• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarian Economics - Part 2

Which concepts do you disagree with?


  • Total voters
    6

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A few people here disagree with libertarian economics. So I thought I'd create a survey to see exactly which economic concepts people disagree with. There are quite a few concepts so I had to split the survey into two parts. This is the second part.

Make sure you base your survey responses on the descriptions of the concept rather than on the label.

Other people's money...


There are four ways to spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why you really watch out for what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well then, I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it costs, and I'm not concerned about what I get. And that's government. And that's close to 40 percent of our national income. - Milton Friedman, The 4 Ways to Spend Money

Unintended consequences...

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. - Bastiat, The Seen vs the Unseen

Individual foresight...

The resource status of material objects is therefore always problematical and depends to some extent on foresight. An object constitutes wealth only if it is a source of an income stream. The value of the object to the owner, actual or potential, reflects at any moment its expected income-yielding capacity. This, in its turn, will depend on the uses to which the object can be turned. The mere ownership of objects, therefore, does not necessarily confer wealth; it is their successful use which confers it. Not ownership but use of resources is the source of income and wealth. An ice-cream factory in New York may mean wealth to its owner; the same ice-cream factory in Greenland would scarcely be a resource. - Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

Entrepreneurship...

Entrepreneurship is necessary in economic development, therefore, for the quite pedestrian purpose of ensuring a tendency towards the adoption of the socially advantageous long-term capital-using opportunities available. So far from being a kind of exogenous push given to the economy, entrepreneurial innovation is the grasping of opportunities that have somehow escaped notice. - Kirzner, Entrepreneurship & the Market Approach to Development

Heterogeneous activity...

So far as this is the case, it is evident that government, by excluding or even by superseding individual agency, either substitutes a less qualified instrumentality for one better qualified, or at any rate substitutes its own mode of accomplishing the work, for all the variety of modes which would be tried by a number of equally qualified persons aiming at the same end; a competition by many degrees more propitious to the progress of improvement than any uniformity of system. - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy

Market redistribution...

These economic facts have certain social consequences. As the critics of the market economy nowadays prefer to take their stand on “social” grounds, it may be not inappropriate here to elucidate the true social results of the market process. We have already spoken of it as a leveling process. More aptly, we may now describe these results as an instance of what Pareto called “the circulation of elites.” Wealth is unlikely to stay for long in the same hands. It passes from hand to hand as unforeseen change confers value, now on this, now on that specific resource, engendering capital gains and losses. The owners of wealth, we might say with Schumpeter, are like the guests at a hotel or the passengers in a train: They are always there but are never for long the same people. - Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

The interests of consumers...

Treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race. - Bastiat, Abundance and Scarcity

Dollar voting...

The capitalist society is a democracy in which every penny represents a ballot paper. - Mises

Foot voting...

The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations. - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Moral value...

Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value. We are neither entitled to be unselfish at someone else's expense nor is there any merit in being unselfish if we have no choice. The members of a society who in all respects are made to do the good thing have no title to praise. - Hayek
 

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A few people here disagree with libertarian economics. So I thought I'd create a survey to see exactly which economic concepts people disagree with. There are quite a few concepts so I had to split the survey into two parts. This is the second part.

Make sure you base your survey responses on the descriptions of the concept rather than on the label.

Other people's money...
Fail from the getgo again.

Take accounting and economics 101, not Austrianism 101. One teaches you functionality, the other teaches you ideology.,

Stop being a religious tool and learn.
 

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Fail from the getgo again.

Take accounting and economics 101, not Austrianism 101. One teaches you functionality, the other teaches you ideology.,

Stop being a religious tool and learn.
Milton Friedman was not an Austrian.
 

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Fail from the getgo again.

Take accounting and economics 101, not Austrianism 101. One teaches you functionality, the other teaches you ideology.,

Stop being a religious tool and learn.

Not only should people not be treated as numbers, they don't act like them either.
 

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Milton Friedman was not an Austrian.

Typical response. He is not a=Austrian, or libertarian or Chicago school. Either way he was not a reputable economist.
 

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Typical response. He is not a=Austrian, or libertarian or Chicago school. Either way he was not a reputable economist.

Milton Friedman was not reputable. Ok then.
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A few people here disagree with libertarian economics. So I thought I'd create a survey to see exactly which economic concepts people disagree with. There are quite a few concepts so I had to split the survey into two parts. This is the second part.

