While in the US, Hayek drew off of the US Social Security and Medicaid system (both are programs that he wanted to see abolished).
He was encouraged to go on the dole by none other than Charles Koch, notorious Social Security hater and billionaire bankroller of various anti-Soc. Sec. groups.
Just like Ayn Rand (who also drew off Social Security in her declining years), he's another hypocrite who took advantage of social programs that they wanted to keep other people from getting.
Babbage designed the machine without government. The government was going to buy one but it never got finished. Hmm how is it that as soon as the government got involved the whole thing went to pieces? You Neo-Marxists like to make it sound like we don't think money funneled through the government can't be used to create something. We don't say any such thing. We only think it's wasteful, inefficient, and usually involves stealing. You can't answer the actual points, so the games start.
The free-market, in fact, has never invented anything. The only place the free-market exists is in the speeches of politicians and right-wing economic ideologues.
@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.
"Babbage presented something he called the 'difference engine' to the Royal Astronomical Society on Jun 14, 1822 and in a paper entitled 'Note on the application of machinery to the computation of astronomical and mathematical tables.'"
It was able to calculate polynomials by using a numerical methid called the differences method.
The society approved the idea, and the government granted him £1500 to construct it -, in 1823."
In 1934, Lerner provided one of his most remarkable papers laying out the full Pareto-optimality conditions in a general equilibrium production economy - in particular, introducing that all-important Paretian rule for efficiency, i.e. that price equal marginal cost, P = MC. It was here too that Lerner presented the idea of "degree of monopoly" as being captured by the extent of deviation of price from marginal cost.
"Lerner's numerous contributions to economic theory and policy make him one of most influential economists of the century -- although his congenital inability to play academic politics ensured that he would not lead a conventional career. His initial contributions, published while he still was a student, were in international trade theory and general equilibrium theory."
"His 1932 article brought together the Haberler's production possibilities frontier, Marshall's offer curves and Pareto's indifference curves into a two-sector model for international trade."
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.
Basically, the chapters of the history books pre-twentieth-first century should include a section: Market kills 300 million people. There was 30 million deaths in China (starved, not killed) and about 20 million in Russia. That's using the high estimates. Wheatcroft (who notes that the amount in labor camps was 4 million), Getty, etc. all have lower figures. Furthermore, the overwhelming opinion since the release of the archives is that the famine of the 1930s was due to economic inefficiency.
wow, so disappointing. This is anti-socialist propaganda. I hoped for better. Such garbage.
Socialism is the only true hope for humanity, everything else is suicide.
Farmer's markets negate any middle-man there. In Canada real-estate agents no longer are needed and wider information availability/technologies means many more middle-men are proven forever to be useless parasites.
Capitalism is such a failure, can no one CHAMPION it? No one? Without this kind of PROPAGANDA? Cooperation is socialism
@ytgv3fc7 Unfortunately, I have never seen true capitalism in my lifetime (America is mercantilist), but it did work very well when it was tried. Socialism on the other hand, has failed in every instance that it was tried (160 million were killed in the process). But, the failure of socialism comes as no surprise, because when the means of production are all owned by the State, there are no prices, thus there is no mechanism by which to decide upon how much and what to produce.
@KSTCBH23 Let's see: you're purporting the old, discredited "calculation argument" that not even economists such as Bryan Caplan (who's an ancap) accept as valid. The calculation argument has been refuted by Taylor, Dickinson, Lange, and also Cocktrell and Cockshott. The argument was known to be logically flawed before it was even made: a pupil of Parento (one of the more brilliant economists) already proved that market socialism is possible within the concept of equilibrium.
@KSTCBH23 Thanks to computer technology, the mathematical solution, first formulated by said pupil before the Mises challenge and brushed aside by Hayek in 1935, is now entirely feasible. As long as we have the necessary information about capital goods. And we will, because: (1) internet and mobile phones provide instantaneous communication, dispersed information, and (2) there is no evidence that "tacit information" even exists.
@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.
@ytgv3fc7 "This was followed up in 1934 and have formed the basic way of presenting international trade theory since. Also in 1934, Lerner discovered the "factor price equalization" theorem, later rediscovered by Samuelson in 1948, albeit he left it unpublished until 1952. His 1936 paper proved the old intuition on the symmetry of export and import taxes. "
@ytgv3fc7 You should look into Lerner too. He said that only the initial distribution of income comes from the planner. He knew that free-markets did not achieve the P = MC rule, hence the need for socialism. In fact, it has now been proven by economists that markets never achieve optimality except under the extraordinary limited conditions of Debru-arrow models, and even if there are "incomplete markets" with equilibrium they are not necessarily Pareto optimal.
@KSTCBH23 Capitalism did not work when it was first implemented. There were no right to work laws. In Britain, the "poor laws" were revoked as they interfered with the profits of the industrial class. Things such as workers' comp, basic income, etc., didn't exist, and it was easier to find a new worker willing to work for basically nothing than provide health care for someone injured on the job. The people revolted against it.
@successfulbuild There were riots all over the place against the slave-like working conditions in both Britain and the United States when we had the industrial revolution. And government committees such as the Saddler Committee shocked parliament into implementing reform. Furthermore, businesses had to shield themselves from the open market just to be productive. There has never been a time in history capitalism has "worked" without the interventionist state.
@KSTCBH23 Furthermore, when the "Chicago boys" tried to force neo-classical economics on the people of South America, it was met with the same resistance as in earlier industrial society. People don't want to live under your "have the government protect the rich and let the poor starve to death" system - thus, Libertarians want to force it on them by removing the democratic process. I fail to see how you are any different from fascists, who use similar tactics.
@KSTCBH23 Which historian has said that Stalinist like systems (i.e. state-capitalism where you have a privatized dictatorship over an economy with tons of middlemen micromanaging the economy) have killed 160 million? In any case, Sen has shown that had India had China's social reforms, at least 100 million could be saved. European scholars have put capitalism's death toll at 100 million. If we count all the people who have died from easily curable diseases and so on, that's another 100 million.
@KSTCBH23 mercantilist and corporatist are ALL CAPITALIST. It is TRUE capitalism. No one gets to just magically re-invent the definition.
If it has profiteering, if it has capital trade, if it has a market, it's capitalism. Doesn't matter what else is there, it's capitalism.
Socialism has worked in every situation it's been used because by definition it really *can't* fail but it can be inefficient in SOME circumstances. Socialism helped more people survive in the Soviet nuclear-budget collapse
Respond to this video... Capitalism merely means that the capital (capital goods and savings) is owned by private individuals. That is it. You say that socialism helped in the Soviet nuc budget collapse, how so? In a socialist economy is it not true that all economic decisions must ultimately be made by one man or a small group? What, does/do he/they know all individual valuations within and economy? Socialists never give specifics upon how the system will work and be sustainable.
@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
@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
@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
@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.
@KSTCBH23 but when America collapses due to military / nuclear spending there is no such cushion so you'll see mass starvation, civil war and mass murders by police. Socialism is how we in Canada make health-care work and food-banks and such and it all works *amazingly*. America does everything wrong then lies and says it's all Gravy. It's not gravy. It's shit and lies.
@ytgv3fc7 By what mechanism is it known? What, does everybody hold a vote? That's fine and dandy if you hold a vote for every instant in time, but that is impossible. That is why the price system exists, to show the valuations of all individuals so that the producers can produce what is demanded. America will collapse, but it is more due to mercantilism, fascism and socialism than anything else. America's economy is centrally planned, so it is no surprise that it will collapse.
@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.
@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
@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.
@KSTCBH23 by what mechanism, with no capitalism, are resources allocated to plants and animals? No money? For one, there's no way to eat 100x more than your fellow animal, your belly can't hold that much and your fat-stores if you find a way will get so big you'll be slow. There's no slow animals (ok, there are, but pick on it if you really want to). Massive inequality is unnatural and capitalism seems to force it to happen, then collapse must follow.
@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
@KSTCBH23 won't do. Pricing won't reflect inventory counts, won't reflect needed changes in inventory counts short-term or long-term, won't control inventory counts, won't communicate anything but an alleged value and culturally in capitalism with easily floating prices you get rarely accurate prices and massive imbalances. Like a diabetic who never checks blood sugar level OR food sugar content. It's not magic, you have to be careful and measure things for real. No guessing allowed.
@KSTCBH23 the biggest lie ever told to anyone EVER about money is that it helps allocate resources. It does no such thing, not for one second. The ONLY way to know how much to produce and how many people need is to DO THE PRODUCTION and to ASK THE PEOPLE and measure the over-flow. Even working in a bakery we did this and we all priced things in and out. Price-discovery is USELESS for this task. USELESS.
The mechanism can't NOT EXIST, it's called INVENTORY. Pricing never has and never will do it
@ytgv3fc7 Money is merely another good that acts as a medium of exchange, nothing more. It typically exhibits a high marketability (you sell money for roughly the same value that you buy it). Why do you think commodities served as money for most of human history? Unfortunately, once a money is established, the reputation of the money lends itself to being sustained as the "money" even after it has lost this marketability aspect. Such as what took place in 3 separate instances in US history.
