Okay, so when did this free market exist? Only in the paleolithic. Ever since the dawn of agriculture, governments have intervened in commerce. You will need to provide specific examples. Every civilization from the dawn of time, starting with Sumerians, has been taxed.
@SyndicalistTimes Actually no...everywhere you look you will see evidence of State interference in free market economics. Without the State, corporations would not have the power they have. Every worker riot in history, including the largest and longest worker rebellion ever, the battle of Blair Mountain, was squelched by government troops. Not a free market, really. Rampant market interference.
the capitalist state is a product of the capitalist system. Politicians are obviously bought and paid for by the wealthiest class. State repression is a product of a 'once-free market', basically advanced securitarism.
I think you're conflating the market structure of current capitalism with what markets would be absent wage labor(which may not be perfect, but at least better)
An anarchist society in my opinion would have to involve some forms of market transactions, but they would be vastly different since there would be no bosses and the populace would be more sensitive towards the difference in production and consumption (which could be viewed as sort of a market correction of markets themselves).
A poor analysis IMO. There is no such thing as a Free Market in slavery. And colonialism is no indication of the benefits of free trade. It's true that the radical right has no conscience in this regard, but they pick what they want from history. Locke, Paine, Jefferson and even Adam Smith all recognized a crisis of the Commons and advocated common equity to land and natural resources. Sure, conservatism fails, but its no excuse for state takeover of all human association.
the free market empoverish farmers who produce food, forces unsustainable developement and increaces consumerism of useless goods, the free market was one of the reasons that Irish people died of hunger during the fammine while the potatoe crops failed at the same time the grain and livestock were taken as payment and sold in england for large profits the free market made it impossible for the people to buy thier own food produced by themselves
the free market is the freedom to exploit people in the most efficient way possible. You would have corporations instead of nation-states. The state is meant to restrict and regulate corporations, but it does not do it's job. Still though, things would be MUCH worse if the corporations had absoloute power, which they pretty much do anyway and look at the state of things.... here's your free market...sweat shops and exploitation, beautiful, right?
I don't see how you wouldn't have the option of creating a public transportation system under a free-market. If private enterprise can give you the option of owning cars then why can't private enterprise also give you the option of taking the train? If trains are in high demand, then that means profits for private businesses which will gladly provide them.
I'm curious: what do you know about Mahkno's Free Territory in the Ukraine? I hear a lot about Anarchist Spain, but little about the Free Territory, which lasted for just as long as Anarchist Spain. Do you know anything about it? Is it a model for the future the way Spain was?
You know, everyone talks and debates about 'healthcare' with little discussion about the fact that the actual product and services that they give you are largely crap. Just the assumption that the chemicals and services they offer are benevolent, and that the main debate over it is how it should be managed. But if you want to use cannabis oil to treat your ailment because it works better than the pharmaceutical drugs the fed government does not allow you that option, whether privatized or public
None of this makes sense. The free market will encourage public transportation if people truly want it, it will be profitable. When consumers make value based decisions they choose what is most important, therefore it chooses the will of the masses. This little video showcases how the people in power and the small minority want to force their values on us.
@E0Kell "free market will encourage public transportation..." Maybe. Only if it's profitable in the short term. Otherwise, no one will provide it.
I love how you guys always jump to conclusions. The act of violence seems to be your only argument these days. Just because we don't believe in free markets or capitalism, that doesn't imply that we would use violence. Just because you don't believe in socialism doesn't mean you would use violence against us.
Because the state keep taxing everyone in the name of socialistic program and the government control the money. That is why you work more time and hard. WE DON'T LIVE in a FREE-MARKET. You fucking dishonest pseudo-intelectual. I can`t just keep my money and build my house, because I have to pay tax and more tax and tax for the good of the peoples. Open an economic book dammit. sick of liars mofo.
@NeutrinoideReturns Where in this video did it claim that we live in a free market? I notice that Ancaps claim all the glories of capitalism and "free markets" except when bad shit happens. In that case, the answer is always the same: it was the government that done it. It's a nice one-size-fits-all answer in a world of infinite complexity. So no, we don't have free markets but the underlying forces are there and they do create problems with or without government.
Because it only talk about state's problem not freemarket problem. It is a fit one-size it all answer because all government or collectivist are the one claiming and try to control a world on infinite complexity. Free-market don`t dear imposing a system but let peoples trying to come up with their own solution on a local level. Then again you are the typical guy where up is down. If its complex stop telling me you have the golden gun that will fix things.
@NeutrinoideReturns I can barely read what you wrote but I'll try to answer. This video isnt talking about corporatism. It's talking about the problems created by free markets even in an ancap society. Every system will have negative influences. Of course, ancaps will claim all the glories of free markets and capitalism but turn around and blame the state when things go wrong. And of course, they claim to understand the market they say is so complex. They even claim to also have a solution.
We need an economic system that doesn't treat people as a means to an end but as an end in themselve. Economics as if people and the environment actually mattered. Greed is not good, Gordon Gecko was a wank. So was Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
There is no getting around it, we as a species can only hope to channel it into a positive force.We have allowed the regulators to be installed by the regulated.Gordon Gecko was just ahead of the curve in not allowing someone to victimize his position but became that which he vowed to never become,the victim.A victim of his id, the small selfish brain, the cave man in each of us.
@zoticus1 An evolutionary imperative combined with societal values and perhaps some love was what created me. An evolutionary imperative that I intend to ignore.
The free market does not exclude worker cooperation, worker-run firms, etc. ad infinitum. In fact if people in a community valued good wages and hated executives, they would choose to freely support local worker's cooperative without any coercion. That would be a free choice, on the free market. Markets are good, they give people options. I can still have a choice if I support this corrupt workers coop or if I would rather support this new, honest one. How does freedom and choice offend you?
@Philfa: Wait, so you're saying that workers can't work together to create a better world non-violently through voluntary relationships? What's your vision then, a beneficent dictatorship to force these workers to do the right thing?
@Philfa: I never said the world was perfect. Obviously politics are idealistic. I just think non-violent voluntary coordination under anarchy is the best hope we have, if any. You are aware you're subscribed to a self-described anarchist, no? So like I said, what's your definition of anarchism? Forcing people to do stuff, regulating markets with an "anarchist" government? I'm for free market regulation, regulation by the people through market choices. That's because I'm an actual anarchist.
@adjohnson916 " I'm for free market regulation, regulation by the people through market choices"
Under the current system this is untenable. The whole of society would have to be radically different to even hope for that to work. In the current system you don't think it smart to try and make things better and safer through regulation? Do you like your food safe to eat?
@Mjhavok Regulation by who? The corrupt government? How do I know my food is safe to eat? Honestly I have no idea, I don't blindly have 100% confidence in the FDA. I think if we didn't have an FDA there would be plenty of investigators and reporters constantly harassing food companies to open up their food preparation practices to the public eye. Besides, a company looses its customers pretty fast if it repeatedly markets food that leads to illness or disease in the short term.
You're conflating all these ideas and then asserting yourself as an anarchist when the ideas you're conflating completely contradict one another. You're the farthest thing from an "actual anarchist."
Of course I support voluntary collective organization. You say you support it as well, but you also, apparently, support institutions that are at the apex of functionality when stifling solidarity.
We get it; the free market is perfect and allows for all forms of organization. Makes perfect sense.
@Philfa I may be doing all those things, but at least I'm not leaking blood out my vagina. C'mon man or woman, chill out and stop making random accusations/assumptions against me and/or what you imagine I believe.
@Mjhavok A fetish? Really? I never said freedom was perfect. Tell me please, what do you think practical freedom means? Does it exclude the maximization of choice (whose opposite is force)? So you're pro-force? Why do you conflate anarchy with force?
@adjohnson916 Shouting about anarchy isn't a strategy for actually making things better. I agree that an anarchistic society would be more just but I realise the current society and governments we have are far away from this and I want to make the current situation better.
Chomsky has many good points but its so hard to listen to his grumbling,contrived voice to get to point B.
