Good observation. Liberal capitalism, at least in its “pure” (I know) form, is dead.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Good observation. Liberal capitalism, at least in its “pure” (I know) form, is dead.
[/quote]
Really?
And here I though that the internetz has opened a whole new era when it comes to the free trade of information.
As chaotic and unpredictable as that may be, it leads to enromous innovation and to people making millions, if not billions.
Of course, most of the money making schemes were developed by the porn industry which just goes to show how unpredictable, and therefore unplanable, an economic system really is.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I do admire the resourcefulness of the Amish and Mennonites. They follow an Anarchic-Communism way of life, however there is not done by force. It is done voluntarily and they are free to leave the community if they wish.
If they do not put effort, they are not allowed to piggy back on the system, they do not use the communist system in order to allow those that do not want to work to live comfortably they do it because they live in selected poverty.
However, this can be seen in any Patriarch family structure. Where everyone works, and all are welcomed they save money and the father controls the money. The Amish however only buy and make the necessities.[/quote]
The Amish are very admirable people; they did a special on NPR about a mortgage broker in Lancaster PA. He said he can not remember an Amishmen defaulting on his loan. The Amish (do) take care of their own; I do not know how they would deal with a lazy person.[/quote]
Well not many lazy people come from the Amish, but what they do is shun them out of the society. They can come back if they are willing to work hard, they have religious reasons behind their way of life.[/quote]
I grew up with many amish freinds , they are great people [/quote]
That is great, however that does not make socialism great.[/quote]
What makes you think I am pro socialism , because I think we should have a social program take care of our medical.
I will pitch it this way , free enterprise has no benafit to cure any desease when they are making huge profits treating said deseases. That is why I think a social program would be superior
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I hope you’ve now taken the time to read the first two pages of Capital, since you’re talking about intellectual laziness!
[/quote]
Marx is a bit of a disappointment for me. It didn’t take much reading on him to start questioning what all the fuss was about. He was a bum. He owed money all over town, couldn’t write for more than a few hours without taking weeks or months off, didn’t deliver on books he was paid to write, etc. 2/3 of Capital wasn’t even written by him. After he died, a close friend(s) had to sort through his cryptic notes and put together coherent writings.
I may eventually read Capital in it’s entirety, but it has much less luster than it did when I thought he actually wrote it. There has to be a better role model for socialists. I’ve read some of his stuff and will eventually get through any thing I can find not written after he died, but I would rather read something written by someone that was not a bum.
Just to be clear, Marx wrote Capital, volume 1 himself. Volumes 2 and 3 were organized and compiled by Engels. So yes, Engels had to put the second two together, but Marx still wrote it.
Sorry, that’s what authors are!
I would suggest you put it off, though. It becomes difficult to keep supporting the Libertarians when their folly becomes so manifest.
And I will repost the David Harvey link here, just for kicks.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Just to be clear, Marx wrote Capital, volume 1 himself. Volumes 2 and 3 were organized and compiled by Engels. So yes, Engels had to put the second two together, but Marx still wrote it.
[/quote]
From what I’ve read the 2nd two volumes were not even close to being written by Marx. He had scattered cryptic notes. His buddy turned this into a book, but this was not merely a cut and paste job.
Not too worried about this. Reading Keynes and his followers only strengthened my appreciation for Rothbard, Hayak, Von Mises, and others.
Thanks for the link. I have much more time for books on CD than I do to read websites, but I’ll check it out.
Well, I’m not going to argue with you about it, but to say that they “were not even close to being written by Marx” is misleading, at best. Engels may have completed them, but it followed from Marx’s (extensive) notes and writings.
To say it a different way, they are an accurate reflection of Marx’s thought.
Well then try thinking about it, too.
I keed, I keed!
But Marx is wrong!
People want more stuff and when it is denied them they will rebel (quit working) hence socialism/communism can never work since it always leads to the diminishing of stuff.
So easy even a caveman should get it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But Marx is wrong!
People want more stuff and when it is denied them they will rebel (quit working) hence socialism/communism can never work since it always leads to the diminishing of stuff.
So easy even a caveman should get it.[/quote]
I have gotten the impression that the kind of socialism talked about in this forum is such that you can get more money if you produce more and you produce as much as you need, but you can’t be doing nothing productive, just owning a company, and putting all the profit in your pocket for the value or products that the workers created.
[quote]harduser wrote:
I have gotten the impression that the kind of socialism talked about in this forum is such that you can get more money if you produce more and you produce as much as you need, but you can’t be doing nothing productive, just owning a company, and putting all the profit in your pocket for the value or products that the workers created.[/quote]
They don’t. It gets spent on new stuff which adds new value to society that didn’t previously exist.
Without the profit motive there is no incentive to create stuff beyond what one immediately needs. Living in that world would be like this…
[quote]harduser wrote:
I have gotten the impression that the kind of socialism talked about in this forum is such that you can get more money if you produce more…[/quote]
Ummmm…that is capitalism. Since there are no free floating prices in a socialist economy there can be no profits. One does not necessarily get more money by producing more. The more stuff that is produced the more valuable money becomes in relation to the supply of these new goods. Stuff becomes more abundant and hence cheaper.