Make sure you base your survey responses on the descriptions of the concept rather than on the label.

Other people's money...


There are four ways to spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why you really watch out for what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well then, I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it costs, and I'm not concerned about what I get. And that's government. And that's close to 40 percent of our national income. - Milton Friedman, The 4 Ways to Spend Money

Unintended consequences...

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. - Bastiat, The Seen vs the Unseen

Individual foresight...

The resource status of material objects is therefore always problematical and depends to some extent on foresight. An object constitutes wealth only if it is a source of an income stream. The value of the object to the owner, actual or potential, reflects at any moment its expected income-yielding capacity. This, in its turn, will depend on the uses to which the object can be turned. The mere ownership of objects, therefore, does not necessarily confer wealth; it is their successful use which confers it. Not ownership but use of resources is the source of income and wealth. An ice-cream factory in New York may mean wealth to its owner; the same ice-cream factory in Greenland would scarcely be a resource. - Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

Entrepreneurship...

Entrepreneurship is necessary in economic development, therefore, for the quite pedestrian purpose of ensuring a tendency towards the adoption of the socially advantageous long-term capital-using opportunities available. So far from being a kind of exogenous push given to the economy, entrepreneurial innovation is the grasping of opportunities that have somehow escaped notice. - Kirzner, Entrepreneurship & the Market Approach to Development

Heterogeneous activity...

So far as this is the case, it is evident that government, by excluding or even by superseding individual agency, either substitutes a less qualified instrumentality for one better qualified, or at any rate substitutes its own mode of accomplishing the work, for all the variety of modes which would be tried by a number of equally qualified persons aiming at the same end; a competition by many degrees more propitious to the progress of improvement than any uniformity of system. - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy

Market redistribution...

These economic facts have certain social consequences. As the critics of the market economy nowadays prefer to take their stand on “social” grounds, it may be not inappropriate here to elucidate the true social results of the market process. We have already spoken of it as a leveling process. More aptly, we may now describe these results as an instance of what Pareto called “the circulation of elites.” Wealth is unlikely to stay for long in the same hands. It passes from hand to hand as unforeseen change confers value, now on this, now on that specific resource, engendering capital gains and losses. The owners of wealth, we might say with Schumpeter, are like the guests at a hotel or the passengers in a train: They are always there but are never for long the same people. - Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

The interests of consumers...

Treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race. - Bastiat, Abundance and Scarcity

Dollar voting...

The capitalist society is a democracy in which every penny represents a ballot paper. - Mises

Foot voting...

The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations. - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Moral value...

Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value. We are neither entitled to be unselfish at someone else's expense nor is there any merit in being unselfish if we have no choice. The members of a society who in all respects are made to do the good thing have no title to praise. - Hayek

If I had to choose it would be "Moral Value", not because I disbelieve in it, but because the value does not respond to the nature of capitalism as it exists presently in our society. If the value was a sincere response to our world and its economic realities, I might agree with it.

Generally speaking, our economy is increasingly global, with only small stretches circumscribed to the domestic sphere. The system is characterized by arrangements that are manipulated by governments across the world on behalf special (monied) interests. "Freedom" has nothing to do with a large number of them, only the mutually beneficial fulfillment of strategic goals on behalf of special interests and against the advantage of others, including the middle class, who are ironically financing this system of their own economic destruction via tax dollars.

A good example would be the historical trade agreements between Canada and the United States regarding the consumption of medical products. Canada's socialized medical care system provides pharmaceuticals to its population at a non-profit, a serious financial advantage for Canada's middle class. Meanwhile, the American government brokered trade agreements with the Canadian government on behalf of the American pharmaceuticals (in this case the monied interests) to increase exports by 153% -- sure, it isn't as profitable as the American market due to medicine's socialized nature, but if you acquire a lord's share of it it becomes a significant source of income.

However, the right of ordinary American citizens to import medicine from Canada has been heavily restricted historically because it would be harmful to the domestic pharmaceuticals market.

If the international market and its realities were truly organized according to the "Moral Value" of which you speak, then Americans would be freely able to partake of the Canadian pharmaceuticals market.

Naturally, this would increase the price of the Canadian market, and decrease the price of the American market, which would disincentivize the Canadian government agreeing to a trade agreement at all -- after all, they could produce their own pharmaceuticals and create jobs for their own people, rather than getting them for cheap from American companies in order to finance their socialized medical care system.