Also, its interesting to note that many people on both spectrum's do not address the flaws of human condition to the intellectual gap that technology has placed us.Humans have advanced in many ways but the vestiges of evolution continue to shackle us to selfish and vain pursuits.Thus large, distribution based state will not work. Free markets have never really been tried,nor has communism
@zoticus1 I think you need to look up the word logic because I see nothing but insults and opinions. What logic? You stated an opinion of how you think someones voice sounds. You didn't attack what he said you chose to attack something utterly meaningless. You are not a serious person.
Chomsky is so confused about externalities, which is why it's a damn shame that it composes such a large part of his argument against capitalism. He has also apparently never heard of privately run mass transit, and is unaware of the fact that we drive so many cars because everyone receives a car subsidy in the form of publicly funded roads. Also, we work hard because the 50s sucked comparatively, you can have a 50s lifestyle cheaply today if you want to.
@nightpotato You and your ideological companions should get together on some convention or meeting to decide once and for all: Is contemporary system is capitalism or it is not capitalism?
@organdva It depends on how we define capitalism. If we define capitalism as the alliance of big government and big business embodied in the warfare/corporate welfare state then yes, we currently have capitalism. If we define capitalism as a truly free market, that is an economic environment absolutely free of coercion, then no, we currently do not have capitalism.
@nightpotato I love this vague definition it makes Vatican, Antarctica, Moon, Middle-earth...ok, not Middle-earth a free market paradises. We never had this non-coercive capitalism nor I think is possible. For the 99% of the planet for the most of the time capitalism means misery on a grand scale.
@organdva The Vatican has a government, and there is no trade going on in Antarctica or the Moon, so no. You are correct in saying that we have never had actual free markets, though I'm interested in hearing why you think they are impossible to achieve. I also wonder where you get the idea that capitalism, which has led to the increase in wealth and prosperity we enjoy, is responsible for so much misery. You might be confusing corporatism for capitalism.
@nightpotato Vatican is voluntary as you can leave anytime. Nevermind. I was looking for what you exactly gave me.
Either stop claiming the ''increase in wealth'', ''prosperity'' and others possible benefits of contemporary system or embrace full criticism.
I'm all for settling for the ''mixed system'' but at you surprise, if we put it on vote I'm completely confident that all this ''good'' that people like are result of worker struggle, regulation and socialistic policies.
@organdva The Vatican is not voluntary because it has no legitimate right over the land it governs, it is a State. Besides, applying your own logic to capitalism, you can only conclude that capitalism is voluntary. "Wal Mart employs people voluntarily because they can leave anytime".
Yeah I guess lightbulbs, penicillin, cheap winter clothing, and an abundant food supply all came about through worker struggle and socialistic policies. I urgently recommend Henry Hazlitt's Economics in 1 Lesson.
Me can has rocket to Mars makes Earths voluntary =^.^=
Henry can lick me. Seriously, I'm not gonna educate you over the comment section. I just want to make clear what is this ''capitalism'' cos I don't want to look ''ignorant'' like Chomsky the next time I criticize capitalism.
@organdva Did you just ruductio ad absurdum yourself on purpose?
Nice rebuttal of the Hazlitt. Chomsky can lick me, weee aren't we intellectuals.
To quote myself on Capitalism " If we define capitalism as the alliance of big government and big business embodied in the warfare/corporate welfare state then yes, we currently have capitalism. If we define capitalism as a truly free market, that is an economic environment absolutely free of coercion, then no, we currently do not have capitalism"
@nightpotato The states didn't come about by your property norms - that is all objection you have. So ''love it or leave it'' argument can be applied to your fantasy.
Every intellectual stands behind his claims by anonymity of YT account. jizzzs
Then Chomsky was right... and anarchists have extensively criticized even your capitalist fantasy in the AnarchistFAQ in Section F. enjoy
@nightpotato "Yeah I guess lightbulbs, penicillin, cheap winter clothing, and an abundant food supply all came about through worker struggle and socialistic policies."
No, but decent wages and working conditions, acceptable safety at the working place and social security.... in other words the means to afford the very lightbulbs, penicillin, cheap winter clothing, and an abundant food supply produced by the workers... all that all came about through worker struggle and "socialistic policies".
@nightpotato Thanks for the article. It demonstrates very impressively why the Austrian School can not be taken seriously. The whole thing reads like the essay of a creationist, cherrypicking a handfull of numbers, throwing in some rdiciulous assertions and then calling it a day.
@13otany13ay That's an interesting generalization, though I'd like you to show me some examples of that taking place in the essay rather than a vague negative reaction. I'd be happy to discuss it in private message if the character limit is too restricting.
@nightpotato Sorry, but to critizize the article paragraph for paragraph could easily cost me more time then I am willing to afford. So, let me give you just one example:
Read the first paragraph. A bold assertion is made, yet the timeperiod is never specified nor are any sources given for the claim. The reader is supposed to take the authors word for it. Thats how the article works in almost every paragraph. Contradicting sources are ignored entirely. Thats not science, thats propaganda.
@13otany13ay Interesting that you picked a paragraph containing only economic -history-, not economics. I could concede that entire paragraph and it would have no bearing on the economics of labor. Try again?
@nightpotato As I said, the same critique applies to every paragraph. Bold assertions not backed by sources, surveys or statistics, contradicting statistics are ignored entirely and to camouflage this the author writes in a tone as if every claim he makes were self-evident or common sense (which it is not).
This is typical for the austrian school. Its not science, it never intended to be science, it explicitely rejects empiricism and falsifiability. Its a joke.
"In spite of the overwhelming evidence that labor productivity is the fundamental determinant of wages...."
False or at least grossly oversimplified to mislead. The "overwhelming evidence" indicates that countless economic and social factors determine wages (social status being one of them). The connection between labor productivity and wages is not causal but interdependent and reciprocal.
@13otany13ay Ok, so just so I understand you correctly, you don't think that labor productivity is the primary (not only) determinant of wages? Hazlitt, as an Austrian would almost definitely concede that it is not the only determinant of wages.
@nightpotato Correct. However, the implications of that fact make Hazlitts argument go down the river. Labor productivity can be increased with higher wages. Furthermore, the relation between rising wages and rising prices is not linear (contrary to what Hazlitt tries to suggest). A bar owner may need to increase the prices of a drink by 10 cent to afford paying his bar tenders 3 Dollar more per hour.
Finally Hazlitt is using strawman arguments all over the place.
@13otany13ay The fact that labor productivity is the primary determinant of wages, does not in any way imply that wages are a primary determinant of labor productivity. By what logic do you assert this relationship?
Where exactly does Hazlitt say that the relationship between wages and prices is linear? And where are these strawmen?
@nightpotato An increase in wages can increase labour productivity. That doesnt follow logic but empirical studies. Unfortunatly the austrian school explicitly ignores empiricism (means doesnt care to check reality).
Where Hazlitt implies the relationship between rising wages and prizes were linear? Seriously, I am not your teacher, you are not my student, I can only give my oppinion, you need to do the rest.
@13otany13ay No Austrian or Libertarian scholar believes that an increase in wages never increases productivity, only that it is not a *PRIMARY* determinant. For chrissake, the Objectivist hero Hank Reardan in Atlas Shrugged pays his workers more money to get more work out of them. I guess Ayn Rand is a socialist.
And you accuse Hazlitt of strawmanning? Bah you put him to shame my friend.
@nightpotato Then you must agree that contrary to Hazlitts assertion labor productivity is not the primary determinant of wages. Labor productivity and wages relate interdependent to eachother, not causal. Thus the one can not be the primary determinant of the other or vice versa, instead they are linked with eachother and influence eachother reciprocal. That fact makes Hazlitts whole argument go down the drain. I allready explained that to you.
@13otany13ay Why does that logically follow? Hazlitt uses the word "primary" rather than "exclusive" for a reason. If he used the word exclusive you would be right.
@nightpotato Labor productivity is not the primary determinant of wages. There is no primary determinant of wages. Even if there were it could not be labor productivity, because wages effect labor productivity in return, as you agreed they do.
