/biz/ - Business & Finance

just as hilarious as all their other beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

I don't think anyone takes them seriously, not even libertarians themselves

I'm new to this board. I would have thought this thread would have sparked a defense force with all the Ron Paul and /pol/ bullshit elsewhere on this site.

>>110216
They are busy with the coin threads.

>>110216
The fact that OP is samefagging with childish ad-homs instead of wanting to engage in a meaningful discussion is why I'm not participating.

>>110216
A lot of people posting here seem to have actually studied economics or finance. Hence relatively far less uneducated shitposting from people who's only exposure to economics came from reading a couple of articles at mises.org.

>>110241
yeah, i've seen a lot more people getting called on their bullshit than i expected

it dilutes the comedy somewhat, but i'm not complaining

>>110047
stupid as fuck.

So what would people say isn't stupid as fuck? Im libertarian right now but if someone tells me why im being an idiot im happy to change that

>>111301
>>110098
The whole philosophy is just an excuse to not pay taxes.

I wish people could just admit they want to keep their money, instead of making up retarded philosophies to justify it, then spewing their retarded shit everywhere.

>>111301
I'm not going to recommend you a political doctrine to subscribe to, but libertarian economics is based on the idea that the free market is always more efficient at allocating resources than the government when that is only sometimes true.

See
>>110098

>>111301
I generally agree with the economic ideals libertarianism strives for, like.. they seem like good ideals in an ideal world. But don't really gel with reality imo.

I think libertarians seem to disagree with each other on many things. Some of the bigger issues I find hard to understand are:
roads
environmental issues
animal rights
welfare systems (with regard to libertarians often thinking there should be 0 state welfare of any sort)

There's a few other too. I talk to some libertarians and they say some libertarians think these things should be handled by government and paid for in taxes, which is fine. I find it difficult to understand those who think otherwise.

also, while I'm very interested in libertarianism I find it very hard to find ANY libertarian who isn't very angry and defensive when talking about the topic. Ron Paul is probably an exception.

>>111339
>I wish people could just admit they want to keep their money
I'm fairly certain libertarians do not deny this. If I had to guess, you want other people's money. Amirite?

Doesn't go far enough

>>111357
Fuck off, wage-slaver.

>>111339
Of course they want to keep their money. Libertarians don't feel it's bad to have the right to do whatever you want (within the legal bondaries) with the money you've earned.

You disabled folk sure enjoy making anti-Libertarian threads

>>111419
Called it.

>>111364
I think this probably sums it up - free market does work well in most places, and government interference does often make things worse

the problem with libertarianism is that often the ones on 4cahn take things to the extreme rather than analyzing the facts on a case by case basis. it becomes an reflexive - gumbernment bad, free market will fix it, selfishness good, fuk da poor, kinda attitude

>>111364
>roads
>environmental issues
>animal rights
>welfare systems

Most members of the libertarian party would agree that these issues are better handled by the states than at the federal level.

>>111490
>I think this probably sums it up - free market does work well in most places, and government interference does often make things worse
that sums up what libertarianism is or sums up the problems with libertarianism? Libertarianism seems to far beyond the idea that free market is good and too much government is bad. Although 4chan take it "extreme" like you describe, I feel so does Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods and other prominent libertarian figures.

>>111490
>fuk da poor
Libertarians advocate a system which has proven to create the wealthiest and largest middle class the world has ever seen.

>>111422
>within the legal boundaries
Derp

>>111443
Read Wealth of Nations, retard.

>>111490
I'm sick of people conflating libertarians with Objectivists.

Most non-Objectivist, non Rand fetishist libertarians feel compassion for the poor.

The difference is that we think the state makes poverty more prevalent, takes dignity from the poor, and its anti poverty programs implode on themselves and cause more poverty.

Eat shit if you really think subsidies will help anything. Case in point: Africa.

>>111576
>Read Wealth of Nations, retard.
What about it? I could give you a reading list too, but I'm not a Neanderthal who doesn't understand concepts enough to phrase them himself.

>>111562
How about lowest poverty levels?

why does everyone think libertarians are going to start over and build a new economic model from scratch, rather than play by the rules and implement their ideas one piece of legislature at a time?

everyone saying that if we elected Garry Johnson or Ron/Rand Paul, we are going to see privatized roads, police, fire fighters, armies, and courts are arguing on the same level as everyone who says that if we elected Obama, we are going to see satanist soldiers forcing white women to get abortions and collectivizing the entire economy to start a new golden age of Islamic Communism

>>111587
>why does everyone think libertarians are going to start over and build a new economic model from scratch, rather than play by the rules and implement their ideas one piece of legislature at a time?
I haven't heard anyone say that myself. What's the different between starting a new economic model "from scratch" and implementing the same economic model "one piece of legislature at a time"?

>>111587
I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I basically agree.

Ron Paul saying that he wants to get rid of the IRS. top lel. As if he could do it. There's no way.

>>111616
the difference between baseless fear mongering and a realistic point of view that they are going to be just like the other political parties with different ideas on how to fix the issues we are facing in the now.

>>111587
My plan is the following:

Run on a platform that viciously advocates state sovereignty

If that manages to get through, the fight for liberty will then be at a state level.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Eventually the menace to liberty will be your local city and the fight will be much easier until each individual is their own sovereign nation.

>>110047
I think libertarian economics is a fantasy, full of belief the Free Market Jesus™ will provide protection, and that somehow bartering is better then using fucking money.
Their love of gold and precious metals is ridiculous and sad.
Their belief that the FDA and other regulatory agencies don't provide real fucking value to our society is stupid(Is this beef good? Does it have mad cow? Free Market Jesus™ will protect me!)

