Since Newton’s Laws, physicists thought the universe behaved basically like a billiards table: an object in motion stays in motion on its trajectory forever unless an outside force acts on it. Einstein’s revelations changed all that; great masses distort space-time, basically warping our allegorical billiards table. An extreme gravitational field even can bend light. Tremendous masses can acquire so much matter that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, and anything sucked into one of these black holes is never seen again.
Actually, economics is pretty similar. The free market works great in the realm of pure theory, but in practice, it’s not as simple as that. Here’s what happened.
A brief economic history
In 1776—an auspicious year—Adam Smith wrote The Wealth Of Nations, the primary textbook of capitalist theory. He covered several subjects, including factory production. One of his most famous ideas is the “invisible hand” theory. Basically, an unregulated market will figure out a fair price on its own. Suppliers who set their prices too high will be undercut by others. Those that excessively lowball their prices won’t be able to stay in business. As the theory goes, a nation of producers trading with each other freely lifts the economy. That worked pretty well back in the days of independent farmers, bricklayers, blacksmiths, weavers, stonemasons, cartwrights, brewers, and so forth.
Government interference (including any sort of regulation) is seen as a drag on the economy. In many cases, that’s true, in particular price fixing and excessive red tape. The greatest believers in unregulated capitalism are Libertarians and Objectivists. We will explore some of the unexpected results of this laissez-faîre economics.
So that was then, back in the Age of Enlightenment when most people were either independent farmers or producers who owned their own farms or their own shops and tools. During the Industrial Revolution, fortunes were made from a shoestring by exploiting new technologies. Many of these new industries became huge trusts—railroads, steel mills, coal, oil, and so forth. The problem with monopolies is that the one seller can set any price they like for the product. Without any competition, this means that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” effect doesn’t work. This is also true when there’s a small group of sellers that can work together to fix prices or divide up territories. Those things are illegal now, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Another problem is that this allowed the owner to live like a king, while paying the workers peanuts. Ownership and labor were now separated, unlike times before. The workers then barely scratched by in urban slums. Further, back in the day, belching smokestacks polluted the skies, the equipment was frequently unsafe, and the workers often had to work twelve hours a day (sometimes more). These sweatshops were cheap to run, but were miserable places to work.
This led to labor unions (fiercely resisted then) and also Socialism (which turned out to be pretty dysfunctional, especially the Communist variety). Capitalist countries in the Western world instituted environmental regulations, safety rules, child labor laws, and so forth. Then came the golden age of the 195os and 1960s in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Unfortunately, things got a little shaky for factory workers after that, beginning a long slide downhill.
Indeed, regulation does cost money. With today’s globalist free trade, factories largely left the Western world for sweatshops overseas. This has happened to call centers too. Quality usually suffers, but the only thing that matters to management is that they work for peanuts. All that is justified by overpaid CEOs moaning that their own country’s workers are too expensive and “besides, everybody else does that”.
Today, we’re basically back to the Robber Baron days. The only difference is today’s urban slums are not populated by workers, but by welfare recipients, and the middle class has to pick up the tab for all that. Even so, that’s just the beginning. When huge amounts of wealth are accumulated, the “free market” is no longer a level playing field. Here are some of the reasons why.
How big business distorts markets
If you have a great business idea, often you need a lot of capital in order to make it happen. When I was a teenager, I thought up an idea for satellite-distributed radio, making hundreds of channels available across the country. Since I didn’t have the money to get satellite broadcasts going and start manufacturing receivers, someone else got to invent XM Radio. Even if you’re only going to start a restaurant (which is a pretty dodgy investment), you’ll probably need at least a hundred thousand dollars. This item is not particularly unfair; it is what it is. Some other economic barriers to entry are worse.
The regulatory environment favors huge businesses. There’s a mountain of laws and red tape to wade through, and it really helps if you can afford a full-time legal department. For one example, a family farmer will struggle with certifying their crops as organic, but a large agribusiness firm has a department that takes care of those things.
Further, there’s the “regulatory capture” problem. Often regulators and large businesses get on much too friendly terms; then the regulators aren’t really doing their jobs any more. An extreme example is when former members of huge Wall Street companies get picked for top governmental regulatory jobs; if they see any funny business going on, do you think they’re going to rat out their former employers? It’s the ancient “Who watches the watchmen?” problem. In fact, this is just one example of how having connections helps the wealthy and powerful.
Countless big business lobbies work to influence the US Congress for favors. These rent-seeking measures are responsible for much crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and pork barrel politics. One of the more surreal examples was a measure to help manufacturers of wooden arrowheads, as a rider on the TARP bailout bill. There are small business lobbies too, but they don’t have same deep pockets funding. Many huge businesses will make large campaign contributions to both sides; no matter who wins, their bread is buttered.
Several times, military actions resulted on behalf of big businesses. That hasn’t exactly given the USA good press around the world. Further, the military-industrial complex likes dragged-out wars, for obvious reasons. Much could be done to trim waste; for instance, sourcing cheap fuel locally in Middle Eastern operations, rather than having it shipped from the USA (for a hefty markup) by contractors as it was during the second Gulf War. Avoiding spit-in-your-eye wars would would save even more money—and more importantly, lives.
Wall Street shenanigans
For the very rich, the stock market is more profitable too. Trading costs are proportionately lower with large lots, and institutional rates are available for the high rollers. You too can get in on the game, though a mutual fund or ETF will have a management fee. (Shop around and try to get under half a percent, if possible; a high management fee really eats into your profits over time.) The big stock market firms have automated trading systems that can place bids or orders much faster than any human trader can match, and they’re strategically located in data centers where they’ll be received a millisecond or two earlier than everyone else. For these (among other reasons), small investors can profit, but not as much as the big players.
Further, insider trading gives an advantage to those who have the right connections. Technically it’s illegal, but in practice, it’s a matter of not getting caught. For Congressmen, it’s not even illegal; they wrote the laws to exempt themselves. For instance, one of the Congressmen pushing for the body scanners in airports happened to be a big investor in the company making them.
Wall Street can get quite predatory. Someone with access to a huge amount of money (often supplied by bank leverage) can do a hostile takeover on a company by buying up over half of its stock. Sometimes this is assisted by illegally manipulating the stock price. As to what happens to the company, it’s either dissolved or run into the ground. Its assets are then sold off by the corporate raider, leaving all the workers unemployed. If you’ve seen the movie Wall Street, you know what I’m talking about.
That’s not a constructive use of the free market; that’s gaming the system. There certainly is a social impact to hundreds or thousands of people out of work and unable to pay their bills. The usual response to this by the laissez-faîre crowd amounts to “They lost their jobs because they’re not ambitious enough” or some other lame variant of “Let them eat cake.”
“Too big to fail”
This is from the first time around. Unfortunately, we forgot the lessons learned.
Back in 2008, when Wall Street got its fingers burnt (a long story, which I’ll hopefully describe in the future), the US government bailed out several entities with the Troubled Asset Relief Program. While it was debated, I remember how the talking heads were screaming that the world would end if the government didn’t pay up. In a truly free market, the banksters would’ve had no such recourse to get paid for making dreadful mistakes and crashing the economy.
One bank that I’ve been monitoring took the bailout money and invested in the stock market when it was at the bottom. I poured all the money I had available into the market too, though of course I didn’t have the government writing me a check for a few billion dollars of leverage. They bought up one of their competitors too; sure sounds like they were hard up for cash!
Note that out of the eighteen corporations bailed out by TARP, GM and Chrysler were the only ones that actually produce anything. With “casino capitalism”, profits are privatized and debts are socialized. Sounds pretty rotten, doesn’t it? Well, it gets worse.
The end results of plutocracy and globalism
The present free market system has enabled the ultra-rich to accumulate greater and greater amounts of wealth. They’re beginning to resemble medieval aristocracy. This has been going on for a while, too. (One banking family in particular is starting to get as inbred as the Spanish Hapsburgs. That’s one way of keeping the wealth in the family. If others follow suit, we’ll have to revise our stereotypes about incest being only for hillbillies with green teeth.) Society is becoming increasingly characterized by vast extremes of wealth, just as huge gravitational masses in space start sucking in all the nearby matter.
I can understand people wanting to make money. However, excess gets pointless after a while. If someone has ten billion dollars, how is his life going to be better off with ten billion more? Still, they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep from getting their taxes raised. When Congress made Bush the Younger’s tax cuts permanent for 2013 except for anyone making over $400K/year, there was quite a bit of screeching about their 4.6% tax break expiring. Although the graduated income tax has been criticized as a Communist measure, in this case it’s right that those who have benefited the most from the system should be paying back the most to keep it running.
Worse, the globalists don’t have much loyalty to their own countries, seeing borders and distinct cultures as barriers to making even more money. This is one reason why they’re so keen on their social engineering efforts. Another reason is that they don’t know—or don’t care—what it’s doing to the public. Although we’re getting closer to conditions back in the Robber Baron days, if things keep going as they are, we’re going to get dragged back to feudalism. Part of this social engineering involves pushing mass immigration, against the public’s wishes. These globalist elites are quite short-sighted; if they get their way, they’ll kill the goose that laid the golden egg. As it happens, that’s us.
In summary
Capitalism certainly does work better than Socialism. Still, laissez-faîre economics has no protection against the creation of vast extremes of wealth or the abuse of power. The system we have now is not the one we were supposed to get. It’s time to seek other alternatives, including distributism.
The only way to fix this will be to re-introduce sensible regulations, as existed before: the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated investment banking from commercial banking), the uptick rule to keep stocks from getting short-sold into the ground, and so forth. Other regulations should be simplified to allow small businesses easier access to get into the market. Further, campaign finances should be reformed in order to stop huge businesses from throwing their weight around in Congress. Finally, consumers can choose to spend their money with small businesses; this will help keep the money circulating in their community, rather than getting sucked into a big black hole.
Read More: What Every Man Needs To Know About Capitalism And Economics
The main problem is that capitalism gives rise to kleptocracies unless guided by a moral system.
