/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2517272]

Hello comrade /lit/izens. It seems to me you are all a bunch of liberal socialists, or at least there is a Che picture posted every other minute.
So, who is your favorite economist? Surprise me.

[Anonymous No.2517276]

I honestly can't recall any Che pictures being posted here.

[Anonymous No.2517278]

>So, who is your favorite economist?

Are you quite certain you're on the right board?

[Anonymous No.2517282]

>>2517278
I'm obviously not, that is the point. You are a bunch of airhead art majors, and there is no way I'm going to get more than 3 responses talking about Friedrich Engels or something, and that specifically because he's the lesser known half of the pair.
This board is full of pretend intellectuals.

[▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9ZOO5Ag. No.2517283]

HANS HERMAN HOPPE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I LIKE.

HE THINKS SIMILAR TO ME.

[Anonymous No.2517286]

>>2517282

You have a lot of insecurities, brother. I pray you get help.

[Anonymous No.2517287]

Wilhelm Roepke

[Anonymous No.2517289]

>>2517282
>You are a bunch of airhead art majors
>This board is full of pretend intellectuals.

Oh, it's one of THOSE threads. Carry on and Godspeed.

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.2517292]

>>2517283
>similarly to me
ftfy

As to the question, it's a toss-up between von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Menger, and Rothbard.

[Anonymous No.2517294]

George Bernard Shaw founder of the London School followed by Xenophon

[Anonymous No.2517295]

Keynes, haha.

[Anonymous No.2517297]

>>2517294
>George Bernard Shaw
>Economist
Yep, that's more or less what i was expecting.

[Anonymous No.2517298]

>>2517286
>Uses Morgan Freedman dialect on internet
>Expects to be taken seriously
We all have insecurities. I have more than most /lit/ users, but that is probably because I think occasionally.

[Anonymous No.2517300]

>>2517292
Good taste.
Now which one of them is in the picture?

[Anonymous No.2517302]

>>2517298
It's a shame you can't writer properly though.

[Anonymous No.2517303]

I like von Mises because I like his method, though not all of his particulars and certainly not his determinism. He's the most broad–minded of all the Austrians, though. While I like, for example, Herman–Hoppe's writings on democracy vs monarchy, his doctrinaire and anti–realist clinging to anarchism can't take him to where his arguments lead.

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.2517306]

>>2517300
Hayek.

[Anonymous No.2517311]

>>2517302
I find it very challenging to writer properly, especially when being baited by some immature teenager.

[Anonymous No.2517312]

>>2517303
What's wrong with anarchism?

[Anonymous No.2517313]

>>2517312

Besides being impossible?

[Anonymous No.2517319]

>>2517313
How is it impossible?
Do you prefer a world where a large group of geographically adjacent people can use force to dictate your sexual habits, financial choices and military commitment, or one where you independently make those choices?
The question is not whether the transition would be difficult or shocking. it is morally imperative, and that is the totality of the government. besides, if it turns out that small, state-like organizations are needed for society to continue to function, joining those organizations should be voluntary and not a matter of the power of any one group.

[Anonymous No.2517320]

>>2517319
*totality of the argument.
That sounds really stupid otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2517323]

Adam Smith.

3 3's to confirm.

[Anonymous No.2517327]

>>2517282
The only reason you'd come here to point out perceived 'pretension' on this board is because of your own insecurities. You have nothing to gain from this other than a smug sense of satisfaction, if that. It's been proven though that having no friends causes you to be more judgemental of yourself and those around you. So maybe some cbt, or something?

[Anonymous No.2517331]

>>2517297
obviously you have no idea about economics. You are an economics major who willingly laps up everything they feed you including biases against works based on their writers without understanding their work.

Despite being an avowed socialist Shaw's treatises on economics were the basis for much of the 20th century economics work: socialist, capitalist, communist, fascist, neo conservative doesn't matter. All of them borrowed extensively from Shaw

and xenophon...well we've established that your intentions were about flaming and not honest discussion. Way to ignore the earliest economist who developed the idea of economy

[Anonymous No.2517337]

>>2517312
besides being the definition of libertarianism?

oh what this guy said>>2517313

[Anonymous No.2517339]

>>2517327
omg cbt ftw

>I hate acronyms.

[Anonymous No.2517342]

>>2517327
The irony being that you are on 4chan and amusing yourself by accusing others of mental instability. Hope you sleep well at night, narcissist.

[Anonymous No.2517343]

>>2517331
All of those economic traditions are moronic, disavowed, and you are an idiot for supporting them.