The only good libertarian economic related theory that has value, is ending the drug war. Let people shoot up heroin, let them enjoy opiates in an opiate den.(though provide safe needles, now -THAT- is smart) because the drug war is fucking stupid.

>>111537
That makes no sense outside of America. In most places, the state is as high as it goes. In America, the federal level really is the state, in many cases.

>>111648
you're not understanding my point. I'm saying implementing a "new economic model" "from scratch" or "one piece of legislature at a time" mean the same thing effectively. Most people simply don't like what libertarians are aiming to do in government. Personally I would support them far more if they were more moderate and were far more interested in bringing the ideas of more free market and less government into the political discussion rather than. "elect me Ron Paul for president! First thing I'll do is tear down the entire department of education and replace it with nothing because free markets!". Most people don't like this kind of talk or the reasoning behind it. By all means Ron Paul could achieve his goals far better by arguing for the severe shrinkage of government involvement in education rather than the outright removal of it.

>>111678
Oh, I forgot to mention...
Against public education? Are you fucking kidding me? Free Market™ won't provide that service, you fucking retards.

>Badnarik has called for the privatization of education, which he believes would result in both more effective and affordable alternatives due to free market competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik

>Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice.
https://www.lp.org/platform

I mean seriously, the amount of Free Market worship in the platform is disgusting. It IS unbelievable that anyone with any knowledge could support this shit.

>>111706
>First thing I'll do is tear down the entire department of education and replace it with nothing because free markets!"

sounds like you have more faith in him than the libertarians, because he always says it should be left to more localized governments.

see
>>111668

he is saying "get rid of it on the federal level and let local government decide what's best for the unique needs for the people in their particular area". not "get rid of it and replace it with nothing"

>>111562
This is objectively false. They strenuously object to the institutions which have made it possible.

>>111584
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html#I.8.11

>>111726
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpk_u_VmPD4

>education
>should be funded

Anarchy for rich people.

There is literally no reason to be libertarian unless you're already well-off. That said, I prefer them to most neo-conservatives.

>>111678
>and that somehow bartering is better then using fucking money.
Libertarians are pro money, just not fiat money last I checked. They like gold but only because it's a good store of value these days.
>>111726
>Free Market™ won't provide that service, you fucking retards.
They do provide it. It's called private schools. People have to pay for them directly of course.

>>111727
>he is saying "get rid of it on the federal level and let local government decide what's best for the unique needs for the people in their particular area". not "get rid of it and replace it with nothing"
That's my goal in the interim, but in the grand scheme I'm an anarchist.

I feel like I can work for a very long time with minarchists before we stat seeing major disagreements.

>>111733
>appeal to authority
>economic thought stopped with Adam Smith

what.

Pretty hard to deny. Libertarians speak the truth and the freer the economy, the better.

>>110216

>/pol/

/pol/ is Natsoc and hate Libertarians. Polls have shown that the Libertarian presence on /pol/ has been consistently falling, while the natsoc presence has been increasing. It surprises me there's so many socialists on this board, considering "business" isn't in their vocabulary.

>>111346
I'm not really a militant libertarian but wouldn't it be enough for the free market to be better than the government most of the time for it to be justifiable?

>>111727
>because he always says it should be left to more localized governments.
did you read what I said? He's referring to tearing town the referral dept. of education. Most people simply don't resonate with the idea so much that they'd agree with the dept being torn down completely, but may be pro the idea of it being shrank. It's the externalism of it all that alienates him and most libertarians from most people.

>>111339
Liberty.
That's the guiding tenet.
Do what you want as long as you're not depriving others of their life, liberty or property by force or fraud.
How can you find fault with that?

>>111357
Taxes fund government. Without government you wouldn't never have standard of living you do today. I bet you went to a gov't funded school, drove on roads paid the gov't, taken drugs or eaten food deem safe by gov't regulations, called the police or fire department, et cetera, et cetera. And when you can't work anymore or when you get old, you'll get social security.
I understand why we have taxation; I don't like paying taxes, but I'm not a selfish man-child about it.

>>111795
It's very naive at the very least

Chaotic and unstable. I wish we actually had property rights though instead of paying land tax.

>>111771
>ignoring his point which directly blasts all the "ah uurnd mah munny" bullshit

>>111807
How?
Are you really so dense as to need a government to set your boundaries?

>>111587

Because people like to exaggerate. Ron Paul would be damage control at best, even the most minor Libertarian government would require radical reforms.

>>111796
The idea behind libertarians is that the money you paid in government in taxes to fund all those things could have enhanced you standard of living even better had you been able to just spend it yourself instead.
Pay for a private school
pay to drive on private roads.
save for your own retirement.

this is the thinking behind it at least. I think government spending should be minimal and very carefully considered if it's enhancing the populations lives more than just not taxing them the money would have. Most governments these days spend a shit load of money on things that are not worth spending the money on and should be left back to the public in tax cuts.

>>111706
>Ron Paul could achieve his goals far better by
If Ron Paul's goal is long term economic well-being for the usa by decreasing the size of the government, I don't think he can do it at all.

If he manages to shrink the size of the government, it'll grow even faster after he's gone; that's what seems to happen after a period of freer trade and economic well being in a particular economy.

And if he can't reduce the size of the government, then he fails too.

I think that the only way out of this is no government at all, which is something that we probably will never see in our lifetimes.

>>111795
Easily.

https://www.lp.org/platform
>2.5 Money and Financial Markets
>We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item.
So, no protections on predatory lending? Free market? I seem to remember the repeal of Glass-Steagal as one of the prime reasons for the 2008 crash..

>2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
>We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association.
It's like monopolies and the danger of monopolies doesn't exist. It's like they have no understanding of collusion. Or natural monopolies.

>2.9 Health Care
>We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.
So how do we deal with people showing up to the emergency room? Turn them away? Sounds like Free Market Justice to me.

>>111796
>taken drugs or eaten food deem safe by gov't regulations, called the police or fire department, et cetera, et cetera. And when you can't work anymore or when you get old, you'll get social security.
I haven't called the cops or Fire Dept and I am not so helpless that I need a government to help me identify safe food.
If I hadn't been taxed so severely I could've saved enough to retire some time ago.

>>111850
>If he manages to shrink the size of the government, it'll grow even faster after he's gone;
isn't that better than just have it continue to grow larger now?

>I think that the only way out of this is no government at all
out of what exactly? Also, if there's no government then what's there to stop one forming?

>>111862
Keep telling yourself that. I'm not even sure if you really are that much of a libertarian fantasy-douche, or a fucking troll.

>>111862
>I am not so helpless that I need a government to help me identify safe food.
How do you intend to do that exactly?

>>111860
I state the base libertarian philosophy and you copy and paste parts a party platform.Not all libertarians are strict adherents to a platform.
We prefer to think for ourselves.You should try it.

>>111756
>Education quality determined by your parents' ability to afford it.
What a great system.

>>111860
>I seem to remember the repeal of Glass-Steagal as one of the prime reasons for the 2008 crash..
The 2008 was made possible by cheap money and government guaranteed mortgages. These are government regulations.

>It's like monopolies and the danger of monopolies doesn't exist.
Monopolies are not a problem; not without government intervention.

>So how do we deal with people showing up to the emergency room?
There are a lot of ways. Charity is one of them, for example.

>>111886
People have been doing it for thousands of years before the USDA. It just takes common sense.

>>111777
>pol/ is Natsoc and hate Libertarians.
Patently false

even most of the nazis advocate libertarian economic policy

> It surprises me there's so many socialists on this board, considering "business" isn't in their vocabulary.
Kill yourself

>>111901
>Monopolies are not a problem
in a word without patents and copyright perhaps. Which creates it's own hugely obvious problems. There's probably other monopoly issues I'm not thinking of.

>>111906
>People have been doing it for thousands of years before the USDA. It just takes common sense.
Doesn't answer my question though. I'm sure you can easily do it if your happy to accept a lower standard of living which people have also been doing for 1000s of years.

>>111906
So will you test your hamburger for mad cow yourself or will you take the word of the guy who owns the slaughterhouse?

>>111949
I am the guy who owns the slaughterhouse.

>>111949
The free market ghost will do it for him

>>111933
Same way the Amish do.

>>111949
There would probably be a company providing certifications for mad cow-free food which you could easily check for in your purchase.
The guy who owns the slaughterhouse has an interest in letting the customer know his meat doesn't have mad cow disease.

>>111968
Topkek
I guess all libertarians believe in libertarian fantasy land, they control everything, and are super mega rich too.

>>111976
By making all their food themselves?

Seriously, industrialization changes things.

I have a really hard time knowing whether libertards are morons or just trolling.

>>111968
>>111976
can't tell if troll or serious
>>111968
so in order to safely eat meat you have to set up your own slaughterhouse? hardly sounds economic.
>>111976
go on.

>>111984
Nope, some of us are farmers who know where our food comes from, not metrosexuals who would starve without a grocery store on the corner.

>>112014
Your farm doesn't exist without that city.

>>111870
>isn't that better than just have it continue to grow larger now?
I believe it is not, although I understand that this is very debatable.

In general, I think we can agree that the less government involvement in the economy, the more wealth is created. The more wealth is created, the more room governments have to grow. The once smallest government, has now hundreds of military bases all over the world.

I don't think that the World War shenanigans would have been possible without huge governments, either.

>out of what exactly?
The economic problems associated with having the government over regulate the economy.


>Also, if there's no government then what's there to stop one forming?
I've read many arguments as to why it would be difficult for a government to form in a society with no government in the 21st century, and some of them seem reasonable to me. Stefan Molyneux has made good videos about this. But I admit that I don't know if it is possible to live in a society without a government; it "feels" like a government would form in the abscence of one.

>>112014
how about non farmers though? Everyone has to set up a farm now?

Also how economic would your farm be if you could now only sell food to close friends and family who are the only ones willing to trust you produce is safe to eat? The entire global market would open up to you simply by having a regulatory body come to verify the safety and quality of your produce. This is one case where government of some sort does help the free market.

>>112014

They are better than libtards.

>>112023
That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard all day.You know, those of us in flyover country do just fine with towns under 400 population

>>112036
Yup, Free Market has sure worked out for Somalia.

>>112036
>I believe it is not
please elaborate. You think smaller government is better than bigger government. but shrinking the government for any period of time is worse than just allowing it to grow because..... ???

>>111844
>enhanced you standard of living even better had you been able to just spend it yourself instead.

How about those people who can't afford to pay? I know you're going to said tax cuts, but taxes aren't that high.
Also, we're better off with things like public schools and public roads and whatnot. Look at it this way; because of public schools, people, regardless of their family's income, have the basic skills(reading,math,etc) to work. Because of public road and/or transportation, people, regardless of income, now have a easier means to get to work.

