/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4014268]

What does /lit/ think of Paul Krugman ?

[Anonymous No.4014280]

Brilliant idiot.

[Anonymous No.4014294]

jew

[Anonymous No.4014304]

Seems like an intelligent man, however I disagree completely with his interpretation of pricing systems. Centralized authorities, at best, aren't very accurate at representing true value of goods/rates, while the possibilities of abuse and cronyism are ripe for the picking.

I would love to read more in depth about his views to at least better understand why he is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4014317]

>>4014304
I personally like the fact that his views adjust for the current situation, for example a couple of years ago he saw that the time was ripe for consolidating the public finances and many republitards agreed with him, but that didn't happen and now it's too late for that or it will fuck up growth and republishits are crying why he changed his mind.

Some people are just blinded more by ideology than others.

[Anonymous No.4014319]

>Keynesian economics

THE RIDE NEVER ENDS

[Anonymous No.4014417]

>>4014317

>Republitards
>Republishits

Please tell me you don't think along the lines of this false dichotomy.

Both "sides" are monolithic, self-mastrubatory , oligopolies who skew true market value of goods/services through iatrogenic acts.

I would have liked to think /lit/ as less intellectually lazy than to subscribe to contemporary lines of definition.

[Anonymous No.4014425]

>>4014417
I also call Democrats Democan'ts and Demoshits.
>>4014319
Except that the ride starts and ends at logical efficient intervals.

[Anonymous No.4014429]

>>4014268

ALL economists are deluded.

Economics is not even a science. When the paradigms of mechanics, on which the forefathers of economics tried to make their discipline a science, were debunked by thermodynamics, the economists did not move one, as any respectable, true science would do.

Economics is a spook. And its followers are zealots.

[Anonymous No.4014463]

>>4014429
Except that Keynesian economics follow pragmatism or rather shit just wekrs,

[Anonymous No.4014478]

>>4014463
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgPggTlnoxM

[Anonymous No.4014528]

>>4014478
A load of crap.

[Anonymous No.4014529]

Economics is in essence social science.

[Anonymous No.4014558]

>>4014478
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgPggTlnoxM
Jesus Christ. Put in a graph and it's all good science, right?

[Anonymous No.4014582]

>>4014478
BAM!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/opinion/krugman-phony-fear-factor.html

Seriously how can anyone still support austerity after the damage it has done to europe?

[Anonymous No.4014890]

hitler was keynesian

[Anonymous No.4015169]

>>4014582
Europe got to where it is today with the infinite spending model.

[Anonymous No.4015185]

>>4014890
nah, keynesians dont invest in dead military equipment that serves no purpose unless you go imperialist mode

[Anonymous No.4015203]

One of the few american brilliant mind.

Please, take care of him

[Anonymous No.4015275]

>>4014582

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2114890/

"Austerity" is not merely spending "cuts" as shown in >>4015169, but they pair it with increased taxation.

They cut public sector jobs, sending those employees and future ones into a job economy that is continually getting fucked harder in the ass simultaneously, creating this viscous cycle of unemployment environment where the market is not able to recover properly to expand to meet the needs of the new workforce.

>Gov't Spending cuts
>Greecian Austerity

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.4015291]

>>4014463

>Pragmatic

You think that fiddling with how the value of an item is represented is pragmatic? It is, at least, delusional and, at most, malicious acquisition of currency at the detriment of devaluing savings.

[Anonymous No.4015330]

>markets recover when I say they're going to recover, and when I'm not its just the business cycle
>pre-internet models of economic activity are perfectly valid to describe 21st century market phenonema
>rather than having the balls to address individual behaviours as the root of socioeconomic woes lets play with market prices and hope everything sorts out

economists are all full of shit, if you are dead by the time a non-testable, non-provable theory has time to manifest as productive or devestating, you shouldn't be promoting that theory

[Anonymous No.4015360]

>>4014429
But we still need to figure out how economics works. People who attack it never seem to say how we should be going about it.

[Anonymous No.4015364]

>>4015360
>People who attack it never seem to say how we should be going about it.

don't fuck with markets, but also don't let corporations buy off political leaders or get tax breaks

[Anonymous No.4015374]

>>4015364
No I meant economics as the scientific study of economies, not policy.

[Anonymous No.4015386]

>>4015374
>economics as the scientific study of economies

There is no scientific way to study economics, there are too many variables and parameters that are constantly changing to develop any sort of clear model beyond exchanges between two individuals or the interaction of a single individual with a market.

>not policy.

I won't have my tax dollars going towards inapplicable pseudoscience, and neither should you.

[Anonymous No.4015390]

>>4015291
Believing that the representation of the value is not in itself fiddled.

>>4015169
Blaming on spending. Not blaming it on the political impotence of the EU. Conveniently forgetting that the crisis didn't start in Europe. Conveniently forgetting that it was started by private banks. Conveniently forgetting that it wasn't about national debts till the private sector got scared and expected nations to bail them out.

[Anonymous No.4015396]

>>4015364
I find hilarious how people really believe that there is such thing as markets outside of politics and independent of it.

[Anonymous No.4015399]

>>4015386
Man you are dumb and short sighted.

[Anonymous No.4015402]

>>4015386
If it's impossible to study economics, then how can one be sure that government non-intervention is the best policy (as you've stated here >>4015364)?

[Anonymous No.4015405]

>>4015402
Because it's the"natural" remedy.

[Anonymous No.4015408]

>>4015386
So what do we do? Try to create an economy purely based on a moral vision? Just let the unfathomable market do what it wants and try to manage as best we can? Just have law makers shout at their top of their lungs vague ideological platitudes to justify their vision of the economy?

If you can't address economics scientifically, then all the important political questions are unanswerable.

[Anonymous No.4015409]

>>4015402
I'm being idealistic, in practice nothing can be done because wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and might makes right.

We could slaughter major media figures and meiserly corporate leaders but I guess mankind lost its balls after WWII.

