An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
"Private" loans of fiat funny money are not an example of "capitalism". And, of course, such a process is unsustainable. Good thing that the market on its own does not suffer from booms, busts or systemic unemployment.
'Good thing that the market on its own does not suffer from booms, busts or systemic unemployment'.
Of course, people will work for a bowl of rice a day rather then starve and in this way there will always be full employment in a libertarian system. Until the ruling elite are murdered in a revolution.
Capitalism and societies always collapse in the end, due to a few companies getting too big and dominating the market. This sucks the wealth out of society and then boom, it's gone. It happened to the Chinese six times, but they never learnt their lesson, they made the same mistakes over and over again.
In a prefect libertarian society governments would newer intervene in the market, and so when the market crashes and companies go bankrupt people would lose their homes and their pensions and so would it be worth paying into a pension scheme and would it be worth buying a home? Would investors get scared to invest knowing its likely they will lose their money at some stage?
A perfect capitalist system would be devoid of all humanity and people would just be commodities. It would be psychopathic.
when the market crashes and companies go bankrupt people would lose their homes and their pensions and so would it be worth paying into a pension scheme and would it be worth buying a home?
1. It is absurd to suggest that a strict prohibition upon the initiation of violence and a strict and rigorous protection against the initiation of violence or torts against the person and property of even the most powerless people will lead to anything bad other than peace and prosperity. Poor people are currently not safe in their person or their property. And they are not secure in their savings which are constantly being diluted and stolen due to fiat funny money ejaculations to the rich and powerful.
2. Libertarianism does not even concern the notion of "positive" duties which could and would be the subject of voluntary arrangements. It's absurd to think that a society that agrees to prohibition aggressive violence against everyone all of the time would suddenly decide to be uncharitable.
3. Again, the market does not cause monopoly or the boom/bust cycle. Keynesianism and other forms of violent intervention are the cause of the problems they claim to be curing but which otherwise would not exist.
But would you agree for a decent minimum wage so people at the bottom are but exploited and forced to live miserable lives. If there is no set minimum wage surely this is violence, or the psychopathology of libertarianism. Of course, no one is forcing poor people to work for peanuts, although TNT might starve if they don't. Now very right wing conservatives would say if they worked harder surely they wouldn't be poor, so it's only their fault. But someone has to empty the bins and clean the streets and the toilets.
Now imagine that everyone worked hard and got a PhD, them who would do those tasks, but who would do them, well, I guess people who had worked even harder and had two PhDs would get the better jobs and those with one PhD would have to clean the toilets. So you can see why people at the bottom give up, because they know someone has to be at the bottom and as they didn't do well at school they know it will be them so why try.
I think it's true that libertarians are mainly middle class and upper class teenagers and young men who have never known poverty.
Sorry Rod, you might be happy on such a society but a lot of us wouldn't be. Your perfect society would be a hell hole for a large section of society.
5 comments:
"Private" loans of fiat funny money are not an example of "capitalism". And, of course, such a process is unsustainable. Good thing that the market on its own does not suffer from booms, busts or systemic unemployment.
'Good thing that the market on its own does not suffer from booms, busts or systemic unemployment'.
Of course, people will work for a bowl of rice a day rather then starve and in this way there will always be full employment in a libertarian system. Until the ruling elite are murdered in a revolution.
Capitalism and societies always collapse in the end, due to a few companies getting too big and dominating the market. This sucks the wealth out of society and then boom, it's gone. It happened to the Chinese six times, but they never learnt their lesson, they made the same mistakes over and over again.
In a prefect libertarian society governments would newer intervene in the market, and so when the market crashes and companies go bankrupt people would lose their homes and their pensions and so would it be worth paying into a pension scheme and would it be worth buying a home? Would investors get scared to invest knowing its likely they will lose their money at some stage?
A perfect capitalist system would be devoid of all humanity and people would just be commodities. It would be psychopathic.
when the market crashes and companies go bankrupt people would lose their homes and their pensions and so would it be worth paying into a pension scheme and would it be worth buying a home?
1. It is absurd to suggest that a strict prohibition upon the initiation of violence and a strict and rigorous protection against the initiation of violence or torts against the person and property of even the most powerless people will lead to anything bad other than peace and prosperity. Poor people are currently not safe in their person or their property. And they are not secure in their savings which are constantly being diluted and stolen due to fiat funny money ejaculations to the rich and powerful.
2. Libertarianism does not even concern the notion of "positive" duties which could and would be the subject of voluntary arrangements. It's absurd to think that a society that agrees to prohibition aggressive violence against everyone all of the time would suddenly decide to be uncharitable.
3. Again, the market does not cause monopoly or the boom/bust cycle. Keynesianism and other forms of violent intervention are the cause of the problems they claim to be curing but which otherwise would not exist.
But would you agree for a decent minimum wage so people at the bottom are but exploited and forced to live miserable lives. If there is no set minimum wage surely this is violence, or the psychopathology of libertarianism. Of course, no one is forcing poor people to work for peanuts, although TNT might starve if they don't. Now very right wing conservatives would say if they worked harder surely they wouldn't be poor, so it's only their fault. But someone has to empty the bins and clean the streets and the toilets.
Now imagine that everyone worked hard and got a PhD, them who would do those tasks, but who would do them, well, I guess people who had worked even harder and had two PhDs would get the better jobs and those with one PhD would have to clean the toilets. So you can see why people at the bottom give up, because they know someone has to be at the bottom and as they didn't do well at school they know it will be them so why try.
I think it's true that libertarians are mainly middle class and upper class teenagers and young men who have never known poverty.
Sorry Rod, you might be happy on such a society but a lot of us wouldn't be. Your perfect society would be a hell hole for a large section of society.
Post a Comment