Income inequality is a good thing when you make the right choices. Are SJW’s sick of making $8.50 per hour at Fivebucks Coffee while the Red Pill Plumber is making $150 for a 10 minute call out job? Learn a marketable skill and quit ya bitching.
fuckin prager u, man. they’re really doing some good work over there.
I particularly like it because the topics they explore make perfect sense, and they tend to rub salt into the starry eyed dreams and ambitions of liberals and SJW’s. Here’s another good one.
Things like “Income Inequality Is Good” and “Don’t Follow Your Passion” would trigger the hell out of them.
I remember watching that one in the parking lot outside my office, one rainy Monday morning last year. I think the ball was already rolling for me and I would have inevitably left my line of work sooner or later regardless of outside influence — but that little video was one of those moments that really made me start setting things in motion, so to speak. “Don’t follow your passion; but wherever you go, whatever you do, bring your passion with you.” That’s just so basic but yet it’s something you almost never hear in America these days. It was one of those letters-from-God moments that Walt Whitman perfectly described:
“I find letters from God dropped in the street, and every one is signed by God’s name,
And I leave them where they are,
for I know that others will punctually come forever and ever.”
p.s, apologies if that’s overly sappy. I sure do love them Leaves of Grass though.
this is perfect advice.
therefore, massively triggering…
The trillions made by college rape industry for degrees in useless hobbies…not even useful hobbies
Except for their stupid video on the Civil War and their incitation for men to marry, Prager U is pretty good.
Too bad they repeated the same old stupid shit Christina Hoff Sommers keeps peddling, shit that prevents women from actually doing useful jobs.
What do you mean with that last part? I’m not super familiar with everything Sommers talks about. Most of what I’ve heard seems relatively benign, given her predispositions. Is there more I should be learning about her?
Christina Hoff Sommers, like many people here, seems to be laboring under the delusion that women are less good at math and less interested in STEM for some biological reason. This is done specifically to prevent affirmative action, a liberal policy. I know this because the AEI, CHS’ paymaster, is basically a conservative academic paper mill that is basically the reason we went to war with Iraq (with no reason) and the reason our economy is in shambles. It’s very scary if you consider that many of their donations come from private donors, most of whom benefit from said policies. Though her views on the wage gap are mostly true (though she of course forgets to mention the fact maternity leave, a policy she conveniently opposes, would allow women to make the choices she chides them for not making), she’s a tool.
Think tanks (and the scholars within them) are tools by the political class to clothe themselves in the veneer of science.
This STEM shit goes completely against my own experience in my father’s culture (Cossack from Kazakhstan) where all of the women in my father’s family have either degrees in STEM or degrees in business or law, with one exception (that’s my grandmother, who’s a jeweller and pawn broker). Most of them own businesses. Most are also red pill as fuck and constantly chide my female relatives for not being motherly and feminine. They also shame men for not being masculine.
It’s this kind of mentality by people here that prevents women from not being the intellectually developed and motherly kind.we like. Part of the reason I hate this forum is because it promotes sexual degeneracy all the while promoting socially conservative news. This is probably because Roosh prostituted himself to white nationalists (who hate him) in order to have people buy his books. There’s no way a slimy sack of shit like him who complains about sluts and then bangs them cares about the metapolitical crusade we’re in right now.
Damn dude that is some serious meat to chew on. Good shit, indeed. I am with you 100% in that I am not at all convinced that women don’t excel in math or in STEM fields due to some kind of BIOLOGICAL predisposition. I think it’s clearly true that in the West, women just aren’t willing to put in the time to get to the top of those fields — but yeah, in my mind that’s not a biological issue, it’s more about the culture here. However, I am as always willing to review evidence to the contrary. Maybe such evidence exists, it’s definitely possible, but I sure haven’t seen it yet. I also agree that there is nothing about a career in the hard sciences or mathematics that would necessarily detract from a woman’s mothering ability. I wouldn’t want the mother of my children to have to have a full time job, especially one that can demand so much time, but I don’t see any reason that a woman who has mastered mathematics or a science couldn’t be a bang-up mom too.
All that said, thanks again for hitting me with that reply. I can’t speak for everybody who visits RoK, but this is the kind of heady stuff I hope to see when I come here.
It’s easier to marry the male CEO, than work to become the female CEO yourself.
Well said. Although please remember, there is one sector where, if I’m not mistaken, female CEOs are quite common (and may even outnumber males, I don’t remember). That sector of course being nonprofits.
Biological arguments are mostly correlational in nature, i.e there exists no bias against women in STEM in the West (not true) therefore it must be biology (ignoring the fact things like men staying in STEM and women getting into it lowers the proportion).
I think a large part of the bias against women within STEM fields in the West comes from the Western woman’s tendency to be a lazy, unenthusiastic flake though. And like most biases, in that sense it’s largely deserved.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that the good, hard-working women are affected by it and have to suffer by it.
In my opinion, the fact high school culture forces women to rely on appearances rather than intelligence is the reason why women choose stupid fields their vapid friends choose.
That’s precisely what the west needs: More women in the workforce. More women in STEM, taking vag grants and piling up student loan debt, taking classroom space so they can work in HR for 30 years and ride the carousel until they can no longer survive the wall.
I fucking despise it when people act, or autstically pre-suppose the social mechanics are the same here, just because it’s “like that” somewhere else. Do you objectively think that at this point, with all of this social conditioning and these absurd financial and social circumstances, that playing into the feminist talking point of “more women in STEM” is a good thing? More so, you legitimately think it will cure their vapid streak of degeneracy, and that they’ll become intelligent, feminine and more nurturing through this?
Most absurd fucking thing I’ve ever heard tbh. Your criticism of think tanks is full of clarity, so why buy into such an illusion about the split tails? College will not save them, from themselves or for us, nor will owning a business or “muh independence”. Stating that men are generally better at STEM isn’t fucking oppression, either.
Your criticism of Roosh is absurd, too. He came into this as a PUA. He’s never tried to be deceptive about this. I didn’t come to RoK for that, I came here because it’s one of the few platforms where, despite the poisonous atmosphere, I could lurk and participate in a forum that provided something legitimate.
I don’t think he prostituted himself either. People pre-supposed many things because he took an ideological position that multiculturalism was, is and will remain a detrimental concept to western civilization. But he never sided with white nationalists for the sake of white nationalism, and if you read his website, you would see that he has defended his positions reasonably.
The first article I read here was by Quintus Curtius. Since then, I’ve seen great contributions here. If you’re disappointed by the quality, or the opinions and actions of other men, you should consider writing your own articles. Or even better, developing an ideological platform of your own, where all of this mess can be sorted out.
You clearly seem to ignore the god damn fact I mentioned that most of my female relatives in STEM HAVE FAMILIES AND ARE MORE RED PILL THAN ME. Read what I say!
College will not save anybody. It’s a leftist indoctrination center. Period.
No, I read all of that. I read the shilling of baseless feminist talking points, too. And the slanderous shit about Roosh as well.
There is no bias against women in STEM in the west. What rhetoric you’ll read about it in places like this is based on the mere frustration of engineers, scientists and students, venting about having to deal with with this fucking meme-culture bandwagon of women in STEM, or the collusion of poisonous ideologies and pozzed women controlling HR departments.
Read some others’ stories. Listen to the shit they have to deal with and compare it to the women who complain about this non-existent bias in their attention-whoring stories. It is entirely different in the west.
> No, I read all of that. I read the shilling of baseless feminist talking points, too. And the slanderous shit about Roosh as well.
I’m legitimately starting to believe this isn’t really a site about masculinity or the like and more of a vanity project by right-wing power brokers to basically insult minorities.
> There is no bias against women in STEM in the west. What rhetoric you’ll read about it in places like this is based on the mere frustration of engineers, scientists and students, venting about having to deal with with this fucking meme-culture bandwagon of women in STEM, or the collusion of poisonous ideologies and pozzed women controlling HR departments.
*Insert Old El Paso meme* Why not both? I’ve had women tell me how jackasses like you tend to believe any woman who gets in is due to affirmative action, how sexual harassment is common, how poisonous people like you tend to poison the well. I’ve also heard AA is terrible in the regard. So no, go fuck yourself.
> Read some others’ stories. Listen to the shit they have to deal with and compare it to the women who complain about this non-existent bias in their attention-whoring stories. It is entirely different in the west.
^^ I live in the West. My relatives have university degrees from the West.
“I’m legitimately starting to believe this isn’t really a site about masculinity or the like and more of a vanity project by right-wing power brokers to basically insult minorities.”
And I suppose that triggers you as well… Where precisely did I insult minorities or even take right wing positions? I’ve often argued in favor of traditionalism. If that makes me right wing, a sexist, a bigot or a racist, I’m fine with accepting those labels here.
Mostly because they’ll false. Also because of the anonymity.
“I’ve had women tell me how jackasses like you tend to believe any woman who gets in is due to affirmative action, how sexual harassment is common, how poisonous people like you tend to poison the well.”
You don’t know me. I go out of my way to accommodate women at school when I have to, despite their common incompetence. I wasn’t even remotely sexist or opposed to the western left until I had to deal with the cuck-cabal and their women in STEM bandwagon.
Sexual Assault? Top fucking kek. I’ve seen men’s lives destroyed from false rape allegations. I don’t even speak to women at college unless they’re in my way. Most of them have florescent hair and nose rings anyway, so it’s no real loss.
So how precisely do I poison the well? Because I think incorrectly? Because I defend this place as a forum to speak the objective realities of what we have to deal with, or that I defend those who just want to vent their frustrations? Because I don’t embrace Gloria Steinem’s bullshit, I am poisonous?
A lot of people here just need to express their anger. That’s healthy, even when their anger is misguided. We are free to call each other out on our bullshit. And that’s basically all I was doing; Calling you out on your shilling, and your slander.
“I’ve also heard AA is terrible in the regard. So no, go fuck yourself.”
