/sci/ - Science & Math

wat

Unfortunately, such a system does not encourage scientific advancement.

>>2502152
free market does not work after the advent of large corporations. thats why we have things like anti-trust laws, workers-rights laws and regulation. didn't you ever have to fucking read the Jungle when you were in middle school??

Complete state control of the economy, a single political party and unlimited civil liberties.

I think this system would be ideal if greed wasn't a factor.
i

>>2502182
It does, which is why most scientific advancement happens in the US. Scientific advancement can only happen when there is excess wealth to spend on it. That is a system that maximizes excess wealth. While the government may not maximize its scientific grant spending, still more money gets spent on science because it's a rich country.

>>2502210
This system is ideal BECAUSE greed is a factor.

Liberty fails because too may people are stupid...deal with it

>>2502187
will corporate growth exist if there is high competition in all fields?

in free markets the buyer can chose to boycott establishments on whatever reasons they choose. so if a company is known to treat workers poorly, you think the corporation will suffer for it?

guys. how do we get around the greed factor in free market with minimal regulations? basic rules are of course the following (definitions of freedom referred by John Locke/Schooland)

1. no threat to life or health of people
2. no breach to individual sovereignty/freedom to choose
3. protection of private property

c'mon guys, /sci/ is prolly the most able forums, we gotta fix this shit.

I like national socialism, in moderation.

http://vimeo.com/12598733

Free Markets FTW!

>>2502277
true greed is beneficial. but corporatist greed means manipulating laws and convincing lawmakers to favor certain parties. this is greed i talk about in >>2502292

>>2502304
Milton Friedman is the Feynman of economics man

>>2502152
Likely troll.

Second, laissez-faire markets ala Ayn Rand are not Free Markets, a term attributed largely to Adam Smith's description in Wealth Of Nations.

Protip: Adam Smith was for progressive taxation.

>>2502187
Free Market doesn't mean laissez-faire. Free Market is not "free from government interface". Please learn to use the actual definition of the term. Free Markets are free because of the independence of the actors in the market and the large number of sellers and buyers. That's the defining qualify of a Free Market.

>>2502292
technically corporations themselves wouldn't exist, as they have special liabilities, privileges, rights, etc. (ie corporate personhood)

Here's what we need to do.
We need to get rid of this shareholder crap.
We need to get rid of ceo's earning hundreds of times the average worker salary.

100% of the company's profits should go to the employees.

No more fat cats

>>2502323
in a pure laissez faire system

>>2502312
Adam smith has had revisions (i think?) but I'm focusing more on John Locke liberalism (not so much of Rand) and Friedman/Hayek philosophies

'free market' capitalism is a shitty idea. They realised that in the great depression when Keynes was doing his work.

An economy's strength is measured by its production, and the welfare of the citizens. When you have mass production, you must have mass consumption, or not enough people will buy the products that keep people employed and paid.

So population able and willing to buy consumer goods is a must. Now, in a free-market economy, where unions are suppressed as anticompetitive, businesses have the advantage in bargaining - they can lay off all their workers and replace them easily, whereas workers can only chase a limited number of jobs. This leads to shitty wages and a huge income inequality.

The problem comes in when the richfags spend that money. There is only so much food they can eat, so many lear jets they can buy. Most of their money just sits in a bank vault, whereas poorfags spend it on food and rent, and middlefags spend it on electronics and entertainment.

So your economy lacks demand for goods and services. This prevents the creation of new jobs, barring government-funded infrastructure projects. it maintains high unemployment, which is useful to capitalists because this drives down wages.

When it is foreign capital that chases free market economies, they become hostage. If they make any move to improve their situation, the corporations pack up and move to the next chump one continent over, taking what little jobs were left.

Bottom line: Consumer societies are vital for an industrialized world, and cheap labour prevents the formation of consumer societies.

>>2502324
No. What we need to do is bring back free markets by breaking up monopolies, oligarchies, and so on. If you're too big to fail, then you're too big to exist unregulated. If you can be broken up, then you ought to be. If it's unreasonable to break you up, expect to get nationalized.

>>2502324

Well you still need money for capital, but I agree. Fucking shareholders are little more than leeches unless they're actually working for the company.

If you remove all that wasted money and give it to the employees instead you can run on MUCH narrower profit margins comfortably.

>>2502341

>advocating the theories of Keynes

Full retard achieved.