@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.
You can't exclude these possibilities as stuff like this actually happened when America was more "laissez-faire" - where private companies essentially forced workers to be their slaves. This happens today in China where many people live at the company they work at and do nothing more than eat/work, sometimes working to death, with absolutely no rights. Such is the "paradise" of market capitalism. However, with modern liberal governments, such arrangements are not allowed.
@successfulbuild How exactly does a company force anybody to do anything against their will? Last I checked, Americans were working on farms just to barely survive and had to give up a higher share of their savings for regular amenities. When the industrial revolution hit, people chose to work for others because they saw a benefit to it (higher quality of life). Sure, hours were long, but that is nothing compared to trying to live off of the land. Give it a try sometime, see how long you last
@KSTCBH23 companies will take punitive measures against your income you've already worked for if you don't do what you're told, even if it's illegal. Some companies will go as far as damaging the community you live in (certain industries and mining) so money=force=coercion=killing freedom and life once accumulated by capitalism into a powerful company. The quality of life drops rapidly. Last I checked Americans were NOT working on farms, they resembled the farm animals instead.
@ytgv3fc7 If companies lower wages below the marginal productivity of the workers those workers will simply go elsewhere. At the lower wage, the only hirable labor will be that in which has a lower marginal productivity. So, a company that lowers wages as you describe will gain nothing in doing so, and may actually sustain loses by instituting such a policy. Money holds no power, it is only when that money is used to gain the favor of the State that the power of coercion is possible.
@KSTCBH23 Don't just give him the names of theories. Explain how driving down everybody's wages encourages freedom of choice for workers. The fact is that only a handful of companies control the vast majority of wealth, so there are no other options for workers. Furthermore, this economic leverage prevents new competitors from entering into the market: even the threat of a monopoly lowering their prices to the point where smaller businesses can no longer compete is enough to keep them out.
@KSTCBH23 there is no such place as "elsewhere" and no such thing as "marginal productivity". People have NO WHERE TO GO, no where else to work and will work for NOTHING and potentially be forced as corporation gain ownership over land meant for homes and more - like water and power. Leaving is an illusion: people will starve long before they make it to the next city or job and many do. So the companies gain everything by doing this and become ultra-rich. Over and over again.
@KSTCBH23 against these evil corporations, people have only the state to turn to, or guns. In these situations either the state uses violence against the corporations, or lets the people use violence to tear them down so they are punished for their enslaving and thieving. This action is the creation of the FIRST place a worker can go in freedom who does not want to work in slavery. Every such place comes from revolution and guns. Nothing else.
@KSTCBH23 This is the best reason to oppose capitalism. When America was a purely agricultural economy, anybody could just go off onto their own land and live off of it if they wanted to. Now such a thing is virtually impossible because the economy is so interdependent. Things such as "unappropriated labor" and "unappropriated tools" no longer exist - everything is a mix of other people's labor, and as Mill proved over a century ago, there is no way to calculate the true wage of a laborer.
@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.
This has all been proven and I'll show the evidence tomorrow.
_
Of course, kooky Austrian economists such as yourself would prefer to wallow in your own ignorance promoting conspiracy theories on how the world works.
Furthermore, by your logic, a nut ranting on a street corner is just being logical because that is "rational" for him. However, it is more likely he has a chemical imbalance and needs to be treated. Kooky Austrian economics is not only bad philosophy but just downright bad science that would have a negative effect on society as a whole. Also, some knowingly act irrational. A man who kills his wife who knows its wrong couldn't plead the "insanity defense," for example.
@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.
By Austrian logic, everybody has their own truth so there is no such thing as absolute truth, so for some people 2+2 = 5. This is just ridiculous and it diminishes the word rational to the point where it has no meaning. By that standard even our emotions (which play a large role in our decision making) are also rational decisions, but most actions are between perfectly rational and perfectly irrational.
>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.
@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.
@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.
@Panax07 it's an innovation, not a conundrum. I'm advocating it. Pretty much all of open-sourcing software is decentralized socialism with information creation and trade. It's not much farther to add in budgets, inventory accounting and voluntary input to move products or money as needed (suggested). No suggestion / poor recommendation: unlikely to have spending/hedging action. No takers on a plan: it doesn't happen. We can make it happen. Better than central-banking+capitalism by a long shot
@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.
@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.
@ytgv3fc7 To say that co-operation is the driving force of innovation is just insane. It's been proven over and over again that only competition works. If open source really was so great, everyone would be using Linux. I'm not against Linux, but after years and years, it's still not capable of replacing Windows for the general computer user.
Also, central banking is not capitalist. You will find it under plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto. Socialism ALWAYS invokes centralization.
@the29thtn You're a retard. Show us the economic research that proves that competition is driving force. The computer industry came from the public sector, and Microsoft developed out of licensing disputes with Unix. Competition hindered the advancements that were being made. You're a crackpot.
@successfulbuild Your ignorance is astounding. Be it the Babbeges's Engine 2, the Z1, or whatever, modern computing's roots are firmly in the private sector. Even Unix was started by AT&T as a closed source project. It's certainly not the public sector that's continuing to prove Moore's law years after it was predicted it could no longer be maintained. It's private companies. The proof is all around you if you would just be open to it. Socialist dogma is well past it's prime.
@the29thtn Babbage received funding from the government. In fact, the Babbage analytical engine failed due to a lack of funding, although it has now been proven it could have been invented. That's another market failure. The Z1 was not even a complete electronic computer - it had no relevance. The Mark I, the ENIAC, the EDVAC, and so on were all public projects.
@the29thtn Unix comes from multics which was government funded. Multics was funded by the DoD (which is why security was such a high issue) (ARPA project).
@the29thtn Eckert & Mauchly were research scientists, that's why they were known in the books. They did their best work at the U of Penn. You'll probably try and claim the space missiosn are cpaitalist expedition and that the astronauts were all capitalists next LOL.
@the29thtn The fact is that these large projects were all government funded and done by engineers scientists.
Since the public funded it, the public OWNS it, just like they own all the airwaves. Since the public funded all ground breaking research, all monopolies like Microsoft etc. should be broken up.
@the29thtn Apparently 'capitalism is using the government to fund you and your project, and sponsor large corporations like AT&T over the free-market. I agree, we should have billion dollars research programs by the government and call it 'capitalism' to convince the idiots to support it I guess.
@the29thtn Also this dunce doesn't understand that the government was pouring billions of dollars into the networking industry in the 80s - this is basically common knowledge to any technicians and is covered in most certifications even - and one of Clinton's policies was spending massive amounts of money on the computer industry in order to build up that sector.
@the29thtn Moore's law just shows that the industry is doing what it's supposed to be doing - but of course, Silicon Valley, Intel, and these large corporations all received billions of dollars of funding from the government anyway. The computer industry is among the most supported regulated industries of all time.
@the29thtn Also, the Hollerith was invented for purposes of the Census and thus IBM was a business created AROUND the government - and of course worked with governments all around the world, such as Germany.
_
The computer industry was basically entirely government during its early generations.
You also commit a fallacy when you compare human society to a ship. This is not only a fallacy (false analogy) but it violates your own principles as Mises believed humans had decision making powers that renders all such comparisons meaningless.
_
Finally, all human actions are not rational even if the person performing the action believes it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the brain as not all actions are even guided by areas of the brain that deal with logic.
@successfulbuild I didn't compare human society to a ship, I compared States to a ship. Society can exist without injecting a State into the matter. However, the point was that a single world government places all humans under a single ruler. If such a ruler becomes tyrannical, what option do the people have to escape such tyranny? World governance is nothing more than consolidation of power. The way I see it, unless we are interacting with other worlds, world governance is absurd.
First of all, if you don't want to debate why would you ask me to debate human action (praxeology)? You're not making any sense. Second, I have provided my sources and evidence. The topic was history, not Austrian word games. There is a place to discuss the word games and pseudo-intellectual theories of Austrian economics, and that place is only when discussing Austrian economics. It was irrelevant to the points I was making on history.
@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.
@ytgv3fc7 Your mistake is believing that market socialism is built off the work of Ludwig Mises. IT IS NOT. Not at all. In fact, I was debating with a neoclassical economist who said the same thing - that market socialism was a "reaction" to Mises. This shows the contempt even neoclassicals have for history. Market socialism was mathematically proven pre-Mises. The calculation debate has become irrelevant.
@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.
I notice my new friend here is a Glenn Beck fan. Only a Glenn Beck fan would believe you can "read too much" science.
_
You know I actually say an Austrian economist on Glenn Beck? So they're going after that intellectual market. I think it was Thomas Woods with some idiot who claimed that the Russians killed 50-100 million. Apparently, inflating numbers to dishonor the actual victims of real tragedies to make a buck off 'em is a shared value at the Mises Institute.
@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.
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.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 Really, because you idiots spend hours uploading videos on a discredited school of economics and spamming youtube. You'd think you'd learn that after Ron Paul's failure of a presidential campaign that such actions are ultimately fruitless.