Yeah, I’m sure you believed them as well. I’ll disregard all personal experience and all of the stories I’ve heard as fair warning, because (low-T) you have heard otherwise. All male feminists on this entire forum can feel free to travel back to treasured Kazakhstan, hub of nurturing STEM women.
We’re trying to have a discourse on the reality of the western situation, on many topics, that we develop personal philosophies and applicable solutions. Some are here to just vent, sure. If those who’re just venting their anger upset you so much that you’ll slander the creator of this place, you’re not fit to discuss issues pertaining to masculinity in the west in the first place.
> And I suppose that triggers you as well… Where precisely did I insult minorities or even take right wing positions? I’ve often argued in favor of traditionalism. If that makes me right wing, a sexist, a bigot or a racist, I’m fine with accepting those labels here. Mostly because they’ll false. Also because of the anonymity.
Your assumption that women succeed only because of AA and that their concerns are worthless.
> You don’t know me. I go out of my way to accommodate women at school when I have to, despite their common incompetence. I wasn’t even remotely sexist or opposed to the western left until I had to deal with the cuck-cabal and their women in STEM bandwagon.
I’m willing to bet that confirmation bias is at work here. “Despite their common incompetence”. For an entire group?
> Sexual Assault? Top fucking kek. I’ve seen men’s lives destroyed from false rape allegations. I don’t even speak to women at college unless they’re in my way. Most of them have florescent hair and nose rings anyway, so it’s no real loss.
Absolutely no concern for women who are sexual assaulted. Seems like you’re the typical ROK denizen.
> So how precisely do I poison the well? Because I think incorrectly? Because I defend this place as a forum to speak the objective realities of what we have to deal with, or that I defend those who just want to vent their frustrations? Because I don’t embrace Gloria Steinem’s bullshit, I am poisonous?
Once again, confirmation bias.
> A lot of people here just need to express their anger. That’s healthy, even when their anger is misguided. We are free to call each other out on our bullshit. And that’s basically all I was doing; Calling you out on your shilling, and your slander.
People usually express their anger here in terms of ludicrously racist slanders or rape fantasies.
> Yeah, I’m sure you believed them as well. I’ll disregard all personal experience and all of the stories I’ve heard as fair warning, because (low-T) you have heard otherwise. All male feminists on this entire forum can feel free to travel back to treasured Kazakhstan, hub of nurturing STEM women.
I’ve seen the same thing in the Western world. As I said, my relatives were educated in the West.
> We’re trying to have a discourse on the reality of the western situation, on many topics, that we develop personal philosophies and applicable solutions. Some are here to just vent, sure. If those who’re just venting their anger upset you so much that you’ll slander the creator of this place, you’re not fit to discuss issues pertaining to masculinity in the west in the first place.
Which usually involves stereotyping entire groups of people (namely MENA refugees) as being rapists and women as being useful for nothing more than sex and housework.
“Your assumption that women succeed only because of AA and that their concerns are worthless.”
You seem to be making that assumption for me. Because I never claimed any of this.
“I’m willing to bet that confirmation bias is at work here. “Despite their common incompetence”. For an entire group?”
There is like an 76-80% annual drop out rate at the school I attend, of women who are in STEM. This also accounts for women switching majors of course. But they switch mostly because they believed this bandwagon bullshit when they were too young and impressionable to know what it actually takes. A solid portion of those women who get STEM degrees from my school go work in HR, and keep their degree as a nice motif and discussion point, which they bring up over and over and over. It’s even worse if they get a doctorate or a PHD.
This entire thing is a mostly a ponzy scheme imo. The education industrial complex essentially, milking the middle class and poor with bullshit hopes, for careers that mostly won’t exist when they graduate.
“Absolutely no concern for women who are sexual assaulted. Seems like you’re the typical ROK denizen.”
You sound like a typical male feminist. Like most healthy young western men, hurting women was a thing that enraged me. You seem to have very little experience with women, especially western women. Here’s a prime specimen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riKYD4CXvq4
“Once again, confirmation bias.”
This is precisely how they exploit you; you want to believe them. And because of that, you’ll believe every case of abuse is real, that every claim of rape is really rape, that every sort of structural oppression isn’t a figment of their bastard “philosophy” or their own rationalization of circumstances, and of course that they never lie or deceive.
I’m not a big fan of people in general. Not that I’m misanthropic, but women have a specific style of manipulation and deceit. I’m glad RoK and places like it exists, because it actually has saved me a good deal of personal grief, pain and loss. Despite the pessimism and cynicism I now embrace, it has been worth it.
“People usually express their anger here in terms of ludicrously racist slanders or rape fantasies.”
I was an athlete in school, and I’ve worked hard labor with some tough old bastards. Hearing the way people speak, not just about women and racial issues but anything, it took a lot for me to get over initially. It literally made me sick at first.
But I had an end to meet, and I knew I couldn’t change the way they thought. It was out of my control. It’s not that I compartmentalized it. I just tolerated it, and accepted that degenerate shit of that nature has always existed.
The fact that it was just verbal, and not actually causing anyone harm, I got over the fact that people speaking like that is a facet of reality. The fact that such things are anonymous here, and other places shouldn’t be off putting. This is human nature. And it gets much, much worse than fucking racism and rape fantasies. Most women have those, too, btw.
” I’ve seen the same thing in the Western world.”
I have to. But in having a sense of proportion, I can see the rotting despotism and degeneracy of contemporary western social circumstances, and I know that its a rare anomaly. It is a thing I have to navigate out of my personal circumstances.
You shouldn’t be so quick to rule out my views, or the views of others here as anecdotal. Many are just bitching and venting, sure. But some are here to write articles and comment about the broader social reality we perceive, and in RoK and a few other places, actually have some room to discuss our troubles and the ugly realities that go unspoken elsewhere.
Even if it’s not up to the standards you prefer.
“Which usually involves stereotyping entire groups of people (namely MENA refugees) as being rapists and women as being useful for nothing more than sex and housework.”
To what end? They vent, and everyone is left standing and in good health. Well, a few white gang-rape victims (sometimes young women, sometimes boys) and hungry/horny/hateful white men aside. Most westerners have a right to be angry with the current situation, in my opinion.
> You seem to be making that assumption for me. Because I never claimed any of this.
Point taken. It seems to be very common for men to say this kind of shit.
> There is like an 76-80% annual drop out rate at the school I attend, of women who are in STEM. This also accounts for women switching majors of course. But they switch mostly because they believed this bandwagon bullshit when they were too young and impressionable to know what it actually takes. A solid portion of those women who get STEM degrees from my school go work in HR, and keep their degree as a nice motif and discussion point, which they bring up over and over and over. It’s even worse if they get a doctorate or a PHD.
Confirmation bias. Most of the ones I’ve met dropped out because people kept constantly saying “you suuuure?” in the most demeaning way.
> This entire thing is a mostly a ponzy scheme imo. The education industrial complex essentially, milking the middle class and poor with bullshit hopes, for careers that mostly won’t exist when they graduate.
No disagreement there.
> You sound like a typical male feminist. Like most healthy young western men, hurting women was a thing that enraged me. You seem to have very little experience with women, especially western women. Here’s a prime specimen.
Confirmation bias. I’ve seen women in Eastern Europe do the same. Brazil too.
> This is precisely how they exploit you; you want to believe them. And because of that, you’ll believe every case of abuse is real, that every claim of rape is really rape, that every sort of structural oppression isn’t a figment of their bastard “philosophy” or their own rationalization of circumstances, and of course that they never lie or deceive.
Where did I say believe everyone? I said don’t demean people or outright deny facts if they’re incontrevertible.
> I have to. But in having a sense of proportion, I can see the rotting despotism and degeneracy of contemporary western social circumstances, and I know that its a rare anomaly. It is a thing I have to navigate out of my personal circumstances.
> You shouldn’t be so quick to rule out my views, or the views of others here as anecdotal. Many are just bitching and venting, sure. But some are here to write articles and comment about the broader social reality we perceive, and in RoK and a few other places, actually have some room to discuss our troubles and the ugly realities that go unspoken elsewhere.
> Even if it’s not up to the standards you prefer.
Some have the obnoxious tendency of making unprovable and slanderous assertions about entire groups of people. I’ve never seen an article with sources that weren’t either other blogposts or misrepresented statistics.
> To what end? They vent, and everyone is left standing and in good health. Well, a few white gang-rape victims (sometimes young women, sometimes boys) and hungry/horny/hateful white men aside. Most westerners have a right to be angry with the current situation, in my opinion.
Your opinion is perfectly valid. However, many people here almost always let white men off the hook. When Brock Turner was caught red-handed raping a white girl, ROK shamed the poor woman.
“Confirmation bias. Most of the ones I’ve met dropped out because people kept constantly saying “you suuuure?” in the most demeaning way.”
If a woman will throw away the development of her intellect and her personal passion for someone saying this, she deserves neither. That’s all you here in apprenticeships and all throughout education, “you sure”, as a man too.
Fucking pathetic tbh. I wonder what would happen if they faced actual adversity in life.
“Confirmation bias. I’ve seen women in Eastern Europe do the same. Brazil too.”
Male feminist status: revoked.
“Where did I say believe everyone? I said don’t demean people or outright deny facts if they’re incontrovertible.”
This is entirely reasonable. Most common people will never, ever play by these rules. We shouldn’t expect people here to be any different, despite the occasional glimmers of hope, insight and near-constant displays intellectual fortitude by a select few.
You must tolerate the plebs, bro.
“Some have the obnoxious tendency of making unprovable and slanderous assertions about entire groups of people. I’ve never seen an article with sources that weren’t either other blogposts or misrepresented statistics.”
One of the most off-putting aspects about RoK is the clickbait, buzzfeed-tier nature of it as a publication. I remember actually cringing when they posted an article about how they cost some Hollywood movie (the new Mad Max or Star Wars, I don’t remember) a bunch of money by describing how fucked up it was according to the author’s perception.
Aside from this, there can occasionally be positive and insightful aspects of it. Especially in regards to discernment. I’ve learned things that were philosophically valuable (in rare cases, of a really good QC or Aurelius Moner article, plus a few other authors here who often post infrequently). I’ve learned things about women, and gained insight to my past experiences with them as well.
