We are obviously on opposite ends of the political spectrum. You seem to be some sort of anarchist, mutualist or just generally socialist while I'm a minarchist with anarcho-capitalist leanings. So there is almost zero chance of either of us denting the other's opinions and views.
I consider most of what you wrote so insanely contra-factual and fantastic that I'm not even going to respond to the claims that I consider more difficult to oppose as I don't see much point in even trying to debate when we are so far apart.
No need, we know the wealth was generated. The problem is, ALL of it is in the hands of a tiny minority, NOT in the hands of "humanity". True there was a lot less wealth in the world before the 1800's, but just as true- that wealth was MUCH more evenly distributed, and it was in constant motion. The difference between the rich and the poor was fairly small and nobody HAD to starve.
I'm not saying the entire world is wealthy, only the countries with decent institutions and freedoms (i.e. capitalism) have most of the wealth. BUT even the poorest of today in capitalist countries have a living standard (in some or most ways) that is higher than even the rich had in the 1800's. Granted much of this is due to industrialism but it isn't a fluke that the capitalist west is the most industrialized.
Not having enough food or at least toiling 12 hours a day in the fields for just enough to eat and not much else was the norm. And that's if there wasn't a drought or some other calamity that disturbed the cultivation. You need to go to gapminder and look at actual stats to realize how fucking far off the mark you are. http://www.gapminder.org/
To me - I say you measure the success of an economy NOT by it's total size. Not by it's corporate profits. None of that shit matters. What matters is - how many people EAT today. How many people got that plate of food with honest labor ?
I make shit wages. I do various physical labor but mostly construction. I'm more or less the equivalent of a Mexican outside a hardware store in the US but with more job security. I need to work about two hours to eat (very well) in a day. If we're talking the cheapest possible but still nutritious (as in calories, proteins and vitamins not the whole foods kind of nutritious) I could probably get away with half an hour worth of labor. Food is not a problem in the capitalist parts of the world.
Just how naive must you be to think that all, let alone MOST trade in the world today is voluntary ? Do you really think that sweatshop workers CHOOSE to work the way they do ? That there is benefit ? To them ? The whole point of predation and exploitation is to leave the other party with no CHOICE but to trade with you, EVEN at their own detriment.
Trade by definition must be voluntary (voluntary in this case=without external coercion) otherwise it would not be trade. It would be called forcible exchange of goods or something like that.
Of course the sweatshop workers choose to work in sweatshops! The alternative is starving or toiling in the fields for 12 hours a day. Or working for some local firm which pays much poorer wages than a western company does. All the western world had sweatshops in the dawn of industrialization and there was no-one forcing people to work in the factories or the cottage industries. People voluntarily moved from a life of being farmers to a life of being industrial workers.
Pure capitalism demands an unemployment rate of around 20% - because that is great for corporate profits (as long as you only care about the really HUGE companies of course).
Pure capitalism demands an unemployment rate that is equal to the percentage of people who are unwilling to work at current wages or are in the process of switching jobs.
But to me the most successfull economies is countries like Sweden and De
I can't remember the exact title but I have and it was called. "Nationalekonomi för nybörjare" if I remember somewhat correctly.
Are you telling me that the severity and frequency of economic downturns have decreased since we came off the gold standard? Crisis in the 80's, crisis in the year 2000 and a crisis in 2008.
I don't agree with current mainstream economics and I've made no claim to do so. But someone that still spouts the labor theory of value would get enormous benefits from reading even mainstream economy 101. There is no need for me to muddy the waters with my own kooky views from the get go. It's much better for me to refer to something that is mainstream.
I'm more or less an austrian.
I don't really feel like debating mainstream vs austrian economics at this time I'll let you get the last word.
Yeah, I'm the one that contradicts what economists have held true for 200 years without proof. The burden of evidence lies on you. You need to explain why to people trade voluntarily without both getting a benefit.
Who hasn't benefited from capitalism in absolute terms? If you're interested in relative numbers I suggest you move to North Korea or another country with a similar amount of equality. Seriously I'm not being facetious or an asshole. If you really believe relative poverty is relevant you need to experience relative equality first hand. Because relative equality so far has only come in the guise of absolute poverty.