The entire international economy is propped on trade agreements like this -- the American middle class is forced to accept an unfair arrangement on behalf of the Canadian middle class and the American pharmaceuticals industry.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The problem with libertarian economics is that they are not ever reality based, I much prefer empirical based economics. They use very special models, and libertarian economics have NEVER dealt with the Marxian internal contradictions of Capitalism, they just ignore them or theorize around them.

Externalities are totally ignored, as is Systemic risk, as are issues such as the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall and problems of compound growth in excess capacity, and the problem of constant compound growht being impossible, and so on and so forth.

Keynsianism treats the symptoms, Libertarian economics just pretends they don't exist.
 

Paul Austin

Banned
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
525
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The problem with libertarian economics is that they are not ever reality based, I much prefer empirical based economics. They use very special models, and libertarian economics have NEVER dealt with the Marxian internal contradictions of Capitalism, they just ignore them or theorize around them.

Externalities are totally ignored, as is Systemic risk, as are issues such as the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall and problems of compound growth in excess capacity, and the problem of constant compound growht being impossible, and so on and so forth.

Keynsianism treats the symptoms, Libertarian economics just pretends they don't exist.

Its strange to see a guy who identifies w as socialist supporting the liberal Keynes as he despised communism & socialism above all other systems.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Its strange to see a guy who identifies w as socialist supporting the liberal Keynes as he despised communism & socialism above all other systems.

So what? I'm judging his economics, based on their economic analysis, I don't care if he killed puppies on his spare time, what's important is the economics.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,667
Reaction score
31,623
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fail from the getgo again.

Take accounting and economics 101, not Austrianism 101. One teaches you functionality, the other teaches you ideology.,

Stop being a religious tool and learn.
Not sure what religion has to do with the OP.

You seem to disagree with every single thing that even remotely resembles a free market, so why don't you tell us why instead of just popping in with insults?
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
So your supporting a guy who stood against your ideology (including on economic grounds).

I think thats interesting & relevant.

I'm not supporting a "guy," I respect most of Marx's economic analysis ... he was an atheist, I am a christian, I respect a lot of Keynes economic analysis, he was against socialism, I am a socialist ...

Its called being honest and open minded.

I hope you don't limit your knowledge, understandind and acceptance of evidence and reason to only people with whome you are in total agreement always.
 

Paul Austin

Banned
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
525
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not supporting a "guy," I respect most of Marx's economic analysis ... he was an atheist, I am a christian, I respect a lot of Keynes economic analysis, he was against socialism, I am a socialist ...

Its called being honest and open minded.

I hope you don't limit your knowledge, understandind and acceptance of evidence and reason to only people with whome you are in total agreement always.

Never said I do, but on the other hand neither do I support ideoligies directly opposed to my beliefs, or my views.

Btw. how can you support Marx economic views and Keynes, as they are direct opposites?

One opposes the other.

Im not being funny, its a straight question. Im struggling with this contradiction.

If I was a socialist then Id support socialism, if I was a capitalist Id support capitalism, if I supported neither, or a mix of the two, then Id identify as such, not one or the other.

Its like saying Im a vegitarian but I eat chicken and pork. Its hard to understand.

Surely if eat chicken and pork I wouldnt be a vegitarian, Id just perhaps be anti-beef & lamb?
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Never said I do, but on the other hand neither do I support ideoligies directly opposed to my beliefs, or my views.

Btw. how can you support Marx economic views and Keynes, as they are direct opposites?

One opposes the other.

Im not being funny, its a straight question. Im struggling with this contradiction.

If I was a socialist then Id support socialism, if I was a capitalist Id support capitalism, if I supported neither, or a mix of the two, then Id identify as such, not one or the other.

Its like saying Im a vegitarian but I eat chicken and pork. Its hard to understand.

Surely if eat chicken and pork I wouldnt be a vegitarian, Id just perhaps be anti-beef & lamb?

ok ... both Marx and Keynes were primarily positive economists, i.e. descriptions of a capitalist economy and analysis, Keynes actually came up with a lot of ideas that Marx had already pointed out, just in a different way using different models, and he also had some novel concepts that I think apply very well to a Capitalist economy, as do some classical and neo-classical economists.

As far as NORMATIVE economics, i.e. how the economy should be, Marx wrote very very little on that, and what he did write on normative economics wasn't very sophisticated imo, Keynes gave a lot of solutions most of which I agree work in the short term, but are not real solutions.