The relation is much more complex than Hazlitt wants us to believe. Taking the complexity into account his argument that unionized workers would obstruct productivity falls apart.
Thus Hazlitt oversimplifies to mislead, typical for the Austrian School.
@13otany13ay Why does the fact that wages effect labor productivity mean that labor productivity is not the primary determinant of wages? Contrary to what you are saying, Hazlitt recognizes the subtlety of wage pricing by using the word "primary" not "exclusive". Austrians don't even believe that an equilibrium price exists in reality, calling them oversimplifiers is not honest.
@nightpotato If A and B are reciprocal, then neither A nor B can be the determinant of the other. Labor productivity and wages are reciprocal, one can not be the determinant of the other, wether primary or secondary or tertiary or how low ranking ever. If the one is given, the other follows. If the other is given, the one follows. Both must meet complementary or there is no deal.
[cont.] And its funny you mention that Austrians don't even believe that an equilibrium price exists in reality, because one of Hazlitts strawmen arguments is some people would proclaim unionization could lead to some obscure form of longterm equilibrium between wages and profits. Truth is, no one believes that, neither Hazlitt nor proponents of advancing unionization. Thus his whole article is shooting the breeze anyway.
@13otany13ay Your statement about reciprocal things never being determinants of one another is patently false. We have examples of this occurring in the natural sciences all the time (global warming for example).
To clarify, Austrians believe that prices constantly approach equilibrium, but never quite meet it because the market is always in flux.
@nightpotato If it were patently, then we wouldnt argue, would we. Lets assume that labour productivity were the "primary determinant" of wages. Then an increase in labour productivity must mean an increase in wages. Is that allways the case? Nope. Often enough thats why unions strike.
The other way around, was an increase in wages allways preceded by an increase in labour productivity? Nope again. Often enough thats why union demands are denied, still they strike and sometimes win.
[cont.] The reality is that in many cases higher wages are demanded to compensate for higher demands in labor productivity by the management. In other cases workers demand higher wages and predict higher labor productivity as a result. Especially skilled laborers sometimes demand higher wages with the argument it would incentivise them to work harder in the future.
Sorry, but I am not sure you understand reciprocity in social sciences.
@13otany13ay Aside from one ambiguous sentence in your second post, Hazlitt would agree (and indeed did so rather explicitly in the article) with everything you've said. Sometimes workers are paid far below the equilibrium wage. A legitimate function of unions is to engage in strikes or collective bargaining in order to raise the wage. Sometimes this is done by the firm voluntarily... so?
Sorry, but I am not sure you understand reciprocity in social sciences.
@nightpotato So? So, Hazzlits assertions are pointless. What he concludes doesnt follow from his premises, his premises are oversimplified, he doesnt provide statistics to back his conclusions nor his premises, he ignores statistics and studies contradicting his claims, he uses strawman arguments... its not science, its a long convoluted contrived pointless rant. In the end all truth he is saying is that unions are good to bargain wages. Duh! Thats the whole point of unions.
@13otany13ay Did you even read the article? He says that unions are good for raising wages to, or near equilibrium--- AND NO FURTHER. His criticism of unions is that they raise prices above equilibrium and thus cause economic inefficiency.
This last post of yours contains mostly generalized angst (you are repeating lines from your vague earlier posts) rather than specific criticism. This seems to be your modus operandi when your specific criticisms are refuted.
@13otany13ay First off, this isn't an intermediate micro textbook. If you want a thoroughly sourced and accurate texbook, I recommend the one that Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok recently put out. Econ in 1 lesson is intended as a primer, hence it uses inductive reasoning more frequently than citations. Nevertheless, the fact that unions raise wages above equilibrium isn't even controversial because 1. it's obvious and 2. leftists usually admit/embrace it. [cont]
P1: Unions lobby for minimum wage laws. P2: Minimum wage laws raise the price of labor above equilibrium (usually on the basis that it an equilibrium wage is an unfair wage). Conclusion: Unions when combined with government raise wages above equilibrium.
You can claim that the unions actions are correct, you can claim that an equilibrium wage is not a fair wage, but you really can't expect to be taken seriously if you posit that unions + government don't raise wages above equilibrium.
1. Hazlitt doesnt use inductive, but deductive reasoning.
2. Stop saying things were obvious. If they were then I wouldnt debate them.
3. You wanted to know why I dared to call Hazlitts text oversimplified and unscientific. I gave you the reasons (lack of sources, citations, statistics for his conclusions as his premises). You disputed my critique. Now you acknowledge it as being accurate.
No need to thank me. You are welcome. Allways a pleasure to help.
1. Right, sorry. With this correction, the point stands.
2. If it's obvious enough that a 2 premise syllogism can prove it, Its fairly obvious. You can debate the fact that the sky is blue if you want, that doesn't make it non-obvious. Disputable =/= obscure
3. Lack of empiricism =/= oversimplified. You criticized Hazlitt by either strawmanning him, or making fallacious claims and then refuse to address either. Example- you address no points made in my previous post.
@nightpotato I didnt adress the points of your earlier comment because its circular reasoning. Premise 2 allready contains your conclusion. Thus your "argument" is invalid.
That aside, equilibrium price is the price that satisfies all supliers and all demanders. Equilibrium wage would thus be the wage that satisfies all employees and all employers alike. Neither equilibrium prices nor equilibrium wages do exist in reality (as your Austrian priests will agree). Thus wages can not be above it.
@13otany13ay BZZZZ. That's a false definition of equilibrium price and wage by any standard. It has nothing to do with psychological satisfaction. Equilibrium prices only "satisfy" supply and demand by eliminating shortages and surpluses. They don't exist in reality, but markets trend towards that point. If labor is cheap, it incentives businesses to hire, and the reverse. Even if this doesn't "satisfy" a worker, it is still a trend towards equilibrium. Try again.
On the labor market supply is the workers work and demand is the jobs offered to him at a certain wage. But he only needs one job. Thus equilibrium wage would be the highest wage he can get.
See, the problem is that supply'n'demand doesnt work when it comes to wage negotiations, because the woker doesnt sell items. He doesnt even really sell his work. He is his work.
@13otany13ay Now It all makes sense. You don't have a problem with Hazlitt. You don't even have a problem with the Austrian school. You have a problem with the field of economics, the idea that humans are rational actors and voluntary human interactions in general.
I'd be happy to explore the underlying ideas in private messages where there is no character limit enabling this sort of sophistry. Otherwise, enjoy your evasive paralogisms =)
@nightpotato No, what I have a problem with is when certain folks make shit up by ignoring the complexity of reality. In other words I just cant stand ideology. The Austrian School is philosophical rationalism that derives to its conclusions by deductive means only, explicitely rejecting inductive reasoning, empiricism and falsifiability. They pose descriptive theorems as normative values (like social darwinism did). Thats ideology.
@13otany13ay I actually agree with your last point. "They pose descriptive theorems as normative values (like social darwinism did). Thats ideology". That's probably my main criticism of the Austrian school.
Anyway, like I said, if you want further discussion, PMs, if not, have a nice day.
@nightpotato Thanks for showing decent manners in ending a debate in a civilized way, an ability met seldom on youtube.
If you dont mind I will PM you some honest questions concerning your oppinion on labor markets and the supply'n'demand theorem. Discovered some problems and misunderstandings I may have.
However, cheers and thanks for the debate. Was a pleasure.
@tom6612 You type as you enjoy your internet, medicine, fast intercontinental air travel, cheap living essentials, etc. You can lower your cost of living INSTANTLY. Just forgo all the modern conveniences you enjoy and live like you are in the 1950s.
@nightpotato --- (part 1) Are you serious ? Are you that clueless ? Back in the 1950's we had a real economy with a much poorer upper-class and a much richer middle-class. That economy allowed people that didn't even have a high school diploma to support a family on one income. I suppose cheap crap from Walmart and the internet makes up for a dying middle-class and the second great republican depression.