_
It's obvious you not only have no degree in economics but are an idiot. After I respond to KSTCBH's latest logical fallacy I'll back up more of my points that you seemed to have trouble comprehending.
@successfulbuild Discredited by whom? Are you not "spamming" everything Austrian? What does Ron Paul have to do with this?
It seems to me that you're merely a statist that is angry over the fact that people have seen the great failures of interventionism, and are now seeing the explanations of such in the writings of Rothbard and Mises as more promising. If you would cite some examples of Austrian theory, I think that you might be taken seriously. Yet, you have done nothing of the sort.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 Chomsky doesn't write about the discredited school of Austrian economics, so your claim that I'm here because I've "read too much Chomsky" shows you're ignorant of not only economics but of linguistics and foreign policy analysis as well. That's OK being an idiot is a prerequisite to following the Mises cult. I will be covering why even laissez-faire economists disassociate with the discredited school of economics - patience is a virtue.
@successfulbuild How about we debate ACTUAL Austrian theories. Here, I'll give you a few areas to start with: what are your objections to Austrian capital theory, price theory, marginal utility, subjective value, utility, production, savings, the origins of money, purposeful action, capital accumulation. Pick one and we can debate the theories themselves, rather than make blanket attacks upon the School. You seem to want to attack the school, rather than the substance of the school.
@KSTCBH23 I think Mises University should open up a class on how to debate. I didn't bring up Mises theories because I don't believe in Austrian economics and thus wouldn't use axiomatic economics to make my points. You're using logical fallacies: that Mises isn't taken seriously because the "government economists" would lose their funding; that I'm here because Noam Chomsky or the government sent me, and so on (odd for a school that claims to use deductive logic to be using fallacies).
@successfulbuild First of all, I don't come to YT to debate. I come here to watch videos. Second, you freely admit you have no idea what you are debating, because you're never read the primary material (probably no material at all). Personally, I didn't read the bible because I'm a Christian (I'm not), I read it to know what was in it. Third, there is a disproportional amount of economists that do owe their livelihood to the state whether it be first person, or by proxy. ---->
@successfulbuild Fourth, I never mentioned Chomsky, you did. Fifth, I never said that you work for anybody, I said that I don't know. However, the fact that you spend hours trolling and attacking something that you have not even learned shows that there is "something" up with you. What it is, I don't know and I don't care. You don't have to support everything that you learn, but at least spend the time to learn it before you know it is wrong. You simply refuse to do this.
@KSTCBH23 Third, I did cite my sources, many of them primary: Nazi Charter of Labor guaranteeing capitalists complete control over their factories (primary source), writings by Hitler (primary source), I also cited several respected historians. You were not able to combat my facts and so you started trolling with your logical fallacies and false claims, as is typical of so-called "truth warriors" like yourself.
@KSTCBH23 Again, you use a logical fallacy. You're asking me to prove a negative - and I already have replied to praxeology in another thread. If you were interested in debating praxeology you could have responded to my points instead of making logical fallacies. You show how Austrian economics is relevant. Show that all human actions are rational. Show that how choosing between a slave owner and starvation is a freer choice than having to pay taxes to participate in society. etc.
@successfulbuild I'm not asking you anything but to provide references for your claims. Also, how in the hell am I supposed to know what you said on some other video? As far as rationality, every action is rational to the actor. People do crazy shit, but that doesn't mean everybody else will see it as rational. However, that individual saw it as completely rational at that moment. Starvation and slave-owner? What correlation do these have with free-market capitalism? None.
@KSTCBH23 Regardless of whether you're here to debate or not that's no excuse to be using fallacies. Yes, many economists live off the state (including several Austrian economists, such as Hoppe and those at GMU), however, many do not, and they are not Austrian economists either. Invalid point. Of course there are plenty of criticisms of the dismal science and whether it should receive any public funding at all, but that's a separate discussion.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 I also never cited Chomsky once - although he himself has documented the failures of free-market economics in the third world and the true history of the free-market (See: Noam Chomsky on the Free-Market; hosted on an economics professor's webpage, no less).
_
I think Austrians are upset that the creates of AE are dead, buried, and forgotten, even in their own fields, whereas a Chomsky has been immortalized for his work in his field. I detect a hint of jealousy.
So apparently, the NWO is based on eliminating poverty, ethnic conflicts, and establishing a world community, the Hoppean Libertarian social order is based on seclusion, denying people their democratic rights, fascism, racism, homophobia, etc.
_
New World Order (NWO) > Libertarian Social Order (LSO)
@successfulbuild Hmm? I completely lost you on your last few comments, but at least I know where you stand. In truth, I will have to investigate more into such a subject in order to know what you're talking about.
@successfulbuild Ok, I see. You're talking about world governance. Call me an 'ol rusty salt, but my Naval experience has shown me a few important things. First, is that the separation of nations is not unlike that of the seperate compartments (spaces) of a ship. Each is separated from each other, while also allowing free movement. However, when one is in catastrophe, it is insulated from the others so as to not sink the ship. In an NWO (as you call it), this is not possible.
Austrian economics apparently a gateway to racial theories, 9/11 truth, and other crap. But look at what the Bilderberg Group is actually trying to do:
"To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."
LOL. Apparently KSTCBH23 thinks I'm being paid to own Austrian schoolers in debate by the NWO or something. That's the warped, sick reality these Austrian schoolers live in - where they don't even know the works of their own supposed "scholars."
LOL. Robert Murphy's students apparently think when one company controls 95% of the economy the economy is in equilibrium LOL. This is just hilarious stupidity. Most economic textbooks have it at around like 60% lol.
Furthermore, Microsoft is another MARKET FAILURE. Even Lew Rockwell admits that Linux has better code - but not many people use it because it's so difficult to release the best drivers, software (most up to date etc.) because companies are FORCED INTO THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY.
_
You guys are unbelievable and know NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMICS. 95% of the market share IS A MONOPOLY. Typical know nothing "Mises University" students.
@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.
Basically, capitalism is taking other peoples work, holding a monopoly over it, and forcing everybody else to work for them.
_
I'm glad you posted that though as lurkers can see what sick, corporate fascists Libertarians are as opposed to social demcorats like myself who even defend monopolistic corporations like Microsoft, AT&T, etc, and their state granted special privileges.
_
Opposing Austrian-economics is not about left and right, but about being a human being.
@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.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 Actually that comment was based on economic analyses of professional economists and has been backed up literally thousands of times.
_
I myself gave several examples. You do nothing other than project the failures of your own life onto me, as Austrian economics makes you worthless to the job market.
Walter Block even calls such slavery and fascism "freedom." He says it's fine for property owners to box in communities and make people slaves. He says that even if you stumble upon someone else's monopolistic property protected by the state - they have the right to shoot you. This is just unrealistic political theory and implies the top 1% of the populous should own everything, since Austrians ignore political theory altogether. There is a reason why only kooks take this seriously.
Your first assignment will be to read the aforementioned PZ Meyers article and send me a brief summary. Also, go to the online dictionary of the social sciences and include in the assignment some basic definition, such as "leftist" and "rightist" as you 9-11 truthers apparently don't even know the distinction yet. You be roundly embarrassed even by Hoppe's students at the third tier University of Nevada.
_
Turn it into my inbox by Monday. No late work will be accepted.
I'm not distorting the policies of the Austrian school. I'm accurately REPRESENTING Hoppe's ideas here, and he has done more research on Misean axioms than Hans-Hermann Hoppe? He has concluded that the Libertarian community should be as I described it.
I'm not distorting the policies of the Austrian school, and if the Mises Institute can't handle freedom of speech that's their problem - not mine. We don't live in Libertarian-Fascism land yet and people with left-wing ideas still have freedom of speech, sorry to say.
_
I'm accurately REPRESENTING Hoppe's ideas here, and he has done more research on Misean axioms than Hans-Hermann Hoppe? He has concluded that the Libertarian community should be as I described it.
Keep in mind, I don't scorn Hoppe or Block for following Misean principles - they're taking "Misean principles" to their logical conclusions: slavery, expulsion of non-Libertarians, fascism, racism, and so on and so forth. Rather, I scorn them because I know where these kinds of policies LEAD: a decline in productivity, totalitarianism, a lack of democratic rights, no freedom.
Finally, Hoppe is a racist and a homophobe. There need to be no explanation here. He openly believes the Libertarian community (collective) has the right to expel anybody he doesn't like - his targets: homosexuals, college professors (i.e. productive ones who don't just leech off the welfare state like he does by sitting on his ass all day), leftists, communists, socialists, egalitarian anarchists, etc. are all to be "purged" from society.
because it's obvious promoting AIDS denialism has the worst effect on Africans.
_
Apparently, 20 million dead and another 40 million infected is not enough to convince Rockwell - of course, he knows that HIV does cause AIDS and that people should be treated, but he promotes this myth exactly because he is an absolute racist.
So Rothbard was clearly a racist, and he wanted to use "racial theory" to justify the economic exploitation of minorities that current exists.