[Anonymous No.2517345]

I do not consider economics a science.

[None !!6Cv93YkNSXs No.2517347]

>>2517319

Describe a situation in which the ruling principle does not exist. Please.

[Anonymous No.2517349]

not a legitimate science, i should say. not worth considering.

[None !!6Cv93YkNSXs No.2517352]

>>2517347

Like most moderns, you confuse governance with the modern state.

[Anonymous No.2517353]

>>2517342
Ad hominem and you ignored my post.
You have nothing to gain from making this thread other than a smug sense of satisfaction and it's fueled by your own insecurities
/thread

[Anonymous No.2517369]

>>2517337
Wy is it impossible?
inb4 people need tribes.

[Anonymous No.2517373]

>>2517272
>So, who is your favorite economist?

Daron Acemoglu, he's a genius.

[Anonymous No.2517375]

first person to mention "post-autistic" economics gets statutorily raped

[Anonymous No.2517377]

>>2517353
You are engaging in the same behavior you accuse me of.
/reply
Having my own beliefs confirmed was an expected but worthwhile experiment. i was engaging in scientific inquiry, but I won't complain if my observations confirmed my belief that the majority of people on this board are vapid, menial beings.
And so it has.

[Standard Toaster !RQTOASTvfI No.2517380]

I can't remember his name. God damned genius, though.
This is going to bother me all night, now.

[Anonymous No.2517382]

>>2517349
literature is far more valuable
>>2517345
Why? Science is the "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.."
Economic has testable observations and makes predictions. The only thing that separates it from other sciences is that economics seeks to analyze the entirety of human affairs. I suppose you need some rock types or particles for it to count, though.

[Anonymous No.2517387]

>>2517375
Your personal GNH would be on the low end.

[Anonymous No.2517388]

>>2517380
>genius tier
Keynes? Keynes

[Anonymous No.2517401]

>>2517377
>confirmed
>the majority of people on this board are vapid, menial beings
You're knowledgable about economics (supposably), and so everyone who isn't is a vapid, menial being?
It seems your head is so far up your ass you can't breathe

[Anonymous No.2517403]

>>2517388
Keynesian economics have never worked.

[Anonymous No.2517410]

>>2517401
"Supposably" is not a word.
That's correct. Anybody who professes to be educated and cannot explain how the economy works is no intellectual.
Try consulting a dictionary before you begin administering psychiatry.

[Standard Toaster !RQTOASTvfI No.2517419]

>>2517410
So, just to be clear, somebody has to be knowledgeable in all manners of sciences/arts before they're allowed to be called intellectuals?
Or just economics?

[Anonymous No.2517421]

>>2517331
>defining 20th century economics
>includes a handful of economic views to demonstrate
>>2517343
>says all of those are moronic disavowed (meaning all economic views in the 20th century)
wut?
I'm sorry, if all of the 20th century economic views are disavowed and moronic which view is approved?

[Anonymous No.2517431]

>>2517345
well it's a social science, but you are correct, no testable hypothesis, no reproducible events, it's even worse than sociology when it comes to science fail. I guess it is more of a humanity with light math

(god I'd be crucified at work if I said that out loud, for them it's a religion)

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2517432]

>>2517276
This. OP is a copy/pasta from some other board.

>>2517403
>Keynesian economics have never been used
This is what you meant, and no, it has.

[Anonymous No.2517439]

>>2517432
Not a copypasta, I wrote this while doing homework.
Oh, Keynesian economics have been used. They were tried and failed to achiev real recovery in the Great Depression, and the country's economy was only rescued by infrastructure created during World War II and the post-war population boom.

[Anonymous No.2517441]

>>2517369
well besides the social upheaval, it's mathematically impossible. Mostly it's impossible because children aren't born as reasoning adults. Anarchism would also require an entire species to give up dominance/subservience as a social trait. Since that is never happening, it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.2517442]

>>2517403
define "worked"

economics is not a science, it's not like you can falsify an economic theory - you just realize you are not fond of its application and results, or you realize it sucks at predicting outcomes

if the modern state of the economies of the western world are any indication, economists still don't know what the fuck they are doing.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517443]

Takis Fotopoulos.

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

http://www.democracynature.org/vol3/fotopoulos_outline.htm

[Anonymous No.2517444]

>>2517419
You should have a working knowledge of all aspects of science. Literary theory is nice, but most of it is superceded by philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2517446]

>>2517441
Dominance/subservience works just as well in the workplace. And rape and murder can be controlled by police forces. If necessary, land masses can be defended by corporate mercenaries.