I don’t know what article you’re referencing here, but I don’t doubt it, basically. However, I don’t think those types of poorly written/bullshit articles or Kratom salesman null the value of RoK as a whole.
I still keep coming around, and it’s not just to vent about post-modern art and why feminists are such cunts. It has value to me, value to the point of which I’m willing to tolerate the bullshit. But if there is something that I look into and cannot accept, I am free to call the author or commenter out on their bullshit.
It’s a good thing, despite its faults.
“Your opinion is perfectly valid. However, many people here almost always let white men off the hook. When Brock Turner was caught red-handed raping a white girl, ROK shamed the poor woman.”
The girl shouldn’t be disrespected, especially not until there is proof that she was lying. Like most people, I was pretty disgusted by the entire thing. The one thing that kept me from having a bone to pick with RoK & the manosphere was the media fire-and-brimstone response. That statement may be hard to understand, but hopefully I can explain it clearly:
There are many, actual rapes that happen in any given week. But the shills in the media treated the case as if it were basically the worst fucking thing to ever happen, like top 10 sex crimes of all time-tier. Not the response to the girl, but the actual crime.
This was because he was a creepy-looking white frat guy, who actually raped a woman. It was like all of their shilling when the false rape/Rolling Stone case happened, compounded with the Duke false rape case (and all the other false rape cases before and during the Rolling Stone case)… Plus all the other hysterical points of changing consent laws (which actually happened in response to that Rolling Stone hysteria) and etc.. were forgiven in their own eyes, and in public eyes, because of this one piece of shit who actually raped a woman, unlike all of the others.
I haven’t penned any articles for RoK, and if I did, it would be in an area where I have expertise. I am not a lawyer or a knowledgeable journalist, so I try to stay out of these sorta things. I don’t even think I read the article about the case tbh.
Maybe it was that they were so overconfident it was a false rape case (a lot of the manosphere-type guys on twitter were bragging about how it was fake, before there was even any public information on it). That’s a terrible place to be in intellectually, and I’m glad I just sort of naturally keep my distance from that way of thinking, even with anonymity. Modern law is such a political/media shit show now, and you could end up being the biggest asshole on the planet for making mistakes like that.
I was told growing up entering the trades meant you were low life. I was pushed into a private college prep high school and of course went on to a liberal arts school since that was the thing to do.
Looking back, I wish I’d NEVER listened to my mother. At a young age I picked up how to do electrical work. I actually wired multiple new buildings for people I knew when I was in high school.
Instead of becoming an electrician — 9 years out of college, I’m still paying student loans. And angered to know I essentially did nothing more than finance the cushy salaries of professors and admins at my college.
I am/was a tradesman and was flown around the world.
Settled in NYC.
And was somewhat maligned as lower, so went back to college…
Both were succesful for me…
But nowadays, I reckon is a much better conduit for steady salary from day one…rather than huge debt, then no jobs, as many are discovering.
IMO, USA needs return of manufacturing, Trades, and Professional(professions),,,,and the SJWs with masters in Self-Study can continue to get my coffee.
That’s sort of the problem. I graduated in 2008 right when the economy tanked. It seems the entire world turned upside down. I’m not one of these SJWanker Fags afraid of dirty work. I also ran a hardscape business in high school n college n made on average $1,000/ week.
My mother saw people on my dads side walk into lucrative entry level jobs — out of college — and thus thought me going to college HAD to occur.
The reality is, I would have been FAR better off in the trades. It all came naturally to me at a very young age. This is why I think college is a SCAM. It traps naive young people into thinking they HAVE to do it or be a loser. The reality is you’re left with huge sums of debt and bitter.
And the reality is … I never was meant to work in a Cunt HR Environment.
College has become the thing to do after high school, just because, you know, whatever. Probably 80% of the current college population has no real plan or goal in life, except the so-vague-its-useless idea of “getting a good job”.
A lot of these naive younguns also realize that college is an excellent excuse for avoiding full time employment and actual adulthood.
So a 17-18 year old is suppose to somehow have the wisdom of a 27-37 year old. They have 0 sense of debt. Decades ago a kid who wanted to fuck off for 4 years at college did not take on massive sums of debt. Shit. I’ve got a family member who got a worthless history degree, ended up becoming an anesthesiologist for $1,500/ debt n makes $150,000 annually. Ha. Try that now a days. Anyone who has the capacity to get through Med School is looking at minimally $150,000/ debt. Not to mention past generations walking out with little sums of debt for college would routinely declare bankruptcy to get out of what little they owed.
The system now a days completely takes advantage of these naive kids n parents by pumping bogus earning statistics. On top of that, you’ve got banks on campus at events offering these naive youngsters $5,000 credit line cards at 30% interest.
Trades are only lucrative if you have your own business, and that is one that is successful. charging $100 an hour isn’t much good if you’re only getting 10 hours work a week or less. Then working for a larger business, you end up being paid the same as pretty much everyone else give or take.
The grass is always greener so to speak.
Also trades can be physically difficult, dirty and dangerous. And then you still have to pick the right one. I know guys who were mechanic’s and have now gone back to study.
I know what you mean. I ran a hardscape business (building of patios, walkways, retaining walls) during high school n college summer breaks. I never had to advertise and had more work than I could handle. After college the exploration bug was in me. I lived in the Pacific Northwest but less than 2 years ago, I returned to my native Maine.
I decided I’d resurrect my hardscape business. And boy did I get harsh taste of reality. Firstly, the subcontractors I used have since retired or just moved on. Also … I did extremely well with this years ago during SUMMERS yet never thought what it’d be like Year Round in a state with winters.
The reality is you need minimally $175K in equipment: dump truck, bobcat, trailer n excavator. Then because I’m in Maine, I only really can do it 5-6 months out of the year. And trying to do it all alone — one cannot make enough in 5-6 months solo managing all phases of this line of work to get through the year.
So of course the “why don’t you work for someone else” always comes up. Yea. Fuck That! Guys doing this for someone else are making $10/ hour to work their asses off. Not to mention the guys who do this for someone else have their balls in vice — the type who run risk of imprisonment because they got some girl pregnant n she’s garnishing his wages to support her n baby.
They could all at least learn robot polishing, because that’s the “career track” they’re ridin’.
I used to think that way. Then I ran my own business and stopped thinking that way.
I love the fact tax havens exist.
The only problem with trades is that if you get injured, you’re fucked. Sure there’s worker’s comp, but it’s pretty bad. Whereas if you’re say a doctor and you get hurt, you’ll still be able to practice (excluding surgery of course). Think of the difference between an engineer that understands physics and can design a car versus a mechanic who can fix a car but doesn’t understand the science behind it to be able to design one. The mechanic is out of work if he gets hurt, but the engineer can keep working as long as he doesn’t hurt his brain. Trades are looked down upon because they are more about brawn than brains. Generally speaking of course.
As you say, a physical disability can destroy a tradesmen’s business/career not to mention the work itself can damage you physically, especially as you age.
A person pushing paper at a desk doesn’t really have to worry about this and can comfortably work well into their pre-retirement years.
Something to consider when weighing up career options.
income inequality is bush league thinking. no one should give a fuck about that.
wealth inequality is a problem when the means that certain elites acquire that wealth is via sucking up forced welfare payments drawn from taxpayer purses.
people think they’re defending galt, when they’re really defending some leach on society that got to a position where his wealth accumulation through government kickbacks could be ignored.
example, elon musk made bank with x.com and paypal, and there’s no doubting he is a genius and general does want best for the united states and the world at large.
that said, all of his space x, tesla and solar city experiments have been completely underwritten by federal and state welfare loans to keep his shit afloat.
i’m talking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even billions.
its a big fucking bubble.
Rules also need to be applied the same across the board, and its patently clear the uber rich can write off debts that the poor and middle class cannot.
By uber rich i dont mean some tradie that’s making 150k a year, i mean 7figure plus peeps ceos and the like that have their company subsidised by the government. Or as the case of Quantitative easing and Tarp showed, the banking and finance sectors. Where all that money got hoovered up and just went to enrich the fuckers that exaacerbated and gambled on the problem [and having government protection from skin in the game] while many other hardworking normal Americans went under.
If everyone became a tradesman the supply would increase and their income would plummet too.
here’s where problems come in. There are two inequalities. The ones that come from individual effort (good) and the ones that come from central banking and cronyism (bad). The left loves to leverage the results of the later to attack the former.
Free enterprise is consensual. Socialism is rape.
But in free market you need to first get the customer drunk on marketing and sales offers. Hence why women are usually preyed on. So not so consensual after all, is it?!
No free market, no free lunch, no free sex, no nothing.
Anything free is a trap.
It’s still consensual, even if stupid. The reason women are targeted is gov transfers to women and divorce rape which favors women. End those two – which are not free market – and marketing would shift back to men
You make your decisions, and you live with them. This is the way of the real world.
We need some consent slogans. Something like, “Stupid consent is still consent.”
In my country, a woman going somewhere alone with a guy is considered irrevocable consent. Every year a few white girls who didn’t understand the rules cry rape. Because the west is so oppressive (aka fear loss of US grants), the police will arrest the accused local man, then quietly release him on bail. Then they they play with court dates until the white female tourist has to return home. The case is then dropped for lack of evidence (no accuser).
The only free thing that isnt a trap is whatever you can steal, preferably stealthily.
You’re comparing advertising to rape / non consensual act? Wow, your idiocy is astounding. Go back to the huffington post and daily KOS and hang out with those retards you bitch.
Vladimir Lenin essentially invented marketing. It has since poisoned the well of a free market. Pic related. But now, anything that isn’t under the strictest definition of government control is declared the free market, or capitalism. I guess some people just need a scape goat, or some word to pin their legitimate disputes with usury, corporatism and globalist economic policy on. Bankers, absurdly wealthy share holders and Wall Street psychopaths love it when people exercise in that sort of futility. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7abeebb766e588f283e7078087245ca66b31c7c84dcd1872e3b609941fe81ba9.jpg
What about free-market socialism (i.e worker-owned businesses, the kind run under Josip Broz Tito’s regime in Yugoslavia)?