>>2502341
The Great Depression created a widespread misconception that market economies are inherently unstable and must be managed by the government to avoid large macreconomic fluctuations, that is, business cycles. This view persists to this day despite the more than 40 years since Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz showed convincingly that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies were largely to blame for the severity of the Great Depression. In 2002 Ben Bernanke (then a Federal Reserve governor, today the chairman of the Board of Governors) made this startling admission in a speech given in honor of Friedman’s 90th birthday: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry.”

>>2502353
Your board is gone. You're not welcome here.

>>2502355

You do realise that the keynesian policies of roosevelt and eisenhower lifted the US out of the depression into the best economic times of the 20th century?

You know, before reagan came along.

>>2502364
i think it had more to do with WWII bro

>>2502355
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

I used to be all up into libertarianism, and I was probably the only libertarian in Sweden, but since then I have realized how unpractical an economic system that requires growth to function is.

>>2502355
>>2502355
>>2502355
>>2502355
>>2502355
>this mothafucka.

>>2502349

I don't understand why the workers are happy working for peanuts.

They see that the top position in their company gets millions of dollars in severances, but they get jack shit for making the products that made the ceo eich?

Why do the workers continue their lives allowing the rich to unfairly take their hard earned money?

If we all just went on strike until the richfags stopped being gay, we would have a better world.

>>2502376
I think there's bigger problems with libertarianism, such as unlimited rights to private property. You need the government to break up excessively large companies to foster free markets, and to nationalize the natural monopolies or regulate those heavily.

>>2502387
>government intervention
>free market
Pick one.

>>2502373

WWII was a huge boost to the economy of the US, employing huge amounts of people producing munitions and in the military.

That sounds like a keynesian stimulus to me.

>>2502373
truefag.

>>2502364
free market enterprise (in the colloquial meaning, synonymous to laissez faire) brought about the industrial revolution in Great Britain and the US. pretty much started the East India Company for England and motherfuckers rich

>>2502388
NO U!
No really, laissez faire markets are not free markets. You need government intervention in order to maintain free markets. See me here:
>>2502321
>Free Market doesn't mean laissez-faire. Free Market is not "free from government interface". Please learn to use the actual definition of the term. Free Markets are free because of the independence of the actors in the market and the large number of sellers and buyers. That's the defining qualify of a Free Market.

Again, protip: Adam Smith was for progressive taxation.

>>2502386

>Why do the workers continue their lives allowing the rich to unfairly take their hard earned money?

because it isn't their money

>>2502386

I'll tell you why:

a) People constantly telling them: "The world can only work this way, if you try do anything else it'll be even worse".

b) "lol better conditions? I'll just move to india where they know the value of a hard day's work"

>>2502401
>free market enterprise (in the colloquial meaning, synonymous to laissez faire)
Perhaps that's the colloquial meaning, but that is definitely not the technical meaning, nor the meaning that Adam Smith used. It's an affront to Adam Smith, and legitimate economists everywhere.

>>2502387
In my view, monopolies in a night watchman state will only exist as long as they deserve to be monopolies since free competition will have even the smalles company stand on equal footing to the law as a mega-corporation. One thing that I think could be limited in size is banks. In modern economy banks have so immense power that it for the freedom of the people perhaps should be limited in size or owned by the people.

I acutally like a lot of the libertarian ideas because they in many cases see to the little man instead of huge corporations.

>>2502395
Of course, did you see the debt that followed?
That Keynesian economics, the economics of debt generation.

>>2502386

In summary, we need to keep companies, but make it so that the top people don't earn more than 3x the salary of the lowest paid n the company.

All profits will be split among the employees. It is the fruit of their labor after all, and this will encourage productivity in the workplace whil distributing wealth more evenly

>>2502404

I'm sure a capitalist can produce goods on his own.

Face it, having lots of money is not a good reason to be given more. Quite the opposite.

>>2502387
if trading parties are consenting to purchase, how is such a monopoly wrong given that corporations would have no influence on the law? and if at one point corporates are unjust, free market entertains competition doesn't it? i'm no econfag but i think thats how it works.

>>2502403
>implying the government isn't a monopoly.

>>2502364

Keynesian policies are among the most dangerous ideas to ever be presented to humanity.

ANY economist worth his weight in shit will tell you that.

If anything, FDR lengthened and deepened the Depression and caused dangerous precedents that helped get us into the mess that we're in today.

The biggest thing to help the Depression was probably when FDR died and his anti-business policies died with him. Granted, Truman nationalized some services, but he shrank government spending (always good) and wasn't as bad as FDR.

A lot of people will think that WWII got us out of the Great Depression, but standards of living didn't rise, we just had an increase in GDP because we were creating military stuff and destroying it.
When WWII ended, 10 million soldiers suddenly became unemployed. Many (read: the reigning Keynesian economists) worried that the unemployment rate would skyrocket and cause a Great Great Depression. This didn't happen, as the private sector sucked up those soldiers like a vacuum sucking up small bits of popcorn.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/

Argentinians know what to do.

Co-operatives, bitch. Take your free market and stick it up your ass.

>>2502412
There are several flaws in that line of reasoning.

First, pure free markets cannot exist. There will always be a finite number of buyers and sellers, to varying degrees of independence.

Second, people are not fully rational.

Third, information is not free. While you might be able to figure out the best deal after hours and hours of research, that research isn't free. It costs time.

Fourth, a rather critical point IMO. Money is a form of power. Putting too much money into too small of hands threatens the free polity. What's the difference between a dictator for life and someone who owns all of the land?

>>2502420
What? I don't follow you at all. I don't see how what I said is inconsistent at all.

Yes government regulated companies and nationalized services are not free markets. They're one opposite of free markets. However, free markets are not always the best approach, such as for roads, telephones, the internet, etc.

>>2502418
>>2502417

the value of goods produced by workers != the value of their act of laboring

what are you marxists? the whole labor theory of value/ expropriation of labor through surplus value hasn't flown in economics for years.

>>2502426
you will never know the economic boom the US had in the 19th century, or the one Hong Kong had after it's independance

>>2502387
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

I see very few markets in which a true monopoly could exist without some government help. In most markets, you have enough investment power within the community to break a monopoly. This is especially true in a world market and in such a dynamic time. If Boeing was the only manufacturer of airplanes and they were overcharging, we could issue stock to a start-up airplane company and begin to compete and take business away. Now Boeing can sell their planes at a reduced price below my company to compete me out of business, or they can shift their focus to a part of the market in which I do not compete with them. Either way, the consumer gets a lower priced product. If I get out-competed, all of my mechanical capital would be on the market for the next start-up to begin even cheaper than I did.

>>2502422

And I supposed the subsequent growth after WWII was caused by busting unions and outsourcing jobs to china?

Think again. That didn't happen for another few decades.

It was Richard Nixon, a CONSERVATIVE, who said "we are all keynesians now."

Funny how the conservatives of yesteryear are far to the left of Obama.

>>2502419
Yes, but that reasoning is flawed. That reasoning, plus full inheritance law, would eventually lead to a single person who owned everything.

As that conclusion obviously needs to be rejected, you need to reject some of the premises. I reject the absolute right to private property.

There's also the issue that money is power. It's asinine to argue that "Oh, it's only bad when he misuses the money, and you should charge him then." That's not the way the world works. He can bribe it, hide it, etc.

Finally, in order for a functioning free polity, you need well educated people, which require good public schools and such, which an overly wealthy man could negatively influence.

>>2502434
they seem to do ok for roads in some instances

i guess i can sum up the way i feel about the matter by saying i'd probably in most instances be more willing to turn over a public organization to the private sector than vice versa.

>>2502435

You don't need a capitalist to run a business, you know. Nor do you need gross inequality.

I don't know why these myths are perpetuated.

>>2502443

Nobody in the US respects Nixon, so I wouldn't quote him.

In the 1950s, we were the world's largest exporter and the world largest creditor nation, so I don't know where you're coming from at all.

>>2502441
I'm using the monopoly term rather loosely.

Let me give you an example. Right now, it's impossible to buy a car without giving away your right to sue the seller for possibly knowingly selling you a faulty car. It's in the fine print.

Another example is cell phones. All modern cell phone carriers in the US come with clauses in their contracts which state that you give up your right to sue over contract disputes and to take contract disputes to the civil courts. Binding "third party" arbitration is used instead. This shit has been upheld by SCOTUS too, hell even reinforced. It's such bullshit.

In short, 5 choices might as well be one sometimes. It's not practical for the discontent people to start up a new car company to sell cars just because they don't like giving up their right to sue the dealerships.

Again, information is not free, there are barriers to entry even absent government interference, like starting up a new car company.

>>2502429
>First, pure free markets cannot exist. There will always be a finite number of buyers and sellers, to varying degrees of independence.

I disagree. Why would a limited market not be a free market in which everyone can make up deals in the manner they desire without a third-party (the state) telling them how it must be done?

>Second, people are not fully rational.

Indeed, this is where companies like apple benefit.

>Third, information is not free. While you might be able to figure out the best deal after hours and hours of research, that research isn't free. It costs time.

Even today there are people that can do the research for you. In the rare case where a market is entirely dominated by one company and there is a competitor that offer a better serivce, this information will run like wildfare to the consumers.

>Fourth, a rather critical point IMO. Money is a form of power. Putting too much money into too small of hands threatens the free polity. What's the difference between a dictator for life and someone who owns all of the land?

For one to own all the land requires millions of people to sell him all the land. It is so immensely unlikely that one insanely rich person would just start buying land out of spite. Also, many of the world's richest people of today have managed to become so rich because they have been favoured by government regulations in their business. When capitalists and politicians no longer dine together and fuck eachothers daughters, there will be a truely free market.

Although, I still hold my point that freedom on the market for everyone to do as they please is not a value that can go before the goal of say, erasing hunger and taking care of our planet.

>>2502456

My point was, even conservatives in that era supported it.

>>2502462
I'm curious if you have any replies to me here:
>>2502460

>>2502465

And look at us now.

>>2502475

Disgusting, isn't it? Like being back in the nineteenth century.

Mass production needs mass consumption. Mass consumption needs a well-paid workforce. A well-paid workforce can't exist if capitalists take most of the money in bonuses or share dividends.

That is my central point here.

>>2502462
>For one to own all the land requires millions of people to sell him all the land. It is so immensely unlikely that one insanely rich person would just start buying land out of spite.
The robber barons of 2 centuries ago would like a word with you. Perhaps not land, but other services and goods yes.

Finally, I guess I accidentally saved my best argument for last. One of the pioneers of private property theory is Locke. He stated that private property is ok, because one person hoarding private property does not impede someone else's ability to acquire private property. He argued that if someone collected a bunch of apples from the woods, and let them waste, that guy would be within his moral rights to deny giving food to the hungry - even if the apples went to waste - because the hungry could go out and gather their own apples.

So, what happens when all of the land is owned? Locke had a convenient excuse back in the day. There was America. All the free farmable land that you could ever want. (It was kind of disingenuous, because getting to America was not free, but it was at least an excuse.) Nowadays, there is no "frontier". All the farmable land is owned. All of the rights to dig up minerals and metals is owned. The enjoyment of private property by one person is the abridgment of private property rights of another. Locke's theory goes to hell in a handbasket.

>>2502468
Since I'm not american I know jack shit about the rules and laws about cars and cellphones in america, but if you're trying to imply that america is in any way a free market you couldn't be more wrong. America is a prime excample of a country in which the capitalists and the people in power positions have bonded together and sit in the same boat.

"The state and the capital sits in the same boat, but it's not them doing the rowing."

>>2502486
Oh, I'm not saying America is currently a free market. There are several important deviations. I've named them.

Of course, how free market are you is just a matter of degree, not a "yes/no" question.

>>2502491
I suppose it is, but when debating liberty I think it's safe to assume that we're talking about a situation where the state exist only to protect it's citizens from outer and inner threads and to be able to uphold contracts.

>>2502484

To add to your points, In Australia we had 'squatters' ie richfags who got into the land grab from the natives and bought up all the best farmland, leaving later settlers without opportunity.

interesting thread

>>2502493
>but when debating liberty I think it's safe to assume that we're talking about a situation where the state exist only to protect it's citizens from outer and inner threads and to be able to uphold contracts.
It's not safe to do that. You immediately conflate liberty aka freedom with libertarianism, which I think are incompatible.

>>2502493
this. i think free-market economics is the only one that complies with classical liberalism (not newfag liberal-socialists). this just me though..

>>2502508
And what you think is false.

>FREEDOM IS SLAVERY DURHURRR

>>2502518
Laissez-faire and libertarianism is not free markets! Please stop conflating the terms!

>>2502508
But are not the people in america that argue for liberty also supporters of the night watchman state? Is there not a consensus among freedom-loving people that the night watchman state provides the maximum liberty of every single person possible? I mean, I guess we have anarchism as well, but come on.

In any case, you probably know american liberty ideals better than I. You crazy goofs actually call the people who support a nanny state 'liberals' and everything is upsidedown etc

>>2502508

classical liberalism is libertarianism minus nafta leniency and such. but libertarianism complies a lot with liberty. if not, why?

>>2502526

anarchism (at least collectivist anarchism, fuck egoists) is the most democratic and free system of government.

Unfortunately, people hate it because they think it means anarchy. And then there is the usual 'hurrdurr evil socialists' bit.

>>2502528
I think government regulation is required to maintain free markets (in the Adam Smith sense of the term), and to prevent too much power (money) from accumulating in too small number of hands, as that is a direct threat to the freedom of the people.

>>2502484
owning all the land doesn't necessarily prevent someone else from acquiring portions of it, the owner will have to give some of it up, but it still can be done. (it will probably be a terrible situation though)

>>2502525
Yes they are.

>>2502546
>the owner will have to give some of it up,
Why? If I was selfish and evil, why would I ever sell some of my land when I own it all?

>>2502541
it's a tricky problem to combat, especially when you live in a society that regards the giving of money as a form of speech, and freedom of speech is valued very highly.

>>2502540
>collectivist
>free
LOL.

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. BLACK IS WHITE.

>fuck egoists

y u mad tho bro

>>2502549
>StormTroll
Wonder where this guy came from.

>>2502541
I seriously think that the definition of a free market has to be that it is a market where supreme individuals are free to strike any agreement they want as long as they both want to and it does not infringe on other people right to life, liberty and property. If a free market is something that is regulated then definition can be skewed to ones own wit into oblivion.

My opinion on the subject: Governments shouldn't be made smaller, rather have less interfering power and be far more geared to providing its citizens with the best services and protective laws as possible. This means that they would have laws to protect consumers and workers from the usual corporate shenanigans but have less power in telling corporations exactly how they should do shit.

Also i don't give a fuck what you say, the taxrate on corporations earning over 500 million a year should be 70% of profits.

>>2502560
But that's not the definition of free market used by economists, tracing back to Adam Smith.

A free market is one with lots of independent buyers and sellers who are free to make trades. It does have the elements that you describe, but if you take those as the absolute values and disregard the "large number of independent buyers and sellers" part, then you get a completely different kind of system in practice, namely very few numbers of buyers and/or sellers.

All of Adam Smith's work works because of that large number of independent buyers and sellers. /That/ is a free market. Learn to econ 101.

>>2502556

go back to /stormfront/ capitalistfag.

>>2502572

Thing is, producers are not individuals, they are companies. That changes things.

>>2502553
having your own personal serfs maybe?

speaking strictly in terms of being free to acquire property, i don't think someone owning all the land makes it impossible for someone else to acquire some, although speaking in real terms it's probably tantamount to violating some kind of freedom, as the circumstances are bound to be horrific.

>>2502579
Theoretically, as long as there are a large number of independent producer companies, it all works out.

10 semi-independent companies is not "large".

>>2502566

I'm in favour of co-operatives and high minimum wages instead of high taxation, but if you've got trillions in deficit, you've got to get the money from somewhere.

>>2502566

Congratulations on killing all business.

Protip: Guess how many companies will have profits over 500mil/year after you pass that legislation.

>>2502586
>high minimum wages
please die in a painful tragedy.

>>2502586
high minimum wages will increase unemployment though.

im not opposed to the idea of cooperatives, i hear some like spain's mondragon do pretty well.

bump for interest.

bump for shit thread

>>2502540
Do you know what the US founding fathers thought of democracy? Let me tell you. Quoting the federalist papers:

>Even if every Athenian was a /Socrates/, every Athenian assembly would still be a /mob/.

We do not live a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. (Well, at least if you're in the US or any western European country.)

/new/ is....

oh right.

>>2502573
Go back to Democratic Underground, nigger loving leftist subhuman.

>>2502628
on 4chon dot net

>>2502601

>high minimum wages
>increase unemployment

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Yeah because businesses can only pay CEOs lots of money.

>>2502646

raising wages above market equilibrium results in a surplus of labor

this is econ 101 stuff bro

>>2502672

Why? Its the perfect solution to welfare dependence. It makes acquiring jobs more attractive.

>>2502672
if wages are not determined by the market, where does extra money come from?

>>2502689
Where they normally come from. It's just that less people are employed if the minimum wage is above the market wage.

Your question might have been rhetorical, and in which case I'm sorry.

>>2502684
but it makes hiring less attractive

>>2502689
not hiring people

>>2502684
It also makes providing a job less attractive.

>>2502689
More productivity.

>>2502697

They have to hire, they're running a business. The expected profit from an expansion will far outweigh the increased cost of wages. I mean, businesses are designed by their founders to operate with a profit margin. More labour, put to good use, can only mean more profits - assuming of course people buy the products.

>>2502706

Umm, no?

The equation is given by MPL = MRP.
When you increase the minimum wage, you decrease the marginal revenue of product, which means that you hire fewer units of labor.

>>2502706
they have to hire sure, but minimum wage forces them to discriminate against people with low skills. demand for labor will decrease, and people will inevitably be unemployed.