As for retirement, before SS, 58 percent of men over 65 still in the workforce. For those folks who couldn't work, they had to live off their children if they had any.

>>111790
>He's referring to tearing town the referral dept. of education. Most people simply don't resonate with the idea so much that they'd agree with the dept being torn down completely

and even if it were, it would just be replaced on the state level. (that would mean, people in new york can't be told that they need to teach their students creationism by people in Louisiana)

>>112061
It's actually improved since they got rid of the big gubment.

I don't believe in private property

>>112061
you are arguing on a lower level. I'm gonna have to ask you to grow up.

>>111981
But there would still have to be regulation to keep the certifying company objective relative to the slaughterhouse (e.g. not owned by the same person, not sharing profits under the table).

>>112061

Somalia never worked out in the first place.

>>112045
Have you never gone to a farmers market?
There's no government supervision or testing, yet you could buy anything offered there and eat it with no ill effects.I guess you just need a little handholding to make it through the day.

>>112075
he's right tho

>>112083
>There's no government supervision or testing
wat

>>112067
When I was in school , there was no federal dept of education. Some things are better managed closer to home.

>>112082
Not really, since both the slaughterhouse and the certifying company would lose a fuckload of customers if it turned out that the people who eat their meat get mad cow disease even if they claimed it wouldn't.

>>112090
You've never been to one ,have you?

>>112109
I have but not in America

>>112109
I'm not one of the ones you're arguing with but you would sound a lot more compelling if you didn't type like a literal retard.

>>112064
>How about those people who can't afford to pay?
exactly. Libertarians say fuck em. They can rely on family or rich people offering private donations.
>I know you're going to said tax cuts, but taxes aren't that high.
are you talking about paying for private schools here? Libertarians would argue that improved economic freedom would greatly improve the buying power of the dollar and education and other things would become cheaper and more affordable to everyday Joe.
>Also, we're better off with things like public schools and public roads and whatnot. Look at it this way; because of public schools, people, regardless of their family's income, have the basic skills(reading,math,etc) to work. Because of public road and/or transportation, people, regardless of income, now have a easier means to get to work.
I would tend to agree. Though libertarians would argue that if someone can get skills in school which will make them far more economically productive in the future, then they should be able to attain loans from the private sector to pursue said education. I don't fully agree, but I do think huge wealth is wasted on funding worthless college courses with tax payer money today.
>For those folks who couldn't work, they had to live off their children if they had any.
Or their savings, if they were smart enough to save. In any case the social security liabilities than they US has to pay in pension is far more than enough to bankrupt the country and they'll almost certainly have to be revoked, which sucks for anyone depending on them. This is possibly an even worse outcome then not offering the pensions in the first place.

>>112115
So, all you have to offer are insults?

>>112128
Yep

>>112083
for reals? I'd be guessing if you sold some meat to someone that had some lethal poison in it due to coming from a diseased animal or some shit you'd have to face some liability.

>>112061
Somalia is such a hole it wouldn't matter who or how it was run it would still be shit. You can't polish a turd.

>>112059
>because..... ???
Because a smaller government now means a much bigger one down the road. The USA is a good example.

That's why I say that the only way out is no government: less government means more government, and more government means more government. That's why I say that the way out might be no government at all; which is something that I don't know if it is possible. I think it may be possible. The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that we'll not see a free society in our lifetime.

>>112142
Most farmers are smarter than that. It's our job.

What if we don't agree with the harm principle?

>>112107
Meanwhile the people committing the fraud have already cashed out and you have mad cow disease.

>>112107
Do you remember the 2008 financial crisis and the AAA ratings the ratings agencies were giving F grade mortgage debt packages? Both the banks selling the mortgages and the ratings agencies profited handsomely off of the scam without breaking any laws or facing any significant consequences. All are still around today to my knowledge.

>>112121
>exactly. Libertarians say fuck em.
no they don't. saying they do is like saying socialists look at the people dying in the line ups to public health care and say "fuck em"

>>112165
You mean NAP? It's tautology. Anyone can appeal to it it and be correct regardless of the argument they are making. Libertarians tend to assume that their theory of just entitlement can be the only one that exists, and therein lines the problem with the NAP.

>>112154
you're not understanding my question. You'd be liable for damaged if you poisoned someone with food you sold them. Which is effectively a regulation. You can't say "your fault for buying from me and/or not being able to tell the meat was bad before you ate it".

>>112173
that's because the government bailed them out.

with out government help, they would have either been replaced by new banks, or taken a huge enough financial hit to learn their lesson.

(instead, they learned that the government says they are too big to fail)

>>112177

This. Most people, despite how idiotic they are when it comes to the causes they support (I'm not making a statement on Libertarian or Socialist policies, by the way) believe that their solutions are the ones that'll benefit people.

It's rare to find someone who advocates a system that would purely benefit them and leave out the rest, probably because such a suggestion would be shot down by others.

>>112173
>facing any significant consequences
and why is that?

>>112177
I mean that in a specific context. I know libertarians believe they will be better off without welfare because they can get jobs easier, those jobs will pay better and people can donate money to them easier.

>>111678
Your types sure do love their slippery anus fallacy.
>"We believe in a minimized national government"
>BUT WHO WILL ROAD
>WHO WILL NO MADCOW
>WHY YOU LET POOR STARVE IN STREET
Being a libertarian is not the same thing as an anarchist. Its minimized government only performing the absolutely necessary functions of a nation state. We don't think that you should randomly cut regulatory agencies, rather evaluate them for effectiveness and tendency to bleed money, then make an informed decision from there. I'm sorry that you've never met a libertarian who isn't an angsty teenager, we really do like government but just the small variety.