_
Rockwell, it is known he is a racist. He wrote Ron Paul's racist newsletters and is one of the reasons more reasonable Libertarians (CATO, Reason, etc.) distance themselves from the Mises institute, occasionally condemning it. He also believes in the bell curve theories and he promotes the theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS because...
As for Hoppe, Rothbard, Rockwell, all of whom are derivatives of Mises, I will prove that each one is a racist. Rothbard openly supported racism and was a revisionist historian like Thomas DiLorenzo. He encouraged Libertarians to align with the far-right such as the KKK and David Duke. He even encouraged Libertarians to vote for David Duke when he ran for governor of Louisiana - which ended in something like 90% turn out and a resounding defeat of the Klansman.
The excuse given by the Mises institute is that Mises wrote his support of fascism as the "savior of the human race" in 1929, where it was known that fascism was "worse" than socialism. This is the position of Austrian to this day. However, the fascists came to power in a brutal coup where all dissidents (socialists, anarchists, etc.) were executed and it was clear that fascism was based on pure totalitarianism. In contrast, Stalin hadn't even gotten into his stride yet. So, a poor excuse.
I can't find that "savior of the human race" quote. Can you tell me where he said it, or wrote it? ...or who quoted it? ...or give me ANY addition information that would help me believe that it's not a baseless lie?
Mises did support fascism and fascism is a lot closer to Libertarianism than socialism. "Fascism is capitalism in decline." Every political scientist imaginable places fascism on the right, where capitalism also lies. The claim that they were "National Socialists" is weak and pathetic - by the standard the Republic of North Korea (DPRK) is democratic.
Apparently you know absolutely nothing of the characters of the men whom you claim to study. Ludwig Mises was an absolute racist. He said the whole of human history could be derived by race. The only problem he had with racial theory was that it was too based on "empirical theory" but nonetheless the whole of human history was to be explained by race.
Lol. When confronted with the facts these Hitlerian Austrians do nothing other than spam the comments and try and lie and say I haven't backed up my opinion when I've backed up all of it.
_
And who said I was a socialist? Like most Americans I would favor democratic capitalism wisely tempered with massive amounts of freedom for negative liberties and protection against monopolies.
_
LOL. These "Austrian schoolers" just lie of course and don't even refute my points.
@successfulbuild I assumed that you're a a socialist by the methodology of your argumentation. However, if you're not, I apologize. As for refutations of your claims, I did so without resorting to attacks or complete misrepresentations of fact; something that you were not as kind to do. As I said, it is clear that you're attacking something that you have no intimate knowledge of. I know this because you have not brought one single Austrian idea to the conversation. You attack blindly
@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.
@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)
@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.
@Mechanized0 The fact that you prattle on about Nazi Germany while not knowing anything about shows that you know nothing of history, politics, etc. And I fail to see how a society of privatized dictators who control all the property - which is what existed in Nazi Germany - and can thus force you into whatever action they want according to Walter Block, or even kill you if you happen to step on their property - is that different from Nazi Germany. Your 35 years old and know nothing. Get a life
Again, another brutal distortion and OUTRIGHT LIE by DiLorenzo. Hitler viewed all Jews as Marxists and Marxism as a JEWISH DOCTRINE (with Marx being jewish of course), thus he hated them.
_
Obviously, I have prevented DiLorenzo from distorting the truth here, but no doubt he will go on repeating his lies in other talks/interviews.
"Also during the 1920s, however, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to "Jewish Marxism."[107] Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism, and internationalism." "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.
"Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” –Hitler (Again, here we see Hitler was teasing the left and using their own rhetoric against them. By the standards of the Austrians we should take Hitlerian propaganda at face value rather than seriously studying the subject. It figures Austrians don't want us to look at the facts as then we see that Nazism and Libertarianism have a common theme: a handful of corporations controlling all the property in a "market" economy.
"The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists… We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
The only two Austrians here on youtube are KSTCBH23's friends such as "fringeelements" who do nothing more than spew discredited racial theories all over youtube such as the Bell Curve. Austrian economics has basically become racism/totalitarian capitalism supported by a few idiots who don't know any better.
@successfulbuild This statement proves to me that you have not read the two most prominent Austrian school texts, Human Action and Man, Economy and State. The most prominent feature of Austrian economics is that of individualism. Any economic school whose focus is individualism automatically negates any racist or totalitarian ideas within it. I have no doubts that you have read most of the Marxist literature, but that you have not read much of what you would like to discredit. Not surprising
@KSTCBH23 Spare me your Hitlerian propaganda. Hitler spoke of individuals "working their way to the top" and the triumph of the "individual will" which comes from natural inequality as well. This is just an excuse you idiots use to justify one idiot owning the property at the expense of all others. Even Adam Smith said the community has the right to restrict those who end up having more power than all others.
_
It's a disservice to the dead to lie and distort, and I've made my point.
Mises actually supported fascism as the savior of Western civilization against democracy and freedom. Hayek called for an intelligently designed economy and a dictatorship of the financial elite. I have little interest in the works of Mises and Hayek. Mises was the worst; he was basically a superstitious idiot.
@successfulbuild Can you back up this claim about Mises with some source references. Because, I have not found this particular viewpoint that you attribute to Mises in any of his works (I've read them all), nor in any of his transcribed oratories (I've read/listened to over 50). In fact, he was quite critical of fascism, mainly due to the socialistic nature of fascism; that being of the State control of the privately owned means of production. I belief you're talking out of your ass, now.
@KSTCBH23 -successfulbuild can't substantiate any of it because he's making it up as he goes - it's what people do when they can't rationally defend their superstitious belief systems. I have yet to meet a socialist/Marxist who could put forth a logical, ethical defense of their beliefs. It's all half-truths and half-baked platitudes about the "common good" and "social justice".
@gergenheimer I know, that is why I automatically assumed that he was a socialist. That was one of their favorite tactics when confronted with a debate. Personal attacks, using inflammatory language, never actually debating the context, and changing the context of an argument. As I told him, it is obvious that he fighting blind, because he has no knowledge of what he is attacking. That is why he won't get into specific Austrian theories. He seems to have a Hitler fixation.
@successfulbuild "Hayek called for an intelligently designed economy and a dictatorship of the financial elite." This is an outright lie. I won't even ask you to quote your source, because you can't. So go fuck yourself you fucking troll.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy": The Mises Institute.
_ But it's nice to see the kind of idiots and retards that would even listen to this moron in a "Mises University" course - basically the same kind of morons who comment here on YT.
So you think people who have been the most consistent voices opposing war are scum and villains? These are same people who fight for property rights of ALL people, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or social standing, and who defend the sanctity of the individual human being in the face of "democratic" coercion. These are the same people who have consistently fought the growth of power of the banks and money elites. And these people are idiots and retards to you?
@gergenheimer They defend the property rights of the corporations who've already been given enormous advantages due to state privilege. Defending the rights of the1% of the population is not "fighting for the rights of all people." If they were interested in fighting for the rights of all people they'd call for revoking government protection of corporations while advocating for public ownership of all publicly researched goods - such as computer software.
As for collectivism, this is another false dichotomy this joke of "institute" trots out. Capitalism requires a universal (collectivist) agreement with its defense of corporate property and the corporation itself is a purely COLLECTIVIST entity. Apparently fascism and collectivism is a good thing when it's something this discredited school agrees with. Furthermore, this is an institute that shields racists like Hoppe who claims we should IQ test immigrants and execute social democrats.
@successfulbuild The existence of a corporation directly implies the State charter or recognition of such legal entity, as well as providing protections to the same. This alone proves that a corporation is not an inherent part of a free-market capitalist economy. The issue at hand is not collectivism per se, but the collectivist use of the State's power of coercion, compulsion and aggression. In a free-market, no entity, whether owned by an individual or many individuals, has such power.
@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.
@gergenheimer That does not rule out corporations as being collectivist and it shows that you are nothing more than an idiot. Corporations are protected by the state. And what world do you live in where you can choose NOT to participate in an economy? Obviously, everyone has to get a job, and most jobs are provided to you by collective entities known as "corporations" in a capitalistic economy. Furthermore, over time fewer corporations will exist in a free-market economy.
@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.
@gergenheimer A corporation is a collective entity whether or not there is a state. Apparently in DiLorenzo Libertarianism there is good collectivism and bad collectivism. A "bad collective" is one where the workers control the means of production (which admittedly is socialism) and they have some say and control in their own work. A "good collective" is the corporation, which works as a fascistic institution, where you take orders from the top and have no real control over your work.
This has been flagged as spam show
While in the US, Hayek drew off of the US Social Security and Medicaid system (both are programs that he wanted to see abolished).
He was encouraged to go on the dole by none other than Charles Koch, notorious Social Security hater and billionaire bankroller of various anti-Soc. Sec. groups.
Just like Ayn Rand (who also drew off Social Security in her declining years), he's another hypocrite who took advantage of social programs that they wanted to keep other people from getting.
