[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes I know. People interact in order to decide what gets made and who gets it. Or do you deny that those are the fundamental problems of economics?
[/quote]
Where’s that fucking mallet!!
I think I have been telling you what the fundamental problem is all along. Sadly, I am ignored.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your last paragraph was so full of capitalist propaganda totally divorced from reality that I almost can’t bear to look at it, but for what it’s worth, you fail to mention the fact that capitalists don’t innovate. Their investments are largely to meet an already existing demand for a product. There’s virtually no risk of failure when a company decides to invest in a new widget factory because they can’t keep them on the shelf right now. And when innovation occurs, it’s not the owners of the company, it’s people who work there, who could’ve done the same thing without the company if not for their monopoly over the means of production.
No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove that black is white or, what is the same thing, that a company must be owned by a small group of people to make it productive for people to work there. Sorry, the world doesn’t need capitalists.
[/quote]
LM - you master propagandist you! You, you’re good you . .
Ryan, my good komrade - capitalists don’t innovate? Please list the great innovations of communism . . . .that would be . .OH YEAH the GULAG! love gulags . . .especially the ones with all of the beans and uh . . . OH and there was the . . .GREAT PURGE! did one of those myself a little while ago . . . .
Wait a second - I can too prove that black is white . . . my buddy bill black is as white as virgin snow . . . and probably a virgin too . . but that would be too much informa . . .oh you tricked me again with that irrelevant observation - that’s not nice.
You seem to be oblivious to a lot but let me point out one - in a capitalistic system the factory worker with a a great idea goes to some buddies and gets some capital - starts his own business and becomes a rip roaring success called Ford and that has occurred time and time again within capitalism and exactly never under socialism . . . you got your utopia screwed up with our reality again . . . cute bloomers btw . . . .
RPM,
Without people willing to risk their own stuff nothing would get made – ie, there would be no economy. One of the reasons why socialism fails is because it forces risk where none necessarily need be taken – thus needlessly destroying the capital infrastructure of an economy. The other reason it fails is that bureaucrats don’t calculate for profits and losses. Everything they do is considered a loss because every action the government takes consumes capital and doesn’t replace it.
Do you agree or disagree?
Better yet! Let’s solve this problem democratically?
Who thinks I am right?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Better yet! Let’s solve this problem democratically?
Who thinks I am right?[/quote]
lol
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
RPM,
Without people willing to risk their own stuff nothing would get made – ie, there would be no economy. One of the reasons why socialism fails is because it forces risk where none necessarily need be taken – thus needlessly destroying the capital infrastructure of an economy. The other reason it fails is that bureaucrats don’t calculate for profits and losses. Everything they do is considered a loss because every action the government takes consumes capital and doesn’t replace it.
Do you agree or disagree?
Better yet! Let’s solve this problem democratically?
Who thinks I am right?[/quote]
I’m undecided - I might vote “present” or perhaps purple . . .
j/k - i’m with LM on this one - surprised everyone didn’t I?
I want my mallet back . . .
Ryan, one word: “reification” - look it up.
IrishSteel, see now why we’re all mad here?
Lifty, lol! I’m pulling the lever now for you. (get yer mind out of the gutter people…heh)
Lifty
I am not saying I will or will not read ?For a New Liberty? but some of the regulations you are speaking of need to be.
Some regulations are concocted by people to gain an advantage in the market place, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to drink from the water table or to breathe the air, with no negative consequences
I still insist there is not one example of this utopian community; you can not act as it is so simple unless you can give an example of such a society
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes I know. People interact in order to decide what gets made and who gets it. Or do you deny that those are the fundamental problems of economics?
Where’s that fucking mallet!!
I think I have been telling you what the fundamental problem is all along. Sadly, I am ignored.
[/quote]
Guys, just add him to your ignor list. you won’t even know he is posting anything until someone else quotes him. I added him to mine long ago after realizing he does not have the capacity to understand very basic economic principals. Just go to his profile and hit the ignor link.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Lifty
I am not saying I will or will not read ?For a New Liberty? but some of the regulations you are speaking of need to be.