Taking you're vegetarian example, I could agree with a lot of vegetarians on the immorality of the agricultural industry, and maybe even the health benefits of eating less meat, however I don't agree with their solution .... Its kind of like that.
 

Paul Austin

Banned
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
525
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ok ... both Marx and Keynes were primarily positive economists, i.e. descriptions of a capitalist economy and analysis, Keynes actually came up with a lot of ideas that Marx had already pointed out, just in a different way using different models, and he also had some novel concepts that I think apply very well to a Capitalist economy, as do some classical and neo-classical economists.

As far as NORMATIVE economics, i.e. how the economy should be, Marx wrote very very little on that, and what he did write on normative economics wasn't very sophisticated imo, Keynes gave a lot of solutions most of which I agree work in the short term, but are not real solutions.

Taking you're vegetarian example, I could agree with a lot of vegetarians on the immorality of the agricultural industry, and maybe even the health benefits of eating less meat, however I don't agree with their solution .... Its kind of like that.

Thanks for that answer, as it was a genuine question & not meant as an attack, & Im glad you took it the right way.

I still cant understand your choice of labels though, I mean staying with the vegetarian thing, yes you can agree with all the things you said, but if you ate meat you still wouldnt call yourself a vegitarian.

I think it is your self designation that confuses matters as Id suggest, IMO (Again no offense intended) that you dont appear to be a socialist, more someone with some social sympathies, who shares some common ground with some socialists.

You seem to be a christian, who wants a democracy, social welfare, & leans towards Keynes economic theories, which would make you more a social liberal, left of center.

Obviously thats only on the views Ive heard you mention, & you may well veer hard left on other issues, but the economy, state, & social welfare are big issues.
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
ok ... both Marx and Keynes were primarily positive economists, i.e. descriptions of a capitalist economy and analysis, Keynes actually came up with a lot of ideas that Marx had already pointed out, just in a different way using different models, and he also had some novel concepts that I think apply very well to a Capitalist economy, as do some classical and neo-classical economists.

How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? - Keynes​

Apart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted. - Mao Zedong​

It's impossible to know beforehand who does...or does not...carry a seed for human advancement. Which is why it's a failure to believe that there's no problem with overwriting what people already know and value.

We all benefit from everybody having the opportunity to maximize their potential. Where do these opportunities come from though? They come from ensuring that limited resources are used to benefit the maximum amount of people...and that's exactly what capitalism does. You don't get rich by developing a product/service that only benefits you...you get rich by developing a product that benefits millions of people.

If markets can work in the private sector then there's absolutely no reason to believe that they can't work in the public sector as well. That's exactly why taxpayers should have the freedom to use their taxes to support the government organizations that are using our society's limited resources in the most beneficial ways.

You might say, “That’s okay, Williams, if you have enough dollar votes. But what about poor people?” Poor people are far better served in the market arena than the political arena. Check this out. If you visit a poor neighborhood, you will see some nice clothing, some nice cars, some nice food, and maybe even some nice homes—no nice schools. Why not at least some nice schools? The explanation is simple. Clothing, cars, food, and houses are allocated through the market mechanism. Schools are allocated through the political mechanism. - Walter E. Williams, Where Does Your Vote Really Count?
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If I had to choose it would be "Moral Value", not because I disbelieve in it, but because the value does not respond to the nature of capitalism as it exists presently in our society. If the value was a sincere response to our world and its economic realities, I might agree with it.

If you genuinely care about public healthcare then why not just advocate allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to? Don't you believe that affordable, effective and efficient healthcare is a genuine concern for most people? It seems like giving people the freedom to put their taxes where their hearts are will reveal exactly where our hearts are as a nation. Because...how can you argue that our hearts aren't where they should be if you don't actually know where our hearts truly are?
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Fail from the getgo again.

Take accounting and economics 101, not Austrianism 101. One teaches you functionality, the other teaches you ideology.,

Stop being a religious tool and learn.

There's two parts to "Austrianism"...the economic part and the religious part. The fact that you didn't know that I didn't include the religious part in my list makes it abundantly clear that you have no clue about Austrian economics. Therefore...while it's true that I do need to learn...clearly my understanding and grasp of Austrian economics far far far exceeds your own. FYI...the religious part is the non-aggression principle.