MiHiVidz 5 months ago
Babbage designed the machine without government. The government was going to buy one but it never got finished. Hmm how is it that as soon as the government got involved the whole thing went to pieces? You Neo-Marxists like to make it sound like we don't think money funneled through the government can't be used to create something. We don't say any such thing. We only think it's wasteful, inefficient, and usually involves stealing. You can't answer the actual points, so the games start.
the29thtn 1 year ago
The free-market, in fact, has never invented anything. The only place the free-market exists is in the speeches of politicians and right-wing economic ideologues.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
daobagua 7 months ago
@successfulbuild The free market is us the people. So the free market has created a great many things.
mrseeds 2 weeks ago
Programming languages were also mostly from the University system - so hardware and software.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
I just realized "the29thtn" is another neocofederate like so many of the forgotten conservatives here at the Mises Institute.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Babbage presented something he called the 'difference engine' to the Royal Astronomical Society on Jun 14, 1822 and in a paper entitled 'Note on the application of machinery to the computation of astronomical and mathematical tables.'"
It was able to calculate polynomials by using a numerical methid called the differences method.
The society approved the idea, and the government granted him £1500 to construct it -, in 1823."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
In 1934, Lerner provided one of his most remarkable papers laying out the full Pareto-optimality conditions in a general equilibrium production economy - in particular, introducing that all-important Paretian rule for efficiency, i.e. that price equal marginal cost, P = MC. It was here too that Lerner presented the idea of "degree of monopoly" as being captured by the extent of deviation of price from marginal cost.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Lerner's numerous contributions to economic theory and policy make him one of most influential economists of the century -- although his congenital inability to play academic politics ensured that he would not lead a conventional career. His initial contributions, published while he still was a student, were in international trade theory and general equilibrium theory."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"His 1932 article brought together the Haberler's production possibilities frontier, Marshall's offer curves and Pareto's indifference curves into a two-sector model for international trade."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
godwins law
lilkartracer25 1 year ago
@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.
the29thtn 1 year ago
Basically, the chapters of the history books pre-twentieth-first century should include a section: Market kills 300 million people. There was 30 million deaths in China (starved, not killed) and about 20 million in Russia. That's using the high estimates. Wheatcroft (who notes that the amount in labor camps was 4 million), Getty, etc. all have lower figures. Furthermore, the overwhelming opinion since the release of the archives is that the famine of the 1930s was due to economic inefficiency.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
wow, so disappointing. This is anti-socialist propaganda. I hoped for better. Such garbage.
Socialism is the only true hope for humanity, everything else is suicide.
Farmer's markets negate any middle-man there. In Canada real-estate agents no longer are needed and wider information availability/technologies means many more middle-men are proven forever to be useless parasites.
Capitalism is such a failure, can no one CHAMPION it? No one? Without this kind of PROPAGANDA? Cooperation is socialism
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Unfortunately, I have never seen true capitalism in my lifetime (America is mercantilist), but it did work very well when it was tried. Socialism on the other hand, has failed in every instance that it was tried (160 million were killed in the process). But, the failure of socialism comes as no surprise, because when the means of production are all owned by the State, there are no prices, thus there is no mechanism by which to decide upon how much and what to produce.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Let's see: you're purporting the old, discredited "calculation argument" that not even economists such as Bryan Caplan (who's an ancap) accept as valid. The calculation argument has been refuted by Taylor, Dickinson, Lange, and also Cocktrell and Cockshott. The argument was known to be logically flawed before it was even made: a pupil of Parento (one of the more brilliant economists) already proved that market socialism is possible within the concept of equilibrium.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Pareto was quite brilliant. I've come across the Pareto equilibrium in genetic programming as well
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Thanks to computer technology, the mathematical solution, first formulated by said pupil before the Mises challenge and brushed aside by Hayek in 1935, is now entirely feasible. As long as we have the necessary information about capital goods. And we will, because: (1) internet and mobile phones provide instantaneous communication, dispersed information, and (2) there is no evidence that "tacit information" even exists.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytgv3fc7 Yes. What are you beliefs on economics exactly?
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 "This was followed up in 1934 and have formed the basic way of presenting international trade theory since. Also in 1934, Lerner discovered the "factor price equalization" theorem, later rediscovered by Samuelson in 1948, albeit he left it unpublished until 1952. His 1936 paper proved the old intuition on the symmetry of export and import taxes. "
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 You should look into Lerner too. He said that only the initial distribution of income comes from the planner. He knew that free-markets did not achieve the P = MC rule, hence the need for socialism. In fact, it has now been proven by economists that markets never achieve optimality except under the extraordinary limited conditions of Debru-arrow models, and even if there are "incomplete markets" with equilibrium they are not necessarily Pareto optimal.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Btw... I recommend not mentioning the names of any economists. These Austrian economists are crazy.
_
Refer to any living economist as "this guy" or "that guy" less the mises institute starts harassing them.
_
I'd be interested in seeing our economics though.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Capitalism did not work when it was first implemented. There were no right to work laws. In Britain, the "poor laws" were revoked as they interfered with the profits of the industrial class. Things such as workers' comp, basic income, etc., didn't exist, and it was easier to find a new worker willing to work for basically nothing than provide health care for someone injured on the job. The people revolted against it.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild There were riots all over the place against the slave-like working conditions in both Britain and the United States when we had the industrial revolution. And government committees such as the Saddler Committee shocked parliament into implementing reform. Furthermore, businesses had to shield themselves from the open market just to be productive. There has never been a time in history capitalism has "worked" without the interventionist state.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
@KSTCBH23 Furthermore, when the "Chicago boys" tried to force neo-classical economics on the people of South America, it was met with the same resistance as in earlier industrial society. People don't want to live under your "have the government protect the rich and let the poor starve to death" system - thus, Libertarians want to force it on them by removing the democratic process. I fail to see how you are any different from fascists, who use similar tactics.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
@KSTCBH23 Which historian has said that Stalinist like systems (i.e. state-capitalism where you have a privatized dictatorship over an economy with tons of middlemen micromanaging the economy) have killed 160 million? In any case, Sen has shown that had India had China's social reforms, at least 100 million could be saved. European scholars have put capitalism's death toll at 100 million. If we count all the people who have died from easily curable diseases and so on, that's another 100 million.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
@KSTCBH23 mercantilist and corporatist are ALL CAPITALIST. It is TRUE capitalism. No one gets to just magically re-invent the definition.
If it has profiteering, if it has capital trade, if it has a market, it's capitalism. Doesn't matter what else is there, it's capitalism.
Socialism has worked in every situation it's been used because by definition it really *can't* fail but it can be inefficient in SOME circumstances. Socialism helped more people survive in the Soviet nuclear-budget collapse
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Capitalism merely means that the capital (capital goods and savings) is owned by private individuals. That is it. You say that socialism helped in the Soviet nuc budget collapse, how so? In a socialist economy is it not true that all economic decisions must ultimately be made by one man or a small group? What, does/do he/they know all individual valuations within and economy? Socialists never give specifics upon how the system will work and be sustainable.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@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
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 but when America collapses due to military / nuclear spending there is no such cushion so you'll see mass starvation, civil war and mass murders by police. Socialism is how we in Canada make health-care work and food-banks and such and it all works *amazingly*. America does everything wrong then lies and says it's all Gravy. It's not gravy. It's shit and lies.
"how much" and "what to produce" is ALWAYS KNOWN
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 By what mechanism is it known? What, does everybody hold a vote? That's fine and dandy if you hold a vote for every instant in time, but that is impossible. That is why the price system exists, to show the valuations of all individuals so that the producers can produce what is demanded. America will collapse, but it is more due to mercantilism, fascism and socialism than anything else. America's economy is centrally planned, so it is no surprise that it will collapse.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 by what mechanism, with no capitalism, are resources allocated to plants and animals? No money? For one, there's no way to eat 100x more than your fellow animal, your belly can't hold that much and your fat-stores if you find a way will get so big you'll be slow. There's no slow animals (ok, there are, but pick on it if you really want to). Massive inequality is unnatural and capitalism seems to force it to happen, then collapse must follow.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 won't do. Pricing won't reflect inventory counts, won't reflect needed changes in inventory counts short-term or long-term, won't control inventory counts, won't communicate anything but an alleged value and culturally in capitalism with easily floating prices you get rarely accurate prices and massive imbalances. Like a diabetic who never checks blood sugar level OR food sugar content. It's not magic, you have to be careful and measure things for real. No guessing allowed.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 the biggest lie ever told to anyone EVER about money is that it helps allocate resources. It does no such thing, not for one second. The ONLY way to know how much to produce and how many people need is to DO THE PRODUCTION and to ASK THE PEOPLE and measure the over-flow. Even working in a bakery we did this and we all priced things in and out. Price-discovery is USELESS for this task. USELESS.
The mechanism can't NOT EXIST, it's called INVENTORY. Pricing never has and never will do it
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Money is merely another good that acts as a medium of exchange, nothing more. It typically exhibits a high marketability (you sell money for roughly the same value that you buy it). Why do you think commodities served as money for most of human history? Unfortunately, once a money is established, the reputation of the money lends itself to being sustained as the "money" even after it has lost this marketability aspect. Such as what took place in 3 separate instances in US history.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
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.
Panax07 1 year ago
@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.
Panax07 1 year ago
You can't exclude these possibilities as stuff like this actually happened when America was more "laissez-faire" - where private companies essentially forced workers to be their slaves. This happens today in China where many people live at the company they work at and do nothing more than eat/work, sometimes working to death, with absolutely no rights. Such is the "paradise" of market capitalism. However, with modern liberal governments, such arrangements are not allowed.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild How exactly does a company force anybody to do anything against their will? Last I checked, Americans were working on farms just to barely survive and had to give up a higher share of their savings for regular amenities. When the industrial revolution hit, people chose to work for others because they saw a benefit to it (higher quality of life). Sure, hours were long, but that is nothing compared to trying to live off of the land. Give it a try sometime, see how long you last
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 companies will take punitive measures against your income you've already worked for if you don't do what you're told, even if it's illegal. Some companies will go as far as damaging the community you live in (certain industries and mining) so money=force=coercion=killing freedom and life once accumulated by capitalism into a powerful company. The quality of life drops rapidly. Last I checked Americans were NOT working on farms, they resembled the farm animals instead.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 If companies lower wages below the marginal productivity of the workers those workers will simply go elsewhere. At the lower wage, the only hirable labor will be that in which has a lower marginal productivity. So, a company that lowers wages as you describe will gain nothing in doing so, and may actually sustain loses by instituting such a policy. Money holds no power, it is only when that money is used to gain the favor of the State that the power of coercion is possible.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Don't just give him the names of theories. Explain how driving down everybody's wages encourages freedom of choice for workers. The fact is that only a handful of companies control the vast majority of wealth, so there are no other options for workers. Furthermore, this economic leverage prevents new competitors from entering into the market: even the threat of a monopoly lowering their prices to the point where smaller businesses can no longer compete is enough to keep them out.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 there is no such place as "elsewhere" and no such thing as "marginal productivity". People have NO WHERE TO GO, no where else to work and will work for NOTHING and potentially be forced as corporation gain ownership over land meant for homes and more - like water and power. Leaving is an illusion: people will starve long before they make it to the next city or job and many do. So the companies gain everything by doing this and become ultra-rich. Over and over again.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 against these evil corporations, people have only the state to turn to, or guns. In these situations either the state uses violence against the corporations, or lets the people use violence to tear them down so they are punished for their enslaving and thieving. This action is the creation of the FIRST place a worker can go in freedom who does not want to work in slavery. Every such place comes from revolution and guns. Nothing else.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 This is the best reason to oppose capitalism. When America was a purely agricultural economy, anybody could just go off onto their own land and live off of it if they wanted to. Now such a thing is virtually impossible because the economy is so interdependent. Things such as "unappropriated labor" and "unappropriated tools" no longer exist - everything is a mix of other people's labor, and as Mill proved over a century ago, there is no way to calculate the true wage of a laborer.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
This has all been proven and I'll show the evidence tomorrow.
_
Of course, kooky Austrian economists such as yourself would prefer to wallow in your own ignorance promoting conspiracy theories on how the world works.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Furthermore, by your logic, a nut ranting on a street corner is just being logical because that is "rational" for him. However, it is more likely he has a chemical imbalance and needs to be treated. Kooky Austrian economics is not only bad philosophy but just downright bad science that would have a negative effect on society as a whole. Also, some knowingly act irrational. A man who kills his wife who knows its wrong couldn't plead the "insanity defense," for example.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
By Austrian logic, everybody has their own truth so there is no such thing as absolute truth, so for some people 2+2 = 5. This is just ridiculous and it diminishes the word rational to the point where it has no meaning. By that standard even our emotions (which play a large role in our decision making) are also rational decisions, but most actions are between perfectly rational and perfectly irrational.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
svd348 1 year ago 2
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Decentralized socialism.Now your talking about a conundrum.
Name one socialist who has advocated a decentralized system.
I'll wait.
Panax07 1 year ago
@Panax07 it's an innovation, not a conundrum. I'm advocating it. Pretty much all of open-sourcing software is decentralized socialism with information creation and trade. It's not much farther to add in budgets, inventory accounting and voluntary input to move products or money as needed (suggested). No suggestion / poor recommendation: unlikely to have spending/hedging action. No takers on a plan: it doesn't happen. We can make it happen. Better than central-banking+capitalism by a long shot
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@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.
Panax07 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 To say that co-operation is the driving force of innovation is just insane. It's been proven over and over again that only competition works. If open source really was so great, everyone would be using Linux. I'm not against Linux, but after years and years, it's still not capable of replacing Windows for the general computer user.
Also, central banking is not capitalist. You will find it under plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto. Socialism ALWAYS invokes centralization.
the29thtn 1 year ago
@the29thtn You're a retard. Show us the economic research that proves that competition is driving force. The computer industry came from the public sector, and Microsoft developed out of licensing disputes with Unix. Competition hindered the advancements that were being made. You're a crackpot.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Your ignorance is astounding. Be it the Babbeges's Engine 2, the Z1, or whatever, modern computing's roots are firmly in the private sector. Even Unix was started by AT&T as a closed source project. It's certainly not the public sector that's continuing to prove Moore's law years after it was predicted it could no longer be maintained. It's private companies. The proof is all around you if you would just be open to it. Socialist dogma is well past it's prime.
the29thtn 1 year ago
@the29thtn Babbage received funding from the government. In fact, the Babbage analytical engine failed due to a lack of funding, although it has now been proven it could have been invented. That's another market failure. The Z1 was not even a complete electronic computer - it had no relevance. The Mark I, the ENIAC, the EDVAC, and so on were all public projects.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@the29thtn Unix comes from multics which was government funded. Multics was funded by the DoD (which is why security was such a high issue) (ARPA project).
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@the29thtn Eckert & Mauchly were research scientists, that's why they were known in the books. They did their best work at the U of Penn. You'll probably try and claim the space missiosn are cpaitalist expedition and that the astronauts were all capitalists next LOL.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@the29thtn The fact is that these large projects were all government funded and done by engineers scientists.
Since the public funded it, the public OWNS it, just like they own all the airwaves. Since the public funded all ground breaking research, all monopolies like Microsoft etc. should be broken up.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@the29thtn Apparently 'capitalism is using the government to fund you and your project, and sponsor large corporations like AT&T over the free-market. I agree, we should have billion dollars research programs by the government and call it 'capitalism' to convince the idiots to support it I guess.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@the29thtn Also this dunce doesn't understand that the government was pouring billions of dollars into the networking industry in the 80s - this is basically common knowledge to any technicians and is covered in most certifications even - and one of Clinton's policies was spending massive amounts of money on the computer industry in order to build up that sector.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild how was it spent? Where did the money go? How does one measure its affect?
roibasses 1 month ago in playlist The Mises Academy
@the29thtn Moore's law just shows that the industry is doing what it's supposed to be doing - but of course, Silicon Valley, Intel, and these large corporations all received billions of dollars of funding from the government anyway. The computer industry is among the most supported regulated industries of all time.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@the29thtn Also, the Hollerith was invented for purposes of the Census and thus IBM was a business created AROUND the government - and of course worked with governments all around the world, such as Germany.
_
The computer industry was basically entirely government during its early generations.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
You also commit a fallacy when you compare human society to a ship. This is not only a fallacy (false analogy) but it violates your own principles as Mises believed humans had decision making powers that renders all such comparisons meaningless.
_
Finally, all human actions are not rational even if the person performing the action believes it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the brain as not all actions are even guided by areas of the brain that deal with logic.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild I didn't compare human society to a ship, I compared States to a ship. Society can exist without injecting a State into the matter. However, the point was that a single world government places all humans under a single ruler. If such a ruler becomes tyrannical, what option do the people have to escape such tyranny? World governance is nothing more than consolidation of power. The way I see it, unless we are interacting with other worlds, world governance is absurd.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
First of all, if you don't want to debate why would you ask me to debate human action (praxeology)? You're not making any sense. Second, I have provided my sources and evidence. The topic was history, not Austrian word games. There is a place to discuss the word games and pseudo-intellectual theories of Austrian economics, and that place is only when discussing Austrian economics. It was irrelevant to the points I was making on history.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Your mistake is believing that market socialism is built off the work of Ludwig Mises. IT IS NOT. Not at all. In fact, I was debating with a neoclassical economist who said the same thing - that market socialism was a "reaction" to Mises. This shows the contempt even neoclassicals have for history. Market socialism was mathematically proven pre-Mises. The calculation debate has become irrelevant.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
Apparently neither of the two are familiar with Conquest's actual numbers or the numbers of most historians. "Respected historian."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
I notice my new friend here is a Glenn Beck fan. Only a Glenn Beck fan would believe you can "read too much" science.
