Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why are we all becoming socialists now?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
What?LOL...read your own post instead of criticizing mine.
Oh really? I'm so sorry! I guess that means you should be allowed make completely incorrect claims. There's no single agreed definition of capitalism: the overwhelming majority of definitions allow for state intervention and welfare.I know what capitalism is - I'm a member of the LvMI.
And wtf is LvMI?
cough*bullsh!t*coughI repeat, there is ZERO public sector compatible with the economic system of capitalism. Your post never once mentioned public intervention.0 -
-
-
A quick google suggests the Ludwig van Mises Institute.Monty Burnz wrote: »And wtf is LvMI?
So you think membership means that you can get away with false claims? I must join too - filling in this form shouldn't take me too long.
This will make my Phd in applied economics much easier.0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »And wtf is LvMI?
Ludwig Von Mises Institute I'm guessing.cough*bullsh!t*cough
In a true free market there would be no involuntary transfers of wealth or resources so there wouldn't be state services.
Free market Capitalism is an ideal that has not been tried (and probably never will be).0 -
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »What?
Oh really? I'm so sorry! I guess that means you should be allowed make completely incorrect claims. There's no single agreed definition of capitalism: the overwhelming majority of definitions allow for state intervention and welfare.
And wtf is LvMI?
cough*bullsh!t*cough
Oh now I understand...you're speaking of State controlled capitalism? i.e - corporatism? State controlled corporatism is NOT free market capitalism sorry to disappoint you.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No, you know what YOUR preferred definition of capitalism is; that's not at all the same thing.I know what capitalism is
Just as an intellectual exercise, as befits a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, will you describe to me this ideal capitalist society of yours with ZERO public intervention, if you would?I repeat, there is ZERO public sector compatible with the economic system of capitalism.
No police, I presume ... or private police forces employed and under the authority of big business?
No defence forces ... or perhaps privately paid mercenary forces?
No healthcare of any kind, except private / paid healthcare?
No education of any kind, except private / paid education?
No public infrastructure, no public roads, no public transport?
Sounds a bit like society back in the early middle ages, when the Black Death and other plagues ravaged the lands; when a very tiny minority of people were wealthy beyond their dreams and the majority struggled to eat; when life expectancy was about 40 for the majority of the population (if they could actually count that high, due to not having had any education) ...0 -
-
-
-
-
randylonghorn wrote: »No, you know what YOUR preferred definition of capitalism is; that's not at all the same thing.
Just as an intellectual exercise, as befits a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, will you describe to me this ideal capitalist society of yours with ZERO public intervention, if you would?
No police, I presume ... or private police forces employed and under the authority of big business?
No defence forces ... or perhaps privately paid mercenary forces?
No healthcare of any kind, except private / paid healthcare?
No education of any kind, except private / paid education?
No public infrastructure, no public roads, no public transport?
Sounds a bit like society back in the early middle ages, when the Black Death and other plagues ravaged the lands; when a very tiny minority of people were wealthy beyond their dreams and the majority struggled to eat; when life expectancy was about 40 for the majority of the population (if they could actually count that high, due to not having had any education) ...
You can have a government to only organise police, courts and the military NOTHING ELSE. Anything at all that is not voluntary is not permitted. This is called Libertarianism. In capitalism, the government simply is not involved in legislating or building roads, running transport, education, health etc. Capitalism is inherently anarchist, the market is total chaos in ever sense (self regulating mechanisms exist i.e - supply and demand). But in capitalism, no government involvement whatsoever is tolerated.
Now, this leads me into you claim that this is my definition of capitalism. So, by that logic...would communism exist in the US (not that the US is capitalistic) if Obama woke up tomorrow and said "we have a great little communist country here"? Saying so would not make the fact any different. A government cannot live in a capitalist system because a government is inherently anti-capitalist because they can only survive on what they plunder from the productive private sector. They do not generate any wealth themselves and so their legislation throws the market off course i.e - not capitalism.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Where does the money come from to run these things? You've already defined capitalism as having no involuntary redistribution of wealth - so the police force and the military are run on charity? The Salvation Army?You can have a government to only organise police, courts and the military NOTHING ELSE. :pac: 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Where does the money come from to run these things? You've already defined capitalism as having no involuntary redistribution of wealth - so the police force and the military are run on charity? The Salvation Army? :pac:
That depends entirely on how far you want to go....
Capitalism as you defined earlier clearly states private service, private production, private citizens. There are numerous schools that are willing to allow a government to exist purely for the sole reason of enforcing contracts between private individuals and overseeing an army, police and the courts system.
There are other schools that say that the States grip on even the justice and defense is tyrannical. So these would be provided privately. Just look at ancient Ireland - a largely Libertarian society in nature. The English couldn't oppress them because the Irish didn't understand the concept of a "State" or "collectivism". They weren't "institutionalised" and therefore, couldn't be tamed. It was only with a mentality of a State i.e - Us Vs. Them that they conquered. A State can only survive when you obey. This leads me to defense which you've asked. People don't fight each other - only governments do. The American people had no problem with the ordinary Iraqi's - the war started because the American government had a problem with the Iraqi government.
