(July 18, 2011 at 6:42 am)Napoleon Wrote:

(July 18, 2011 at 12:13 am)CharlieMilles Wrote: Lol you really hate successful people, don't you?

You would of thought 'successful people' wouldn't have to be scavenging off the state. If they are 'successful' they can pay for it them-fucking-selves.

The state shouldn't subsidise ANY special interests, if there isn't enough demand for their products or services to survive without subsidies they shouldn't be running that business, regardless of who they are or how much money they already have. It's when Government has the power to give special interests the wealth of the people that we create opportunities and incentives for the greedy to manipulate and corrupt the force of Government, the libertarian solution is to remove that power from Government period - If you can get Rich by selling goods and services to people for a price they are willing to pay then go for it, you're absolutely free to do so, but if you can't do that without receiving money from the state then it's time to find a new business.

I agree. I thought that's exactly what capitalism was all about.

(July 18, 2011 at 7:11 am)Napoleon Wrote: I agree. I thought that's exactly what capitalism was all about.

Because you've been listening to pig headed goons like Min who just take a position they don't like and barely understand and then proceed to associate it with everything else they dislike.

Capitalism is the idea that the means of production should be privately owned, that if you see a demand for a product and then produce that thing to sell it YOU own the business, if you agree to work for someone else by trading your time and productivity for a fixed wage or commission then you DO NOT own the business, you are simply employed/contracted by it - This is in contrast to the idea presented in socialism that the means of production should be collectively owned by all persons employed by that organisation - Communism is a step further in that every productive means should be owned equally by everyone - Progressives and Libertarians are both capitalists, one advocates free markets and the other controlled markets.

The idea of subsidising businesses is an entirely political agenda, designed to further the picture of society that the politicians believe will be approved of by the public, it is more commonly called Keynesianism amongst economists, though given it's extent it can also be called corporatism in the instances where the beneficiaries are large private entities - For instance; a small business that is subsidised to compete with a big business who provides goods and services more cheaply wouldn't be corporatism because the subsidies are going to a large number of small businesses rather than a core of elite private interests.

Capitalism is compatible with corporatism in that the means of production can be privately owned and subsidies by taxpayers, Socialism is somewhat compatible with corporatism in that certain industries are given the revenues collected from other industries, businesses and individuals to further an agenda, for instance if a government decides that it should have a bigger oil industry so it subsidises it's oil industries with revenues gained elsewhere.

In either case, if someone simply attacks "capitalism" you should be aware that they are being intentionally and disingenuously vague, it allows them to avoid telling you that when they attack capitalism they are actually referring explicitly to a corrupt political situation of which capitalism can be part, however there is a massive difference between the so called "Cronie capitalism", "free market capitalism", "social capitalism" and "democratic capitalism" - I advocate free market capitalism, where there should be a separation of industry and state, similar to the conceptual church state separation.

I hope that's cleared a few things up for you.

The idea of subsidizing business is in at least one sense the means by which production is properly planned and distributed. This was important once as a way to prevent gluts of tomatoes, and shortages of grain, for example. The early programs to subsidize agriculture were intended to keep people from starving. Subsidies aren't always black or white. In the case of ag, it would be nice if the producers would level production themselves, but they wont, because they honestly can't. Subsidies are a less heavy handed way to overcome this, the alternative is absolute control and planning of food production by the Fed. (That is until such time as local mixed crop producers can compete with multinational mono crop producers....a situation we're not likely to ever see realized.)

(July 18, 2011 at 8:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: The idea of subsidizing business is in at least one sense the means by which production is properly planned and distributed. This was important once as a way to prevent gluts of tomatoes, and shortages of grain, for example. The early programs to subsidize agriculture were intended to keep people from starving. Subsidies aren't always black or white. In the case of ag, it would be nice if the producers would level production themselves, but they wont, because they honestly can't. Subsidies are a less heavy handed way to overcome this, the alternative is absolute control and planning of food production by the Fed. (That is until such time as local mixed crop producers can compete with multinational mono crop producers....a situation we're not likely to ever see realized.)