Some regulations are concocted by people to gain an advantage in the market place, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to drink from the water table or to breathe the air, with no negative consequences
I still insist there is not one example of this utopian community; you can not act as it is so simple unless you can give an example of such a society
[/quote]
You misunderstand. I don’t believe in the possible existence of Utopia – anarchistic or otherwise.
For me it is a simple issue of nonaggression. Government, being aggressive by nature, conflicts with this principle. Aggression is never right.
You are right that there has to be a means to deal with externalities such as pollution. The argument still comes down to who is better equipped to handle it. Voluntary society can deal with it simply by voluntarily not doing business with people who pollute, for example – or even some good old fashioned ostracism.
We all have the moral responsibility to uphold and defend natural rights for all people. We do not need interference in our lives to do it though. Make no mistake, there is no Utopia and people would still sometimes hurt other people. This does not mean we should enslave ourselves for the illusion of safety. Besides, the government could not protect you with all the regulation in the world – because evil people don’t care about silly regulations.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Lifty
I am not saying I will or will not read ?For a New Liberty? but some of the regulations you are speaking of need to be.
Some regulations are concocted by people to gain an advantage in the market place, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to drink from the water table or to breathe the air, with no negative consequences
I still insist there is not one example of this utopian community; you can not act as it is so simple unless you can give an example of such a society
You misunderstand. I don’t believe in the possible existence of Utopia – anarchistic or otherwise.
For me it is a simple issue of nonaggression. Government, being aggressive by nature, conflicts with this principle. Aggression is never right.
You are right that there has to be a means to deal with externalities such as pollution. The argument still comes down to who is better equipped to handle it. Voluntary society can deal with it simply by voluntarily not doing business with people who pollute, for example – or even some good old fashioned ostracism.
We all have the moral responsibility to uphold and defend natural rights for all people. We do not need interference in our lives to do it though. Make no mistake, there is no Utopia and people would still sometimes hurt other people. This does not mean we should enslave ourselves for the illusion of safety. Besides, the government could not protect you with all the regulation in the world – because evil people don’t care about silly regulations.[/quote]
Another one you are better off adding to your ignore list.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ryan, one word: “reification” - look it up.
IrishSteel, see now why we’re all mad here?
Lifty, lol! I’m pulling the lever now for you. (get yer mind out of the gutter people…heh) [/quote]
Katz and Lifty - It would be an honor someday to hoist a pint with you and say a prayer for the brave and grand souls who have sacrificed and are sacrificing all for the freedoms we love.
I fear some will never understand what freedom really is because they are addicted to the teat of big government control - I hope to never see the day when they have their complete way here in the US.
dhickey - love the flag!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
dhickey - love the flag!
[/quote]
I have one hanging in my office/weight room/gun room. The wife won’t let me fly it outside.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
dhickey - love the flag!
I have one hanging in my office/weight room/gun room. The wife won’t let me fly it outside.[/quote]
Mrs. dhickey must be quite the lady to be able to keep a scoundrel like you in line - kudo’s to the lady!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Komrade! You do the motherland proud!
Let’s introduce class warfare into a classless society! Perfect - let us foment some worker envy and mobilize the masses with our opiate of choice - fairness!!
In a capitalistic society-we must incite the people by insisting that they are the working class slaves of the wealthy elite (who we wish to become - but we won’t mention that) - ah yes, that is the way. Let’s ignore the inconvenient facts such as the one that people can choose for themselves their destiny and their vocation, their home and their entertainments, their travel and their expenditures - lets avoid any discussion of personal work ethic or ingenuity.