We need to free our minds of this patriotic nationalism and recognise everyone as an individual. Your fellow countryman is just as likely to rape and murder your daughter as the man you've never met on the other side of the world. If you had capitalism, you could forget about war because what mad individual would wage war? Who could he wage war against? Only States can wage war against each other, and it is the State that steals private capital to use it to their preferred ends.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
southsiderosie wrote: »You have posted a lot of uncontested nonsense in this thread. The countries that are having serious financial problems are the countries that engaged in wild government spending and/or extensive de-regulation of the banking and finance industry. Ireland and the US did both simultaneously, but unlike the US, Ireland cannot manipulate its own currency, and subsequently cannot inflate its way (partially) out of crisis.
Why would you have banking regulations set by the banks? Because that's how it works...I say we need ZERO regulation i.e - capitalism and let whatever business that makes stupid decisions go out of business. So you're wrong in your thinking.southsiderosie wrote:And while we are at it, let's go back to the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin was a strong supporter of public education. Jefferson (along with Monroe and Madison) helped to set up the University of Virginia, one of the finest public universities in the country. Madison supported strengthening both the military and the fiscal and monetary powers of the federal government. Jefferson was highly suspicious of the banking sector - he would have been aghast by the extent to which this industry has been allowed to run rampant over the last 15 years.
I'm not curious as to why Jefferson didn't like the banks. A central bank has no place in a capitalist system because it only exists to prop up an ever expanding government.southsiderosie wrote:Also, a large number of the Founders were not at all in favor of the free market or individual rights when it came to slavery - which perhaps represents the biggest perversion of the labor market or the idea of individual rights there is.
I encourage you to cast a vote for the good Texas Congressman running for the Oval Office.
He knew what the founders envisioned, minus the slavery of course. Were they perfect, no. But you brought us closer to freedom.southsiderosie wrote:Finally, you, like other free-market fetishists, seem to assume that the market exists outside of human foibles. Different actors do not interact in the market as equals (employers and employees, for example), and those with the means will always try to exploit market failures and loopholes to their benefit. Marx was wrong about a lot of things, but he was spot-on in his observation that capitalists did not have the good sense or the wherewithal to restrain themselves before driving the entire economic (and political) system over a cliff. And, like clockwork, as soon as the regulatory restrictions were lifted (in the case of the U.S., Glass-Steagal), we had 1920s redux.
This is BS to assume the repealing of GS was the cause of this recession and you know it. Even a 1st class economics student can recognise this. Your problem is the Federal Reserve and your massive government intervening, bailouts, huge welfare and social programs, starting wars and basing themselves in 130 countries.southsiderosie wrote:The market will never be a perfect arbiter of prices or allocator of goods and services because, ultimately, the 'market' isn't some abstract thing: it is made up of very, very imperfect human beings.
The market system you're against is what dictates supply and demand bringing almost if not perfect equilibrium. Who else is going to achieve this? Some bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere? And here was me thinking that Americans hated central planning. :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
Why would you have banking regulations set by the banks? Because that's how it works...I say we need ZERO regulation i.e - capitalism and let whatever business that makes stupid decisions go out of business. So you're wrong in your thinking.
Anti-trust law is good for small business and consumers. Failure to enforce anti-trust law is one of the main reasons why the banks are now considered too big to fail - and given that credit is the lifeblood of a market economy, the complete failure of the banking system would strangle the economy.I'm not curious as to why Jefferson didn't like the banks. A central bank has no place in a capitalist system because it only exists to prop up an ever expanding government.
You don't seem to be curious about anything that contradicts your rigid ideological position you've taken.I encourage you to cast a vote for the good Texas Congressman running for the Oval Office. He knew what the founders envisioned, minus the slavery of course. Were they perfect, no. But you brought us closer to freedom.
The Founders envisioned a world which would benefit them: independent, wealthy landowners. Let's not pretend that this was about human freedom on a general scale: it was about freedom for wealthy white men. It is no coincidence that as access to the franchise was expanded across the Western world to include the working class, the landless, women, and ethnic minorities that the interpretation of what a freedom-ensuring government looked like changed significantly.
As for Ron Paul, I think returning to the gold standard, given its history at the turn of the 19th century, would be the height of social and political lunacy.This is BS to assume the repealing of GS was the cause of this recession and you know it. Even a 1st class economics student can recognise this. Your problem is the Federal Reserve and your massive government intervening, bailouts, huge welfare and social programs, starting wars and basing themselves in 130 countries.
Non-regulation of securities + non-enforcement of anti-trust laws = total system meltdown (without massive government intervention).
US welfare programs are small relative to most Western democracies. Social security could be self-funded if Congress stopped raiding the pot and made all Americans pay 7.5% of their income into the system (rather than the first $80,000 of income). I would agree that military spending is problematic.The market system you're against is what dictates supply and demand bringing almost if not perfect equilibrium. Who else is going to achieve this? Some bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere? And here was me thinking that Americans hated central planning. :rolleyes:
When did I say I was against the market system? I am against the radical anti-regulation, anti-state nonsense agenda that you (and many others) constantly post on boards.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement