White people...

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune

Modern conservative ideology is largely based on a set of simplistic, widely-discredited economic principles, such as Austrian economics.

Please no more silly appeals to authority. Austrian economics has quite correctly predicted that all of this central bank stimulus would fail. Keynesian economics is what is discredited IMO.

Originally Posted by Lune

Raev says the things that made America great were limited government and individual liberty, and yet the golden age of our civilization occurred in the middle of the last century when even conservatives recognized the need for a safety net, expansive regulations, and government intervention in general

If it was the golden age, that implies things got worse immediately after, which doesn't really say good things about their policies, does it? The free market and individual liberty part was what powered America to the top of the world through the early 1900s. Then the banks got the Federal Reserve going, and government expanded hugely while Roosevelt was busy turning an ordinary recession into a Great Depression then World War II, and things went down from there.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If it was the golden age, that implies things got worse immediately after, which doesn't really say good things about their policies, does it? The free market and individual liberty part was what powered America to the top of the world through the early 1900s. Then the banks got the Federal Reserve going, and government expanded hugely while Roosevelt was busy turning an ordinary recession into a Great Depression then World War II, and things went down from there.

We were a second-rate backwater through the early 1900's, hardly even matching Great Britain and absolutely not the top of the world.

At no point since 1950 have things gotten as bad as they were prior to 1950. They may have diminished since then, but that's to be expected considering competing industry all over the world was destroyed in WW2. Things didn't really start nosediving until Reagan, and even then, we're still better off than the agrarian gilded-age shithole we were around 1900. I mean you're basically advocating for people like Andrew Carnegie to wield considerable power and influence again. That's basically what free market capitalism is. The people with the capital wield the economic power (and the political power too unless specific protections are in place, as we're seeing now).

Also consider that Nazi Germany and fascist Italy weathered the Great Depression better than any other economy in the world leading up to WW2, including the USA and Great Britain, and those were arguably the most socialist Western countries the world has ever seen.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

At no point since 1950 have things gotten as bad as they were prior to 1950.

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

Yea because Detroit got shuttered by the destruction of certain sectors of American manufacturing, the entire US economy is worse now than in 1920. Good God man, look at the big picture. How about we compare San Jose then and now?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

Practically every major Urban center (red state or no) is liberal run. Your argument is stupid and cherry picked for that reason alone.

Once you add in the widely-known fact that there has been mass migration out of the rust belt due to the decline of the auto industry -- its a pretty brain dead talking point.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We were a second-rate backwater through the early 1900's, hardly even matching Great Britain and absolutely not the top of the world.

you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.

For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.

Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty

Originally Posted by Lune

I mean you're basically advocating for people like Andrew Carnegie to wield considerable power and influence again. That's basically what free market capitalism is. The people with the capital wield the economic power (and the political power too unless specific protections are in place, as we're seeing now).

Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.

For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.

Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty



Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.

So failing to deny that things haven't gotten as bad yet as they were before FDR, your argument is basically "Yea, we're getting there, things will get worse". Not sure how I can refute your fantasies for the future but yea, I guess we'll see.

The wealthy having political influence is independent of capitalism and socialism and has more to do with our culture and the protections we put in place institutionally to prevent it. I don't think it's a function of capitalism or socialism per se. Economic power being in the hands of those with capital, on the other hand, is the fundamental basis of capitalism. The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth. It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor. That is why the decline in labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership.

[Raev]

I am simply saying that America was rising from 1775 -> 1930 or so so based on free markets and individual liberty. Progressives started to fuck things up at around 1900 and by 1930 the trajectory of the United States was flat. By 1970 it was downwards. The fact that people at the peak 1930-1960ish thought that social programs were a good idea is actually an indictment of those programs. I don't see why you are having trouble understanding this argument.

Originally Posted by Lune

The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth.

And yet, you can't create 14 trillion for yourself out of thin area. You can't buy off politicians to override food safety regulations. This position is pure textbook. Reality says government is always owned by and for the wealthy.

Originally Posted by Lune

It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor.

I mean, do you not understand basic supply and demand? Even the Marxist propaganda centers we call colleges today teach microeconomics.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And yet, you can't create 14 trillion for yourself out of thin area. You can't buy off politicians to override food safety regulations. This position is pure textbook. Reality says government is always owned by and for the wealthy.

Neither can you. Talented, hard-working people deserve fabulous rewards. They don't deserve to run the country or the economy. That's all I'm saying. And be careful saying "always". Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Government in scandinavian countries is extremely egalitarian and hardly owned by the wealthy. Maybe if we work hard at making our culture better some day we can be like them.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean, do you not understand basic supply and demand? Even the Marxist propaganda centers we call colleges today teach microeconomics.

Tell me more about supply and demand and the garbage science you call microeconomics. You sound like an undergrad physics student telling me how their sphere shaped rigid-body cows behave on a frictionless incline with no wind resistance. Tell me about how there's a linear supply demand curve meant to represent human behavior and its endless variables, and how it controls and isolates causality for exactly none of them, nor does it account properly for volunteerism, non-profits, irrational behavior, special interests, imperfect competition, or any number of human complexities. Every branch has a dismal track record predicting economic events. None of their models truly reflect reality, unless they are so winnowed and limited as to be useless. And this after you spend the thread bashing academia.

I'm saying this out of love for the potential economics has, that maybe some day it can stop being dogmatic witchcraft and start using the scientific method.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Neither can you.

I mean, this was not a hypothetical. The banks gave themselves $14 trillion in 2008.

Originally Posted by Lune

Tell me more about supply and demand and the garbage science you call microeconomics.

I am not a member of a union and yet somehow I have a salary, benefits, etc. Because I have skills that are valuable, and companies must compete for my labor. The price they must pay is a function of the total demand for computer programmers and the total supply.

I really think you are just trolling at this point.

P.S.: economics can never use the scientific method. There is no control group. Which is why the only valid economics is deductive economics, i.e. Austrian economics, and basically little logic like I just showed in the previous paragraph (note the absence of any numbers).