>>3933494 Why do Eurofags and easterners have a disdain phobia of capitalism? Why must they sacrifice their complete freedom and liberty for the sake of inane equality that doesn't even qualify under the definition of "equality?" Why are people so dumb over in those parts of the world?

File: 45 KB, 426x282, hrmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 04:46:23 2011 No.3937055 [Reply] [Original]

>>3933494

Why do Eurofags and easterners have a disdain phobia of capitalism? Why must they sacrifice their complete freedom and liberty for the sake of inane equality that doesn't even qualify under the definition of "equality?" Why are people so dumb over in those parts of the world?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 04:49:23 2011 No.3937059

Ive got a french professor who believes Europe is more capitalistic. He makes a good case, not that I have any real data in front of me.

The idea is that having more regulations on a market doesnt make it less capitalistic. You are just defining the legal and property rights a different way.

It would be uncapitalistic demonstrate favoritism in an economy, like with subsidies and bailouts in the US

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 04:51:23 2011 No.3937063 >>3937059 I thought we already separated definitions of capitalism into terms like "American capitalism," "European capitalism," "Russian capitalism," etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 04:56:23 2011 No.3937073 Once all your resources are consumed. There will be no more capitalism

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 04:57:23 2011 No.3937074 It is not a disdain of capitalism to not let it run over all other social institutions and contracts. YOU JUST LOST THE GAME

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 04:59:23 2011 No.3937080 >>3937073 >once the moon turns into cheese, the problem of famine will be solved

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 05:01:23 2011 No.3937083

>>3937063

Whats the difference? I mean if you conventionally said "American capitalism" or "european capitalism" I might know what you are talking about. But capitalism really only has one definition, or at least, it should.

That definition is that property rights are well defined and that property is privately owned. I think its implied that people have some amount of freedom with that property, but that amount of freedom is vague.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:01:23 2011 No.3937086 >>3937074 It is disdain, a socialist disdain against freedom and liberty in general. It's disdain from people and government who hate your freedom, it's all it is.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:02:23 2011 No.3937087

>>3937073
> Once all your resources are consumed. There will be no more capitalism

Close. We've run out of Cheap Oil, and by no mean coincidence the Western World is in a fairly deep Depression. And once we run out of Not-So-Cheap Oil, then this thing called "capitalism" itself will pretty much vanish, to be replaced a particularly violent Fascism as people scrabble and engage in warfare over the remaining fields of oil that CAN be exploited.

And all that will seem fairly tame once Expensive Oil becomes the only possible future for Mankind. At the end of that era, after the Resource Wars savage Mankind and the kilodeaths have turned into megadeaths, then the remaining lords of the earth will plan and enact the Last War, and the megadeaths will turn into gigadeaths, and Humanity itself (those who survive the nuclear and biological weapons) will have to devolve all lifestyles back to the Pastoral Era.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:04:23 2011 No.3937091

>>3937086
> It is disdain, a socialist disdain against freedom and liberty in general.

You never actually HAD the freedom to run over all social institutions and contracts with your unquenchable lust for money. People who do that, are sensibly labeled SOCIOPATHS, and eventually we arrest them for their behavior and throw them in jail where they truly belong. So goes your future.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:05:23 2011 No.3937095

>>3937083
>Whats the difference?
American capitalism would be more on the "pure free market" side that wants to keep as little regulation and government intervention as possible in it. European capitalism would be more what was stated in >>3937059, where profits would be allowed so as long as it doesn't imbalance the market or fuck with the lives of the general public. Russian capitalism? Well taking 1990-2005 Russian as a source of information, Russian capitalism would generally just be a mafia rule and/or crimes for profit go unpunished.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:07:23 2011 No.3937102 File: 37 KB, 553x484, 1318141196832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3937087 >like that would ever happen

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 05:11:23 2011 No.3937108 The systems of France, Germany and Scandinavia work fairly well for them. One might better ask why do Americans have such a phobia of social democracy?

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:14:23 2011 No.3937115

>>3937102
> like that would ever happen

There are billions of people alive today on the planet who are ONLY alive due to a massive and petroleum-fueled and -fertilized agricultural system. And that only happened since oil was so cheap. In the Not-So-Cheap Oil era, that will change a lot, and then our violent simian heritage will become fully expressed as those billions fight to survive.

Oh YES it's going to happen, assqueer.

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 05:16:23 2011 No.3937119 >>3937115 If the shortage gets that serious we'd just lift the drilling restrictions on Antarctica. We won't run out of oil in our lifetime. Personally I think it's quite likely we'll eliminate our dependence by then.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:27:23 2011 No.3937146

For fuck's sake.

America stands for ultimate freedom to succeed or fail on your own accord without the government interfering.

Certain Euro countries believe in the welfare state, where the government babysits the individual, taxing the well-to-do more to provide safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

Both systems work for their respective nations, just so long as the people there like it the way it is. We have no reason to go and fuck with the way things are.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:33:23 2011 No.3937165

>>3937146
>America stands for ultimate freedom to succeed or fail on your own accord without the government interfering.

except the government does interfere. there is welfare, public education, etc

the differences are small between europe and usa, it's just the usa shouts a lot about how they aren't

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:40:23 2011 No.3937169 >>3937165 true, some parts of the european union have a lower tax take than usa

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 05:42:23 2011 No.3937171 >>3937169 This really depends on the tax right? There are lots of kinds of taxes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:44:23 2011 No.3937175 Sweden here, not at all jelly of America. Only things that bugs me is that the lazy cunts who abuse the system without ever wanting a job can do it all day long, that should be fixed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 05:47:23 2011 No.3937178 >>3937171 no, total tax take as a % gdp is an even and fair measure. it shows how much government gets to spend rather than individuals and companies

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 05:57:23 2011 No.3937201 >>3937178 Its not a perfect measure, but wikipedia shows that the UK, germany, france, and many other european countries have a higher government spending / GDP than the US

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:04:23 2011 No.3937208 >>3937201 uk, luxembourg have about the same, if you look at corporate tax as well as personal. ireland is lower. most places higher the point is it's just a question of degree, not "we are free, europe isn't" the point

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 06:09:23 2011 No.3937211 >>3937208 I dont think the difference between the US and Europe is a quantitative degree of freedom. I never suggested a gradient or binary of freedom between the US and Europe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:13:23 2011 No.3937215 >>3937211 OP did

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:16:23 2011 No.3937219

>>3937073

>Once all your resources are consumed. There will be no more capitalism

Oil was considered a worthless waste product when first encountered.