[Anonymous No.4015411]

>>4015402

Anon didn't say it's 'impossible to study economics', it said 'it's impossible to use the scientific methods on economies' and that economics thus cannot be a scientific study of economies.

[Anonymous No.4015417]

>>4015411
>'impossible to study economics', it said 'it's impossible to use the scientific methods on economies'

well if we're talking about active economic policy, there is no difference between the two

[Anonymous No.4015445]

>>4015386
That's why it borders on religious temple shit...
Here's a good one... "Secrets of the Temple" from William Greider.

It's not science, it's made up as it goes along.

Network - Money speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

It's more true than most people care to know.

[Anonymous No.4015477]

>>4015396
thats odd because I exchange fruits and veg for my labor at a local farm every week

[Anonymous No.4015534]

>>4015477
>implying that the farm is outside any nation.
>confusing the action of exchange with the market.

It's like saying "I talked with people in English in international waters, that means English is not a social construct"

[Anonymous No.4015554]

>>4015534
my point was that a focus on local communities will help with corruption and large scale economic problems, you're bringing quantum physics into a woodworking problem

[Anonymous No.4015575]

>Keynesian economics

not even once

[Anonymous No.4015577]

[Anonymous No.4015580]

[Anonymous No.4015587]

>not subscribing to the austrian school of economic thought

[Anonymous No.4015591]

>>4015575
in all fairness he made real estate so cheap that it might put life back into an otherwise dead middle class, and the only people he's hurting are poorfags and idiots

>tfw I can be a debtless homeowner by the age of 30

[Anonymous No.4015598]

hurr why does our economy suck save us government!!

[Anonymous No.4015604]

>>4015587
>Not reading through the criticisms of Austrian Economics
>Not believing in Chicago School economics

Actually though, check it out, Austrian is based off of economic Philosophy and makes its theories before analyzing the results based off of historical incidences.

[Anonymous No.4015611]

>>4015587
>i'm gonna put it in macro form
>anon loves macros

[Anonymous No.4015617]

>>4015591
the point is he was completely wrong because the theories he subscribes to are false.

>in all fairness he made real estate so cheap that it might put life back into an otherwise dead middle class, and the only people he's hurting are poorfags and idiots

this is what keynesians actually believe.

and I care about poorfags and idiots and so does Ron Paul.

[Anonymous No.4015625]

>>4015617
I'm not a big fan of kynesianism but

>beachside apartments going for 600/mo in Tampa
>two story houses in the midwest going for 70,000

and in about every state mortgages on 1 story houses are going for lower than the rent on single bedroom apartments

[Anonymous No.4015628]

I want to get off Keynes' wild ride.

[Anonymous No.4015629]

>>4015617
Ron Paul says that he cares, a lot of people with guilt complexes do, but they don't have any concrete solutions to real world problems starting here in the USA. I'm not saying that republicans or democrats do either, their 100% full of shit, but Ron Paul sucks just as much.

Ross Perot might have been good, but he bailed out for some bizarro reason that he's never fully explained. Maybe he scared the establishment because as a self-made billionaire himself he had the knowledge to make change.

[Anonymous No.4015640]

>>4015625
Closits in a decent NYC neighborhood going for 1milllion+ USD, parking spaces for hundreds of thousands. It's business. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Live in a hippy treehouse like Daryl Hannah.

[Anonymous No.4015647]

>>4015629
why do you think ron paul sucks.

>but they don't have any concrete solutions to real world problems starting here in the USA

actually he does have solutions and he explains them pretty well. Washington is dominated by keynesian thought though so he gets repeatedly marginalized even though he's constantly proven correct on issues regarding the economy.

[Anonymous No.4015651]

>someone who actually thinks that Ron Paul's economic proposals aren't retarded is posting on /lit/ RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous No.4015652]

Peter Schiff, noted austrian economist, repeatedly gets laughed at and marginalized by economic "experts" on TV while he preaches the truth years before the crash happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM

austrian thought has no basis in reality though, right?

[Anonymous No.4015657]

>>4015652
Being that many others like Steve Keen who is a Post-Keynesian also predicted the crash I don't see your point.

[Anonymous No.4015660]

>>4015647
>correct
>economy
dude there's no set PERFECT answer in economics, if you'd ever studied it you'd know that it's imperfect because it focuses on human interaction

[Anonymous No.4015661]

>>4015652
I'm sure that in Austria it makes sense, but in the USA, no it doesn't make sense.

We don't need some world government euro type telling us what's best for our own nation. They're all being overrun by islamics, they should consider that before telling anyone else what to do.

[Anonymous No.4015665]

>>4015652
>they all pick financial stocks at the end

top fucking lel. its crazy how accurate this guy was back then.

[Anonymous No.4015674]

>>4015661
>They're all being overrun by islamics
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4015707]

This is a horrible thread.

We have:

>two or three remotely insightful comments
>A guy who thinks he knows more about economics than the fed
>At least one person who actually thinks that the Austrian School is a viable macroeconomic option
>People thinking Keynesian policies are to blame for modern fiscal problems, even though supply-side economics has largely supplanted them
>Some Ron Paul fanatic shitting up the thread

I want >>>/pol/ to leave

[Anonymous No.4015718]

>>4015707
>A guy who thinks he knows more about economics than the fed

Demonstrate that their actions are constructive towards some goal with evidence, and justify that goal. Until you can do ,that get off your fucking high horse.

[Anonymous No.4015777]

>>4015661
Prob troll but authorial intent w.e.

Austrian refers to a school of thought, like continental philosophy, you aren't necessary from that location

Example. Ron Paul follows Austrian Economics

[Anonymous No.4015791]

>>4015718
(S)he's on a low horse....

[Anonymous No.4015823]

>>4015390

Started by Bush try to give Hispanics houses even though they couldn't afford it mo' like.

Krugman liked that too.

