MenKlash

I’d prefer the term statism, but I agree with you.

I mean if you’re gonna criticize the whole capitalist system sure.

1. The Federal Reserve purchases assets and thereby increasing bank reserves.
2. The banks expand credit and consequently the money supply.
3. All prices are raised, and the rate of interest is artificially lowered.
4. Misleading signals to businessmen starts to emerge, causing them to make malinvestments.
5. Businesses overinvest in capital goods and underinvest in consumer goods.
6. As the “time preference” of the public have not really got lower, consuming is preferred over saving.
7. There is a lack of enough saving-and-investment to buy all the new capital goods.
8. Then, “depression” originates in order to reestablish the consumer’s old time-preference proportions.
9. The banks return to their natural and desired course of credit expansion…

FIAT money is independent of capitalism. Its coercive existence leads to distortions of relative prices and the production system, as government and its central bank will always tend to be inflationary.

Eat the Fed!

Every person who think that their vote (in a representative democracy) matters, is a victim of the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion, that is, the state.

However, what makes the state different from other coercive entities, such as organized crime groups, is that it enjoys some form of popular legitimacy. In other words, in addition to enslaving its inhabitants physically, it needs to secure their mental servitude as well.

The free market is not, as the social Darwinists imagine, a struggle between rich and poor, strong and weak. It is the principal means by which human beings cooperate in order to live. If each of us had to produce all his food and shelter by himself, almost no one could survive. The existence of large-scale society depends absolutely on social cooperation through the division of labor.

Economists of the classical school were right to define a monopoly as a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting. Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even the attempt should be regretted since it is a great benefit to consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function. The term “monopoly price” has no effective meaning in real market settings, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change. A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.

Amazon is just another big company that benefits from corporatocracy.

I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Qué bueno, che

Are you an Ego-Communist?

How exactly do you intend to have these values upheld and protected from a wealthy class without intermission of state.

Property is a naturally arising relationship between human beings and material things. Property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Any intromission on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.

The Neo-Lockean homestead principle states that the only legit ways to own property is either by

• Mixing your labor with unowned resources;

• Trading or being gifted it by the previous owner;

• Producing new property.

the homeless should be housed in them regardless of the personal wishes of the owner.

The end does not justify the means. If that rich person legitimately owns 3 houses, they should have the full control of their property, as their natural right should be protected.

I don’t like the idea that our society should be constructed around a system of self interest because society is built from community not competition

Civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. A community is built by the willness of its individual members to cooperate with each other by voluntary means.

As human beings are different by nature, we are willing to form a community so that, with our own skills and intelligence, we can help ourselves by helping others. Differences are the very source of division of labor and, withing a free-market setting, lead not to conflict but cooperation.

Competition is a dynamic process of change. It’s not merely about rivalry between existing businesses but also about the discovery of new opportunities and better ways of serving consumer needs, being a part of the spontaneous order.

Workers deserve the world simply by merit of being workers.

Well, I believe anyone who owns property, by legit means (Neo-Lockean homestead principle), should have the right to have total ownership over it, without compromising the natural rights (Life, liberty and property) of others.

it’s not like they actually could without people designing, manufacturing and distributing them.

Exactly! That’s why social cooperation and division of labor is possible, by voluntary relationships and the pursue of self interest.

Idgaf about any of that lingo.

Don’t be closed-minded. I invite you to read more about libertarian ethics and the Austrian School of Economics.

Individual human beings act; that is, every individual engage in conscious action toward chosen goals (Fundamental Axiom of Action)

We choose to employ scarce means according to a technological plan in the present because we expect to arrive at our goals at some future time.

But, we are all different: we don’t choose the same means and goals, and we don’t have the same set of skills and intelligence. So, in order to satisfy our self interest, we need to cooperate with others to satisfy our own goals.

So they wouldn’t starve to death?

Essentially, yes. This is only possible by social cooperation, division of labor, private property, voluntary exchange and competition, but any intromission of the State (that is, an oligarchy of politicians and public employees) is detrimental and coercive to the welfare of all the agents.

Hmm, interesting. Why did those workers made the iphone in the first place?

Better it goes into government so at least people can vote to change it.

We can’t change it. Politicians would still have their monopolical powers because they help each other. Don’t trust the government. Billionaires not only influence it, they also receive help from them.

Because we voted for them.

The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn’t vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?