>>2502711

So you think that if a business has to raise wages, it will fire a few people to compensate, then make the current workers work longer hours, which are paid for in overtime at a much higher pay rate?

That leads to a bigger cost of labour, not a smaller one. People can't just 'work harder' to compensate.

>>2502720
or they can raise the prices of their goods.

>>2502719

>demand for labour will decrease

Why? The need for labour has not changed one bit. You can't replace workers with thin air. If you are working with a profit margin, and you expand, and hire more workers, no matter how narrow that profit margin is you benefit by hiring more people and expanding production (assuming again people will keep buying products).

>>2502726

Not if other businesses don't. They'll lose sales.

>>2502720

The math disagrees. Productivity has dimishing returns. You just cut down on production and your marginal costs decrease.

Alternatively, you can retain the same number of employees and raise prices.

Even Keynes admitted that by lowering real wages, you had more employment. The only difference was that he used inflation as the tool to lower real wages.

>>2502734

If you cut down on production, your profit decreases.

The only system in which your theory makes sense is when the minimum wage is so high the business is no longer making a profit.

>>2502746

That's what minimum wage does, generally.

Minimum wage is either destructive or useless.

summary of why the american economy caused the collapse.

wall street are really good at bringing people who need money together with people who have money.

wall street gave money to people they knew could never get it back.

they then bundled those securities to disguise that they were essentially worthless and slapped a triple A rating on it to sell at high prices and rake in even more bonuses.

they disguised the bad loans so well they could not distinguish between it themselves and invested heavily in there own bad bundles.

Once this giant ponzi scheme collapsed everyone was out of money and needed a bailout

MFW this confirms how retarded people are.

seriously fail.

>>2502753

You claim ALL minimum wages drive cost of labour so high businesses no longer make a profit?

You know that's not true.

I have a whole bunch of these in my NEW folder

>>2502776
Can you just make an archive and post it to Mediafire or something?

>>2502760

Don't be deliberately obtuse.

If minimum wage is below the market average, nothing happens. For this side, we have chemical engineers. It just doesn't affect them.
If minimum wage is above the market average, it's destructive, either lowering productivity or increasing prices, both of which threaten lower profits. On this side we have dishwashers and fast food kids, where a higher minimum wage can have very bad effects on them.

>>2502786
Will do

>>2502802
Please come back when you have an argument that doesn't rely solely on strawmen.

>>2502802
>implying Obama is libertarian.

>>2502788

>minimum wage workers
>raising the minimum wage has a bad effect on them

Lololololololol

>>2503064
It puts them out of a fucking job, retard.

>>2502760
It reduces the number of workers that can be employed in certain industries. It reduces the products and services that an economy can produce. It harms both consumers and works, because it shuts down businesses. There's a reason there so little manufacturing in the US, and what manufacturing there is is 98% automated.

>>2502776
Holy SHIT you are a fucking idiot.
>implying boss will just accept less money

HURRRR DURRR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

Milton Friedman, bitches.

>>2503122
Youtube commenter put it best: SWEATSHOPS

>>2503071

>fire workers
>pay existing ones expensive overtime to make up for the lost man-hours

Yeah sure is cheaper

>>2503076

The reason there is so little manufacturing in the US is that Asia in general treats their workers like shit, enabling greater profits.

Now if we had a worldwide minimum wage, we wouldn't be engaged in this ridiculous practise of pulling wages down to the detriment of the global economy.

>>2503141

The Youtube commenter has also taken zero economics courses.

Shit, they cover this in week 2 of Econ201.

This is fucking /sci/, where's the intellectuals? All I see are children who can't read even the most basic books or take the simplest classes.

>>2503152
>he thinks economics is a science

>>2503076

>It reduces the number of workers that can be employed in certain industries.

As I mentioned earlier, you'd have to have wages lifted so high the employer no longer makes a profit. To run a business you *need* workers. One cannot do the same work as five, and if you hire the one, profit drops off accordingly with the decrease in production.

>>It reduces the products and services that an economy can produce.

Actually due to increased demand (due to bigger pay packets of the lowest income bracket) it increases the goods and services an economy can consume, and hence allows new growth and increases in production.

>>It harms both consumers and works, because it shuts down businesses. There's a reason there so little manufacturing in the US, and what manufacturing there is is 98% automated.

The problem here isn't the minimum wage but a lack of it. If China had the same working conditions as the west, corporations wouldn't move offshore. And no, industry is not 98% automated. We use machine tools more than robots.

I hate libertarians with shit for brains.

Raising the minimum wage does not directly raise prices. Production costs do not equal or determine prices. The demand for a good determines its price.