[<C> No.4015844]

Here's a real economist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Murphy

[Anonymous No.4015853]

>>4015844
not criticizing his economic views but

>is a libertarian
>evolution is false because human altruism exists

my sides are in orbit

[Anonymous No.4015860]

his academic writing >>>>> his shitty nytimes blog

[Anonymous No.4015945]

>>4015823
>wants economic freedom.
>claims it's the government's fault when those freedoms are abused.

[Anonymous No.4015974]

>>4014417
People who think "both parties are the same" need to stop being 13 years old. There are appreciable differences and the country would be in a much better place if it voted Democrat more consistently. Both sides support the corrupting influence of big banks and companies that profit from war but make no mistake, it is the Republicans holding America back into sub-first world nation status.

[Anonymous No.4015976]

>>4015360

Don't generalize, turd. A mix of social sciences is enough. The mathematical methods are o.k. as long as they are REALISTIC, not based on unreal, childish assumptions and scenarios.

[Anonymous No.4016001]

>>4015661

Yeah and Keynes was British you cretin. Doesn't mean that his model is only applicable in Britain.

[Anonymous No.4016011]

Why aren't you a National Socialist economist /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4016017]

>>4015974
Things would be much better if we broke with this shitty two party system and stop just blaming one party for x, y, and z and hold both accountable. People giving parties a pass because they do a few things that they like only prolongs the pain and just voting for one party doesn't fix that glossing over the problems with a certain party because all the focus is put on defeating the opposing party.

[Anonymous No.4016025]

>>4016011
Oh god that pic.
>pro trade union
>pro nazi
What the fuck?

[<C> No.4016046]

>not being a post autistic economist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics

Fucking autists and your bullshit systems

[Anonymous No.4016060]

>>4016046
I had no idea that existed. Thanks at least for the info.

[Anonymous No.4016062]

>>4015974
>and the country would be in a much better place if it voted Democrat more consistently.
Based on?

[Anonymous No.4016077]

>>4016062

Gay Rights.

[Anonymous No.4016079]

>>4016077
end of civilization

[Anonymous No.4016086]

>>4016017
oh, so the problem is the state? Yep, i totally agree. We should have less of it.

[Anonymous No.4016131]

>>4015823
>"to fight this recession the fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset the moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCully of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the nasdaq bubble" - Paul Krugman before his ideals destroyed the economy

Bravo Paul! So wise and knowledgable.

Meanwhile, a real expert on the ACTUAL reality of economics, has this to say 5 years before anything happened.

"the special privileges granted to fannie and freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions... Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing." - Ron Paul September 10, 2003.

which is why i laugh when people tell me he's just a crazy old guy with unrealistic ideas on the economy. I think he knows a little bit about what hes talking about. At least compared to Krugman and the never ending joyride of keynesianism.

[Anonymous No.4016138]

>>4015945
well it was actually 100% the government's fault if you wanna go on facts. But by all means continue being a statist lackey.

[Anonymous No.4016176]

>>4014268

While Krugman attracts the most attention for his NYT column, his theory of monopolistic competition in international trade is actually quite compelling and furthermore infrequently discussed.

[Anonymous No.4016200]

>>4016138
Yeah it's the government's fault if Lehmann Bros. sold were dealing subprime mortgages lying on their quality.

I also guess it's the government fault if Goldman Sachs was betting against its own products.

Right?

[Anonymous No.4016208]

>>4016131

Go back to >>>/pol/ to suck the cock of your imbecile idol, you mullethead stormfag retard.

[Anonymous No.4016217]

>>4016138
>The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“

Only lies from libertarians.

[Anonymous No.4016226]

>>4016200

Yes, if they placed incentives in the law which coerced them to do it.

Housing Bubble is clearly a child of "compassionate" big government.

[Anonymous No.4016227]

>>4016208
behold, the true face of the statist when confronted with the bold and righteous ideals of liberty and freedom.

and also im not so much praising ron paul as I am praising the validity of the theories of austrian economics and exposing keynesianism for the never ending roller coaster ride of smoke and mirrors.

but heres a pic of Ron Paul because i know he makes your butthole tucker up.

im also going to take this opportunity to end this post on a quote from this national treasure of ours.

"I myself have never been an isolationist. I favor the very opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns."

what a fucking champion

[Anonymous No.4016230]

>>4016217
>government formed organization says it wasn't the government's fault

my eyes have been opened oh harbinger of truth.

[Anonymous No.4016236]

>>4016226
>Supports personal responsibility for human beings.
>The government made them do it when it comes to corporations.
>Considers both people.

Pls go.

If that proves anything is that economical agents are neither rational nor ethical but only opportunistic. An unregulated market would lead the same results as an unregulated society.

[Anonymous No.4016239]

>>4016230
>Individual saying it was not the individuals' fault.

By your reasoning I should not believe you either.

[Anonymous No.4016243]

>Austrians
>Even once.

HEY GUYS, LETS PRETEND THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS MAGIC AND THAT EVERYONE ARE COMPLETE RATIONAL ACTORS AND THAT NOTHING PHYSICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL IN THE WORLD AFFECTS MARKETS AND THAT PEOPLE IN THE ECONOMY AND EVERYTHING ASIDE FROM THE GENERAL MATH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED "EXTERNALITIES" NOT TO BE WORRIED ABOUT! OH ALSO SOME BULLSHIT ABOUT SOME NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE!

The issue with Keynesian economics is that it was created for a different era and is totally ill equipped for finance capitalism. That simply is the case.

I would rather still like in a Keynesian economic system than some batshit Austrian one that doesn't even make one bit of realistic sense because its entirely based on ideological abstractions and a fucking gold standard that couldn't even account for 70th of the world GDP.

[Anonymous No.4016245]

Superior economic model that saved us from a great depression coming through

[Anonymous No.4016250]

>>4016217
>including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages

mainly because those toxic mortgages are a direct result of fed policies.

>Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk

those financial firms were granted special priveleges (by the state) and made choices they wouldn't have otherwise made in a purely free market environment. Also, the state was telling these firms to give out bad loans because Obama wants to give everyone a house.