@nightpotato --- (part 2) Google the phrase "IMF Says Advanced Economies Already in Depression" and you will see that the IMF declared the US to be in a depression 2 weeks after Bush left office. Yeah that trickle down market fundamentalist BS worked real good didn't it.
@tom6612 If you would rather be a rich person in the 50s than a middle class person today, you can achieve that lifestyle-- TODAY. Yes indeed, you sir can have the glorious 50s lifestyle you so desire. Just stop using any medicines produced after 1959, stop using the internet, only buy extremely inefficient cars etc. Go for it brother!
@nightpotato --I noticed you completely ignored what i wrote in part 1 of my reply. All you did was repeat what you already stated. You didn't do that because you were able to counter my argument and prove it wrong. You did that because you can't prove me wrong. I can see who I'm dealing with now. You are into the deepest of delusions and alternative reality. Here's a news flash. That doesn't work in real life. It just compounds the pain when reality overtakes your delusions.
@tom6612 -I noticed you completely ignored what i wrote in my reply. All you did was repeat what you already stated. You didn't do that because you were able to counter my argument and prove it wrong. You did that because you can't prove me wrong. I can see who I'm dealing with now. You are into the deepest of delusions and alternative reality. Here's a news flash. That doesn't work in real life. It just compounds the pain when reality overtakes your delusions.
The market would not permit you to create a public transit system because there is no demand for any transit system; Most people in the united states would prefer to have a car over a over a local transit system. The market supplies transits systems such as planes and trains if the location you desired to get too is regional or global. A transit system should not be imposed on people if they do not want it .
@PaganBodhisatva actually , I do; I ride my bike. If transit systems were in high demand, then their would be an incentive to create transit systems out in the market place just like trains and airplanes are in high demand.
@Pentazoid111 Who is imposing a transit system on the people? Where was it ever imposed ever? The reality is that wherever a transit system exists people use it and where it gets created people will use it.
Its funny how you assume that the absence of an offer means the absence of potential demand. This way no new product would get created or invented ever.
"We dont need to invent light bulbs. There is no demand for it. See, people use candles here. So dont impose light bulbs on them."
@13otany13ay the transit system, like our public education system is being imposed on certain cities in america throw taxation. if you are unable to create a transit system in the free market, then there is no other way to create a mass transit system without coercion. the light bulb analogy is a terrible one because there is a demANd for light bulbs and therefore they will be created by the forces of the free market.
@Pentazoid111 There IS a demand for public transportation. That was my whole point. But the free market forces can not provide for this demand without the assistance of the community or its institutionalized representation.
However, I guess you do not really care about how public transportation works as long as you can cling to the cheap slogan "taxation is theft".
Could you see NYC without a subway?Do you realize that MANY major cities in USA used to have Electric trains?The "free"market is nothing of the sort, its collusion from state powers to corporate interests that make the world spin.The market creates a need and then gives the solution to fill the void it made people think they had.You do not wait for a "need" to arise! The market cannot invest into the long term because it has shareholders,thus major projects are rare indeed.
@PersianPaladin Well, I think most of us would argure that there's no freedom involved in the free flow of capita. I think that's the point of Jonathan's argument in this video, that markets are inherently authoritarian. Of course we cannot call a market "free" when we have no real alternative choice. Participate in the market or live in destitution is not a real choice, of course.
@PersianPaladin Yeah, it's, of course, a joke, that something gives us "freedom," that is obligatory to participate in. It's a bit Orwellian, no? Almost smacks of "Slavery is freedom." Some of this kind of rhetoric is actually used in more openly totalitarian countries like Burma. The bourgeois "democracies" have more sophisticated means of control.
It's a little hard to piece this together as it's just mash up of your old videos, maybe we could have some narration to string one idea to another? The clips hardly address your point which I assume is the title of the video as is; I need real explanation.
@comradshaw I'm not interested in marxist dogmatism. My interest is in reality, this guy just blow his opinion out of his ass, but it s not based in reality.
@Sivels Haha who said anything about Marxism? Albert, Chomsky, and mr1001nights are libertarian socialists (Chomsky and mr1001nights being anarchists). You're assuming that if one thinks markets are inherently authoritarian, then one is a Marxist? And objectivism, the idea that altruism is "moral canibalism" (to use Rand's words), is based in...reality? Not quite.
@theVAGINAntichrist False. Simply showing what eminent thinkers say on certain issues isn't an appeal to authority. If he said "Noam Chomsky has a PhD you should believe him, that would be an appeal to authority." I fuckin hate when idiots miscategorise logical fallacies. Please stop.
@zoticus1 Actually it isn't an oxymoron. Thank you though for providing evidence that you have no idea what informal logic/critical argumentation is. You didn't even do the minimum of checking the phrase in Google or Wikipedia. From Wikipedia "In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. "
2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.
This video is really good. Thanks.
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
Free market is voluntary transactions: both sides benefits. That is freedom.
videomakerman1232 4 months ago
@videomakerman1232 You totally missed the point....
23lFrench 2 months ago
Okay, so when did this free market exist? Only in the paleolithic. Ever since the dawn of agriculture, governments have intervened in commerce. You will need to provide specific examples. Every civilization from the dawn of time, starting with Sumerians, has been taxed.
landgabriel 4 months ago
excellent video.
SyndicalistTimes 4 months ago
A lot of Noam Chomsky is this video with very little explanation of how markets provide mutual benefit between free individuals
mjbarrowful 8 months ago
How do you know what a free market would be like? We have nothing even close in the world today.
landgabriel 10 months ago
@landgabriel
actually the way globalist capitalism operates is basically what the 'free market' is.
SyndicalistTimes 4 months ago
@SyndicalistTimes Actually no...everywhere you look you will see evidence of State interference in free market economics. Without the State, corporations would not have the power they have. Every worker riot in history, including the largest and longest worker rebellion ever, the battle of Blair Mountain, was squelched by government troops. Not a free market, really. Rampant market interference.
landgabriel 4 months ago
@landgabriel
the capitalist state is a product of the capitalist system. Politicians are obviously bought and paid for by the wealthiest class. State repression is a product of a 'once-free market', basically advanced securitarism.
SyndicalistTimes 4 months ago
I think you're conflating the market structure of current capitalism with what markets would be absent wage labor(which may not be perfect, but at least better)
An anarchist society in my opinion would have to involve some forms of market transactions, but they would be vastly different since there would be no bosses and the populace would be more sensitive towards the difference in production and consumption (which could be viewed as sort of a market correction of markets themselves).
ConscientiousMind 1 year ago
A poor analysis IMO. There is no such thing as a Free Market in slavery. And colonialism is no indication of the benefits of free trade. It's true that the radical right has no conscience in this regard, but they pick what they want from history. Locke, Paine, Jefferson and even Adam Smith all recognized a crisis of the Commons and advocated common equity to land and natural resources. Sure, conservatism fails, but its no excuse for state takeover of all human association.
etzel33 1 year ago
the free market empoverish farmers who produce food, forces unsustainable developement and increaces consumerism of useless goods, the free market was one of the reasons that Irish people died of hunger during the fammine while the potatoe crops failed at the same time the grain and livestock were taken as payment and sold in england for large profits the free market made it impossible for the people to buy thier own food produced by themselves
preacain 1 year ago
@preacain Ireland was free? Wow, what history books are you reading? As far as I can tell, a free market means FREE people.
landgabriel 10 months ago
@landgabriel
the free market is the freedom to exploit people in the most efficient way possible. You would have corporations instead of nation-states. The state is meant to restrict and regulate corporations, but it does not do it's job. Still though, things would be MUCH worse if the corporations had absoloute power, which they pretty much do anyway and look at the state of things.... here's your free market...sweat shops and exploitation, beautiful, right?
SyndicalistTimes 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, a much better idea would be to have to beg for food from the same entity that initiated the massacre in Iraq.
'Anarcho-Syndicalism' is a form of coercive statism.
