Ive bought this book and this morning i saw it was online i couldnt wait to watch it. I havent had the time to read it but i do have the time to watch this(making dinner, eating it etc etc) Cant wait to see how this turns out. Im only at 2 minutes 30
@successfulbuild I keep up my house because it is in my interest to do so - IT IS MY PROPERTY - when I bought this house it was trashed inside because it was a rental property - those living here before had no interest in keeping it up. You see, self-interest, as manifested in private property rights is a powerful incentive to responsible behavior AND social cooperation (my neighbors also appreciate that the house isn't trashed any more) It's a simple concept, get it?
@KSTCBH23 the reason we have a price system is not to allocate as you assert, not at all. The reason we can't live without some sort of accounting system - be it accounting books or money units you handle and trade directly, see and count directly rather than symbolically - is because it's cheaper to transport light objects (money) than heavy objects which may also spoil or be damaged in repeated transport. You can account a net flow over a long time and settle a small net buy, and then you
@successfulbuild and 3, knowing the latency of networks and the redundancy, we can re-scale to any size and delay of network to get the same benefits with less or more technological ability.
What's more, in a society based on the Libertarian principles of non-aggression, individual sovereignty, and private property rights, YOU would still be able to form any type of communal living arrangement you see fit. I have no doubt it would fail, but you would be free to try it. Would I be allowed to start a profit-seeking business in your society? Of course, I wouldn't and this reveals the true "prison" to be "Social Democracy".
The Professor was right about the LPC. It calims to be an independent body, but... "The LPC board consists of nine members-three trade unionists, three employers, and three labour market relations experts. " They also "recommend" the national minimum wage to the gov. So of course they would declare their own plan a success.
@brownlakehouse I think the implication is that since the South defied leviathan (the federal government) it's been acceptable to mock "bubbas" and the like with impunity.
@successfulbuild You got that right. So long as there is land to live off of, you choose how much work you will do, you do your best to learn how or you do not, and your crops (food) will reflect your work (knowledge, skill, physical output) and if it's not enough, you starve and it's no one else's fault. NOW with populations that are well over-grown and enslaving corporations there is no escape but civil war and removing buildings to make new farm-land. It's hard but it CAN BE DONE.
Yes, and the reason BK and DR left Multics was that it was a mess. The thought up of the word Unix as a way of making fun of Multics. Your citation actually undermines your point.
@KSTCBH23 how much to produce is always known by simply looking at the inventory and counting it, and looking at the need for that inventory (people x survival need) and counting that too. It's not like people can't count. It's not like we can't all figure out what is needed for survival, no one's stupid enough to believe that some people need 1000x the food of another. It's not like you can misplace the farmland or the crops yielded from the land. It's easy to count.
Corporations are not "required by law to return a profit to shareholders" - in case you haven't noticed there are plenty of companies that fail to turn a profit because they have failed to serve consumer demands. These companies will lose investors and market share, and may well go bankrupt, (unless government bails them out, of course)
@successfulbuild Having not read the majority of posts here it is still strange that someone would refer to an Austrian economist as "Hitlerian." Perhaps you are unaware of what that statement suggests? DiLorenzo and the Austrian economists are followers of the economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard, both Jewish men. The advocation of laissez-faire is completely antithetical to Nazism, a form of socialism.
Equilibrium, or what you call the "optimum" is not a reality, and never can be for man. Neither socialism, nor capitalism can give us equilibrium. However. as the Austrians have taught us; equilibrium is always a tendency on a free market. Austrians have always used equilibrium as a unique tool of analysis for economics. It has a very specific and important function. However, it can never actually be reached, only be chased and chased forever so long as humans remain on this side of Eden.
@svd348 and as it happens, NATURE is also against central planning and frequently punishes centralization with extinction, and any other kind of non-redundant system. Austrian co-ordination of decentralization is the mathematical equivalent of adaptation of species to keep surviving generation after generation. Adding decentralized socialism to the mix is merely some co-operation, likely temporary, to add efficiency. It isn't "needed" but everything works better with it.