>An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street

you think those artificially low (government mandated) interest rates had anything to do with the misallocation of investments and resources?

>Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis

basically politicians being dumbasses. That's a given.

>lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw

what the fuck why are they in charge of the fucking economy then.

>systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels

oh, corruption. the result of the symbiotic relationship large corporations and the government have with one another.


im not seeing how this disproves my hypothesis of everything being the states fault.

[Anonymous No.4016255]

>>4016245
Didn't he change his mind somewhat about his idea later in life?

“... prepare to be amazed: Milton Friedman has changed his mind. ‘The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success,’ concedes the grand old man of conservative economics. ‘I’m not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.’”
Simon London, “Lunch with the FT – Milton Friedman,” Financial Times, 7 June 2003.

[Anonymous No.4016259]

>>4016236
I'm not that anon. You're not correct in your assertion that under a free market, rational economic agents would do this.

Some high risk, low capital creditors would lend sub prime but this would represent a fraction of the scale that it occurred in 1997-2008. However the reason all big banks lent sub prime was because they knew their competition was also forced to sell sub prime. Therefore all banks had not lost the competitive edge on their peers *IF the system should fail. They were essentially guaranteed by the tax payer, and in that situation ALL BANKS that lent subprime (i.e, all of them under the Clinton housing act) would be level pegging in the event of the crisis.

Since they lost their incentive to stay safe to overtake the competition in the event of credit drying up, they saw no reason why sub prime mortgages were a problem. Therefore all banks happily colluded in this while hedging against sub prime by betting against it.

This, as previously stated, was because the Clinton housing act forced *all* big banks to lend to risky debtors, and so they all collectively had no competitive reason to refuse as they would in a free market.

[Anonymous No.4016261]

>>4016243
austrian economics is the belief that production and savings are the real driving force behind wealth production in the economy as opposed to the keynesian ideal of SPEND SPEND SPEND.

[Anonymous No.4016270]

>>4016217
and what government act, dear anon, forced banks to lend to high risk individuals for the stated purposes of equality and prosperity? Can you name it? It was in the 90s. Nearing? Was it a Democrat or Republican? Any ideas?

[Anonymous No.4016271]

>>4016255
He was probably senile at that point, near death. For him to make that huge of a concession while not writing some dense economic text to support it - I just can't believe that he is the same person. Regardless of whether or not he supported it in his later life it has saved us from economic catastrophe. As the lack of supply of money has shown to be a driver in economic collapse from $ hoarding as it was in the great depression. It may not drive economies, but it does - at the very least - greatly prevent them from shrinking.

[Anonymous No.4016272]

>>4016261
Nice try there.
Austrian economics has, and always has been about complete market subjectivity and utopian capitalism.

[Anonymous No.4016273]

>>4016272
>Market subjectivity

I'd take market subjectivity over government objectivity...

[Anonymous No.4016278]

Not as shitty as Republican capitalist shits but still a capitalist and that's should be a paddlin'.

[Anonymous No.4016280]

>>4016273
And I wouldn't. Because your Austrian economics is a goddamn ideological abstraction that removes even goddamn humans out of the equation.
You put the economic system before those that are in it, because you believe markets are some law of the universe.

[Anonymous No.4016281]

>>4016272
sounds fucking glorious.

where can i read more about it?

[Anonymous No.4016284]

>>4016271
Many other intellectuals have changed their mind why not Friedman? You see people talk about the early/middle/late periods of other people and how their thoughts changed.

[Anonymous No.4016288]

>>4016245
He has kinda lost his luster over the years even among those who used to cheer him on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/

[Anonymous No.4016289]

>>4016280
It's not about people versus markets; you can't put one before the other.

[Anonymous No.4016292]

>>4016280
Why is each man using his capital as he so sees fit an "ideological abstraction" ?

It seems pragmatic to me. It actually *involves* humans in the equation, by saying "I believe you to be a better judge of where and when to spend your capital than the centralised bureaucrats, most of whom have a political-financial syndicate with the banks"

[Anonymous No.4016296]

>>4016289
>>4016292
It depends on what type of market you are talking about. See http://c4ss.org/content/20518

[Anonymous No.4016303]

>>4016280

>Austrian economics is a goddamn ideological abstraction that removes even goddamn humans out of the equation.

you really are ignorant about what you're trying to criticize. One of the basic texts of Austrian economics is a book written by Ludwig Von Mises called "Human Action" and is all about humans and how they behave. He also invented something called praxeology upon which the whole ideal is based. Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom.

So all i can say is you're completely wrong.

>You put the economic system before those that are in it, because you believe markets are some law of the universe.

this is one of the most psuedointellectual arguments against the austrian school ive ever seen. All that markets are, are individual people engaging in free exchange with one another.

[Anonymous No.4016306]

>>4016292
Because you have removed all social, ideological and material conditions from the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ve_myMdQM
This is a pretty good short explanation on why Austrians are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.4016309]

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=22875

/lit/ discussing economics is like /sci/ discussing love.

[Anonymous No.4016310]

>>4016303
>One of the basic texts of Austrian economics is a book written by Ludwig Von Mises called "Human Action" and is all about humans and how they behave.

Oh this explains why Austrians believe in some bullshit "human nature" theory that flies in the face of all Sociology and Anthropology.
Well It must be true, Fucking Mises wrote it.

[Anonymous No.4016334]

>>4016310
>believe in some bullshit "human nature" theory that flies in the face of all Sociology and Anthropology.

from Human Action.

>Human action is purposeful behavior.
>Human life is an unceasing sequence of single actions.

these are the types of basic assumptions his ideology is founded upon, and I doubt they conflict with anything in sociology and anthropology. By accepting these underlying basic assumptions, you can, using deductive reasoning, establish theoretical economic truths, and even if you don't agree with this type of reasoning, Mises isn't the only austrian proponent.