Everything should be voluntary, the exact opposite of 'Anarcho-Syndicalism'.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
I don't see how you wouldn't have the option of creating a public transportation system under a free-market. If private enterprise can give you the option of owning cars then why can't private enterprise also give you the option of taking the train? If trains are in high demand, then that means profits for private businesses which will gladly provide them.
summercures2 1 year ago
This is a really amazing video!
I'm curious: what do you know about Mahkno's Free Territory in the Ukraine? I hear a lot about Anarchist Spain, but little about the Free Territory, which lasted for just as long as Anarchist Spain. Do you know anything about it? Is it a model for the future the way Spain was?
QuatFax 1 year ago
That was powerful.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
You know, everyone talks and debates about 'healthcare' with little discussion about the fact that the actual product and services that they give you are largely crap. Just the assumption that the chemicals and services they offer are benevolent, and that the main debate over it is how it should be managed. But if you want to use cannabis oil to treat your ailment because it works better than the pharmaceutical drugs the fed government does not allow you that option, whether privatized or public
dubified89 1 year ago
hahahaha what?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
None of this makes sense. The free market will encourage public transportation if people truly want it, it will be profitable. When consumers make value based decisions they choose what is most important, therefore it chooses the will of the masses. This little video showcases how the people in power and the small minority want to force their values on us.
E0Kell 1 year ago
@E0Kell "free market will encourage public transportation..." Maybe. Only if it's profitable in the short term. Otherwise, no one will provide it.
I love how you guys always jump to conclusions. The act of violence seems to be your only argument these days. Just because we don't believe in free markets or capitalism, that doesn't imply that we would use violence. Just because you don't believe in socialism doesn't mean you would use violence against us.
BlackFlame281 1 year ago
Because the state keep taxing everyone in the name of socialistic program and the government control the money. That is why you work more time and hard. WE DON'T LIVE in a FREE-MARKET. You fucking dishonest pseudo-intelectual. I can`t just keep my money and build my house, because I have to pay tax and more tax and tax for the good of the peoples. Open an economic book dammit. sick of liars mofo.
NeutrinoideReturns 1 year ago
@NeutrinoideReturns Where in this video did it claim that we live in a free market? I notice that Ancaps claim all the glories of capitalism and "free markets" except when bad shit happens. In that case, the answer is always the same: it was the government that done it. It's a nice one-size-fits-all answer in a world of infinite complexity. So no, we don't have free markets but the underlying forces are there and they do create problems with or without government.
BlackFlame281 1 year ago
Because it only talk about state's problem not freemarket problem. It is a fit one-size it all answer because all government or collectivist are the one claiming and try to control a world on infinite complexity. Free-market don`t dear imposing a system but let peoples trying to come up with their own solution on a local level. Then again you are the typical guy where up is down. If its complex stop telling me you have the golden gun that will fix things.
NeutrinoideReturns 1 year ago
@NeutrinoideReturns I can barely read what you wrote but I'll try to answer. This video isnt talking about corporatism. It's talking about the problems created by free markets even in an ancap society. Every system will have negative influences. Of course, ancaps will claim all the glories of free markets and capitalism but turn around and blame the state when things go wrong. And of course, they claim to understand the market they say is so complex. They even claim to also have a solution.
BlackFlame281 1 year ago
We need an economic system that doesn't treat people as a means to an end but as an end in themselve. Economics as if people and the environment actually mattered. Greed is not good, Gordon Gecko was a wank. So was Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
Mjhavok 1 year ago 2
@Mjhavok
Greed is what created you and me,
There is no getting around it, we as a species can only hope to channel it into a positive force.We have allowed the regulators to be installed by the regulated.Gordon Gecko was just ahead of the curve in not allowing someone to victimize his position but became that which he vowed to never become,the victim.A victim of his id, the small selfish brain, the cave man in each of us.
zoticus1 1 year ago
@zoticus1 An evolutionary imperative combined with societal values and perhaps some love was what created me. An evolutionary imperative that I intend to ignore.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
Movimento el socialismo
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok Mr1001nights claims to be an anarchist, not a socialist. Where did you get the impression he was a socialist? Oh wait... :P
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 socialist and anarchist principles are not always contrary.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
The free market does not exclude worker cooperation, worker-run firms, etc. ad infinitum. In fact if people in a community valued good wages and hated executives, they would choose to freely support local worker's cooperative without any coercion. That would be a free choice, on the free market. Markets are good, they give people options. I can still have a choice if I support this corrupt workers coop or if I would rather support this new, honest one. How does freedom and choice offend you?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
Comment removed
Philfa 1 year ago
@Philfa: Wait, so you're saying that workers can't work together to create a better world non-violently through voluntary relationships? What's your vision then, a beneficent dictatorship to force these workers to do the right thing?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
I'm saying that your suggestion that these things can exist in a free market is so naive and idealistic that it makes me want to pinch your cheeks.
Philfa 1 year ago
@Philfa: I never said the world was perfect. Obviously politics are idealistic. I just think non-violent voluntary coordination under anarchy is the best hope we have, if any. You are aware you're subscribed to a self-described anarchist, no? So like I said, what's your definition of anarchism? Forcing people to do stuff, regulating markets with an "anarchist" government? I'm for free market regulation, regulation by the people through market choices. That's because I'm an actual anarchist.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 " I'm for free market regulation, regulation by the people through market choices"
Under the current system this is untenable. The whole of society would have to be radically different to even hope for that to work. In the current system you don't think it smart to try and make things better and safer through regulation? Do you like your food safe to eat?
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok Regulation by who? The corrupt government? How do I know my food is safe to eat? Honestly I have no idea, I don't blindly have 100% confidence in the FDA. I think if we didn't have an FDA there would be plenty of investigators and reporters constantly harassing food companies to open up their food preparation practices to the public eye. Besides, a company looses its customers pretty fast if it repeatedly markets food that leads to illness or disease in the short term.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 Yes because reporters never acquiese to power.
"Besides, a company looses its customers pretty fast if it repeatedly markets food that leads to illness or disease in the short term."
That only happens in the America in your mind, not the one in reality. Have you seen the documentary Food, Inc?
Mjhavok 1 year ago
You're conflating all these ideas and then asserting yourself as an anarchist when the ideas you're conflating completely contradict one another. You're the farthest thing from an "actual anarchist."
Of course I support voluntary collective organization. You say you support it as well, but you also, apparently, support institutions that are at the apex of functionality when stifling solidarity.
We get it; the free market is perfect and allows for all forms of organization. Makes perfect sense.
Philfa 1 year ago
@Philfa I may be doing all those things, but at least I'm not leaking blood out my vagina. C'mon man or woman, chill out and stop making random accusations/assumptions against me and/or what you imagine I believe.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
You are precious.
Philfa 1 year ago
@Philfa And you're a condescending twat. Shall we continue describing each other?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
Eh, I'll go one more time and then we can stop: You're a stupid cunt. Alright, man. See you around.
Philfa 1 year ago
@Philfa There, there.... now don't you feel relieved?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
I feel used. My bottom is sore.
Philfa 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 What calibre of arguments you bring.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 You conflate freedom with choice. You turn it into a fetish.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok A fetish? Really? I never said freedom was perfect. Tell me please, what do you think practical freedom means? Does it exclude the maximization of choice (whose opposite is force)? So you're pro-force? Why do you conflate anarchy with force?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 Maximization of choice doesn't automatically led to more freedom.
I never conflated anarchy with force and I am not pro-force.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok By implication I believe you did, unless you don't accept that the opposite of choice/consent is no-input/force.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 Good job then that your belief isn't a prerequisite for the truth.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 I don't think freedom of choice offends anyone. The video is simply pointing out some flaws of a market system.
BlackFlame281 1 year ago
What's your alternative? Democratic distribution of goods? How is that anarchist at all?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916 Shouting about anarchy isn't a strategy for actually making things better. I agree that an anarchistic society would be more just but I realise the current society and governments we have are far away from this and I want to make the current situation better.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
Chomsky has many good points but its so hard to listen to his grumbling,contrived voice to get to point B.