Granted the salivation over gold etc can get a little out there. However, a non fiat money system has it's merits. It cannot be decoupled though from a freer market as the increased pressure to save due to the currency keeping value needs to be balanced by an equal pressure to spend on the next big shiny thing.

>>112173
This. Looks at the Enron scandal. Some accountants got rich off of botched audits, even though it was in both firms' best interests to keep quality control high.

>>112202
First, the ratings agencies were not bailed out.

Second, if the government hadn't stepped in, your "Free Market" would have failed and we'd be in much worse of a state then a "slow" economy.

>>112202
>that's because the government bailed them out.
The banks that needed bailing out weren't the ones who were selling the shitty mortgage debt (except ones maybe left holding a lot they couldn't sell), it was the ones who ended up buying so much of it. Those were the ones that needed bailouts. The AAA ratings shit would have happened without government involvement. I agree the government caused much of what occurred in 2008, but not this aspect.

>>112189
Why would I say that?
And why would I sell bad food?
Don't you take pride in your job?
Producing food is not rocket science.It just requires attention to the basics.

>>112223
>>112227
I misread, fuck me I'm sorry.

>>112227
>it was the ones who ended up buying so much of it.
is it possible to buy something that does not exist?

why did these shitty mortgages exist in the first place? something to do with government regulations?

>>112223
>"Free market"

>Implying you can have a free market with a central bank controlling the price of money, the most fundamental foundation upon which markets rest

>>112236
>And why would I sell bad food?
for a larger profit margin. Because you care more about your personal financial welfare that the health of people you sell food to. Not saying that this is you personally, but how can someone presume this is not you?
>Producing food is not rocket science. It just requires attention to the basics.
Sure, but not everyone has your same ethical standards.

>>112223
Well now I agree it would've been much much worse but it would have in all probability rebounded more quickly and depending on how it played out could've netted more growth than the former.
In the long run it's best to hit bottom with everything than having the problem resurface again once it's all settled.

>>112252
>for a larger profit margin.

What is assault (by poison)? What is fraud? What are class action lawsuits for billions of dollars?

>>112252
>but how can someone presume this is not you?
you look at their record. works pretty well on ebay and places like that.

>>112252
>for a larger profit margin
But no return business

>>112249
>is it possible to buy something that does not exist?
the mortgages were very real.
>why did these shitty mortgages exist in the first place? something to do with government regulations?
Not that I'm aware of. The mortgages existed in the first place purely because the banks were aware they could sell them to other banks and financial institutions. If the banks were enable to do this then they would have never created the mortgages because they knew they were bad and would have to take all the risk if and when they probably failed. But instead they just sold the mortgages. The only reason anyone bought them was because the ratings agencies rated them AAA even though they were trash. None of this was illegal.

>>112265
>you look at their record
what record? Who keeps the record? how do you trust it? The ebay system is good, but far from perfect. Someone can deliberately ruin a sellers reputation with a bad review even if they did nothing wrong. Similar sellers can threated bad buyer reviews if they get a bad review, so there's pressure not to leave a bad review even if you got fucked.

>>112252

>sell bad food
>get a bad reputation
>possibly sued if fraudulent

We can't have freedom in our initiate relationships since someone might lie! Government please save us!

>>112273
Unless you call the people who died liars and must have died some other way. In the same way someone could accuse you of killing a family member with bad meat even if you did nothing wrong and ruin your business. It's at times like these people often look to a regulator to settle shit like this.

>>112252
>>Producing food is not rocket science. It just requires attention to the basics.


more difficult to make a profit out of though, especially for things people do as hobbies like wine, so it becomes tempting to cut corners.

>>112278
>the mortgages were very real.
I know. I was implying that they bought them because they existed. And they existed because of government regulations, such as artificially low interest rates.
>Not that I'm aware of.
Are artificially low interest rates and government guaranteed mortgages goverment regulations? because without them, the housing, boom would not have been possible.

>>111913

>>112294
>sell bad food
>call people liars who complain
>keep selling shit food as long as you can spin that shit that you're a victim a negative political campaign against you're fine business
>If shit gets to much just shut down and start a new business someplace else without fear of legal repercussions ever.

>>112294

If parents didn't arrange marriages for their children, how would they know who to marry? In fact, how would the parents know who their children should marry? This is an outrage, I demand the holy powers of big government to swoop down and save as all!

Obvious sarcasm, I thought I'd add to your analogy. It's kind of sad that people don't trust in their own decisions (or rather their ability to make such decisions) and beg for others to make them for them.

>>112303
I'm glad we don't live in the same world.
Yours seems quite dark.

>>112320

>do anything you consider bad
>call people liars if they accuse me of doing wrong
>keep doing it
>if shit gets too bad I can just go somewhere else

You're not saying anything significant.

>>112308
>And they existed because of government regulations, such as artificially low interest rates.
and why would they not have existed without low interest rates?
>because without them, the housing, boom would not have been possible.
we're not talking about the housing boom, or even the 2008 panic. We're talking about the resold subprime mortgages aspect of the crisis which just so happened to be the trigger of a wider collapse, but from what I can tell could have happened just as easily in a normal housing market with high interest rates.

>>112347
I'm saying you can sell food that poisons people, make a high profit margin off of it and get away with it.