>Starting in the Twentieth Century, various Austrians incorporated models and mathematics into their analysis of the economy. Austrian economist Steven Horwitz argues that Austrian methodology is consistent with macroeconomics and that Austrian macroeconomics can be expressed in terms of microeconomic foundations.[22] Austrian economist Roger Garrison argues that Austrian macroeconomic theory can be correctly expressed in terms of diagrammatic models.[23] In 1944, Austrian economist Oskar Morgenstern presented a rigorous schematization of an ordinal utility function (the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem) in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.[24]

so again, you're talking out of your ass

[Anonymous No.4016387]

>>4016334
yeah not all austrians subscribe to praxeology.

Friedrich Hayek for instance, an iconic austrian, was not a proponent of praxeology and Mises' a priori approach.

[Anonymous No.4016391]

>>4016334
There have been many critiques of Mises and his work. See the socialdemocracy21stcentury blog (I can't link the posts because the system thinks it is spam) which has plethora of posts criticizing Austrian economics and other types of libertarian figures like David Friedman with most posts having a bibliography so you see where he is getting his info from.

Also check out fixing fixingtheeconomists site which is also very critical of of Austrian economics, the radicalsubjectivist, and Jeffrey Friedman (the last two aren't like the first with Friedman drawing a good bit from Shackle).

[Anonymous No.4017198]

>>4016391
A blog vs. one of the greatest and world-renowned economists of the 20th century... yeah

[Anonymous No.4017208]

crappy partisan

[Anonymous No.4017634]

>>4014429
>implying there isn't positive economics
>implying the normative economics you know of represents ALL economics

[Anonymous No.4017668]

>>4016306
>Removed all social, ideological, and material conditions

please explain, as simply as you can, why giving each man the freedom to dispose of his capital as he sees fit equates to this. Explain it yourself. Do not link to some semi-relevant video as a get out clause.

Specifically explain how each individual spending how he or she wants is removing all social, ideological, and material conditions. Try it, at least, because I don't think you have the first clue what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4019804]

bump

[Anonymous No.4019834]

What's up with all these John Birch Society nutcases on /lit/?

Capitalism doesn't work.

Enjoy your wage slavery and manufactured partial employment as an apparatus for the capitalist power dynamic.

Enjoy your basic loss of human rights and dignity as your job is taken by one of the other starving, unemployed proles at your first indication that you aren't perfectly happy with being manipulated.

Enjoy the surplus value of your labor being transmogrified into profits for your masters.

Most of all, enjoy the ideology being wielded against you to enslave not only your body, but your mind as well. Continue to sing the praises of your overlords as they force your head against the grindstone, leave their bootprints on your face, and palpate the last portion of your pockets for whatever crumbs you might have left.

[Anonymous No.4019837]

>>4019834
why are marxists such drama queens?

[Anonymous No.4019858]

>>4019834
Enjoy Coca-Cola

[Anonymous No.4019868]

>>4019834
>Capitalism doesn't work.

Tell that to the people who profit from it.

[Anonymous No.4019873]

>>4019868
That's trivial to do once the number of consumers drops considerably from the concentration of capital reducing the total members of the market. Welcome to market failure.

[Anonymous No.4019883]

>>4019873
When do you imagine that will start happening?

[Anonymous No.4019888]

>>4019883
It's already happened, and consistently happens in economies with little to no regulation.

This is why all of the world's superpowers are mixed economies and not pure capitalist ones.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/IB_Economics/Microeconomics/Market_Failure

[Anonymous No.4019891]

>>4019888
>It's already happened, and consistently happens in economies with little to no regulation.

So in other words, capitalism is resilient.

[Anonymous No.4019892]

>>4019891
No, in other words pure capitalism is dead. It only lives on thanks to the salubrious juices injected by socialism to form the modern mixed economy.

[Anonymous No.4019894]

>>4019892
So, in the end, it will be the influence of socialism on capitalism that will lead to the eventual collapse.

[Anonymous No.4019897]

>>4019894
Not at all. Socialism is propping capitalism up right now. The collapse of both will probably be the result of technological advancement.

[Anonymous No.4019898]

>>4019897
What about global warming?

[Anonymous No.4019906]

>>4019898
Global warming is an externality, caused by no potent, expansive global regulation on economy. It's a direct result of failure to regulate the market. Surely, if we don't change course quickly, it will have dire economic and human consequences.

That said, there is still time to greatly reduce the rate at which climate change is occurring. If we do that, which at some time in the near future will become inevitable, economy will continue.

[Anonymous No.4019951]

>>4019906
>there is still time to greatly reduce the rate at which climate change is occurring
lol

[Anonymous No.4019955]

>>4019951
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation

[Anonymous No.4019962]

>>4019955
if you've read any of the literature on it beyond a wikipedia article you'd know how impossible it is to stop climate change beyond improbable situations like a radical authoritarian imposition/revolutionary technological breakthrough.

[Anonymous No.4019984]

>>4019962
If you had carefully read my original post, or even the portion of it you quoted, you would be have noticed that nowhere did I say:

>stop climate change

Unfortunately, fundamentally altering my assertion was necessary to rebuttal though, wasn't it?

[Anonymous No.4019992]

>>4019834
wow, you've just perfectly described communism

[Anonymous No.4019995]

>>4019992
Indeed, that's what Stalin created in Russia, State Capitalism under totalitarian rule.

Perhaps you might find "The Revolution Betrayed" enlightening.

[Anonymous No.4020024]

>>4019995
>The importance of this chapter lies in Trotsky's observation that the ruling stratum in the USSR are neither capitalists nor workers, but rather a section of the working class alienated from its class roots, influenced both by the bureaucracy left over from the Tsarist era and the de-politicization of the working class.
Trotsky refers to Stalinism as a form of "Bonapartism," drawing a comparison with the French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte and his capture of the French state after that country's revolution. Just as Bonaparte brought back the trappings of the aristocracy and imprisoned capitalists despite presiding over a new capitalist social system, Stalin imprisons workers and behaves like a Tsar despite failing to overturn the gains of a planned economy and nominal public ownership.