Let’s use the lazy poor as examples of the oppressed and downtrodden masses - let’s organize and propagandize the working poor into demanding untenable wages for their labor and then skim money off of them to fund our other initiatives (and our own extravagant - i mean - necessary lifestyles) - yes and constantly attack those that achieve authentic success and guilt them into giving more and more of their own wealth to support those dependent on our benevolence for their livelihood! Thus we can force the wealthy into continued dependence on our good graces and the force the poor to continually turn to us for more and more of thier need.
Next, let’s nationalize health care so that we can control who does or does not have access to medical care - one more level of control . . .I mean . . .responsible oversight.
Yes, Komrade - you are a credit to all of the mindless fools and useful idiots we have depended upon for decades to thoughtlessly propagate our drivel - uh propaga . . uh values and concerns for the poor poor working class . . .
Oh - and remember to always call people workers - not citizens - they are to think of themselves as cogs in the communal system of interdependent slavery . .uh cooperation . . . never allow them to consider themselves a free and independent people responsible for themselves and their own well-being.
Ahh, I can see it now, soon the people will depend on the government for everything and we will be the government - wisely and benevolently controlling all aspects of their lives so that we can live as GODS among men - which after all, since we are so wise and thoughtful - not to mention greedy and manipulative - oops - that slipped out. Ignore the man behind the curtain!![/quote]
Were you channeling Jesse Jackson for this post? My god man I could imagine him thinking this word for word.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
RPM,
Without people willing to risk their own stuff nothing would get made – ie, there would be no economy. One of the reasons why socialism fails is because it forces risk where none necessarily need be taken – thus needlessly destroying the capital infrastructure of an economy. The other reason it fails is that bureaucrats don’t calculate for profits and losses. Everything they do is considered a loss because every action the government takes consumes capital and doesn’t replace it.
Do you agree or disagree?
Better yet! Let’s solve this problem democratically?
Who thinks I am right?[/quote]
We’ve already been through this, yet you continue to try to obfuscate things to hide your ignorance. “Without people willing to risk their own stuff nothing would get made – ie, there would be no economy.” Duh, but this has NOTHING TO DO with the discussion at hand. It is not necessary for one person (or small group of people) to own capital to make it productive for other people to use that capital to create additional value. In fact, it’s a hindrance, as you’ll see if you think about it (I’m asking a lot of you, I know) for just a couple of minutes.
“One of the reasons why socialism fails is because it forces risk where none necessarily need be taken – thus needlessly destroying the capital infrastructure of an economy.”
This sentence is completely meaningless. If you have a point, please make it, and stop trying to hide behind a mass of verbiage. Socialism in no way “forces risk.” I have no idea how you even came up with this.
“The other reason it fails is that bureaucrats don’t calculate for profits and losses.”
Who is talking about bureaucrats? This is a total strawman attack. If bureaucrats are in control, guess what, that’s not socialism. That’s capitalism, no matter what people may call it. Socialism requires that the people who work in a given industry make the descisions in that industry.
Any more fundamental misunderstandings or gross misrepresentations for me to clear up while I’m here?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
RPM,
We’ve already been through this, yet you continue to try to obfuscate things to hide your ignorance. “Without people willing to risk their own stuff nothing would get made – ie, there would be no economy.” Duh, but this has NOTHING TO DO with the discussion at hand. It is not necessary for one person (or small group of people) to own capital to make it productive for other people to use that capital to create additional value. In fact, it’s a hindrance, as you’ll see if you think about it (I’m asking a lot of you, I know) for just a couple of minutes.
“One of the reasons why socialism fails is because it forces risk where none necessarily need be taken – thus needlessly destroying the capital infrastructure of an economy.”
This sentence is completely meaningless. If you have a point, please make it, and stop trying to hide behind a mass of verbiage. Socialism in no way “forces risk.” I have no idea how you even came up with this.
“The other reason it fails is that bureaucrats don’t calculate for profits and losses.”
Who is talking about bureaucrats? This is a total strawman attack. If bureaucrats are in control, guess what, that’s not socialism. That’s capitalism, no matter what people may call it. Socialism requires that the people who work in a given industry make the descisions in that industry.