Technology and human action is what makes things worthwhile.

The idea that we are close to depleting resources is laughable at best. We have barely scratched the surface.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:17:23 2011 No.3937223

Swedefag here. Sweden is a country that has been working pretty well with a semi-socialist (calling sweden a socialist state is plain dumb) system, but now in the present day economy, it needs to be toned down.

Thats why we elected the moderate party, which is pretty much lead by a geniousub economics and politics. The opposition gets so stumped trying to find insults for this guy that the only thing they can find on him is that he kinda resembles the dad of an old swedish cartoon character called alfons åberg.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:19:23 2011 No.3937226 >>3937223 >geniousub genious in*

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:19:23 2011 No.3937228 >>3937223 Anders Borg is our dark knight

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:19:23 2011 No.3937229 >>3937223 Sweden is not, in any way, a socialist state. You are a capitalist state that extracts high taxes from the markets to fund social goods and distributive programs. A socialist state would be North Korea.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:20:23 2011 No.3937231
File: 328 KB, 1000x753, havanakong.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>disdain phobia of capitalism
There are always exceptions to the rule but in this case the exceptions are a little too extreme to be discounted so easily.

Hong Kong and Singapore are about as closest humanity has come to achieving Ayn Rand's vision of a utopia, Shanghai and the rest of the asian tigers cut close and compose a significant proportion of however many trillions of orientals there are now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:21:23 2011 No.3937232 >>3937228 So true.

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:23:23 2011 No.3937235 >>3937223 The problem with Sweden is that you are a feminized culture. I laugh whenever I read about another crazy feminist law being enacted by sweden.

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 06:25:23 2011 No.3937237 >>3937231 Singapore? The state owns maybe half the economy... I do not understand why people try to use East Asia as an argument for Laissez-Faire. It's a better example of mercantilism for the modern world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:25:23 2011 No.3937238 >>3937235 Uh, such as? Lived in three countries in Europe and never had a problem with feminism in Sweden, other than seeing the odd retard in the feminist party (which is irrelevant and not in power of any kind) on TV.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:26:23 2011 No.3937239 >>3937235 >oh look, i'm a dick

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:26:23 2011 No.3937240 >>3937235 Funny thing about Sweden: a woman can withdrawal her consent anytime after she's had sex with you. So at any time, you're potentially going to go to jail for rape.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:27:23 2011 No.3937244 >>3937240 That's the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:27:23 2011 No.3937246

>>3937235
Depends on what kind of feminist. Feminism is fully compatible with capitalawesome, our great multi-national corporations who are hurtling towards creating a global hegemony need the best human resources possible, only the most simple administrations view labor as a fungible commodity and this kind of bullshit needs to be exterminated along with socialists and hipsters.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:28:00 2011 No.3937247 [DELETED]

File: 14 KB, 266x312, keynes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3937055

>mfw only retards, americans and communists still use the words 'capitalism' and 'socialism'

no one is scared of capitalism; every western country is a capitalist country (varying degrees of welfare capitalism, the most sensible form of capitalism)

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:30:23 2011 No.3937249

>>3937244
it is, but what he's saying is pretty much true, it's just that said woman is going to need a pretty good reason to withdrawal her consent in order for it to go through to the police, like say she caught something from you and you knew you had it before having the sex

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:30:23 2011 No.3937250 >>3937240 No, dipshit, that's WHILE she's having sex with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:31:23 2011 No.3937254 >>3937250 No, they can withdrawal it after the sex and it would still qualify as rape under their laws.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:31:23 2011 No.3937255

>>3937237

Probably because it is one of the least regulated markets in the world.

As for the state owning half the economy, do you have a source for that? It owns stakes in many firms due to its sovereign wealth fund, but is different than state ownership or control.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:32:23 2011 No.3937257 >>3937250 or, rather, I should say, not. Not in your case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:33:23 2011 No.3937258 >>3937254 And a guy can do the same thing, funny how this never goes to court.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:34:23 2011 No.3937260 >>3937254 nope

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:34:23 2011 No.3937261 >>3937258 >implying guys can be raped by women I just don't see how that can even happen, and why he would report it if it did, fucker still got laid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:34:23 2011 No.3937264 >>3937260 Well then, you're completely wrong here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:35:23 2011 No.3937265 >>3937255 ownership is control you retard. even if power is not exercised, it still exists

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:35:23 2011 No.3937266 >>3937261 There was some girls charged with rape last year afaik, the crime is a crime regardless of gender. Admittedly these cases are really rare and it has to be the most embarrassing thing to report.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:37:23 2011 No.3937269 >>3937250 you're confusing Swedish rape laws with general rape laws across the world. sexual partners can still egress their consent to the act after it has taken place if they had a reason for it like catching a disease or blackmailing

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:37:23 2011 No.3937270 >>3937264 nope. if you are talking about the assange case, it's been laughable reported.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 06:38:23 2011 No.3937271

>>3937255

Wikipedia seems to agree with me:
>Singapore has a highly developed state capitalist mixed economy; the state owns stakes in firms that comprise perhaps 60% of the GDP through entities such as the sovereign wealth fund Temasek

And the fact that this is not direct control doesn't matter. It's still intervention on a massive scale. Especially if you consider the history of Singapore in particular - "guided" capitalism is hardly Laissez-Faire.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:38:23 2011 No.3937273 >>3937270 >if you are talking about the assange case The what now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:38:23 2011 No.3937275 >>3937270 That's probably because Julian can't get laid worth shit.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:39:23 2011 No.3937276

>>3937265

Actually no. Ownership by a minority shareholder is not control.