You're putting the cart before the horse. You still haven't showed me the exploitation but still claim it.
Oh great, the marginal theory of value. A theory which hasn't been used by anyone but marxists in about at least a hundred years. And you're calling me ignorant. I agree that it's a shame that capital moves more freely than labor due to immigration legislation but even with similar legal restrictions labor will still move less easily than capital by nature. It's much easier for you to send N amount of dollars to Ulan Bator than it is for you to move away from friends and family and shipping all your stuff to wherever you want to go.
I don't agree with some (maybe all) parts of the limited liability that a public company gets but stocks are useful and needed. Without the option to go public you severely limit the ability of companies to raise capital. Then you'd get even more inequality which is the same thing you say want to fight. Derivatives isn't a problem as such that's just getting a percentage in exchange for taking on risks. The problem is that this time around they wouldn't allow the fucking assholes on Wall Street that messed up go bankrupt.
Slavery is not some suffix you can tack to any phrase without destroying it's original meaning. You take on debt voluntarily and you can go out of debt at least individually but since our banking system (fractional reserve banking) is a bit wonky at the moment everyone can't pay their debts off because the money supply would contract. It doesn't have to be that way but we are much better off with stocks than without, with derivatives than without and with loans than without.
No, no you don't. If you really had an understanding you wouldn't call capitalism predation and exploitation. You'd also need to explain away the insane amounts of wealth humanity has acquired since the 1800's. You'd need to explain why two people trade voluntarily if there is no benefit for both parties.
You would also clearly state that for wall street and bankers to behave the same way under a metal standard as they do under a fiat system would require fraud. So I conclude that you have studied the matter less than most who has such strong opinions.
In the actual trial they presented evidence where someone had taken a random sampling of torrents and found that the majority of the torrents were legal. That is not to say that the majority of the volume was legal but out of a random sample of a couple of thousand torrents 60-80% (I can't remember specifics) were probably legal.
Also, the case has only been through the lowest court level, there will be a new trial at a higher level in a while.
It's fairly easy to make too. All you need is, tobacco, NaCl, CaCO3 and an oven that can keep the temperature at 95C. If you want you can go fancy with additives and flavouring.
Here's my recipe 500g of finely ground tobacco (I think Kentucky is the usual strain). 60g NaCl 500g water Mix ingredients and shove it in the oven for 24 hours. Remove the container, go outside and add 50-60g of CaCo3 (this decides the strength both feel and actual nicotine). Put it back in the oven for 12 more hours and add water to taste (1-2.5dl).
If possible, add 5ml of liquid smoke in the first step. If you want to go fancy add, gum arabic (20-30g), maltodextrin (20g), glycerol (20-30g) and propylene glycol (20-30g) as a last step.
"You can't have private corporations and state ownership at the same time. It is logically impossible."
It should read something like this: You can't have private corporations (capitalism) and complete state ownership (socialism) at the same time. It is logically impossible.
I wasn't aware of those examples. Thank you for enlightening me.
Those examples does not contradict my initial statement about "corporate socialism". As those are examples of bog-standard socialism. It does, however, rape my absolute statement about state owned corporations in the US and I thank you for it.
In the US they do. Which is what we were discussing.
If a company is state owned/controlled we have some degree of socialism. Bailing out failed, privately owned companies is not socialism in any way. In fact, it's so idiotic I suspect it may be keynesianism or maybe plain corruption in some cases.
You see, in theory socialism means that everyone owns the means of production. In practice it means that the state controls/owns the means of production. You can't have private corporations and state ownership at the same time. It is logically impossible.
Whenever I'm uncertain about the meaning of a word I look it up in the dictionary. You should do the same with the word monopoly becuase your definition is not the usual one.
A question you have completely ignored. I'm asking because I don't know of a single thing he came up with that is supported by science.
2. How can you even know if his net contribution is posititve?
I.e. how can you know about the variables of history without access to parallel universes. If Freud's "insights" are not important today. It follows that they were incorrect or unprovable at the time he made them up (unless the species is a lot different). If that is the case, how can one be certain or even think it likely he had a net contribution to the field?