_
You know I actually say an Austrian economist on Glenn Beck? So they're going after that intellectual market. I think it was Thomas Woods with some idiot who claimed that the Russians killed 50-100 million. Apparently, inflating numbers to dishonor the actual victims of real tragedies to make a buck off 'em is a shared value at the Mises Institute.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
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.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago 2
@TheLegalImmigrant05 Really, because you idiots spend hours uploading videos on a discredited school of economics and spamming youtube. You'd think you'd learn that after Ron Paul's failure of a presidential campaign that such actions are ultimately fruitless.
_
It's obvious you not only have no degree in economics but are an idiot. After I respond to KSTCBH's latest logical fallacy I'll back up more of my points that you seemed to have trouble comprehending.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Discredited by whom? Are you not "spamming" everything Austrian? What does Ron Paul have to do with this?
It seems to me that you're merely a statist that is angry over the fact that people have seen the great failures of interventionism, and are now seeing the explanations of such in the writings of Rothbard and Mises as more promising. If you would cite some examples of Austrian theory, I think that you might be taken seriously. Yet, you have done nothing of the sort.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago 2
@TheLegalImmigrant05 Chomsky doesn't write about the discredited school of Austrian economics, so your claim that I'm here because I've "read too much Chomsky" shows you're ignorant of not only economics but of linguistics and foreign policy analysis as well. That's OK being an idiot is a prerequisite to following the Mises cult. I will be covering why even laissez-faire economists disassociate with the discredited school of economics - patience is a virtue.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild How about we debate ACTUAL Austrian theories. Here, I'll give you a few areas to start with: what are your objections to Austrian capital theory, price theory, marginal utility, subjective value, utility, production, savings, the origins of money, purposeful action, capital accumulation. Pick one and we can debate the theories themselves, rather than make blanket attacks upon the School. You seem to want to attack the school, rather than the substance of the school.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 I think Mises University should open up a class on how to debate. I didn't bring up Mises theories because I don't believe in Austrian economics and thus wouldn't use axiomatic economics to make my points. You're using logical fallacies: that Mises isn't taken seriously because the "government economists" would lose their funding; that I'm here because Noam Chomsky or the government sent me, and so on (odd for a school that claims to use deductive logic to be using fallacies).
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild First of all, I don't come to YT to debate. I come here to watch videos. Second, you freely admit you have no idea what you are debating, because you're never read the primary material (probably no material at all). Personally, I didn't read the bible because I'm a Christian (I'm not), I read it to know what was in it. Third, there is a disproportional amount of economists that do owe their livelihood to the state whether it be first person, or by proxy. ---->
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Fourth, I never mentioned Chomsky, you did. Fifth, I never said that you work for anybody, I said that I don't know. However, the fact that you spend hours trolling and attacking something that you have not even learned shows that there is "something" up with you. What it is, I don't know and I don't care. You don't have to support everything that you learn, but at least spend the time to learn it before you know it is wrong. You simply refuse to do this.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Third, I did cite my sources, many of them primary: Nazi Charter of Labor guaranteeing capitalists complete control over their factories (primary source), writings by Hitler (primary source), I also cited several respected historians. You were not able to combat my facts and so you started trolling with your logical fallacies and false claims, as is typical of so-called "truth warriors" like yourself.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Again, you use a logical fallacy. You're asking me to prove a negative - and I already have replied to praxeology in another thread. If you were interested in debating praxeology you could have responded to my points instead of making logical fallacies. You show how Austrian economics is relevant. Show that all human actions are rational. Show that how choosing between a slave owner and starvation is a freer choice than having to pay taxes to participate in society. etc.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild I'm not asking you anything but to provide references for your claims. Also, how in the hell am I supposed to know what you said on some other video? As far as rationality, every action is rational to the actor. People do crazy shit, but that doesn't mean everybody else will see it as rational. However, that individual saw it as completely rational at that moment. Starvation and slave-owner? What correlation do these have with free-market capitalism? None.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Regardless of whether you're here to debate or not that's no excuse to be using fallacies. Yes, many economists live off the state (including several Austrian economists, such as Hoppe and those at GMU), however, many do not, and they are not Austrian economists either. Invalid point. Of course there are plenty of criticisms of the dismal science and whether it should receive any public funding at all, but that's a separate discussion.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Comment removed
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@TheLegalImmigrant05 I also never cited Chomsky once - although he himself has documented the failures of free-market economics in the third world and the true history of the free-market (See: Noam Chomsky on the Free-Market; hosted on an economics professor's webpage, no less).
_
I think Austrians are upset that the creates of AE are dead, buried, and forgotten, even in their own fields, whereas a Chomsky has been immortalized for his work in his field. I detect a hint of jealousy.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Comment removed
successfulbuild 1 year ago
The movie about secession of Estonia (not Lithuania) is The Singing Revolution. Google it.
paulvahur 1 year ago
So apparently, the NWO is based on eliminating poverty, ethnic conflicts, and establishing a world community, the Hoppean Libertarian social order is based on seclusion, denying people their democratic rights, fascism, racism, homophobia, etc.
_
New World Order (NWO) > Libertarian Social Order (LSO)
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Hmm? I completely lost you on your last few comments, but at least I know where you stand. In truth, I will have to investigate more into such a subject in order to know what you're talking about.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Ok, I see. You're talking about world governance. Call me an 'ol rusty salt, but my Naval experience has shown me a few important things. First, is that the separation of nations is not unlike that of the seperate compartments (spaces) of a ship. Each is separated from each other, while also allowing free movement. However, when one is in catastrophe, it is insulated from the others so as to not sink the ship. In an NWO (as you call it), this is not possible.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
Austrian economics apparently a gateway to racial theories, 9/11 truth, and other crap. But look at what the Bilderberg Group is actually trying to do:
"To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
LOL. Apparently KSTCBH23 thinks I'm being paid to own Austrian schoolers in debate by the NWO or something. That's the warped, sick reality these Austrian schoolers live in - where they don't even know the works of their own supposed "scholars."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
LOL. Robert Murphy's students apparently think when one company controls 95% of the economy the economy is in equilibrium LOL. This is just hilarious stupidity. Most economic textbooks have it at around like 60% lol.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Furthermore, Microsoft is another MARKET FAILURE. Even Lew Rockwell admits that Linux has better code - but not many people use it because it's so difficult to release the best drivers, software (most up to date etc.) because companies are FORCED INTO THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY.
_
You guys are unbelievable and know NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMICS. 95% of the market share IS A MONOPOLY. Typical know nothing "Mises University" students.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
@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.
svd348 1 year ago
Basically, capitalism is taking other peoples work, holding a monopoly over it, and forcing everybody else to work for them.
_
I'm glad you posted that though as lurkers can see what sick, corporate fascists Libertarians are as opposed to social demcorats like myself who even defend monopolistic corporations like Microsoft, AT&T, etc, and their state granted special privileges.
_
Opposing Austrian-economics is not about left and right, but about being a human being.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
@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.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
@TheLegalImmigrant05 Actually that comment was based on economic analyses of professional economists and has been backed up literally thousands of times.
_
I myself gave several examples. You do nothing other than project the failures of your own life onto me, as Austrian economics makes you worthless to the job market.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Walter Block even calls such slavery and fascism "freedom." He says it's fine for property owners to box in communities and make people slaves. He says that even if you stumble upon someone else's monopolistic property protected by the state - they have the right to shoot you. This is just unrealistic political theory and implies the top 1% of the populous should own everything, since Austrians ignore political theory altogether. There is a reason why only kooks take this seriously.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Your first assignment will be to read the aforementioned PZ Meyers article and send me a brief summary. Also, go to the online dictionary of the social sciences and include in the assignment some basic definition, such as "leftist" and "rightist" as you 9-11 truthers apparently don't even know the distinction yet. You be roundly embarrassed even by Hoppe's students at the third tier University of Nevada.
_
Turn it into my inbox by Monday. No late work will be accepted.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
I'm not distorting the policies of the Austrian school. I'm accurately REPRESENTING Hoppe's ideas here, and he has done more research on Misean axioms than Hans-Hermann Hoppe? He has concluded that the Libertarian community should be as I described it.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not distorting the policies of the Austrian school, and if the Mises Institute can't handle freedom of speech that's their problem - not mine. We don't live in Libertarian-Fascism land yet and people with left-wing ideas still have freedom of speech, sorry to say.
_
I'm accurately REPRESENTING Hoppe's ideas here, and he has done more research on Misean axioms than Hans-Hermann Hoppe? He has concluded that the Libertarian community should be as I described it.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Comment removed
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Keep in mind, I don't scorn Hoppe or Block for following Misean principles - they're taking "Misean principles" to their logical conclusions: slavery, expulsion of non-Libertarians, fascism, racism, and so on and so forth. Rather, I scorn them because I know where these kinds of policies LEAD: a decline in productivity, totalitarianism, a lack of democratic rights, no freedom.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Finally, Hoppe is a racist and a homophobe. There need to be no explanation here. He openly believes the Libertarian community (collective) has the right to expel anybody he doesn't like - his targets: homosexuals, college professors (i.e. productive ones who don't just leech off the welfare state like he does by sitting on his ass all day), leftists, communists, socialists, egalitarian anarchists, etc. are all to be "purged" from society.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
because it's obvious promoting AIDS denialism has the worst effect on Africans.