[Anonymous No.2517448]

>>2517442
ABCT economists realize the economy can't be controlled.
The boom and bust will always occur depending on the amount of resources available, and it's past time we admitted that. Keynesian economics provides a small false recovery and a subsequent deepening of the depression when the credit crunch hits after the stimulus.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517453]

>>2517441

>well besides the social upheaval

Not all Anarchic doctrines are revolutionary.

>it's mathematically impossible

Not really.

>Mostly it's impossible because children aren't born as reasoning adults.

True statement, but no relevant point.

>Anarchism would also require an entire species to give up dominance/subservience as a social trait.

Except it wouldn't.

>Since that is never happening, it's impossible.

But it's already happened before.

[Anonymous No.2517456]

>>2517446
thus becoming a police state.

[Anonymous No.2517462]

>>2517448
but austrians were the major force behind all the deregulation that was partly responsible for this mess in the first place, and they were never able to predict what was coming. Now that is a failed theory. The fact that austrians continue to peddle their bullshit after all this just tells me they are either idiots, or just rich cocksuckers who want in on the sweet banking action.

[Anonymous No.2517463]

>>2517456
Except not at all whatsoever, since in our current society we have a police force obligated to serve nobody and with no repercussions if it fails to uphold the law, and a military that can increase spending whenever it wants and go to war on anybody it chooses. Police forces in an anarchocapitalist society would be oligated to serve their investors because otherwise they go bankrupt. They can't just attack people, because there's no profit and stockholders will sell off if they realize the company is not fulfilling its purpose. Same with the military.

[Anonymous No.2517467]

>>2517462
No ABCT theorist will tell you that that wasn't coming.
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae13_1_1.pdf

[Anonymous No.2517474]

>>2517453
>Not all Anarchic doctrines are revolutionary.
wasn't talking revolutionary
>not really
is not a response to mathematically impossible. but I'll let that slide because I don't feel like explaining world economics in four lines or less
>True statement, but no relevant point.
rational=thinking, anarchism requires all rational humans to take care of themselves, children aren't rational and require parents or someone to take care of them, requiring families, bands tribes or whatever you want to call them and creating a social hiearchy, disabling most structures of anarchism at the familial unit.
>except it wouldn't
um yeah it would. You can't have anyone dominant. The moment someone becomes dominant and dictates another's actions or applies rules to another's actions a government exists, fascist though it may be.
>happened before
nope, no it has not, sorry. if you want to give me proof that it has, feel free

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517488]

>>2517474

>is not a response to mathematically impossible. but I'll let that slide because I don't feel like explaining world economics in four lines or less

I would assume you are referring to the Economic Problem, which only negatively applies to some forms of Left Anarchism.

>rational=thinking, anarchism requires all rational humans to take care of themselves, children aren't rational and require parents or someone to take care of them, requiring families, bands tribes or whatever you want to call them and creating a social hiearchy, disabling most structures of anarchism at the familial unit.

You seem to think that Anarchism is the equivalent of "every man for himself." It is not. Anarchism seeks to establish a system where individuals co-operate freely and as equals.

Bakunin, noting society, said, "The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we are advocating the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official." [Bakunin quoted by Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 51]

>You can't have anyone dominant.

Sure you can. For example, if I choose to rape you, that is a form of me dominating you. I am, in essence, acting as a temporary State. Under the Non-Aggression Principle, though, you or others have the moral allowance to respond with force.

>nope, no it has not, sorry. if you want to give me proof that it has, feel free

Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory, to name two.

[Anonymous No.2517518]

>>2517462
>all the deregulation that was partly responsible for this mess in the first place,

In absolutely ZERO ways was deregulation responsible for things, and there was no deregulation anyways they remove a specific clause of some irrelevant regulation which doesn't exist anywhere else, and added dozens more pages of regulation!

[Anonymous No.2517520]

>>2517448
It's not that the economy can't be controlled, which of course it can, its that the government cannot better the economy through coercion.
Austrians are not against government intervention either, but they know it doesn't help things so there must be better reasons for it.

Keynesians are infatuated with "data" based economics, and so when you print money, the gdp goes up, they mistake this as the economy growing.
It's a deliberate mistake since they are merely providing ideological justification for government spending.

[Anonymous No.2517525]

>>2517488
> economic problem
no I was speaking of math. economics is not math. Are you familiar with game theory? economists like to pretend they know what that means but I'll hold you to a higher standard. the basic concepts of zero sum games makes anarchy an impossibility when two people both want the same prize and one is denied that prize if the other wins. Evolve that into macroeconomics, and well... that's a whole mess of explanations that relies on you having a little bit more than basic understanding game theory I guess it can be summed into this thought puzzle, what happens if two equally strong bears come to a tree in which there is a sizeable pot of honey but only a hole big enough for one bears head

I'll respond to the rest in a sec

[Anonymous No.2517528]

>>2517525
luckily economics is not a zero sum game.
also game theory itself is dogshit.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2517529]

>>2517439
That you don't see the fallacy of this statement is quite amusing

[Anonymous No.2517531]

>>2517518

one form of deregulation occurred when banks no longer had to demand high standards from borrowers (no big down payments, no steady cash flow, no need for strong credit, etc)

This was inspired by Bush who was of course influenced to make such a policy by business interests and banks so they could sell more mortgages easily...

Banks could take on risky borrowers with no money down, who worked terrible jobs and who couldn't pay their mortgages once the floating interest rate jumped.

failure to regulate the derivatives market was another contributing factor.

The banks would sell those shitty loans to financial firms who chopped them up into tranches and sold derivatives on them, they could get away with this because the regulators had conflicts of interests (sure we'll give you AAA rating, just pay us bigger fees and make sure to buy insurance from our subsidiaries, etc)

Canada didn't suffer from such problems because its lending standards didn't turn to shit. It kept its commercial banks separate from investment banks and it didn't allow companies to leverage to astronomical amounts.

Deregulation or lack of regulation was definitely a contributing factor to the financial crisis.

It's quite obvious that humans are not the best regulators of themselves, they sometimes need outside incentives, that's why we have laws that regulate social behavior...similarly we need some laws to regulate business behavior because well ppl aren't ethical all the time

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517535]

>>2517525

>economics
>zero sum game

Let's make a thought experiment that is slightly more analogous to an actual economy.

We have Joe and Bob. Joe and Bob both want to buy a Widget, of which there is only one available. The owner of said Widget decides if he wants to sell it to Joe or to Bob.

[Anonymous No.2517538]

>>2517531
>Canada didn't suffer from such problems because its lending standards didn't turn to shit.

Except our housing prices are just as high. Whats worse is that people will be now REQUIRED to piss away decades of saving on these absurdly high housing prices, i expect some sort of collapse to happen, they can't stay so irrationally high when the interest rates rise.

You miss the key point, the collapse is a good thing, it gets housing prices down to sane levels, the bankruptcies of banks and institutions is a good thing as well, they shouldn't have existed in the first place.

>they sometimes need outside incentives,
>HUMANS ARE IRRATIONAL, SO LETS GIVE OTHER HUMANS DICTATORIAL POWERS AND HAVE STILL OTHER HUMANS RIGHT BLANKET LAWS, THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!

fucking keynesians jesus.... Good thing that the laws have stopped murder and theft and rape right?

You miss everything which went on in your effort to blame capitalism and freedom and defend the government/statism.

[Anonymous No.2517563]

>>2517488
continued
>Anarchism seeks to establish a system where individuals co-operate freely and as equals.
Yes I'm familiar with the work. I'm also familiar with it's failure. Let's take your example, you rape me, the community decides in its moral allowance to respond with no force. leaving me with my choice to respond with force, except that I am weaker then you. You rape me again and again and again and if the community continues to respond with no force (maybe they are afraid of you) I will have to find a way to end your rapes. I kill you as the only recourse. The community responds in force and kills me. The next time someone rapes someone they know that the community will not respond against rape, but they will against killing someone. So they find someone sufficiently weak and continue to rape them, that persons recourse is get raped, get killed, or get forced off the land they work. Any deviant act against another will result in punishment or attrition. if the community acts in a way that is random. Punishing one rapist while letting others go, people will choose to band together for mutual protection, violating the ideals of the covenant. The community's response to that is to try to force others to abide by their will. Even if you don't create privileged, legal, official, the agreement that started the anarchy is artificial and creates an artificial state that can be twisted into us vs them quite easily.

[Anonymous No.2517573]

>>2517538

> the bankruptcies of banks and institutions is a good thing as well, they shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Bankruptcies of the banks would not be a good thing. What should have happened is the managers and CEOs should've been fired, and the government should've taken over the banks since they basically bought them out with tax-payer money.