[Anonymous No.4020040]

>>4020024
Yes, Trotsky did not use the term state capitalism to describe the USSR. He simply described the perversion of his revolution.

I used the term. Many others, people of disparate ideological backgrounds, have and continue to use the same terminology. It has also been applied to many different totalitarian "communist" and "socialist" states.

[Anonymous No.4020044]

>>4020040
>Many others, people of disparate ideological backgrounds
who? link me to where they said it

[Anonymous No.4020062]

>>4020044
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia

http://web.archive.org/web/20091027132629/http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/machg.html

http://libcom.org/library/what-was-the-ussr-aufheben-1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/03/22/communism-is-dead-but-state-capitalism-thrives/

[Anonymous No.4020066]

>>4019995
lel

yes, because unless a nation which purports to be communistic clicks perfectly with the utopic ideal projected by marx then it has nothing to do with communism, right? ussr? nope, no communism to see here.

lenin was a bourgeouis philistine (i mean this in the flaubertian sense, not the marxian, i.e. the state of someone's mind, not the state of their wallet) and tyrant; communist russia was foredoomed from the beginning, and all of trotsky's erudition wouldn't have changed that gloomy fate.

marx's imagined utopia of beaming proles will never be achieved, since one of its unmissable steps is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the road will always stop there, with mounds of bodies flanking the road and some cretinous tyrant standing in the way.

what happened in china, russia (and the countries which fell under russia's imperialistic hammer), cambodia, etc. weren't anomalies, they were the logical, though undesired by many, conclusions of communist ideology.

[Anonymous No.4020072]

>>4020066
The saddest thing is that you're probably serious.

[Anonymous No.4020081]

>>4020066
Marx wasn't a Utopian.
The NAZI regime purported to be socialist.

Totalitarians usually latch onto and pervert an ideology for the purpose of propaganda.

Even states and other power structures that aren't entirely totalitarian or authoritarian use employ ideology for social control.
You might be surprised at the amount of Americans who believe they live in a capitalist economy, or think that it has an official religion.

Your foolishness is that when the USSR and friends claimed something, you believed it despite the fact that you know that lying, deception, and distortion were the standard practice of those governments.

[Anonymous No.4020098]

>>4020072
wow, powerful argument, can't argue against that;

also, you should've learned by now that if you affect that boring tone of condescension you sound like a teenage tryhard.

thank moloch we've never achieved a communist utopia. there'd be nothing to do.

[Anonymous No.4020102]

>ITT butthurt

Look Commies, I think we'd all be more willing to support your ideas if those that profess them weren't all the failures of society.

It's funny how they decry "selfish" people when they are the clear beneficiaries of making unequal things equal.

Free markets and capitalism work for the most part, and the most signifant crashes have been exasperbated by governments as well as the IMF rather than solved. Krugman even said that in his book on the financial crisis.

This anti- FED attitude on the right has been blown out of proportion. Obviously this is because of Ron /pol/, who I like a lot, but getting rid of the FED entirely is pretty dumb. There should be more oversight, however, and the sunshine act of 2009 shows that.

[Anonymous No.4020105]

>>4020081
cool but were china, russia, cambodia, etc. communist anomalies?

[Anonymous No.4020110]

>>4020105
The others latched onto the perverted ideology of the USSR and emulated their bastardized, totalitarian rule.

[Anonymous No.4020112]

>>4020110
but they weren't communist, nor was the ussr?

[Anonymous No.4020113]

>>4020098
There is no amount of facts that could change your opinion. If you cared about facts you'd look for them and figure out the shit you're saying is wrong. Stop posting, please. This shit doesn't even belong on this board.

[Anonymous No.4020117]

>>4020112
Did they have a state?
Did they have economic classes?

[Anonymous No.4020122]

>>4020102
>Free markets and capitalism work for the most part

[Anonymous No.4020123]

>>4020117
you can't have a state if you're communist?

[Anonymous No.4020127]

>>4020123
If you don't have a state, how do you learn about communism?
What is the aim of Marxism?

[Anonymous No.4020147]

>>4020127
>What is the aim of Marxism?
to create a peaceful, classless, egalitarian society through violent revolution biased in favor of uneducated workers

[Anonymous No.4020148]

>>4020147
How can you have a classless, egalitarian society if there is a state?
How can there be peace without education?

[Anonymous No.4020158]

>>4020113
snore

>>4020081
again, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary step.

but even if i were to concede that true communism hasn't been tried, then the fact that every try has invariably not only descended to but begun with totalitarianism and authoritarianism should be indicative enough that there aren't sufficient apotropaic mechanisms built into the ideology which would ward off aspiring tyrants and dictators (which all capitalist democracies around the world have).

i didn't have to believe anything the ussr claimed since i saw everything that happened, that is, i lived in it. i mean get it straight, man, do i sound as if i fell for soviet propaganda about how great the ussr was with its brave tractoristas and wise babushkas?

[Anonymous No.4020156]

>How can you have a classless, egalitarian society if there is a state?
i suppose you're right. everyone will disarm and live peaceably, especially with limited space and materials
>How can there be peace without education?
well yes, the uneducated can educate the uneducated

[Anonymous No.4020170]

>>4020156
>i suppose you're right. everyone will disarm and live peaceably, especially with limited space and materials
Is disarming the same thing as living peacefully?
Is it possible to live peaceably without the threat of force? Is domination necessary for cooperation?
If so, what type of domination would be required to achieve lasting cooperation?

>well yes, the uneducated can educate the uneducated
Nice one, anon! So who must be in charge of educating the uneducated?
What might this look like?
Would the capitalist rather see the uneducated as a resource or as someone to be educated, an equal?

>but even if i were to concede that true communism hasn't been tried, then the fact that every try has invariably not only descended to but begun with totalitarianism and authoritarianism should be indicative enough that there aren't sufficient apotropaic mechanisms built into the ideology which would ward off aspiring tyrants and dictators (which all capitalist democracies around the world have).