@successfulbuild That is kind of like saying that freedom has never brought benefits, on account that no one has ever been perfectly free to do whatever they want in society. Their have always been some rules. That being said, societies with larger degrees of freedom have provided better quality of life for their members. Similarly, societies with higher levels of capitalism, have provided higher standards of living and larger growth of production for their members. Cheers.
@Mechanized0 excellent point - I have been attempting to reason with successfulbuild and he dodges my pointed questions and completely avoids making any reasoned, principled arguments for his beliefs. I am actually starting to think that he believes that because Mises and Hayek were Austrian and Hitler was Austrian they must be philosophically linked by nationality. (Remember SB is a socialist, so he thinks of everything in terms of group identity and power struggles between warring groups)
@Panax07 first of all co-operation is the driving force of innovation, not competition. That's why competition destroys and wastes resources and co-operation overlaps benefits of those resources to each unique participant for common goals. That's why open-source works and why competitive manufacturing doesn't. Second of all, socialism NEVER has to invoke centralization of anything - only people who insist on centralization even in capitalism (central banking) want centralization.
@successfulbuild perhaps my mistake is that I wasn't choosing the right words. Optimal socialism is not yet built on the work of Mises. Mises makes mistakes and I think we can all do better. None of it has been done yet, so I am not stating it is built on Mises. The small examples of working socialism, you probably shouldn't call it "market socialism" but perhaps I'm wrong, are just common-sense and common-decency.
Fallacy of perfect knowledge. Nobody has perfect knowledge, not participants on the market, and certainly not a central planner. The key here is to understand the naturally occurring mechanism on a free market to transmit consumer preference data to the owners of scarce resources by way of the price system. In fact, capitalists are forced to abide by what the price system tells them, or else they lose their capital very quickly to someone who will.
@gergenheimer If his conclusion are based upon someone's national origin then obviously such thinking might be interpreted as bigoted. However, this appears unlikely in many respects. From my perspective it is quite mysterious how an individual could equate a completely free market with the heavily regulated environment of Nazi Germany. This individual has either never studied economics or is simply engaged in a secularized version of religious fervor in terms of his ideological bent.
@KSTCBH23 Now we have such fancy things as computers and networks, we can have redundant connections and verifications of inventories so there's really, really no delay and no way to miscount inventories and this very much reduces the need for pricing. Should some time-shifted or transport-expensive (energy, time) situation arise then by all means, money (gold, silver) with real value can be used. Nothing wrong with that, nothing against socialism either. My point about pricing is what it won't
Microsoft at the height of their "monopoly" controlled 95-97% of the personal computer industry, yet they enjoyed no "special privileges" Smaller, more creative companies like Apple out-competed them and have been seizing their market share ever since. This (among a thousand other examples) doesn't jibe with your belief in the omnipotent power of corporations.
@KSTCBH23 giving specifics of voluntary actions without knowing who will be in the system, how big it will be, nor how conditions on the ground will be is not possible, nor should it be expected. Certainly no one demands this of capitalism. What I can tell you with 100% reliability is that a group of people will fail if some part of the group fails, in manufacturing, in farming, in sustaining a community, as poverty drags on production and culturally causes misery. What I can tell you is this
@successfulbuild >By Austrian logic, everybody has their own truth so there is no such thing as absolute truth, so for some people 2+2 = 5. Austrian Economics is not about relative truth. It recognizes that people value different things. Some people want a fancy car. Some people want time off. Some people want to live in a nice condo. Some people want to live near their family. Austrian Economics is against central planning and letting people make their own decisions.
@successfulbuild You don't agree to slavery.Slavery is coercion.The companies of the late 1800's that created "company towns" were politically connected companies.Even the companies that were involved in the slave trade, like the Dutch East India Company were created as government subsidized cartels.
@svd348 and when I say "not needed" I mean with no socialism some number of humans will survive and continue, be it in misery. To truly prosper requires socialism, but it must be decentralized. So long as anything is centralized, including socialistic choices, the system will fail as it attempts to defy nature.
@successfulbuild You are missing the key ingredient of collectivism that rules out corporations as collectivist entities. At its core, collectivism is based on coercion - those who don't agree with the chosen course of action will be forced to go along anyway. If I disagree with a corporation's actions, I can choose not to work for them, I can choose not to buy their products, I can even choose to start a competing corporation and try to put them out of business. Your argument has no merit.
