[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 243 KB, 1075x883, F6009C70-018B-4347-91BB-F53386959EC1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10794847 No.10794847[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

When capitalism system flops?

>> No.10794849

>When capitalism system flops?
not science or math

>> No.10794853

>>10794847
Nice joke

>> No.10794866

The last time we had a gilded age in America, there was a lot of social unrest. I think we'd have to have some of that first before anything changes.

>> No.10794870

all things considered, Its actually fucking hilarious how people think capitalism is some sort of "system" we "choose" to partake in. It will never "fail" because it is the essence of what make our civilization go around. There can be crashes, yes. But corporations, wealth, capital exists firstly BECAUSE it makes profit, not IN ORDER TO make profit. The biggest problem of the 21st century is some ideologue gets his hands on some political power and wrecks everything because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how society is functioning

>> No.10794874

>>10794847
That was the entire point of Marx and Communism. You can try reading Das Kapital if you haven't already.
>>10794849
Economics is a science. Certainly not a rigidly defined science like physics or chemistry, but science nonetheless.

>> No.10794876

>>10794870
Yes, we know. Capitalism is just "what is".

>> No.10794877

>>10794874
Yes. It's a pseudoscience as unwelcome here as psychology and phrenology.

>> No.10794883

>>10794874
>Economics is a science. Certainly not a rigidly defined science like physics or chemistry, but science nonetheless.

It's a soft science.

>> No.10794891

>>10794877
It's definitely not as bad as psychology. Money's a lot more closely tied to actual real life events that can be used to verify or debunk different claims.

>> No.10794901

>>10794891
Microeconomics is fine. But macroeconomics is voodoo

>> No.10794914

>>10794847
>>>/his/

>> No.10794937

>>10794870
>It will never "fail" because it is the essence of what make our civilization go around.
so you've never read a history book, or don't know what "capitalism" means, or something...
capitalism goes beyond simply having money in exchange of productsor services.

>> No.10794941

>>10794866
Have you been outside or seen the news for the past couple of decades?

>> No.10794943
File: 170 KB, 645x729, 1546387739516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10794943

>>10794847

>> No.10794945

>>10794874
Das Kapital was wrong about pretty much everything, starting with the (retarded) labour theory of value.

>> No.10794946
File: 398 KB, 800x447, tuc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10794946

>>10794937
>>10794870
>>10794937
>believing the system under which we live is "capitalism" in anything but name

>> No.10794955

>>10794946
>muh spechul definitions of capitalism
>muh "free markets" won't end being the same shit or even worse than what we already have
lolbertarians are braindead retards.

>> No.10794968
File: 42 KB, 468x575, scan15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10794968

>>10794847
woah woah woah

can we cool it with the antisemitism?

>> No.10794986
File: 137 KB, 986x481, DP4PCEtVQAEJWsk.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10794986

>>10794946

>> No.10794994

>>10794955
>>10794986
Does any rational mind take anarchocapitalism or libertarianism seriously? I think these guys are high off their own farts at this point.

>> No.10795017
File: 187 KB, 1024x819, 1525421043899.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795017

>>10794986
>>10794994
>mistake enemy for completely different "enemy"
>pat self on back for being so perceptive

>> No.10795028

>>10794847
>>>/r/eddit

>> No.10795042

>>10795017
Both are enemies. As are you, you ignorant fuck.

>> No.10795043

This thread is why threads like this get deleted

>> No.10795076
File: 1.04 MB, 2047x3482, 1520101696586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795076

>>10794955
Do the world a solid and kill yourself, retarded commie.

>> No.10795078
File: 406 KB, 532x640, typical-hillary-supporter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795078

>>10795042
I'm sorry you lost.

>> No.10795086

>>10794994
Yeah, most rational minds do.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs

>> No.10795090

>>10795076
Do me a solid and fuck off you subhuman polnigger

>> No.10795097

>>10795090
>polnigger
Not even close, but if that's how you like to cope with your stupidity.

>> No.10795100

>>10795097
COPE
O
P
E

XD

>> No.10795103

>>10794955
>>10794994
Reminder that libertarians have the highest intelligence among political affiliations:

A study of voters' tendencies toward emotional or analytical decisions confirms some stereotypes.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-28/study-of-politics-and-analytical-thinking-puts-libertarians-on-top

Are libertarians more intelligent than conservatives and liberals?
https://notesonliberty.com/2014/05/15/are-libertarians-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-and-liberals/

The Largest Study Ever of Libertarian Psychology
https://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/

Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

>> No.10795107

>>10794955
facts hurt you deep inside, don't they?