Furthermore, investing sovereign surplus in ownership share of private corporations does not make a government socialist as long as they do not use sovereign power to favor that company or control the market for that company's partisan advantage.

They are just another entity in the market competition. That is perfectly fine in capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:39:23 2011 No.3937277 >>3937273 Wikileaks guy, I can't believe he used that as an example as the evidence for everything is sketchy as fuck and no one is charged.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:41:23 2011 No.3937282 >>3937270 >assange case well that's random and sloppily chosen example

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:41:23 2011 No.3937284 >>3937240 withdrawing of consent after rape is not allowed. however consent given may not be consent at all, for instance it may have been given under duress, or obtained fraudulently .

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 06:43:23 2011 No.3937290

>>3937276

It's mathematically impossible to own half the economy and be a minority shareholder throughout. And no one claimed Singapore was socialist. It's the East Asian brand of capitalism, having more in common with Mussolini's Corporatism than anything else. Certainly nothing in common with the wet dreams of Rand.

And seeing how this entity gets to set the laws and tax the people, this isn't exactly the same as any other competitor. No, it is not in line with Laissez-Faire.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:47:23 2011 No.3937295 >>3937290 >having more in common with Mussolini's Corporatism than anything else Because it's not the same everywhere in the wolrd, right?

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:49:23 2011 No.3937301

>>3937290

>And no one claimed Singapore was socialist.

Obviously, because it isn't.

>Mussolini's Corporatism than anything else.

No.

It's a capitalist market, far closer to "Ayn Rand's wet dream" than fascist Italy.

Singapore does not use state power to subsidize operations of corporations that it owns nor does it write market rules to favor them. Whereas fascism typically favors a fusion between state power and chosen market monoplists.

Why not just lay out your argument rather than sniping with bald assertions?

Are you saying that Capitalism is inferior to fascism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:50:23 2011 No.3937304 >>3937276 not complete control, but a, say, 30% stakeholder is going to have plenty of power over hiring the board, unless someone owns 51%, which is very unlikely. this is like 101. are you 13?

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 06:51:23 2011 No.3937305 >>3937301 I'm saying you can't reconcile a government staying out of the economy with it owning half of it. If you can, you may want to think harder about what those words mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:54:23 2011 No.3937309 >>3937301 singapore government has huge interference and control of its corporate sector through influence, not through any regulated means.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:55:23 2011 No.3937310

Why do people insist on calling some of the most successful capitalist nations in the world socialist?

I mean they are having problems related to the degree to which they have become socialists, but Europe is second largest and most successful experiment in free trade in the history of the world (free trade between the states in the US is the largest).

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 06:55:23 2011 No.3937311

>>3937305
>I'm saying you can't reconcile a government staying out of the economy with it owning half of it.

They've decided to invest sovereign surplus themselves rather than return those extra proceeds to private hands, and ultimately, more efficient uses.

It's less than optimal, but hardly anywhere close to a planned economy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 06:56:23 2011 No.3937314 >>3937305 it stays out of the economy because it does exactly what it wants. this is the perfect wielding of power. if it was defied it would immediately use its power.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 06:59:23 2011 No.3937321

>>3937311

No one said it's centrally planned. But to say it's the utopia of Ayn Rand is retarded. 85% of Singaporeans live in public housing, ffs. Economic history is a fascinating subject. Why do you insist on ignoring it and just assuming everything happened the way that best fits your ideological bias?

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 07:02:23 2011 No.3937325

>>3937321

>Economic history is a fascinating subject. Why do you insist on ignoring it and just assuming everything happened the way that best fits your ideological bias?

What history am I ignoring?

I'd be happy to recognize that there is a difference between human attempts at modeling economics theoretically and the true market that operates in practice.

It's just that socialism is a completely failed ideology. But many people have an emotional connection to the term, and just hate hearing that fact.

diviner's sage Sat Oct 22 07:03:23 2011 No.3937328

Europe doesn't have a disdain for capitalism, we know how to pick and choose the useful parts of different "models" instead of retardedly clinging to one side of a pointless tribal dichotomy.

As we weren't one of the two major world powers, cold-war tribalism didn't affect us so much.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:04:23 2011 No.3937331 A new econ trip? Hello friend. I feel like we are slowly but surely gentrifying /sci/

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 07:07:23 2011 No.3937334

>>3937325

>What history am I ignoring?
The one where the government of Singapore played a massive role in the development of the economy. I'd hazard a guess also the respective economic histories of Japan and Korea.

>It's just that socialism is a completely failed ideology.
We're not talking about socialism. We're talking about a mixed economy that worked and why it is different from a pure market economy that exists only in the ramblings of a crazed expatriate.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:08:23 2011 No.3937336 Regarding Cuba... Cuba is stuck in the 50s because of trade embargoes. Trade is really important.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:08:23 2011 No.3937337 >>3937325 >socialism is a completely failed ideology true, but this powerful truth is so completely diluted by idiots who call all kinds of non-socialist things (like the us democratic party) socialist that it is all but meaningless now.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 07:15:23 2011 No.3937356

>>3937336

That certainly is part of it. They are shut out from the largest economy in the world (one that is short boat ride away) but that can't explain everything.