No way, subsidies are the absolute worst way to deal with a scarcity issue! When a resource becomes scarce the prices rise as the demand pursuing the goods becomes larger relative to the goods available, this is seen as a "problem" because now those who desire the goods but are less willing to pay will miss out to the people who are willing to pay more, it's not a problem at all, if there is a product that is scarce there has likely already been investment in increasing the productive capacity of the industry and likely little more that can be done, with the increased demand for other staple food due to the grain prices capital will be allocated towards increasing the productive capacity of these industries, such as to extract the maximum amount of productive gains from the least amount of capital, creating a solution to the food shortage problem by providing alternatives at lower prices and in turn creating a more efficient economy, all based on the price signals generated by people's willingness to pay - All subsidies do is artificially push down the price of the grain by hiding the value being subsidised from the purview of the consumer masking the true cost, people who wouldn't be willing to pay for grain at the retail price + the subsidised value are essentially being tricked into purchasing a good at a price higher than they would otherwise pay had they known the full-price they were paying via taxes.

You also now have a situation where the people who most want the goods and who would have otherwise been willing to pay more for them are now pursuing the same scarce resources as those who do not have the same demand which creates more tainted market signals about the demand for grain relative to the supply, the demand so essential to price signals that informs the allocation of capital has been tainted. There is also the downside that people who may have no interest in grain or any real demand for it are now paying for the subsidies so that grain consumers can maintain their cheap prices.

Subsidies also hurt trade between states/provinces or nations, it may be the case that the Grain is actually cheaper imported from another producing region but given the subsidies that are tainting the price signals it would be much more difficult to tell - Your own nation could possibly be allocating capital towards other goods and services that are in demand and for which the most efficient increases in productive capacity can be achieved so that you can trade these goods with grain producing regions but the capital has been tied up in marginal increases in productive capacity and suppressing prices in Grain instead, now you're whole economy is less efficient.

If you want to keep people from starving you don't fuck with the market and throw the price signals out of whack, you give them money so that they can participate in the market and if Grain is out of their price range they will demand some other staple food.

(July 18, 2011 at 7:49 am)theVOID Wrote: I hope that's cleared a few things up for you.

Lol I knew you'd come back and give me a whole detailed post about capitalism (and much more).

To answer your question, I didn't necessarily need anything cleared up but you gave me a good chunk of info. Thanks for that.

If you read the Libertarian platform, which I agree with, it's all about smaller government and fewer taxes. Subsidizing a sports franchise is not part of the Libertarian ideal. If you want to build a new stadium, go right ahead. If you can't afford to, go get a loan, take up donations, get private funding, etc. Don't expect taxpayers to pay for it.

I'm so sick of seeing Libertarians denigrated because of some mistaken belief in fiscal policy. Yes, they do tend to be capitalists. I'm all for capitalism with the caveat that someone shouldn't be allowed to harm someone else's life or property just to make a buck. But Libertarianism is all about having personal freedoms and goes a lot farther than either the Republican or Democrat parties in espousing them. For instance, I don't see Democrats or Republicans calling for repeal of marijuana laws.

The issue with Libertarians in the US is their tepid if not accepting support of extreme far right social views.

Were they at least moderates when it comes to the actions of their party, I would call myself one.

However, the differences between ideological purity, as Void has laid out of what it should be, and the actual implementation keeps me firmly among the blue dog democrats.

(July 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Lol I knew you'd come back and give me a whole detailed post about capitalism (and much more).

To answer your question, I didn't necessarily need anything cleared up but you gave me a good chunk of info. Thanks for that.

So wait, you do or do not believe that capitalism necessarily advocated subsidies for industry?

Why is there always an argument relating libertarians to Republicans? Republicans are the posers of libertarianism. Real libertarianism, although I don't agree with it still, is fundamentally different than the republican philosophy.