@KSTCBH23 Perhaps it is simply an individual poster attempting to rile up other posters for the sake of his own entertainment? This is being stated because the claims of the poster in question are so outlandish as to be unworthy of serious consideration or attention. Strange indeed.
Do you care to show us your reasoning for making this argument? What you are saying is that if it weren't for the government to force people into action, they would just stand still and starve to death. All people have a felt-uneasiness about their current standard of living. Therefore, believing they can make a difference, they act to change it. The only thing the government can do is put a drain on that natural process.
@successfulbuild If corporations are protected by the state (which has a MONOPOLY on the use of force), why don't you blame the state for the problems this creates? Following your own statement, a corporation without state protection has NO ability to force me to do ANYTHING. Collectivism requires coercion and, by your OWN admission the violence in this scenario is provided by the State.
@successfulbuild As I said, the "collective" action of a corporation is VOLUNTARY, if you don't like taking orders from your "fascist overlords", you may leave. You attempt to evade this distinction by suggesting that citizens in your "workers' paradise" would also be free to leave assignments they don't like, move to a different job, or just do their own thing. Who, in your world, will man the sewage plants and take out the garbage? Your argument is buried by the avalanche of history.
@KSTCBH23 Nazism was, derived from The National SOCIALIST German Workers Party, as you're aware, a somewhat different interpretation of Marxism. I have only now begun reading some of the posts of "successfulbuild." Admittedly, the contents of his posts are completely and surprisingly delusional. Comparing laissez-faire to Nazism? How strange it is then that Hitler despised laissez-faire capitalism. Where is this individual getting these ideas from?
@KSTCBH23 seriously? Owned by private individuals? You don't consider any kind of profiteering to be a core part of capitalism? Socialism helped Russians (not the other nations that were part of the Soviet union) to have a softer landing. Services didn't all shut down, everything was already set to go for public transport, for housing, that kind of thing. It won't be so pretty when America collapses, wasn't so pretty when Zimbabwe collapsed. Dimitri Orlov did a comparison study of this
@successfulbuild Well Microsoft's certainly not doing very well now. Linux has steadily improved and Apple's taken a lot of market share. The real reason Microsoft took off at the start was because it was such an easy platform to develop on. With internet applications and Apple and the Linux community creating more competitive development tools for their own OS's, Microsoft is finding it much harder to compete.
@KSTCBH23 is this is reversed by dealing with the problem instead of calling it a solution. What works is ensuring those same people or businesses which are failing are propped back up for a very, very short time, provided it's voluntary (so there is no stealing or conflict from this) and short-term (long term is expensive and indicates a class of problems far worse than simple disasters like floods or fires, or short-term illness). Certainly throwing money at people who can never contribute is
@successfulbuild please copy-paste back to me my statement about wanting "warlords protecting private businesses" - I'm getting older, so maybe my memory is worse than I thought.
Wow, successfulbuild sure has a lot of time on his hands. Also, a huge chip on his shoulder against Austrian economics. My humble diagnosis: Chomsky overdose.
@KSTCBH23 can never contribute is going to drain the people in another way, similar to if no problems were addressed at all. An optimal balance must exist, in the same way the body has optimal balances in homeostasis, and would die very quickly without this. And no, it is not true that ultimately a small group or one person must made all socialist decisions. Not at all. The entire group can collectively decide, conveying money, information, refusal to participate.
@successfulbuild I am not a fan of anybody. I go for ideas, not people. Anybody can be wrong. Glenn Beck is a clown, but he is occasionally right. He is totally right about the progressives. He is wrong about a ton of other things.
@KSTCBH23 then you would save a lot of time and energy in trade and allow time-shifting. e.g. if you and I wanted to trade inventories of equal value, but mine doesn't exist yet, transporting money instead of goods means no one has to wait when nature itself won't let us wait, depending on what you have/make/find and what I have/make/find. America has no socialism so no socialism shall cause any collapse in America.