There is plenty of trade between Cuba and the rest of the world. I've smoked a ton of cubans, ironically, while walking the streets of Zürich.

Their economic model is at fault fundamentally.

>>3937334

Capitalism is such a loaded term. I feel our disagreement is definitional rather than substantive. I don't think there are really any anarcho-capitalists here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:16:23 2011 No.3937358 >>3937325 >socialism is a completely failed ideology Benito? You're supposed to be dead.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:19:23 2011 No.3937367

>>3937356
Their economic model isn't that much different from a capitalist despotism.

The problem with socialism is not what it does, it's that it does virtually nothing. It's just a state religion for the modern age. There is no point spending hours trying to evaluate the performance of the soviet union's planned economy when it was little different in practice from Mexico's corrupt economy give or take a decade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:21:23 2011 No.3937371 >>3937356 >Their economic model is at fault fundamentally. depends how you measure fault/success if by monetary wealth, sure. but if people like being poor and equal, socialism might be considered successful

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:22:23 2011 No.3937375

>>3937356

I would suppose it is largely responsible.

Also, is the US the only country with an embargo? Why cant they get some european or asian cars?

I suppose they can be some other factors at work. Factors that arent embargoes or socialism.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:23:23 2011 No.3937378 >>3937356 > I don't think there are really any anarcho-capitalists here. There is liberty, but for some reason he doesnt admit to being an anarcho-capitalist. Also he is stupid.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 07:25:23 2011 No.3937382

>>3937356

There are plenty.

But the point of the matter is virtually all modern economies are market based. Both the successful and the failed. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that a free market in and of itself is not enough to guarantee economic prosperity, nor does state intervention invariably lead to poverty and ruin. So factors like the form and quantity of that intervention are vital. You can't shrug them off and pretend a city state where the majority of the economy is owned by the government is "the closest thing" to a Laissez Faire economy where the government sets and enforces the laws but does nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:26:23 2011 No.3937384 >>3937375 US threatens other nations with sanction if they don't also embargo

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:32:23 2011 No.3937393 >>3937384 sauce

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 07:32:23 2011 No.3937394

>>3937382

>But the point of the matter is virtually all modern economies are market based. Both the successful and the failed

Could you point me to the 'failed' free market economies?

This will probably lead to another definitional squabble but I'm curious to hear what you have.

>So factors like the form and quantity of that intervention are vital.

Obviously, but the evidence seems to indicate that less intervention is favorable over more intervention. There are a few social goods that are undeniably better provisioned by strong government institutions but that hardly undermines the effectiveness of markets.

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 07:37:23 2011 No.3937401 >>3937394 Just about all of Latin American and Africa. And before you point out how the state interferes in these economies, I remind you that it also owns 60% of Singapore's.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:39:23 2011 No.3937407 >>3937394 iceland greece

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:40:23 2011 No.3937408 >>3937394 What are the qualifications for a failed free market economies? Free markets fail often enough. Actually one could say they all fail to some extent. What does "failed" mean exactly?

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:41:23 2011 No.3937411

>>3937059
>the idea is that having more regulations on a market doesnt make it less capitalistic. You are just defining the legal and property rights a different way.
>french professor

It's probably a good thing that your professor chose French and not economics to major in.
Cus that's the biggest piece of crap I've ever heard.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 07:42:23 2011 No.3937415

>>3937411

No I mean, hes actually french. Like hes from france and speaks with a really heavy french accident.

I think hes got his PhD in political science, so, sometimes I think his knowledge of Econ is questionable. But he teaches a 300 level econ course.

He is an econ professor, who happens to be french.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:45:23 2011 No.3937421 >>3937415 Ah now I see what you mean. It's still a bunch of crap though Have to go, so no time to explain

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 07:45:23 2011 No.3937424

>>3937407

Iceland seems to be recovering nicely after their default and reorganization of debt.

Greece's problems are from a bloated public sector, a ridiculous and ill-fitting currency union and most of all PUBLIC debt.

Both get a meh, out of me.

>>3937401

>Just about all of Latin American and Africa.

Both are plagued with corrupt and inefficient governments. That is fatal for productive modern market.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 07:50:23 2011 No.3937437

>>3937424

Well, what do you know. Turns out there are factors other than the freedom of the market.

Well, darn. And here I thought that the only reason Singapore developed was because it had a free market.
Where the government owns 60% of the economy.
And 85% of housing.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:58:23 2011 No.3937460

GOD!!! WHY DO YOU PEOPLE DO THIS TO ME
I ALWAYS FEEL COMPELLED TO ARGUE WITH YOU CAPITALIST PIGS.

>>3937231
Fucking retarded picture; did you ever take into account the inhumane embargo the US have against Cuba? If Cuba had the same access to resources as the US does it would be a shining example of what Socialism can do for its people. Just take this into account, Cuba is a 3rd world country and yet it still manages to give all of its people free healthcare and education up to degree level.

GTFO.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 07:59:23 2011 No.3937461

I for one am a huge fan of free market capitalism. The freer the better. We should abolish job-killing regulations like banning child labor at once. They impose on my FREEDOM to use my children as slaves. We should privatize the police, fire department and why not the military while we're at it. The government has no right to control these organizations.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 07:59:23 2011 No.3937463

>>3937437

You can't have private property in a state of nature or in a state under which the sovereign authority has complete and arbitrary power.

How do you expect capital to accumulate when such capital is constantly expropriated for "public" use?

Definitionally, you can't have a 'free market' if you don't have public institutions to defend private property from usurpation or predation.

This is basic political philosophy.