Free market socialism is an oxymoron. A worker owned business is totally permissible under capitalism you fucking twat. The ignorance on this site is crazy…
Socialism as Marx defined it was worker ownership of the means of production. Also, occupancy and use property norms like those espoused by mutualism also fall under the socialist umbrella.
Of course it’s totally permissible under capitalism. Doesn’t mean it isn’t socialist.
So no, take your shit and shove it up your back pipe where it belongs.
Worker owned businesses exist in capitalism – they just don’t generally work very well but if done correctly can work just fine (eg: publix is majority owned by employees). Many other companies do profit sharing bonuses up to 20% of profits which is also effectively partially worker owned.
My family use to run a worker-owned fur company in which the workers who did well were rewarded with shares rather than liquid cash and the board of directors was elected by them. The smarter ones had a larger share of the vote.
Many companies discuss giving employees stock rather than bonuses but what research has found is that if your company is public, they immediately sell their shares and convert to cash. Since this is dilutive to share count and they just convert to cash – may as well just give them cash and not dilute share count. This is why stock grants typically don’t start for public companies until you hit director level (some companies do for manager level if the company is large enough where a mgr would be a director for a smaller company)
Probably works better for private companies but then you have a lot of employees with paper wealth with no way to convert to cash if they need it to purchase a home or pay a medical bill or a college payment or whatever.
Also worth noting – if you have more than 50 or 100 shareholders (which if you give a lot of employees stock you will), you have to start reporting certain financial information with third party auditors which costs a ton of money.
The company was private and said stock was more of a “you’re going to get a part of a company’s profit” than an actual share. The higher you got up, the more your salary was contingent upon company success.
Probably was what is often called a shadow or phantom equity program. I worked for one of those once but at the time was a lot earlier in my career and was’t high enough in the company to participate.
This was for all employees. It was a small business that was heavily contingent on individual employee performance (fur hunting is a very competitive industry that requires a lot of skill and strategy).
Agree, there’s no such thing as “free” market.
The idea of a free market is just trap designed to make smaller countries open their markets for big multi-international monopolies. The Adam Smith’s (a Free Mason) ideology paved the way for colonialism also known today as globalization. The free market destroys the unique cultures of the nations and corrupts the people as it encourages materialism.
The push for a free market always leads to monopolization and centralization of the economy which is nothing short of communism. Both are just two sides of the same coin.
I figured this out a couple years ago. But expressing anything as you did lands one as being labeled a ‘communist.’
I’m the furthest thing from a liberal … but I’ve observed the complete decimation of communities by this glorious “free market” capitalism.
My hometown of 20,000 people had 5-6 mills along the river. It’s mind blowing now a days to think how a guy could support a family and maintain 1 job at these mills his entire career.
Of course the mills have all closed. What’s left is heroin, welfare and minimum wage jobs galore. And the influx of those fucking chain restaurants running out the local establishments.
I’ve turned off talk radio. I’m sick of the Mark Levins continuously referring to the text book definition of Conservativism to shit on Trump.
I’m not big on government interference … yet I’ve watched the government continuously sell us out — all in the name of ‘free markets’ — for DECADES. At this juncture, frankly it’s refreshing to have a TRUMP excersise some muscle for WE THE PEOPLE.
You better keep your expectations on Trump as low as possible so you don’t suffer a disappointment. Even if he is sincere, which I think he isn’t, the system is set against him and he’s a deal maker he’ll try to work with it.
Oh trust me. Expectations are LOW. I’m leery of him to some degree.
My point in that long winded rant is I’ve observed corporations getting tax payer welfare to leave the US in their quest to save a few bucks while politicians shit on any citizen who dare question it.
If you’re not liberal, you’re not suppose to support Trump threatening companies. Yet observing what’s occurred over the last several DECADES, I’m escatic to have someone finally threaten these companies into staying in the US.
Fuck Globalism. And Fuck the D.C. Cartel.
From Robert Gore at Straight Line Logic:
https://straightlinelogic.com/2017/01/11/trenches-human-nature-and-numbers-by-robert-gore/
“The bodies on the highway are cartoon corpses; they spring, Roger Rabbit-like, back to life. Giving Trump his best case—that he’s motivated by a steadfast mixture of idealism and animosity towards the powers that be, and deeply concerned about the state of America—the problems he confronts are enormous and virtually intractable. They fall into three categories: trenches, human nature, and numbers.”
IMO Require 3 things:
His intention, his plan/people, and success against the Dc machine…
Devos, his choice for Education, a Billionaire and brother of Prince from BlackWater…
Still Water for now…
This article is nonsense, the current economy is extremely controlled, especially banking. Banking in America was more regulated than any other major economy during Bush’s presidency. The writer is living in a different reality. Luxembourg and Switzerland have loosely controled banks, and they work great. Look at Singapore, which is mostly laissez-faire, their economy in general works great, the only problem is that society becomes way too comfortable and decadent when wealthy. That’s a huge problem. Capitalism needs to be balanced with extremely strong social policy. Libertarianism fails, but capitalism does not. Try actually reading the U.S. register or the budget sometime and you’ll see that America is closer to Communism than laissez-faire, which has never actually been tried in modern history.
Except we don’t have a free market. Eliminate the Federal Reserve and welfare programs, amend the Constitution to force a balanced federal budget, and simplify the tax code. Our current “capitalism” is built on unsustainable consumerism because that is what our policies and financial structure encourage. Real capitalism is built on savings.
I like the cut of your jib.
Compiling savings to form wealth and making wise investments for future returns. This could be then passed on to the next generation to build on and grow. Now the only thing pass on to the next generation is debt and demands of forfiture of the current ones earnings.
Exactly. Capitalism depends on the accumulation of wealth, so that it can be focused (invested) into a worthy project when opportunity has been discovered. No savings = no capitalism.
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ux416c:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!ux416c:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash496DigitalStreamGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ux416c:….,…..
Everybody saves…then the economy slows down, businesses go bust. sounds great.
Excessive saving would cause lower consumer prices and lower interest rates, which would spur on new spending.
Interest rates in the UK have been rock bottom for years…but you are right…why work in a job you hate just to spend the money on shit you don’t need…I saved 90% of my cash for 8 months and now I’m in SE Asia for 8 months.
You just summarized the common gripe of the London School (Keynes).
But in practice, the inability to save is not a function of reducing purchases and causing businesses to go “bust,” as you say. Rather, the inability to save is a function of over taxation– leaving too little purchasing power left in the paychecks of most of the population, while their (definitely not reduced) spending is financed via credit/debt.
Look at the country– nobody is spending less, and nobody has money to save. For a huge portion of Americans, they have less than a month’s pay saved away. That makes it pretty tough for them to participate in capitalism.
No, they do not. That’s Keynesian claptrap. The savings unless the government gives reason for people to stuff it in their mattresses is loaned out and invested to get a return.
Buying crap you don’t need with money you haven’t got(credit). That’s capitalism for you….why bother?
That’s just ”claptrap”
I appreciate the Tyler Durden-esque sentiment, and I share it. But, I don’t use the word “capitalism” to describe that behavior – to me that is just consumerism, or even nihilism (depending on how destructive the spending gets). Based on my understanding, capitalism as a system requires widespread saving and investment, not merely purchasing somebody else’s stuff. The toxic relationship between capitalism and consumerism is something worth exploring (definitely from a red pill point of view), but I fully deny that they are one and the same. They aren’t.
So where do you think savings go?
SE Asia right now(which is where I am for the next 6 months)
Genuine Capitalism is the production of ‘things” that can then be sold…what you are on about is Finance, something quite different, and altogether much more ”toxic” as we found out in 2008 and will do again very soon.
If so, then it’s loaned out to make stuff at contract manufacturers which is then sold in the USA maintaining price point against inflation by big name companies which employs people in the USA in the sales, marketing, executive, and other admin functions and doesn’t slow the economy to a halt.
Abso-fricken-loutely. The finance organs are too big and too intertwined with the material portions of the markets. There are fewer ways to protect everything else from their lack of reliability.
Not *everyone* saves, and not everyone saves simultaneously. Bottom line is all growth ultimately comes from savings. The economy slowing down is a given, it will happen no matter what. That’s when, in a normally functioning economy, those savings can be used to pick up the pieces.
Given we have eschewed a savings-based approach to economic growth, in favor of a print money and expand credit based approach to economic growth, economic slowdowns are far more severe. We have no savings to pick up the slack, and thus policy makers scream that we need to print more money and cut interest rates even more, because waiting to accumulate savings takes too long.
That just puts us back on the same path, which will end the same way the next time the economy slows, which is inevitable.
I only have my ”savings” in the bank because of convenience…(I didn’t want travel for a long time with large amounts of cash on me)..but I wont be putting any cash in the bank when I get back home…no point.
My father’s take on this, before he died in 1997, was to die owing as much as humanly possible. They can’t take it from you after you are dead. He added that it was increasingly difficult to get anyone to loan him money, long term, after he was 80.
And the huge amount of regulation on financial institutions is not eliminating the too big to fail. Instead it is forcing ever greater concentration within the industry. Small players, home town banks, don’t have the resources to meet all the regulation. It takes a legal department with a regulatory affairs department and each business group having a regulatory compliance manager. They then become correspondent banks of some bank big enough to already have the staff for regulatory compliance. I might add, the business of these financial institutions stops being lending money to worthwhile private enterprise and instead becomes complying with regulations.
I was paid 104,000 thousand dollars in last twelve months by doing an on-line job from home and I did that by working part time for 3+ hours on daily basis. I’m using a money making opportunity I was introduced by this website i found online and I am amazed that i was able to make such great money. It’s really newbie-friendly and I’m so grateful that i learned about it. Here is what i do… http://www.facebook.com/Jobs-from-home-for-US-UK-Cananda-Australia-and-New-Zealand-251232438633700/app/208195102528120/
Or perhaps capitalism is the institution of private property.