From there we could socialize those banks and take in the profits they earn. Perhaps privatize them in the future, perhaps not.

But pure bankruptcy on a systemic level would have caused a world-wide depression and set us back way too far.

But the way the bailouts were handled was terrible also. Keynes would not have approved.

>SO LETS GIVE OTHER HUMANS DICTATORIAL POWERS AND HAVE STILL OTHER HUMANS RIGHT BLANKET LAWS, THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING!

Laws should be reasonable and shown to be effective in reality.

>Good thing that the laws have stopped murder and theft and rape right?

If rape was legal I'm sure it would happen more than it does currently.
But of course, even good regulations and laws don't prevent some companies from trying to rape their consumers...that's the nature of the game

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517577]

>>2517563

>I kill you as the only recourse. The community responds in force and kills me.

You are demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of the Non-Aggression Principle. If you kill your rapist, you are not initiating force, but responding to his initiation of force. Besides, in a Right Anarchist society, at least, private police forces exist.

Let's now make a thought experiment taking place in a society with a State.

Somebody decides to come and rape me. The State police don't respond. I now have to choose between being continually raped or killing my rapist. I choose to kill my rapist. I acted in self defense, and the matter is over.

Wait, what was that? The scenario played out exactly the same as it would have in an Anarchist society? Well, would you look at that....

[Anonymous No.2517584]

>>2517488
Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory, to name two. Neither of these were anarchies, they were controlled by anarchists but there is a difference in meaning. I know what anarchists would like us to believe but based solely on prime source material they were both fascist states during the anarchist occupancy. And anything you read will say explicitly that there was nominal control by a government bureaucracy. But more importantly these states had revolutionary tribunals, martial law extrajudicial murders, political allegiance based pogroms, as well as union control, when the unions were mostly centrally organized under autocratic control by several individuals, making the state run by several miniature autocracies despite trying to come under the idealism of no central government. I was hoping you would have said something that was a little bit more true like quaker estates, or hohenzollern prior to Prussian rule in the seventeenth century

[Anonymous No.2517585]

>>2517577
>You are demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of the Non-Aggression Principle. If you kill your rapist, you are not initiating force, but responding to his initiation of force. Besides, in a Right Anarchist society, at least, private police forces exist.

Killing your rapist seems like disproportionate response to me? Unless it's necessary to get him to stop?

[Anonymous No.2517588]

>>2517577
>anarchist

what anarchist society has flourished?

[Anonymous No.2517594]

>>2517577
>private police forces exist.

yea who can only be afforded by the rich bourgousie

while you commoners get subjugated lol

[Anonymous No.2517596]

I'd say my favorite is Sir William Arthur Lewis.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517601]

>>2517584

Indeed - both Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory existed in quite a turbulent time, lending towards internal conflicts and coercion. You were seemingly focusing on the economic side of Anarchism, though, and Revolutionary Catalonia did quite well while it existed.

>but based solely on prime source material they were both fascist states during the anarchist occupancy.

George Orwell would disagree.

[Anonymous No.2517602]

>>2517528
>also game theory itself is dogshit.
says the guy defending economics, and probably has no idea what zero sum is.

I'll give you five minutes explain what zero sum is

[Anonymous No.2517605]

>>2517573
Why should the CEO's be fired? they were obviously making their banks a lot of money! They were doing a good job! the problem was all the government disincentives and stupid shit like fannie/freddie, guarantees on loans, artificially low interest rates with easy credit.

>and shown to be effective in reality.
This of course is the key point, never have regulations been effective, also the hidden costs can never be truly counted.

My point is you do not understand what happened in this "financial crisis", the problem is not the crash which is the fixing of the economy.
The problem was the bubble, and what is caused by mostly monetary policy.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517606]

>>2517585

>Killing your rapist seems like disproportionate response to me? Unless it's necessary to get him to stop?

If someone is raping me and I have no way to get them to stop other than killing them, they shouldn't have raped me in the first place.

>>2517594

I am by no means a Right Anarchist, so I won't argue in favor of it. I was simply pointing it out.

>>2517588

Revolutionary Catalonia did very well economically, especially considering the circumstances of its inception.

[Anonymous No.2517610]

>>2517585
>Killing your rapist seems like disproportionate response to me?

da fuq?
There is no such thing as a disproportionate response.

[Anonymous No.2517615]

>>2517610
>There is no such thing as a disproportionate response.

You slap me.
I rape you and stab you.

It was self defense and proportionate.

