NationStates Jolt Archive

We never seem to get any economics threads, anyone here have an interest in that field, has studied that field, or just wants to throw a theory about. Please :(

Speaking of which I know why the Philips(sp) curve doesn't work in the UK :P(I think)

Until recently, I have hated Economics. Purely prejudicial btw, I haven't been taught any (except for the basic stuff I need for politics). However now it has dawned on me that I really should some.

Any ideas where to start?

What is the Philip's curve? And why doesn't work in Britain? Is it because of Maggie?

There's only one thing you need to know about economics: That capitalism is bad.

*sigh* Letila, I suggest you follow your own advice and "Free Your Mind!"

Capitalism isn't bad, and neither is any other economic system. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. If you want to say: "Capitalism as it commonly exists has a tendency to induce what I strongly believe are negative effects" then that's fine. I might even agree with you. But don't just spout a trite one-liner and expect anyone to give you any more respect than I am giving you by responding in this way.

On to my theory! I believe that Socialism and Communism are basically successful capitalism at work. Anyone who can give me a decent explanation for why I probably think that gets some serious bonus points.

Gentlemen and Ladies, start your bullshitting engines! :p

Capitalism isn't bad, and neither is any other economic system. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. If you want to say: "Capitalism as it commonly exists has a tendency to induce what I strongly believe are negative effects" then that's fine. I might even agree with you. But don't just spout a trite one-liner and expect anyone to give you any more respect than I am giving you by responding in this way.

Slavery has advantages, too, but that doesn't make it good. Any advantages capitalism has are outweighed by the poverty and oppression it creates.

Slavery has advantages, too, but that doesn't make it good. Any advantages capitalism has are outweighed by the poverty and oppression it creates.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Communism will bring inefficiency, corruption, shortages, and overall, massive discontent.

Sometimes it's neccessary to choose the bad over the worse.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Communism will bring inefficiency, corruption, shortages, and overall, massive discontent.

Sometimes it's neccessary to choose the bad over the worse.
Also poverty and oppression that Letila ascribes to capitalism. Which is like saying a farmer creates famine.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Communism will bring inefficiency, corruption, shortages, and overall, massive discontent.

Sometimes it's neccessary to choose the bad over the worse.

You're thinking of Marxism, not anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-communism is just as bad.

It's funny, all the examples of anarcho-communism I know of seem to have been rather good, though in some cases short-lived due to governments.

I believe that capitalism is the best economic system that we've thought up. There is no doubt, even among its detractors, that capitalism has brought enormous wealth to many (even Karl Marx acknowledges this). But in many people's eyes, capitalism lacks the moral authority that socialist practices do. I believe it has that. As the rich invest in companies, they allow them to prosper. To keep ahead of the competition, they become more efficient, and develope new technologies. They expand their market, and benefit the consumers, who often benefit themselves by the large investments of the rich, or even their own consumption, in the form of wages. Today, as the average man now has greater financial options, capitalism will reform more for the markets, and truely be the system it was created to be: one of ever-growing wealth, technilogical progress, and problem solving. If this isn't true, then why did Europe prosper more in the past four hundred years than it did in the previous thousand years? An economy of fuedalism (or government controlled enterprises) gave way to private ownership. In the world today, Asia and Latin America are prospering faster than ever thanks to capitalism. Even in America, by any account, the impoverished are generally better off than the middle class in a socialist country ten years ago.

It's funny, all the examples of anarcho-communism I know of seem to have been rather good, though in some cases short-lived due to governments.

But humans NEED governments. Any system that exclude governments, for example anarcho-communism, is bound to fail.

But humans NEED governments. Any system that exclude governments, for example anarcho-communism, is bound to fail.

How do you know? What makes a government necessary? Human nature? They used to say the same thing about slavery or monarchy. Preventing crime? Doesn't government consistantly fail to do just that? Last time I checked, there was a lot of crime. Clearly the government is doing something wrong.

I believe that capitalism is the best economic system that we've thought up. There is no doubt, even among its detractors, that capitalism has brought enormous wealth to many (even Karl Marx acknowledges this). But in many people's eyes, capitalism lacks the moral authority that socialist practices do. I believe it has that. As the rich invest in companies, they allow them to prosper. To keep ahead of the competition, they become more efficient, and develope new technologies. They expand their market, and benefit the consumers, who often benefit themselves by the large investments of the rich, or even their own consumption, in the form of wages. Today, as the average man now has greater financial options, capitalism will reform more for the markets, and truely be the system it was created to be: one of ever-growing wealth, technilogical progress, and problem solving. If this isn't true, then why did Europe prosper more in the past four hundred years than it did in the previous thousand years? An economy of fuedalism (or government controlled enterprises) gave way to private ownership. In the world today, Asia and Latin America are prospering faster than ever thanks to capitalism. Even in America, by any account, the impoverished are generally better off than the middle class in a socialist country ten years ago.

If by "for many", you mean people like Bill Gates, then yes. The fact is, the average person spends their life following orders. It's terrible in the US and it's absolutely appalling in third world countries.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Communism will bring inefficiency, corruption, shortages, and overall, massive discontent.

Sometimes it's neccessary to choose the bad over the worse.

Just like slavery!

Capitalism is the most productive form of government because it rewards people on how hard they work and once you work long enough with talent you can excel and make more money. In communism the lazy morons are as rewarded as the smart hard workers its wrong be who have the ability to become rich should be allowed to.

How do you know? What makes a government necessary? Human nature? They used to say the same thing about slavery or monarchy. Preventing crime? Doesn't government consistantly fail to do just that? Last time I checked, there was a lot of crime. Clearly the government is doing something wrong.



Governments are liable to mistakes, but we still need government. We NEED people to rule us, no matter you like it or not.

You're thinking of Marxism, not anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-Communism is a broad category of which Marxism is a major (and ironically considering its founding ideas, most sane,) part, so this statement is misleading and requires clarification.

The thing I've always liked about both the extremes of anarchy is that they both claim to be free of the oppression the other side calls freedom. It's very beautiful and demonstrative of exactly why "equality" and "freedom" are terms which are intensely abused, not that any population is comprised of individuals which are all equal in any ability (or in value to their communities) anyway, or that freedom means anything in particular.

I'm rather partial to Social Democracy myself.

You're thinking of Marxism, not anarcho-communism.

No, he was most certainly not referring to Marxism. He was referring to the government systems of The Soviet Union, China, and Cuba. None of these were EVER Marxist. Marxism has never been attempted on a national scale. In fact, none of the aforementioned nations were ever valid possiblities for Marxism. Just FYI, Marx was an anarchist. Communisism is by nature anarchistic. If a Communist state ever truly existed, there would be NO poverty and NO inequality by definition. As far as the assumption that Communism is doomed to failure, there is no logical reason to belive this. As I previosly mentioned, it has never been attempted. Look at Lennin. If you read his works, you will see he was clearly a democratic social.

Governments are liable to mistakes, but we still need government. We NEED people to rule us, no matter you like it or not.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison, Federalist 51

We never seem to get any economics threads, anyone here have an interest in that field, has studied that field, or just wants to throw a theory about. Please :(

Speaking of which I know why the Philips(sp) curve doesn't work in the UK :P(I think)

alot of stuff on here and within the game relates to economics.

Kerry: raise minimum wage- good for some perhaps (middle class) but will screw the low skill poor workers and will only increase off shoring that he says he's against. causes unemployment

Regulations are far to high and so are taxes on business

Free markets= freedom and prosperity and many including republicans are not so much so.

mises.org
is one of my favorite economics sites and I have been classified often in this area or leaning in this area

Anarcho capitalist to an extent fits my stance on things often.

I believe if you do some research you will find that the vikings of iceland actually lived in a state of anarchy and did very well they lasted as long as america has so far lasted and their fall? Related to a state government power increase particularly thanks to the catholic church and its being made the official church

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison, Federalist 51


Haha. Sadly we're not angels.

Slavery has advantages, too, but that doesn't make it good. Any advantages capitalism has are outweighed by the poverty and oppression it creates.

Why is it that you a believe that a system in which one chooses to work for an indvidual is slavery but a system in which one is forced to work for a collective is not?

(By choose I mean where one uses their ability to reason to decide whether or not to undertake an act. By force I mean where one undertakes an act against their will).

Well, I see that Letila is still at the preaching of the anarcho-communism. The flaw I see in his(her?) arguments is that he never even admits any of the glaring successes that capitalism has really spawned. All he feels like doing is dragging down capitalism based off the unfortunate reality of the flaw of capitalism (which by the way no capitalist that I know of would deny). You know what is wrong with this style of arguing? This is the reality. Capitalism is in place and working. There are the people at the bottom rungs of society who don't get the biggest slice of cake, but that's the reality of capitalism. The reality of capitalism also is progress and the insurance of good products for good prices. (Now Letila argues against that statement by talking about monopolies, which, to my knowledge don't exist in America.) (Yes, I've taken Microsoft into consideration.) Anyway, where is the reality of communism? Be it Maoist, Marxist, anarcho-, or whatever style of communism you want it to be, where is it? This is the reality of communism--non-existence. If communism was that great of a plan, don't you think it'd work? You're forgetting human pride, self-worth, etc. You're forgetting that some people (like me) live life enjoying capitalism becaues it reminds them that there are some people that they are better than. This is reality. This is human nature. This is why communism does not work and will not work and has never worked on a medium to large sized scale. The world is not and will not and never has been a utopia.

Just FYI, Marx was an anarchist.

though he sure didn't show it when he got the anarchists kicked out of the 1st international...

Look at Lennin. If you read his works, you will see he was clearly a democratic social.

and if you look at his actions you will see that he was just another tyrant. what's that old phrase about actions and words?


getting back to the explicit topic of this thread, i know why the phillips curve doesn't work. its because there never was a simple relationship between inflation and unemployment that could be plotted along a single curve. at best there is a big huge complex and indirect connection between the two provided certain other variables are held at certain places and we don't look too hard.

i always liked the sign in the econ dept at my university. they labeled themselves "the department of phrenology, tea leaf readings, palmistry, and economics"

Would I be remiss if I called this thread briefly back to its roots? An economic discussion without calling on the merits or lackthereof of Anarcho-communism?

I have only studied Economics in relation to my areas of interest; not as a subject in itself. Perhaps I am not doing justice to Economic study in doing so, but I have often seen that the leading theories of Economics seem to be much disputed within the community.

It seemed that no sooner than one starts studing economics than one is called to stand in a "camp" with your fellow idealogues about any number of theories. There seems more factionalism on "tarrifs and trade barriers" or, god forbid "globalism" in economic community than there is in the political science community. Which is saying something.

I am very curious to hear about the topic starter's opinions on their own topic first, to get the ball rolling again. If nothing else, if someone could provide me with an overview of just why the US got in so much trouble for its flip-fopping stance on steel tarrifs? That seemed to be a major debate, but one I could not grasp easily.

Would I be remiss if I called this thread briefly back to its roots? An economic discussion without calling on the merits or lackthereof of Anarcho-communism?

heh. anarchists and our capitalist imitators own this site. feel our wrath!

that and your non-fringe-economic-ideology holders are even less likely to know or care about anything economic than your average communist or anarchist.

Alright here I am the economics major.

Come one come all. I will answer your economics questions. First of there is no form of government that is purely economical. To do so you must first deal with the ever so basic Supply and Demand curves. These curves are the basics of economics and the shifts occuring because of society. Society changes the whole thing of economics. i.e. demand goes up when people have more money to buy the product. Then you must look to the Production Possibilities Curve to see where you will gain the most profitable output. Where the Marginal Cost per unit is equal to the Marginal Revenue per unit. These costs are weighted in a prefectly competitive market. Meaning free entry into the system. Many different verisons of the same product.
There are rules of when to shutdown and thats when if the Price you are selling at is less than the avg. variable cost of the unit. Meaning basically at different outputs your cost is different. See the difference in a monolopy is that there is one company that has exculsive rights to the sale of the product. Where their Marginal Revenue (MR) equals their Marginal Cost (MC). This right here is the Profit Maximizing Rule and thus on the graph of the MR, MC, and demand curve you choose the point on the demand curve above where the MR=MC and to have pure profit.

Now to address the capitalism issues. What i have just told you in the classic economic setup for all non-socialist governments. In a socialist government everything ideally is pure competition. No one makes money for long and the market constantly goes through a shift and flooding phase of products. Then to cut costs work would be done on grand scales such as huge Russian chandeliers and Solid one piece oak desks. These would take forever thus draining any potential for market growth. The heavy desks would be loaded into the trucks and they would be driven around for weeks beffore being delivered so the truckers could make their money.

I am not saying on way or the other which is better as far as politically. Strictly economically speaking Marx's Communist Manifesto which I read in my advanced economics class, is set for a world where the rich never existed and actually monetary wealth was gone. We as a world havent reached that phase where money isnt required. But strictly speaking the socialist economics of profit squashing and equal distribution were corrupted early on. Watch the documentary Stalin: Man of Steel that is a prefect example of how power over many gave Stalin enormous amounts of money and thus defeating Marx's goal. Socialism in its current state is self defeating, thus allowing the ever gaining capitalism to provide wealth to all who are quick enough to seize it.
If you work for your wealth your entitled to in it the capitalist system. In the socailist system, you will feed off of others and when it comes time that you have to work to survive, you can.

Its a proven historical fact. I am an economics major its not that hard when you look at each system. Break it down and make a conclusion.

If there are any more in depth economics questions. Please T-gram me my nation is Kruv.

heh. anarchists and our capitalist imitators own this site. feel our wrath!

that and your non-fringe-economic-ideology holders are even less likely to know or care about anything economic than your average communist or anarchist.

Something that, my dear Glaxian Warrior, gives me some cause for concern.

I'm reasonably surprised at how quickly this topic has progressed. BTW: In answer to the first question the Phillips curve I was talking about is the one which states that as unemployment drops inflation rises (because companies have to pay more to get people as there are less, and so have to rise prices hence inflation, that as well as the steady decline in Earth's resources causes it too.), my guess is, it doesn't effect anymore in the UK because of the free movement of people, meaning that unemployment can be lowered in this country, but companies can still employ people for low wages abroad. Again that is only my guess.

I think in this whole thread that there is some confusion about what we are talking about. Is it politics or economics because we are really discussing both.

Political System:
Communism
Democracy/Republic

Economic System:
Socialism
Capitalism

Lets try to decide what we are talking about because I have seen a lot of discussion about communism and its variants in this thread.

I think in this whole thread that there is some confusion about what we are talking about. Is it politics or economics because we are really discussing both.

Political System:
Communism
Democracy/Republic

Economic System:
Socialism
Capitalism

Lets try to decide what we are talking about because I have seen a lot of discussion about communism and its variants in this thread.

Yes true, whereas the economic system practiced under socialism is a command economy, and that under capitalism, is one of a market economy, with or without free trade, I believe so it can be split further.

I think in this whole thread that there is some confusion about what we are talking about. Is it politics or economics because we are really discussing both.

Political System:
Communism
Democracy/Republic

Economic System:
Socialism
Capitalism

Lets try to decide what we are talking about because I have seen a lot of discussion about communism and its variants in this thread.

Actually:

Political System (from no people power to full people power):
Dictatorship
Republic
Democracy

Economic System (from no free market to full free market):
Communism
Socialism
Capitalism

Of course there are thousands of other categories, like Liberal Dictatorship with limited Conservative Democracy having an economy which is Socialistic Communist, but we have the basics.

Communism is purely a political system that took Socialism to its logical political end.

Communism is purely a political system that took Socialism to its logical political end.

Communism is a completely apolitical system that is politicised by the addition of a political ideology - Maxist, statist or anarchist.

Vas.

Look guys and gals. The political invovlement in economics inst cut and dry as you all make it to be. Look at China. They have a communist political system however there economy has become a capitialist powerhouse. The amount fo money they rake in for tourism and publicity has pushed them into accepting massive amounts of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) which has revitalized the labor makert in China. We are taking economics hear not politics, right now if politics fell in China, the economy wouldnt stumble like it did with the Soviet Union.
But I'd like to take a moment to steer us back on the economic track before we go too far off it. I mentioned labor markets and here is the explaniation.

Basically a labor markets believe it on not divided on basis of classes.
You have the 1st Class labor market and the 2nd Class labor market.
In the 1st class labor market where there is no discrimination and the best of the best are working in, there is a restriction on the supply of labor. Only the best make it. So the wage is higher and the price per unit of output can be higher as well.
The 2nd class market is everyone else, competing for too few jobs and too little pay.
Who gains for all of this? you might ask.
1. Workers in the 1st Class Market (Because there is no job competition)
2. Employers in the 2nd Class Market (They can keep out workers from entering the 1st Class and thus makes them lose money.)
Now on the other end who loses?
1. Workers in the 2nd Class because they can never gain anything in the 2nd Class market.
2. Employers in the 1st Class, they may be missing a valuable employee that could gain them profits.
3. Society loses because they do not get the best possible product and result.
Labor Markets arent broken down per se on specialty but rahter the employer and laborer. The class entry has nohing to do with skills, but rather other factors like race, religion, and gender.
Again T-gram me with any questions on economics at my nation Kruv. I will be more than happy to help. As for politics I try not to get to deep with that, but if its the politics of stock markets and global economies then by all means T-gram me as well

This seems to have turned into yet another "free market" vs "pinko crybaby" debate but to get back to economics I'd recommend visiting www.mises.org to learn about the much neglected Austrian school. They make a lot of valid criticisms about mainstream economics.

This seems to have turned into yet another "free market" vs "pinko crybaby" debate but to get back to economics I'd recommend visiting www.mises.org to learn about the much neglected Austrian school. They make a lot of valid criticisms about mainstream economics.

Oh please. If there was a good site for communism, I'd post it. There just isn't, though, that I know of.

On to my theory! I believe that Socialism and Communism are basically successful capitalism at work. Anyone who can give me a decent explanation for why I probably think that gets some serious bonus points.

Let me take a stab at it.

Because under Socialism and Communism there is more social equality. With more social equality, there are more consumers. With more consumers there is more buying going on in the country. And buying is good for the economy and business.

Am I close? Or am I looking like a moron and delete this post?

Oh please. If there was a good site for communism, I'd post it. There just isn't, though, that I know of.

Then you make a website with your infinite knowledge, oh commie Lord.

And while you are at it, learn that communism and anarchism cannot coexist. And you might say that I do not understand the two philosophies and I am brainwashed by America and the anarcho-capitalists. The thing is, I use to be an anarcho-communist. I know all about it. And now, frankly, it looks like something that you can get to for maybe a week, then it would collapse because people do not trust each other enough, and rightfully so.

Kruv is a bit of a legend, I have to say it. Thanks for the explanations dude!

Let me take a stab at it.

Because under Socialism and Communism there is more social equality. With more social equality, there are more consumers. With more consumers there is more buying going on in the country. And buying is good for the economy and business.

Am I close? Or am I looking like a moron and delete this post?

Nah, it doesn't matter who has the money, if one person is very rich, they would invest money in a bank and it would o to the poor who borrow it. And that's in capitalism. Theoretically, in true communism, I don't think money would exists.

Socialism is utopian dream that cannot be fully accomplished.

First off, in order to achieve full economic equality you are going to have to take from the rich to give to the poor. Not only would the rich be inherently against this idea but if all you're ever going to work for is to give that money to someone else then your personal desire to work is lessened.

If you're poor and you're just given all this money simply because you're poor, then you have no incentive to go out work for your money because the government or some other agency is going to give you the money anyway.

Socialism is inherently a backwards system, where work is devalued and production across the board is decreased because fewer and fewer people are willing to work.

First off, in order to achieve full economic equality you are going to have to take from the rich to give to the poor. Not only would the rich be inherently against this idea but if all you're ever going to work for is to give that money to someone else then your personal desire to work is lessened.

If you're poor and you're just given all this money simply because you're poor, then you have no incentive to go out work for your money because the government or some other agency is going to give you the money anyway.

Actually, I think it would be more like the average person refusing to take capitalism seriously anymore and creating a communist alternative. They might introduce worker self-management and free distribution to help eachother withstand capitalism and thus have a strong enough opposition to it. We don't plan on using the government, though.

And while you are at it, learn that communism and anarchism cannot coexist. And you might say that I do not understand the two philosophies and I am brainwashed by America and the anarcho-capitalists. The thing is, I use to be an anarcho-communist. I know all about it. And now, frankly, it looks like something that you can get to for maybe a week, then it would collapse because people do not trust each other enough, and rightfully so.

Actually, anarcho-communism has been tested and has lasted for at least months. There are communes that are pretty close to anarcho-communism and have lasted for 35 years, such as Twin Oaks.

Let me pose a quick question... How many of you have actually taken economics? Whether it be macro- or micro- or any level beyond?

And yes, home economics DOES NOT COUNT!

Socialism is utopian dream that cannot be fully accomplished.

Socialism, as with Communism, is a very broad term that covers a lot of ideas. Many European countries are "Socialist" (more specifically are Social Democracies,) in that they are welfare states, as is the US is to a limited extent. The aim is not for full economic, social, or political equality in these welfare states, merely that those who are less well off are given a decent standard of living, and are provided with safety nets "from cradle to grave" by the government. This does not necessarily mean being safe from "poverty", since povery is defined by being in the lower quartile of the average GDP per annum range: many under the poverty line in the US, for example, are given an extremely good quality of life, through hot wunning water, housing, the availability of fresh fruit and a decent diet, and electricity, and the same is somewhat true of the UK. Conditions many in much poorer countries would kill for.

If you're poor and you're just given all this money simply because you're poor, then you have no incentive to go out work for your money because the government or some other agency is going to give you the money anyway.

This would seem to be true, except for two things:

1. The government is a bitch for trying to get money out of if you're unemployed, and if you can't prove to a massive degree that you're looking for a job then it's very likely they'll cut your benefits.

2. There is huge social pressure for the unemployed to get back to work and contribute to the society they are mooching from.

Hence why there has *never* been any proven link between unemployment rates and the dole.

Socialism is inherently a backwards system, where work is devalued and production across the board is decreased because fewer and fewer people are willing to work.

Interesting idea, do you have any evidence?

I think in this whole thread that there is some confusion about what we are talking about. Is it politics or economics because we are really discussing both.

politics and economics are inherently linked. there is no meaningful way to seperate out the production and distribution of resources from the rules and regulations in place (or rules you would like to see in place) in a given community and the wider world system.

Oh please. If there was a good site for communism, I'd post it. There just isn't, though, that I know of.

There appears to be more Communists on internet forums than there are Capitalists/Libertarians/Objectivists yet it is the latter who have better developed websites which clearly express their ideals. Doesn't that tell you anything? If they can't get together in order to make a decent website then how do you expect them to run the world, or a nation for that matter?

There appears to be more Communists on internet forums than there are Capitalists/Libertarians/Objectivists yet it is the latter who have better developed websites which clearly express their ideals. Doesn't that tell you anything? If they can't get together in order to make a decent website then how do you expect them to run the world, or a nation for that matter?

now that's just silly.

number 1, there are tons of comprehensive sites on every form of socialism under the sun. number 2, there are plenty of utter shite capitalist ones. perhaps you should try a different approach?

I have taken a serious amount of economics, mirco marco international, basically your arguing social stand points other than economics and it makes guys who are trying to make a living with a job in economics sick. We work ourselves to death to try and give society what it wants from the market. Your all arguing about politics and society and giving. You dont give money anywhere in REAL economics. All of you think just because money is Part of economics that it RUNS economics, when really money is just a small player.
Please read an economics book and stick to economics, not social views of economics.

I have taken a serious amount of economics, mirco marco international, basically your arguing social stand points other than economics and it makes guys who are trying to make a living with a job in economics sick. We work ourselves to death to try and give society what it wants from the market. Your all arguing about politics and society and giving. You dont give money anywhere in REAL economics. All of you think just because money is Part of economics that it RUNS economics, when really money is just a small player.
Please read an economics book and stick to economics, not social views of economics.

So....what you're saying is....if I don't work in economics I'm not contributing to the economy?

So....what you're saying is....if I don't work in economics I'm not contributing to the economy?
:D

Economics was invented to give economists employment.

If you're poor and you're just given all this money simply because you're poor, then you have no incentive to go out work for your money because the government or some other agency is going to give you the money anyway.

This is complete nonsense and you have obviously no knowledge of any studies into people on welfare. People do not like doing nothing, they want to work. However, for many people on welfare, the deck is stacked against them - no childcare, cruddy lowpaid jobs with no benefits (often leaving them less well off than on welfare), social prejudice leading to social exclusion, depression, etc.

I'm from Ireland, I live through the 80s where Ireland hit unemployment rates of over 20%. At the time, all of the prejudice we hear about people on welfare in the states was fired out - people are lazy, they don't want to work, etc, etc, etc. The simple fact was that there weren't enough jobs, Ireland was ridiculously underdeveloped. Now, following massive economic growth, the rate is one of the lowest in Europe and the continuing rate is largely left over from the massive social exclusion of the 80s and the education failures (inadequate training of people for the new economy).

I've been unemployed twice for periods of over six months, simply because I couldn't find a job. It was soul-destroying, leading to serious periods of depression.

Human unwillingness to work is not an absolute, unemployment is nothing more nor less than the failure to find the right job for people. Working shouldn't be a duty of the individual, finding the right jobs for the right people should be the duty of society.

Vas.

Please read an economics book and stick to economics, not social views of economics.

Any attempt to claim that economics are separate from social views of economics is inherently political - basic neoliberalism. Economics is not a science, it's an ideological battleground, when you say economics, do you mean Adam Smith or Marx?

Vas.

Economics could be thought about scientifically, though. Thinking about economics practically rather than ideologically. In real life, unlike Internet forums, this does happen - that is why we have countries with semi-free markets that allow business, but also have government redistribution of resources (taxes and spending).

I mean both ideoligies. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both had their political agendas but if you have read their books "Communist Manifesto" and "Wealth of Nations" You will clearly see that they did not include politics into economics. Economics is a science, not a social policy. Everyone talks about economics and society and how systems work. If there wasnt a system would you even know what economics is. All that I am saying is that sit down flip through a couple of pages of an economics book and understand why each system has its pros and cons. Dont got on about what someone elses tells you or what you hear. I dont believe half the stuff I hear unless I look it up myself. Thats all I am saying. Take 2 minutes to look at an economics book and youll see that politics has nothing to do with it. World Economies are politics but not the simple form of Economics.
I dont mean to get people mad but I study hard for hours in for my Economics degree and I just dont want people trying to speculate what my job is or saying things completely wrong about my field of study. It makes people in my field very upset and disappointed in people.

I dont mean to get people mad but I study hard for hours in for my Economics degree and I just dont want people trying to speculate what my job is or saying things completely wrong about my field of study. It makes people in my field very upset and disappointed in people.

That much must be frustrating Kruv, as a Historian, I occasionally succumb to that sense of "wrongness" when I see someone perverting history for their own misguided or ignorant ends. However, all "social sciences" are in general; products of mismanagement and chaos that slowly led people to try and find a Way of doing things, a system to help bring order to the mess.

Try to remember both our fields don't have all the answers, and we occasionally make mistakes; that causes some people to lose faith in our particular Way of doing things. There is massive contention in each school over the right and wrong versions of history, and there are people who will belive what they hear first and close their minds forevermore.

When I hear of "Vodoo economics" or other such schools of thought; I try to see them as outside forces trying to frame economics within their own political agenda. Economics is, like history, easily twisted in such ways. Just think of the sick Pseudo-history the Nazi's cooked up for themselves. Just about every modern social science got a lesson in perversion from the Nazis. But rather than write it off as a bad chapter in history, one must learn to be ever vigilant in the course of their studies.

Guess I just ranted to ya. Sorry 'bout it. Think of it as words of advice and caution from a fellow who recently left the ivory tower of academia.

I mean both ideoligies. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both had their political agendas but if you have read their books "Communist Manifesto" and "Wealth of Nations" You will clearly see that they did not include politics into economics. Economics is a science, not a social policy. Everyone talks about economics and society and how systems work.

Firstly, I'm 29 years old, I studied economics in school and did courses in economics in university. I'm not some ignorant teenager. Secondly, economics, like sociology, is not a real science as human nature, as yet, defies completely scientific profiling. Finally, as an Irish person who was studying economics as the Irish economy continued to break every so-called economic rule, I've little faith in economic theory.

I'm also an anarchist, which means I'm coming from an ideology of human behaviour not one of metaphysics (such as Smith's "invisible hand" or Marx's dialectic materialism). As someone who argues for a non-monetary economy, my position is opposed to all the basic principles of accepted economics. Thus, as my position is political, any opposition to it is political. That's fundamentally political, not just political in application.

Got me?

Vas.

That much must be frustrating Kruv, as a Historian, I occasionally succumb to that sense of "wrongness" when I see someone perverting history for their own misguided or ignorant ends. However, all "social sciences" are in general; products of mismanagement and chaos that slowly led people to try and find a Way of doing things, a system to help bring order to the mess.