>> No.10795111

>>10795107
Imagine being a disgusting rat person completely incapable of good faith anything

>> No.10795114

>>10795103
Nice non-biased sources.
Either way, why would that matter? Obviously they are only thinking for themselves. Nobody ever claimed that billionaires were stupid. They just push for whatever system they think will benefit them most. Same with Libertarians.
Just because they are smart (supposedly) doesn't mean they are going to push for whatever system is best for me or anyone else who is not part of their demographic.

>> No.10795117
File: 284 KB, 516x522, everyman-hillary-supporter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795117

>>10795111
imagine losing an election SO HARD your nervous breakdown is still going strong 2+ years later

>> No.10795118

>>10794955
>>10795090
>>10795100
>>10795111
You sound like a schizo

>> No.10795120

>>10795114
>PLOS One is a libertarian conspiracy!
You're hysterical.

>> No.10795121

I think at this point we are more then capable of a more advanced economic system.
The bottleneck to advancement, is really our political system that is just too corrupt and unaccountable at this point. So we have this Catch-22 where in theory we could have a more economically just economic system but to implement it we need a more democratic political system, but we cannot have that because our economical system corrupts our current democratic process.

>> No.10795123

>>10795121
>more democratic political system
>giving retards more decision-making powers over systems they don't understand nor have an incentive to
no thanks

>> No.10795125

>>10795117
Triggered snowflake

>> No.10795127

>>10795114
>Obviously they are only thinking for themselves.
Yeah, thinking for yourself is a good thing.
>They just push for whatever system they think will benefit them most. Same with Libertarians.
I could say the same about any other political affiliation, so this is a non-argument. The difference is libertarians are the only ones with good evidence about societal well-being to back them up. See >>10795076

>> No.10795128

>>10795123
>giving that power to rich billionaires instead, as if that is somehow a better situation

>> No.10795131
File: 24 KB, 317x317, 1471454855354.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795131

>>10795121
>a more advanced economic system
It's a just-in-time command economy controlled by computers, isn't it? Of course it is, it always is. Why are 115-IQ communists always so eager to remodel the world after the McDonald's supply chain?

>> No.10795134

>>10795128
No, to the people who are involved in those systems and have an incentive to understand them and make good policies regarding said systems.

>> No.10795138

>>10795121
>>10795123
>>10795128
>>10795134
Look up futarchy.

>> No.10795141

1. Free market fundamentalism did now work out

2. Government regulation turned out to be necessary and useful and beneficial.

3. Economic injustice has indeed caused lots of harm, lots of unnecessary deaths and poverty and corrupted our democratic process.

4. Government central planning was successful time and time again. Indeed the whole of science relies on government central planning.

5. Markets == Normies Feelz

These are the facts that this buttblasted lolbert ignores.

>> No.10795142
File: 353 KB, 522x549, average-hillary-supporter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795142

>>10795125
k

>> No.10795145

>>10794847
As soon as someone comes with a realistic alternative

>> No.10795146

>>10795141
>no facts to back up his delusions
As expected.

>> No.10795148

>>10795146
>no facts
It's self evident from the performance of western world economies in the last 70 years.

>> No.10795152
File: 322 KB, 521x526, Screenshot_2016-11-09_10-52-50.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795152

>>10795148
>it's true because I know it in my heart
But anon, you've been wrong about so many things before... so, so many things. It just makes you want to sit down and cry sometimes, doesn't it?

>> No.10795153

>>10795141
>Free market fundamentalism did now work out
What is "free market fundamentalism"?
>Government regulation turned out to be necessary and useful and beneficial.
Name some examples, and keep in mind libertarians are not necessarily against all regulations categorically.
>Economic injustice has indeed caused lots of harm, lots of unnecessary deaths and poverty and corrupted our democratic process.
Yeah, ok?
>Government central planning was successful time and time again.
Every command economy literally either collapsed entirely or is extremely shitty (e.g. USSR, pre-Deng China, North Korea), so I have no idea where you're going with this.
>Markets == Normies Feelz
Markets = allocation of resources on the basis of price signals determined by supply and demand, i.e. decentralized knowledge and planning that is light-years better than any central planning system ever tried.

>> No.10795155

>>10795152
It's true because it literally happened. Just because you pretend otherwise doesn't make it so.

>> No.10795156

>>10795148
>It's self evident from the performance of western world economies in the last 70 years.
What is?