@ytgv3fc7 First of socialism is not innovative as it destroys competition, which is the driving force behind innovation(why make better widgets than the other guy if you all have to sell widgets at relatively the same price?).Secondly, Socialism ALWAYS involves central economic planning.Whether its the Israeli Kibbutzes or the Federal Reserve.
@successfulbuild Austrian economics is GOOD MATH, nothing kooky about it. Anyone who doesn't follow it is just BAD AT MATH. At least I can say being pro-socialist I understand the MATH of the Austrians is 100% CORRECT, but their intentions are to allow poverty or encourage it. Non-socialist, non-Austrian economics is NUTTER-TALK all about magical theories which never happen EVER and cause MASSIVE poverty, war and slavery.
@successfulbuild "capitalism is taking other peoples work, holding a monopoly over it, and forcing everybody else to work for them" - This comment alone demonstrates that you understand close to nothing of what you choose to comment on. But that's OK, as long as it makes you feel superior to everyone else. Go back to your basement and read some Chomsky, you little troll.
@8DoverNJ If interested, check out A E 9 1 1 t r u t h dot o r g (remove spaces of course) I understand why many in the liberty movement don't want to touch this but at least don't buy the official theory.
@successfulbuild you have provided no sources and no evidence, but you have *pretended* to do so, to yourself and no one else is buying it. Epic fail on you.
@lilkartracer25 Well, since this is a discussion about centralization vs decentralization, it's not surprising that Nazis would get brought into the discussion. It's relevant to the topic. Next you will be posting stupid comments about Godwin's Law on WWII videos.
So much information from many great books and minds. Very well explained. Excellent work.
Music to my ears. Thanks for uploading.
Ive bought this book and this morning i saw it was online i couldnt wait to watch it. I havent had the time to read it but i do have the time to watch this(making dinner, eating it etc etc)
Cant wait to see how this turns out. Im only at 2 minutes 30
This was pretty interesting - thanks very much guys.
This is the future of education.
@successfulbuild I keep up my house because it is in my interest to do so - IT IS MY PROPERTY - when I bought this house it was trashed inside because it was a rental property - those living here before had no interest in keeping it up. You see, self-interest, as manifested in private property rights is a powerful incentive to responsible behavior AND social cooperation (my neighbors also appreciate that the house isn't trashed any more) It's a simple concept, get it?
@KSTCBH23 the reason we have a price system is not to allocate as you assert, not at all. The reason we can't live without some sort of accounting system - be it accounting books or money units you handle and trade directly, see and count directly rather than symbolically - is because it's cheaper to transport light objects (money) than heavy objects which may also spoil or be damaged in repeated transport. You can account a net flow over a long time and settle a small net buy, and then you
tons of info - THX
do the worst rise to the top, or sink to the lowest means? perhaps it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is?
I enjoyed the lecture. I did not understand at the end the statement that it is OK to be bigeted against southerners.
@successfulbuild and 3, knowing the latency of networks and the redundancy, we can re-scale to any size and delay of network to get the same benefits with less or more technological ability.
What's more, in a society based on the Libertarian principles of non-aggression, individual sovereignty, and private property rights, YOU would still be able to form any type of communal living arrangement you see fit. I have no doubt it would fail, but you would be free to try it. Would I be allowed to start a profit-seeking business in your society? Of course, I wouldn't and this reveals the true "prison" to be "Social Democracy".
The Professor was right about the LPC. It calims to be an independent body, but...
"The LPC board consists of nine members-three trade unionists, three employers, and three labour market relations experts. "
They also "recommend" the national minimum wage to the gov.
So of course they would declare their own plan a success.
@brownlakehouse I think the implication is that since the South defied leviathan (the federal government) it's been acceptable to mock "bubbas" and the like with impunity.
@successfulbuild You got that right. So long as there is land to live off of, you choose how much work you will do, you do your best to learn how or you do not, and your crops (food) will reflect your work (knowledge, skill, physical output) and if it's not enough, you starve and it's no one else's fault. NOW with populations that are well over-grown and enslaving corporations there is no escape but civil war and removing buildings to make new farm-land. It's hard but it CAN BE DONE.
Tom's disdain for Lincoln is always entertaining.
@successfulbuild Pareto was quite brilliant. I've come across the Pareto equilibrium in genetic programming as well
Yes, and the reason BK and DR left Multics was that it was a mess. The thought up of the word Unix as a way of making fun of Multics. Your citation actually undermines your point.
@KSTCBH23 how much to produce is always known by simply looking at the inventory and counting it, and looking at the need for that inventory (people x survival need) and counting that too. It's not like people can't count. It's not like we can't all figure out what is needed for survival, no one's stupid enough to believe that some people need 1000x the food of another. It's not like you can misplace the farmland or the crops yielded from the land. It's easy to count.
Corporations are not "required by law to return a profit to shareholders" - in case you haven't noticed there are plenty of companies that fail to turn a profit because they have failed to serve consumer demands. These companies will lose investors and market share, and may well go bankrupt, (unless government bails them out, of course)
Soooooo Cool.
@successfulbuild Having not read the majority of posts here it is still strange that someone would refer to an Austrian economist as "Hitlerian."
Perhaps you are unaware of what that statement suggests? DiLorenzo and the Austrian economists are followers of the economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard, both Jewish men. The advocation of laissez-faire is completely antithetical to Nazism, a form of socialism.
Equilibrium, or what you call the "optimum" is not a reality, and never can be for man.
Neither socialism, nor capitalism can give us equilibrium. However. as the Austrians have taught us; equilibrium is always a tendency on a free market. Austrians have always used equilibrium as a unique tool of analysis for economics. It has a very specific and important function. However, it can never actually be reached, only be chased and chased forever so long as humans remain on this side of Eden.
@svd348 and as it happens, NATURE is also against central planning and frequently punishes centralization with extinction, and any other kind of non-redundant system. Austrian co-ordination of decentralization is the mathematical equivalent of adaptation of species to keep surviving generation after generation. Adding decentralized socialism to the mix is merely some co-operation, likely temporary, to add efficiency. It isn't "needed" but everything works better with it.
@successfulbuild That is kind of like saying that freedom has never brought benefits, on account that no one has ever been perfectly free to do whatever they want in society. Their have always been some rules. That being said, societies with larger degrees of freedom have provided better quality of life for their members. Similarly, societies with higher levels of capitalism, have provided higher standards of living and larger growth of production for their members. Cheers.
the first 25 seconds will put one to sleep.
@Mechanized0 excellent point - I have been attempting to reason with successfulbuild and he dodges my pointed questions and completely avoids making any reasoned, principled arguments for his beliefs. I am actually starting to think that he believes that because Mises and Hayek were Austrian and Hitler was Austrian they must be philosophically linked by nationality. (Remember SB is a socialist, so he thinks of everything in terms of group identity and power struggles between warring groups)
@Panax07 first of all co-operation is the driving force of innovation, not competition. That's why competition destroys and wastes resources and co-operation overlaps benefits of those resources to each unique participant for common goals. That's why open-source works and why competitive manufacturing doesn't.
Second of all, socialism NEVER has to invoke centralization of anything - only people who insist on centralization even in capitalism (central banking) want centralization.
So a bunch of central planners is better? Markets suck at price discovery, but central planners are even worse.
@successfulbuild perhaps my mistake is that I wasn't choosing the right words. Optimal socialism is not yet built on the work of Mises. Mises makes mistakes and I think we can all do better. None of it has been done yet, so I am not stating it is built on Mises.
The small examples of working socialism, you probably shouldn't call it "market socialism" but perhaps I'm wrong, are just common-sense and common-decency.
Fallacy of perfect knowledge. Nobody has perfect knowledge, not participants on the market, and certainly not a central planner.
The key here is to understand the naturally occurring mechanism on a free market to transmit consumer preference data to the owners of scarce resources by way of the price system. In fact, capitalists are forced to abide by what the price system tells them, or else they lose their capital very quickly to someone who will.
@gergenheimer If his conclusion are based upon someone's national origin then obviously such thinking might be interpreted as bigoted. However, this appears unlikely in many respects. From my perspective it is quite mysterious how an individual could equate a completely free market with the heavily regulated environment of Nazi Germany.
This individual has either never studied economics or is simply engaged in a secularized version of religious fervor in terms of his ideological bent.
@KSTCBH23 Now we have such fancy things as computers and networks, we can have redundant connections and verifications of inventories so there's really, really no delay and no way to miscount inventories and this very much reduces the need for pricing. Should some time-shifted or transport-expensive (energy, time) situation arise then by all means, money (gold, silver) with real value can be used. Nothing wrong with that, nothing against socialism either. My point about pricing is what it won't
Microsoft at the height of their "monopoly" controlled 95-97% of the personal computer industry, yet they enjoyed no "special privileges" Smaller, more creative companies like Apple out-competed them and have been seizing their market share ever since. This (among a thousand other examples) doesn't jibe with your belief in the omnipotent power of corporations.
@KSTCBH23 giving specifics of voluntary actions without knowing who will be in the system, how big it will be, nor how conditions on the ground will be is not possible, nor should it be expected. Certainly no one demands this of capitalism. What I can tell you with 100% reliability is that a group of people will fail if some part of the group fails, in manufacturing, in farming, in sustaining a community, as poverty drags on production and culturally causes misery. What I can tell you is this
@successfulbuild
>By Austrian logic, everybody has their own truth so there is no such thing as absolute truth, so for some people 2+2 = 5.
Austrian Economics is not about relative truth. It recognizes that people value different things. Some people want a fancy car. Some people want time off. Some people want to live in a nice condo. Some people want to live near their family. Austrian Economics is against central planning and letting people make their own decisions.
@successfulbuild You don't agree to slavery.Slavery is coercion.The companies of the late 1800's that created "company towns" were politically connected companies.Even the companies that were involved in the slave trade, like the Dutch East India Company were created as government subsidized cartels.
@svd348 and when I say "not needed" I mean with no socialism some number of humans will survive and continue, be it in misery. To truly prosper requires socialism, but it must be decentralized. So long as anything is centralized, including socialistic choices, the system will fail as it attempts to defy nature.
@successfulbuild You are missing the key ingredient of collectivism that rules out corporations as collectivist entities. At its core, collectivism is based on coercion - those who don't agree with the chosen course of action will be forced to go along anyway. If I disagree with a corporation's actions, I can choose not to work for them, I can choose not to buy their products, I can even choose to start a competing corporation and try to put them out of business. Your argument has no merit.
@KSTCBH23 Perhaps it is simply an individual poster attempting to rile up other posters for the sake of his own entertainment? This is being stated because the claims of the poster in question are so outlandish as to be unworthy of serious consideration or attention. Strange indeed.
Do you care to show us your reasoning for making this argument?
What you are saying is that if it weren't for the government to force people into action, they would just stand still and starve to death. All people have a felt-uneasiness about their current standard of living. Therefore, believing they can make a difference, they act to change it. The only thing the government can do is put a drain on that natural process.
@successfulbuild If corporations are protected by the state (which has a MONOPOLY on the use of force), why don't you blame the state for the problems this creates? Following your own statement, a corporation without state protection has NO ability to force me to do ANYTHING. Collectivism requires coercion and, by your OWN admission the violence in this scenario is provided by the State.
@successfulbuild As I said, the "collective" action of a corporation is VOLUNTARY, if you don't like taking orders from your "fascist overlords", you may leave. You attempt to evade this distinction by suggesting that citizens in your "workers' paradise" would also be free to leave assignments they don't like, move to a different job, or just do their own thing. Who, in your world, will man the sewage plants and take out the garbage? Your argument is buried by the avalanche of history.
@KSTCBH23 Nazism was, derived from The National SOCIALIST German Workers Party, as you're aware, a somewhat different interpretation of Marxism. I have only now begun reading some of the posts of "successfulbuild." Admittedly, the contents of his posts are completely and surprisingly delusional.
Comparing laissez-faire to Nazism? How strange it is then that Hitler despised laissez-faire capitalism. Where is this individual getting these ideas from?
@KSTCBH23 seriously? Owned by private individuals? You don't consider any kind of profiteering to be a core part of capitalism? Socialism helped Russians (not the other nations that were part of the Soviet union) to have a softer landing. Services didn't all shut down, everything was already set to go for public transport, for housing, that kind of thing. It won't be so pretty when America collapses, wasn't so pretty when Zimbabwe collapsed. Dimitri Orlov did a comparison study of this
@successfulbuild Well Microsoft's certainly not doing very well now. Linux has steadily improved and Apple's taken a lot of market share.
The real reason Microsoft took off at the start was because it was such an easy platform to develop on. With internet applications and Apple and the Linux community creating more competitive development tools for their own OS's, Microsoft is finding it much harder to compete.
@capncrunch93able Well that 50% military statistic is untrue, but yeah our budget is still horrible.
@KSTCBH23 is this is reversed by dealing with the problem instead of calling it a solution. What works is ensuring those same people or businesses which are failing are propped back up for a very, very short time, provided it's voluntary (so there is no stealing or conflict from this) and short-term (long term is expensive and indicates a class of problems far worse than simple disasters like floods or fires, or short-term illness). Certainly throwing money at people who can never contribute is
@successfulbuild please copy-paste back to me my statement about wanting "warlords protecting private businesses" - I'm getting older, so maybe my memory is worse than I thought.
Wow, successfulbuild sure has a lot of time on his hands. Also, a huge chip on his shoulder against Austrian economics. My humble diagnosis: Chomsky overdose.
@KSTCBH23 can never contribute is going to drain the people in another way, similar to if no problems were addressed at all. An optimal balance must exist, in the same way the body has optimal balances in homeostasis, and would die very quickly without this. And no, it is not true that ultimately a small group or one person must made all socialist decisions. Not at all. The entire group can collectively decide, conveying money, information, refusal to participate.
@successfulbuild I am not a fan of anybody. I go for ideas, not people. Anybody can be wrong. Glenn Beck is a clown, but he is occasionally right. He is totally right about the progressives. He is wrong about a ton of other things.
@KSTCBH23 then you would save a lot of time and energy in trade and allow time-shifting. e.g. if you and I wanted to trade inventories of equal value, but mine doesn't exist yet, transporting money instead of goods means no one has to wait when nature itself won't let us wait, depending on what you have/make/find and what I have/make/find. America has no socialism so no socialism shall cause any collapse in America.
@ytgv3fc7 First of socialism is not innovative as it destroys competition, which is the driving force behind innovation(why make better widgets than the other guy if you all have to sell widgets at relatively the same price?).Secondly, Socialism ALWAYS involves central economic planning.Whether its the Israeli Kibbutzes or the Federal Reserve.
@ytgv3fc7 Decentralized socialism.Now your talking about a conundrum.
Name one socialist who has advocated a decentralized system.
I'll wait.
its in your best interest to do whats best for the state because then the state doesn't have to hurt ya LOL
@successfulbuild Austrian economics is GOOD MATH, nothing kooky about it. Anyone who doesn't follow it is just BAD AT MATH.
At least I can say being pro-socialist I understand the MATH of the Austrians is 100% CORRECT, but their intentions are to allow poverty or encourage it. Non-socialist, non-Austrian economics is NUTTER-TALK all about magical theories which never happen EVER and cause MASSIVE poverty, war and slavery.
@successfulbuild "capitalism is taking other peoples work, holding a monopoly over it, and forcing everybody else to work for them" - This comment alone demonstrates that you understand close to nothing of what you choose to comment on. But that's OK, as long as it makes you feel superior to everyone else. Go back to your basement and read some Chomsky, you little troll.
@8DoverNJ If interested, check out A E 9 1 1 t r u t h dot o r g (remove spaces of course) I understand why many in the liberty movement don't want to touch this but at least don't buy the official theory.
@successfulbuild you have provided no sources and no evidence, but you have *pretended* to do so, to yourself and no one else is buying it. Epic fail on you.
@lilkartracer25
Well, since this is a discussion about centralization vs decentralization, it's not surprising that Nazis would get brought into the discussion. It's relevant to the topic. Next you will be posting stupid comments about Godwin's Law on WWII videos.