Oh dear. History is the most political of disciplines, no matter how objective an historian tries to be. It has to be selective and that selectivity is coloured by the politics of the historian. Is history the story of the elites or the majority? Is history a string of wars, or a tale of human co-operation punctuated by conflicts caused by the elites? It's all political, EVERYTHING is political.

Vas.

How do you know? What makes a government necessary? Human nature? They used to say the same thing about slavery or monarchy. Preventing crime? Doesn't government consistantly fail to do just that? Last time I checked, there was a lot of crime. Clearly the government is doing something wrong.



If by "for many", you mean people like Bill Gates, then yes. The fact is, the average person spends their life following orders. It's terrible in the US and it's absolutely appalling in third world countries.
For detractors, such as yourself, I did mean people like Bill Gates. Now, suppose Gates had the same idea for Windows, only except it was in a feudal state. Would he have made his money there? How about Oprah Winfrey? The Waltons? Carnegie? I think you'll find that the answer is no.

Look Vas if you oppose established economics and claim to be an anarchist thats all the power to you. Do what you like as long as you dont look like a complete fool. Webster's dictionary states :"The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished" Yet we have established early on in the forum that politics are a result of governments. So by this logic your assumption of a political agenda completely contridicts your anarchist claim. Secondly the Irish economy didnt break rules of economy. The rule of economy most simply put is to generate revenue. The Irish economy had and still is generating revenue. Therefore sticking true to the economic principles of every kind. I may just only be 21 and you 29, but economics is my life not yours. I think when my life is up for discussion I would like to make stuff clear for all areas, but not for the absence of it.

Oh dear. History is the most political of disciplines, no matter how objective an historian tries to be. It has to be selective and that selectivity is coloured by the politics of the historian. Is history the story of the elites or the majority? Is history a string of wars, or a tale of human co-operation punctuated by conflicts caused by the elites? It's all political, EVERYTHING is political.

Vas.

**laughs** A little hard on others are we? It reminds me of the ancient Taoists, but they at least were idealists first, and snubbed children of society second. They could look at a civilization that flourished for four hundred years and shake their heads in dismay. Such is the red dust of daily life.

However, for those of us who seek to better the lives of ourselves and others, helping our fellow man through governance is primary; I'll let idealists wag their fingers all they want. I desire to help create a system that helps people, not throw up my hands and reject that system because it's troubled.

So Vas, you can have your ideal. I respect it, perhaps one day it will come to dominate human interaction. For now; let me discuss with my fellow fools how best to govern the economic systems of our existing world.

Look Vas if you oppose established economics and claim to be an anarchist thats all the power to you. Do what you like as long as you dont look like a complete fool. Webster's dictionary states :"The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished" Yet we have established early on in the forum that politics are a result of governments.

Rubbish, politics create governments, not vice versa.

So by this logic your assumption of a political agenda completely contridicts your anarchist claim.

The fact that political anarchism exists and has existed for nearly two centuries since Proudhon wrote "What is Property" shows what a nonsense you're spouting.

Secondly the Irish economy didnt break rules of economy. The rule of economy most simply put is to generate revenue. The Irish economy had and still is generating revenue. Therefore sticking true to the economic principles of every kind.

Oh, for jaysus' sakes. It's amazing how many people shift the goalposts to try and win arguments here. I said, I was studying economics as the Irish economy was breaking the accepted rules of economics of the time. They had to be revised. Rules of how inflation and interest rates interact, rules about economic growth and infrastructure, etc. We were talking about economic theories, not "economy".

I may just only be 21 and you 29, but economics is my life not yours. I think when my life is up for discussion I would like to make stuff clear for all areas, but not for the absence of it.

I think you might have to work on your writing, because I didn't understand what you were saying there. However, just because you're an economist does not give you a monopoly on economics. As an anarchist, I am also an economist of a completely different sort.

Vas.

**laughs** A little hard on others are we? It reminds me of the ancient Taoists, but they at least were idealists first, and snubbed children of society second. They could look at a civilization that flourished for four hundred years and shake their heads in dismay. Such is the red dust of daily life.

However, for those of us who seek to better the lives of ourselves and others, helping our fellow man through governance is primary; I'll let idealists wag their fingers all they want. I desire to help create a system that helps people, not throw up my hands and reject that system because it's troubled.

I assume you'd have said the same to abolitionists, to republicans, to everyone who has had the imagination and bravery to reach for a society that does not yet exist.

So Vas, you can have your ideal. I respect it, perhaps one day it will come to dominate human interaction. For now; let me discuss with my fellow fools how best to govern the economic systems of our existing world.

It is completely possible to apply anarchist economic ideas to the current system, as pointed out elsewhere, there are co-operatives everywhere, even in the US. It is only be pointing out and giving detailed breakdowns on an alternative system that we can show there IS an alternative in the face of public belief that There Is No Alternative (TINA).

Vas.

Let me take a stab at it.

Because under Socialism and Communism there is more social equality. With more social equality, there are more consumers. With more consumers there is more buying going on in the country. And buying is good for the economy and business.

Am I close? Or am I looking like a moron and delete this post?

Well, the amount that consumption could possibly increase from social equality is pretty small. I think Enerica already mentioned that the amount of money in the economy would still be the same. That's not a bad shot, but not what I was looking for.

Anyone else care to try to answer the question I posed on page one?

Slavery has advantages, too, but that doesn't make it good. Any advantages capitalism has are outweighed by the poverty and oppression it creates.

Preaching to the deity, are we?

No. Of course it doesn't make it good. Economic systems are neither good or bad. They are simply systems. Like any system, capitalism, communism, and socialism are corrupted by human limitations. Which I suspect is where the problem you have with capitalism lies. You see that capitalism fails in that it produces ill effects. And those ill effects stem (IMO) from people who in their ignorance abuse the system.

Preaching to the deity, are we?

No. Of course it doesn't make it good. Economic systems are neither good or bad. They are simply systems. Like any system, capitalism, communism, and socialism are corrupted by human limitations. Which I suspect is where the problem you have with capitalism lies. You see that capitalism fails in that it produces ill effects. And those ill effects stem (IMO) from people who in their ignorance abuse the system.

Wrong. Capitalism as a system promotes greed and competition, rather than co-operation and solidarity. Human nature is to adapt to the existing system, so humans become greedy and competitive in capitalist systems. This is not a corruption of the system, it's its natural effect. True communism would promote solidarity and co-operation. The issue with previous "communist" systems is not that the system, as such, was corrupted, it's simply that they retained hierarchical political systems that are always corrupt. The more power, the more corruption.

Vas.

Economics is largely dependant upon the particular laws of a country. US economics are different than Swedish economics are different than Chinese economics are different that Soviet economics were.

Wrong. Capitalism as a system promotes greed and competition, rather than co-operation and solidarity. Human nature is to adapt to the existing system, so humans become greedy and competitive in capitalist systems. This is not a corruption of the system, it's its natural effect. True communism would promote solidarity and co-operation. The issue with previous "communist" systems is not that the system, as such, was corrupted, it's simply that they retained hierarchical political systems that are always corrupt. The more power, the more corruption.

Vas.
True Capitalism would promote teamwork because compeating against eachother hurts eachother, so all the companies would ally with eachother. Now do you want that, nooo. Co-operation is bad unless there is some competition. The book Jennifer Government shows a nice case where your evil competition is not in captitalism.