>>112293
>what record?
The ones there would be if the people were interested in them. And they would be, in the abscence of a government.
> Who keeps the record?
The costumers, like they do on ebay.
>how do you trust it?
how do you trust the ebay record? and more importanly: how do you trust the government's record?
>The ebay system is good, but far from perfect.
The same can be said about government regulations.
>Someone can deliberately ruin a sellers reputation with a bad review even if they did nothing wrong. Similar sellers can threated bad buyer reviews if they get a bad review, so there's pressure not to leave a bad review even if you got fucked.
I know. So? can the government do it better? how the Hell could you possibly know?

>>112365

I'm saying I could rape your butthole and get away with it.

>>112358
>and why would they not have existed without low interest rates?
Because any lender who offers risky loans at low interest rates does not stay in business without the government supporting them

>>112358
>and why would they not have existed without low interest rates?
I think that because the cheaper you get your money, the more risks you take with it, because you have less to lose. The lower your lending standards will be.

>>112366
>The costumers, like they do on ebay.
What are you talking about? do you go around a farmers market and talk to everyone who bought off of the butcher to see if he has a good rating? that still doesn't stop the problem of people saying he's shit wrongly, or him just saying people who say he's shit are liars. if someone scams you on ebay btw ebay will pay you back 80% of the purchase price. EBay regulate sellers quite carefully.
>The same can be said about government regulations.
sure, but with regard to food safety they can be far superior.
>I know. So? can the government do it better? how the Hell could you possibly know?
By doing spot checks usually. Check bacteria levels of shit they sell and it's storage conditions etc etc. This is obvious shit.

>>112332
What does this have to do with the nazis on /pol/?

>>112370
That would actually be illegal in my country and I could pursue you for it.

>>112396

You've never seen them for yourself, have you?

>>112377
>>112391
read my posts again. you are both ignorant of what happened. The banks creating the mortgages didn't rare how risky they were because they were selling them to other financial institutes anyways with a stamp of a approval from ratings agencies. They made risky mortgages, and then sold them pretending they were of low risk.

>>112403
>do you go around a farmers market and talk to everyone who bought off of the butcher to see if he has a good rating?
What is the internet?
what are rating agencies?
>sure, but with regard to food safety they can be far superior.
how do you know that?
>By doing spot checks usually. Check bacteria levels of shit they sell and it's storage conditions etc etc. This is obvious shit.
I'll repeat my question: how do you know that what the government does is better than what the private sector could do in the abscence of a government? can't private agencies do that bacteria level shit?

>>112061
Somalia was a failed communist state Einstein. Instead you should be talking about the real failures of the Free Market, like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Switzerland.

>>112419
I have.

>>112422
not if he persues your butthole first

>>112422

>provides no reason why his argument doesn't also apply to the government

For fuck's sake, why in the hell are regulations exceeded now? Why do we have "A" rated restaurants?

Why in the hell do we have varieties of chips, drinks, meats, etc? Why do we have top shelf and bottom shelf liquors? Or why isn't Coca-Cola selling plain water with some food coloring? How are these aspect of quality significant different than contamination?

>>112396
because they aren't libertarian economically, they believe in Autarky. all of the barriers shown in that comic are mostly due to protectionism and the government constantly making sure the deal is in the states best interest.

hence, the inefficiency of making the decision that you need 5000 tires in early June, and as a result, getting 4000 on the second week of November.

>>112500
But that nazis that dwell on /pol/ more often than not are advocate of Libertarian style economic policies.
I'm not saying the Nazis as they were in 30's Germany were, I'm saying the ones on /pol/ do.

>>112467
>I'll repeat my question: how do you know that what the government does is better than what the private sector could do in the abscence of a government? can't private agencies do that bacteria level shit?
I guess I find the government is often more trustworthy with tasks like this, though far else efficient. A ratings agency can do the same shit, but when a farmer pays for their service all the want it a good rating, there's an incentive to just give out good ratings and not do thorough investigations out of fear of not being paid by the farmer if they find something wrong. The consumer just has to trust the agency either way and has not real way knowing if their doing their job right or not. You could either have regulations forcing companies like this to do proper investigations into farmers before rating them, or a public regulator could do the investigations and be legally bound do a thoughough job and be answerable to a government body. Not ideal, nothing is ideal, but the private+no regulations system seems worse for me. I love free market and small government shit, but it doesn't work everywhere from what I can tell. It feel like some libertarians are trying to fit a circle into a square hole.

>>112511
some of them say they do, but they wan't it only as a means to their preferred end, and that's why they want to do all sorts of NOT so libertarian things with the economy (another good example is tax incentives for white people to have children, and another is getting the government more involved in disputes between business owners and private sector unions). so not really.

>>112546
Well that's not what I've observed.

>>112447
mike norman, is that you?
>what artificial lending standards are you talking about?

>>112473

Since when is, for example, usury laws libertarian? Or protectionism? Or price controls?

>>110098
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

#REKT

>>111796
>Without government you wouldn't never have standard of living you do today.
hahahah oh god there are people that actually fucking believe this

our living standards come from the factories and businesses that mass produce all of our food, housing, medicine, you know, living standards

The government wouldn't be able to exist without the market.

>>112557
It's what I have observed though, and i was a regular.

>>112558
>>112511

>>112064
>How about those people who can't afford to pay?
Charity.

The price of these things would be a lot lower too.

