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

Why are we all becoming socialists now?

15791011

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    My goodness, there is a lot of nonsense on this thread.

    The problem with Ireland isn't socialism, capitalism, or whatever ill-defined ism that people use to put people they disagree with into a box. The problem is gombeenism. The only thing that matters is pleasing key political constituencies - election-ism is the only ism that matters.

    The Irish government over the last 15 years has adopted neo-liberal regulatory and tax policies to please its key (US) business constituencies, and engaged in reckless public spending in order to please key voting constituencies: the elderly and public sector trade unions. Any fool could tell you that cutting taxes and increasing spending is a recipe for fiscal disaster REGARDLESS of their ideological bent, and those pretending that the situation in Ireland is due to anything other than Fianna Fail's desire to stay in power endlessly are leading you up the garden path.

    Yeah because Ireland is the only country dealing with financial problems...:rolleyes:

    The more corporatist the US becomes, the more you're starring into a black hole. Time to go back to your founding fathers. Time to go back to capitalism...it's the only thing that will save you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Your Phd in economics obtained in university is nothing more than a Keynes toilet paper. You learn in school about the man that brought the worlds finance to it's knees. The Fed has hundreds of economists with Phd's working for them, sadly it doesn't define or proves one's economic savvy as the Americans are looking into the oblivion.
    Sigh. I presume you have some publications I could look at?

    In the interests of full disclosure, I haven't finished the PhD. But thanks for your fascinating insights - who knew that Keynes wasn't the latest word in economics? :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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.
    It's a bit like talking to a scientologist who thinks that calling common concepts by different names = new knowledge. :rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    Sigh. I presume you have some publications I could look at?

    In the interests of full disclosure, I haven't finished the PhD. But thanks for your fascinating insights - who knew that Keynes wasn't the latest word in economics? :pac:

    Look, I'm not attacking you personally. My blood boils when people tar capitalism as a failure because it's not - you know how we get. I invite you to listen to both sides of the argument, and please...leave that idiot Krugman alone...we do not need another Keynesian in this world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    You can have a government to only organise police, courts and the military NOTHING ELSE.
    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? :confused: :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Look, I'm not attacking you personally. My blood boils when people tar capitalism as a failure because it's not - you know how we get. I invite you to listen to both sides of the argument, and please...leave that idiot Krugman alone...we do not need another Keynesian in this world.
    Capitalism in any shape or form hasn't failed. That's just rhetoric from socialists who've seen their workers' paradises collapse time and time again everywhere they've been (temporarily) established.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,875 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    I said leave them out because I am aware that support for disabled children is a necessity as the medical treatments and assistive devices required would bankrupt most families
    Fair enough, you did, but you also implied that their dfmailies should look after them and NOT the state, or did I misunderstand?

    if the state, then this is a form of welfare.
    This is why a small government of a bare minimum set of services would be most capable of keeping this country on track, the public sector is too large and completely opaque and this needs to be resolved.

    But I still dont think that any able bodied person should be entitled to dole without working. Its utter madness that people can leave school/ college without doing a tap and receive money.

    This is why I would be in favour of voluntary schemes that people could pay into while employed and phasing out government welfare until your basically left with only the school leavers and layabouts being cut off

    Again, I would agree with this PROVIDED the number of positions exceeded the number of unemployed. At present, you would need 400,000 placements and I'm pretty sure they don't exist. In any case, it was NOT your initial argument! Also, the government has already launched such a scheme, and it is already being abused by corporations.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    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? :confused: :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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Capitalism in any shape or form hasn't failed. That's just rhetoric from socialists who've seen their workers' paradises collapse time and time again everywhere they've been (temporarily) established.

    Whoa whoa whoa.

    There's plenty more I'd like to get into, but for now, are you denying that every attempt to let the markets run free and work their "magic" has ended in disaster? Lassez faire, deregulation, light touch ... in the 1880s, the Great Depression, Asia in the 1990s, and most of the western world today.

    Only massive state intervention has prevented the whole edifice from collapsing entirely. Neoliberal capitalism absolutely has failed, as a logical consequence of its inherent contradictions. Would take quite the feat of cognitive dissonance to deny this.

    Enter stage left:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    benway wrote: »
    Whoa whoa whoa.

    There's plenty more I'd like to get into, but for now, are you denying that every attempt to let the markets run free and work their "magic" has ended in disaster? Lassez faire, deregulation, light touch ... in the 1880s, the Great Depression, Asia in the 1990s, and most of the western world today.

    Only massive state intervention has prevented the whole edifice from collapsing entirely. Neoliberal capitalism absolutely has failed, as a logical consequence of its inherent contradictions. Would take quite the feat of cognitive dissonance to deny this.