You must be arguing with a anarcho-capitalist strawman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:01:23 2011 No.3937465 >>3937461 Nice argument. Does it come in adult?

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:02:23 2011 No.3937467 >>3937461 Child labor can only be productively banned in societies whose productive capability makes such labor superfluous. Of course, it is so much more humane for children to starve to death (as in Africa).

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:03:23 2011 No.3937469 >>3937465 I could ask you the same thing. You're confusing cynicism with being childish.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 08:04:23 2011 No.3937471

>>3937463

I'm arguing with a man who tried to pass off government ownership of the majority of the economy as Laissez Faire. I think whatever condescending tone I resort to is justified. And I'm not going to go chasing after your red herrings until you realise how retarded it is to equate 60% government ownership with non intervention.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:04:23 2011 No.3937472 >>3937461 >child labour So kids shouldn't do the washing up or wash their own clothes until they're 18? No wonder leftist children are always such self entitled dicks if their parents raise them like this.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 08:05:23 2011 No.3937474 >>3937471 >>3937463 I think pareto has a point here. As soon as latin american or african economies became "failed economies" you suddenly didnt recognize them as free markets.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:10:23 2011 No.3937484

>>3937474

I see the phrase "Latin America and Africa" as a cop-out.

It's far too general for a productive discussion. Africa includes nations as diverse as Liberia and Mauritius.

Latin America has a similar diversity.

Let's narrow it down to a specific nation-state. Once we drill down to specifics, will be able to see exactly what about the history and features of the state have resulted in its predicament (or at least give it a good olde college try).

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 08:13:23 2011 No.3937491 >>3937484 Thats a fine point that we are being too vague. But you took the effort to say these economies arent free, before you took the effort to say "these terms are too general for productive discussion"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:15:23 2011 No.3937492 We're not against capitalism. We're against religion, corrupt politicians, the police having more ruling power than the people etc Ofc we have those problems. They're just worse in the U.S of Fail.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:17:23 2011 No.3937496 File: 33 KB, 398x355, question.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] do libertarians support the abolishment of the patent system?

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:17:23 2011 No.3937497

>>3937491

Fair enough.

I often feel that the political penumbra surrounding phrases like "free market" and "socialism" makes it difficult to start a real discussion. People jump in with the definitions loaded in their mind and proceed with polemic before everyone is on the same page.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:18:23 2011 No.3937499 >>3937356 >They are shut out from the largest economy in the world (one that is short boat ride away) but that can't explain everything. Actually it pretty muche does.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 08:19:23 2011 No.3937501

>>3937484

You keep pretending like this discussion is about capitalism vs socialism.

Whereas the moot point was whether or not Singapore is a Randian paradise. If you wanted a productive discussion you could have found an opener that didn't automatically reduce the intellectual level to
>60% government ownership
>Laissez Faire

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 08:19:23 2011 No.3937502

>>3937496

I dont know.

I think the most socially efficient length of time for a patent is around 4 or 5 years, with variations depending on the nature of the patent.

>>3937497

I used to feel that capitalism meant nothing, because the connotation and definition varied. But now I just accept capitalism as nothing more than property rights and private ownership. Maybe I just act like people are using the same definition.

Anyway, its the best definition.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:20:23 2011 No.3937504

>>3937496

That's a tough question. Since the libertarian movement finds most of its support in the US, and American libertarians tend to be strict-constructionists of the US constitution, they often support it.

In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

They are often for patent reform, however, where the patent period is decreased.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:21:23 2011 No.3937505

Why do americans spend over 50% of their budget in the military because the duty of the state is to protect its citizens but they crap their pants at the idea of spending money in public sanity - which has exactly the same end, only on a differnet front?

...it would be like saying: fuck the army and the police, if trouble comes you should have bought a gun!

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:21:23 2011 No.3937507 >>3937501 I haven't used the phrase >Laissez Faire in the entire thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:21:23 2011 No.3937508 >>3937502 but isnt enforcing a patent system a form of socialism? dictating what people/companies can and cant do with their own resources

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 08:23:23 2011 No.3937510 >>3937508 I dont think so. Capitalism is just enforced property rights, and patents are a variety of property rights

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:24:23 2011 No.3937512 >>3937505 >public sanity What do you mean by that? And the US spends around 20% of their annual spending on their military budget.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sat Oct 22 08:25:23 2011 No.3937514 >>3937512 Uh... are you sure? Government spending in the US is around 20%, and around 20% of that goes to the DoD. So Id estimate 4% of US GDP goes towards the military budget.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 08:27:23 2011 No.3937520

>>3937507

No, that's me giving you more credit than necessary. I might have given the argument the benefit of the doubt if the claim was Singapore was merely Laissez Faire. But Ayn Rand's utopia I could not let pass. The country was a soft dictatorship throughout the cold war, ffs. Preferential tax treatment for multinationals and tariff reductions do not automatically make you libertarian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:28:23 2011 No.3937522 >>3937510 i thought the ideology of libertarians was that property is intrinsic and therfore needs no governing. Atleast thats the randian way of thinking

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:28:23 2011 No.3937523

>>3937508

I think of it as a recognition of the value of the intangible.

This encourages experimentation and invention.

Patents actually public their designs/formula in exchange for short term monopoly on their discovery.

The alternative is a obsession with secrecy and a constant reinvention of the wheel.

This is a good example of a necessary public good. It would be difficult for a private patent enforcement regime to arise naturally.