Any more fundamental misunderstandings or gross misrepresentations for me to clear up while I’m here?[/quote]
OK, my dear sweet Komrade, I’m going to stop and think about the statement you proposed:
“It is not necessary for one person (or small group of people) to own capital to make it productive for other people to use that capital to create additional value. In fact, it’s a hindrance.”
WAIT A SECOND - you’re right!! If you take all the capital away from the people and you decide what should be done with it instead - then you remove the hindrances of the desires and needs of the original possessors of said capital thus freeing you to invest the capital as you (more wisely of course) see fit.
After all, if that person possesses it, then other people (you of course) cannot use it to create additional value - you good sir are a freaking genius!! Marx’s blood must run through your veins!
And you are absolutely right - there are no bureaucrats in a socialist economy - there are workers and there are the dear party members and then the party leadership - all comrades, all brothers united in the common cause - how could we have impugned this magnificent system with a dirty capitalist word like bureaucrat . . . please forgive our petty little minds oh dear wise whatever the hell you are . . .
Yes indeed, socialism REQUIRES (glad you get that part right consistently) people who work in a given industry to follow party directions on how to operate that industry effectively.
Ah yes, I fondly remember after the fall of the Berlin wall, when capitalism finally breathed it’s last gasps in Europe - how excited everyone was to get those magnificent East German products - and the food, I’ve never see such variety and abundance of food. Why in capitalist West Germany we had lines for everything because of those stupid bureaucrats - couldn’t even get toilet paper. . . wait a tic . . .think I may have mixed something up there somewhere . . .
Can’t put my finger on it - but something’s off there somewhere . . . Oh wait - I remember now - I wasn’t in Germany at the fall- I was receiving world-class free healthcare in Cuba at the time - oh yes - what an amazing place and what a bustling national economy!!
[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes I know. People interact in order to decide what gets made and who gets it. Or do you deny that those are the fundamental problems of economics?
Where’s that fucking mallet!!
I think I have been telling you what the fundamental problem is all along. Sadly, I am ignored.
Guys, just add him to your ignor list. you won’t even know he is posting anything until someone else quotes him. I added him to mine long ago after realizing he does not have the capacity to understand very basic economic principals. Just go to his profile and hit the ignor link.
[/quote]
My dick wad
I personally think you are not intelligent enough to talk to me, I am glad you feel good about it, Ignore me, please 
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Of course there is.
The free market.
Hence anarcho-capitalism- it does not need a government to function.
And yes, that actually has worked in reality, see the trade networks of the Hanse or Maghrebinian Jews.
The completely “free-market” is almost the definition of a “coercive central authority.” Besides, any form of capitalism requires the state, at least to enforce property rights and contracts.
[/quote]
I have given you two examples in the post you quoted where this was not true.
Why not look them up instead of just re-phrasing your beliefs?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:A monopoly of the means of production?
They do not sell any tools in America?
You cannot buy a computer, a printer or market your ideas in America?
Are you serious? If you can start a profitable business with a computer, a printer, and a few tools, I’d like to know what type of business it is. And I’m not talking about a business that you work for and run out of your house.
The point here is class immobility. Starting a plumbing business does not mean that you’ve changed classes. You might be better off than the average worker, but you are still compelled to do the same work. I don’t see any way for you to argue that the average citizen can eventually work themselves up to owning, for instance, an automobile factory, which would truly be class mobility.
[/quote]
Look at the computer and internet boom.
Microsoft, Oracle, Yahoo, Google and all the smaller businesses that are still worth billions or at least hundreds of millions.
It happened and it happened in America.
And almost exclusively in America, because in Europe social security taxes would have killed those businesses before they had gotten off the ground.
If you look at the tax statistics social mobility is also far higher in America than in Europe.
The much coveted welfare state practically guarantees that everyone remains at the station in life that he was born into, because you will not create anything extra-ordinary with the pocket money they let you keep.