Ok. If you give people this minimum income of yours (which where does it come from by the way?), what's your plan if everyone decides to just live off that? How is this productive in any way? Aren't you just subsidizing 'not working'?
2. I do not think market price means what you think it means.
If giving money to people who will spend it is good economic policy, how is everyone not in economic nirvana right now. Spending money is the easiest thing in the world, here give me some I'll show you.
Truth is that money spending and money giving don't produce anything. Hard work does.
Yes, when over 50% of your labor force works for the government (ie. doesn't produce anything, but consumes what they borrow and take by force) and you ask them to stop that and go do something that's actually productive, you're going to have to cut a few bench warmers.
FYI this is the same reason they ran up their debt in the first place.
of your 3 examples. The dust bowl and the credit crunch were not caused by voluntarism / capitalism.
Taking the credit crunch alone, why do you think all those risky loans were made? Because the government forced banks to lend below their standards and also got in the lending game to the tune of what, 80% of all the housing loans in the US are owned by fanny and freddy.
You make a great point. The risk is huge, for the large number of workers and families invested in their business.
Maybe that's why you want to make sure you get the best person for the job and to do this, you have to pay what the person's talents are worth. What that might be? Well if you think you can dictate that figure you're smoking some whacky toebacky.
Non-free market systems can't even answer simple questions like "where should this factory be located" and "how much should I price this" or "how many of these widgets should I make." or "how well did I do last year?".
If by benefiting them you mean would support policies where the government forcibly takes resources from other people and gives them to the poor... I don't think this has a track record of 'digging people out of poverty'. Quite the opposite.
I think you mean "There's no way most of us can afford it because it's subsidized"
Prices are determined by where willingness to pay meets willingness to sell. Subsidies raise the willingness to pay and therefore raise prices.
In fact I remember from an economics class that this effect has been studied in farm subsidies, I wish I could reference that here but alas it has been a long time.
Let's not forget that fiat currencies and deficit spending also raise prices.
I see a lot of similar comments, but I liked yours so I'll address the themes here.
First, facebook is not the only problem. You're kidding yourself if you think it is. The list of technology companies that sucker their users are as long as the list of technology companies that sell 'the cloud'. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.
Worse than this, the evil is not marketing. The real evil is the secret pact between the tech companies and the government's monopoly on the initiation of force, for the benefit of a minority of oligarch families. The elite's technology branch
The real evil is the patriot act, the capture of government, the capture of industry and the subversion of the constitution. All tech companies are a part of this, most willingly, some unwillingly or unwittingly and the only honest ones are forced to shut down.
The capture of the government and industry is nothing new, but it reached tremendous success in the 20th century. First they captured the congress and the judicial, then the executive, then the monetary system and then they really captured the executive with the JFK assassination. Don't forget where some of the recent oligarchs originated.
Are you against marketing?
are you for privacy?
are you for honesty as a virtue?
are you for Free Software?
are you for the constitution?
do you believe in free will? (or that you should act as if it exists)
do you believe in the traditional family?
are you religious?
are you for sound money?
are you an Austrian or a keynesian?
do you believe that there really is a 2 party system in the USA?
Do you see it yet? if you rule out the vast majority of the population based on internet usage, you're out of whack. Firstly because that's not the real problem.
Also, you might have MUCH MORE in common with someone who uises fb daily than on someone who doesn't, based on your OTHER principles and virtues.
It's like saying, "I'll only hang out with people who are atheists.". That's not enough. In 10 years time that could still be all you have in common. Or they could change their minds.
Finally I would just like to remind people that not only is the USA responsible for millions of deaths around the world, it now tortures people.
If you refuse to interact with people who support these acts, how will you ever change their minds?
Oh and just for good measure. A fucking surveillance blimp. The internet of things is coming to spy on you from the sky 24/7. Is it not enough that you've captured the mass media?
If you were to only hang out with people who share all your principles or most important beliefs, you would not hang out with anyone.
Furthermore, having intelligent debate with people who disagree with you (and are virtuous enough to have an intelligent debate) is the only way that you can make any sort of real progress in self discovery and discovery of the universe. If your ideas an principles are not challenged, if you don't go back to first principles to figure what what's really important, if you don't re-assess your beliefs in the face of new evidence, you'll never improve.
... but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
LOL what?
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population. You must be a very lonely boy.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
It's not that we're not tempted, it's that the cost benefit analysis of a scorched earth policy sucks donkey balls. No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
Learn from the past. Iraqui defectors swore up and down that there were massive nuclear programs. They were physicists, they were believable, they testified in secret, in public, on TV. None of it mattered, they were proven liars after we invaded.
Claims from defectors require extraordinary evidence, especially when what's coming out of their mouths is what the government or the intel agencies want to hear.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because working for the state is so productive. Pray tell, where does the salary for workers of the state come from?
Voluntary trade.
As opposed to at the barrel of a gun.
2. I do not think market price means what you think it means.
If giving money to people who will spend it is good economic policy, how is everyone not in economic nirvana right now. Spending money is the easiest thing in the world, here give me some I'll show you.
