Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obama / FICA taxes: "how do you like me now?" « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #135 : January 30, 2013, 09:00:57 PM »

Emma Goldman, such a wonderful counter argument. Anarchist and borderline Bolshevik.

"I could never in my life work within the confines of the State, Bolshevist or otherwise."
-Emma Goldman

Interesting that you are so critical of Goldman, but don't really have any criticism for Ludwig von Mises, who was a borderline fascist. Maybe that's because...


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #136 : January 31, 2013, 03:11:11 AM »


That's fine and good, but it doesn't really answer the question of what having a market economy has to do with whether or not a society is collective. I am well aware that there are collectivist economic constructs, such as socialism, JG?. But you seem to be operating under the assumption that there is no such thing as a collectivist market economic construct. That is a false assumption. Market socialism is currently practiced in most European countries, and the Nordic model takes the concept of market socialism even further. These are economies that operate under the rules of a market system, yet are collectivist in nature

What you seem to be suggesting is a market economy is in actuality a free market, or laissez-faire economy. That is a type of market, not the definition of a market economy.

There isn't really. There are a number of collectivist societies that start out quasi market economy as a left over from the previous model, but they get squashed eventually. A market economy basically works on the principle (amongst others) that some people will succeed and others will not. The collectivist society eventually makes that impossible because of principles such as "fair share", "common good", "redistribution" and "investment."

Let's simplify things. Are you suggesting, spartan, that Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland do not have market economies?


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17711
Offline
« #137 : January 31, 2013, 07:55:33 AM »

Mises was a borderline fascist now? Let's look at it...

"Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; 29 September 1881 – 10 October 1973) was a philosopher, Austrian School economist, and classical liberal. He became a prominent figure in the Austrian School of economic thought and is best known for his work on praxeology. Fearing a Nazi takeover of Switzerland, where he was living at the time, Mises emigrated to the United States in 1940.  Mises had a significant influence on the libertarian movement in the United States in the mid-20th century. "

Funny he would flee switzerland in fear of the nazi's if he was a fascist also. Let's look futher..

Facism: "Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically."

Austrian School : "The belief that economic analysis should begin by considering the purposeful actions of individuals and then proceed to study the social consequences of such actions. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which states that business cycles are caused by an unsustainable expansion of credit by banks. According to the theory, excessive bank lending, at too low an interest rate, disturbs what would otherwise be a natural macroeconomic balance between saving and investment. This in turn causes businesses to make bad investments which subsequently become unprofitable and lead to recession  . The belief that markets would tend to clear if prices were allowed to adjust freely. "



Yeah ... I guess when you've got nothing , like CBW , you just start fabricating lies out of thin air.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31636
Offline
« #138 : January 31, 2013, 08:56:38 AM »

I saw some goal lines a while back- seems the keep getting moved, or covered by straw droppings.

It's a comedy routine at this point.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7108
Offline
« #139 : January 31, 2013, 08:59:44 AM »


That's fine and good, but it doesn't really answer the question of what having a market economy has to do with whether or not a society is collective. I am well aware that there are collectivist economic constructs, such as socialism, JG?. But you seem to be operating under the assumption that there is no such thing as a collectivist market economic construct. That is a false assumption. Market socialism is currently practiced in most European countries, and the Nordic model takes the concept of market socialism even further. These are economies that operate under the rules of a market system, yet are collectivist in nature

What you seem to be suggesting is a market economy is in actuality a free market, or laissez-faire economy. That is a type of market, not the definition of a market economy.

There isn't really.

Wrong. There really is. A market system is simply a system in which prices, investment, production, and distribution are based on supply and demand, rather than by central planning. You are unsurprisingly making the same assumptions that JG? is. You are attempting to redefine the term "market economy" to fit what your political inclinations want it to mean rather than what it actually means. Case and point:

A market economy basically works on the principle (amongst others) that some people will succeed and others will not. The collectivist society eventually makes that impossible because of principles such as "fair share", "common good", "redistribution" and "investment."

Market socialism, or in your words, "fair share", "common good", "redistribution" and "investment", doesn't affect any defining quality of what makes an economy a market economy. Those are things that affect concepts of ownership and profit allocation. They have absolutely no affect on supply, demand, pricing, investment, or trade.

Once again, you are suggesting that the only kind of market economy is a free-market economy. That is a 1000% false dichotomy. A free-market is a kind of market, not the only kind of market.