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:29:23 2011 No.3937527 >>3937514 >So Id estimate 4% of US GDP goes towards the military budget. Which is about right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:30:23 2011 No.3937532 >>3937512 public health, my bad. are you sure it's 20%? I'm fairly sure you are wrong, but I'll check.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:31:23 2011 No.3937533 >>3937523 ah so the government enforces a monopoly? I thought that was the kind of shit libertarians hated

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:34:23 2011 No.3937543 >>3937533 they dont mind it when it suits their purposes

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:36:23 2011 No.3937548
File: 25 KB, 960x720, U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3937532
>>3937527
Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs in accordance with the law, outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[27] Military spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.[28]

English is not my mothertongue, so I'm not sure - does it mean that the discretionary is also part of the military founding?

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:36:23 2011 No.3937551

>>3937533

True, but I think they hate theft more.

For example, someone spending their entire life writing a book, only to sell one copy because that first purchaser took it and mass-produced it to sell.

That disincentivizes people from writing books.

We have successfully disproven anarchy!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:38:23 2011 No.3937558 File: 2 KB, 270x250, 2b8970d64fba37e2710e677e39381430.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Jesus christ people... I had no idea my country was this fucked up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:39:23 2011 No.3937559 >>3937551 >disproved anarchy only if economic incentives are the only incentives for producing art

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:40:23 2011 No.3937563

>>3937548

There are two major accounting categories in the US federal budget. Discretionary and non-discretionary spending.

They are only functionally different in how the funds are budgeted. Non-discretionary programs have their funding based on a fixed statutory mechanism. They operated without an annual act of congress.

Discretionary items are funded by the discretionary budget. That requires an act of congress.

However, both unified are federal spending for the year. So accounting for all federal programs, the US military budget is around 20% of federal government spending.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:40:23 2011 No.3937564

>>3937551
but if you are to make such a concession arnt you accepting that there is room in your philosophy for compromise when it comes to protecting certain perceived rights?

if so how can you judge another for wanting to make concessions to libertarian ideals when it comes to rights they perceive as equally important?

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 08:45:23 2011 No.3937576

>>3937564

It's only a compromise if you argue that ownership is only for tangible things. Once you accept that something intangible can be owned, which I think most of us intuitively accept, then protection from the theft of the intangible is as much of a government necessity as protection from theft of the tangible.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:55:23 2011 No.3937614

>>3937576
ah, so you think the government should protect property rights but nothing else? I presumed you were a randian libertarian that believed classical property rights are self enforcing without government, i didnt realise you still purposed government management of property rights.

But isnt that even more hypocritical? The only (or primary) right governments should provide being that of property might make sense to you, but other people may differ in opinion. How can you rationally justifty it being the most important when compared to other social rights?

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 08:56:23 2011 No.3937617

Why do Americans feel the need to help the rich rather than the poor? you have so many homeless and a few rich people who just stash their money away to build interest and then the money doesnt go back into circulation causing more homeless once again, thats my problem with capitalism, the rich has everyone else convinced that only they are important, even the homeless believe this, it is fucking nuts over there.

I didnt really need to type that out to tell you the middle class and homeless of america are retarded while the rich sit at the top with all the money i guess.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 09:02:23 2011 No.3937631

>>3937614

>How can you rationally justifty it being the most important when compared to other social rights?

Can you tell me what you mean by social rights?

As for why it is the most important, it's an empirical question. Nations with strong protections for private property and a functioning judiciary and right to contract, are just plain more developed. Life is better for everyone.

>>3937617
>a few rich people who just stash their money away to build interest and then the money doesnt go back into circulation

For money to "earn interest" it has to be invested. Invested money is circulating and increasing economic activity.

Here's a nifty little video that explains it(it's even Keynesian, so you can't instantly reject it!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3nyc8XHrQc

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:05:23 2011 No.3937635

>>3937115
>not this fucking preacher again...
dude, just get a trip so people can filter you. you're aggressive as shit and no-one wants to take on board what you say when all of your posts end with some variation on the theme 'assqueer, faggot, oil-baby, petrobaby, cunt, dumbass, dipshit'-etc. be civil for fucks sake

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:06:23 2011 No.3937639 >>3937631 nations with social rights AND rule of law are also more developed than those without. you are cherry picking correlation (as am i)

>>	CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 09:09:23 2011 No.3937642 >>3937639 Socials rights, what do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:10:23 2011 No.3937645 >>3937631 Alright but that still doesnt answer why people on the bottom only help people on top who do nothing but be rich.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:14:23 2011 No.3937658 If OP isn't trolling, he's certainly a real uneducated faget. Probably from texas XD

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:16:23 2011 No.3937667

>>3937631
in terms of social rights i mean anything regulating or forbidding interaction of two or more people by a governing authority
>As for why it is the most important, it's an empirical question. Nations with strong protections for private property and a functioning judiciary and right to contract, are just plain more developed. Life is better for everyone.
You cant really argue that is empirical given that a 'better life' is a subjective term.

Im sure it is possible to provide metrics showing that quality of life is better with property rights, but im sure the same could be said of social rights such as medical care. Again it comes down to how the benefits of each of the rights are comparrison, something impossible to judge objectively as it depends on personal opinion

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:20:23 2011 No.3937683 >>3937642 rights from social contract examples might be right to education right to housing right to the protection of the state from crime, from other states aggression

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:20:23 2011 No.3937684 File: 23 KB, 255x344, 1315782417759.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] id like to ask a question of the panel who is most responsible for the fall of capitalism in cuba castro or batista and explain why

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:24:23 2011 No.3937699 >>3937683 dont forget property

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:26:23 2011 No.3937705 >>3937699 property is usually placed under natural rights, not social. i was giving that point. i think there are no natural rights though, and this is just libertariantard special pleading

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:30:23 2011 No.3937718

>>3937231
Cuba, and obvious Havana (it's capital) is economically embargoed by like every capitalistic country ever.

Now go add some examples of capitalism - some average capitalistic country. Most capitalistic countries are poor. The rich ones are rich because they re-located their industry to the 3rd world and used the slave-cheap labor there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:32:23 2011 No.3937724 >>3937718 actually it is decided which countries are rich because of the way wealth is calculated using the mean, rather than say the modal class or median. 4% growth a year means fuck all of most people's incomes are falling

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:33:23 2011 No.3937728 >>3937705 natural rights is a retarded statement. What is meant is that because material belongs only to the person that possess it then the idea of property exists. The modern idea of property is much more complicated and purely a social right

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:37:23 2011 No.3937741

>>3937119
> If the shortage gets that serious we'd just lift the drilling restrictions on Antarctica.

People like you are deliriously stupid and ignorant. The oil that might be available in such locations is a lot more difficult to exploit. That's why we call it PEAK Oil. The world production peak was around 2005, which had to be sanely predicted from the numbers in the 1990s. Hubbert (1950s) also sanely predicted the U.S. domestic production peak (1970). And world oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s.

But the point is always the same: You've run out of THE CHEAP STUFF. The stuff that was cheap to find and cheap to drill for and cheap to pump and/or has the lowest percentages of water and was "sweet crude".

> We won't run out of oil in our lifetime.

You've already run out of the cheap stuff, moron. We'll never actually "run out" of oil since eventually the stuff will become too expensive to obtain and process.

> Personally I think it's quite likely we'll eliminate our dependence by then.

Balderdash. The entirety of mobile Western Civilization runs on oil, and nothing replaces that, since no fuel has the combination of cheapness, energy density, and practicality. Any ONE of those lacking in a replacement fuel, tends to stop you motoring civilization DEAD.

You are the typical dipshit Westerner who seems education but totally lacks the facts and logic of petroleum. And there's a reason for that, since your Oil Lords would be de-throned if they ever stopped with the constant stream of propaganda into your head.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:38:23 2011 No.3937742 >>3937728 >belongs because of possession your statement says precisely nothing. define belonging and/or possession. is it by force, by legal title, by tradition, by what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:41:23 2011 No.3937758 >>3937742 >>3937728 makes perfect sense to me, hes distinguishing between natural possession of resource and our modern social construct of property

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:43:23 2011 No.3937763

>>3937219
> Oil was considered a worthless waste product when first encountered.

No, oil was used as soon as it was found. Liar. Waste product? Waste product from WHAT PROCESS? God you're stupid.

> Technology and human action is what makes things worthwhile.

Technology doesn't create energy, moron. Tech allows us to better exploit existing energy sources, and the facts of the matter are that petroleum is the best overall energy source ever found, and ever WILL be found. There aren't any more energy source, since our knowledge of physics and chemistry and geology is complete insofar that such discoveries can be made. There is no "super-oil" waiting to be found in some geo-layer.

> The idea that we are close to depleting resources is laughable at best. We have barely scratched the surface.

False. U.S. peak production, 1970. World peak discoveries, 1960s. World peak production, 2005. WHY ARE YOU PEAKING IF YOU AREN'T FUCKING RUNNING OUT?

Only a total assbrain would believe that you can't deplete a resource. No resource is infinite.

Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 09:44:23 2011 No.3937765

>>3937741

...You really think drilling Antarctica would be all that expensive? Too cold for you? Wear a sweater, coward.

And we can go a long way to reducing oil dependency merely by switching to hydrogen vehicles. That's 60% of oil usage right there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:45:23 2011 No.3937769 >>3937758 >samefag define what constitutes possession without tautology and we'll talk

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:48:24 2011 No.3937775 [DELETED]

>>3937742
i dont think you read my post correctly. "Belonging" means 'can be reliably be utilised by' in this case. By force, by title and by tradition property would be examples of social constructs, not natural rights/capabilities.

Naturally a person cannot use what they dont have, a person can only reliably make use of things they have in their possession.

By force, by title and by tradition property would be examples of social constructs, not natural rights/capabilities.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:49:23 2011 No.3937779

>>3937742
i dont think you read my post correctly. "Belonging" means 'can be reliably be utilised by' in this case. By force, by title and by tradition property would be examples of social constructs, not natural rights/capabilities.

Naturally a person cannot use what they dont have, a person can only reliably make use of things they have in their possession..

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:51:23 2011 No.3937783 >>3937769 1.The state of having, owning, or controlling something. 2.Visible power or control over something, as distinct from lawful ownership; holding or occupancy. you could have googled that yourself

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:51:23 2011 No.3937784

>>3937765
> ...You really think drilling Antarctica would be all that expensive? Too cold for you? Wear a sweater, coward.

You must be trolling. All it takes to drill in the Antarctic is to wear a sweater?

> And we can go a long way to reducing oil dependency merely by switching to hydrogen vehicles. That's 60% of oil usage right there.

Again, you MUST be trolling. The hypermajority of hydrogen production comes from A FOSSIL FUEL. Once you don't have that, hydrogen doesn't become a replacement. In fact, hydrogen isn't a replacement NOW, considering it doesn't have the energy density.

You're totally ignorant.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:52:23 2011 No.3937787
File: 113 KB, 1050x930, lwrvslftr2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3937763

Tech allows us to better exploit existing energy sources, and the facts of the matter are that petroleum is the best overall energy source ever found, and ever WILL be found. There aren't any more energy source, since our knowledge of physics and chemistry and geology is complete insofar that such discoveries can be made.

This one has not heard of thorium, or nuclear energy for that matter.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 09:54:23 2011 No.3937790

>>3937779
>can be reliably used by

this definition has so many counter examples. things i lease. the air i breath. things the law gives me rights to use without ownership (roads, the mail).