Also, its interesting to note that many people on both spectrum's do not address the flaws of human condition to the intellectual gap that technology has placed us.Humans have advanced in many ways but the vestiges of evolution continue to shackle us to selfish and vain pursuits.Thus large, distribution based state will not work. Free markets have never really been tried,nor has communism
zoticus1 1 year ago
@zoticus1 Contrived voice? You need to look up the word contrived.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok
I do not use words I cannot understand.
He speaks in a tone that alludes to his messianic presence (contrived) as if he is a modern day sage.
Is this a good enough example for your small mind?
Frivolous child...
Perhaps next time you can defeat the logic in which I have illustrated?
zoticus1 1 year ago
@zoticus1 I think you need to look up the word logic because I see nothing but insults and opinions. What logic? You stated an opinion of how you think someones voice sounds. You didn't attack what he said you chose to attack something utterly meaningless. You are not a serious person.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
Chomsky is so confused about externalities, which is why it's a damn shame that it composes such a large part of his argument against capitalism. He has also apparently never heard of privately run mass transit, and is unaware of the fact that we drive so many cars because everyone receives a car subsidy in the form of publicly funded roads. Also, we work hard because the 50s sucked comparatively, you can have a 50s lifestyle cheaply today if you want to.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato You and your ideological companions should get together on some convention or meeting to decide once and for all: Is contemporary system is capitalism or it is not capitalism?
organdva 1 year ago 5
@organdva It depends on how we define capitalism. If we define capitalism as the alliance of big government and big business embodied in the warfare/corporate welfare state then yes, we currently have capitalism. If we define capitalism as a truly free market, that is an economic environment absolutely free of coercion, then no, we currently do not have capitalism.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato I love this vague definition it makes Vatican, Antarctica, Moon, Middle-earth...ok, not Middle-earth a free market paradises. We never had this non-coercive capitalism nor I think is possible. For the 99% of the planet for the most of the time capitalism means misery on a grand scale.
organdva 1 year ago 2
@organdva The Vatican has a government, and there is no trade going on in Antarctica or the Moon, so no. You are correct in saying that we have never had actual free markets, though I'm interested in hearing why you think they are impossible to achieve. I also wonder where you get the idea that capitalism, which has led to the increase in wealth and prosperity we enjoy, is responsible for so much misery. You might be confusing corporatism for capitalism.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Vatican is voluntary as you can leave anytime. Nevermind. I was looking for what you exactly gave me.
Either stop claiming the ''increase in wealth'', ''prosperity'' and others possible benefits of contemporary system or embrace full criticism.
I'm all for settling for the ''mixed system'' but at you surprise, if we put it on vote I'm completely confident that all this ''good'' that people like are result of worker struggle, regulation and socialistic policies.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva The Vatican is not voluntary because it has no legitimate right over the land it governs, it is a State. Besides, applying your own logic to capitalism, you can only conclude that capitalism is voluntary. "Wal Mart employs people voluntarily because they can leave anytime".
Yeah I guess lightbulbs, penicillin, cheap winter clothing, and an abundant food supply all came about through worker struggle and socialistic policies. I urgently recommend Henry Hazlitt's Economics in 1 Lesson.
nightpotato 1 year ago
Me can has rocket to Mars makes Earths voluntary =^.^=
Henry can lick me. Seriously, I'm not gonna educate you over the comment section. I just want to make clear what is this ''capitalism'' cos I don't want to look ''ignorant'' like Chomsky the next time I criticize capitalism.
organdva 1 year ago
@organdva Did you just ruductio ad absurdum yourself on purpose?
Nice rebuttal of the Hazlitt. Chomsky can lick me, weee aren't we intellectuals.
To quote myself on Capitalism " If we define capitalism as the alliance of big government and big business embodied in the warfare/corporate welfare state then yes, we currently have capitalism. If we define capitalism as a truly free market, that is an economic environment absolutely free of coercion, then no, we currently do not have capitalism"
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato The states didn't come about by your property norms - that is all objection you have. So ''love it or leave it'' argument can be applied to your fantasy.
Every intellectual stands behind his claims by anonymity of YT account. jizzzs
Then Chomsky was right... and anarchists have extensively criticized even your capitalist fantasy in the AnarchistFAQ in Section F. enjoy
organdva 1 year ago
@nightpotato "Yeah I guess lightbulbs, penicillin, cheap winter clothing, and an abundant food supply all came about through worker struggle and socialistic policies."
No, but decent wages and working conditions, acceptable safety at the working place and social security.... in other words the means to afford the very lightbulbs, penicillin, cheap winter clothing, and an abundant food supply produced by the workers... all that all came about through worker struggle and "socialistic policies".
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Read this. Even if you disagree with it, you'll have a deeper understanding of labor economics.
jim(dot)com/econ/chap20p1(dot)html
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Thanks for the article. It demonstrates very impressively why the Austrian School can not be taken seriously. The whole thing reads like the essay of a creationist, cherrypicking a handfull of numbers, throwing in some rdiciulous assertions and then calling it a day.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay That's an interesting generalization, though I'd like you to show me some examples of that taking place in the essay rather than a vague negative reaction. I'd be happy to discuss it in private message if the character limit is too restricting.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Sorry, but to critizize the article paragraph for paragraph could easily cost me more time then I am willing to afford. So, let me give you just one example:
Read the first paragraph. A bold assertion is made, yet the timeperiod is never specified nor are any sources given for the claim. The reader is supposed to take the authors word for it. Thats how the article works in almost every paragraph. Contradicting sources are ignored entirely. Thats not science, thats propaganda.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Interesting that you picked a paragraph containing only economic -history-, not economics. I could concede that entire paragraph and it would have no bearing on the economics of labor. Try again?
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato As I said, the same critique applies to every paragraph. Bold assertions not backed by sources, surveys or statistics, contradicting statistics are ignored entirely and to camouflage this the author writes in a tone as if every claim he makes were self-evident or common sense (which it is not).
This is typical for the austrian school. Its not science, it never intended to be science, it explicitely rejects empiricism and falsifiability. Its a joke.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay This is another broad accusation. Name a claim that he makes regarding economics that is false.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato All?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Then it shouldn't be difficult to find one.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Sigh... okay... but only one, okay?
"In spite of the overwhelming evidence that labor productivity is the fundamental determinant of wages...."
False or at least grossly oversimplified to mislead. The "overwhelming evidence" indicates that countless economic and social factors determine wages (social status being one of them). The connection between labor productivity and wages is not causal but interdependent and reciprocal.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Ok, so just so I understand you correctly, you don't think that labor productivity is the primary (not only) determinant of wages? Hazlitt, as an Austrian would almost definitely concede that it is not the only determinant of wages.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Correct. However, the implications of that fact make Hazlitts argument go down the river. Labor productivity can be increased with higher wages. Furthermore, the relation between rising wages and rising prices is not linear (contrary to what Hazlitt tries to suggest). A bar owner may need to increase the prices of a drink by 10 cent to afford paying his bar tenders 3 Dollar more per hour.
Finally Hazlitt is using strawman arguments all over the place.
Hope that helped. Cheers!
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay The fact that labor productivity is the primary determinant of wages, does not in any way imply that wages are a primary determinant of labor productivity. By what logic do you assert this relationship?
Where exactly does Hazlitt say that the relationship between wages and prices is linear? And where are these strawmen?
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato An increase in wages can increase labour productivity. That doesnt follow logic but empirical studies. Unfortunatly the austrian school explicitly ignores empiricism (means doesnt care to check reality).
Where Hazlitt implies the relationship between rising wages and prizes were linear? Seriously, I am not your teacher, you are not my student, I can only give my oppinion, you need to do the rest.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay No Austrian or Libertarian scholar believes that an increase in wages never increases productivity, only that it is not a *PRIMARY* determinant. For chrissake, the Objectivist hero Hank Reardan in Atlas Shrugged pays his workers more money to get more work out of them. I guess Ayn Rand is a socialist.