Actually what I am doing is ignoring the pseudo intellectual definitions of what things are supposed to be as defined by some half-assed Academic principle, and applying how things work in the real world

Even in the European nirvana that you profess to be a beacon of light is buckling under the weight of "collectivist" rules, regulations and polices. Just like that other Collectivist nirvana the former Soviet Union. It is just taking longer because people are still permitted a degree of freedom and are still attempting to hold back the waves.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #140 : January 31, 2013, 11:37:47 AM »

"Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state."

"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism."

"The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality. Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind. Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.

"From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other."

Ayn Rand


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7108
Offline
« #141 : January 31, 2013, 12:07:41 PM »

Emma Goldman, such a wonderful counter argument. Anarchist and borderline Bolshevik.

"I could never in my life work within the confines of the State, Bolshevist or otherwise."
-Emma Goldman

Interesting that you are so critical of Goldman, but don't really have any criticism for Ludwig von Mises, who was a borderline fascist. Maybe that's because...

I was pointing out that a Bolshevik isn't actually going to be the flag bearer for individual rights. I thought that would have been pretty obvious.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7108
Offline
« #142 : January 31, 2013, 12:11:55 PM »


That's fine and good, but it doesn't really answer the question of what having a market economy has to do with whether or not a society is collective. I am well aware that there are collectivist economic constructs, such as socialism, JG?. But you seem to be operating under the assumption that there is no such thing as a collectivist market economic construct. That is a false assumption. Market socialism is currently practiced in most European countries, and the Nordic model takes the concept of market socialism even further. These are economies that operate under the rules of a market system, yet are collectivist in nature

What you seem to be suggesting is a market economy is in actuality a free market, or laissez-faire economy. That is a type of market, not the definition of a market economy.

There isn't really. There are a number of collectivist societies that start out quasi market economy as a left over from the previous model, but they get squashed eventually. A market economy basically works on the principle (amongst others) that some people will succeed and others will not. The collectivist society eventually makes that impossible because of principles such as "fair share", "common good", "redistribution" and "investment."

Let's simplify things. Are you suggesting, spartan, that Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland do not have market economies?

I am suggesting that Europe has a market economy that is slowly and gradually getting strangled to death by collectivist policies. Norway doesn't count because they have no people and more oil than they know what to do with,  and Sweden and Finland are beginning to realize they have almost nirvana'd there way into oblivion. Subsequently they are implementing changes to attract competition and market forces.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #143 : January 31, 2013, 04:33:52 PM »

Mises was a borderline fascist now? Let's look at it...

"Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; 29 September 1881 – 10 October 1973) was a philosopher, Austrian School economist, and classical liberal. He became a prominent figure in the Austrian School of economic thought and is best known for his work on praxeology. Fearing a Nazi takeover of Switzerland, where he was living at the time, Mises emigrated to the United States in 1940.  Mises had a significant influence on the libertarian movement in the United States in the mid-20th century. "

Funny he would flee switzerland in fear of the nazi's if he was a fascist also. Let's look futher..

Facism: "Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically."

Austrian School : "The belief that economic analysis should begin by considering the purposeful actions of individuals and then proceed to study the social consequences of such actions. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which states that business cycles are caused by an unsustainable expansion of credit by banks. According to the theory, excessive bank lending, at too low an interest rate, disturbs what would otherwise be a natural macroeconomic balance between saving and investment. This in turn causes businesses to make bad investments which subsequently become unprofitable and lead to recession  . The belief that markets would tend to clear if prices were allowed to adjust freely. "



Yeah ... I guess when you've got nothing , like CBW , you just start fabricating lies out of thin air.

This is thin air?

Quote from: Ludwig von Mises, 1927
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

Now, when one starts talking up the merits of fascism, and similar movements (see the Nazi party) it typically suggest support for such movements to the unbiased eye. von Mises may not have seen them as long-term solutions, but he certainly wasn't opposed to them in the beginning, now was he?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #144 : January 31, 2013, 04:40:15 PM »


That's fine and good, but it doesn't really answer the question of what having a market economy has to do with whether or not a society is collective. I am well aware that there are collectivist economic constructs, such as socialism, JG?. But you seem to be operating under the assumption that there is no such thing as a collectivist market economic construct. That is a false assumption. Market socialism is currently practiced in most European countries, and the Nordic model takes the concept of market socialism even further. These are economies that operate under the rules of a market system, yet are collectivist in nature

What you seem to be suggesting is a market economy is in actuality a free market, or laissez-faire economy. That is a type of market, not the definition of a market economy.

There isn't really.