>> No.10795157

>>10795153
>Markets = allocation of resources on the basis of price signals determined by supply and demand, i.e. decentralized knowledge and planning that is light-years better than any central planning system ever tried.
Literally just normie feelz. That's your whole system, lol.

>> No.10795159

>>10795155
What "literally happened"?

>> No.10795161
File: 308 KB, 519x527, Screenshot_2016-11-09_10-54-11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795161

>>10795155
But WHAT happened, anon? What long-past, outrageously prosperous golden age are you pining for?

>> No.10795162

>>10795157
Don't know what the fuck you mean by your retarded memespeak "normie feelz".

>> No.10795167

>>10794874
>Economics is a science.
Social science, belongs to /his/.

>> No.10795171

>>10795152
>>10795156
>>10795159
This is funny. You demand rigorous facts to counter me. Then when we arrive to the point, when everything is well defined (I'm not going to bother because it's pointless), then you say something like, "well that's actually because of this and that" completely unsubstantiated and based on some retarded axiomatic based thinking that appeals to 110IQ mechanical engineers.
What's the point of that?
That's not how you study complex systems.

If you were actually fact based as you pretend to be you wouldn't try to rationalize away every problem in our contemporary economic system and always conclude, rather miraculously, that is all comes down to the market not being based on enough normie feelz.

>> No.10795175

>>10795171
Your post says nothing in so many words. Seriously, read what you wrote.

>> No.10795182

>>10795175
It says everything that needs to be said, you are just going to say, "markets good, governments bad" to everything I can say in reply. How can you even pretend with a straight face that you're not a bunch of fanatics?

>> No.10795184
File: 30 KB, 300x300, 1562087772666.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795184

>>10795171
>I'm not going to bother because it's pointless
Everything is pointless, anon. I just don't know anymore...

I mean, I was always an ardent socialist, but now that I look at the world today... the outsourcing of American jobs... the media who spin and dissemble more than they report... the politicians who say one thing and do the opposite... the actual REFERENDA that pass and get ignored... I start to feel like those Drumpftards have a point, you know?

>> No.10795190

>be economist
>publish 3000 papers over 50 year long career
>this good, that bad
>never define what the objective is, or have some objective detached from the actual wants and needs of the common people
>pretend this is facts and logic

>> No.10795192

>>10795182
You haven't said anything substantive in reply, that's the problem. Just pontificating about my psychology. No argument, just a long-winded version of "you darn libertarian fanatics!"

>> No.10795196

>>10795190
yikes

>> No.10795199

>>10795190
>He doesn't know the difference between normative and positive economics.
Retard detected

>> No.10795208

>central planning bad, free markets good
This is why I cannot take lolberts seriously.
There is not grounded in their beloved "facts and logic".
There is no reason why you should believe that it applies to all kinds of economic sectors in all kinds of economic and political conditions.

Pretty much everything in science is centrally planned and funded. If it wasn't for public funding it would not happen. Even in applied sciences, the bulk of the funding comes from public coffers, until the very last minute when a product could conceivably be sold in the next 5 years.

Or take climate change. Caused by lack of oversight over market activity and can only be solved by central planning.

>> No.10795209

as an actual tax payer this cartoon is grossly inaccurate. Rich people don't pay much taxes relative to the middle class

>> No.10795212

>>10795208
>This is why I cannot take lolberts seriously.
>There is not grounded in their beloved "facts and logic".
>There is no reason why you should believe that it applies to all kinds of economic sectors in all kinds of economic and political conditions.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. See >>10795076 and >>10795086.

>> No.10795214

>>10795199
>I use Econ 101 words therefore I know more than you even though it has nothing at all to do with your post
Think again, retard.

>> No.10795215

>>10795212
>infographic
YIKES
>ideological think tank
DOUBLE YIKES

You are not helping your case, I'm afraid.

>> No.10795217

>>10795214
>econ 101 words
lol.

>> No.10795219

>>10795215
>infographic
Right, I forgot you're an illiterate retard who can't read citations.
>ideological think tank
Explain. I bet you're about to make a fool of yourself.

>> No.10795225
File: 42 KB, 562x437, hahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795225

>>10795208
>climate change can be solved by central planning
Buddy here is literally asking for a one-world, illuminati-style authoritarian government with the goal of... [checks notes]... crippling Chinese industry, and enforcing a one-child policy in Africa and India. Good luck selling that one

>> No.10795226

>>10795214
>I don't understand Econ 101
you're btfo'ing yourself, you know

>> No.10795232

>>10795217
>>10795219
>>10795225
>>10795226
Lots of butthurt being generated ITT.