Well technically since Capitalism seeks less and less government it is the closest thing to anarchy. Thus greed and competition must be in anarchy. Since anarchy is the best system, Capitalism is a good system.

There's a lot of interesting theory in here, I was wondering, are there any supporters of Thorstein Veblen's theories out there? His system was Technocracy, which put experts in areas such as science and industry in charge of the use of a country's economic resources, in the hope that they would be used in the best and most educated way possible.

We never seem to get any economics threads, anyone here have an interest in that field, has studied that field, or just wants to throw a theory about. Please :(

Speaking of which I know why the Philips(sp) curve doesn't work in the UK :P(I think)

I've only studied "bio-economics" which entails Predator/Prey ratios, calculating the biomass a given land area and so forth. I have no interest in the economics you are refering to however.

Wrong. Capitalism as a system promotes greed and competition, rather than co-operation and solidarity. Human nature is to adapt to the existing system, so humans become greedy and competitive in capitalist systems. This is not a corruption of the system, it's its natural effect. True communism would promote solidarity and co-operation. The issue with previous "communist" systems is not that the system, as such, was corrupted, it's simply that they retained hierarchical political systems that are always corrupt. The more power, the more corruption.

Vas.

Nope, not wrong, just misunderstood alot. Capitalism in it's real-world incarnations is very different from what it potentially could be if people were simply less limited in our ability to understand the consequences of our actions within any given system. I make a rather large distinction between capitalism as an ideal and capitalism as a real-world sysytem. Much like communism, capitalism in its application has been limited by humans' inability to see past their own noses. While both capitalism and communism could theoretically fit my definition of a perfect economic system under hypothetical circumstances, neither make it even close under the conditions imposed by human societies.

I'm kinda giving away the answer to the question I posed earlier, but oh well, probably noone would have gotten to it anyway, because my mind works in ways most people's don't and this thread doesn't seem to get much attention.

Capitalism is basically economic freedom and/or the exercise of it. (I know that may defy the common understanding of capitalism, but I really don't give a damn.) There is nothing in capitalism itself that necessitates that people have to use that freedom to benefit only themselves and screw others, although most people define it that way mostly because of their socialization and, dare I say, even indocrination to believe that greed is necessary. Greed is one way to drive capitalism, but not the only possible way. Fear is often used to keep people from behaving in an "immoral" fashion, but it is certainly not the only way to do so. Simply teaching people about the negative effects that result from the irresponsible use of personal freedom can also be used to keep people from behaving in an "immoral" fashion, and does not require the use of fear. Similarly, teaching people about the negative effects of the irresponsible use of economic freedom can also keep capitalism from having the ill effects it tends to create. Capitalism can be driven by an understanding that competition is a very efficient way to drive the improvement of the technology that can be used to improve the human condition, which does not require greed or other ill effects commonly associated with capitalism.

Part of having freedom is having the ability to limit oneself. One can limit oneself to being greedy and having a disregard for other people's quality of life. One can limit oneself to having economic equality with the other people in the system. In limiting oneself to either of those options one exercises the freedom one has, which is essentially capitalism. I prefer that people exercise their freedom responsibly by avoiding degrading those who are also part of the interconnected matrix of life, and using resources effeciently in a way that takes into account the finite nature of said resources. Unfortunately, very few people actually exercise their freedom responsibly, thereby creating the ill effects that taint both capitalism and communism in their application.

Let me pose a quick question... How many of you have actually taken economics? Whether it be macro- or micro- or any level beyond?

And yes, home economics DOES NOT COUNT!

Can't say I have. I'm thinking of doing a degree in Economics though. I'm more interested in the international side of Economics and the political influences and effects I have to say. Does anyone have anything to say about Economics at British Universities?

Marxism, it's the only _good_ economic system to be found!

There's a lot of interesting theory in here, I was wondering, are there any supporters of Thorstein Veblen's theories out there? His system was Technocracy, which put experts in areas such as science and industry in charge of the use of a country's economic resources, in the hope that they would be used in the best and most educated way possible.

I hate technocracy. It's élitist and excessively technophilic.

Well technically since Capitalism seeks less and less government it is the closest thing to anarchy. Thus greed and competition must be in anarchy. Since anarchy is the best system, Capitalism is a good system.

Actually, capitalism isn't anarchistic at all. It has bosses, social classes, sweatshops, etc. Hardly a system without hierarchy or coersive authority.

FYI, the best economic system/model to most economists is the Capitalist system. However, this system will lack any regulations imposed by the government in order to control any industries, sectors, etc. This way, economists believe that the twin sides of supply and demand will balance out the economic situation.

Before the reunification with China, Hong Kong possessed the economy that had the most freedom. The economy of the United States is somewhere in the middle.

Before the reunification with China, Hong Kong possessed the economy that had the most freedom. The economy of the United States is somewhere in the middle.
FYI, we STILL possess the freest economy in the world.

I hate technocracy. It's élitist and excessively technophilic.
That's cool, but whoever said it was Veblen's Idea is an idiot. Veblen had more of a predator/prey relationship ideology seeing that the prey tended to be creative and have less political or economic power while the predator destroyed the prey's creativity and industriousness and exploited them for more power.
Actually, capitalism isn't anarchistic at all. It has bosses, social classes, sweatshops, etc. Hardly a system without hierarchy or coersive authority.
Actually capitalism is anarchistic because capitalism relies on an absence of government, as does anarchism.
True capitalism would have people moving in and out of the capitalist class and no government to keep capitalists capitalists and laborers laborers. Not only that but the free markets, which capitalism relies wholly upon are anarchist to the core.

Not an idiot! A person with crappy messy notes from a basic economics class. So yeah, it may not have been Veblen.
Now that I have defended my honor...

I hate technocracy. It's élitist and excessively technophilic.


I'll give you that, on a basic level particularly if applied in today's society, it likely would be. However, strictly in theory, a system could be enacted to protect the "non-elite". And who said technophilia was a bad thing as long as advancement doesn't go too far too fast and old ways are forgotten?

There's only one thing you need to know about economics: That capitalism is bad.

Shame it's the only way to effectively allocate goods and services....

Shame it's the only way to effectively allocate goods and services....

TINA*, eh? Alas them without imagination and vision, for they live in a grey world. Throughout history, reactionaries have claimed TINA - no alternative to slavery, no alternative to monarchy, no alternative to living in the sea as one-celled amoeba. Thankfully, some of reject TINA and grasp progress.

Vas.
Hail Eris, Viva Discord - TIAA!









*There is no alternative.

[QUOTE=Don Cheecheeo]

Actually capitalism is anarchistic because capitalism relies on an absence of government, as does anarchism.
QUOTE]

Capitalism depends upon the presence of government to protect "property rights." While capitalists tend to prefer smaller governments, one is still necessary.

TINA*, eh? Alas them without imagination and vision, for they live in a grey world. Throughout history, reactionaries have claimed TINA - no alternative to slavery, no alternative to monarchy, no alternative to living in the sea as one-celled amoeba. Thankfully, some of reject TINA and grasp progress.



Alas them without a degree of sense within them. Only chanting their failed, pathetic slogans, dry mouths moving in practiced muddling verbage, chapped lips pursed in a sneer, their eyes are swollen shut and ears sewn up.

Throughout history, reactionaries have claimed EVERYTHING, from the second coming to the belief that Anarchy somehow...works? Thankfully, some of reject those would would throw away the world to try to save it. These precious induviduals grasp that there are times to work within a system, and times to work without; only a fool would discard everything for that sake of nothing.

Your grasp of history of exceedingly poor. Study some more, and until then; stop pretending you have a veiw of the entire sky from the bottom of your anarchist's well.

There's only one thing you need to know about economics: That capitalism is bad.

...any other reasons?

Alas them without a degree of sense within them. Only chanting their failed, pathetic slogans, dry mouths moving in practiced muddling verbage, chapped lips pursed in a sneer, their eyes are swollen shut and ears sewn up.

Throughout history, reactionaries have claimed EVERYTHING, from the second coming to the belief that Anarchy somehow...works? Thankfully, some of reject those would would throw away the world to try to save it. These precious induviduals grasp that there are times to work within a system, and times to work without; only a fool would discard everything for that sake of nothing.

Your grasp of history of exceedingly poor. Study some more, and until then; stop pretending you have a veiw of the entire sky from the bottom of your anarchist's well.

I know enough about history to hear in your words the echo of the slave owning anti-abolitionists, the aristocratic monarchist, etc. Thankfully, history shows that you will, eventually, be relegated to it.

Vas.

I know enough about history to hear in your words the echo of the slave owning anti-abolitionists, the aristocratic monarchist, etc. Thankfully, history shows that you will, eventually, be relegated to it.

Vas.

Your speculations on my personal background are unsubstantiated and more than a little unwelcome.

Pathetic really. You are unworthy of serious discussion.

Actually capitalism is anarchistic because capitalism relies on an absence of government, as does anarchism.

Capitalism depends upon the presence of government to protect "property rights." While capitalists tend to prefer smaller governments, one is still necessary.

You have a point, but it's not necessarily true. Because private property is pervasive in almost all economic systems and can also be present in complete anarchy. Government protections for private property in capitalism simply provide the faith, trust, and protection that capitalists need to maintain their power.

Your speculations on my personal background are unsubstantiated and more than a little unwelcome.

I made no such speculations, learn to read.

Vas.

You have a point, but it's not necessarily true. Because private property is pervasive in almost all economic systems and can also be present in complete anarchy. Government protections for private property in capitalism simply provide the faith, trust, and protection that capitalists need to maintain their power.

Oh, I suppose that capitalism can exist in anarchism (I'm not going to get into a debate of the definition of anarchism here) but it's extremely unlikely. If someone is starving to death and sees your garden, what's to stop them from picking something from it? I mean, certainly, people are capable of surpassing their base instincts and desires, but how likely is it that someone will not take your food when they're starving?

Oh, I suppose that capitalism can exist in anarchism (I'm not going to get into a debate of the definition of anarchism here) but it's extremely unlikely. If someone is starving to death and sees your garden, what's to stop them from picking something from it? I mean, certainly, people are capable of surpassing their base instincts and desires, but how likely is it that someone will not take your food when they're starving?
Your police company?

I think Communism in itself, is to idealistic of a system. If it worked out like how it looked on paper, then it'd be a Utopia of a socio-economic system. But it just doesn't happen like that, it's completely imperfect.

Idk, I just felt like conjuring an argument about communism

Oh, I suppose that capitalism can exist in anarchism (I'm not going to get into a debate of the definition of anarchism here) but it's extremely unlikely. If someone is starving to death and sees your garden, what's to stop them from picking something from it? I mean, certainly, people are capable of surpassing their base instincts and desires, but how likely is it that someone will not take your food when they're starving?

That's an extreme example, though, far more likely is the situation where you set up your anarcho-capitalist shop selling all you can produce, with your help wanted sign on the window, and the members of the commune laugh as they enjoy their communal distribution. In a free society, why would anyone choose to buy what's offered for free, or work for a boss when they can work for themselves as part of a commune?

Vas.

I think Communism in itself, is to idealistic of a system. If it worked out like how it looked on paper, then it'd be a Utopia of a socio-economic system. But it just doesn't happen like that, it's completely imperfect.

No, it's quite simple, real communism is about removing oppressive elements of society and the economy. It will work when it's for the benefit of the majority. Previous so-called communist societies failed because they built the system to the benefit of minorities - except for the large-scale anarchist ones that were destroyed by external forces.

Vas.

Oh, I suppose that capitalism can exist in anarchism (I'm not going to get into a debate of the definition of anarchism here) but it's extremely unlikely. If someone is starving to death and sees your garden, what's to stop them from picking something from it? I mean, certainly, people are capable of surpassing their base instincts and desires, but how likely is it that someone will not take your food when they're starving?

Well, lets take a for example. What stops one from masturbating in public? They probably want to do it at some point in their life. But it's illegal... Not only that but its completely unnacceptable in American culture and you're bound to get your face bashed in by me if you did that. The law legally prevents us from doing certain things. But in civilized culture you just don't do some things because they are wrong. That "civility" would be the same thing that prevents thieves from taking everying in anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, but if the government didn't exist to enforce laws, the ONLY thing preventing me from masturbating in public is the possibility of getting my face bashed in by you.

Thus, even in the anarcho communist fantasy utopia, force is the ultimate adjudicator. And in modern societies, 'civility' can get dropped pretty damn fast when the powers that be become weaker.

I think Communism in itself, is to idealistic of a system. If it worked out like how it looked on paper, then it'd be a Utopia of a socio-economic system. But it just doesn't happen like that, it's completely imperfect.

Idk, I just felt like conjuring an argument about communism

Capitalism looks really good on paper but that's just not how it works out :) If it worked out like Adam Smith said it would. Our economic system would be very very anarchistic with no intellectual property, trade secrets, copyrights, or trademarks even. No product differentiation and in fact, pure capitalism, as economic system is very similar to pure communism considering goods and services that are produced. Only in American/Corporate capitalism are we debilitated by laws protecting intellectual property, trade secrets, copyrights, and trademarks. Which create monopolies, market power, market leadership, and monopolitsic pricing.

Yes, but if the government didn't exist to enforce laws, the ONLY thing preventing me from masturbating in public is the possibility of getting my face bashed in by you.

Thus, even in the anarcho communist fantasy utopia, force is the ultimate adjudicator. And in modern societies, 'civility' can get dropped pretty damn fast when the powers that be become weaker.

Well, in anarcho-communism supposedly "civility" is the stronger force. Which I believe is simply because anarcho communism is a pipe dream for peace loving liberals who wouldnt use force to get something done if they were getting raped by their father.

But I agree with you. Without government something else takes up the flak having to give some kind of order and control to the people.

Even in America, by any account, the impoverished are generally better off than the middle class in a socialist country ten years ago.
Is that just a blanket statement or do you have any facts to back up what I believe to be a ridiculous statement?

It should be very interesting to hear your resonse to say the least.

What has proven to work is Democratic Capitalism. A melding of the most effective and efficient economic system with the most responsive and fair system of government. It also provides checks and balances in addition to a mechanism to correct extremism.

Novak's book "Democratic Capitalism" should be read by anyone who cares about this stuff in the real world.

Socialism is theft. Communism is oppression. Anarchy is a failure of morality.

Well, in anarcho-communism supposedly "civility" is the stronger force. Which I believe is simply because anarcho communism is a pipe dream for peace loving liberals who wouldnt use force to get something done if they were getting raped by their father.

You've obviously never met a member of AFA or a black bloc, have you?

Vas.

What has proven to work is Democratic Capitalism. A melding of the most effective and efficient economic system with the most responsive and fair system of government. It also provides checks and balances in addition to a mechanism to correct extremism.