The speculation about what could have happened without Freud was about the worst case (maybe not now that I think about it) scenario I could imagine with his absence. I.e. that Psychology as a field wouldn't even be thought of until some ridiculous time later. The more probable outcome is that some quack would have made shit up and we'd have to spend most of the 20th century removing shit from the field rather than adding to it. Kind of what happened in our history.
Teflon coated bullets are not for penetrating armor vests or to be more precise the teflon is incidental. There are non-AP teflon coated bullets but I assume that all or almost all AP bullets have some lubricating coating.
You draw lots of inferences from my post that was in no way my intention. I'm not sure you're a lousy reader or I'm a lousy writer but I don't feel like explaining myself further as that question is less important than the question you failed to answer.
Lots of text but no answers. Am I to conclude that you don't think that freud contributed a single sliver of correct knowledge to the field of psychiatry?
If you believe that, why do you consider him to be anything but a hindrance that bogged down psychiatry with incorrect knowledge?
Re:yes: alchemy is the basis for modern chemistry
on
Verizon Blocking 4chan
·
· Score: 1
What valid insights did Freud have?
How can you even know his net contribution is positive? If people didn't even think about psychology until the 50's and then started with the scientific method I'd bet we would have come a lot further than we have. There are still people practicing psychodynamics FFS.
Slashdot Mirror
We are obviously on opposite ends of the political spectrum. You seem to be some sort of anarchist, mutualist or just generally socialist while I'm a minarchist with anarcho-capitalist leanings. So there is almost zero chance of either of us denting the other's opinions and views.
I consider most of what you wrote so insanely contra-factual and fantastic that I'm not even going to respond to the claims that I consider more difficult to oppose as I don't see much point in even trying to debate when we are so far apart.
No need, we know the wealth was generated. The problem is, ALL of it is in the hands of a tiny minority, NOT in the hands of "humanity". True there was a lot less wealth in the world before the 1800's, but just as true- that wealth was MUCH more evenly distributed, and it was in constant motion. The difference between the rich and the poor was fairly small and nobody HAD to starve.
I'm not saying the entire world is wealthy, only the countries with decent institutions and freedoms (i.e. capitalism) have most of the wealth. BUT even the poorest of today in capitalist countries have a living standard (in some or most ways) that is higher than even the rich had in the 1800's. Granted much of this is due to industrialism but it isn't a fluke that the capitalist west is the most industrialized.
Not having enough food or at least toiling 12 hours a day in the fields for just enough to eat and not much else was the norm. And that's if there wasn't a drought or some other calamity that disturbed the cultivation. You need to go to gapminder and look at actual stats to realize how fucking far off the mark you are. http://www.gapminder.org/
To me - I say you measure the success of an economy NOT by it's total size. Not by it's corporate profits. None of that shit matters. What matters is - how many people EAT today. How many people got that plate of food with honest labor ?
I make shit wages. I do various physical labor but mostly construction. I'm more or less the equivalent of a Mexican outside a hardware store in the US but with more job security. I need to work about two hours to eat (very well) in a day. If we're talking the cheapest possible but still nutritious (as in calories, proteins and vitamins not the whole foods kind of nutritious) I could probably get away with half an hour worth of labor. Food is not a problem in the capitalist parts of the world.
Just how naive must you be to think that all, let alone MOST trade in the world today is voluntary ? Do you really think that sweatshop workers CHOOSE to work the way they do ? That there is benefit ? To them ? The whole point of predation and exploitation is to leave the other party with no CHOICE but to trade with you, EVEN at their own detriment.
Trade by definition must be voluntary (voluntary in this case=without external coercion) otherwise it would not be trade. It would be called forcible exchange of goods or something like that.
Of course the sweatshop workers choose to work in sweatshops! The alternative is starving or toiling in the fields for 12 hours a day. Or working for some local firm which pays much poorer wages than a western company does. All the western world had sweatshops in the dawn of industrialization and there was no-one forcing people to work in the factories or the cottage industries. People voluntarily moved from a life of being farmers to a life of being industrial workers.
Pure capitalism demands an unemployment rate of around 20% - because that is great for corporate profits (as long as you only care about the really HUGE companies of course).
Pure capitalism demands an unemployment rate that is equal to the percentage of people who are unwilling to work at current wages or are in the process of switching jobs.
But to me the most successfull economies is countries like Sweden and De
I can't remember the exact title but I have and it was called. "Nationalekonomi för nybörjare" if I remember somewhat correctly.
Are you telling me that the severity and frequency of economic downturns have decreased since we came off the gold standard? Crisis in the 80's, crisis in the year 2000 and a crisis in 2008.
I don't agree with current mainstream economics and I've made no claim to do so. But someone that still spouts the labor theory of value would get enormous benefits from reading even mainstream economy 101. There is no need for me to muddy the waters with my own kooky views from the get go. It's much better for me to refer to something that is mainstream.
I'm more or less an austrian.
I don't really feel like debating mainstream vs austrian economics at this time I'll let you get the last word.
Yeah, I'm the one that contradicts what economists have held true for 200 years without proof. The burden of evidence lies on you. You need to explain why to people trade voluntarily without both getting a benefit.
Who hasn't benefited from capitalism in absolute terms? If you're interested in relative numbers I suggest you move to North Korea or another country with a similar amount of equality. Seriously I'm not being facetious or an asshole. If you really believe relative poverty is relevant you need to experience relative equality first hand. Because relative equality so far has only come in the guise of absolute poverty.
You're putting the cart before the horse. You still haven't showed me the exploitation but still claim it.
Oh great, the marginal theory of value. A theory which hasn't been used by anyone but marxists in about at least a hundred years. And you're calling me ignorant. I agree that it's a shame that capital moves more freely than labor due to immigration legislation but even with similar legal restrictions labor will still move less easily than capital by nature. It's much easier for you to send N amount of dollars to Ulan Bator than it is for you to move away from friends and family and shipping all your stuff to wherever you want to go.
I don't agree with some (maybe all) parts of the limited liability that a public company gets but stocks are useful and needed. Without the option to go public you severely limit the ability of companies to raise capital. Then you'd get even more inequality which is the same thing you say want to fight. Derivatives isn't a problem as such that's just getting a percentage in exchange for taking on risks. The problem is that this time around they wouldn't allow the fucking assholes on Wall Street that messed up go bankrupt.
Slavery is not some suffix you can tack to any phrase without destroying it's original meaning. You take on debt voluntarily and you can go out of debt at least individually but since our banking system (fractional reserve banking) is a bit wonky at the moment everyone can't pay their debts off because the money supply would contract. It doesn't have to be that way but we are much better off with stocks than without, with derivatives than without and with loans than without.
No, no you don't. If you really had an understanding you wouldn't call capitalism predation and exploitation. You'd also need to explain away the insane amounts of wealth humanity has acquired since the 1800's. You'd need to explain why two people trade voluntarily if there is no benefit for both parties.
You would also clearly state that for wall street and bankers to behave the same way under a metal standard as they do under a fiat system would require fraud. So I conclude that you have studied the matter less than most who has such strong opinions.
I think you might need to read any book with economics 101 in the title. GL HF.
The free market chose precious metals. The politicians,bureaucrats and keynesians chose the fiat currency we have today.
Do you actually believe that it's the free market that chose to have central banks or politicans set interest rates and control inflation?
Now you need to look up the definitions of the word copy and take and realize the difference between them. Good luck.
In the actual trial they presented evidence where someone had taken a random sampling of torrents and found that the majority of the torrents were legal. That is not to say that the majority of the volume was legal but out of a random sample of a couple of thousand torrents 60-80% (I can't remember specifics) were probably legal.
Also, the case has only been through the lowest court level, there will be a new trial at a higher level in a while.
Oh no, terrorists shooting at warships. That would be horrible, so horrible you can't even call them terrorists any more.
Those computers were hot as hell compared to modern boxes.
