• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



Utopian Capitalism!

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,084
Twitter
crimesofbrits
‘Libertarians secretly worry that ultimately someone will figure out that the whole of their political philosophy boils down to "get off my property". News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us’ - John Scalzi
‘The United States and, indeed, virtually the entire world operate under a regime of monetary socialism’ – Mises Institute
Well, it’s happening again. As always, when capitalism collapses, screws the workers and destroys their livelihoods, the workers of the first world, Britain and America in particular, do the right thing. They demand more of the system that has them where they are: unemployed, poor, on zero-hour contracts, etc or floating around YouTube attacking teenage so-called ‘feminists’ to make themselves feel better about their existence that is all over the place from a system they tend to admire. A bit like how they say women are too materialistic, too wanting of money and they cannot date them, so they go their own way. Ironically, they tend to be libertarians, who support capitalism, complaining about greed and manipulation! These are idiosyncrasies capitalism is built on!


Now, this is not an attack on capitalism. This is an attack on the new internet movement that has gained traction the last few years, right wing libertarianism. Not libertarianism in its proper usage of the term, but right wing and in some cases, Reich-wing libertarianism. As well as them, there are the ‘free market’ cultists that stick their head out every now and again, or neoliberals. They have differences; the ancaps and the neoliberals and the libertarians or libertyaryans, but they are all genuinely united on some common issues. Before starting, we must mention Praxeology. Believed by a tiny minority, but it exposes the self-admitted fantasies these people live under.

These issues that they agree on mostly are that people are rational and that perfect information exists. In this weird world of a first best economy, there are no need for regulations and such, personal responsibility will ensue and ultimately, everyone is on a level-playing field.

Then there’s things such as ‘capitalists seek to create jobs’ and that capitalists like the poor and try and help them, by wanting to rise - and supposedly they have risen thanks to the ‘free market’ - living standards. These two in particular are easily refuted by the actions of their heroes and some are open about their contempt of the poor.

Then we have the issues that any central planning is doomed to failure. It doesn’t raise living standards and is bad for humans in general. Above all, centrally planned economics are wholly bad for business and productivity. Again, this flies in the face of all reality and there’s no denying some things are best left to the market, but central planning can and has worked and has built up brilliant companies in technology, manufacturing and transportation that we all use today.

Supposedly, we’re told that only entrepreneurs can create employment and we need more entrepreneurs to create jobs. Essentially, the more entrepreneurial a county is, so say the free marketers, the more successful the country will be. Except that, again, flies in the face of all reality.

Then we come to my personal favourite. That the founding fathers of America and America before 1913 and the Federal Reserve was a bastion of free market capitalism. The only problem is that this flies the face of all reality with a high tariff and government interfering country and a server violator of individual liberty.

Britain is quite similar. We’re told this is the example of the free market at play and Britain was successful solely because of its capitalism and how it did not have laws under the free market and was successful as a result, especially in the 18th and 19th century, according to Milton Friedman. This is almost ineffably ahistorical and especially worrying from a genius like Friedman; it’s asinine by his high standards and brilliant mind.

We’re told especially in this country, that we need more economists. Our teachers and lawyers are the problem. That is why we have economic failure. The problem is not that they’re teachers, but compradors for foreign capital and business (McCabe, Sins of the Father, p1-to the very last page). Verily, successful economies are better off without the guys in suits, who mostly seem to get everything wrong – the economists. Economists are not needed to run a successful economy and the evidence for it is striking!

While no fan of American Democrats, we often hear from the right wing in America about how ‘fiscally conservative’ they are. They not only run surplus budgets but lower debt levels too and lower taxes. Of course, most of this again, flies in the face of reality, especially big government lovers such as George Bush and Ronald Reagan. However. the self-proclaimed ‘capitalists’ against ‘big government Democrats’ aren’t actually very good at capitalism.

Finally, there are a few more things that are passed off as politics, policies and such by libertaryans in particular. Crucial debates about how driving licences will lead to licences for toasters, how jetpacks will answer the question of ‘who will build the roads’ and more genuine lunacy.

Praxeology! A right wing infantile disorder!

‘Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith.’ – Paul Krugman
I realise that tiny, tiny, tiny minority of Mises followers, unelectable, not engaging in any revolution, no real political or revolutionary wing, will regard everything and anything as not verifiable, even if there are statistics and empirical evidence to back it up. Whilst not all reich-wing libertaryans believe in Praxeology, it’s worth mentioning, for its sheer insanity.

As Mises himself stated:

‘Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts’
‘Even the most faithful examination of a chapter of economic history, though it be the history of the most recent period of the past, is no substitute for economic thinking. Economics, like logic and mathematics, is a display of abstract reasoning. Economics can never be experimental and empirical. The economist does not need an expensive apparatus for the conduct of his studies. What he needs is the power to think clearly and to discern in the wilderness of events what is essential from what is merely accidental.’
‘What assigns economics its peculiar and unique position in the orbit both of pure knowledge and of the practical utilization of knowledge is the fact that its particular theorems are not open to any verification or falsification on the ground of experience. Of course, a measure suggested by sound economic reasoning results in producing the effects aimed at, and a measure suggested by faulty economic reasoning fails to produce the ends sought. But such experience is always still historical experience, i.e., the experience of complex phenomena. It can never, as has been pointed out, prove or disprove any particular theorem. The application of spurious economic theorems results in undesired consequences. But these effects never have that undisputable power of conviction which the experimental facts in the field of the natural sciences provide. The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience’
So, I’m aware that any evidence, fact, knowledge, history, science cannot disprove the free market never existing. An absolutely infantile, Utopian, crazed, moon howling idea of epic, epic proportions. This is the chalkboard nail sound that we hear when capitalism actually fails; this sound reverberates across middle class, white boys bedrooms with the screeches of ‘that’s not capitalism’. Nothing can be proven or disproved. Infantile nonsense!