And where it that? "Democratic Capitalism" is applied differently in different countries, it changes regularly and there's no way you can say the current system of unfair trade and tarriffs is fair or effective. "Democracy" is still relatively new as a system, feudalism lasted a lot longer, that's no guarantee that that it has any kind of staying power.

Socialism is theft. Communism is oppression. Anarchy is a failure of morality.

Soundbites are meaningless.

Vas.

You've obviously never met a member of AFA or a black bloc, have you?

Vas.

American Family Association? Black Bloc?

What do they have to do with peace loving liberals?

And where it that? "Democratic Capitalism" is applied differently in different countries, it changes regularly and there's no way you can say the current system of unfair trade and tarriffs is fair or effective. "Democracy" is still relatively new as a system, feudalism lasted a lot longer, that's no guarantee that that it has any kind of staying power.
Not to mention that capitalism is inherently un-democratic because it is not the best for the people. Rather, it is the best economic system for the capitalist.

You've obviously never met a member of AFA or a black bloc, have you?

Vas.American Family Association? Black Bloc?

What do they have to do with peace loving liberals?

anti-fascist action

and i believe they were serving as a counterexample to you claim that "anarcho communism is a pipe dream for peace loving liberals who wouldnt use force to get something done if they were getting raped by their father".

Well, It's my belief that there is no "Better" economic system because it all depends on where it is applied. Not everyone in the world is the same and not everyone wants the same thing

American Family Association?

Anti-Fascist Action (http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/) - hardcore direct action anti-fascists (yes, that does mean they'll kick a Nazi's head in).

Black Bloc?

Masked frontline of any anti-capitalist protest, basically the angry young men in balaclavas/scarfs who take on the riot cops - picture of black blocer in Seattle (http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/images/seattlewto3.jpg). Similar to the Ya Basta!/Tutti Bianchi/WOMBLES - padded white boiler suit wearing protest defence line - picture of Ya Basta! in Prague (http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/images/pragueimf4.jpg). (pics taken from a feature site by RTÉ, the Irish state broadcaster (http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/).)

What do they have to do with peace loving liberals?

Nothing, which is the point. Anarchists are not liberals and, while we'd love to live in a peaceful world, this isn't it. Anarchists are class warriors and more than willing to fight for what they believe in.

Vas.

Anti-Fascist Action (http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/) - hardcore direct action anti-fascists (yes, that does mean they'll kick a Nazi's head in).



Masked frontline of any anti-capitalist protest, basically the angry young men in balaclavas/scarfs who take on the riot cops - picture of black blocer in Seattle (http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/images/seattlewto3.jpg). Similar to the Ya Basta!/Tutti Bianchi/WOMBLES - padded white boiler suit wearing protest defence line - picture of Ya Basta! in Prague (http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/images/pragueimf4.jpg). (pics taken from a feature site by RTÉ, the Irish state broadcaster (http://www.rte.ie/news/features/new_world_disorder/).)



Nothing, which is the point. Anarchists are not liberals and, while we'd love to live in a peaceful world, this isn't it. Anarchists are class warriors and more than willing to fight for what they believe in.

Vas.


Ahh, I get it. Well in my experience, the intellectuals of anarcho-communism, tend to be peaceful, but yeah there are plenty of examples of anarchists going crazy and bombing a public square.

I think that I'd classify violent anarchists as simply anarchists. Because of crazy people out there that don't want to be looked at the same way as violent anarchists but still believe in no form of government or law. And they like to be called anarcho-<insert word here>.

Ahh, I get it. Well in my experience, the intellectuals of anarcho-communism, tend to be peaceful, but yeah there are plenty of examples of anarchists going crazy and bombing a public square.

Come on, when was the last time a public square was bombed? This is overstated, the black bloc is a tactic, not an organisation. Quite a few of your anarcho-communist intellectuals probably enjoy donning a mask and clashing with the cops every now and then. Personally, though, I resemble your comment somewhat, as I'm not very good in a scrap.

I think that I'd classify violent anarchists as simply anarchists.

There's hardly anyone I'd classify as "violent". I don't regard economic sabotage (smashing windows) as violence, nor do I regard clashing with police being violent (the police usually start it). The AFA-style "kick a fascist to the ground" type, well... I'm just happy they're on our side.

Because of crazy people out there that don't want to be looked at the same way as violent anarchists but still believe in no form of government or law. And they like to be called anarcho-<insert word here>.

No, that's a different thing. There are distinctions between the views of different anarchist groups and they're usually based on organisation and tactics. Anarcho-syndicalists are specifically workplace-based, while anarcho-communists tend to be the more philosophical types. Anarcho-capitalists, however, are oxymorons.

Vas.

I'm into economics. I even made a thread called "Stock Market Talk".

The Stock Market is only one small portion of economics... And a relatively unimportant one at that...

The Stock Market is only one small portion of economics... And a relatively unimportant one at that...
Actually, the stock market has got to be the number one money making machine in the world. Which economists study generally... (unfortunate as it may be)

Actually, the stock market has got to be the number one money making machine in the world. Which economists study generally... (unfortunate as it may be)
Economists study stock markets so much because there's heaps of information available from stock markets that you can't get from most other markets and because it's where all the money is. It's no surprise that most of the so-called econophysicists spend most of their time dynamically modelling the stockmarket instead of applying their (self-professed) incredible skills in empiricism to more socially useful studies.

As to the thread at large. Economics is bunk. It's taught badly in universities, so that people with undergraduate degrees in economics think they know all the answers (when they don't), and it really is on pathetically weak and falsifiable foundations.

Most of economics theory works like this: some people over the past few centuries decided that they could figure out some axioms (yes, they really call them axioms, forget about assumptions, economics has axioms) about how people behave, then, using maths (sometimes faulty, but that didn't matter) and logic they came up with theorems (yes, they call them theorems, not theories, see a pattern?), and then later, they became able to empirically test these theorems. They did some econometric modelling and explained away the discrepencies that would cause any real scientist to doubt the assumptions (but, as I said before, there are no assumptions, merely axioms, and axioms aren't false), and hence the sorry mess that is economics today.

To be fair, what economics deals with is incredibly complicated systems, so it's no wonder they had a tough time of it.

The way Economics is taught at universities would actually depend on the university itself and which school of thought that it employs.

For instance, University of Chicago and Columbia University have a slew of brilliant economists, who I've had the pleasure of meeting and talking to, who would evidently disagree with your thoughts.

Just out of curiosity, have you studied at either University of Chicago or Columbia University?

Well Snorklenork is right. He's being quite arrogant but one of his statements had some backing to it.

Economics is not taught perfectly at universities. Otherwise everybody who studied it would have a good chance at coming out rich. It's more the college dropouts that become billionaires than the economic majors.

That's partly true... However, its interesting how Alan Greenspan was a saxophone performance major at the Juilliard School before he got into economics...

Actually, the stock market has got to be the number one money making machine in the world. Which economists study generally... (unfortunate as it may be)


Debt financing is used more often by corporations...not to discount the benefits of equity

Well Snorklenork is right. He's being quite arrogant but one of his statements had some backing to it.

Economics is not taught perfectly at universities. Otherwise everybody who studied it would have a good chance at coming out rich. It's more the college dropouts that become billionaires than the economic majors.


Takes more than just knowledge to become rich

Yes. Obviously it does. That is why I said if economics was taught well they'd have a good chance. Not a definite outcome.