>Naturally a person cannot use what they dont have, a person can only reliably make use of things they have in their possession.

possession may be necessary for natural property rights, but is not sufficient. possession may be ended by force, so no natural property right exists.

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 09:56:23 2011 No.3937795 >>3937784 So you mean we only have all our oil reserves, all our natural gas reserves and all our coal reserves to go on? Oh no, whatever shall we do.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:00:23 2011 No.3937802

>>3937790
>this definition has so many counter examples. things i lease. the air i breath. things the law gives me rights to use without ownership (roads, the mail).
yes, that the whole point. There is a difference between what we in society consider property/ownership and the natural idea of property.

Seriously you should follow the discussion all the way through the thread because you dont seem to even know what points you are arguing against

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:01:23 2011 No.3937803 >>3937802 why did you start arguing with me then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:02:23 2011 No.3937804 >>3937802 >assuming only me and one other anon exists in a thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:04:23 2011 No.3937806 >>3937802 i love it when someone isn't clear about what he is saying then claims others are dumb

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:05:23 2011 No.3937808

>>3937795
> Oh no, whatever shall we do.

You'll stop using them when the price becomes too high or the availability makes them too scarce.

By the year 2100, most people will be walking, or will ride a bicycle, or will use a horse. Powered vehicles will be for the rich or the government.

>>	Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc Sat Oct 22 10:08:23 2011 No.3937815 >>3937808 We can use coal to get hydrogen, and we have coal for, what? Another few centuries? By that time we can work out water splitting, or efficient batteries for electric vehicles.

>>	Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Sat Oct 22 10:09:23 2011 No.3937817 File: 76 KB, 475x599, 1319140616624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3937808 >Horse No, bicycle is better.Horseriding is also tiring. Second Europe is very free market.(Like no trade barriers between EU countries)

>>	Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Sat Oct 22 10:11:23 2011 No.3937825 >>3937496 Patents cause monopolies but at the same time causes people to innovate (So they can have their monopoly.) I think the patent time has to be balanced for the best competition and innovation.

Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Sat Oct 22 10:14:23 2011 No.3937837

I think a big problem with capitalism is, how do we define what capitalism is?
The Soviet Union was a capitalistic country, it still had wars for their own interest for example (Afghanistan).
The space shuttle program was both led by governments and therefore was not capitalism vs communism but state vs state.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:15:23 2011 No.3937838

>>3937815
> We can use coal to get hydrogen, and we have coal for, what? Another few centuries? By that time we can work out water splitting, or efficient batteries for electric vehicles.

Converting coal to hydrogen is energy lossy.

The problem with your Western-propaganda brain is that you can't perform the simple function of AVAILABILITY x UTILITY x PRICE. When you consider all the necessary factors, Petro-Humanity (i.e. Westerners) are in for large increases in the price of energy, or they will have to do without. And since the Western Petro-Economy runs almost totally on Cheap Oil, it will crash and become unable to recover.

In short, at least half of your suburbs will become uninhabitable, since people who live in them today will not be able to afford to commute to workplaces from them.

I keep telling you that you are staggeringly ignorant. There are no exits. Tech can't make cheap energy appear where there just isn't any. You've USED UP all the cheap energy. And your society is 101% dependent on CHEAP energy. So your society is crashing. Any fool can see it crashing now; the U.S. is borrowing $1.5 trillion each year in a desperate attempt to cover it all up, but there's no solution standing ready to recover it.

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 10:15:23 2011 No.3937839

>>3937769

Locke did this. I don't feel like writing up his entire proof, google it.

>>3937784

Oil is really only valuable because it is a convenient source of transport fuel.

It's liquid state makes it easy to transport.

It's actually quite a trivial task to convert other forms of hydrocarbon to oil.

It's just a matter of economics, it's cheaper to pump it out of the ground than it is to convert(although at current prices it becomes economically viable to use converted liquid fuels).

Peak oilers are a laugh.

Dynasticum !hkEGQsV0Xg Sat Oct 22 10:19:23 2011 No.3937853

Why don't governments stop the trade barriers and subsidies on their farmers so African farmers are able to compete instead of pouring money that we will never see back.
I think it's also fair if Africa can get a clean start and doesn't have to pay their debts back(their old debs).(It's better for them, no that bad for us)

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:22:23 2011 No.3937864

>>3937839
> It's actually quite a trivial task to convert other forms of hydrocarbon to oil.

No one said anything about that. What was said was that it was energy lossy. So most conversions are pointless, since you can't get more energy out of the result than you put into the conversion process.

Once again, you can't do the basic mental functions of combining price and utility. You're a mental retard.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:23:23 2011 No.3937867

>>3937803
i didnt, i just kept trying to tell you you are misunderstanding the post you were objecting too
>>3937806
its perfectly clear to anyone who can read english, the discussion had been going on fruitfully for a few posts before someone lost track of the point and just wanted to object to some perceived problem with a certain post

CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq Sat Oct 22 10:30:23 2011 No.3937887

>>3937864

> What was said was that it was energy lossy.

That doesn't even matter. As long as their is a base-load energy source, the fact that conversion of energy from one form to another causes energy loss doesn't fucking matter.

If the economic value of conversion results in profit, it will be done.

Here's an example, Nuclear power provides energy to crack shale deposits underlying most of the lower 48. Even if the energy produced by burning the shale oil is less than it takes to produce the oil, the liquid form of energy that it represents will be more valuable than the nuclear power in electric form. This will stimulate economic activity and supply the demand for liquid fuels.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:30:23 2011 No.3937889 File: 65 KB, 410x272, fullretard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3937804 >disagrees with posts being held in context with posts they are replying to >expresses disagreement with reference to another post

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 10:32:23 2011 No.3937894 >>3937889 >accused others of that which he does himself >too aspie to see this

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math