_
Apparently, 20 million dead and another 40 million infected is not enough to convince Rockwell - of course, he knows that HIV does cause AIDS and that people should be treated, but he promotes this myth exactly because he is an absolute racist.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
So Rothbard was clearly a racist, and he wanted to use "racial theory" to justify the economic exploitation of minorities that current exists.
_
Rockwell, it is known he is a racist. He wrote Ron Paul's racist newsletters and is one of the reasons more reasonable Libertarians (CATO, Reason, etc.) distance themselves from the Mises institute, occasionally condemning it. He also believes in the bell curve theories and he promotes the theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS because...
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
As for Hoppe, Rothbard, Rockwell, all of whom are derivatives of Mises, I will prove that each one is a racist. Rothbard openly supported racism and was a revisionist historian like Thomas DiLorenzo. He encouraged Libertarians to align with the far-right such as the KKK and David Duke. He even encouraged Libertarians to vote for David Duke when he ran for governor of Louisiana - which ended in something like 90% turn out and a resounding defeat of the Klansman.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
The excuse given by the Mises institute is that Mises wrote his support of fascism as the "savior of the human race" in 1929, where it was known that fascism was "worse" than socialism. This is the position of Austrian to this day. However, the fascists came to power in a brutal coup where all dissidents (socialists, anarchists, etc.) were executed and it was clear that fascism was based on pure totalitarianism. In contrast, Stalin hadn't even gotten into his stride yet. So, a poor excuse.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 2
@successfulbuild
I can't find that "savior of the human race" quote. Can you tell me where he said it, or wrote it? ...or who quoted it? ...or give me ANY addition information that would help me believe that it's not a baseless lie?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
Mises did support fascism and fascism is a lot closer to Libertarianism than socialism. "Fascism is capitalism in decline." Every political scientist imaginable places fascism on the right, where capitalism also lies. The claim that they were "National Socialists" is weak and pathetic - by the standard the Republic of North Korea (DPRK) is democratic.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Apparently you know absolutely nothing of the characters of the men whom you claim to study. Ludwig Mises was an absolute racist. He said the whole of human history could be derived by race. The only problem he had with racial theory was that it was too based on "empirical theory" but nonetheless the whole of human history was to be explained by race.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Lol. When confronted with the facts these Hitlerian Austrians do nothing other than spam the comments and try and lie and say I haven't backed up my opinion when I've backed up all of it.
_
And who said I was a socialist? Like most Americans I would favor democratic capitalism wisely tempered with massive amounts of freedom for negative liberties and protection against monopolies.
_
LOL. These "Austrian schoolers" just lie of course and don't even refute my points.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild I assumed that you're a a socialist by the methodology of your argumentation. However, if you're not, I apologize. As for refutations of your claims, I did so without resorting to attacks or complete misrepresentations of fact; something that you were not as kind to do. As I said, it is clear that you're attacking something that you have no intimate knowledge of. I know this because you have not brought one single Austrian idea to the conversation. You attack blindly
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@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.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@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)
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@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.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@Mechanized0 The fact that you prattle on about Nazi Germany while not knowing anything about shows that you know nothing of history, politics, etc. And I fail to see how a society of privatized dictators who control all the property - which is what existed in Nazi Germany - and can thus force you into whatever action they want according to Walter Block, or even kill you if you happen to step on their property - is that different from Nazi Germany. Your 35 years old and know nothing. Get a life
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Again, another brutal distortion and OUTRIGHT LIE by DiLorenzo. Hitler viewed all Jews as Marxists and Marxism as a JEWISH DOCTRINE (with Marx being jewish of course), thus he hated them.
_
Obviously, I have prevented DiLorenzo from distorting the truth here, but no doubt he will go on repeating his lies in other talks/interviews.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Also during the 1920s, however, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to "Jewish Marxism."[107] Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism, and internationalism." "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” –Hitler (Again, here we see Hitler was teasing the left and using their own rhetoric against them. By the standards of the Austrians we should take Hitlerian propaganda at face value rather than seriously studying the subject. It figures Austrians don't want us to look at the facts as then we see that Nazism and Libertarianism have a common theme: a handful of corporations controlling all the property in a "market" economy.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists… We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
successfulbuild 1 year ago
The only two Austrians here on youtube are KSTCBH23's friends such as "fringeelements" who do nothing more than spew discredited racial theories all over youtube such as the Bell Curve. Austrian economics has basically become racism/totalitarian capitalism supported by a few idiots who don't know any better.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild This statement proves to me that you have not read the two most prominent Austrian school texts, Human Action and Man, Economy and State. The most prominent feature of Austrian economics is that of individualism. Any economic school whose focus is individualism automatically negates any racist or totalitarian ideas within it. I have no doubts that you have read most of the Marxist literature, but that you have not read much of what you would like to discredit. Not surprising
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Spare me your Hitlerian propaganda. Hitler spoke of individuals "working their way to the top" and the triumph of the "individual will" which comes from natural inequality as well. This is just an excuse you idiots use to justify one idiot owning the property at the expense of all others. Even Adam Smith said the community has the right to restrict those who end up having more power than all others.
_
It's a disservice to the dead to lie and distort, and I've made my point.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Mises actually supported fascism as the savior of Western civilization against democracy and freedom. Hayek called for an intelligently designed economy and a dictatorship of the financial elite. I have little interest in the works of Mises and Hayek. Mises was the worst; he was basically a superstitious idiot.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Can you back up this claim about Mises with some source references. Because, I have not found this particular viewpoint that you attribute to Mises in any of his works (I've read them all), nor in any of his transcribed oratories (I've read/listened to over 50). In fact, he was quite critical of fascism, mainly due to the socialistic nature of fascism; that being of the State control of the privately owned means of production. I belief you're talking out of your ass, now.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 -successfulbuild can't substantiate any of it because he's making it up as he goes - it's what people do when they can't rationally defend their superstitious belief systems. I have yet to meet a socialist/Marxist who could put forth a logical, ethical defense of their beliefs. It's all half-truths and half-baked platitudes about the "common good" and "social justice".
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer I know, that is why I automatically assumed that he was a socialist. That was one of their favorite tactics when confronted with a debate. Personal attacks, using inflammatory language, never actually debating the context, and changing the context of an argument. As I told him, it is obvious that he fighting blind, because he has no knowledge of what he is attacking. That is why he won't get into specific Austrian theories. He seems to have a Hitler fixation.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@successfulbuild "Hayek called for an intelligently designed economy and a dictatorship of the financial elite." This is an outright lie. I won't even ask you to quote your source, because you can't. So go fuck yourself you fucking troll.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
"Every socialist is a disguised dictator." Ludwig von Mises
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy": The Mises Institute.
_ But it's nice to see the kind of idiots and retards that would even listen to this moron in a "Mises University" course - basically the same kind of morons who comment here on YT.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
So you think people who have been the most consistent voices opposing war are scum and villains? These are same people who fight for property rights of ALL people, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or social standing, and who defend the sanctity of the individual human being in the face of "democratic" coercion. These are the same people who have consistently fought the growth of power of the banks and money elites. And these people are idiots and retards to you?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer They defend the property rights of the corporations who've already been given enormous advantages due to state privilege. Defending the rights of the1% of the population is not "fighting for the rights of all people." If they were interested in fighting for the rights of all people they'd call for revoking government protection of corporations while advocating for public ownership of all publicly researched goods - such as computer software.
successfulbuild 1 year ago 3
As for collectivism, this is another false dichotomy this joke of "institute" trots out. Capitalism requires a universal (collectivist) agreement with its defense of corporate property and the corporation itself is a purely COLLECTIVIST entity. Apparently fascism and collectivism is a good thing when it's something this discredited school agrees with. Furthermore, this is an institute that shields racists like Hoppe who claims we should IQ test immigrants and execute social democrats.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild The existence of a corporation directly implies the State charter or recognition of such legal entity, as well as providing protections to the same. This alone proves that a corporation is not an inherent part of a free-market capitalist economy. The issue at hand is not collectivism per se, but the collectivist use of the State's power of coercion, compulsion and aggression. In a free-market, no entity, whether owned by an individual or many individuals, has such power.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@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.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer That does not rule out corporations as being collectivist and it shows that you are nothing more than an idiot. Corporations are protected by the state. And what world do you live in where you can choose NOT to participate in an economy? Obviously, everyone has to get a job, and most jobs are provided to you by collective entities known as "corporations" in a capitalistic economy. Furthermore, over time fewer corporations will exist in a free-market economy.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@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.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer That was my comment, not his (that of State charter/recognition).
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@gergenheimer A corporation is a collective entity whether or not there is a state. Apparently in DiLorenzo Libertarianism there is good collectivism and bad collectivism. A "bad collective" is one where the workers control the means of production (which admittedly is socialism) and they have some say and control in their own work. A "good collective" is the corporation, which works as a fascistic institution, where you take orders from the top and have no real control over your work.
successfulbuild