Truth is that money spending and money giving don't produce anything. Hard work does.
Who's paying the air I breathe?
Dear lord. We're all paying for that one...
Re-read what he corrected in context. It was apropos.
Yes, when over 50% of your labor force works for the government (ie. doesn't produce anything, but consumes what they borrow and take by force) and you ask them to stop that and go do something that's actually productive, you're going to have to cut a few bench warmers.
FYI this is the same reason they ran up their debt in the first place.
Taking the credit crunch alone, why do you think all those risky loans were made? Because the government forced banks to lend below their standards and also got in the lending game to the tune of what, 80% of all the housing loans in the US are owned by fanny and freddy.
Please.
No No, they have said where the money will come from, don't strawman them.
They're going to force europe to lend it to them and they'll pay it back "when their economy grows". haha.
You make a great point. The risk is huge, for the large number of workers and families invested in their business.
Maybe that's why you want to make sure you get the best person for the job and to do this, you have to pay what the person's talents are worth. What that might be? Well if you think you can dictate that figure you're smoking some whacky toebacky.
Sure, I'll see you at the job interview for CEO. Glad to know someone else can do it too.
You sir are correct.
Non-free market systems can't even answer simple questions like "where should this factory be located" and "how much should I price this" or "how many of these widgets should I make." or "how well did I do last year?".
It wasn't wealthy greeks who spent the money that put greece in debt. It was the government.
Why do we need antitrust law? Please look at Tom Wood's great courses and talks on this topic.
If by benefiting them you mean would support policies where the government forcibly takes resources from other people and gives them to the poor... I don't think this has a track record of 'digging people out of poverty'. Quite the opposite.
And it's morally abhorrent.
HMMM Go on....
How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people
What do corporations have to do with capitalism? They are a creation of the state.
Who should dictate how much a CEO can make? You?
Why do you think that forcing people into this particular scheme by force is better than allowing voluntary relationships?
Giving money to charity is admirable.
Borrowing money to give it to charity, not so much.
Borrowing money to buy votes, and then trashing an economy and trying to extract money from people by violence. That's something else entirely.
How on earth do you blame free markets when the price of water is controlled by the government?
Prices are determined by where willingness to pay meets willingness to sell. Subsidies raise the willingness to pay and therefore raise prices.
In fact I remember from an economics class that this effect has been studied in farm subsidies, I wish I could reference that here but alas it has been a long time.
Let's not forget that fiat currencies and deficit spending also raise prices.
Everytime the word "Homeland" is used, we should post reminders of how eerily familiar these Sophistries are to Hitler's own:
Motherland, homeland, fatherland terrorism, terror cells. None of this shit is new. The communists did it too.
I see a lot of similar comments, but I liked yours so I'll address the themes here.
First, facebook is not the only problem. You're kidding yourself if you think it is. The list of technology companies that sucker their users are as long as the list of technology companies that sell 'the cloud'. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.
Worse than this, the evil is not marketing. The real evil is the secret pact between the tech companies and the government's monopoly on the initiation of force, for the benefit of a minority of oligarch families. The elite's technology branch
The real evil is the patriot act, the capture of government, the capture of industry and the subversion of the constitution. All tech companies are a part of this, most willingly, some unwillingly or unwittingly and the only honest ones are forced to shut down.
The capture of the government and industry is nothing new, but it reached tremendous success in the 20th century. First they captured the congress and the judicial, then the executive, then the monetary system and then they really captured the executive with the JFK assassination. Don't forget where some of the recent oligarchs originated.
Do you see it yet? if you rule out the vast majority of the population based on internet usage, you're out of whack. Firstly because that's not the real problem.
Also, you might have MUCH MORE in common with someone who uises fb daily than on someone who doesn't, based on your OTHER principles and virtues.
It's like saying, "I'll only hang out with people who are atheists.". That's not enough. In 10 years time that could still be all you have in common. Or they could change their minds.
Finally I would just like to remind people that not only is the USA responsible for millions of deaths around the world, it now tortures people.
If you refuse to interact with people who support these acts, how will you ever change their minds?
Oh and just for good measure. A fucking surveillance blimp. The internet of things is coming to spy on you from the sky 24/7. Is it not enough that you've captured the mass media? If you were to only hang out with people who share all your principles or most important beliefs, you would not hang out with anyone.
Furthermore, having intelligent debate with people who disagree with you (and are virtuous enough to have an intelligent debate) is the only way that you can make any sort of real progress in self discovery and discovery of the universe. If your ideas an principles are not challenged, if you don't go back to first principles to figure what what's really important, if you don't re-assess your beliefs in the face of new evidence, you'll never improve.
... but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
LOL what?
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population. You must be a very lonely boy.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
It's not that we're not tempted, it's that the cost benefit analysis of a scorched earth policy sucks donkey balls. No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
Learn from the past. Iraqui defectors swore up and down that there were massive nuclear programs. They were physicists, they were believable, they testified in secret, in public, on TV. None of it mattered, they were proven liars after we invaded.
Claims from defectors require extraordinary evidence, especially when what's coming out of their mouths is what the government or the intel agencies want to hear.