[Anonymous No.2517618]

>>2517615
You slap me.

I fill you full of lead

it was proportionate.

[Anonymous No.2517640]

>>2517577
No I am responding to his initiation of force, the community then responds to my force, regardless of who initiated it. that's the point. It is so easy to fall into the hatfield and McCoys mindset. I kill you because you killed my brother who killed your sister who shot his son and so on. These scenarios exist in areas of our country that admittedly at the time would best be considered forms of anarchy, and because of this fighting the people created the first version of Texas Rangers (although not in Texas obviously)

And while I appreciate private police forces, they themselves have special issues. Let's say I sit on a heap of coal, and the nearest coal is 4000 miles away. but everyone needs coal. IN a collectivist government where resources are shared everyone gets the coal that they can pick up including me, but if I had a police force they have a different job. Since they are not picking up coal someone has to pay them, a community then. Well if community issues are resolved through police and a person wants to coerce the police all they ahve to do is provide an unbalanced payment. If the police rely on a collectivist thought and there is no right or wrong response then it is easy to coerce through mutual gain a police officer into voting your way. .

OK let's say we are all police officers. We decide through mutual agreement when to use the force against an individual. If it's not mutual consensus then it is by collective majority. A collective majority by definition is a democracy.

Anarchy can only exist when there are a limited number of individual;s and those individuals do not interfere with one another. As the population grows the chances for interference grows.

[Anonymous No.2517646]

>>2517605
>>2517605
>Why should the CEO's be fired? they were obviously making their banks a lot of money!

they made themselves a ton of money in the short term, at the expense of their companies in the long term. Their banks needed bailouts for a reason...

>My point is you do not understand what happened in this "financial crisis", the problem is not the crash which is the fixing of the economy.

I don't think anyone fully understands it. But I understand some of the contributing points.

>The problem was the bubble, and what is caused by mostly monetary policy.

The bubble was caused by herd psychology not monetary policy.

Interest rates were being pushed down internationally, China was a huge saver, credit was easy to get internationally.

>stupid shit like fannie/freddie, guarantees on loans

Yes Bush essentially deregulated the mortgage industry with respect to loan standards.

Also the derivatives market was never regulated at all, so this was bound to happen one day.
Banks wouldn't give such shitty mortgages if they had to keep them on their books...derivatives can be very useful but they can also be used to hide risk.

[Anonymous No.2517649]

>>2517312
Besides being the first step towards oligarchy and rigid dictatorship>?

[Anonymous No.2517651]

>>2517646
>Their banks needed bailouts for a reason...

Because the fractional reserve system is inherently bankrupt and insolvent.
Of COURSE they needed bailouts, that's why they created the fed. They love their banking cartels and how much money it makes them!

>Interest rates were being pushed down internationally
yes artificially, this leads to widespread bubbles.

>Bush essentially deregulated
NO, he did not, he regulated it MORE and also make it easier to get. That's not deregulation!
Also how can you fucking blame bush? This whole shit started before he was elected, it was just a continuation of the tech bubble under clinton!

The point is they are creating credit out of thin air and building a massive pyramid of cards on that. The financial industry balloons out to like 20% of the GDP while producing absolutely nothing.
This has to collapse at some point.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2517653]

>>2517640

>No I am responding to his initiation of force

If somebody is raping me and I use force to get them to stop, I am not initiating force. You seem to misunderstand this basic concept.

>I kill you because you killed my brother who killed your sister who shot his son and so on.

Here, I'm just going to post the Wikipedia link to the NAP for you. If you killed my brother, did you initiate force against ME? No. Problem settled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Additionally, you really need to work on your analogies. They're broken, unrelated, and hard to follow.

>and those individuals do not interfere with one another.

Contrary to this line of thought, Anarchism, especially in its Classical sense, relies heavily on the idea of society and free association.

But, to conclude, you are slow to respond and, when you do, often use disjointed, unrelated analogies, or simply miss my points all together. I'll leave you be. Have a nice night.

[Anonymous No.2517657]

>>2517640
Agree, and may I add that as interference grows, individual freedom suffers more and more, as the individual has to bunker down to protect his or her property from raiders/the humongous/huge groups of neckbeards hunting for women. Eventually people with real needs get sick of that and demand someone protect them. If enough people agree to pay fealty to someone to protect them, that is a dictatorship.

Id rather the rule of law than the rule of dictators or the rule of the mob. Anarchy is only transitory, and works "well" in situations like in the highlands of papua new guinea and aboriginal australia

[Anonymous No.2517658]

G'day, mates!!

