/sci/ - Science & Math

>doesn't want you to know
This information is out there if you can be bothered searching.
And it's a known fact since Reagen was President he fucked America hard.

That's not what Sean Hannity told me

>>3280365
Pffftttt.....you listen to Hannity? If you really want to know what's going on watch Glenn Beck

oh look, nobody is complaining about these conspiracy theories being on /sci/, surprise-surprise.

I hope you drown in your own bigoted shit /sci/. Then you can have more opportunities to complain about the ignorance surrounding you.

>>3280353
>>3280483
>>3280483
>Oh look, insecure conspiracy nut is upset that no one gives a shit about his bullshit thread and he can't feel superior for spreading the obvious truth that we sheep are too stupid to comprehend

If only there were another party we could vote for that would fix all that.

The GOP would also have you believe the Democrats are trying to raise the debt ceiling.

Why is one party evil and one party nice, and they both prevail equally?

OP thinks that presidents alone create debt
OP is wrong

/sci/ sure is going down the shitter, eh?

>>3280495

Democrats increase spending and increase taxes
Republicans cut taxes and increase spending

The only reason one party prevails is over moral issues, not economic. Both campaign on ideals, but few are economically valid. Republicans campaign on family values, but their only justification is scripture.

Democrats support progressive causes like increasing the minimum wage. But minimum wage increases unemployment.


Libertarian is the only logical choice. but its a pretty diverse party with no real leaders.

>>3280518
Amen

>>3280483
This is not a conspiracy theory. Everything he said is true. Of course Republicans dont want anybody to know about their actual policies and votes. The Democrats are the exact same way. Sit down one day and look at what we fund. Check out the programs you dont recognize. Note the votes.

Both parties rely on partisanship to put forth cosmetic and often incohherent programs and policies and hide behind smokescreen issues. I do not know if its a purposeful and directed effort or the result of so many individual interests clashing against eachother. But that is how the country operates.

Many of these representatives are either incompetent or willfully ignore meaningful discourse in favour of marketing strategies.

Once you have begun to read bills and taken a look at the existing departments and programs you will begin to notice a pattern of redundant beaucracies and policies.

Pay particular attention to funding, always.

This negligence is enabled in part by a media comprised of entities that vie for access to these representatives, and feed them softball questions. Propaganda by way of ommission. This is likely not even deliberate (generally) but is merely a symptom of the media propagating itself in the most efficient way possible.

>>3280518
>Libertarian is the only logical choice. but its a pretty diverse party with no real leaders.

right, because removing all restrictions on big business would world out so well for everyone overall

civil liberties, sure
handing over free reign to greedy bastards with disproportionate power... how fucking stupid are you?

the sad thing is that you've been taking it up the arse for so long that you don't even know you're getting raped anymore... that's the only way you could be stupid enough to suggest opening up your anus to a no holds barred gangbang

Taxes need to be increased but nobody running for office would ever run on that idea.

People are too scared to lose an extra dollar off their paycheck to help their own country out.

I favor a tiered flat tax as well.

>>3280488
I've had plenty of threads get sufficient attention but usually I've found I need to cater to the sensational shit rather than issues which really matter in order to get 200+ replies; in fact, the one about the United Nations, contributions and national debts was deleted and got me banned.

..and really, I'm not upset or insecure about my cherry picked conspiracies presumably getting less attention or recognition, I'm pissed off in general at the paradigm which is reinforced. I'm not hip to all the cognitive bias lingo but it's apparent, just as it was on /new/, that people just entertain what validates their biases.

>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
/sci/ don't do this, they just regurgitate popular opinions for whatever reasons, I'm pretty sure there are a lot.

>>3280547

Read all those books, then talk to me about economics.

The most basic grounded book for starters is 'Economics in one Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. 'Human Action' by Ludwig von Mises and 'Man, Economy and State' by Murray Rothbard (this might or might not include 'Power and Market', depending on the edition) are works on individual human methodology, and how that translates into economics. 'Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis' by Ludwig von Mises is a refutation of socialism, Marxist and otherwise, in all its branches (the economic refutation I endorse, but the social and cultural refutations are not very perspicacious, and are outdated too, since the first version of the book is 90 years old). As far as pure hard economics go, the seminal works are 'Principles of Economics' by Carl Menger and the multivolume 'Capital and Interest' by Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, which has very important ideas on the importance of time and time preference in economics (see interest rates).

Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned. Things that make a society non-capitalistic

1. A fiat currency
2. A property tax making true ownership impossible
3. Barriers to entry into fields of private business (we could get into specifics here and at number 4, but it's really not necessary)
4. Barriers to entry in fields controlled exclusively by the government (which is different from 3 in that competition in these areas are only considered private if they were able to exist)
5. Government favoritism in business
6. intellectual property rights

So. please, don't go letting modern non-examples ruin your perspective on capitalism.

Unfortunately you have lived in a society that doesn't have a free market. The large corporations are protected under government laws. The very fact that you use such strong and perverse language suggests to me that you are young and feel strongly about this. Get educated before you spout insults

>But minimum wage increases unemployment.

[Citation Needed]

>>3280573

According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.

Kearl, J. R., et al., “A Confusion of Economists?” American Economic Review 69 (1979)

>>3280553
you speak of the board that must never be named!

halt at once lest it reincarnate and bring much devastation and ruin to our peaceful realm!

social democrats have the right idea. Socialist ideals put into a capitalist system to wean it off it's crack pipe. And socially liberal to boot., obviously.

I think the downfall of American society is the still brainwashed baby boomers and their children are still so afraid of socialism that they will do anything to keep away from it. It's sad when a good idea is wrapped up into a shitty arms race that wasn't even a real arms race or threat to either society

>>3280596

It's still fairly sensationalist with the Baby-boomers, but they still have the right idea. But i'm wont attack a phantom target(honestly because most people on 4chan don't really know what socialism really is), what is YOUR idea of socialism?

>>3280573
He is working off the assumption that companies will try and keep payroll the same cost after a minimum wage increase by laying people off.

I would say its more likely that they would just increase prices but that's just based of my experiences in life.

The majority of power is in the congress, not the president. Goddamn fucking kids.

http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php

>>3280606
basically it is an economic ideology in which the people have as much say in the company they work for as anyone else. Though thats very broad. The easiest way to explain it is simply a system built to recgonize that economics cannot be distributed by the few but the many. And thus, workers rights, and eventually social rights would match that of the rich.

The whole evil that stems from socialism is actually taking dictatorships as being a part of socialism. It isn't but some force socialism on a nation instead of allowing the people to except it.

I fucking told youse guys! Fucking A! You pricks are gonna kill /sci/ by bringing this shit here!

>>3280585
see that's the point, I hope it does wreck all hell on /sci/ because there's nothing left to salvage anymore. All these facists need to have a little more self-reflection and /sci/ getting deleted will do just that or it'll send them scattering to boards of lesser consequence.

>>3280642


The moment you try to impose this system upon all of the economy and Collective the means of production (which is what a lot of the "Anarcho"-Socialists and "Libertarian" Socialists want), you end up with de facto State ownership and economic planning.

Also, the idea of "Wage slavery" is just a myth based on the unscientific Labor Theory of Value, and has already been debunked by the Theory of Marginal Utility and the Time Preference Theory of Interest.
>mises.org/daily/1680

Entrepeneurs do an important service to workers, giving then a wage before the output they helped to produce could create an income, taking most of the risks over savings/Capital goods, collecting information and acting upon risks and helping to make the design of the products sold - the REAL source of value, as it gives Marginal Utility to the products. Wage-Relations are a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If the workers do not like this arrangement and want something better, they are free to form their own Worker-Cooperatives/Mutual-Aid Societies, lend their wages at an interest ( to get the "full product of their labor" as Marx would put it) or even attempt to become Entrepeneurs. The only things preventing them from doing so are the State and the fact that most workers simply do no want this, due to their high time preference.

>>3280642

This. Leninists and their anti-democratic vanguard parties are all anyone ever thinks about when the word 'socialism' pops up.