These cheaper goods can then be used to create new stuff and society benefits.
The problem is that socialism does not allow free floating prices so there are no signals to the producers and even still there can be no profits without real prices. There is no incentive in this kind of world to work hard or save. This ultimately leads to decivilization and is happening now all around us.
[quote]harduser wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But Marx is wrong!
People want more stuff and when it is denied them they will rebel (quit working) hence socialism/communism can never work since it always leads to the diminishing of stuff.
So easy even a caveman should get it.[/quote]
I have gotten the impression that the kind of socialism talked about in this forum is such that you can get more money if you produce more and you produce as much as you need, but you can’t be doing nothing productive, just owning a company, and putting all the profit in your pocket for the value or products that the workers created.[/quote]
The dirty secret is, that’s pretty much all socialism. The term has simply been so chronically misused by so many different parties that it has lost any real meaning, and is now simply a pejorative.
Boy history is a problem for you. All of the great civilizations of antiquity (as well as many innovations today) were developed without the profit motive.
Just admit it. The Austrians had no idea what they were talking about.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All of the great civilizations of antiquity (as well as many innovations today) were developed without the profit motive.
[/quote]
Ryan, you are history’s slave. Use logic and forget about what dead people have said for one second.
Every economic action can lead to some sort of profit or loss – psychic or monetary.
You think the ancient baker sold his bread at an economic loss? You are a fool if you truly believe that?
You cannot ignore history and simply pretend that, merely because a conclusion is logical based on certain premises, that it will work in the real world.
And no, I don’t think he sold it for a loss, but that’s not the same as the profit motive. So long as expenses are covered, that’s all that is economically necessary for an activity to continue. All of humanity’s achievements up to approximately the 16th century (depending on your criteria) were accomplished without capitalism and without profit in the modern sense. Yet capitalists attempt to assert that their system’s relations are natural relations, and that no other system is compatible with human nature, which patently absurd.
I don’t care if you think capitalism is the way to go. I’d argue, but that’s fine. What I object to is ignoring or misrepresenting history.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All of the great civilizations of antiquity (as well as many innovations today) were developed without the profit motive.
[/quote]
Ryan, you are history’s slave. Use logic and forget about what dead people have said for one second.
Every economic action can lead to some sort of profit or loss – psychic or monetary.
You think the ancient baker sold his bread at an economic loss? You are a fool if you truly believe that?[/quote]
I agree with lifty , you should forget history and believe a Russian fiction Author:)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]harduser wrote:
I have gotten the impression that the kind of socialism talked about in this forum is such that you can get more money if you produce more…[/quote]
Ummmm…that is capitalism. Since there are no free floating prices in a socialist economy there can be no profits. One does not necessarily get more money by producing more. The more stuff that is produced the more valuable money becomes in relation to the supply of these new goods. Stuff becomes more abundant and hence cheaper.
These cheaper goods can then be used to create new stuff and society benefits.
The problem is that socialism does not allow free floating prices so there are no signals to the producers and even still there can be no profits without real prices. There is no incentive in this kind of world to work hard or save. This ultimately leads to decivilization and is happening now all around us.[/quote]
Please never accuse of not knowing anything about libertarianism when you have just completely butchered the concept of socialism. Hint: Mises may not be the guy you want to go to for an explanation of socialism.
There is absolute nothing about socialism which prevents floating prices.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All of the great civilizations of antiquity (as well as many innovations today) were developed without the profit motive.
[/quote]
Ryan, you are history’s slave. Use logic and forget about what dead people have said for one second.
Every economic action can lead to some sort of profit or loss – psychic or monetary.
You think the ancient baker sold his bread at an economic loss? You are a fool if you truly believe that?[/quote]
I agree with lifty , you should forget history and believe a Russian fiction Author:)[/quote]
I am no Randian.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There is absolute nothing about socialism which prevents floating prices.[/quote]
Ownership.
Prices are subjectively determined by buyers and sellers. If socialism is a doctrine of property ownership wherein the means of production are to be owned by the state then there is no real owner.
If there is no real owner there can be no real prices because they must be, de facto, artificially determined by some third party – in this case: The State. The state is a consumer only so the prices are always biased toward the consumer. The consumer wins and the producer loses.
As a results less production will happen.
Take a look around you…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All of the great civilizations of antiquity (as well as many innovations today) were developed without the profit motive.
[/quote]
Ryan, you are history’s slave. Use logic and forget about what dead people have said for one second.
Every economic action can lead to some sort of profit or loss – psychic or monetary.
You think the ancient baker sold his bread at an economic loss? You are a fool if you truly believe that?[/quote]
This is classic Lifty; lets forget the facts because they may be skewed. But lets envelope our selves in this fantasy where there is no Government and all the woes in the world will disappear. I believe it 