[Anonymous No.2517659]

>>2517657
>If enough people agree to pay fealty to someone to protect them, that is a dictatorship.

what? no it isn't.
Fealty oaths go both ways.

[Anonymous No.2517668]

>>2517659
Yes, it is. I dont want to get into an argument about feudal states, and it wasnt always bad, but generally its good to be the Warlord-King and not so good to be the peasant/peat bog farmer.

[Anonymous No.2517672]

>>2517657
>Anarchy is only transitory, and works "well" in situations like in the highlands of papua new guinea and aboriginal australia

currently anarchy in some sub-saharan African countries, kony2012, rape everywhere, tribal warlords killing at will, no labor laws, the strong enslave the weak...typical libertarian shit

no rules, no enforcement, just the strong vs the weak

its pretty horrible, this is what our economics would be like if it were truly unregulated and followed austrian dogma

[Anonymous No.2517673]

>>2517668
Peasants didn't swear any oaths.

[Anonymous No.2517678]

>>2517672


yep ^
the actual "free-market" at work is in Africa
enjoy being raped by corporations that do whatever they want hahaha and extract all your resources and pay you 10cents a day

[Anonymous No.2517679]

>>2517678
>corporations
>a free market

you are an idiot

Marxist dictators supported by jews in the west/leftists and the soviet union are not "libertarians"

[Anonymous No.2517681]

>>2517673
Becoming a serf

A freeman, that is to say one whose feudal land tenure was freehold, became a serf usually through force or necessity. Sometimes freeholders or allodial owners were intimidated into dependency by the greater physical and legal force of a local magnate. Often a few years of crop failure, a war or brigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a case a bargain was struck with a lord of a manor. In exchange for protection, service was required, in cash, produce or with labour, or a combination of all. These bargains were formalized in a ceremony known as "bondage" in which a serf placed his head in the lord's hands, akin to the ceremony of homage where a vassal placed his hands between those of his overlord. These oaths bound the lord and his new serf in a feudal contract and defined the terms of their agreement.[13] Often these bargains were severe. A 7th century Anglo Saxon "Oath of Fealty" states:

Please dont embarrass yourself anymore

>>2517672
Hence the "well"

[Anonymous No.2517684]

>>2517679
>>corporations
>a free market

yes businesses can function in a free-market there are no laws against them

"corporations" are trivial I guess, since there are no rules in africa you could call yourself whatever you wish

heheh are you new to this?

[Anonymous No.2517687]

>>2517679

they're only marxist jews by speech

they behave like libterarians (i.e ANYTHING GOES, RAPE, PILLAGE, EXTRACT ALL RESOURCES, PAY NOTHING, GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THE MARKET ALLOWS IT)

:)

[Anonymous No.2517692]

>>2517653
>If somebody is raping me and I use force to get them to stop, I am not initiating force. You seem to misunderstand this basic concept.
No you are misunderstanding english. Please read what I wrote again. I am responding to his initiation "RESPONDING" I can't make that clearer except to define the word respond
respond - To act in return or in answer. (ie response to an initiation of force)
I'm assuming you are tired and glossed over that word

[Anonymous No.2517693]

Africa is an example of the free-market at work.

It doesn't work.

When businesses are allowed to do whatever they wish, they exploit workers, pollute everywhere, steal all resources

[Anonymous No.2517697]

>>2517672
Also, if you equate Austrian Economics with Anarchy you are as stupid as the mouthbreather you are arguing with.

laissez faire capitalism within a modern market structure is totally feasible. Printing fiat currency, debasing it to get yourself out of paying untenable debt, setting interest rates to perpetual 0% (or risk an exponential jump in interest payments), and relying on your currency as a global reserve as an excuse to do all of this is not.

[Anonymous No.2517702]

>>2517653
>Additionally, you really need to work on your analogies. They're broken, unrelated, and hard to follow.
Again I'll assume you're tired. Since you missed the respond portion and apparently you don't know who the Hatfields and Mccoys are nor can you follow a fairly basic concept that takes into account both ideas I presented, the child as property (you killed my son) your decision to respond as a community on whole or as an individual to a killer of my brother (you killed my brother so I shot you and so on) I'll again let that slide. It's late, we don't always fully read things this late at night.

[Anonymous No.2517703]

>>2517697

well they both are baseless ideologies that don't look at reality or data or evidence or statistics

and they both stress the importance of deregulation, just in different areas

and both have terrible outcomes (no country has used free-markets effectively for growth)

USA has been using gov intervention from its inception, and that's one major reason why it grew so fast

[Anonymous No.2517704]

>>2517703
>no country has used free-markets effectively for growth

da fuq how clueless can some people be?

[Anonymous No.2517706]

>>2517693
>>exploit workers, pollute everywhere, steal all resources

If the state protects workers rights, enforces pollution standards, and leases land at a flat rate to all competing entities, it doesnt negate free market capitalism.

When you have an african govt, they just take the money and dont give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.2517712]

>>2517706
>If the state protects workers rights, enforces pollution standards

actually it does.

pollution regulation is an artificial market intervention and Friedman would frown at you for saying otherwise

worker rights are also gov intervention...what if I want to send my kids to work for 10hours a day at 1 dollar a day, instead of them going to school?

It'll make them money!!! Profit!! free-market lol

[Anonymous No.2517715]

>>2517712
You are an idiot

[Anonymous No.2517729]

>>2517715

>hurp durp oh shit there are some regulations i agree with hurrrr
>ima call him an idiot anyway

[Anonymous No.2517736]

>>2517712

child labor laws
pollution laws
safety regulation
overtime pay
discrimination regulation
a reasonable minimum wage

disclosure regulation
conflict of interest regulation
etc

some good regulations...just depends how you execute them

[Anonymous No.2517739]

>>2517736
>regulation
>good

pick 1

[Anonymous No.2517745]

>>2517712
That doesnt even make sense. A free market doesnt mean that no laws or limits are placed on corporations. A free market simply means that prices are determined by supply and demand, not set by an external power. Stopping a company like BP from shitting all over the ocean doesnt mean that you are regulating your economy.

Printing trillions of dollars in order to maintain 12000 DIA +/- 500 and buying euro bonds is.

[Anonymous No.2517752]

>>2517653
>Contrary to this line of thought, Anarchism, especially in its Classical sense, relies heavily on the idea of society and free association.
No in it's neo-classical sense it relies on collectivism which by it's classical definition is not anarchy. classical anarchy derived itself from the cynics and stoics of classic greece. In their definition of anarchy a man was his own state and each person a reaction to that state, it's really the beginnings of the expression of the id, but that's something else all together. I don't really care what philosophy classes try to push on people this is what the cynics thought and they wrote that stuff down.

OK off my soapbox. But in reply, yes free association is a form of anarchy from modern anarchy, but in a very loose definition of anarchy it is not anarchy. It is just called anarchy, because it is fairly close in form to anarchy. I can call myself anything I want but that does not mean I am that thing.

[Anonymous No.2517771]

>>2517745
>A free market simply means that prices are determined by supply and demand, not set by an external power. Stopping a company like BP from shitting all over the ocean doesnt mean that you are regulating your economy.


Free-market as the austrians conceive has both price according to market supply/demand and is regulated operationally by market supply/demand

so if there is a supply of child workers and a demand for them, then they could be hired....

and if a company can afford to pollute your backyard because its profits > costs, then it will do so

also almost all regulation has some sort of effect on "price"

so if I set a minimum wage or limit your labor supply, then your costs go up and your prices change


if i say you have to use X and Y as safety measures, your operation costs go up, so your prices are pushed up...

BP used very cheap material from haliburton to seal their shitty pipes, and that same material broke on them in the past, but they didn't care....even with safety regulation they try to find ways around it just to save some pennies...

[Anonymous No.2517782]

>>2517745


are you the same person from a few days ago who couldn't understand why going on a gold standard can devalue your currency?

[Anonymous No.2517785]

>>2517771
>even with safety regulation they try to find ways around it just to save some pennies...

Are you an idiot?

There was a maximum limit of 20 million in liability from any spill.

Further, they get more money from drilling deeper due to strange royalty regulation designed to encourage deep sea drilling.

I'm sure the bureaucrats were fucking around too like they caused that spill off cali to get drilling banned.

You also miss the point, resources are scarce, artificially making people pay more hurts everyone, its laughable that liberals claim to care about the poor while driving up the costs of everything.

[Anonymous No.2517792]

>>2517782
I couldn't understand the chain of effect which would lead to that conclusion because it doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.2517795]

>>2517792
>>2517785


Ya, I thought you sounded pretty dumb.
Thanks for being honest

[Anonymous No.2517803]

>>2517795
lold

[Anonymous No.2517819]

>>2517795
>can't understand how a gold standard would be imposed
>calls other people dumb