But seriously, why do you have to be ideological about economics? Why cannot you just admit that sometimes market solutions suck and governments do a better job?

>> No.10795241
File: 1.86 MB, 300x296, what a fag.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795241

>>10795232
>why can't you admit that the straw man is easily defeated?

>> No.10795245
File: 285 KB, 521x529, normal-hillary-supporter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795245

>>10795232
You were wrong about Hillary. Is it so hard to admit you might be wrong about something much more complicated, like the economy?

>> No.10795247

>>10795078
That guy's retarded, and so are you.

>> No.10795248

>>10795232
>why do you have to be ideological about economics?
Facts are not ideological. They're just facts.
>Why cannot you just admit that sometimes market solutions suck and governments do a better job?
Literally nobody disagreed with this. That's the thing: You're hearing only what you want to hear about dem darn libertarians and not what I'm actually saying.

The only place where government can play a role that helps rather than hinders society is in solving a certain class of coordination problems. For example, you mentioned climate change, which is a case where externalities cannot be internalized. Another might be courts, police, and national defense, to more or lesser degrees. Besides those very special types of scenarios, central planning is basically mathematically guaranteed to do a worse job than market-based (read: price signals, supply and demand, decentralized knowledge, incentive-structured) solutions.

>> No.10795254

>>10795241
Either you're a lolbert or not.

>>10795245
Why the fuck would I give a shit about Shillary and her libshit agenda?

>> No.10795257
File: 50 KB, 600x448, d3aca67437ce2f01b078a3f39d8c322e--slime-mould-road-maps.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795257

Daily reminder powerful optimizing machines exist in nature, in the form of slime molds.

Problems of supply and demand will be solved perfectly using a battery of slime molds.

Nothing will go wrong, it's been mathematically proven.

By the way, if you do not meet the quotas set by the slime molds, you will be punished. And if you disobey the slime molds you will be shot.

All hail the slime molds, our saviors.

>> No.10795260

>>10795248
>Facts are not ideological. They're just facts.
Except when your "facts" are actually just part of the ideology. Just like Jesus is a fact for Christians.
>Literally nobody disagreed with this.
Good
>The only place where government can play a role that helps rather than hinders society is in solving a certain class of coordination problems.
OK.
>For example, you mentioned climate change, which is a case where externalities cannot be internalized. Another might be courts, police, and national defense, to more or lesser degrees. Besides those very special types of scenarios,
We disagree on what makes part of the class of "coordination problems". I would expand it substantially.
>central planning is basically mathematically guaranteed to do a worse job than market-based (read: price signals, supply and demand, decentralized knowledge, incentive-structured) solutions.
No, this I don't agree with. I don't think you have any actual facts to back this up and if you dig deep you'll realize that it is based on your axioms of world perception that are themselves informed by your ideology.

>> No.10795261
File: 118 KB, 384x378, 1554071656701.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795261

>>10795257
Intriguing. But how do these slime molds plan to combat climate change and income inequality?

>> No.10795262

>>10795232
>>10795248
If you want to learn more about dispersed knowledge I'd recommend reading Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society.

>> No.10795264
File: 32 KB, 474x359, japan slime mold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795264

>>10795261
>But how do these slime molds plan to combat climate change and income inequality?
That is completely beside the point. Slime molds are experts at economic planning, untainted by foul ideology, and deserve our complete trust and faith.

What's important is that we vest the slime molds with absolute power over our political and economic system --- before it is too late.

>> No.10795266

>>10795262
How about something from an author who is not obviously biased and also grossly outdated?

Why do you think that 20th century economic theory applies to 21th century economies?

>> No.10795268

>>10795260
>I would expand it substantially.
To what?
>I don't think you have any actual facts to back this up
Wrong. Two reasons, in fact: empirical and theoretical.
1. Empirical: This one's pretty obvious if you're willing to remove your ideological blinders. The vast, and I mean VAST, majority of goods and services in any developed or developing economy are allocated on the basis of price signals, i.e. supply and demand. Countries where this is not the case have, predictably, much lower standards of living and are basically shitholes.
2. Theoretical: The economic calculation problem. Price signals are the means by which information disseminates throughout the economy about what exactly should be produced, in what quantity, where it should be sold, which investments should be made, which enterprises should be expanded/contracted, etc. Allocative efficiency is attained when prices = marginal costs, i.e. at market equilibrium where demand = supply. Interventions like quotas, tariffs, price floors, price ceilings and so on all incur deadweight loss by eating at consumer or producer surplus in such a way that overall societal surplus is destroyed. I could go through each of these cases individually but these are literally things you can learn in an introductory course.