>>112482
>why in the hell are regulations exceeded now?
What does that mean?
>Why do we have "A" rated restaurants?
I was actually going to mention in >>112531 that restraint ratings in my country are well known for being dubious. A restraint basically has to bay several grand to be rated, something many can scarcely afford and a lot of not so great ones receive awards simply for paying the generous fee. Not saying this shit never words, and some restraint ratings are far better than others. But I wouldn't want to trust the quality of my car brakes by the same kind of ratings systems that restaurants use.
>Or why isn't Coca-Cola selling plain water with some food coloring?
You know they sold bottled tap water in the UK right? One of their biggest fuck ups.

I'm not really sure what your asking in your post in general though.

>>112590
So was I

>>112554
never heard of him. I'm aware the government created the housing bubble with fed stimulus. Have probably created another one now.

look at bitcoin if you want to see how libertarian economics work out

>>112610
>probably
No, they simply did.
Prepare your butts.

>>112531
>there's an incentive to just give out good ratings and not do thorough investigations
The same can be said about the government and government workers. Bribing is not exactly uncommon in the government.

>The consumer just has to trust the agency either way and has not real way knowing if their doing their job right or not.
The same can be said about the government. As a matter of fact, agencies would have to rely on their reputation if they want to keep making money; the good people from the government can do whatever they want much more freely, I think, since if you don't pay them because you think they're doing a shitty job they kidnap you, and shoot you if you resist. They are not that scared of losing their income.

>>112619
The more a currency is used by people and business, the more stable it becomes.
This is what happens with all currencies.

>>112511

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>112595
charity has the same economic impact as social welfare. People are still taking money out of their income they could have used to improve their living standard or to invest and are instead giving it to usually unproductive people. I rather a libertarian country will be happy with the levels of poverty that would exist. Efforts to raise charity donations high enough to ease the issue would be met with a tragedy of commons problem. "I hate seeing poor people everywhere and am willing to donate more, but I'll only sacrifice more of my standard of living to help them if I know everyone else is too."

>>112636
>the good people from the government
This is bait.

>>112631
My guess is it's not nearly as big a bubble. Stock markets, student debt and US bonds are another matter however.

>>112678
>My guess is it's not nearly as big a bubble.
The entire economy is a bubble right now lel

>>112636
>Bribing is not exactly uncommon in the government.
sure, but it is at least illegal. The private company doesn't need to be bribed, they just need to want to sell more ratings without caring about how accurate they are.
>The same can be said about the government.
But they are at least accountable. In my country at least systems are set up to keep regulators in check and they tend to work pretty well most of the time. When a scandal happens the government is hurt by it and has an incentive to make sure it doesn't happen again soon. Some countries have shittier governments than others though.

>>112636
>agencies would have to rely on their reputation if they want to keep making money
Government agencies don't make money they spend it

>>112598

>What does that mean?

Why do firms exceed the minimum requirements? Does "why do firms pay more than the minimum wage" confuse you, too?

>I was...

The point was that restaurants don't have to get an "A" from the local health inspector. They could get a "C" but strive for the "A".

>quality of my car brakes

Why in the hell do they sell brakes that exceed DOT requirements?

>bottled tap water

So? Again, why can't Coke sell dyed plain water as "Coca-Cola Classic" but could get away with mouse turds floating in the can?

>I'm really not sure

You just can't give an answer that squares with your statist crap.

That firms spend oodles on marketing and quality control but "bad food" will slip through the cracks anymore than it does now with government intervention is ridiculous.

>>112659

Look, a statist who doesn't see the difference between voluntary interaction and the initiation of force.

>>112659
>>112902

>tragedy of the commons

No, you're referring to public goods.

http://mises.org/document/1827/Fallacies-of-the-Public-Goods-Theory-and-the-Production-of-Security

>control + f anarcho-capitalist
>one result

This board is dead

>>112864
>Why do firms exceed the minimum requirements?
oh right. It will be often in their best interest to exceed them. Certainly many companies would exceed the minimum requirements even if the regulations were removed completely. Exactly the same as minimum wage.
>Why in the hell do they sell brakes that exceed DOT requirements?
because there's a market for brakes that exceed the DOT requirements.
>why can't Coke sell dyed plain water as "Coca-Cola Classic"
they can. nothing stopping them.
> but could get away with mouse turds floating in the can?
because that's likely illegal most countries. not sure what the point your trying to make is.

>That firms spend oodles on marketing and quality control but "bad food" will slip through the cracks anymore than it does now with government intervention is ridiculous.
The effect I believe tends to be that companies that can't sell food that's safe that people want, profitably shouldn't exist. Certainly Coca-Cola aren't going to be affected very much by this shit. Though I'm sure they do in part exceed certain safety standards in a bid to keep regulators off their back.

>>112981
>anarcho-capitalist
Nice oxymoron you got there

>>110237
then why are you?

>>113003

>>112988
>It will be often in their best interest to exceed them. Certainly many companies would exceed the minimum requirements even if the regulations were removed completely. Exactly the same as minimum wage.

These statements are fact.

Are you trying to be sarcastic or something?

>>111752
What does anarchy have to do with wealth status? Nothing.

>>113038
I have no idea what your on about. I answered your question. What part of my post that you quotes are you confused about or take issue with? I'm not being sarcastic btw, I just said a few things I understand to be true.

>>113059
>I answered your question.
I'm not the same person.

>>112072
So you wouldn't mind if I snagged your laptop, smartphone, and wallet?

>>113074
right. well I answered the question I was asked. Still don't understand your post.

>>112988

>oh right. It will be often in their best interest to exceed them. Certainly many companies would exceed the minimum requirements even if the regulations were removed completely. Exactly the same as minimum wage.

Just what are you arguing for?