Without private property rights it is not possible to buy or sell, since trade is exchange of the title of ownership.
Soviet Union produced things and sold them inside USSR. It also paid wages to workers and therefore did buy at least the services of the labor. Otherwise there existed very little private property rights. USSR also traded with the outside world.
If a tribe would live as a anti-capitalist society and produced an excess of one thing but would severly be lacking another, then material incentive would exist to trade outside the tribe. The tribe would have ownership but not single individual. The tribe would then excercise ‘tribe capitalism’ when trading with neighbouring tribe, like USSR excercised ‘state capitalism’ when USSR traded with the outside world.
“The economy slowing down is a given, it will happen no matter what”
Economic ‘boom-bust cycle’ have been debated about two centuries. It is money supply phenomenon. Whenever an economic system is dominated by money (money substitute) that which supply can be expandeed there will be severe booms and busts.
“pick up the slack”
This allures to false theory of ‘aggregate demand’. The Keynesian / post-Keynesian witch doctors claim that aggregate demand could be increased by inflating the money supply. This is obvious nonsense.
To add to that, 33% of GDP is gov spending and there are hundreds of thousands of regulations – most of which favor big businesses – and patent and copyright laws are inheritantly uncapitalist and are currently being abused. We have had a mixed economy since the 1930s
the fed will never be eliminated for that exact reason. elites don’t want a free market, they want a stacked deck.
free market is the illusion sold to 20 something year old libertarians fresh out of chicago school/ austrian school thinking but where does it actually exist at a macro level?
governments negotiate trade agreements and not individuals or companies. [unless you’re Shell in nigeria]
most of the chicago school that ever got into power became cucks for supranational authorities and NGOs like the world bank, IMF and so on.
taxpayers are underwriters for every stupid excess largesse ridden no-competition contract the government provides to its ex-cronies in big state welfare companies [defense contractor CEOs for example] and where does that money go? not to the veterans or the people putting their life on the line to fight in bullshit wars and enter meat frinders head first. not to improve the taxpayers or normal civilians quality of life in the states.
nope all that welfare money gets hoovered up by elites or airdropped onto random people abroad that then get pissed and come back to hurt uncle sam.
it becomes a self perpetuating cycle
I’ve never heard an austrian (economic sense) say we have a free market. Some people wrongly think that the present system can be dismantled without regard to the order of dismantling but that’s something different than thinking we have a free market. That’s where the disagreement comes in. Some people think that a good step is worth taking no matter what when many of them are bad steps because of the other anti-free market things that are and will remain in place.
The author Beau Albrecht is a naive fool. Government is ALWAYS evil. Get it OUT of our lives.
Any you don’t believe capitalism is not? Government looks like an angel compare to capitalism.
Socialist “useful idiot”, as Lenin would describe you. lol
You are wrong. You probably have no clue what capitalism is.
You are spot on right. There has never been a 100% free market in the history of modern economics. And all of western economic policy seems to only focus on spending, spending, spending and more spending…on useless things!
And mass immigration is being caused by the influx of H1bs because slave wage can be paid to these Indian foreigners who will work for peanuts. Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer off them and we are forced to live in neighborhoods filled with Little Calcutta.
Yup. Much of this article is total hogwash. Very eye-rolling. The economy is VERY heavily regulated, over-taxed and to pretend we have some sort of laissez-faire is beyond laughable.
SJW college grad to job counselor: “I want a high paying job in a company that doesn’t make much profit”
correction: “a non profit”
That stupid smile they have when they brag about working at a non profit, that provides dildos to impoverished Libyan girls.
Lol. Plus one for detail fleshing
“When I was a teenager, I thought up an idea for satellite-distributed radio, making hundreds of channels available across the country. Since I didn’t have the money to get satellite broadcasts going and start manufacturing receivers, someone else got to invent XM Radio. ”
This is the kind of statement I really dislike (though I did like the article). Ok, when you were a teenager you thought up this idea but didn’t have the money to get it going. Well, did you get a book or go online and learn how to trademark your ideas? Did you learn to write a proper business proposal. Did you dump all your money and all your credit into traveling around the country or even internationally to take wealthy investors out to dinner and pitch them the idea for a stake in the company? Did you learn who was in a position to spend that kind of money and research them to find out who would be most likely to be interested in your plan and then call and call and call hundreds of times, show up at their offices hundreds of times until you were finally able to be seen? Just thinking “hey, there should be satellite based national radio with hundreds of stations” doesn’t mean dick until you put your money where your mouth is and put your back into actually getting it done.
It isn’t that everyone who makes it with a new idea happens to be a clever billionaire. Many of them, like gates and jobs and the guys from hewlett packard etc etc etc had ideas and basically sunk their entire lives into them knowing that if they failed they would totally fucking bottom out. Thinking “there is gold in them there hills” doesn’t mean a single thing until you sell all your worldly possessions, buy some mining tools and leave everything you ever knew to try to dig that shit up.
there’s a Seinfeld episode about that…Kramer thought of so many awesome ideas
Right…coming up with the brilliant idea is about 20% (if that much) of the deal. Making an idea real is why some people are billionaires and others are just dreamers.
“10% inspiration, 9%, perspiration, 81% legal fees”:
The Winklevoss Twins
good quote. Who are they?
the guys that invented facebook….
is my cynical quote…
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/02/facebook-ipo-winklevoss-300m-fortune
or “Winklevi” in the Latin!
This
“great ideas only work if YOU do!”
heard it somewhere….
What “free market” exactly are you talking about? You explain how we don’t live in a free market, then complain about our “present free market system”.
Why am I reading recycled 1930’s left propaganda at ROK that not only has no understanding of Smith, but ignores the last century of free-market economics?
Why don’t you enlighten us then instead of making a blank statement like this?
The Adam Smith’s invisible hands sounds good on paper but the history has disproved him. Because the social power is unevenly distributed in society and the powerless end up exploited in exchange in the same way a feudal lord exploits his peasants.
How has history shown price control to work? It didn’t work when the Soviets tried it, and they had to fall back on partial capitalism in this way. Turns out the invisible hand works historically. But you wouldn’t know that because you haven’t seriously studied economics like I have. Study first, then debate.
What you study is a sick horse but none of you seem to be a good doctor.
What I see is a system that is based on perpetual consumerism and the illusion of prosperity based on debt.
Just look at basic commodity like cars. It is the same old dirty machine repackaged. No innovation.
Look at housing market. It’s an illusion of ownership. You have a mortgage and they call you a home owner.
Look at food. It’s lacking vital nutrients and it’s all about the size and the packaging.
Look at arts. The silliest creations ever in history of mankind change hands for millions. A slashed canvas, a bluetac on the wall are passed for high art.
Look at the war on marriage and heterosexuality all in the name of profit and consumerism.
Look at technology and science. There haven’t been any major discoveries in energy sources for ages. We are sill burning shit for energy.
I can go on indefinitely.
“I can go on indefinitely.”
ding ding ding
ok, first correct thing said by FO3 today. Remember my promise, I will buy him a cookie if he ever makes it to 5.
I think the massive abuses and illusions of prosperity you are describing are not the “invisible hand” of the “free market,” but the *unnoticed hand* of debt instruments as product. The invisible hand works miracles with regard to innovation and prosperity in material goods. But debt instruments/derivatives are an artificial creation that does not track the value of material goods– they track the assumed value of future behaviors (such as paying your loans), *not the market value of things you can touch.* In this way, I think what you are talking about is neither the free market nor capitalism.
Examples?
You can buy me a half a cookie as from yesterday I’m now Fo4!
Packaging/rolling up debt to create “securities,” to be sold as investment products: real estate debt (mortgage backed securities), consumer debt, and on the world stage: sovereign debt. The whole hedge market is particularly abstract and toxic.
Again, I am not a 100% purist or some kind of economic ideologue, here. There is a place for these elements in the economic landscape, but our current balance is off. One of my hopes for the next 4 years of Trump is a renewed focus on the US production of material goods and services, rather than the focus on investment instruments that has dominated the last 16 years of governance under Bush and Obama.
Thanks but I meant examples of where the free market remains pure?
Venzuela has had price controls in place for a few years. How is that workig out? Notice it isn’t in western media much these days after the little dwarf Hugo kicked the bucket (but not after stealing $2 billion).
well if you mean you had yerself another kid congratulations. As a gift I will not be a total asshole for 12 full hours.
I think it is super important to avoid words like “pure,” so that we don’t get bogged down in dogma. A combination of approaches is needed, and understanding how to balance them is key.
That having been said, look no further than the cornucopia of material goods (and some services) on the shelves of Costco to see the invisible hand in action. The abundance casually on display is a miracle– one not enjoyed by any other people at any time, anywhere on the historical timeline. It evolved up from the free market, one gigantic carton of toilet paper and huge bag of almonds at a time.
Sorry lolknee, I like you and all, but I’m going to need proof in order to believe you uphold your end of the bargain.
well I only need to make it until 8. then I will be busy defiling a local beauty
Treat her well…after all, you didn’t specify WHO you wouldn’t be an asshole too.
that is a nice loophole. I suppose I can just not call my sister for the next 12 hours.
I like being technically correct. It’s the best kind of correct.
I beg to differ. It goes Literally (hitler) correct, metaphorically correct then technically correct.
….
….
….fuck.
“Look at housing market. It’s an illusion of ownership. You have a mortgage and they call you a home owner.”
Not only that, if you dont have enough ‘capital’ (deposit), you are forced to pay interest on a loan, to purchase an insurance policy that protects the lender. A policy that costs 10’s of thousands over the life of the loan.
But you have to live somewhere, so what CHOICE do people have?
U.S. circa end of 19th century. However please notice that they were only the closest thing to a free market within their borders, which were sealed not only by natural barriers but through a protectionist enabled industrial policy. In other words a closed eco-system so to speak. That freedom ended in 1913.
The abominations you described are not part of a free market but of a bankster/politicians dominated market, which doesn’t even have the appearance of free (for anyone with eyes to see).