>> No.10795270

>>10795266
>biased
In what way?
>grossly outdated
The Use of Knowledge in Society is not outdated at all you literal retard, how about you try opening a fucking book for once instead of relying on your feels and intuition on a subject you have literally no understanding of? You seriously test my fucking patience with your proud ignorance.

>> No.10795272

>>10795266
you are literally trying to reinvent the various autistic, centrally-planned, near-full-automation, industrial-revolution-inspired economic theories that flourished in the early 20th century. here is one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit

what's the new element you're bringing to the table. please say it's neural nets or similar, I need a good normie laugh

>> No.10795273

>>10794847
>>10794847
That needs an edit with a merchant

>> No.10795277

>>10795268
>This one's pretty obvious if you're willing to remove your ideological blinders. The vast, and I mean VAST, majority of goods and services in any developed or developing economy are allocated on the basis of price signals, i.e. supply and demand. Countries where this is not the case have, predictably, much lower standards of living and are basically shitholes.
Why does the number of consumerist goods matter? When you actually narrow it down to the basic necessities of life:
>food
>housing
>education
>healthcare
>energy
>transport;
then you start realizing that it's not so simple because all of these markets are not like the very simple consumerist smartphone market. All of these are partially or entirely planned and regulated by governments, out of necessity. The number of Chinese manufactured trinklets being sold is hardly relevant.

>The economic calculation problem.
Heterodox economics on par with Marxist economics.
>Price signals ...etc
Not saying that this is 100% flawed theory but there is no reason to believe that all of this results in an altogether better solution in every economic sector in all economic conditions, which is the whole point of contention. You don't really have any rigorous proof of that and indeed I think it would be impossible to prove such a thing. But I think you can construct plenty of theoretical counter examples.

>> No.10795280

>>10795272
>you are literally trying to reinvent the various autistic, centrally-planned, near-full-automation, industrial-revolution-inspired economic theories that flourished in the early 20th century
Actually I'm just saying, maybe some economic sectors would do well with some more government intervention.

>> No.10795282
File: 2.33 MB, 337x252, ChillyDetailedBlueshark-size_restricted.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795282

>>10795272
>neural nets
Slime molds, actually. Hail the slime molds.

>> No.10795286
File: 75 KB, 960x960, 1562707132881.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795286

>>10795280
Oh my god. If you have an opinion, just say it. You've already said much more in previous posts, do you mean to take all that back now?

>> No.10795287

>>10795277
>food
>housing
>education
>healthcare
>energy
>transport
>All of these are partially or entirely planned by governments
Completely and utterly wrong. Jesus Christ, why don't you try looking these things up before spouting such nonsense. Unless by partially you meant a tiny fraction in which case your claim is trivial and contributes nothing to the discussion.
>The economic calculation problem
>Heterodox economics
You're bandying about terms you don't understand and making a fool of yourself in the process. That the economic calculation problem was formulated by an Austrian economist does NOT mean only Austrian economics agree with it. Price marginalism and the subjective theory of value also originated with the Austrian school. ALL THREE are an accepted part of mainstream economics. Don't say something so dumb again.
>in all economic conditions
I already said this is a strawman so this is not worth addressing.

>> No.10795290

>>10795280
Why don't you just fucking name them instead of playing this dumb guessing game

>> No.10795292

>>10795286
That's literally what I'm saying. I just reject free market fundamentalism. I just believe that some economic sectors can perform better with more government involvement.

>> No.10795293

>>10795292
>he does it again
lol

>> No.10795294

>>10794901
what part of macroeconomics is voodoo exactly?

>> No.10795295

>>10795277
>food
>housing
>education
>healthcare
>energy
>transport;
Governments are typically only involved in healthcare and education, and they both end up shit.

>> No.10795296

>>10795292
What's this "free market fundamentalism" you're talking about? Because it seems to be some kind of strawman you've constructed in your mind that few or no people believe in.

>> No.10795302

>>10795287
>food
Subsidies make sure that country is agriculturally self-sufficient. When more drastic action needs to be taken, governments always step in because this is vital.

>housing
Poor people get social/council housing.
Housing regulations regulate living conditions, safety and rent.
Governments even buy, build or put incentives in place to increase social/council housing.

>education
Free and tax payer funded and/or government loan.
Curriculum accredited by government agencies, entirely centrally planned.
Teachers trained and accredited by government institutions.
Funding for research provided from public coffers.

