Stimulus spending only creates bubbles that bust to cause a recession when the stimulus is withdrawn. The Republican free market rebuilds sustainably. Econ 101
"Your condition of servitude is a voluntary relationship, Uncle Tom, because you may choose to buy your right to liberty from its owner or not." Forcibly stripping people of their liberty rights to use land and making them into others' private property, which they may then "choose" to buy back or pay rent to exercise, is not a voluntary relationship, sorry. The state forcibly prevents me from using land that I would be perfectly at liberty to use if no landowner had ever existed. That is not a voluntary relationship because it is based on my right to liberty having been taken from me by force. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
Yes, of course it does. But not under socialism, because the productive contribution of the individual capital provider is confiscated by the collective. No, because the knowledge that the capital provider contributes his free market return to production is deliberately ignored and erased. No, I'm saying that most workers end up worse off because the most productive are the most robbed and exploited. Which proves me right. Having an equal vote is not the same as making an equal contribution. Nope. It's the evident truth, as the history of socialism proves.
Arguably one of your strongest debate tactics. Of course the foot stamp won't actually generate any reasoned comment, but fair's fair. Let's look for positives! Best example of how your positions are based on oversimplifying and ignoring all aspects of political economy. We know that socialist approaches are diverse, ranging from compatibility with anarchism to Austrian economics. Take the latter. Following Hayek's contribution to the socialist calculation debate, we have market socialism firmly based on using worker ownership to eliminate hierarchical relations in the labour market. By definition, that refers to compensation according to worker/owner value. This is illiterate drivel which has no link to the quote. That quote referred to the impact of democracy within the company. Now you could refer to the return of the entrepreneur (who discover value through Hayek's notion of tacit knowledge. However, that is already considered in firm value. It's nothing new of course, as SMEs are routinely bought by large enterprises. Notice you don't base that on any relevant economic analysis. It is poorly thought opinion and nothing more. I'm happy to refer the Austrians again. They make a big deal about distributed knowledge and how that hinders the socialist planner. However, we know that economic planning is the norm in large companies. The New Institutionalists, for example, use game theory to describe the consequences of hold-up. Managerial planning, despite the inefficiencies generated by influence costs, often out-trumps the market. So large companies will suffer the effects of distributed knowledge. Worker ownership, by improving information flows, eliminate these issues. And the evidence? The likes of Logue and Yates have confirmed that worker ownership generates higher productivity levels. I've never seen you proved right. Your arguments ignore economics and therefore fall into the camp of prattle. We see that here as you refer to vague reference to economic history. Are you referring to market socialism? Are you falling into the trap of bogus reference to state capitalism? Impossible to say as you're just a foot stamper...
but its given that other people have always existed, and have always owned/rented land on which on to exist. yep, you'd be perfectly free to use any land on earth if no other person existed.
He's been reading from the 70s. He missed the part when Friedman's monetarism was proved to be a crock of...
Performing a periodic check, I see why I placed you on my ignore list. My words: "Returning to the OP topic, debt only proves a great many are living well beyond their means aided by government spending which as a consequence of its actions raises the costs of living collectively upon everyone." Your response, as always, is simply ludicrous.
If so why are you so afraid to point out the most significant aspect of monetarism that has been proved to be a crock. What do you learn from your fear
Thatcherism applied it. End result? Worst ever recession artificially engineered. It was of course based on a false debate with the neo-Keynesians, where Friedman pretended that Keynes supported the notion of IS/LM and the Phillips Curve.
Friedman wrote the definitive monetary history of US. Bernanke thanked him for the wisdom and used it to prevent the recent liberal housing crash from turning into another depression. Thatcher applied only the tiniest aspects of Friedman to the British economy.
I've heard you peddle this guff before! Thatcher applied full blown monetarism. It was disastrous. And it is a fact that his nonsense theory was crafted from debate with bastardised Keynesianism. The expectations augmented Phillips Curve stuff was particularly cretinous
She introduced contracting out (which then led to infection problems due to 'low pay, poor product' private company cleaning companies), but what the heck is that got to do with macroeconomic policy? Think before you type dear chap!
No, that's just another bald falsehood on your part. No one ever owned land until a few thousand years ago, when some evil genius realized that if he could just get other people to accept that he owned the land, he could take everything from them. Or when they do. For millions of years, our ancestors were all at liberty to use all land NON-EXCLUSIVELY, just as we would all be today if our rights to liberty had not been forcibly stripped from us and given to landowners as their private property. It is not using land but EXCLUDING OTHERS from using land that violates their rights. You know this. Of course you do. You just have to find some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
so?? that was then, now the concept is everyone is free to buy and sell stuff as they please or in your whacko terminology to buy and sell their liberty as they see fit.
So, stronger than your strongest. Contentless garbage. The Austrians beg to differ. No, it does not, as you already admitted when you specified compensation for capital owners calculated as if no human beings existed. It is a direct response to what you said, and you know it. Thank you for admitting I was absolutely correct. Which you imagine, absurdly and anti-economically, can be calculated in the absence of labor. But not for the value they would have if no labor existed. I notice that the economic analysis proved you wrong. No, you are aware that it identifies the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications. No, that is just an absurd fantasy on your part. We already know your claims are false because if they were true, worker-owned enterprises would already have out-competed shareholder-owned ones. But that hasn't happened, and isn't happening. And you know it. I suppose you close your eyes when you get to those parts. I've been wondering why your responses to my posts have so little to say about what I have actually written. I guess that's the reason. I ignore stupid garbage that you incorrectly imagine to be economics. I am referring to all non-voluntary socialism. Socialism -- Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, even North Korean -- has always been greeted with glee and predictions of success by socialists. Then when it fails, they renounce it and say oh, it was "state capitalism" all along! <yawn>
No, they are not free to sell their liberty, because landowners and other privilege owners already own it. They are only "free" to pay the owners of their rights full market value for permission to exercise them.
OOo, classic playground. You let yourself down! You think asking for political economy is contentless garbage? That reflects your position doesn't it? You don't actually bother with any resenblance of intellectual comment. You can't even get our George right after all. Actually they have referred to how Hayek has informed market socialism. Fake libertarians are like you: All blag and no economics. Referring to the economics actually ensures stance is challenged. Another cretinous response! I stated: "Following Hayek's contribution to the socialist calculation debate, we have market socialism firmly based on using worker ownership to eliminate hierarchical relations in the labour market. By definition, that refers to compensation according to worker/owner value". Nothing in that is wrong. Hayek indeed introduced distributed knowledge as a means to dismiss the relevant of the socialist planner. Such distributed knowledge ideas are just as relevant to managerial planning in large firm. For market socialism to eliminate these issues they must, by definition, eliminate heirarchical relations. The problem hasn't changed. You just don't know any economics! Openly fibbing now! That doesn't surprise. You stated the nonsensical "the knowledge that the capital provider contributes his free market return to production is deliberately ignored and erased". I referred to the diffusion of knowledge. It was clearly a reference to Hayekian analysis. You adopt the same stagnant tactics: (1) Make ludicrous comment; (2) Reply with one liners as a means to try and hide the stupidity of your original comment. Democracy in the company is key as it ensures knowledge diffusion (which is necessarily hindered in standard firm ownership as hierarchy is required to maintain rent seeking outcomes). Ignorant again! Value without labour is just a means to appreciate how large firm value is exaggerated: without the underpayment of workers the firm can actually have negative value. I referred, however, to the importance of entrepreneurial spirit. That is naturally rewarded. You do struggle! Entreprenurial gain is quite independent of labour. This was a tad obvious as the analysis is Austrian Economics orientated. Perhaps you're ignorant of the Austrian approach? You're clearly ignorant of our George after all. I merely referred to two aspects: First, the importance of the tacit knowledge of the entrepreneur (an attack on traditional socialism no less). Second, how that is easily valued in capitalism (as evidenced by SME buyouts) You fib terribly! You wrote "no, I'm saying that most workers end up worse off because the most productive are the most robbed and exploited". That wasn't based on economic analysis. You gave none. You aren't capable of providing any. This made me laugh at least, given you come across like a teen going through the change! Why don't you refer to these "indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications" and integrate them into socialist political economy? Grown-up comment for a change. Fight through the hormones and try! Another pitiful effort. Here's the comment again: "I'm happy to refer the Austrians again. They make a big deal about distributed knowledge and how that hinders the socialist planner. However, we know that economic planning is the norm in large companies. The New Institutionalists, for example, use game theory to describe the consequences of hold-up. Managerial planning, despite the inefficiencies generated by influence costs, often out-trumps the market. So large companies will suffer the effects of distributed knowledge. Worker ownership, by improving information flows, eliminate these issues". That comment is 100% correct. If you want to dispute it then actually use economics and refer directly to the apparent error. Good luck! Ignorant again! I referred to how worker ownership increased productivity. It doesn't increase profitability. The traditional firm benefits from rent seeking behaviour (from the underpayment you pretended occurred in both socialism and capitalism). There is no notion that market forces will deliver efficiency. Crikey, even our George knew that. Where the hell have you been? As illustrated by this post of yours, you don't bother with economic argument. You are a ranter and nothing more. You're assuming that, with your petty one liner routine, I'll be too bored to reply to you. Sorry chum. I'm happy to continue to illustrate that your position isn't based on any resemblance of reasoned economics. This again at least amused me. You were recently caught out gushing over neoclassical market failure. You ignore economics when it suits. You have to maintain the rant after all. I find that petty. I adopt an open approach that refers to all political economic schools of thought. To do anything else restricts your ability to analyse. You have managed to restrict yourself so pathetically that you will actively hide from economics! This also made me laugh. You rant on and most of my comments have referred to market socialism: by definition, a voluntary form. And you finish with clear evidence that you haven't got a clue what socialist political economy entails. But isn't that your 'thing'? Morality rant rarely cheers the notion of rational economic dialogue.
I think it is very pertinent that someone who focuses on land is also a tacit supporter of imperialism. It describes reality!
No, they can't sell their liberty, it was already stolen and given to landowners as their private property. All they can do now is pay landowners full market value for permission to exercise it. That is kinda the point: landowners get to take from everyone else and contribute nothing whatever in return.