All of that has nothing to do with capitalism, if you knew anything, you’d know that. Capitalism: a social system under a division of labor where the means of production are privately owned.
No married man in the west is a home owner (mortgage or no). It’s her home, and she allows you to live in it for a while.
So a feudal lord made you post that, eh?
Exactly what I was thinking. What’s going on?
Exactly my thoughts. That is two articles in a week promoting this garbage, I am so sick of it. If I wanted to read this garbage I would go to the Daily KOS. T Hey are framing it in a way to try and propagandize the ROK readers. “We know capitalism is better but…” I feel like they have been infiltrated or bought out by nefarious forces.
Really need to free up these expressions and acronyms…
“Free Market” from perspective of manufacturer – he is free to move production to cheap labor. And return finished products free of tariffs…
The “giant sucking sound” Ross Perot mentioned…
And also freedom to travel anywhere out of the country. Not sure about now but USA did not have Immigration for departure – part of the freedom…
To me free markets mean free to purchase what I want from anywhere…
Communist Soviet Union would not be free to travel anywhere, or buy anything…
The idea that you should be free to move and have the choice to buy from anywhere is what destroys communities and creates monopolies.
If you have ever started a new business you’d know that it TAKES TIME to get good at something and to establish yourself. It takes a little help and faith from the community for you to stay in business. But in the free market as people are so spoiled for choice they quickly move on if they are slightly disappointed with the good or services from a start-up.
On another hand, if you are big company with a large capital you can afford to stay long enough in business as you can cover the losses or buy the competition out. This creates monopoly and stops innovations.
The other option is socialism where the company is subsidized and allowed the time to improve but it never does as it lacks motivation. This also creates monopoly and stops innovations.
“what destroys communities and creates monopolies.”
i don’t know — too complicated for me — but I don’t agree off hand.
I have stated a few businesses…
And I don’t like being told what to do…
if i want to buy a ford – is $60k built Henry Ford philosophy(employees can afford it).
If I want to buy a porshe — its $100k – plus $40k tax…
up to me…
And good for communities…
i think monopolies are result of corruption — K-street lobbyist, etc…
part of draining the swamp…
Corruption indeed. Ford was financing Hitler. Where did he get all this excess money? From selling cheap cars?
I reckon he successfully made cars…
T-Model began 1908 well before world war one…
Maybe he was anti communist?
“Ford was financing Hitler.”
Try quantifying that.
Where is this mythical land where people engage in the voluntary exchange of goods & services?
Some might call it the “dark web.”
Voluntarily exchange USD for BitCoin. Voluntarily buy and sell services using BitCoin. Voluntarily pay someone to launder the BitCoin. Voluntarily exchange BitCoin for USD.
Same principle with barter. We agree that no one tells the government that I fix your toilet and shower, and no one tells them you rejet my motorcycle carbs.
The trick is, no one outside the traders is allowed to know, or the voluntary aspect vanishes pretty damn quick.
Anarchy is not liberty. Government in whatever form is necessary to defend the individual’s rights of life, liberty and property. Without government everyone is only “free” enough to own what they can protect from the mob and do what a stronger man permits. Any underground economy doesn’t meet this standard.
A legitimate state would not impose the will of any politically superior group … the usual laundry list of the aggrieved. It would, in fact, prosecute those members for violating the rights of the truest minority — me — when they attempt to occupy my property or force my preference when I make a “discriminatory” choice of not agreeing with the mob. The mob not being the Grecian model 50% plus one. It is the group willing to hurt people and destroy property until they are appeased. That place exists nowhere.
The introduction of corporations as fictitious persons with privileged liability and tax laws was the beginning of many sorrows. The Corp. could operate on perpetual debt, something that was unwise for the sole proprietor, have limited liability and legal protections not afforded individuals. The corp. entity enjoys rights and privileges not afforded the individual and as such became super citizens that could buy better justice, make public policy, escape legal liabilities and coalesce capitol especially to drive competition out of business. Even be declare too big to fail as their competition was being culled from the marketplace.
If one wants to restore the economic liberty that “free market” thinkers promised they must level the playing field and remove corporate advantages over the individual. When Union Carbide decides that profit is more important than the safety of 500,000 local Indians, justice demanded some individuals need to spend a great deal of time in prison with their profits given to the victims. What happened after many years of legal delay tactics a few paid fines of $2000 each a spent 2 years in prison (Nearly 80,000 were injured and 38,000 died as a result of UC’s negligence and lack of concern for the local population) What would have happened if UC was a sole proprietor, same should happen to the fictions person corp.
Monsanto wrote the bill and lobbied the congress to grant them a copyright on seeds, such that if one of their plants was blown by the wind and it germinated on your property in which you chose to raise organic crops, you owed Monsanto fees and possibly fines for the plants of theirs trespassing on your property. In most industries the land owner could sue Monsanto for polluting their crops with their Frankenstein seeds. Corporate advantage is disadvantage to the market and the people. Corporate reform is necessary if the free market is ever to be free and until then the idea of free markets are an illusion masking the Corporatocracy which is now in control over nearly every aspect of private life.
Monsanto was bought out by Bayer last year. I used to work for one of Monsanto competitors and they are a ruthless bunch, however the hype about “monster seeds” is a bit over blown. To feed 7 billion people (and counting), you will need to get a higher yield per acre and it will be the current few companies standing that will achieve it. Yes it is a multi-billion dollar business, however you should page though the finanical statements and see how much is spent on R&D each year– with no guarantee of return on investments.
We produce more food than we eat so there goes you argument of 7 gazillion mouths to feed.
Where does it go? Last I checked most of US grain products is used as livestock feed.
When I was born, the worlds population was @ 3.8 billion. What is it today? Where will it be in 20 years?
Discarded.
In Thailand alone, they store millions of tons of rice that can’t be sold on the market lest it lower the price to unbearable levels. Well, unbearable for the elites.
I am one of those farmers, haven’t planted a crop in 3 years, the state sets the purchase price and it isn’t high enough for me to bother growing.
Thanks. I didn’t know that. I would say it would be unbearable for the local farmers as no one would want the rice.
the local farmers are pretty well off. most of them own the land outright and they work short hours. I wouldn’t feel bad for thai farmers, they live a good life.
Ownership with low tax is always a good thing.
The tradtional American family farms all but evaporated during the 70s and 80s– a lot of bank foreclosures. Most that I know who still do it actually work a full time job (Ford, GM, etc..) and do farming part-time (for the tax breaks). Those who remain in farming are simply contracting out just to make a little money via corporate farming.
Most of the Thai farmers are heavily in debt. I purchased my wife so she could recover her family farm. You wouldn’t sell your young daughter to an old foreign man unless you were desperate.
That hasn’t been my experience or understanding. In Thailand even the lower middle class own a bit of land because the Thai government actually looks out for the thai people, unlike in the USA. In the USA, immigrants are given first dibs on everything including land.
I live here in Thailand, I speak, read and write Thai, my family are Thai, my children are Thai, We own a Thai farm and we live in a 100% Thai community …… on what experience of Thailand is your opinion based? If the Thai government looks out for Thai people, please explain why we don’t have a vote and are subject to arrest and death if we say anything the Thai government doesn’t like?
Yes I live here and also have a farm. I speak read and write as well so no need to have a pissing contest. My main point is that farang cannot own land in thailand, full stop. Is that true in good ol USA? Why isn’t my government back home looking out for my interests? Why don’t the USA charge immigrants for a visa like they do in Thailand? I pay almost $1,000 a year just for the right to stay in Thailand. In America, we let every Tom Dick and Harry in and then provide them with welfare at the expense of the tax payer to boot!
$1,000 a year??,
Living in Thailand costs me about $150 for a VISA.
Living in the UK costs me $1500 for council tax.
I have to pay to live in either country ……..
My son owns a farm outright here, my wife (10%) and the bank (90%) own a house here, and I make the repayments (while she’s nice to me). In the west, your wife owns everything and allows you to stay there on her land as long as you obey her. As a married white man you own nothing in either country.
As a UK man
Living in Thailand costs me $150 for VISA
Living in the UK costs me $1500 for council tax.
For a woman
Living in Thailand, my wife pays no tax (Thai national)
Living in the UK, my former wife pays no council tax (single parent)
Land ownership
As a man in Thailand I can own nothing (foreigner can’t own).
As a man in the UK I can own land (but my wife can take it in divorce).
As far as I can see the differences are negligible, as a man I have to pay to live in any country …… and usually where I live is subject to a woman’s permission.
Well i would have to agree with u about the marriage thing and the war on men. Im just pointing out the hypocracy of the western superpowers which say advance western countries are for everyone while asian countries are for asians.
But also $150 for a marriage visa is just the cost of entry. $1,000 for a student visa and I’m single… a LOT cheaper.
Farang can own land in Thailand. Citizenship is the only requirement. Are you suggesting niggers shouldn’t be allowed to own land in the USA?
10 year path to citizenship or more? Why doesnt thailand have any farang in government jobs? Who is the mayor of London?
The mayor of London is a British national. His skin colour is irrelevant.
Same in Thailand, government appointments are for Thai nationals, their skin colour is irrelevant.
Are you confusing the Thai words ‘farang’ and ‘kon dtang chaat’
Oh please. You would be right, were it for the little fact that their seed end up swallowing even more toxical chemicals than their traditional counterparts….let alone all the interesting side-effects that are discovered everyday…https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27769625
Almost everyone can grow their own food and make free organic fertilizer which is called compost. The lie that states we need monsanto b/c we couldn’t feed the worlds population is a hoax. Fake news!
I do not own any land to grow my own food. The European country I live imports 70% of their foodstuffs.
Monsanto is a chemical agri business looking to remain profitable, with few competitors, and their business models are based on world population growth. Farming techniques and pesticides have improved to give an over abundance the last 50 years, but why would so much invesetment be funelled into an unneeded product if they did not foresee future demand. If there is an incestous relationship beween them and government, then I would be putting the onus on government.
