/socialism/communism/fascism/etcism result from the denial of human nature. Those who oppose capitalism(TRUE capitalism) operate under the presumption that legislation can change human nature.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[/quote]
I tried to find it , I couldn’t
I will also say what I have heard and could understand ( Sounds like a thick German Accent) I disagree with .And I admit I am no expert on Keynes either . I do not pick up Keynes would promote anything but a strong Market place
I pick up he believes that only Libertarianism is the only way an economy can work . did I pick this up right .
[/quote]
Thats the Nobel Price banquet speech, but there must be a longer one.
He does not so much believe that libertarianism is the way to go, he believes that there is no other way to go because noone could possibly have all teh information required to plan even parts of the economy.
He calls it the “pretense of knowledge”, which is the nicest way of saying that someone is full of shit that I ever heard.
[/quote]
It is kind of like Beans article that says economics are basically irrelevant . He does not only discount others he discounts himself as well.
I find nothing that refute that Capitalism minus Keynes = feudalism
[/quote]
I can still not find any evidence that Jupiter is not orbited by a pink teapot, that does not make it so.
[/quote]
well you can believe what ever you like I personally believe the only thing orbiting Jupiter’s moons . I just refuse to believe there is a pink tea pot also
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t believe you think the fact Africans are being exploited over natural resources has anything to do with capitalism… It’s the opposite of capitalism. [/quote]
Capitalism buys it resources as cheap as it can . Whether it is labor or oil , no difference , it is a commodity to exploit period.
[/quote]
I don’t mean to speak for usmc, but I believe he is stunned that you blame CAPITALISM for GOVERNMENT FORCING people to give up their land for less than its value. [/quote]
Yup…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t believe you think the fact Africans are being exploited over natural resources has anything to do with capitalism… It’s the opposite of capitalism. [/quote]
Capitalism buys it resources as cheap as it can . Whether it is labor or oil , no difference , it is a commodity to exploit period.
[/quote]
And governments TAKE resources when it suits her.
The average American make, what, $50K a year. I guess we’re all being exploited… Where does explotation end, when a company make $0 proft?
Poll:
How many people here feel their company exploits them?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you explain the fact that those in “poverty” in the US are more wealthy than the majority of people in both 3rd world and socialist countries?
[/quote]
third world countries is easy to explain , it is third world and most people are poor . I am not sure which socialist counties you are talking about . My experience in Europe was I saw Zero poor with the exception of Romanian immigrants . I believe it was Belgium . They were said to be illegal
[/quote]
Why are most people in 3rd nations poor?
How about China? There middle class didn’t exist, what, 10 years ago.
I wouldn’t call many European countries “socialist”