Industrial democracy, Worker cooperatives etc are examples of a fairer system.

Just as capitalism is when the means of production are owned by capitalists, socialism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. More specifically, *the workers who operate them*.

>>3280666

And here we see the austrian school of economics talking about unscientific practices. The irony is delicious.

HERP DERP COLLECTIVES MUST ALWAYS DICTATORSHIPS. DURR I can't think of any way a group of people might decide on something without a boss.

>>3280663
why you trying to kill /sci/?!

It's fucking on now chaps!

Shit just got ℝ!

if you look at economics, capitalism is an evolutionary jump from when economics was a problem of royalty and they controlled everything. But, as is being shown. capitalism makes many small kings and many more poor. Socialism isn't another ideology, its the next step in economic evolution. A system can only continue to increase for so long, or, like a machine, it will break down.

We may eventually come to terms with this, or we may fall by the wayside while countries that are implementing socialist ideas into their societies begin to flourish

>>3280666

You admit yourself by acknowledging cooperatives that entrepreneurs are unnecessary. What are they getting paid for, if decisions can be made democratically?

And if they are employed in the capacity of a professional, not a capitalist, why are they recieving such a disproportionate share of the profits? And why are they praised for decreasing their fellow workers' share of the profits in relation to their own?

>>3280682

And you would suppose that non-Austrian is somehow scientific? They're models are correct, but their implication is demonstrably been shown to be abused. Collectives don't work and have never been shown to work for any period of time. You like to assume the very best in humanity but neglect the other tendencies we have.

Libertarian fucktards are here, thread over, everyone go home.

>>3280698

Because they exclusivity benefit/determent from loss or gains in profits. If the factory loses money its the factory owner who will feel the first squeeze.

>>3280711

Do you have something to say? I expect the same discourse from someone in high-school.

>>3280701

>>collectives never work.

Oh my. I'll get a list.

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

The largest one is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

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

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

Couldn't find any links for the pre-bolshevik Petrograd Soviet, but they had similar ideals.

As for 'non-austrian' being scientific, that's too broad a class for a single answer. I'm surprised you'd denounce neo-classical economics as being unscientific, given the strong ideological connections.

Anyways, tu quoque doesn't improve the situation of the austrian school. All you have is a bunch of post hoc rationalizations, coupled with some revisionist history where the great depression and central banks are concerned.

GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO!

>>3280718
>If the factory loses money its the factory owner who will feel the first squeeze.

That's why all there are all those homeless CEOs right? The ones who didn't get millions while their companies crumbled

oh wait

>>3280723
Funny you should say that, given that "libertarians" are nearly always high school faggots.

Sage this shit. Sage it to the high heavens!

>>3280738

To be fair they have some really buttfuck old dlinosaur leaders.

Too bad they're just paleoconservatives stringing them along.

>>3280726

I knew i should have said in the long run, and by which standards. If by "work" you mean just exist than yes, workers collectives exist. Do they succeed as well as non-collective arrangement, i would certainly say not.

>>3280727

There are plenty of examples of large corporations that bit the dust. Wal-Mart is begging to slowly lose it footing to Amazon.com and Target. A vast majority of small business owners will see their paychecks drop the moment they don't make sound decisions.

GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO! GTFO MAH SCI! DON"T KILL THIS BOARD TOO!

>>3280738

actually we're more characterized by white rich men 30-60

>>3280754
how many workers are employed by wal-mart?

Do you think they, or the ceo would suffer more. Everyone that is payed on such an unequal balance will skate by such a catastrophe. There is barely anything in place to help the real workers.

Also, read up on bonuses and taxing of bonuses. Oh wait, those millions of dollars that could help unemployment aren't taxable. YAY!

>>3280754

Ah, but here we come to different definitions of 'success'.

A co-op's goal is to provide for its workers. A corporation's goal is to make its share price go up.

If all the examples were broken down failures you'd be justified, however they are not.

And remember, *all* new businesses in a market economy have a high chance of failure.

>>3280762

>sageing while also posting a picture

Every libertarian needs to watch this, this is what happens when you give private business free reign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Im9W4gwNc

>>3280762
you know I hate when people bring up jared loughner because he's basically a federalist's wet dream come true (fills them with all sorts of magical meaning and purpose in life) but that last panel makes that shit really fucking funny.

>>3280783

Your problem is with government tax loopholes, not with free market principles.

>>3280785

A society built on innovation and progress doesn't relegate its resources evenly. If Bill Gates was part of a collective, his ideas for an operating system might have come to existence. To ignore the opportunity costs i feel would be too much.

>>3280785
a share price. It doesn't have a social value to the country, if anything, it's just legal betting on people. It is sad to see that we are still worried about this instead of the fact that the country is in shambles because THIS is all they cared about

GTFO MAH BOARD! DON"T KILL THIS SCI TOO!

>>3280798

If you think free market principles created the 2008 economic crisis you would be mistaken. The government subsided sub-prime home loans. Coupled with the fed's artificially low interest rates. Wall street sucked up those bad loans, repackaged them, and spread them around the market. Would those bad loans have existed without government interference? I would say yes, but not in that abundance.

GTFO MAH KILL! DON"T SCI THIS BOARD TOO!

>>3280801
no, capitalism, the way it is taught in business schools, is a game of sharks. Algorithms to find a way to screw people, bribes to get politicians on your side, and the fucking bonuses called business expenses so they can't be taxed. It is the capitalist ideal that is harsh, especially with nothing to rein it in. Hence, the call for regulations, which is just another way of introducing socialism. Either way you look at it, socialism is a must in modern society.

>>3280827

I already stated this,but ill do it again

Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned. Things that make a society non-capitalistic

1. A fiat currency
2. A property tax making true ownership impossible
3. Barriers to entry into fields of private business (we could get into specifics here and at number 4, but it's really not necessary)
4. Barriers to entry in fields controlled exclusively by the government (which is different from 3 in that competition in these areas are only considered private if they were able to exist)
5. Government favoritism in business
6. intellectual property rights

>>3280801

So we've moved on to innovation. Excellent.

Firstly I should point out that it is not only necessary to have a good idea, you need to work at it. Programming an operating system is a very complex, time consuming and exacting task.

Secondly, the necessary paradigms, GUIs, shells, mouse cursors etc were invented far before Bill Gates, and the inventors didn't take a licensing fee. Why should they? They got first use of their idea through their work, and then the knowledge got to be used by anyone.

We have linux, a set of operating systems, some of which are created free of charge. All the source code for linux is available to anyone who cares to try.

Go to any writer, artist, publisher or programmer, and try to get them to pay for an idea. No one will. Ideas are ten a penny.

If you're talking about the more detailed process of design, that's a form of labour.

>>3280834

Nothing that you said goes against capitalism at all. You're starting to sound more like Ayn Rand.

>>3280842

I'm arguing more specifically against the idea that people should be rewarded far more for ideas instead of putting them into action.

You'll have to supply me with the quote where ayn rand says people will innovate without the ability to exploit workers in putting the idea into practise.

I highly doubt the bitch wrote anything like it.

>>3280857

The concept is that they where doing what they wanted to do, by their own accord, for their own reasons. It doesn't matter if profit is involved or not. The founder of Wikipeida is an Objectivist, and supplying that free service is in complete compliance with his ideals.

>>3280822
Why don't you watch it before making assumptions as to what it's about?

>>3280831

All false by your own definition.

Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned.

1. A fiat currency - IRRELEVANT
2. A property tax making true ownership impossible - IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP
3. Barriers to entry into fields of private business (we could get into specifics here and at number 4, but it's really not necessary) - IRRELEVANT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
4. Barriers to entry in fields controlled exclusively by the government (which is different from 3 in that competition in these areas are only considered private if they were able to exist) - If there are no private businesses in the sector, then the SECTOR is not capitalist, however this is irrelevant to the rest of the economy.
5. Government favoritism in business - IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
6. intellectual property rights - STRENGTHENS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL INSTEAD OF WEAKENING IT

>>3280875

Are you being serious?