And you accuse Hazlitt of strawmanning? Bah you put him to shame my friend.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Then you must agree that contrary to Hazlitts assertion labor productivity is not the primary determinant of wages. Labor productivity and wages relate interdependent to eachother, not causal. Thus the one can not be the primary determinant of the other or vice versa, instead they are linked with eachother and influence eachother reciprocal. That fact makes Hazlitts whole argument go down the drain. I allready explained that to you.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Why does that logically follow? Hazlitt uses the word "primary" rather than "exclusive" for a reason. If he used the word exclusive you would be right.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Labor productivity is not the primary determinant of wages. There is no primary determinant of wages. Even if there were it could not be labor productivity, because wages effect labor productivity in return, as you agreed they do.
The relation is much more complex than Hazlitt wants us to believe. Taking the complexity into account his argument that unionized workers would obstruct productivity falls apart.
Thus Hazlitt oversimplifies to mislead, typical for the Austrian School.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Why does the fact that wages effect labor productivity mean that labor productivity is not the primary determinant of wages? Contrary to what you are saying, Hazlitt recognizes the subtlety of wage pricing by using the word "primary" not "exclusive". Austrians don't even believe that an equilibrium price exists in reality, calling them oversimplifiers is not honest.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato If A and B are reciprocal, then neither A nor B can be the determinant of the other. Labor productivity and wages are reciprocal, one can not be the determinant of the other, wether primary or secondary or tertiary or how low ranking ever. If the one is given, the other follows. If the other is given, the one follows. Both must meet complementary or there is no deal.
[cont.]
13otany13ay 1 year ago
[cont.] And its funny you mention that Austrians don't even believe that an equilibrium price exists in reality, because one of Hazlitts strawmen arguments is some people would proclaim unionization could lead to some obscure form of longterm equilibrium between wages and profits. Truth is, no one believes that, neither Hazlitt nor proponents of advancing unionization. Thus his whole article is shooting the breeze anyway.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Your statement about reciprocal things never being determinants of one another is patently false. We have examples of this occurring in the natural sciences all the time (global warming for example).
To clarify, Austrians believe that prices constantly approach equilibrium, but never quite meet it because the market is always in flux.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato If it were patently, then we wouldnt argue, would we. Lets assume that labour productivity were the "primary determinant" of wages. Then an increase in labour productivity must mean an increase in wages. Is that allways the case? Nope. Often enough thats why unions strike.
The other way around, was an increase in wages allways preceded by an increase in labour productivity? Nope again. Often enough thats why union demands are denied, still they strike and sometimes win.
[cont.]
13otany13ay 1 year ago
[cont.] The reality is that in many cases higher wages are demanded to compensate for higher demands in labor productivity by the management. In other cases workers demand higher wages and predict higher labor productivity as a result. Especially skilled laborers sometimes demand higher wages with the argument it would incentivise them to work harder in the future.
Sorry, but I am not sure you understand reciprocity in social sciences.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Aside from one ambiguous sentence in your second post, Hazlitt would agree (and indeed did so rather explicitly in the article) with everything you've said. Sometimes workers are paid far below the equilibrium wage. A legitimate function of unions is to engage in strikes or collective bargaining in order to raise the wage. Sometimes this is done by the firm voluntarily... so?
Sorry, but I am not sure you understand reciprocity in social sciences.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato So? So, Hazzlits assertions are pointless. What he concludes doesnt follow from his premises, his premises are oversimplified, he doesnt provide statistics to back his conclusions nor his premises, he ignores statistics and studies contradicting his claims, he uses strawman arguments... its not science, its a long convoluted contrived pointless rant. In the end all truth he is saying is that unions are good to bargain wages. Duh! Thats the whole point of unions.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Did you even read the article? He says that unions are good for raising wages to, or near equilibrium--- AND NO FURTHER. His criticism of unions is that they raise prices above equilibrium and thus cause economic inefficiency.
This last post of yours contains mostly generalized angst (you are repeating lines from your vague earlier posts) rather than specific criticism. This seems to be your modus operandi when your specific criticisms are refuted.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Whats Hazlitts source for the claim unions would raise wages above equilibrium?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay First off, this isn't an intermediate micro textbook. If you want a thoroughly sourced and accurate texbook, I recommend the one that Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok recently put out. Econ in 1 lesson is intended as a primer, hence it uses inductive reasoning more frequently than citations. Nevertheless, the fact that unions raise wages above equilibrium isn't even controversial because 1. it's obvious and 2. leftists usually admit/embrace it. [cont]
nightpotato 1 year ago
P1: Unions lobby for minimum wage laws. P2: Minimum wage laws raise the price of labor above equilibrium (usually on the basis that it an equilibrium wage is an unfair wage). Conclusion: Unions when combined with government raise wages above equilibrium.
You can claim that the unions actions are correct, you can claim that an equilibrium wage is not a fair wage, but you really can't expect to be taken seriously if you posit that unions + government don't raise wages above equilibrium.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato
1. Hazlitt doesnt use inductive, but deductive reasoning.
2. Stop saying things were obvious. If they were then I wouldnt debate them.
3. You wanted to know why I dared to call Hazlitts text oversimplified and unscientific. I gave you the reasons (lack of sources, citations, statistics for his conclusions as his premises). You disputed my critique. Now you acknowledge it as being accurate.
No need to thank me. You are welcome. Allways a pleasure to help.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay
1. Right, sorry. With this correction, the point stands.
2. If it's obvious enough that a 2 premise syllogism can prove it, Its fairly obvious. You can debate the fact that the sky is blue if you want, that doesn't make it non-obvious. Disputable =/= obscure
3. Lack of empiricism =/= oversimplified. You criticized Hazlitt by either strawmanning him, or making fallacious claims and then refuse to address either. Example- you address no points made in my previous post.
facepalm
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato I didnt adress the points of your earlier comment because its circular reasoning. Premise 2 allready contains your conclusion. Thus your "argument" is invalid.
That aside, equilibrium price is the price that satisfies all supliers and all demanders. Equilibrium wage would thus be the wage that satisfies all employees and all employers alike. Neither equilibrium prices nor equilibrium wages do exist in reality (as your Austrian priests will agree). Thus wages can not be above it.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay BZZZZ. That's a false definition of equilibrium price and wage by any standard. It has nothing to do with psychological satisfaction. Equilibrium prices only "satisfy" supply and demand by eliminating shortages and surpluses. They don't exist in reality, but markets trend towards that point. If labor is cheap, it incentives businesses to hire, and the reverse. Even if this doesn't "satisfy" a worker, it is still a trend towards equilibrium. Try again.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato
equilibrium price - Price at which the supply of goods equals DEMAND.
demand - Amount of a particular economic good that the consumer will want to purchase AT A GIVEN PRICE.
Ergo equilibrium prize is the prize at which the supply of goods equals the amount of goods that consumers will want to purchase FOR THAT PRICE.
[cont.]
13otany13ay 1 year ago
[cont.]
On the labor market supply is the workers work and demand is the jobs offered to him at a certain wage. But he only needs one job. Thus equilibrium wage would be the highest wage he can get.
See, the problem is that supply'n'demand doesnt work when it comes to wage negotiations, because the woker doesnt sell items. He doesnt even really sell his work. He is his work.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Now It all makes sense. You don't have a problem with Hazlitt. You don't even have a problem with the Austrian school. You have a problem with the field of economics, the idea that humans are rational actors and voluntary human interactions in general.
I'd be happy to explore the underlying ideas in private messages where there is no character limit enabling this sort of sophistry. Otherwise, enjoy your evasive paralogisms =)
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato No, what I have a problem with is when certain folks make shit up by ignoring the complexity of reality. In other words I just cant stand ideology. The Austrian School is philosophical rationalism that derives to its conclusions by deductive means only, explicitely rejecting inductive reasoning, empiricism and falsifiability. They pose descriptive theorems as normative values (like social darwinism did). Thats ideology.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I actually agree with your last point. "They pose descriptive theorems as normative values (like social darwinism did). Thats ideology". That's probably my main criticism of the Austrian school.