Now try again.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Thanks for that answer, as it was a genuine question & not meant as an attack, & Im glad you took it the right way.

I still cant understand your choice of labels though, I mean staying with the vegetarian thing, yes you can agree with all the things you said, but if you ate meat you still wouldnt call yourself a vegitarian.

I think it is your self designation that confuses matters as Id suggest, IMO (Again no offense intended) that you dont appear to be a socialist, more someone with some social sympathies, who shares some common ground with some socialists.

You seem to be a christian, who wants a democracy, social welfare, & leans towards Keynes economic theories, which would make you more a social liberal, left of center.

Obviously thats only on the views Ive heard you mention, & you may well veer hard left on other issues, but the economy, state, & social welfare are big issues.

No, I'm a christian that wants a democratic economy, one where the workers have a say on what goes in the workplace and what is done with the revenue, and communities have a say on what economic activity goes on in their communities and on the resources and capital of those communities.

I am not a keynsian, I'm not a tax and welfare liberal, I want to change the fundemental way the economy runs, i.e. democratically, if you have to live with the results of a decision you should have a say in that decision, and not only for the profit of a few capitalists.

I'm also not a state socialist, I don't want nationalization of all industries, and the ones I think should be nationalized (such as healthcare, finance and energy and perhaps some other major ones of national interest), I would only support nationalization under the strict conditions of full democratic accountability and it being treated as a not for profit socially accountable company, I'm much more interested in cooperatives, co-determination, community projects, the commons and so on.

Keep in mind, my way of thinking is the MAJORITY among socialists.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? - Keynes​

Apart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted. - Mao Zedong​

It's impossible to know beforehand who does...or does not...carry a seed for human advancement. Which is why it's a failure to believe that there's no problem with overwriting what people already know and value.

We all benefit from everybody having the opportunity to maximize their potential. Where do these opportunities come from though? They come from ensuring that limited resources are used to benefit the maximum amount of people...and that's exactly what capitalism does. You don't get rich by developing a product/service that only benefits you...you get rich by developing a product that benefits millions of people.

If markets can work in the private sector then there's absolutely no reason to believe that they can't work in the public sector as well. That's exactly why taxpayers should have the freedom to use their taxes to support the government organizations that are using our society's limited resources in the most beneficial ways.

You might say, “That’s okay, Williams, if you have enough dollar votes. But what about poor people?” Poor people are far better served in the market arena than the political arena. Check this out. If you visit a poor neighborhood, you will see some nice clothing, some nice cars, some nice food, and maybe even some nice homes—no nice schools. Why not at least some nice schools? The explanation is simple. Clothing, cars, food, and houses are allocated through the market mechanism. Schools are allocated through the political mechanism. - Walter E. Williams, Where Does Your Vote Really Count?

This is not about you're dumb plutocratic public sector market ideas, you already have threads about your made up ideology, stay there and stop trying to make every thread about you.
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is not about you're dumb plutocratic public sector market ideas, you already have threads about your made up ideology, stay there and stop trying to make every thread about you.

Speaking of dumb...it's funny that you failed to grasp that every single passage I shared in the original post supports pragmatarianism.

Now...which specific passage was it that you criticized? Oh yeah...none of them. You know why? Because you can't. But maybe I'm wrong. Pick a specific passage and critique it...or reveal your economic ignorance. I don't care which...they are both the same to me.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Speaking of dumb...it's funny that you failed to grasp that every single passage I shared in the original post supports pragmatarianism.

Now...which specific passage was it that you criticized? Oh yeah...none of them. You know why? Because you can't. But maybe I'm wrong. Pick a specific passage and critique it...or reveal your economic ignorance. I don't care which...they are both the same to me.

I criticized what the theory ignores ... which is the problem.
 

Paul Austin

Banned
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
525
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Keep in mind, my way of thinking is the MAJORITY among socialists.

Trust me, it isnt, but I am beginning to see more clearly.

To put it into party political terms it reminds me of the British labor parties history. At one time it was largely dominated by socialists, but eventually rejected socialism in favour of a move closer to the center.

Some of their supporters still self identify as socialists, even though they arent anymore.

It appears you identify with that drift away from socialism toward a more moderate position (although perhaps not as far), but despite rejecting many core tennents of socialism decide to remain self-identified as socialist, as is your right.

Ive always found that stance confusing, given the negative connotations associated with socialism, but I guess people have their reasons.
 
Top Bottom