>>3280869

"If Bill Gates was part of a collective, his ideas for an operating system might have come to existence. To ignore the opportunity costs i feel would be too much."

This is the quote I was arguing against. The argument was that people don't innovate in a collective because they have no incentive.

Or did I misinterpret that.

>>3280892

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

This might help.

>>3280892

Yup. I suppose i should clarify. Not everyone innovates for money(as you pointed out), but many people do. And for that reason we have Henry Ford, and individual who changed the world for profit. And Albert Einstein, and individual who changed the world of physics because he simply wanted to. You might be hasty to throw away the incentive to create, just because there is a laundry list of individuals who didn't do it for a profit.

>corporations buy politicians because politicians have the power to regulate businesses
>libertarians want to remove the incentive to buy politicians, by removing their power over the economy
>other people think the politicians that are bought and sold actually keep corporate power checked instead of exacerbating it

>>3280902
you are confusing socialism with communism. Please learn the difference, it's a necessity in this day in age to know that they may be close in background but differ greatly.

If you really want to know what's going on, you should watch television and let it tell you your opinions and beliefs.

Oh, wait, my mistake, that's BULLSHIT.

>>3280917

Socialism has a state: the means to production are commonly owned

communism is stateless: the means of production are also commonly owned

they are very different, but i'm addressing both.

>>3280917
Socialism
>an economic system where the means of production are collectively owned
Communism
>fairy dust and unicorn tails

>>3280902

They'd still profit from their idea, but they'd have to work to put it into practise as well, and they'd share it with their fellow workers.

On the other hand, they are secure in the knowledge that if anyone else has an idea to improve the company, they will share it as well. If they keep this in mind, everyone's ideas benefit everyone.

Finally, it's even possible for a collective to give incentives for good ideas. They just wouldn't venture near the lion's share of the profit that characterizes capitalist entrepreneurship.

>>3280915
Aye... all of them are controlled by corporate powers, the same corp powers pull on all sides, they run it, lead it, make the laws, rules, they start/profit from the wars, they increase or lower our taxes, they control the local/state and fed, they created all the regulation we have today, they pushed it through, they allowed it... our gov has zero control at any level anymore, actually... most gov's don't.

The corp is the only person in America that can break laws, over and over and over and over and over and over again, help enemies, give them weapons, they can directly kill Americans and have... and never go to jail for it - if they are in the power seat!

They are the power holders... everyone else pulls the strings for them.
_________________

>>3280928

At this point i think you and i differ in opinion about how people work. Newton horded his theories for years and didn't share it with a soul. Again, i think you assume the best in people, but ignore the very real tenancies we all share. I'm not sure Newton would have done all the work he did if he had to share it every step of the way.

Libertarians, I doubt very few amungst you actually understand economics at all, A free market is, perhaps only possible in what we call a "Free State" or a Archo-Capitalist way, you'll see many of the Major Economists promote this, as it is the only way of obtaining a truly "Free" Market. Lee Rockwell, Murray Rothbard. Libertarian philosophy is utterly retarded down to the fundamental level. It is impossible to maintain what we call a "Free" society, therefor it is safest, and smartest to operate under a mixed economic plan, If you look at the Keynesian model it provides the best financial and the most economic, as with logical social freedoms that help generate an effective economy. Even if you could somehow manage a free state, It would have to be a world wide thing, because free states would be destroyed, and even then you'd have to take in to account the technological factor of rapid globalization. Libertarians pretending to know a thing about the economy is utterly pitiful and insults me greatly.

one of my favorite Vonnegut books

>>3280937

Keynesian models do work in the short run, but spell disaster in the long run with nasty periods of stagflation. Libertirans generally support a national defense, its not a stateless society where nothing but the market exists. libertarians generally support a government that protects contracts, upholds law against violence, and protects the national boarders.

>>3280937
Which nation runs their economy most closely in line with your preferred method?

Also there's no reason to believe a free state couldn't maintain a similar level of defense as a current nationstate.

>then you'd have to take in to account the technological factor of rapid globalization

Either doesn't mean anything or means something that is wrong

if the times hsow anything, libertarianism is the least likely to work. Society is growing, reverting back to a pack mentality makes no sense

simply put, world economics will go like this if humans evolve rationally

social democracy
socialism
communism

>>3280954
Hot damn your an idiot, Kenysian planning does work, in fact if you would read "General Theory Of Employement interest, and money" You'd realize the whole point of the Kensyian model is to provide subsides to create a financially medium nation, with security. And I wasn't talking about libertarian philosophy because Libertarains advocate a "Free Market" and that is only established in a "Free State" look to Semi-Libertarian authors like Lee Rockwell or Murray Rothbard if your so damn insistent on this, they clearly show the only established way for a free market is with the free state. This "Free State" is the hypothetical utopian dream the libertarian movement is coated under you twat. Look at Ron Paul's inspirations, you'll find many of them will trace back to Lee Rockwell and Murray Rothbard.

>>3280969
>world economics will go like this
There's no reason to believe that.
>if humans evolve rationally
They don't.

>>3280972

Even Keynes didn't agree with his theories past the great depression. Read the last paper he ever wrote.

Name-calling isn't going to get you very far

>>3280964
First off, the reason that a "free state" can't manage itself defense is the whole nation isn't unified under a purpose or a government at all. Because of this, many corporations will be "Lured" in to this system so they can exploit the governmental system put in place. It is best for the Corporation to side "With" government, not against it. That's why Civil defense can't be maintained by the "Free state" this issue has been discussed to death.

>>3280569

financefag here, you're being all condescending and as such i want to point out that you sound like an undergraduate student in economics

>>3280981
how could humans successfully create a stable world economy?

thats the only reason i see it going that way.

>>3280518
>Republicans cut taxes and increase spending
no
bush was not the norm, he spend like a democrat and ran like a republican, a very strange mixture

>>3280972
>plans always achieve their stated purpose
lol

Also it's Lew Rockwell, not Lee, and he isn't an economist
Also Rothbard is on the extreme end of the libertarian spectrum and many people who would subscribe to the label libertarian would support the minimum state that they view necessary

>>3280983
Oh come on, he was critiquing how his theories were being abused not the legitimacy of his theories. The Great Depression in fact was the testament of proof to his subsidizing theory. Unless your willing to show me where exactly he detests his own theory, which I won't mind.

>>3280996
Dry neckbearded presentation, just like /sci/ is used to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBavo8IIVCM

>>3281005

I already told you, read his last paper. And as for " The Great Depression in fact was the testament of proof to his subsidizing theory", that is far from the consensus among economists

>>3280996
Worked for Reagen.

>>3280985
Dude you are making no fucking sense here, go argue on a message board in your own language

This whole thread is a bunch of gay ass college marxists arguing arbitrary theory with some gay ass college capitalists. Sorry but actual finance is not dictated by theory and you can evidence the recent staggerings by the bernank to this. Soooo engaging in this sort of discussion seems pointless right?

>>3281015
Consensus amongst Economists? It's a well known fact that through Keynesian planning cut short the depression. You can look at the fucking charts to see why. Subsidizing works, it's why each U.S President that's implemented it has decreased the federal deficit. I'm sorry but the facts don't necessarily Coraline with your point of view. (I'm sorry for my English, I do not speak it)

>>3281040
In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed. Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement "with provisos" (a conditional stipulation), while 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright

Lowell E. Gallaway and Richard K. Vedder argue that the "Great Depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of New Deal programs." They suggest that without Social Security, work relief, unemployment insurance, mandatory minimum wages, and without special government-granted privileges for labor unions, business would have hired more workers and the unemployment rate during the New Deal years would have been 6.7% instead of 17.2%.[87] In reply, Brad DeLong, economics professor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers wrote that there is "literally nothing" to the arguments made by Gallaway and Vedder, and the duo made "flawed conclusions" based on "flawed foundations", and the entire foundation "is made out of mud".

Why don't you socialist bastards start a worker cooperative then? They are fully legal in every western country.