The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don’t choose them.

“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."

We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies.

Because we shouldn’t. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private property and their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.

There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.

The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.

Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone.

Taxes raise money for transfers to special interests and public employees. Why would you trust an oligarchy of politicians (the State) to decide which goods are useful “for a community” and which don’t?

In contrast to private businesses that supply the goods that consumers voluntarily want to buy, public officials lack of the capacity to pick data as to what people truly demand, much less how to go about meeting those demands economically. They don’t have direct feedback of what every individual in the community want; they don’t pass the test of economic rationality.

If the Monopoly of Violence can’t act economically, they have no other choice but respond to interest groups, so tax money will necessarily end up with narrow interest groups rather than the provision of “public goods”

The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts.

The end does not justify the means. The mere existence of taxation is detrimental (and antithetical) to the very source of economic growth, that is, voluntary exchange.

Goods like education and roads, for example, are goods like any other: they can be supplied by markets and markets alone.

The only privilege we need is a better community.

A better community will be formed if it’s achieved by voluntary means. Moral obligation is not the same as legal obligation. How can individuals be virtuous? By letting them act freely.

Economic inequality being one of the biggest drivers of democratic back sliding.
Shitty part is that authoritarian doesn’t really offer anything better.

Hey! Let’s solve “economic inequality” with more statism! That’s not authoritarian at all!

Obviously, wanting to reduce the monopolical privileges of politicians, public spending and taxes (robbery), erradicating the central bank, increasing work flexibility and advocating for individual rights and liberty is fascist af. Believe me, guys!

You mean all these private international businesses have a hard time going around worldwide regulations?

Quite the contrary; the State by lobbying, subsidies and “international aids” is actually benefiting the giant businesses, as the coercion made by the State harms the SME’s and we the common people to trade with other countries.

Basically, I’m describing corporatocracy (the State is dominated by corporate business interests).

Do you know, that even with the sanctions, russia exports and imports (almost) as usual, because internationally nobody cares? And if sb cares, they will make a daughtercompany in no time which does the trade?

By “russia exports and imports” (fallacious use of collective nouns), I’ll interpret it as businesses affected by the sanctions.

As I said before: “Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics”. You can’t just infere those sanctions are not working from having analyzed statistics and economic history. You need first an economic theory that tries to explain how the economy works by identifying the causal relationships between economic actions and events.

I’d recommend you to read about Mises’s Human Action (praxeology based on methodological individualism).

Man wtf. We had over 100 Years of almost free market and look where we are now.

I don’t know what you interpret as “free market”, but the mere existance of a Monopoly of Violence, lobbying, manipulation of money, state licenses, blah, blah, blah… is not free at all.

Businesses in germany have to pay a fuckload of taxes and still get richt as fuck.

Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics.

If there is no free market on a national scale, than there is a almost anarchytical free market on an international scale.

What about protectionism, tariffs, special licenses, international regulations, “common goods”, the World Bank Group, the IMF, and very much any kind of coercion made by “Welfare” States?

And they have to pay back what they destroyed. Like everybody else, when you destroy sth, either on purpose or without, you need to pay.

“Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another’s property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive.”

the people can rise up against the capitalists to stop them from poisoning our only habitat we are all wholly dependent upon

Are you ignoring all the labor these “capitalists” and their workers do to provide you the goods we all wholly demand upon? All of this is done by social cooperation between both of them by voluntary association.

We can stop the self-destructive madness of demanding infinite growth carved out of the ass of a finite world.

This would work if the price system would actually work as intended (free from the intervention of the State) to distribute all the scarce resources in a free-market setting.

Greta is doing the right thing in the face of Armageddon

By wanting the Monopoly of Violence to step in? To call the international organizations (spoilers: they don’t care about us) to intervene in foreign countries?

Almost everyone else will either continue begging the sociopathic oligarch polluters to stop

They can actually do that because of the existence of “common goods” and of the monopolical privileges granted by the same State, such as subsidies, regulations discreetly affecting SMEs, the lack of enforcement of private property to protect those “common goods”, etc.

but those are usually the same people that get angry at others for claiming the “free capital market” isn’t the cure for the many self-inflicted human crises caused by the “free capital market.”

On the contrary; they love subsidies, they love intellectual property, they love FIAT money, they love the monopolical privileges: basically, their activities depend entirely on the mere existence of corporatocracy.