Minimum wage laws are obviously bad. If they are effective they create labour shortages, like every other effective price floor.

Economics is a science, an empirical and deductive one. Extremism is stupid, both have their place.

>>2503204
Oh god why did you have to come to /sci/

mothafuckin bump

holy shit, this thread is filled with so much stupid.

Isn't a governemnts job to protect people from corporations?

Also, free markets weren't just saved by massive government bailout?

i hate repuvlicans with shit for brains and fox

We have the two biggest telecommunication advancement because of the government. Satellites enabled cell phones. Government also created the internet. How does this make you feel ronapaulfags?

>>2502355
>>2502355
>his view persists to this day despite the more than 40 years since Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz showed convincingly that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies were largely to blame for the severity of the Great Depression.

You missed the lesson though. They blame the federal reserve because they didn't print enough money. The fed was to blame for the reason a doctor would be to blame for not giving a patient medicine for whatever illness not actually caused by the doctor. They didn't actually cause the depression (that's the free market's fault), but it's they're fault because they could have prevented it.

>>2502776
Learning economics from propaganda posters is pretty similar for kids learning creationism from their comics. These posters are made to mislead uninformed people.

You wouldn't take people, who ignore biology and praise creationism with their simplified arguments, seriously. Yet you put full belief behind other kinds of misleading pictures and comics.

>>2504167

>Isn't a governemnts job to protect people from corporations?
It's the government's job to enforce contracts, keep the peace, and protect citizens from threats foreign and domestic (police and military).
It's the citizen's job to not be retarded and to think before they act. It's an unrealistic expectation, I know, but it's not the government's job to hold the citizen's hand (at least it shouldn't be).

>Also, free markets weren't just saved by massive government bailout?

I would hardly call them free markets. We have a rampant corporatism in the US right now. Corporations aren't bad by themselves, but when they have the opportunity to get in bed with the state, problems happen. Ideally, your government won't even have the scope to give corporations bailouts and special privileges, but once again, we hardly live in a perfect world.

>>2504251
>implying it wouldn't have existed without the government.
Private industry developed electricity, so without that you can kiss the internet and satellites goodbye.

>>2504251
>he thinks satellites have something to do with cell phones
pic related
>>2504270
It wasn't failure to act, they collapsed the money supply by 30% in the fall of 1929. The Fed caused the depression, it was lengthened by the programs that Hoover put in place and Roosevelt expanded.

Also
>regular /sci/tards think rich people's money is sitting in a vault, not being spent on investment goods
pic related

>>2504251

Satellites, cell phones, and the Internet are all profitable enterprises. Free market would have made them if government didn't, and $10 says free market would have done it more efficiently.

Don't forget natural monopolies, guys. Having multiple power lines going to your house, or multiple water pipes and sewage lines, would just be retarded. Basic infrastructure is a natural monopoly, which should not be left to a free market. For everything were competition is feasible, a free market is fine.

IMO, one of government's main functions is to destroy monopolies where they form, and take over where they are inevitable.

>>2505327
>implying the government isn't a monopoly.

>>2505351
And we're all shareholders. That why you get to vote.

>>2505351
Pretty sure he was stating the government should be act as the monopoly for utilities and infrastructure.

>>2505320
Unlikely. For them to have done so they'd need to know at the outset that they would be profitable, and commit themselves to R&D plus implementation costs over the timescale it would take from inception to profitability.

There are many short term business opportunities whose profit potential is more apparent, with lower overhead.

>>2505351
Of course it is. Didn't I say it should take over where monopolies are inevitable anyway? But at least this way we can all vote over what the monopoly does.

>>2505371
>>2505372
>>2505379
>think voting counts.
>think government is for the people.

>>2505389
I understand your concerns. But there is not a better option. Unless you'd like to volunteer one?

>>2505378
>implying the obvious foreseen profit of this wouldn't have been alluring to business.

>>2505401
Most technologies were not "obvious" 50 years beforehand. Hell, not even 20. And yet basic research was needed to pave the way.

>>2505398
>implying we need a government to uphold law.
That's like saying you need a god to be moral.

>>2505408
Not quite. The existence of law requires the existence of government, or else you just have the whims of the biggest local power.

In b4 "same thing".

>>2505406
Guess what, electricity was payed for by private industry and developed over a long period of time but they could still see the obvious benefits.

>>2505414
>implying the government ever enforces the people's laws and not their own rule.
And yes it's exactly the same shit, looking to higher powers for daily conduct is religious.

>>2505419
Electricity (especially electric lights and heat) were obvious expansions of already profitable natural gas networks.