Is it the communist doctrine of these states that was a poor recipe, or was it the original conception that it is based on, assuming you concede this is vastly different than what has been tried?

[Anonymous No.4020173]

>>4020158
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
Chiapas
Mao's China
>nb4 MAO KELLED 17 TRILLEUN BABBIES FOX NEWS TOLD ME THIS

[Anonymous No.4020175]

>>4020158
>i lived in it.
>implying you're not just a child of fleeing aristocrats that cry about how good they had it in le old cuntry

[Anonymous No.4020180]

All these americans.

The austerity study done by Harvard was proven to be flawed.

But americans don't care cause americans don't care.

[Anonymous No.4020195]

>through violent revolution biased in favor of uneducated workers

You've never actually read Marx, have you?
The Lumpenproletariat won't revolt.
And Marx didn't support violent insurrection.

[Anonymous No.4020208]

>>4020066
You don't get it.

Communism will win in the end. It is a gradual thing, not one that can be forced by some political figurehead, Eventually the people will reach a state of misery that is intolerable and then...

[Anonymous No.4020225]

>>4020170
>Is it the communist doctrine of these states that was a poor recipe, or...

i wouldn't go so far to say that what has been tried is vastly different from marx's vision. there is enough in marx to justify all the moral idiocy of communist nations, from the almost romantic admiration of the proletariat and the dogmatic hatred of everything high-class to the call for sanguinary revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat;

marx's vision is necessarily utopian, since it predicts social perfection. now i have no doubt that if we'd be talking about some small commune with marx at the fore, then the product would be greatly better than what has been tried;

but we're talking about great masses of people who are so disparate and who can only be pacified by a democratic system like that in europe or the us which gives them enough room, whereas a communist regime would immediately cut off all the pointy-headed bourgeois intellectuals and start suffocating the rest. the problem is precisely that people have followed marx's instructions, but they will always stop and begin stagnating bloodily at the 'dictatorship' part - a deficiency in the instructions.

this is the point. whenever humans set off on the path to utopia, they will inevitably end up in a dystopia.

[Anonymous No.4020226]

>>4020180
Well I'm an American Marxist but I see your point.

[Anonymous No.4020249]

>>4020208
>Eventually the people will reach a state of misery that is intolerable and then...

they already did in the ussr, and currently are in north korea. but i guess one should never underestimate the will-to-masochism

>>4020175
what was it that hitchens said about leftists thinking that once they've discovered the dirtiest possible motive they've discovered the right one.
and really now, my parents were the target demographic of communist propaganda, i.e. the proletariat, but they didn't feel like being slaves bureaucratic automata.

>>4020173
don't you have some holocaust denial to do, babby?

[Anonymous No.4020252]

>>4020249
*have

[Anonymous No.4020263]

>>4020225
>all the moral idiocy of communist nations
>from the almost romantic admiration of the proletariat
> and the dogmatic hatred of everything high-clas

Jesus Christ, stop.

[Anonymous No.4020308]

[Anonymous No.4020459]

>>4014268
generally liek him
usually agree with his point
he's honest on topics most others just spew party propaganda about

[Anonymous No.4020943]

His academic writings are pretty good but his blog posts are Reddit-tier "grrrr fuck Republicans"

[Anonymous No.4021040]

>>4015657
>Steve Keen
Keen had a debate with Krugman because they're different breeds of keynesians.
Also Keen destroyed Krugman

Kurgman his stance on sweatshops is correct though
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-sweatshops.html

[Anonymous No.4021272]

>>4020943
anyone with a brain would hate republicans

[Anonymous No.4021314]

>>4021272
anyone with a brain would wash their hands of american politics.

[Anonymous No.4022015]

>>4016306


Do you even watch the video you are posting? That author is ignorant at best, and hypocritical at worst. He continually misrepresents lassiez faire economics as the "capitalist" system we are currently in, conflating the two in order to build his straw man.

[Anonymous No.4022047]

>>4019834

>capitalism has failed
>mfw the computer you are using is a product of competiting, interdependent, private institutions progressing both the processing power and speed of service.
>mfw you think that Marxism and lassiez faire markets are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.4022060]

>>4019888


>Mixed market economies has been sustaining "free" markets


Can you into Sweden? Do you understand that the relationship between the welfare state and regulated economy is completely inverse to how you think it is?
Are you aware of the continual cycle of creeping regulation from the state, said regulation crippling commerce, and then in turn crippling the socialist programs?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDE8ve35f0

Edumacate yourself.

[Anonymous No.4022620]

>>4022047
No it isn't. Perhaps you should look into the history of the computer a bit more.

It's actually largely a product of government spending and research subsidies, including both those to the military and to research universities.

Even further, the internet as you know it is a result of a DARPA project.

>>4022060
Yeah, I'm going to look at lobbying organizations like Center for Freedom and Prosperity and the CATO Institute for unbiased facts.

Maybe you should stop looking at Sweden, and check out Norway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

You might find it enlightening that the welfare state both works and benefits the economy as a whole. Perhaps this is just a signal of the coming victory of socialism over you capitalist pigs.

[Anonymous No.4022630]

>>4022047
Capitalism enforces monetary gain as to priority, even for the government. This isn't a good thing. A large portion of problems today can be traced back to the fact that some-- fuck it.

[Anonymous No.4022695]

>>4022620
Sweden is one of the worst countries on earth, insofar as freedoms and culture are concerned.

[Anonymous No.4022698]

> arguing with americans on the internet

enjoy your youtube-tier banter

[Anonymous No.4022729]

>>4015628
And Reaganomics isn't a fucking neck-breaking rollercoaster replete with double-dips?

Moron.

[Anonymous No.4023063]

>>4022620


I was fully aware of the background of the internet, but you are missing the point I am making. Without private institutions copeteting for customers to provide a better service, the rate of development (and one could argue development in general) would have stagnated. The military thinktank that established ARPANet had no incentive to spread the tech as a public service. The idea itself may have originated from brilliant men funded by the state, however the implementation of said idea in the public was only possible through competiting private companies.