    Enter stage left:

    I'm a capitalist and I'll admit that neoliberalism has failed...why wouldn't it? It's morally wrong and economically destructive. But neoliberalism is not capitalism because neoliberalism doesn't advocate a free market which is the very foundation of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism has not failed. The debt we ran up for services was our own stupidity by borrowing too much simple as that. But bailouts is not a feature of capitalism because giving people money for making a mess of things is the opposite of capitalism (they should be punished and go out of business).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Yeah because Ireland is the only country dealing with financial problems...:rolleyes:

    The more corporatist the US becomes, the more you're starring into a black hole. Time to go back to your founding fathers. Time to go back to capitalism...it's the only thing that will save you.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    SeanW wrote: »
    You are serious?

    You do realise that what we had was anything but free market capitalism?

    In free market capitalism:
    1. The currency would be "hard" e.g. a credible gold standard. It would have been much harder for the construction bubble to form (or indeed any bubble) because loanable funds would have been limited to the savings rate only.
    2. The tax incentives to build apartments a million miles into the sticks etc would never have been granted, and most importantly:
    3. BANKS THAT MESSED UP WOULD HAVE FAILED. That is, they would disappear, go away, and the government would have realised that the best way to respond was to compensate retail depositors like the American FDIC does as a matter of routine when banks do fail. We would not have had our government sign away the wealth of generations compensating bank bondholders because in a genuine free market, that doesn't happen.
    All of these contributing factor came from government meddlinng and the maliciousness and neglect of European institutions. It had nothing to with freedom or markets.

    We had freer markets before and gold standards, in the US and the UK as good examples, still had crashes. Crashes just happen on markets, no matter if they are right or left wing. Greed rules and in many ways relies on crashes.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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:


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Just look at ancient Ireland - a largely Libertarian society in nature.
    With a tiny population, relatively speaking, living in an entirely agrarian economy with an abundance of natural resources.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    K-9 wrote: »
    We had freer markets before and gold standards, in the US and the UK as good examples, still had crashes. Crashes just happen on markets, no matter if they are right or left wing. Greed rules and in many ways relies on crashes.

    The Great Depression was the inevitable outcome of the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve during the 1920s. It regulated the amount of credit private banks could issue by providing overnight loans and strict reserve requirements. The government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult. Just look at the depression of 20/21. You don't here about this because it was a total non issue and the market corrected itself quickly...why? Because the government didn't intervene. Why, again? Because they didn't know what to do and by the time they actually sat up and took notice, it was over. If they had of acted, it would have prolonged the depression.

    Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in the 1970's, the US debt has skyrocketed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    The Great Depression was the inevitable outcome of the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve during the 1920s. It regulated the amount of credit private banks could issue by providing overnight loans and strict reserve requirements. The government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult. Just look at the depression of 20/21. You don't here about this because it was a total non issue and the market corrected itself quickly...why? Because the government didn't intervene. Why, again? Because they didn't know what to do and by the time they actually sat up and took notice, it was over. If they had of acted, it would have prolonged the depression.

    Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in the 1970's, the US debt has skyrocketed.

    Was thinking more of the railway bubbles when we had the gold standard:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    K-9 wrote: »
    Was thinking more of the railway bubbles when we had the gold standard:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

    I've recently just finished a book on the U.S's history of bimetalism and monometalism. Here, you can find out what exactly happened in 1893 and it wasn't because of sound money. It was because of a stupid decisions government made in signing into law the obtainment of gold for pence. There was a run and the US gold ended up all over the world.

    http://mises.org/daily/4112


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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.
    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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.
    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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.
    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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.
    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    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.

    You don't seem to be curious about anything that contradicts your rigid ideological position you've taken.

    Non-regulation of securities + non-enforcement of anti-trust laws = total system meltdown (without massive government intervention).

    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.

    So what you're saying is that you're happy to spout the same old same old as you're happy being a product of your time? The State has only existed a short while, being happy with it is quite narrow minded. Next up is your banking palaver...they're "too big to fail" because we have no free market in the banking industry and given your ignorance about the gold standard in the US, I assume you've quite a bit of research, analyzing and study to do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    So what you're saying is that you're happy to spout the same old same old as you're happy being a product of your time? The State has only existed a short while, being happy with it is quite narrow minded. Next up is your banking palaver...they're "too big to fail" because we have no free market in the banking industry and given your ignorance about the gold standard in the US, I assume you've quite a bit of research, analyzing and study to do.

    Actually I've done a great deal of research on the history of the gold standard in Europe, and its relationship to political instability. But funny, any mention of politics in these conversations generally gets ignored - perhaps because in an era of universal voting rights, this vision of a market-driven society is unpalatable to the majority of voters.

    The nation - state is only the most recent form of governance: tribalism, feudalism, and a variety of other isms have shaped human interactions - both social and economic - since the dawn of time.