>>2505378

1. Venture capitalism and entrepreneurship, have you heard of it?

2. If what you said is true, we wouldn't even be in horse-drawn carriages. We wouldn't have a lot of our current technology without people taking risks and doing potentially non-profitable things.

>>2505408
No. Just a man with a stick who will forcibly put you in prison if you steal from other people. It's sad to say, but it is necessary for many people.

>>2505441

Arguable. Hindsight is 20/20, and things that appear obvious to us now may not have been so clear back then.

How does natural gas suddenly equal electricity? It took somebody with a crazy idea to try something, and he happened to get lucky.

You guys ITT talking about the great successes of industry in advancing technology aren't talking about basic research. Henry Ford wasn't doing basic research.

>>2505441
No, for a long while electricity was recognized as novelty but private industry payed to develop it further and over time it developed to where it is. AC current didn't always exist and Tesla was funded by private industry to develop it.

>>2505454
There's no evidence that "basic research" makes our lives better.

http://vimeo.com/12598733

>>2505465
>There's no evidence that "basic research" makes our lives better.
OH WHAT THE FUCK

>>2505465

There's a little thing called science you might want to look up. You may have derived a benefit from it at some point.

>>2505465
I listened to that guy's talk. Thirty minutes of rambling horseshit and anecdotes.

>>2505465
That video doesn't ever even imply "basic research" is a bad thing.

>>2505443
It takes one person to invent "a horse pulls a thing" and as soon as you've invented it you have the advantages that a thing being pulled by a horse can provide. It takes a thousand people to invent the what would eventually become the internet and it doesn't become the internet for 30 years.

How many venture capitalists do you know who'll be happy to wait thirty years for a return on their billion dollar investment?

>>2502311

Nope, Ludwig von Mises was economic's Feynman.

But Friedman was nice, too.

Free market is best market. Always.

>>2505514
>Free market is best market. Always.
Except when monopolies are inevitable. Like in basic infrastructure. People who talk in absolutes are generally wrong.

>>2504167

It's governments job to protect your life, liberty and property rights. Government doing anything else does harm to both you and the economy as a whole.

They weren't bail outs on a "free" market, it was a "Corporatist-Shithole" market.

The FED was artificially lowering interest rates and expanding credit - exactly as the Austrian School of Economics predicts causes crisis -, government promised a bail out in case shit hits the fan all along taking away banks's accountability, government's have been running a deficit for DECADES, Federal Code of Regulations expanded in ten thousand pages in the last 30 years ( and Left-Wingers think we've been "deregulating" in the last decades, LOL)... Government's been setting a ticking time bomb since ever.

>>2505550

>Credit crunch
>blame them for expanding credit

That's what you do to PREVENT a depression. You know who was chairman of your central bank? Alan fucking Greenspan, a devoted Monetarist.

>>2505546

Well, alright, WHEN natural monopolies are inevitable, this is true. But if exist is still up for debate.

If you think several different sewer and energy lines would be the market's way of handling basic infraestructure, you lack imagination.

Most likely common "public" energy lines, roads and sewer lines would be owned by Neighbour's Associations of each neighbourhood/city, or something like that. "Privately owned" does not necessarily imply "For profit firm" or "Competition", several "common goods" could be well taken care of by associations whit out the need of the State.

>>2505562

Read Austrian School economics, rather than Monetarist economics. Ludwig von Mises and F.A Hayek mainly.

Credit expansions by a Central Bank inevitably causes credit crunches, because they send false signals into the market and distort the Capital Structure by making entrepreneurs and consumers make Mal-Investments. And after the Crunch has happened, attempting to expand credit again is just gonna re-inflate a new and worse bubble and prevent the Capital Structure from fixing itself. Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

And Alan Greenspan is a fucking hypocrite.

>>2505476
>>2505478
>>2505482
>>2505496
Certified mad

austrian economics is so much pseudoscience it isn't even funny.

>>2505630

>I've seen one or two biased Keynesians claiming the Austrians deny empiricism, and thus, all contributions by Mises and Hayek are wrong.

people in general are way too stupid to handle liberty properly, IT ALWAYS FAILS< AND IT ALWAYS WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL...(until people get a lot smarter, which doesn't seem to be anytime soon)

>>2505713

>I am a pretentious and narcissistic moron who thinks he is better than everyone else, and thus smart people like me should rule over what other people do, because we know what's best for them. Derp.

>>2505630

>waa I can't print more money than I have, austrians are mean

oh god, go to 4chon or something you dumb shits