First-best economies can’t work, never have worked and never will work

Quite possibly, the most quixotic idea after Anarchism in political theory is the model of a first best economy. So almost ineffably ridiculous, it has never and can never be properly implemented. There’s a few assumptions of this economy ‘model’ that are worth looking at: perfect information and rational thinking.

In healthcare and banking, we see how perfect information is wholly unpalatable as a serious policy. Given that many free marketers want and have rolled back the state in a number of countries, the poor will and would suffer from a lack of information and regulation. To take it seriously, in this economy, we have to believe that people will be knowledgeable about aspects of healthcare, such as the best doctors, the best medicine to take and if all of this stuff is safe to take. Not to mention, a reliance that the doctor, private hospital or pharmaceutical company will act fairly and not want to extort them for profit. Of course, we don’t see any evidence of the medical industry doing any of this, none whatsoever.

Can we presume that an uneducated single mother in this system, working full or part-time looking after her children when she gets home from work, will then have time to be informed about the best and safest baby formula, medicine for their child, the less cost inducing doctor?

A sick individual in bad need of choosing the right treatment. Does he have a real choice of shopping around and looking for the best doctor or hospital when his life hangs in the balance? Then there’s just the poor who can’t afford it. We also have private companies who will carefully select their choices with ‘cream skimming’. And the solution by the libertaryans if you can’t afford it? They should rely on friends, family and charity to pay for their condition.

When the libertaryans in the Republican party were asked one of these questions, some screamed if you can’t afford healthcare then people should just ‘let ‘em die’. This was directed at Ubermensch Rand follower, Ron Paul, who stated that charity would come in and help him. The fictitious young man who should have had perfect information that he might need healthcare and not worry about taking ill when he was 30 did not understand what freedom is about. We know Paul does not believe that charity will help most people out, let alone friends and family. How? When Paul’s ’08 campaign manager needed help to have medical bills paid, Paul and co simply just let him die. Tributes poured in about how this man died a free man and left the state to pick up the tab for his medical expenses him and his family and friends, and church could not pay off.

To take it further, what we saw with Johnson and Johnson was a textbook example of the profit motive at the expense of people. J&J have now been exposed as Aryan profiteers who knew their product was linked to cervical cancer. But, my contention is from a libertarian view, so what? The people using J&J should have just tested the product themselves. When George Bush told that African girl who happened to be born in America, that her working three jobs was ‘uniquely American’, if she unfortunately used J&J and got cancer, tough luck. She should have been sending off her products to make sure they were okay to use and not have been so lazy. It’s that simple really. We know Milton Friedman believed this about cars. Don’t think people are stupid. They don’t need regulations, they’re smart enough to buy their own cars and make sure they’re sound to drive. And if the steering wheel comes off on the M50 when you’re doing 100 KM/H as Ron Paul would say, the imminent death is a sign of how free you are.

Jetpack futurist – more on this later – libertarian Austin Petersen. Unfortunately, his mother died young from cancer after bad treatment and as he said, they worked hard for their money to be able to pay for this treatment. But, by his own logic it was his own mother’s fault. She should have properly research what she was getting herself into, made sure the product was good and went from there. She did not act rationally, nor did the supplier. The profit motive made sure her death would be to come about slowly. Oh, and send on your details to him, he’ll pay for your granny and auldone if she’s sick.

It is simply innately naïve to believe that people will have perfect information in such a complex and life threatening area such as healthcare and act rationally all the time. We know, however, that people can rely on references and the word of others. Now, if the state wouldn’t intrude, this would solve everything and the market could operate flawlessly. Except, we saw how the private sector destroyed the economies of myriad of countries. If we only relied on private companies for good advice and good market options, we’d be fine. Just as we did with all those private rating agencies, who gave out great advice and with bad regulation, you had Irish banks for example, covering up their bad numbers, defrauding the regulator and so on. And everything worked out just fine.

No distortionary taxation system, complete markets, perfect information, no problems with externalities, rational behaviour and so forth. First best economics have never happened and will never happen. It’s a white, middle-class mainly North American keyboard revolution fantasy. That’s as far as it goes and can go. Not one shot fired by the libertaryans:

[video=youtube;-sAGGoPidEY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sAGGoPidEY[/video]

Well, when they’re silent off YouTube, they obey, they are allowing the government to destroy their humanity and they’re certainly not the final American Revolution. Though their more rational libertarian ideologues such as Friedman did carry out their plans to some degree. By using tax payers’ money to overthrow elected governments in other countries

Capitalists do not create jobs for the sake of creating them

Simple, really. Jobs are not created for creating employment. They are created for profit. Anyone who says to the contrary is spoofing. Capitalists are also not interested in full employment in an economy. It would be chaos for capitalists if everyone had a good paying job and jobs were widely available as workers could move freely and have power to demand more wages at interviews, for example. With no one to replace uppity workers and with other jobs available, they’d have to give in to their demands.

Capitalists do not like the poor

We know, the poor have always been hated by the rich and this is where this nonsense of ‘tyranny of the majority’ comes from. John Locke’s ramblings for example about labour and ownership of property and freedom – whilst he dabbled in the slave trade – influencing child predators such as Thomas Jefferson and the lucid Declaration of Independence. What the real libertaryan means by ‘tyranny of the majority’ is that the poor will not accept living as beasts if they have the chance to vote to reduce their poverty by electing people who will help them. This will curb investment and reduce capitalism, according to the libertyaryans. Their nonsense about ‘what if 51% votes to kill 49%’ is a strawman and has never happened and never can happen, thanks to a functioning democracy with checks and balances. It is simply all about making profits at the expense of the rest of the population.

We know this hatred of the poor was felt by the early classical liberals such as Ricardo and it is still felt today. Peter Schiff encapsulated this hatred of the poor because they’ll always make the wrong decision. Absolutism is his response and we must presume, the millions of libertaryans online, I repeat, online, who follow him:

[video=youtube;EWi2YXfPI48]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWi2YXfPI48[/video]

Because that’s what the majority of people were doing in Britain when voting was for the rich only. They weren’t living in slums, uneducated and so on. But because profit was good for a few thanks to Chinese-like labor laws, protectionism which he leaves out and colonialism, all can be forgiven. This is not just some libertarian ranting at the moon to his internet keyboard Ron Paul revolutionaries, we can see how corporations exploit the poor in many third world dictatorships but profits are good, so it must be ok.

Capitalism has not raised millions out of poverty


This fallacy, which is so shown to be false, because of hundreds of years of women and workers struggles. That’s what lifted FIRST WORLD workers out of poverty. As we see, there is now a 72:1 ratio of wealth inequality between rich and poor countries, compared with 3:1 back in the days of the 19th century


As a typical western Marxist, David Harvey is clutching at straws. He and any Marxist will never be able to make any real revolution or galvanize people to Marxism. It’s because socialism is hated and Marxists cannot appeal to a labor aristocracy. In this interview however, that old canard about ‘capitalism raised millions out of poverty’ was thrown out. Harvey, an immense scholar gave a typical polite and timid response. Anyone who even looked at some of his lectures knows he could have destroyed this argument, but he chose to be polite.

Capitalism did not raise people out of poverty, let alone the free market. Labor laws, workers’ rights, the minimum wage, expansion of the franchise, women’s rights and more were not handed out by benevolent capitalists, but were won with worker and so-called ‘leftist’ agitators. Daniel O’Connell in this country, as James Connolly showed, exemplified the Reich-wing thinking that hasn’t gone away, you know*

*because child labor laws were brought in to stop poor from making too much money and the poor all benefited, especially in England where they enjoyed lavish and cultured lifestyles in what is probably ‘real’ capitalism for the working class:

‘In Birmingham, says Commissioner Grainger, the children examined by me are, as a whole, utterly wanting in all that could be in the remotest degree called a useful education. Although in almost all the schools religious instruction alone is furnished, the profoundest ignorance even upon that subject prevailed.– In Wolverhampton, says Commissioner Horne, I found, among others, the following example: A girl of eleven years who had attended both day and Sunday school "had never learnt of another world, nor of heaven, nor of another life". A boy, seventeen years old, "did not know how many two and two made, nor how many farthings there were in twopence, even when the money was placed in his hand". Several boys had never heard of London nor of Willenhall, though the latter was but an hour's walk from their homes, and in the closest relations with Wolverhampton. Several had never heard the name of the Queen nor other names, such as Nelson, Wellington, Bonaparte; but it was noteworthy that those who had never heard even of St. Paul, Moses, or Solomon, were very well instructed as to the life, deeds, and character of Dick Turpin, and especially of Jack Sheppard. A youth of sixteen did not know "how many twice two make", nor "how much money four farthings make". A youth of seventeen asserted that "ten farthings make ten halfpence"; a third, seventeen years old, answered several very simple questions with the brief statement, that "he was ne jedge o' nothin'." [13] These children, who are crammed with religious doctrines for four or five years at a stretch, know as little at the end as at the beginning. One child had "attended a Sunday school regularly for five years; does not know who Jesus Christ was, but has heard the name. Never heard of the twelve apostles. Never heard of Samson, nor of Moses, nor Aaron, etc." [14] Another "attended a Sunday school regularly six years. Knows who Jesus Christ was, he died on the cross to shed his blood, to save our Saviour. Never heard of St. Peter or St. Paul."[15] A third, "attended the Sunday schools of different kinds about seven years; can read, only in the thin books, easy words of one syllable; has heard of the apostles, does not know if St. Peter was one, nor if St. John was one, unless it was St. John Wesley."[16] To the question who Christ was, Horne received, among others, the following answers, "Yes, Adam," "He was an apostle," "He was the Saviour's Lord's Son," and from a youth of sixteen: "Jesus Christ was a king of London a long time ago." In Sheffield, Commissioner Symons let the children from the Sunday school read aloud; they could not tell what they had read, or what sort of people the apostles were, of whom they had just been reading. After he had asked them all one after the other about the apostles without securing a single correct answer, one sly-looking little fellow, with great glee, called out: "Please sir, they were the lepers!" [17] From the pottery districts and from Lancashire the reports are similar.’
 


Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,084
Twitter
crimesofbrits

Centrally planned economies can be productive


The Reich-wing take great pleasure in believing that capitalism is the panacea to all, and socialism or centrally planned economies are doomed to failure. As the 20th century showed, this was not the case. Firstly, 100 million did not die from so-called ‘communism’, I’m not getting into that on this thread as I have done on other threads, but the most important point is that the Black Book and all that rubbish has been discredited by Harvard University who published it, Conquest thrashed his Holocaust 6 million comparison in Ukraine and, Tim Synder sources people who disagree with him – as well as Tim Pat Coogan wrong citation senility supposedly, page numbers, etc - and so on.

I do not believe in dialectics and historical materialism that Marxists do. I do not believe that you need to have capitalism before socialism and that anything Marx said you must do is ‘true’ socialism. Away from all abstraction and the new-found, so-called ‘Marxists’ love affair with Social Justice Warriors in the West. Away from this spin and modern Trots and non-binary first world Maoists nonsense, we can compare centrally planned economies with capitalist ones from similar starting points and from this, we see how socialism when applied, has outstripped capitalism in some countries.

It is good to compare countries with similar sizes, with similar populations and with similar infrastructures in the allocation of societal resources and living standards. To compare Cuba to America when Cuba became state-capitalist and centrally planned is like comparing Steven Hawking and Conor McGregor as UFC fighters. If we take Cuba and Haiti, we see a much different case. And there’s only one winner, Cuba. If we compare Russia in the early 20th century and Brazil in the early 20th century, and Brazil with more natural resources and without the Holocaust of 27 million people and the internecine event of WW2, we see only one winner, Russia. But, most impressively, we see that socialism worked more in China then India and this was shown by the friend of neoliberal Bill Clinton, Amartya sen. Sen showed how the Chinese planned economy model, augmented life expectancy, health care, literacy and societal benefits far more than India. Sen also showed when the Chinese brought in market reforms, their advances stagnated. We also saw this in Russia, when market reforms slaughtered the population, destroyed the country’s infrastructure and saw the life expectancy drop precipitously.

Centrally planned economies really do work

But the undeniable totalitarianism of state-capitalism or Soviet and Chinese style socialism means they should be discarded? That’s what the marketers tell us. However, when they speak of freedom of speech, it’s about their private property. Nothing else, it’s why they don’t care about the civil rights act and think, as did Reagan, that businesses should be free to discriminate against whoever they want and other Aryans on the need to attack welfare to get at Africans in America. In no way am I implying these countries were and are quixotic societies. But they do show that neoliberal, ‘no government at all’, ‘all government is socialism’, ‘only the market can be productive’ tripe is wholly nonsense!

Yet, in right wing authoritarian states and even semi-democratic right wing states, we see how the Asian advancement in technology, was helped by a central government interfering in the market. Now remember, we’re talking about this in the context of libertaryans and free marketers, who believe that any or too much government is socialism and ergo, centrally planned.

In indicative planning, we see that the free market was undermined in Korea to allow for the government to dictate to the private sector what they should do, for the good of the country. In the 60’s, Korea’s biggest exports were wigs and fish. The government decided to intervene and try and move Korea towards a manufacturing country. This was also a problem because the country did not produce most of the raw materials required. To counter this, they set up state-owned enterprises, such as Pohang Iron and Steel Company. And was it a Korean Michael O’Leary who knows everything or some IMF ‘economist’ – who were against this idea and would not loan Korea the funds – no, it was Park Tae-Joon, an army general with hardly any business experience. More on this later.

With money pumped into these types of government schemes, what happened? Pohang Iron grew to be one of the most dominant steel companies in the world. It was privatized in the noughties, but for political reasons. Still, the centrally planned economy worked and it worked in other areas as well. The Korean government went further. In some cases, it outright banned private companies going into certain areas. LG – that’s a communist TV you’re watching YouTube from - electrical group was banned from going into the textile industry in the 1960’s and was forced to go into electronics. In the 70’s, they put pressure on the Hyundai group to go into shipbuilding, and despite objections and threats, they went into shipbuilding. They are one of the biggest shipbuilders as a result. All of this with tariffs to protect Korean industry as well.

And the ‘Asian miracle’, such as Taiwan and Singapore (in which most land is owned by the government), followed the Koreans, but somewhat differently. As do the countries of Scandinavia, the likes of the French (Renault was and still has government interference) and R&D investment in America, for example. Giving birth hitherto, to unseen technology in cars, ships, better life expectancy, medicine and so on. This is not to say that all central planning is good. In food distribution, capitalism cannot be matched, in individual countries, not globally; the market is unequivocally the most efficient in distributing food. But even then, we still need regulations for safe food and drinking water just to be sure. All in all, the free market has never really solved or produced anything as it has never existed in its purest form and the powerhouses of the world have always had and used tariffs, regulations, licensing, colonialism, imperialism, slavery and more. It was never built on a decentralised, limited government! Never has, never will be! It was, according to libertaryans and free marketers, only with the American founding fathers, or Singapore and Somalia. No joke about the latter, this is held up as a sign of a stateless society by the Reich-wing Mises heads.

More entrepreneurs do not guarantee prosperity

Possibly, the biggest Utopian idea about capitalism is that ‘entrepreneurs only create jobs’. We see this all over society. Indeed, one example springs to mind. A caller on Joe Duffy before was thanking Joan Burton for a government funded scheme that allowed him to set up his business. He then went on to contradict himself by saying that ‘only business people create jobs’. The government help was supposedly not important in him being able to start up a company and I hope it works out for him. This schema however, in western thinking holds sway among everyone, even so-called ‘democratic socialists’. However, the idea that the more entrepreneurial a country is, the more prosperous it is, is a quixotic idea backed up with no evidence at all. To the contrary, the less entrepreneurial a country is, the more prosperous it tends to be.

How do we know this? Firstly, most people in the West are statist weeds. I say weeds because on the internet, it’s sort of tough to decry the state and act as if you don’t need it, whilst fantasising about cutting off social welfare. There’s only one problem, the western weeds use state created water distribution, roads, sewage treatment, state transportation, electricity and so on. Most rely on government or private sector jobs that function in a society with laws and regulations. The fact that most people do not own their own business should be a sign that the country would suffer from incentives or to that degree, Most first world only spend their time helping someone else’s entrepreneurial vision, not their own. They are not individuals in the Ayn Rand sense, but weeds, living off the backs of others and also people who have ‘never created a job in their life’.

For example, in the richest countries on earth and especially in the West, the likes of Scandinavia, America and even France – of whom George Bush allegedly said that they don’t know what the word entrepreneur means, even though they have a near enough amount of entrepreneurs to America - have all under 13 per cent in terms of self-employed people in the non-agricultural workforce. According to the market fundamentalists, this should be a sign of poverty and an authoritarian state hanging over everyone and reducing production, incentives and stopping efficiency.

Yet, when we see the developing world, we see entrepreneurs that are ubiquitous. In some of the developing world, entrepreneurs account for 30-50 per cent of the non-agricultural workforce. In some very extreme cases, the likes of Bangladesh and Benin have over 75% of people working as single entrepreneurs. Yet, these countries don’t seem to be doing much economically or creating well paying, secure jobs and providing societal resources. Why?

It is very obvious. Entrepreneurs in the third world live in something at times close to the free market – not to mention those idiotic and criminal trade deals that have reduced their growth. Without much government interference, they struggle with power cuts, criminal gangs a law to themselves, extortion, and bad infrastructure for transport of goods. And that’s if they are lucky to get a business up and running to have goods needed to be transported, I’m on about some having their own business to wash windows, the best many can hope for, or collecting garbage for cash.

They face another problem in that banking is not regulated and with little state interference, they lack credit to start up successful companies. Microcredit was viewed as a real solution to the problem and seen as a success for third world countries by free marketers because it relied on international donors and had little government interference. When these donors would not contribute as much or would stop altogether, the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh for example had to charge interest rates for their loans of up to 80%. And with that, an overabundance of debt and lowly paid telephone jobs ensued. The success of the market at hand again!

In this chaotic world of mad capitalism, it is the poor and society in general who lose out. What the poor don’t have in the third world is what western weeds do. Ideas that grow out of government funded institutions, such as R&D, state infrastructure for transport of people and goods, company laws, regulations, workers’ rights, high-paying wages and so on. In the third world, a first world so-called ‘entrepreneur’, really a fancy word for ‘greedy statist’, would not last a month. Imagine the small business owners of Ireland having a go at it in Bangladesh or Ghana in small DIY shops and more? We saw how a Dublin street sweeper survived without regulation in the Philippines on RTÉ recently.
Anyway, the more entrepreneurs we have, does not mean a country will be more prosperous. It is actually the complete and utter opposite.

The founding fathers of America and their successors were not true free marketers

In libertarian circles, this is a key claim. That the Founding Fathers, besides slavery and genocide, advocated and engaged in free market capitalism. These were the good old days before the Federal Reserve and all of that and so-called ‘big government’. The only problem with this is that it is another concoction with zero evidence to back it up. If only we could go back to Jefferson and later on Andrew Jackson, everything would be fine.

From the beginning of its inception, America engaged in the abolition of private property. As Marx pointed out, the abolition of private property is not a communist idiosyncrasy. The French Revolution, as he pointed out, abolished Feudal property. Marx was correct. And in America, the American Revolution abolished loyalist property and essentially, cleansed thousands of fellow settlers from America. What this private property confiscating, slave-owning and land grabbing ‘capitalists’ had to do with the free market no one knows. Except, the market fundamentalists, who assure us, are above everyone else and think more than others.

On trade itself, the Americans in the beginning were not so up for the free market and some of America’s so-called ‘greatest’ Presidents were what would be classed by some headers, as communist or statist. That is no lie, some in America and on here, believe that any government interference is communist/socialist even though they class communist and socialist as the same, when they are not at all. Granted, these are the extremes, but they’re polling at 10% at the moment in America. There are arguments over what federalists and so on wanted, but abstraction should be put aside as to what actually took place in America and as I’ll point out later, under so-called ‘good’ and ‘capitalist’ republican presidents, such as Eisenhower.

Alexander Hamilton, the first treasury, demanded there be a state infrastructure, a development of a banking system and that ‘industries in their infancy’ should be protected by the government to compete on an international stage. George Washington wasn’t too far off. The Brits had made their settlers unable to produce any goods. He could not find a company in America that could dress him with American made clothes, but needed a clandestine American tailor to get him one for his inauguration. So much for free trade and international trade! With Hamilton’s ideas quite known, Washington, rather bizarrely it would seem, appointed Hamilton as first secretary of America. From 1840, for example, Hamilton’s ideas were hitting the invisible hand like you would an annoying fly. Huge investments in education, state infrastructure and more subsidies to companies.


Benjamin Franklin was another statist who wanted free trade to be eviscerated, in the form of tariffs, to protect Americans from competing in a low wage economy. He also was against Germans and demanded ‘cultural assimilation’, who else can do those things? So much for freedom!. In an ironic twist, the future self-proclaimed ‘Master Race’ were viewed by many cultural warriors as backward and indolent.

John Adams, who, like Jefferson after him, hunted down people who disagreed with him. Free market and the days of when America was supposedly ‘great’? The good old Alien and Sedition Act really does illustrate those freedom loving, pro-market, anti-government Founding Fathers! Not content there, this proto-Obamacare Founder wanted to bring in some big government ‘socialism’, according to the millions who say Obama is a socialist because of his so-called ‘big government’ and ‘far left’ policies. Apologies for the Marxist-Leninist, Maoist Third Wordlist source.

What about Thomas Jefferson, the not so strict constitutionalist – shock horror! - Who was also against patents, another contradiction of the Reich-wing who lavish praise on him. The people who want free trade, no government, but intellectual property patented, and who else can patent, but the state itself, or maybe their private army? It seems that he was against tariffs - but not totally reliant on the ‘free market’ in some cases - but was for wealth and land redistribution. His experiences of the poor in France led him to believe that:

‘Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.’
And when the chance came to grab Louisiana, Jefferson had no problem defecating all over free market theory: he used government funds to purchase land off the French, possibly violating the Constitution and he violated a contract with the French to protect native Americans and he then began to drive them off their land, ‘the beasts’ as he called them.
 

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,084
Twitter
crimesofbrits
Not long ago, it was an anniversary of when Andrew Jackson began showing Native Americans what the invisible hand felt like when it hit you. It’s important to put him in there because in a time of debt and fiscal irrationality, he’s held up as the panacea to our problems by the likes of Ben Carson. But this fiscal conservative who paid off all debt, surely he was a true free marketer? Not so. He was avidly protectionist with industrial tariffs in the region of 40% on average. He interfered with the market when the Brits owned too much of a semi-public bank by cancelling their licence, the Bank of USA had a mere 30% ownership mainly by Brit investors. Too much for Jackson! Even later on, some states went further, slaughtering foreign interference from foreign banks. The good old, free movement of trade and investment that America was built on! The corporate lads attacking Trump saying America was built on free ideas and a welcoming attitude to foreigners!

And the so-called ‘emancipator’ of Africans in America, who said if the Civil War could be won without freeing a slave, he’d have done it. The biggest communist of them all. When in power, Lincoln sky rocketed industrial tariffs. The Civil War surely was the cause? Maybe, but they stayed at 40-50% until the First World War. America’s rise to greatness came at their most protectionist period. During this time, America had the highest industrial tariffs in the world and was the fastest growing economy in the world (pp. 51-52). So much for the ‘war time government actions lead to economic disasters later on’. The Road to Prosperity Hayek should have rewritten it, when he was on the scratch towards the end.

Lincoln didn’t stop there, however. This communist then let the state run wild. The land redistributing Lincoln in the Homestead Act of 1862 allowed for settlers to live on 162 acres of land if they migrated west. This quasi-collectivist policy was followed with other big and I do mean, BIG, government actions. Lincoln established the Morill Act, which gave R&D – up to the 1990’s, 70% government funding for all R&D - essential to agriculture. Ron Paul was right, he was a head case, ‘wanting to nationalise everything’. He didn’t understand what a Republic is, and what America was built on, just that America was built on everything Paul says it wasn’t built on.

America, the communist basket case for over a century, and we know, communism means failure: Absolutely slaughtering all other powerful nations in tariffs. And we also see from this table, other countries were also high on tariffs. That’s not capitalism!

Yes those individual rights violating, government funded healthcare promoting, slave-owning, anti-American cleansing, private property abolishing, tariff raising, land redistributing, state interfering, big government, free market capitalists!

Britain was not built on free market capitalism, but communism

Again, the ‘communism’ that we’re talking about is what the Reich-wing label as any to a bit too much government interference. Ron Paul believes that a welfare state is socialism and ergo, the western world is socialist. With Britain, we’re told of this brilliant free trade idea. Civilizing the world with impunity, massaging others with the invisible hand, little regulation, little state interference, pure free markets and so on. Of course, most of this is exaggerated or simple market fundamentalist guff.

Even before capitalism, the future Brits were at proto-communism. Proto-communism had been very ubiquitous in this island, with proto-communist peasants demanding better conditions for themselves. Edward III then, with proto-Marxian interference, took Britain away from an invisible hand, to taking his own hand, and interfering. He, much like George Washington, tried to only dress himself in clothes made by people of his country. He went further by centralizing trade in the wool industry and protected indigenous wool by banning the import of wool.

During the Tudor period, the state was viciously communist, interfering in many ways and banning the export of unfinished cloth, for example. Drawing on the work from British spy and economist, Daniel Defore in his book A Plan of the English Commerce, he outlined how the Tudors further built up the woollen industry, taxed for industry and for a while banned exports, provided funds for the British manufacturing woollen industry and more. All of this to catch up with the Low Countries that Britain was behind. No invisible hand here!. Oh, there was rational thinking all right, but not ‘let’s see what happens’. No, all state planned and state governed essentially. A word for that? ‘Communism’, according to the libertaryans!

But that was a book by someone not credible. We all know Britain took off when it adopted really free market policies. Great comic book fiction of course, but wholly untrue as usual. The corrupt British PM Robert Walope was a severe violator of free market capitalism. His 1721 legislation demanded protection for Brit industry. This was protection against foreign influence, raising tariffs on imported foreign goods as well as subsidizing domestic industries and demanding they export more (Davis, R. 1966, The Rise of Protection in England, 1689-1786, Economic History Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 313-4). Then the regulators were brought in. Those opposed to the workings of the market. They stopped poor quality production of manufactured goods, to prevent ignominy to the British industry in the world (Brisco, N. The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole p.185).

Now, according to free market, Reich-wing, ‘tariffs are socialistic’ namby-pamby, Britain should, ergo, have collapsed. But surely everyone else must have been using tariffs? Not so. Even up to 1820, despite all of this socialism and statist nonsense, Brit tariffs on manufacturing imports were around 44-55%. In the Low countries, Germany, for example, had 8-12%.(Bairoch, P. Economics and World History – Myths and Paradoxes p. 40).

We often hear how in the USSR, people weren’t allowed ‘vote with their feet’ as the communists had a strict emigration policy, i.e you can’t leave. The antithesis of a key idiosyncrasy – allegedly – of free market capitalism: the ability of people to move freely. This is surely something that Britain was built on and never engaged in with their native citizens? Except, Britain engaged in proto-Soviet migration policies as well during this time of 19th century ‘industrial espionage’. And if you tried to leave under this policy, you could be fined or imprisoned. Not the free hand hammering you, but a state hand! Free market capitalism? Not too many laws, said Milton Freidman? Nonsense!

It wasn’t just industries and people, even certain products were wholly banned from being exported. The Friedman Britain of no laws implemented was actually a Britain in reality of plenty of laws being implemented to protect their own economy firstly. These included banning utensils, banning certain machine exports later on and banning the export of certain tools, among other things.
 
Last edited:

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,084
Twitter
crimesofbrits
And when it came to stomping out industry in other countries, well colonies that would compete with Brit ‘capitalism’, no one did it quite like the Brits. Milton Friedman literally believed this was a civilizing mission and nothing more. In Ireland, our civilization and ‘economic development’ under Britain led our woollen industry to be destroyed by banning the export of woollen cloth in 1699, eviscerating our woollen industry and also hammering down on the Americans and their woolen development to protect Brit wool. In America again Walpole made the creation of new mills in America outlawed, banning a competing steel industry as well as Brit ‘free trade’ clamping down on American production, even with hats. Also in India, cotton textile from there was banned from being imported to Britain, mainly because they had superior ones. Ah yes, the free market at hand, yet again!

And Britain we know, was only really really trying to civilize people. There was no harm done, only by backward reactionaries in faraway lands. We know the Brits did good, fair and prudent ‘free trade deals’ that helped fund their civilising adventures. Just as they did in China. When the Brits unscrupulously ‘acquired’ Hong Kong after the Treaty of Nanking, Britain decided that it would squash China’s tariffs and not allow them to set their own. China’s ‘crime’ for trying to stop the illegal opium trade!. For big corporations like the East India Company and ‘free trade’ for Britain no less. As Donald Trump would have said, if he was in China at the time: ‘The Treaty of Nanking, terrible deal. I like British people, great people; tremendous people. I work with Brits, I hire Brits, but terrible deals imposed on us’. And it should be said, a myriad of countries were forced into ‘terrible deals’ by the imperialist and colonial powers. They wanted to have their own tariffs but they did not know what civilization was.

Yes, it was 1860 before tariffs in Britain were fully abolished. Going back to the quote at the start of this part, we can see that Brit ‘free trade’ happened after centuries of Brit socialism/communism as well as imperialism and colonialism. Yes, it was laissez-faire for the poor and socialism, communism, protectionist, state sponsored globalism or something for the rich and manufacturing industries!

Shall we do it again? Ah yes, those business protecting, business subsidizing, free movement of people banning, colonial squashing, tariff raising, free market capitalists!

Economists aren’t needed for a good economy

If only we had Morgan Kelly in there, slashing all welfare, we’d be saved. If only Jim Power was allowed take control. If only Constantine was able to implement Austrian economics, we’d be saved. So say forelock tugging Irish snivellers. If only we had people who ‘know stuff’ or are ‘specialists’ in certain areas, everything would be fine. Economics demands that economists run things and that will lead to a successful economy. Except, again, all the evidence is too the contrary.
The imaginary libertaryan paradise of the East Asian countries is always cited as evidence of the free market. We’ve seen already how most of this is nonsense, but staying with these countries. Surely despite their central planning and big government policies, there must have been economists ubiquitous in their countries? If an economy is strong, ipso facto, it must have loads of good market economists. Except, the East Asian countries were scarily depleted of economists during their growth and so-called ‘miracle years’.

These miracle years were a time when the East Asian economies grew at unprecedented rates. Per capital income, from 1950 to 1990 grew at around 6% in the East Asian ‘miracle’ economies. These figures dance all over the industrial revolution and the so-called ‘golden age’ of capitalism:

Now, it was the IMF, the economists and others, who told Korea for example what they were doing was wrong. Yet, Korea is an illustration of non-economists, going against economists and showing how the economists were wrong. Oh Won-Chul, for example, highly influential in the chemical industrialisation programme, was an engineer, not an economist, (don’t mention the ‘C’ word in that link), as well as lawyers all over the place during its ‘miracle’ years. The Japanese were mostly lawyers and in China and Taiwan today, they’re mostly scientists and engineers.

And some of our libertarian’s heroes who built up their countries with the free market, allegedly? Were they even all economists by trade?

  • Robert Walpole – Statesman and academic
  • Margaret Thatcher – Barrister and chemist
  • Thomas Jefferson – Lawyer and architect
  • Andrew Jackson – Lawyer
  • Ronald Reagan – Second rate actor

As John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out: ‘Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists’. Indeed, so it would seem. Now, if only we had teachers and engineers in this country, who tried to build up our infrastructure from the foundations of the Free State, instead of going mental over the ‘market’, by letting the poor starve, whilst giving state subsidies to agricultural gombeens for ‘market productivity’? As well as the current comprador class who work as agents for finance capital and native landlords, bosses and so on.


Capitalists aren’t very good at being capitalists

‘I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal’ says Gary Johnson. Ron Paul says similar. Both, despite the latter a republican, we know, aren’t real republicans. They gravitate more towards the republican side, because of its propensity to cut taxes and try and curb spending and sort out the deficit, which the republicans do better, of course. Not to mention how the republicans are good for Wall Street and co.. Except, all the evidence is again, to the contrary.

After Eisenhower and even Nixon to a degree, the Republican Party went insane. They were racist and imperialist under the two Presidents mentioned, but they were racist, but sane. Eisenhower stated that anyone against the New Deal was un-American and Nixon brought in the Environmental Protection Agency. But since Regan, a myth has been promulgated by the Reich-wing, that they are the small government promoting, cutters of deficits and good for Wall Street. But this is wholly against all facts.

Ronald Regan was also very protectionist in some regards, such as saving Harley Davidson, but aside from that, he was a severe tax raiser, on the poor. He raised taxes seven times in the white house and altogether raised taxes 11 different times, sorting out the Californian deficit by raising taxes. This included the so-called ‘largest tax increase in peacetime US history’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982. He also raised taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich.

The fiscal idiosyncrasies of Regan and his Vice President who became President destroyed any notion of fiscal responsibility. Regan and Bush expanded Carter’s management exponentially for the worse and when Bill Clinton ran a surplus, George Bush brought a deficit back again straight away.

On the national debt. When Regan started off, he took a 900 plus billion dollar debt and rose it exponentially to over three trillion dollars – fighting the system that supposedly was going to collapse anyway because it couldn’t supply toilet paper, no doubt.

And George W. Bush? The results do not even merit much talk. In the links above, deficit creator, debt raiser and big government spender. It is weird that the laughably titled ‘leftist’ Democrats are actually more capitalist than the capitalists themselves, isn’t it? Not to mention that fiscally responsible, tax lowering, unemployment reducing President Obama? Oh, he’s a bit of a debt raiser himself and a spender, but a very slow spender, but he’s not a chaotic ‘free marketer’, like a Reagan, with his fast-swipe hands on the credit card.

And the stock exchange? Who does that flourish under? The pro-buisness and ‘capitalist’ free marketers in the Republican Party? Or the Indonesian, Kenyan, communist, Marxist-Leninist, Muslim, Obama and the rest of the comprador class for Muslim extremists the Democratic Party?

No, it’s the socialists. That’s even right wingers saying that. A social justice warrior website, but a good article, totally shows who is a better capitalist, the socialists and communists, it seems:

Jetpacks will not solve the problem of ‘who will build the roads?’

Not much to say here, the ramblings of the insane at the libertyaryan – get rid of the Civil Rights act, oh, solely for ‘freedom’, not other reasons – convention about who will build the roads. I wonder though, where will the technology come from for these jetpacks? And will everyone be able to buy one?

[video=youtube;AR-F0O6Pyt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR-F0O6Pyt8[/video]

Somalia is not an example of free market capitalism being better.

Dangerously insane from the Mises crowd. Not much more to be said, as well as the comment section which thrashes their own ‘work’ and this article leaves out how Africa was growing before free trade nonsense was suggested to them and how they were torn apart with bad trade deals – that’s not capitalism though! Praxeology! https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it. Inside the World's Worst Hellhole: Somalia, the Perfect Failed State - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Driving licenses have not led to licences for toasters

Yup, it’s a thing alright. As Sam Seder pointed out, even the Republican head case debates about gays, guns, god and more do not have senile and outrageously stupid debates about drivers licences. However, since we’re all going to be flying on jetpacks, I guess we won’t need any cars.

Again, Gary Johnson is polling at 10%. Right wing libertarianism is far more popular than anything left of center, center or center right on the internet. This is what young men, white middle class men, are gravitating towards. Whilst asinine, they are growing in numbers.

You’re not Ubermensch enough to have private property without a government


That floundering, weak dole head, Reich-winger Ayn Rand’s ‘toughness’ and ‘individualism’ always leads to privateers pretending they do not need a government to implement their property rights. However, with no government there to implement their property rights, who can? They seem unable to answer it. Private militias? Maybe, but this simplistic idiotic discussion lead on to ‘why will any contract be valid if no one will validate it besides two people, when anyone can easily back out of the contract, if there’s nothing or no one to adjudicate over that contract?’ and completely usurp their neo-feudal dreamland based on an insane ‘non-aggression principle’.

It will be obvious that I’ve attacked YouTube ‘movements’ hitherto. Yes, I have used a few YouTube clips myself, but these were to show the Libertarian party in America talking absolute nonsense, and, as can be viewed here, showing how their candidates cannot even by a priori, or evidence, back up their nonsense about private property.

Private defence agencies? I wonder if we had true capitalism tomorrow who’d have more access to mercenaries and private armies to enfore contracts? The poor or Walmart and co? It is a neo-Feudal pipe dream.

Tricke Down Poverty!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3RqMMIwD4



All in all, it looks like right wing politics is squashing left wing politics in North America. Capitalism and the free market according to YouTubers with half a million views on each video built everything. Heck, even China is supposedly capitalist and it has a ‘free market’. So, it looks like when their policies are eventually further implemented and the state has to bail them out, the majority will suffer. However, that said, they do give you some laugh.

I suspect that ‘men going their own way’ and people with 25-50 posts a day will be deflecting about the time it took to make this, etc. So, away from that, I look forward to the constructive criticism and detailed analysis of the ‘free market’ on this socialist technological development we call ‘the internet'. I’ll be doing some of this stuff for IPE next semester hence why I have been reading up and typing this stuff out a while ago – as well with some of the history threads previously hehe. So feel free to give out free corrections, free advice which I will not acknowledge, but correct for any upcoming assignments that will be due. And after you’ve subsided the education and I receive my scholarship money again that you pay for, it will be much appreciated.

Three cheers to the Brits! The greatest communists that ever lived!
- Mr Aphorisms
 

Accidental sock

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
4,184
I read that post...I did!
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,699
Twitter
No
It seems to be an explanation of something. Although I am tempted to ask what exactly is the proposition that it is intended to explain.

99% of the internet's population will never read anything that long. In their lives. Not even if they were stuck with it in a hunter's cabin in Minnesota in January.
 

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,084
Twitter
crimesofbrits
Attention seeking sh*te.
Statist!

Should you not be out spending your millions, instead of offering thousands of euro to posters on here to prove their allegations? :D :D

Night night. I look forward to the debate. xx
 

Accidental sock

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
4,184
It seems to be an explanation of something. Although I am tempted to ask what exactly is the proposition that it is intended to explain.

99% of the internet's population will never read anything that long. In their lives. Not even if they were stuck with it in a hunter's cabin in Minnesota in January.
Woohoo!! I'm in the 1%!

I read them...I did!
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,449
Any chance of a summary?
The first post explains why the wingnuts on here are such a bunch of ignorant d!ckheads, it's because they can't think further than their own miserable little selves.
 

dammit_im_mad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
9,118
Good to see someone making an effort to post something substantial on this site.
MrAphorisms is to be commended for this.

The libertarians are full of shyte. Their ideas will not lead to a better society for the less well off.

"Perfect information" and "rational behaviour of actors" and the notion of "free markets", all these axioms of the free markeetter are all clearly bullshyte in practice.

Business interests act like psychopaths which do not need clean air or water and care not for the welfare of human beings or other earthlings, yet if left to their own devices they inevitably end up amassing huge resources and wealth and quite logically they end up using that to rig the game and ride roughshod over all our rights and laws which brings them more wealth and resources which they use to rig the game even more... in a feedback loop of ever degenerating behaviour and increasing power, money and greed.

Nation states and governments are needed to rein in these psychopathic business interests. Ideally they need to act in unison to do so. Libertarian small government just ends up giving the corporate monster his head and he proceeds to rig the game and destroy the ecosystem.

One must ask "why do we have a society?"

is it so most humans can have a better quality of life?

Or is it so a few psychopathic c*nts can prosper hugely while the rest
live in miserable serfdom?

It should be the former not the latter. So why do our societies always seem
to move towards the latter most of the time?

They are clearly very broken and the rich have totally rigged the game.
Time for a reset.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,449
Only time I'm aware of was Chile under Allende in the early 1970's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Any others?
The Swedish agricultural plan of the 1930's led to their version of the welfare state which has stood them in good stead while Finland nationalised much of its engineering industry after the war. Our dear friends in Germany put the Marshall aid to good use in rebuilding their industry and it was the US that controlled Japanese production during their occupation of the country post victory in the Pacific. So there's a few more examples.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top