Wrong. There really is. A market system is simply a system in which prices, investment, production, and distribution are based on supply and demand, rather than by central planning. You are unsurprisingly making the same assumptions that JG? is. You are attempting to redefine the term "market economy" to fit what your political inclinations want it to mean rather than what it actually means. Case and point:

A market economy basically works on the principle (amongst others) that some people will succeed and others will not. The collectivist society eventually makes that impossible because of principles such as "fair share", "common good", "redistribution" and "investment."

Market socialism, or in your words, "fair share", "common good", "redistribution" and "investment", doesn't affect any defining quality of what makes an economy a market economy. Those are things that affect concepts of ownership and profit allocation. They have absolutely no affect on supply, demand, pricing, investment, or trade.

Once again, you are suggesting that the only kind of market economy is a free-market economy. That is a 1000% false dichotomy. A free-market is a kind of market, not the only kind of market.

Actually what I am doing is ignoring the pseudo intellectual definitions of what things are

Agreed. The "pseudo intellectual" definition, as you call it, is the actual definition of the term. I'm sure even Ludwig von Mises was aware of that. It may not be the one you wish to use, but you don't get to change what words mean just because you want them to mean something else.

Even in the European nirvana that you profess to be a beacon of light is buckling under the weight of "collectivist" rules, regulations and polices. Just like that other Collectivist nirvana the former Soviet Union. It is just taking longer because people are still permitted a degree of freedom and are still attempting to hold back the waves.

Okay, you have your characterization, albeit flawed and chocked full of hyperbole, but still, are you suggesting that they are not market economies? Because if you are, then that would put you at odds with every economist and econ professor in the world.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7108
Offline
« #145 : January 31, 2013, 04:50:12 PM »

OK CBW here is the problem, you're arguing what the definition of is is. In the real world nobody really cares what the exact sub-definition of the splintered categorization of the fourth paradigm says in third edition of Economic Principles for Massachusets Professors, they care how it works and does not work in life. Market economy = I can take my product to a customer and sell it for something of equal or greater value. That is a transaction between us and within the boundaries of the rule of law. "Collective Market" = I get a migraine figuring out what I can and cannot do and have to jump through so many hoops, pay so many "fees", and fill out so much paperwork that I can't be arsed any more and give up.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17711
Offline
« #146 : January 31, 2013, 04:51:00 PM »

Yes.  Thin air. Especially considering the only quote you were able to scrounge up in that google search has Mises saying fascism is a "fatal error" , and dosesn't work. Lol. The only thing borderline here is your level above mental retardation

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #147 : January 31, 2013, 05:01:00 PM »

Yes.  Thin air. Especially considering the only quote you were able to scrounge up in that google search has Mises saying fascism is a "fatal error" , and dosesn't work. Lol. The only thing borderline here is your level above mental retardation

Delirious, I assume you are unaware that von Mises served in the Austrian government as a member of the Christian Social Party, which modeled it's platform after Mussolini's National Fascist Party, up until 1934. Is that "thin air" too?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #148 : January 31, 2013, 05:09:26 PM »

OK CBW here is the problem, you're arguing what the definition of is is. In the real world nobody really cares what the exact sub-definition of the splintered categorization of the fourth paradigm says in third edition of Economic Principles for Massachusets Professors, they care how it works and does not work in life. Market economy = I can take my product to a customer and sell it for something of equal or greater value. That is a transaction between us and within the boundaries of the rule of law. "Collective Market" = I get a migraine figuring out what I can and cannot do and have to jump through so many hoops, pay so many "fees", and fill out so much paperwork that I can't be arsed any more and give up.

No. I am arguing what the actual definition of the word is. If you are making the argument that collectivism is the opposite of a market economy, one would think that the definition of each would be pertinent to the discussion. You don't want to argue about the definition because you don't want to accept the definition. You want to apply the rules of a market economy only to fit what you think a market economy is, which is a free market, rather than what it actually is, which is an economic system relying on supply and demand rather than central planning.

By your definition, barely any country in the world has a market economy, because barely any country in the world has a free market economy.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17711
Offline
« #149 : January 31, 2013, 05:17:29 PM »

Thin air , dumb ass. Mises's philosophies are well documented , and they don't resemble fascism in the least. No matter how you try to spin it.

But for sh!ts and giggles ,  let us know when that desperate google hunt lands you a better quote than the one in which Mises calls fascism a "fatal error "

LOL. Spin on , black hole. Spin on.


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
  Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obama / FICA taxes: "how do you like me now?" « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools