<Snipped quote by Derpestein>

If that was such a good first impression for you I'll try the same topic the next time I go to a party...

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

I'd already made an account but apart from that, pretty much. I'm a pedantic arsehole.

@Vilageidiotx

If we're being pure in our examples:
Paris Commune 1871
Free Territories of Ukraine 1918-21
Catalonia 1936-39
Rojava 2012-present

Fair point. I answered with something of a dull knife there. The one thing that can be said about those societies, the same with Lenin and Mao in those early years, is that those were/are societies in crisis (all of them in that case being war). People cooperate fairly well in difficult conditions. I'd agree they prove actual communism is doable, but we've yet to see how it can be extended past a crisis and into everyday. Those were crushed, but Mao and Lenin were allowed to continue, and it didn't a decade for either of them to abandoned communism for state capitalism.

I wouldn't disagree with your analysis but I think when most sane people mean free market economics they refer to the state not being involved in any subsidies/tarrifs rather than simply not enforcing private property which would lead to the destruction of the system.

Well yeh, the An-Cap dream is pretty poorly thought out too, but I'm even talking about a law-protected capitalism that doesn't have any subsidies or tariffs. Whereas the an-cap world would collapse and revert to right of conquest, a lawful economy that has no government involvement in the economy would see bubbles rising up all the time, popping, and descending into depressions. Capitalism is something like hitching you carriage to tigers I suppose; the less you try to control them the more they'll run amok, because you might want them to drive your economy carriage, but they don't care about that, they want to run around making quick money from mauling people. Takes some control by the driver to keep them mauling the least amount of people possible while still moving forward.

Your computer is from capitalism!

Your computer is from generations of government subsidies for the tech industry during the cold war. Woz and Gates didn't invent the computer, they took things that IBM had developed under government contract and made them publicly merchandizable. The internet pretty much worked out the same way - Pentagon invention that was first offered to universities, and then made public. So when you thank somebody for being able to post in this forum, don't thank capitalism; thank the United States Military.

I was a christian, but a bunch of people on the internet debated me hardcore and now I'm smarter because I realize how stupid god is.

And that's a no from mdk.

So when you thank somebody for being able to post in this forum, don't thank capitalism; thank the United States Military.

God bless military R+D.

pls gib private bradley fighting vehicle
i want 2 driv tin shell with enuf bomb to destroy dc twice

Whereas the an-cap world would collapse and revert to right of conquest, a lawful economy that has no government involvement in the economy would see bubbles rising up all the time, popping, and descending into depressions. Capitalism is something like hitching you carriage to tigers I suppose; the less you try to control them the more they'll run amok, because you might want them to drive your economy carriage, but they don't care about that, they want to run around making quick money from mauling people. Takes some control by the driver to keep them mauling the least amount of people possible while still moving forward.

This paragraph's telling of events represents the polar opposite of observable reality and is written in complete disregard for every historical example and mathematical model of market activity ever studied, created or interpreted by every single economic school of thought within and without orthodoxy; alternatively, it may depict the economic forces involved in a parallel universe.

Business cycles become more turbulent when market forces are intervened upon, not less. To continue with your colourful analogy: poking a tiger with a stick doesn't calm it down. Even socialists of all stripes accept this, they merely contend that what is good for the long-term growth of the economy is not the same as what is good for people.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

This paragraph's telling of events represents the polar opposite of observable reality and is written in complete disregard for every historical example and mathematical model of market activity ever studied, created or interpreted by every single economic school of thought within and without orthodoxy; alternatively, it may depict the economic forces involved in a parallel universe.

Business cycles become more turbulent when market forces are intervened upon.

If this is true then why does nobody ever take it into practice? I know free market rhetoric is popular, but these same school never seem to take the next step in practicing it. That there are interventionist steps that shouldn't be taken isn't something anyone is going to argue with, and that degrees or styles of intervention are debated is true, but where are the total non-interventionists? Where this supposed absolute free market, where is the examples of truly free markets absent of tariffs or subsidy that prove the rhetoric?

If this is true then why does nobody ever take it into practice?

Government policy is almost never determined purely ideologically. The reasons for this are as numerous as they are well-known and for that reason you probably don't need me to list them, but just for presentation's sake I'll name drop special interests.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Government policy is almost never determined purely ideologically. The reasons for this are as numerous as they are well-known and for that reason you probably don't need me to list them, but just for presentation's sake I'll name drop special interests.

Okay, lets put special interest aside then. Why is it that varieties of Keynesian economics have dominated since the depression, all of them advocating government intervention in some forms?