    Finally, you can talk all you want about a stateless world, but to be a weak state in a world of strong political and economic interests - both internal and external - is to be an architect of your own demise. As Hobbes noted centuries ago, a world without a Leviathan - whether a feudal lord or duly elected Parliament - is nasty, brutish, and short.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    So what you're saying is that you're happy to spout the same old same old as you're happy being a product of your time?

    And what you're saying is that a fantasy land of benevolent halo-wearing capitalists will make the world a better place for all?


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    I've recently just finished a book on the U.S's history of bimetalism and monometalism. Here, you can find out what exactly happened in 1893 and it wasn't because of sound money. It was because of a stupid decisions government made in signing into law the obtainment of gold for pence. There was a run and the US gold ended up all over the world.

    http://mises.org/daily/4112

    Grand, might take a look, what about these:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis#Prior_to_19th_century

    Click on prior to the 19th century.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    Actually I've done a great deal of research on the history of the gold standard in Europe, and its relationship to political instability. But funny, any mention of politics in these conversations generally gets ignored - perhaps because in an era of universal voting rights, this vision of a market-driven society is unpalatable to the majority of voters.

    The nation - state is only the most recent form of governance: tribalism, feudalism, and a variety of other isms have shaped human interactions - both social and economic - since the dawn of time.

    Finally, you can talk all you want about a stateless world, but to be a weak state in a world of strong political and economic interests - both internal and external - is to be an architect of your own demise. As Hobbes noted centuries ago, a world without a Leviathan - whether a feudal lord or duly elected Parliament - is nasty, brutish, and short.

    So your basic premise is to quote one philosopher and cement that as your argument? I can do just the same thing. Here, I'll give it a go...

    "Government promote inefficiency in production and efficiency in coercion and subservience, while penalizing efficiency in production and inefficiency in predation. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives... libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy." - Murray Rothbard.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    So your basic premise is to quote one philosopher and cement that as your argument? I can do just the same thing. Here, I'll give it a go...

    "Government promote inefficiency in production and efficiency in coercion and subservience, while penalizing efficiency in production and inefficiency in predation. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives... libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy." - Murray Rothbard.

    Instead of constantly deflecting, how about you address my multiple points about the political distaste for the policies you are proposing, and their inability to be adopted in any democratic society with universal voting rights?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    Instead of constantly deflecting, how about you address my multiple points about the political distaste for the policies you are proposing, and their inability to be adopted in any democratic society with universal voting rights?

    Well, firstly you labeled me as wanting a stateless world - here, you're deviating from the topic of the thread which is about capitalism. Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere. As a mod, you'd be all over someone else if they did that, now wouldn't you?!

    Regardless, if you knew about statelessness, you'd also know that democracy is incompatible with it. I'm more than willing to have a conversation with you but I can only accept that debate with someone with a slight knowledge of the subject at hand.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Well, firstly you labeled me as wanting a stateless world - here, you're deviating from the topic of the thread which is about capitalism. Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere. As a mod, you'd be all over someone else if they did that, now wouldn't you?!

    Regardless, if you knew about statelessness, you'd also know that democracy is incompatible with it.

    I'm not a mod in this forum.

    I'm also done here. There is no point in mud wrestling with a hog - the hog enjoys it, and you just end up covered in shit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere.

    That's the definition of political debates.

    One side thinks they've found something new, unique, original and never tried before, a new way of dealing with things, the other yawns because they've seen it before.

    Reverse and that's political debate.

    For all the rise in Libertarianism, especially on the net, it still hasn't succeeded anyway politically. Same old arguments across many debates, the consistent theme is its never the markets fault, never considering what's the common denominator to market crashes. The clue is in the name.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Some people seem to have a problem with people being born into privilege. If someone works hard and builds a successful company, why can't they have the freedom to give their kids a privileged life, it's their money they can do what they want with it.
    Because those kids have done no hard work to deserve that privileged life. Why do they deserve that?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    I'm not a mod in this forum.

    I'm also done here. There is no point in mud wrestling with a hog - the hog enjoys it, and you just end up covered in shit.

    You can wrestle me anytime.
    K-9 wrote: »
    That's the definition of political debates.

    For all the rise in Libertarianism, especially on the net, it still hasn't succeeded anyway politically. Same old arguments across many debates, the consistent theme is its never the markets fault, never considering what's the common denominator to market crashes. The clue is in the name.

    Well, thats the thing...I've already read your economists arguments. Now it's your time to read mine.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Well, thats the thing...I've already read your economists arguments. Now it's your time to read mine.

    I might as its an area I don't know much about. I'll come at it from as neutral a point of view as I can, which is why I asked about all the crashes pre the 19th century.

    I suspect I already know your answer, everybody was to blame except the market! ;)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement