Republidertarianazi shows off his thinking skills

[theVOID]

Yet everytime I read about Fascism I cant tell where the state ends and corporations begin. They blend so well into each other.

Which is entirely distinct from free markets, a separation of state and industry.

It also fits with the Libertarian method in the states "vote economic freedom first, then YOU will get social freedom".

Oh, you've got sources for that "method" from libertarian thinkers do you?

You see, the Libertarians in the state only care for economic freedom. Once they are rich, they can AFFORD their social freedom.

And yet most libertarians, like any other social group, aren't rich... There are many more rich people who support conservative and liberal political movements than libertarian ones.

Do they want to give up their cushy lawyer job prosecuting drug offenders? FUCK NO!

Do you think prosecutors have a choice based on their own political leanings? No, they follow the directives of the legislators. As if you really expect a DA who is personally for individual sovereignty wouldn't take to court a person arrested by the police for drug possession...

They will bump their cocaine lines and prosecute coke users at the same time. THAT, is the libertarian idea in the states. Freedom for ME!

I'm sure there are some prosecutors who use cocaine and other substances that they prosecute, there are hypocrites in all walks of life, but have you got any evidence that libertarian leaning prosecutors are more likely to use cocaine than other prosecutors?

And in my view it's none of my business who does what with their own body, that includes using drugs. I frown upon heroin, cocaine and other addictive substances and have many a time persuaded people not to use them, I've also helped a number of people get clean from addiction but if people do chose to use these substances it's their own decision and I have no moral authority to seize their property or imprison them for it. Do you believe you have a moral authority to punish people for choices they freely make with their own bodies in cases where the rights of no other people were violated?

I havent seen a single libertarian choose ranks with social Progressives.

No? You haven't heard of Noam Chomsky and the myriad of other left-libertarians then?

Because social freedom isnt profitable.

Tell that to some of the ultra-rich defence attorneys out there.

Reach for them straws..reach and reach and reach for them..just a bit closer..
Jews eat and "rape" babies? Me? No.

Anyone who is everyone knows that Jews sacrifice christian babies to satan.

So you actually deny that calling all republicans and libertarians jew-murdering tyrants is in principle the same as calling all jews or africans paedophiles? For what reason?

Watch Void as his libertarian "social liberties" melt down from "everyone deserves social freedom" to "I have power and you are offending me".

You do have social freedoms, you also have the freedom not to belong to any organisation with policies you do not agree with. The difference is that people do not have the freedom to disassociate from the state.

Shall me and you go through the site and rate up everyones warning meter for calling creationists idiots? Adrian says its equivalent.

It's up to the members in question to report the posts. If someone is being constantly attacked and feels the need to report it we will give (and have on plenty of occasions given) written and formal warnings for it. Creationists are just as free to make use of the report system as everyone else.

WOW...look at all of those bullshit equations.

I agree, they ARE bullshit equations, sadly for you those bullshit equations are the very backbone of the theory and reason behind the stimulus spending (the attempt to increase economic output) that YOU support. You do support stimulus spending, don't you?

You cant predict economies.

Is that intended to be an absolute statement, or are you speaking in general? You can certainly predict to some extent the impact of the actions on some actors on the actions of other actors, that is the primary concern of AE, the methodology of which is known as Praxeology. It is in contrast those whom are not of the AE train of thought who believe they can effectively predict and manipulate the economy, it is the entire idea behind the vast majority of contemporary mainstream economics - Everything from Quantitative Easing to setting interest rates to deficit spending to regulations that seek to move economic momentum into other sectors - All of these features are not ones advocated by AE but rather by the opposing schools of though.

http://www.econmacro.com/keynesian/simpl..._model.htm

You are 180 degrees backwards on this.

Where exactly do you place "human greed and corruption" into that equation?

I don't, you'd have to ask Paul Krugman or Ben Bernanke how they factor it in.

Yeah..I thought so.

Again, you are entirely backwards, AE does not contain these pithy assumptions and equations.

..and you say you are influenced by anarchist ideas.

What part of something I have said (and not what you just falsely assumed to be my position) would make you think that I am not influenced by Anarchists?

As far as your test, I dont give a shit about it.

More like you won't acknowledge how little you understand of that which you are criticising.

What makes you think I place so much faith into Keynesian economics? Because I say I am a mixed economist?

Do you know how useless a term like "mixed economist" is to describe an economic philosophy? Mixed economics is everything between Communism (all state) to anarchism (no-state). All liberals, libertarians, progressives, conservatives, fascists, monetarists etc are to one extent or another "mixed economists".

I only assume you are a keynesian (knowingly or not) because every single piece of economic rhetoric you produce is exactly what I would find written by the likes of Keynes, Krugman and the like. I'm not aware of a single thing you've said that would be contrary to ideas espoused by those of the keynesian school, though if I'm mistaken please do correct me and provide examples.

LMFAO! They have turned it into a fascist system, as always "privatise the profits, socialise the loses".

Firstly, libertarians almost unanimously (as one of the defining elements of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist economics) call for the abolition of corporate welfare. Look at the work of anyone from Mises to Hayek to Rothbard to Schiff to Rockwell and you will see all of them on multiple occasions calling for the state to let failing businesses fail. It is a very different school of thought that proposes such intervention.

Secondly, fascism calls for all economic activity to be in the national interest and while fascists would typically call for the rescuing of failing assets they definitively DO NOT allow private interests to act as they like and keep the proceeds, they have regulation specifically designed to direct economic activity into that which the state sees as benefiting the national interest. I have also never seen a single fascist calling for fully private profits, here is a quote from the American fascist movement that you yourself have so promptly called upon as a definitive representation of fascist ideas;

"Though private property and free trade must be upheld and defended, business ultimately serves the greater good of the state, and must be guided towards JUST and NOBLE purposes."

http://www.americanfascistmovement.com/platform.html

You will also notice on that page many of the things they say they are NOT, including;

"CAPITALISM OR COMMUNISM:

Both Capitalism and Communism are materialist systems that promote degeneracy and crush the human spirit. They consider nothing but man's basest instincts, but man cannot live on peace, land and bread alone."

Fascists are ANTI-CAPITALISM and (most) libertarians promote FREE MARKETS. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

The rest of your post is you pointing out the mistakes that I willingly admitted, all the time still brushing the superman cape of your libertarian utopia and not admiting a single mistake of your own..as always.

I call for no utopia, I have no desire to see society structured to suit my preferences other than via persuasion. As long as each person is free to pursue their own goals, and so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others in the process, they are free to do whatever they please in my view, whether or not that works towards my ideal of a modern high-tech society full of well educated atheists, art and culture.

There is no utopia. there is no inherent economic or social model. Being a fan of anarchy, you should know this.

Can you find a single instance where I said there was? I have repeatedly called for a free and voluntary society with government only as needed to protect the rights of the citizenship and those who are utterly incapable of caring for themselves. Hell, I even support some level of public healthcare for the same reason that if we assume a police force has a moral authority to protect the rights of people, some government healthcare is needed to help protect people's right to their life.

I also make the distinction between adults and children, such that children cannot be held responsible for themselves, nor can they be held responsible for the failures of their parents, thus I support providing all children with adequate care and education, and since it is a burden on the taxpayer, through the most cost effective means - I'm even partial to an argument for public schooling for low-income families in this respect.

[reverendjeremiah]

you are allowed to say "Oh, but Obama isn't a true progressive",

If you want to think Obama is a progressive, then have at it. Go ahead and say he is one..Im not going to get mad and stamp my feet like you do over things like this. He might actually be one for all I know, but doesnt have the balls to stand by it. Either that or he lied just so Progressives would vote for him....I might be wrong about Obama for all I know...I might be wrong about everything I say about politics...so no, there is no double standard in that situation because I admit I dont have all the info in front of me.

I never said that Libertarians hold economic policies which cannot fail. The success and failure of policies doesn't negate one's Libertarianism. I'm fine with admitting that Libertarianism is an experimental political ideology at best; it hasn't been tried and tested yet. Thus it may be that Libertarianism in practice is the wrong thing to do.

That isnt what Void said..Void said Austrian economics were used in 1920 to avoid a depression.

..frankly I think he's full of shit, but Im not in the mood of having to sift through an extra 3 pages of posts of him stamping his feet over me saying that.

And if he isnt full of shit, if he actually IS correct, then Austrian school Economics became a leading factor to the great depression not just 8 years later. Economics are not instantaneous over here in the states. They usually take several years to take noticable effect...sort of like how America is still feeling the effects of Bush's economic choices almost 4 years later... and it didnt help that the democrats jumped on his bandwagon as well. Everyone is greedy..hey...its a perfect chance for Libertarians to come into power now.

And of COURSE it isnt you moving the goal posts back..its me FAILING everytime I try to point out a fault in a "faultless political ideology" such as Libertarianism.

---

I agree, they ARE bullshit equations, sadly for you those bullshit equations are the very backbone of the theory and reason behind the stimulus spending (the attempt to increase economic output) that YOU support. You do support stimulus spending, don't you?

Really? I said I supported Keynesian economic policies? Even when I told you in the same post that I didnt? Or to be specific I do not COMPLETELY support it. Some things are necesary to give monetary help to, but most others who received the stimulus merely shoved the cash into their pockets.

I support the stimulus going to government programs, creating new jobs and social systems...not giving billions of our tax dollars to fat cats at the top for private use.


And YES..almost all economic equations are bullshit...sure, some of them work better than others, but there are so many variables that there is no way anyone could calculate them all. Of corse, you are just going to laugh at me and then claim wrongly again that I support 100% keynesian economics.

Let me give you a hint..scroll down into my signature and click on the link that says "mixed economy" so you will stop beating down a strawman and start beating me down instead.

By the way, mixed economy is not perfect, nor is it something that is set in stone.

I don't, you'd have to ask Paul Krugman or Ben Bernanke how they factor it in. (greed)

Yup, I agree..they are greedy sons of bitches as well. What? You thought I agreed with them assholes? You really dont know what economic stance I have, and that is okay, because mixed economics is not something exactly written in stone. About the only thing consistantly held by those who subscribe to mixed economics is Labor standards, environmental protection, welfare, and MAINTENANCE of competition. Thats it. Everything else is up for grabs. If Stalin had a good idea for an economic section, I would include it into my views. If I founf out later it didnt work I would dump it. If Void had some good economic ideas, I would embrace them with the rest. If I found out they didnt work then I would dump them.

Do you know how useless a term like "mixed economist" is to describe an economic philosophy? Mixed economics is everything between Communism (all state) to anarchism (no-state). All liberals, libertarians, progressives, conservatives, fascists, monetarists etc are to one extent or another "mixed economists".

I only assume you are a keynesian (knowingly or not) because every single piece of economic rhetoric you produce is exactly what I would find written by the likes of Keynes, Krugman and the like. I'm not aware of a single thing you've said that would be contrary to ideas espoused by those of the keynesian school, though if I'm mistaken please do correct me and provide examples.

Nope..it isnt useless terminology. It is merely a simple name for a complex and very custom made economy that changes with the times. And I agree to a point..everyone is a mixed economist is some shade of gray...but how does that make it less relevant? Shouldnt that make it more relevant? That at some level all humans are willing to compromise on economics because of this?

Call me wishy washy..of COURSE I am wishy washy when it comes to economics. I hold mixed views on it. That means I am capable of bending with the flow. I may think an economic idea is fine, but a few months later, after thinking about it very hard, decide I need to dump it.

You may think it is a weakness..I consider it a strength.


Let me give you an example: Can you think of ANY time were I said my economic views were more superior than yours? Nope. I cant say it even if I wanted to. My economic views slightly change here and there as time goes by. Our economic debates have been about me finding many parts of Libertarian economic views to be vile, like this "free market" lie that keeps going around, or the idea that slavery is fine "as long as it is voluntary" (yeah, like that will be enforced).

[theVOID]

Really? I said I supported Keynesian economic policies? Even when I told you in the same post that I didnt? Or to be specific I do not COMPLETELY support it. Some things are necesary to give monetary help to, but most others who received the stimulus merely shoved the cash into their pockets.

That equation describes general output (Y) for any economic system for which government spending (G) can be increased to account for a decrease in investment (I) and/or consumption ©, it is at the very core of GDP, of which stimulus spending seeks to increase/sustain. Anyone who supports any kind of stimulus and who also thinks these equations are bullshit is contradicting themselves.

Also, whether or not G should go to roads/schools or banks isn't an issue of keynesianism vs non-keynesianism, it's (given that you're going to spend the money anyway) good policy vs bad policy. Some of the more prominent keynesians like Krugman have scoffed at some of Obama's spending for that very reason, not because giving money to banks is non-keynesian but because he believes there are many other better investments.

So far as I can tell from your posts what you advocate is very much Keynesian, you simply disagree with the implementation that certain policymakers have taken, but perhaps we will learn more from the following questions;

Do you support the notion that;

1. "When there is nothing else to spend money on, spending money digging ditches and filling them up again is fundamentally good as it will increase the value Y"?

2. "If increases in G do not sustain/increase Y the best solution is to further increase G"?

I support the stimulus going to government programs, creating new jobs and social systems...not giving billions of our tax dollars to fat cats at the top for private use.

And via what mechanisms will you create jobs? You need to create something that has a return on investment that is better than the interest you will need to pay on the new debt as it matures, given that your current administration has completely failed at this so far the consideration is more like "is this actually more cost effective than paying people unemployment?". When you consider the investments such as roads or "social systems" have no great return on investment borrowing substantial amounts of money to fund them is going to leave you in a bigger hole than when you started - roads may pay off in the very long term and if you can push the debt out 40+ years investments in education may eventually yield a return greater than the interest payments, thought the interest paid on a 40 year debt is going to be substantial - But, hey, GDP will be up! Big fucking deal, right? You could raise GDP by mass producing fart-spray and giving it away, the only problem is you'll end up with an unsustainable debt that is going to lead to the need to cut public spending... Yeah, we all know how well that goes down

In reality the best bet is to invest in production, borrow money so businesses can produce something of material wealth by taking resources and adding value to them, you do need to invest some of the money in areas that are going to pay down debt fast, one way to do that is to lend the banks liquidity so they can lend to private enterprise, allow the banks to manage proposals to see which proposals for businesses are lowest-risk highest reward, providing entrepreneurs with a chance to start new businesses, another thing you could do is build government-owned factories provided you can find a market for your products... But really, none of it is that easy and the "bullshit equations" and economic forecasts are pretty much all you have to work with, and you just have to take one look at the "forecasts" for the stimulus spending, unemployment and the like to see how fucking abysmal projections were compared to reality.

But none of it is easy, anyone who says "we should create jobs" without a further explanation hasn't got a fucking clue.

And YES..almost all economic equations are bullshit...sure, some of them work better than others, but there are so many variables that there is no way anyone could calculate them all. Of corse, you are just going to laugh at me and then claim wrongly again that I support 100% keynesian economics.

I only laughed because you contradicted the very notion of stimulus spending, though I suspect now that you simply didn't realise, it was still funny at the time.

Tell me, if you believe these equations are so bad why on earth do you advocate so much centralised spending? Even after you take away spending needed to provide that which is deemed by you a necessary expense, such as healthcare, social security, roads, schools etc do you still advocate more government spending in an effort to improve the economy?

That to me seems plainly inconsistent with your lack of confidence in the mathematics used by the very people trusted to bring about these improvements at the cost of deficit spending and long-term interest on the debt... Your attitude towards economists and their formulae for strategic spending is more akin to the cynicism/skepticism of the Austrians, yet your policies are the exact opposite in being very mainstream...

Let me give you a hint..scroll down into my signature and click on the link that says "mixed economy" so you will stop beating down a strawman and start beating me down instead.

By the way, mixed economy is not perfect, nor is it something that is set in stone.

Like I said before, Mixed Economy isn't a meaningful term other than conveying the idea that the economy isn't 100% public or 100% private... You'll have to explain what you mean by "mixed economy" in terms of theory and strategy, because I can't ascertain anything beyond you have the general policies of keynesians while being skeptical of keynesian functions...

Perhaps you are an agnostic keynesian

Yup, I agree..they are greedy sons of bitches as well.

Well, Bernanke is certainly a bit of an ass/idiot/chrony, Krugman seems like a decent fella though despite my disagreements with him, he's a proponent of Keynesian theory and a writer mainly, I'd hardly say he ever has been nor is in the position to be overly greedy, I just don't think his economics make a lot of sense in any pragmatic context, sure it works all well when you plug the numbers into the spreadsheet but nobody knows the numbers and governments around the world have consistently proved themselves incapable of reliably ascertaining them.

What? You thought I agreed with them assholes?

With Krugman, mostly. With Bernanke, not so much. But that wasn't my point in bringing them up, you asked me to account for greed in the equations, I was simply trying to say "these ain't my equations".

You really dont know what economic stance I have, and that is okay, because mixed economics is not something exactly written in stone.

It's not even written on the back of a napkin at some back-water diner... it's about as vague as any label can be.

About the only thing consistantly held by those who subscribe to mixed economics is Labor standards, environmental protection, welfare, and MAINTENANCE of competition. Thats it. Everything else is up for grabs.

That's not really an economic theory... that's just a list of things that are important to you. What are the strategies, methodologies, monetary policy etc that you would use in various situations given that these are your goals? Also, I assume you include "price controls" somewhere on that list? After all you don't like the idea of people choosing how much to sell their own matches for

If Stalin had a good idea for an economic section, I would include it into my views. If I founf out later it didnt work I would dump it. If Void had some good economic ideas, I would embrace them with the rest. If I found out they didnt work then I would dump them.

That's not so cut-and-dry, the solutions to some economic problems are the bane of others. Low interest rates for example might help increase consumption but at the cost of debt, they also tell businesses to invest for future product lines given that credit is cheap, but people might want to consume now... With a myriad of mixed messages coming from various economic signals it's not so easy to take an ultra-pragmatic stance.

I advocate AE because I believe markets, millions of people individually pursuing their own goals, creates an overall much more effective allocation of resources than any micromanagement. It might be true that stalin's policy x is effective for solving problem y, but when implemented on a large scale by economists and policymakers the patchwork style will likely cause problem z which will be solved by a which will later cause problem b etc etc, leading to a cascade of boom and bust cycles as seen throughout history.

Nope..it isnt useless terminology. It is merely a simple name for a complex and very custom made economy that changes with the times. And I agree to a point..everyone is a mixed economist is some shade of gray...but how does that make it less relevant? Shouldnt that make it more relevant? That at some level all humans are willing to compromise on economics because of this?

The idea of "a complex and very custom made economy that changes with the times" is not unique or very descriptive of the inner workings, strategies or implementations, it does't really describe any ideas... A free market is just as much "a complex and custom made economy that changes with the times", the difference being it is made by the actors in the economy, not the overlords.

Call me wishy washy..of COURSE I am wishy washy when it comes to economics. I hold mixed views on it. That means I am capable of bending with the flow. I may think an economic idea is fine, but a few months later, after thinking about it very hard, decide I need to dump it.

You may think it is a weakness..I consider it a strength.

I call it confused if anything... It's a non-position.

Let me give you an example: Can you think of ANY time were I said my economic views were more superior than yours? Nope. I cant say it even if I wanted to. My economic views slightly change here and there as time goes by.

My economic views would change if I was persuaded that some macroeconomic strategist could do a better job of managing resources than the individuals in the economy pursuing their own goals. As long as I believe that is false I'll be for free markets.

Our economic debates have been about me finding many parts of Libertarian economic views to be vile, like this "free market" lie that keeps going around, or the idea that slavery is fine "as long as it is voluntary" (yeah, like that will be enforced).

What exactly is this "Free market lie"?

And what do you mean by "slave"? Slavery is necessarily involuntary by it's very definition.

[reverendjeremiah]

That equation describes general output (Y) for any economic system for which government spending (G) can be increased to account for a decrease in investment (I) and/or consumption ©, it is at the very core of GDP, of which stimulus spending seeks to increase/sustain. Anyone who supports any kind of stimulus and who also thinks these equations are bullshit is contradicting themselves.

Also, whether or not G should go to roads/schools or banks isn't an issue of keynesianism vs non-keynesianism, it's (given that you're going to spend the money anyway) good policy vs bad policy. Some of the more prominent keynesians like Krugman have scoffed at some of Obama's spending for that very reason, not because giving money to banks is non-keynesian but because he believes there are many other better investments.

So far as I can tell from your posts what you advocate is very much Keynesian, you simply disagree with the implementation that certain policymakers have taken, but perhaps we will learn more from the following questions;

Do you support the notion that;

1. "When there is nothing else to spend money on, spending money digging ditches and filling them up again is fundamentally good as it will increase the value Y"?

2. "If increases in G do not sustain/increase Y the best solution is to further increase G"?

Yes. I am sure those are wonderfully accurate equations.

And via what mechanisms will you create jobs?

I figured the government actually making jobs would actually make jobs. Apparently I am wrong about that.

You need to create something that has a return on investment that is better than the interest you will need to pay on the new debt as it matures, given that your current administration has completely failed at this so far the consideration is more like "is this actually more cost effective than paying people unemployment?".

Of course that is correct..but only if you are greed minded, and not social minded. Greed minded needs a return that is better.

Social minded thinks that a healthy life is all that is needed for a return.

"MY" current administration? If it was mine the corporations would be getting a major spanking right now. No. This is OBAMA's administration. Nothing more than an extension of Bush's administration.

What exactly is this "Free market lie"?

And what do you mean by "slave"? Slavery is necessarily involuntary by it's very definition.

No..I'm sure you can tell me what they mean. I have been punished for speaking politics on this forum, and I therefore will no longer put my opinion into the matter.


You have won.

[theVOID]

Yes. I am sure those are wonderfully accurate equations.

But you still advocate stimulus spending that is entirely grounded in them?

And via what mechanisms will you create jobs?

I figured the government actually making jobs would actually make jobs. Apparently I am wrong about that.

No, it will make jobs, so would paying half the people to dig ditches and the other half to fill them up again, the question is "what jobs?" and how can we create jobs simply because we see the need while still ensuring that these jobs are going to be better than just paying people to sit at home, given that these jobs come at the expense of debt + interest? Infrastructure and education are amongst the better ideas provided you can sustain the debt over a long period of time, but these alone aren't enough.

If it was so easy to create jobs that are going to be equitable you wouldn't need the government to do it. As you noticed there are banks sitting on a lot of liquidity who aren't lending, that is because there is a great lack of consumption globally meaning very little opportunities for entrepreneurs and businesses to partake in activities that are going to be profitable or even break even - it is the lack of incentive the lenders face that leads to stalled job-creation and banks sitting on liquidity - The worst part is in considering the origin of this unused liquidity, it came about via Quantitative easing (the creation of money changed the ratio between money:resources meaning that the wages and savings of people are worth less) and Stimulus spending (at the cost of debt) that have done much more harm to the working class and the economy in general than any abject good done by giving banks liquidity.

Of course that is correct..but only if you are greed minded, and not social minded. Greed minded needs a return that is better. Social minded thinks that a healthy life is all that is needed for a return.

It has nothing to do with greed, even from an entirely social perspective deficit spending has costs, spending money now that doesn't pay off later is going to be much much worse for everyone when the debt matures, especially the poor and middle class.

"MY" current administration? If it was mine the corporations would be getting a major spanking right now. No. This is OBAMA's administration. Nothing more than an extension of Bush's administration.

By 'your' I was doing little more than referring to Americans. I am well aware of your dislike of the Obama administration.

No..I'm sure you can tell me what they mean. I have been punished for speaking politics on this forum, and I therefore will no longer put my opinion into the matter.

You have won.

You have been 'punished' (given a warning actually) for flaming, insults and making discussions needlessly personal. Nobody has any problem with you expressing your opinion, it's your attitude and constant nastiness that has earned you a warning.

Furthermore, it was not me who reported your post and during staff discussion about it I abstained from voting due to my inability to be impartial, your warning came from the other members of the staff, 90% of whom share your identification as a progressive. Clearly political opinion had naught to do with it.