This is also ignoring the fact that development of computing in general had no major state funding until about the 1960s. Based on how the British treated Alan Turing, you could make a case for state intervention impeding the progress of development.

[Anonymous No.4023081]

>>4022695
What freedoms do they lack?

[Anonymous No.4023139]

>>4022620


>you capitalist pigs

I bet that felt good saying that.


>Ignore the completely valid example, look at my example!

OK, then hotshot, let's look at the aggregate of Scandinavian countries as a whole. You are assuming that the US is the bastion for free enterprise economics, when, according to the index of economic freedom, the Scandinavian countries that you are holding up as an example of Marxism "winning" over "capitalist pigs" are actually MORE FREE in terms of market freedom than Ammuuurrica.

Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom. Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement.

[Anonymous No.4023181]

>>4022729

there's a difference between what Reagan wanted/what conservatives believe in and what happened.

As Ann Coulter once put it "spending cuts are Georgia, the Republicans are the Indians, and the Democrats are Andrew Jackson."

[Anonymous No.4023633]

>>4023139
Freedom as defined by conservative think tanks, no doubt.

If you look at GDP per capita, the US is higher than most of those Scandinavian countries, including Sweden. The point of bringing up Norway is that it has a higher GDP per capita than even the US, less income disparity, and one of the most expansive welfare programs in the world.

Proof positive that not only does the socialist influence on economy improve human rights and economic circumstances of all members in a society, it appears to do so conversely to "freedom" from progressive taxation and "freedom" from labor rights and welfare.

[Anonymous No.4024130]

>>4023633

>proof positive

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand what that means. Yes, in your specific example of a singular country, there is both a relatively free market and a limited socialist system of redistribution. However, not only are you still ignoring the other countries I stated in order to fit your narrative, you are mistaking correlation for causation.

By holding up a potential outlier without using similar countries as comparison, you are willfully ignoring dissenting data points that contradict your class conflict narrative that you use to view the world.

Here are the facts:
>In scandanavian countries with a thriving socialist system, there is also a free market.

>Free markets have been demonstrated to be more than successful in promoting economic wealth and personal liberty (which in turn promote personal happiness, see pic)
Ex: Singapore, Australia, Ameruhcuh, Finland, etc.

>It has been demonstrated that Socialist programs dictated by a state, without corresponding free markets, suffer lower personal happiness, GDP, health etc.
Ex: Cuba, Soviet Russia, east Germany, etc.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/FREEDOM.HAPPINESS.JPG

I think it is sufficiently reasonable to come to the conclusion that free markets allow for the redistribution of wealth, either through direct means or through services, and not the other way around (at least through state coercion).

I know this doesn't fit with your narrative of the world, but I'm trying anyways. I'm actually quite open to the implementation of Marxist ideology IF it is not mandated. However, any potential implementation of Marxism through a state will always lead to failure, as demonstrated time and time again.

[Anonymous No.4024277]

>>4024130
If you would like to see a free market, look at drug cartels and crime families.

Even those aren't totally free.

You are misrepresenting what I'm saying. If you claim that these Scandinavian countries or the US has a free market, you are just delusional and there is nothing more to say here. This appears to be what you are claiming. Regardless of what you would like me to be saying, the only one here distorting facts is you.

[Anonymous No.4024323]

>>4024277

>Cartel
>Crime Families

Funny how both of those are only viable through state intervention. Crime families derive their income from providing a service that is legally prohibited, while simultaneously being in high demand. Consumers, driven to black markets due to Johnny Law, give money to said crime families. Prime example: Prohibition in the 1920s. The mafia as we know it would not have been possible without Mr. Washington giving said crime families the opportunity to jack up prices for goods the public normally enjoyed before prohibition.

We are seeing the same situation happen now with drug cartels. Legality is the only thing that stands between the cartel and their demise. By introducing competition into a market and removing the legally made monopoly, it becomes absolutely unviable for Cartels to continue their unethical reign, as a consumer will naturally gravitate towards more legitimate establishments.

Another case of irony is that you accuse me of misrepresenting your position, while simultaneously glossing over the nuances of my own argument. I have never claimed that Scandinavian countries or the United States have completely free markets. The most free markets in existence today are that of Singapore and Hong Kong (both city-states; not a coincidence), and even those are not lasseiz faire economies.


I'm curious, how exactly am I misrepresenting your position? I'd like to understand where you come from. How did you get turned to Marxism, and why do you think it is viable. Reasonable discourse is always preferrable to ad hominem shit-slinging.

[Anonymous No.4024336]

>>4024323
The only way to stop organized crime is by having no laws.

Is this what you are advocating?

I am not a Marxist. On the other hand, Marx had one of the greatest critiques of capitalism ever conceived. If anything, I'm anti-capitalism and anti-totalitarian. Socialist policies have provided invaluable protections for workers and for the most unfortunate members of society.

A free market takes that away and advocates a system that is unfair and unethical by design, not to mention one that is inherently more unstable and short-sighted. It's hard to see how anyone could advocate such a thing with any knowledge of history whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.4024365]

>>4024336

Here we go, now we are getting somewhere.

>anti-authoritarian
I am in complete sync with you here.

> anti-capitalist
In a way, I agree with you here. Buisness in accordance with centralized gov't has a large probability to fuck up majorly. Capitalism which has influence on Gov't and vice versa is a cancer.

>In order to kill organized crime, you must have no laws.

Nuances, my friend. What I meant was not the removal of rules in total, just removal of prohibition of goods. By dictating morality from a top-down position, not only do you not enact any meaningful change, you also produce iatrogenic effects unforseen before implementation of said laws.
I am under no delusion; I know that organized crime will always exist in some fashion. However, the rise of organized crime is a symptom of an unnatural inequality usually self-inflicted.

Could you give me an example of the colossal collapses that are the "wax stamp" of lasseiz faire economics?