Why is it that varieties of Keynesian economics have dominated since the depression?

Because Keynesians were elected.

Why were Keynesians elected?

The fiscal and monetary practices espoused by Keynes allow for a wide range of different policies from across the political spectrum to be conducted, whereas maximizing or minimizing state involvement in the economy presents a more definitive tone and allows for a less diverse policy range. In other words, pretending to be Keynesian allows you to act more dishonestly and stick with the political whims of the day, rather than having a spine.

In other words, pretending to be Keynesian allows you to act more dishonestly and stick with the political whims of the day, rather than having a spine.

Also corruption is a lot harder to conduct when the invisible hand just does its own thing. Better for them to BE the invisible hand.

Where this supposed absolute free market, where is the examples of truly free markets absent of tariffs or subsidy that prove the rhetoric?

electronic commerce. eBay being the prime example, but speaking of prime, Amazon, aka the largest retail entity in the world.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Because Keynesians were elected.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

The fiscal and monetary practices espoused by Keynes allow for a wide range of different policies from across the political spectrum to be conducted, whereas maximizing or minimizing state involvement in the economy presents a more definitive tone and allows for a less diverse policy range. In other words, pretending to be Keynesian allows you to act more dishonestly and stick with the political whims of the day, rather than having a spine.

They aren't just the most often elected, that movement also holds a dominant role is economic academics. And it really seems like a cop-out to say the dominance of this theory is because they simply aren't purist enough. That's the cult-like scent that drove me from the Free-Market folk to begin with.

electronic commerce. eBay being the prime example, but speaking of prime, Amazon, aka the largest retail entity in the world.

Neither of those are economies within themselves, but rather shops that exist within economies just like any other shop. And if the internet is what you mean in a general term, it proves the thesis I presented that started this discussion; that the free-market is an inherently unstable system.

Also corruption is a lot harder to conduct when the invisible hand just does its own thing. Better for them to BE the invisible hand.

That only works so long as your definition of corruption is limited to the actions governments, which is the semantic version of cheating really. Even Adam Smith, the guy who coined the phrase 'Invisible Hand', didn't ignore this detail, creating really his most quotable quote in addressing it.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

You're wrong. I don't have a poorly kept beard, I have poorly kept sideburns that sprout from my face as wheat from a field. If wheat got tangled with itself. I also don't own a Che Guevara shirt. I am, however, overweight and listen to The Internationale on my iPod. My shirts, however, are manufactured in Taiwan thank you very much. I'm also not a man. I'm not good enough to be considered a man.

<Snipped quote by Halo>

Well, to be fair to myself, what am I supposed to listen to The Internationale on? A record player made by my friendly neighborhood commune in the rural Southeast of America, playing an original recording of the song that cost multiple gangster lives to smuggle out of the USSR? An iPod ripoff called the iMarx, also made by my friendly neighborhood commune? I mean, if I refused to participate in capitalism, I'd have to ignore all of society. Farms participate in capitalism, so I'd grow my own food. I'd make my own clothes, build my own well, etc. And then I'd have to ignore culture in general, since all TV shows and movies participate in the market. Newspapers, news channels, etc. are all for-profit and thus must be ignored. I would basically be a medieval peasant, just without the whole "Basically just a slave" bit. Sorry about that rant, I just get T R I G G E R E D whenever I hear the "But your computer is from capitalism!" line.

i don't understand why you quoted me to say this

I was pointin out the irony of Nex saying he now understands the concept of people having different opinions/priorities before insulting you for exactly that

Let us just stop for a moment to realize that Mongolian Horse Archer has the best goal horn in 4cc history.



And it is by this I base my One Khan World ideology on. Thank you.

@Vilageidiotx Keynesian economics is academically dominant because it is the school of thought most often teached. It is the school of thought most often teached because of its history of political dominance.

I wouldn't say that Keynesianism is 'impure'. Like any other economic school of thought, it presents a course of action to be taken that an honest government espousing it will follow. Keynesianism does however allow for a great deal more discretionary action to be undertaken than in its counterparts, which is ultimately why governments are attracted to it.

Abortion, Socialism vs Capitalism, Death Penalty, Minority Issues, etc?

If so, which ones? This is not a place to debate these things. Only to say if you've changed your stance (and maybe why you did, personally).

In a word, yes. It'd feel pretty asinine to me not to revise my opinions on the basis of data and experience. There's also a Bertrand Russell quote out there about fools being so damned sure of themselves.

"Bow your head at thanksgiving and think about video games until Uncle stops talking."

This.