Anyway, like I said, if you want further discussion, PMs, if not, have a nice day.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato Thanks for showing decent manners in ending a debate in a civilized way, an ability met seldom on youtube.
If you dont mind I will PM you some honest questions concerning your oppinion on labor markets and the supply'n'demand theorem. Discovered some problems and misunderstandings I may have.
However, cheers and thanks for the debate. Was a pleasure.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@organdva I lol'd so hard!
greenhell666 1 year ago
@nightpotato Ridiculous.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok How so?
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato wrote -- "Also, we work hard because the 50s sucked comparatively"
HAAAAAAA You'll say any old crazy shit won't you.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 You type as you enjoy your internet, medicine, fast intercontinental air travel, cheap living essentials, etc. You can lower your cost of living INSTANTLY. Just forgo all the modern conveniences you enjoy and live like you are in the 1950s.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato --- (part 1) Are you serious ? Are you that clueless ? Back in the 1950's we had a real economy with a much poorer upper-class and a much richer middle-class. That economy allowed people that didn't even have a high school diploma to support a family on one income. I suppose cheap crap from Walmart and the internet makes up for a dying middle-class and the second great republican depression.
tom6612 1 year ago
@nightpotato --- (part 2) Google the phrase "IMF Says Advanced Economies Already in Depression" and you will see that the IMF declared the US to be in a depression 2 weeks after Bush left office. Yeah that trickle down market fundamentalist BS worked real good didn't it.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 If you would rather be a rich person in the 50s than a middle class person today, you can achieve that lifestyle-- TODAY. Yes indeed, you sir can have the glorious 50s lifestyle you so desire. Just stop using any medicines produced after 1959, stop using the internet, only buy extremely inefficient cars etc. Go for it brother!
nightpotato 1 year ago
@nightpotato --I noticed you completely ignored what i wrote in part 1 of my reply. All you did was repeat what you already stated. You didn't do that because you were able to counter my argument and prove it wrong. You did that because you can't prove me wrong. I can see who I'm dealing with now. You are into the deepest of delusions and alternative reality. Here's a news flash. That doesn't work in real life. It just compounds the pain when reality overtakes your delusions.
tom6612 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tom6612 -I noticed you completely ignored what i wrote in my reply. All you did was repeat what you already stated. You didn't do that because you were able to counter my argument and prove it wrong. You did that because you can't prove me wrong. I can see who I'm dealing with now. You are into the deepest of delusions and alternative reality. Here's a news flash. That doesn't work in real life. It just compounds the pain when reality overtakes your delusions.
nightpotato 1 year ago
@tom6612 wow....... u r good with words, and the truth
pope42OFdope 1 year ago
very good information twitter this!
depro9 1 year ago
Thank you.
bobomber 1 year ago
Comment removed
bobomber 1 year ago
The market would not permit you to create a public transit system because there is no demand for any transit system; Most people in the united states would prefer to have a car over a over a local transit system. The market supplies transits systems such as planes and trains if the location you desired to get too is regional or global. A transit system should not be imposed on people if they do not want it .
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 You don't walk much do you? :P
For those of my economic class, public transportation is in high demand. Those with suspended licenses and bad credit speak up!
PaganBodhisatva 1 year ago
@PaganBodhisatva actually , I do; I ride my bike. If transit systems were in high demand, then their would be an incentive to create transit systems out in the market place just like trains and airplanes are in high demand.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Trains exist because of government help. Without it no corporation could ever run a train system ever.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Who is imposing a transit system on the people? Where was it ever imposed ever? The reality is that wherever a transit system exists people use it and where it gets created people will use it.
Its funny how you assume that the absence of an offer means the absence of potential demand. This way no new product would get created or invented ever.
"We dont need to invent light bulbs. There is no demand for it. See, people use candles here. So dont impose light bulbs on them."
13otany13ay 1 year ago 2
@13otany13ay the transit system, like our public education system is being imposed on certain cities in america throw taxation. if you are unable to create a transit system in the free market, then there is no other way to create a mass transit system without coercion. the light bulb analogy is a terrible one because there is a demANd for light bulbs and therefore they will be created by the forces of the free market.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 There IS a demand for public transportation. That was my whole point. But the free market forces can not provide for this demand without the assistance of the community or its institutionalized representation.
However, I guess you do not really care about how public transportation works as long as you can cling to the cheap slogan "taxation is theft".
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111
Could you see NYC without a subway?Do you realize that MANY major cities in USA used to have Electric trains?The "free"market is nothing of the sort, its collusion from state powers to corporate interests that make the world spin.The market creates a need and then gives the solution to fill the void it made people think they had.You do not wait for a "need" to arise! The market cannot invest into the long term because it has shareholders,thus major projects are rare indeed.
zoticus1 1 year ago
The free market......DOES NOT EXIST :P
PersianPaladin 1 year ago
@PersianPaladin Well, I think most of us would argure that there's no freedom involved in the free flow of capita. I think that's the point of Jonathan's argument in this video, that markets are inherently authoritarian. Of course we cannot call a market "free" when we have no real alternative choice. Participate in the market or live in destitution is not a real choice, of course.
comradshaw 1 year ago
@comradshaw
The main problem I have is when markets end up creating a world where people have to work for a boss....or else.
PersianPaladin 1 year ago
@PersianPaladin Yeah, it's, of course, a joke, that something gives us "freedom," that is obligatory to participate in. It's a bit Orwellian, no? Almost smacks of "Slavery is freedom." Some of this kind of rhetoric is actually used in more openly totalitarian countries like Burma. The bourgeois "democracies" have more sophisticated means of control.
comradshaw 1 year ago
@PersianPaladin
I don't know, I've stolen and gotten away with it before. I've always remembered to thank the free market for my bounty, too.
DrunkOnInk 1 year ago
It's a little hard to piece this together as it's just mash up of your old videos, maybe we could have some narration to string one idea to another? The clips hardly address your point which I assume is the title of the video as is; I need real explanation.
metalorg 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is the most stupid bs I ve seen in a long time
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels Yeah Sivels. I'm sure your beloved "objectivist" world view has no influence on how you view ideas about market abolition.
comradshaw 1 year ago 9
@comradshaw I'm not interested in marxist dogmatism. My interest is in reality, this guy just blow his opinion out of his ass, but it s not based in reality.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels Haha who said anything about Marxism? Albert, Chomsky, and mr1001nights are libertarian socialists (Chomsky and mr1001nights being anarchists). You're assuming that if one thinks markets are inherently authoritarian, then one is a Marxist? And objectivism, the idea that altruism is "moral canibalism" (to use Rand's words), is based in...reality? Not quite.
comradshaw 1 year ago 2
@comradshaw As the saying goes. If you believe in Objectivism, you will reach the promised Rand. lulz
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Sivels If only you had an interest in reality beyond your immediate self interest.
You will never reach the promised Rand that your faith believes in. The planet will die first.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
Essential info... Dont be a coward, talk about a solution!
SOCRATES012 1 year ago
For someone who is so anti-authoritarian, you sure do a lot of appeals to authority.
theVAGINAntichrist 1 year ago
@theVAGINAntichrist False. Simply showing what eminent thinkers say on certain issues isn't an appeal to authority. If he said "Noam Chomsky has a PhD you should believe him, that would be an appeal to authority." I fuckin hate when idiots miscategorise logical fallacies. Please stop.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok
"logical fallacies" == OXYMORON..
perhaps you should look up those words before you use them?
zoticus1 1 year ago
@zoticus1 Actually it isn't an oxymoron. Thank you though for providing evidence that you have no idea what informal logic/critical argumentation is. You didn't even do the minimum of checking the phrase in Google or Wikipedia. From Wikipedia "In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. "
I feel bad for you. You pwned yourself.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
@Mjhavok 1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.
theVAGINAntichrist 1 year ago
@theVAGINAntichrist what use is thought when you have chomsky clips?
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
i can haz wage slavery ?
RadicalSyndicate 1 year ago
Excellent. Keep up the good work.
mcc1789 1 year ago