It's fairly easy to make too. All you need is, tobacco, NaCl, CaCO3 and an oven that can keep the temperature at 95C. If you want you can go fancy with additives and flavouring.
Here's my recipe
500g of finely ground tobacco (I think Kentucky is the usual strain).
60g NaCl
500g water
Mix ingredients and shove it in the oven for 24 hours.
Remove the container, go outside and add 50-60g of CaCo3 (this decides the strength both feel and actual nicotine).
Put it back in the oven for 12 more hours and add water to taste (1-2.5dl).
If possible, add 5ml of liquid smoke in the first step.
If you want to go fancy add, gum arabic (20-30g), maltodextrin (20g), glycerol (20-30g) and propylene glycol (20-30g) as a last step.
Shit, I see what you're getting at.
"You can't have private corporations and state ownership at the same time. It is logically impossible."
It should read something like this: You can't have private corporations (capitalism) and complete state ownership (socialism) at the same time. It is logically impossible.
Now I'm off to bed.
I wasn't aware of those examples. Thank you for enlightening me.
Those examples does not contradict my initial statement about "corporate socialism". As those are examples of bog-standard socialism. It does, however, rape my absolute statement about state owned corporations in the US and I thank you for it.
In the US they do. Which is what we were discussing.
If a company is state owned/controlled we have some degree of socialism. Bailing out failed, privately owned companies is not socialism in any way. In fact, it's so idiotic I suspect it may be keynesianism or maybe plain corruption in some cases.
Corporatism?
Semi-corporatism?
Pseudo-corporatism?
Corporate welfare?
Bailouts?
A mixed economy?
Social democracy?
Etatism?
Statism?
Big government?
Anything but corporate socialism.
You see, in theory socialism means that everyone owns the means of production. In practice it means that the state controls/owns the means of production. You can't have private corporations and state ownership at the same time. It is logically impossible.
Corporate socialism is logically impossible, you idiot.
I'm guessing you feel either flirty or dirty.
Whenever I'm uncertain about the meaning of a word I look it up in the dictionary. You should do the same with the word monopoly becuase your definition is not the usual one.
Socialism, as defined by Marx/Engels, means more or less complete collective control over capital.
Why do you need to redefine socialism to mean something that already exists (social liberalism)?
Admitting an error graciously is an impressive quality. Especially when the nitpicker doesn't soften his words in some way.
Kudos!
I have asked these things:
1. Did Freud contribute any valid insights?
A question you have completely ignored. I'm asking because I don't know of a single thing he came up with that is supported by science.
2. How can you even know if his net contribution is posititve?
I.e. how can you know about the variables of history without access to parallel universes. If Freud's "insights" are not important today. It follows that they were incorrect or unprovable at the time he made them up (unless the species is a lot different). If that is the case, how can one be certain or even think it likely he had a net contribution to the field?
The speculation about what could have happened without Freud was about the worst case (maybe not now that I think about it) scenario I could imagine with his absence. I.e. that Psychology as a field wouldn't even be thought of until some ridiculous time later. The more probable outcome is that some quack would have made shit up and we'd have to spend most of the 20th century removing shit from the field rather than adding to it. Kind of what happened in our history.
Teflon coated bullets are not for penetrating armor vests or to be more precise the teflon is incidental. There are non-AP teflon coated bullets but I assume that all or almost all AP bullets have some lubricating coating.
Just google it.
That would be Parkinson's Law not the George Carlin Principle.
You draw lots of inferences from my post that was in no way my intention. I'm not sure you're a lousy reader or I'm a lousy writer but I don't feel like explaining myself further as that question is less important than the question you failed to answer.
Lots of text but no answers. Am I to conclude that you don't think that freud contributed a single sliver of correct knowledge to the field of psychiatry?
If you believe that, why do you consider him to be anything but a hindrance that bogged down psychiatry with incorrect knowledge?
What valid insights did Freud have?
How can you even know his net contribution is positive? If people didn't even think about psychology until the 50's and then started with the scientific method I'd bet we would have come a lot further than we have. There are still people practicing psychodynamics FFS.