>market for

Again, just what are you arguing for?

>they can

Why don't they?

>illegal

Even if it wasn't illegal, why wouldn't they have quality control to prevent that? Just what are you arguing for?

>The effect I believe tends to be that companies that can't sell food that's safe that people want, profitably shouldn't exist.

And?

>Certainly Coca-Cola aren't going to be affected very much by this shit. Though I'm sure they do in part exceed certain safety standards in a bid to keep regulators off their back.

Just concede that fraud and consumer selection is as adequate if not better than government interventions. You've conceded to the points on fraud and consumer selection all ready, just take it to the end.

>>113158
>Just what are you arguing for?
not sure. I forget how this discussion started. I've just been answering questions.
>Why don't they?
Because it would be a poor product no one would buy and would damage their brand, which is a hugely valuable thing. This was one of the reasons their bottled tap water fiasco in the UK was considered such a huge fuck up.
>Even if it wasn't illegal, why wouldn't they have quality control to prevent that?
Coca Cola certainly would, due to wanting to protect their band and the values associated with it. Other companies may certainly be happy not to bother with the quality control.
>And?
and most people including myself are happy with this arrangement?
>Just concede that fraud and consumer selection is as adequate if not better than government interventions.
What do you mean by fraud? I'm happy with government food safety regulations in principle. They don't effect companies that have good practice anyways, the only ones effected are the companies we likely don't want in the first place.
>You've conceded to the points on fraud and consumer selection all ready, just take it to the end.
I've never changed my position on anything so I don't know what you mean.

>>113089
HUuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

lrn2personalproperty

>>113239

>not sure

Come back when you have some coherency.

>>113264
>Come back when you have some coherency.
I have coherency. I'm just answering your questions. I don't think I've been arguing for anything particular.

>>113239
>>113275

Ok, this
>I'm happy with government food safety regulations in principle.
is what you're arguing for.

>what do you mean by fraud?

That a person selling food as if it meet a certain standard and it isn't and he knows it, he could be sued for fraud. Even if he didn't know, he'd have to give the money back to those that wanted it.

>They don't effect companies that have good practice anyways, the only ones effected are the companies we likely don't want in the first place.

No, jumping through the monopolized hoops affects the good practice companies.

http://mises.org/daily/2320

Why is it that the only thing that anti-libertarians have is a strawman that libertarianism=anarchy? It's kind of pathetic.

I see /biz/ is off to a horrible start
>people believing stupid shit like this>>111860
I'm willing to bet a good portion of the board are people who have only taken classes on business and finance

Its evident because you hear the same tired arguments about the free market held by owe supporters

>>110047
The free market will fix it!

>>113562
There are plenty of arguments against libertarianism. For one thing its never worked throughout history.

>>114145
Except there are few cases where it has been tried (in large part) and worked perfectly well. Washington state, Switzerland and New Zealand fit the Libertarian ideology pretty well save a few quirks.

>>114230
Miswrote that. I meant:

>Except there are few cases where it has been tried (in large part) and 'the places it has been tried, it' worked perfectly well

>>113256
>lrn2personalproperty

>MUH LEFTTARDED PROPERTY DEFINITIONS NOBODY IN THE REAL WORLD CARES ABOUT

Leftists don't believe in personal property neither.

>>114145
>For one thing its never worked throughout history.
So uh the united states doesn't exist?
The gigantic increase in living standards for the average person didn't happen?

Free markets have worked wonders wherever they have been tried.

>>114441
Thanks for confirming you're a moron.
Nice meme by the way

>>114638
the only difference between private property and personal property is that land can be private property, there is literally no other difference.

if you don't want land to be owned by the people, go to a country where all land is owned by the government.

what's that, you don't believe in government? you believe in some utopia where everyone shares land, and no problems can possibly exist BECAUSE NOT EVEN YOU KNOW HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED EITHER?

>>114744
>the only difference between private property and personal property is that land can be private property, there is literally no other difference.
nope

>if you don't want land to be owned by the people,
But I do

And before you ask me to hold your hand and explain to you what personal property, I'm not going to.

Trade cannot exist without some concept of private property.
Free trade results in a Pareto efficient allocation of resources.
Pareto efficient means that no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, so it is an obvious necessary condition for the social welfare of a society.
All possible Pareto efficient allocations are attained by free trade, depending on the initial conditions.
Socialism generally does not result in a Pareto efficient allocation of resources.

Therefore, private property is necessary for the well-being of humans.

Mathematics:
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~jchipman/econ4960/ftwe2_all.pdf

Requires an educated populace.

First work on education, and helping people make rational decisions, then worry about spouting your ideological bullshit.

/thread, /all pol threads

If not, then just admit youre in it for yourself, and again, stop spouting your shit under the pretense that itll benefit society.

>>114765
>And before you ask me to hold your hand and explain to you what personal property,
You always act like this you child.

You always get like this when you get backed into a corner and realize you're dead wrong.

There is no difference between personal and private property and nobody except you idiots believe in these distinctions.
Anarchy is a free market deal with it.

inb4 roads

>>118648
oh anon, we are well in after roads

>>113015
fuck you i was just about to use that reaction pic

>>122220
Want me to delete it?

>>114973
>Requires an educated populace.
Yeah, of nothing but wealthy white men and. Plus slaves do all the actual work.

>>114844
>conflating trade with bargaining.

>>113562
That's a straw man of anarchy, not libertarianism. Anarchism is utopian, libertarianism is a religion for rich white men.

>>112061
>>>/pol/'s that way.