>health care
Services provided are regulated by government.
Insurances are regulated by government if the exist at all.
Some countries just have public insurance or even just public hospitals.
I could go on. It's all government managed.

>energy
At the very least there is regulation governing everything from price to pollution.
Many countries also have state energy companies and no market.

>transport
Literally everything is managed by the government down to minute details like how far your side mirrors should extend from your door outwards.

>> No.10795303 [DELETED] 
File: 34 KB, 354x504, oh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795303

>>10795290
>name them

>> No.10795304

>>10795295
he's probably missing the fact even in highly regulated sectors like healthcare when you factor in things like the actual equipment, facilities, IT, etc. virtually all of it exists thanks to the private sector

it's like the fact that government doesn't even build roads, they just pay private companies to do it

>> No.10795306

>>10794946
>the always present underage libertarian tard no thread could go without

>> No.10795307

>>10795287
Economic calculation problem is a meme. Definitely not consensus economics.

>> No.10795308

>>10795304
>virtually all of it exists thanks to the private sector
Ah yes, the private sector personally funded the research in how to mold a shape of plastic around government funded technology and sell it for $10,000,000.

>> No.10795310
File: 9 KB, 253x296, 1465057049474.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795310

>>10795290
>name them
[nervous laughter intensifies]

>> No.10795313

>>10795296
>>10795293
>>10795290

I wouldn't name them cause I'm not an ideologue like you people are. Of course I have ideas, but they have to be backed by facts. So at most I propose to experiment with alternative approachs and not just off handedly assume that the meme free market is going to result in the best outcome.

>> No.10795315

>>10795308
Wrong, plastic molding was also publicly funded technology.

>> No.10795325

>>10795302
>Subsidies make sure that country is agriculturally self-sufficient.
That's the biggest load of crap the agricultural sector ever sold you. Agricultural subsidies make society poorer. They incur deadweight loss. Not only that, but they also make developing countries poorer too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#Impact_of_subsidies
>housing
Name the relative size of the government housing sector. Go on, do it. Say the number.
>education
>Free
Get out of here with that bullshit. No such thing.
>tax payer funded and/or government loan
Government loans are one of the biggest if not the biggest factor contributing to skyrocketing education costs, so I don't think this is the example you want to use.
>Curriculum accredited by government agencies, entirely centrally planned.
Wrong. Private schools set their own curricula.
>Teachers trained and accredited by government institutions.
How many?
>Funding for research provided from public coffers.
Not education, separate issue.
>Services provided are regulated by government.
>Insurances are regulated by government if the exist at all.
Regulated != provision. If the government adds 1 regulation to the books concerning sector X, does that mean the government provides sector X? Of course not, that's retarded.
>It's all government managed.
You didn't give examples of government management, you gave examples of government regulation. Except, that is, public hospitals (hint: they're less than 22 percent of cases).
>Many countries also have state energy companies and no market.
Yeah, and they tend to be uncompetitive/expensive for that reason.
>At the very least there is regulation governing everything from price to pollution.
>Literally everything is managed by the government down to minute details like how far your side mirrors should extend from your door outwards.
How many times do I have to say this? Regulation != provision. Not even fucking close.

>> No.10795330

>>10795192
Says the dude that literally saved and is now posting what seems like an endless amount of embarrassing pictures of Hilary voters. Your psychology is obvious.

>> No.10795331

>>10795141
>necessary and useful and beneficial
necessary, yes, but often times not beneficial
>Government central planning was successful time and time again.
was unsuccessful time and time again

>> No.10795333
File: 189 KB, 515x318, Screenshot_2016-11-09_10-53-54.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10795333

>>10795330
I'm a different guy. Stay strong #TheResistance

>> No.10795334

>>10795148
tell me more about the performance of these economies in the last 70 years. i bet you don't know the first thing about economic history

>> No.10795336

>>10795307
>Economic calculation problem is a meme. Definitely not consensus economics.
A bold-faced lie pulled out of your ass.

>> No.10795338

>>10795313
>free market is going to result in the best outcome
it is tho

>> No.10795340

>>10795330
Not the same person you braindead sack of shit.

>> No.10795342

>>10795313
>like you people are
lol

>> No.10795352

>>10795308
>>10795315
Plastic molding originated with inventor Parkes in 1865, so thank you for supporting my point.

Look, you can point at some technologies (hopefully getting your history right this time) like, say, ARPANET, and yes, they had government funding involved in their embryonic stages, but that doesn't invalidate the point.