Not true, the world can easily grow more food than it needs. The problem is poverty and distribution. I can grow as much as you need, but I’m not growing it for nothing. You need the money to buy it from me.
I have a rice farm (Thailand), and at the moment the state set purchase price for rice is not worth me planting a commercial crop. I grow enough for me to eat, haven’t sold for 3 years. But still the state has such an excess of rice (and no buyers) most of the Nation’s crop rots in warehouses.
My friend has a wheat farm (UK), he can only buy genetically altered seed. Engineered to produce a sterile crop. He is forced to buy new seed every year, he can’t save seed for next years crop, it doesn’t sprout. Genetic engineering isn’t about increased yield, it’s about bigger profits for seed distributors. In a 3rd world country this policy is a disaster. One break in the distribution process and the world will stave next year.
“One break in the distribution process and the world will stave next year.”
Yes, or one crop failure away from the exporting nations. Outside you and your friend in the UK (why would he buy sterile seed?), what are the acrage yield and importation of food stuffs per nation? I don’t have a problem with crops that can withstand inclimate weather, disease or bug infestations and get better yields, but paying farmers not to plant or artificially keeping prices low (by importing foregin product and dumping) is problem of government intervension.
Sterile seed is all they sell. It grows a crop but the grain it produces doesn’t. Don’t you understand what the genetic engineering is for?
V-GURTs have been sold in the UK since at least 2009 and results in an approx 80% sterile crop. It is possible to sort the sterile from the fertile seeds (he does it in a centrifuge) but most farmers can’t or don’t.
“Sterile seed is all they sell.”
Then why would anyone buy it? Is it imposed by mandate?
Why did you marry a 6 and not a 10 …… it was all you could get.
Why did you buy the duplex and not the Malibu beach house …… it’s all I could afford.
Why are you driving a Honda and not a BMW …….. etc.
Most of the decisions I make can be traced back to personal resources, availability and perceived worth. Isn’t it the same for almost everything we all choose?
Most things I choose are about cost and availability.
If about work, it’s what gets me the most money.
Isn’t that the same for almost everyone?
Depends on what your goal is. You allude as to there were no choices and rant about a product no one forced you to buy.
I didn’t buy the product.
Do you think you have choices?
Well you claim yourr friend did. Are you saying he had no choice or simply made a bad one?
“Do you think you have choices?”
Did you choose to move to SEA? Do you choose to post here?
Moving out of the UK was not a choice. Posting here is trivia. Most of us have very little choices beyond the trivial. Yes I can choose to pick my nose or not!
“Moving out of the UK was not a choice.”
How so? You left on your own recognition.
“Most of us have very little choices beyond the trivial.”
Disagree. Alsthough I know to many Brits and recognize the despairing paragdigmatic view, so have at it.
My lawyer said if I didn’t leave the UK I would probably be arrested and jailed. I consider that no choice.
Do you really think you have choices beyond the trivial?
Take for example a drink with a girl in a bar. Your choice to ask her. Her choice to agree, her choice to go home with you, her choice to have sex, her choice to later accuse you of rape, her choice to have a baby or abortion, her choice for you to pay 20 years child maintenance.
As a woman she had many choices for your life, you had almost none.
Choices have consequences and most things in life where you have control is simply the choices that you make. Sounds like you chose poorly and fop off the responsibility to become flotsam.
I chose to have scrambled eggs instead of fried eggs this morning.
What happens, if you choose not to go to work any more?
What does me deciding to go to work have to do with your choice what to eat?
Nor worries mate. Ran into a ton of Brits like yourself in my travels. I don’t blame chavs for fleeing the UK, but it is nothing worth crowing about.
Freedom is not choosing from anything on the state approved menu.
Freedom is killing those who oppress you, or dying in the attempt.
No. That is anarchy. Right makes right, not might makes right.
Social arguments that start with the notion of “freedom” and then propose end states unobserved in history are philosophically flawed.
The reason is that we do live in a free world.
Its just that we use our freedom to choose ignorance, malice, corruption, slavery, tyranny, monopolies, collectivism, etc.
Haha, you think the Russian peasants chose collectivism voluntarily?
That is like thinking that the Decembrists were just looking for more iron in their diet.
Yes, statistically, many of them did. It is always funny to see the true believers sent to gulag.
The vocabulary for these discussions has hit a place of serious slippage. How is anybody defining “free market,” “capitalism,” “socialism,” or even “economics?” These terms have been so abused and polluted, we should agree what it is we are talking about before we start the inevitable (and totally necessary) heated disagreements.
so true — i just mentioned twice today…
especially “free” and “progress”
You can not define these terms as there are no pure examples of either. Countries which are supposed to be capitalist have many programs that are socialist. Free market means no regulation at all and no economy exist like that. Which is why I said that all these ideologies and especially the free market are only traps.
The debate here is about the Free market capitalism. Since the fall of Communism in the East, they are now trying to sell us the idea that Communism in the West (known as Capitalism) is a superior system.
It is the same plutocracy, different package.
It is not correct to think that capitalism and socialism exist totally separate from one another, even in the same country/system. Think of an economy like a body. Some organs in the body will necessarily be capitalist, others will necessarily be socialist. It is a question of how many of each kind, that determine the character of the overall system. I see no contradiction with having 85% of the economy’s “organs” as capitalist, with a portion left over for a reasonable and well regulated social safety net, and other necessary functions from which all citizens benefit. On the flipside, if you look at markets such as China, a few of their “organs” are aggressively capitalistic, but they are bound in service to the remaining 75% of their structural “body” that is totalitarian/communist.
spot on. It’s so amazing to me when people state with 100% confidence that “our system of capitalism” isn’t working. Are you fooking kidding me? We are so far from a capitalist economic system it is laughable.
So the solution to a “free” market distorted by government intervention is . . . more government intervention?
“the uptick rule to keep stocks from getting short-sold into the ground”. That’s just stupid. Shitty companies should be short sold into the ground. Protecting companies from their own failures is exactly the opposite of a free market, and why the idiotic response to the 2008-9 financial crisis has led us to this sorry state of affairs we have today.
The solution is decentralization with a healthy dose of protectionism.
Correct. When GM was bailed out by Obama and big Govt. and when the fed finally sold the last of their shares the US taxpayers were shorted $9 billion. Instead of letting GM file chapter 11 (which would have impacted the union contracts) and reogranize, the fed showered money on them.
They should have been allowed to sink and then taken a bath as they would have culled alot of the dead weight and be in better shape today. The next crash will be even bigger.
Thank you!!!
there is no free market when things are regulated beyond regulated. Some things are social/societal protected but there are certain items like the drinking age being 21 instead of 18 is utter ridiculous. how many businesses / millions of jobs lost because of this? one little item in a 33 volume federal register.
Please don’t compound economic inaccuracies with historical ignorance. Should the west be ruled by medieval overlords at least there would be no invasion.
What we need is “national capitalism”. A system that achieves a free market as an “end condition” and NOT a means to that end (which is the most fatal mistake that libertarians make – forgetting that politics is downstream of culture for example and why legalized drugs in a democracy means the only freedoms you will have in a generation will be the freedom to do drugs).
National capitalism is a free market but with rules based on the present scope of “Nationalism not globalism” as defined by Donald Trump and the alt-right. When you let capitalism run totally amok, then as we are seeing now, combined with SJW convergence and the “long march through institutions” that have ensured that the only millionaire capitalists are also raging leftists, we get something more like a crony capitalism but with Joe Stalin starring in the role of Boss Hogg.
National Capitalism would set the rules based on the survival of the nation. We already regulate mergers for example, so it’s not an entirely new machine. We already have an FRC and FTC. The system is in place. It just needs rules that puts healthy (meaning, check if it’s healthy instead of getting bought off by Soroses and Bloombergs) competition first.
Corporate nationalism is superior to this system. Strict capitalism is contingent on profit, which is contingent on being able to take actions which may not benefit the nation. Furthermore, our current system is contingent on media manipulating the people into believing bollocks.
The solution is to create public service companies headed by CEO’s (or kings) who’s renumeration is based on the economic and social health of the nation (as traded on an exchange-traded fund which somehow takes all these factors we choose and is directly correlated to them). This means those politicos have our best interests in mind.
Civil defense committees will be established to check the power of the king as well as have every citizen adequately trained. There will be a system in place that only allows immigrants in if necessary and if said immigrants are actually productive.
Maybe but when it comes to social health, would they allow strong masculine males to take center stage with both men and women having healthy sex lives and family life? Its hard to imagine any ruling class allowing for that.
It’s not really hard if the rulers only job is to pass money around and make sure no degenerates come in.
My culture is full of women who ruled. If a woman can do her job let her do it. Based Thatcher did her job well.
exception proves the rule. men hunt and women nest 99% of the time.
Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed manufacturing industry in the UK because she didn’t like trade unions. That wasn’t a good job.
Now the UK manufactures nothing and it’s currency is worth nothing!
> > Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed manufacturing industry in the UK because she didn’t like trade unions. That wasn’t a good job.
Destroying the globalist leftist party’s base? That’s friggin amazing.
> Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed manufacturing industry in the UK because she didn’t like trade unions. That wasn’t a good job.
That happened across the industrialized world. Most manufacturing is now in the developing world cause low wages + less unions.
Citation needed.
This article is a fucking joke. We dont have an unregulated market, the government is over 40% of the economy.
A return to Adam Smith classical theory would be a return to prosperity.
Name me a monopoly that exists without the help of goverment. Not even Rockafella had a true monopoly.
It’s worth noting Adam Smith supported a beer tax to pay for welfare funds to support those who couldn’t ifnd work, since he knew unemployment would be an issue.
Smith wasn’t the arch-fiscal-conservative Thatcherites imagine him to be.
Thats a far cry from supporting a whole underclass of govt dependents that require 3 trillion in yearly spending to support
Still not the “free market always wins” thing his follower support nowadays.
The Invisible Hand works so long as you have protectionism and anti-trust laws in place to block the Globalist slight of hand
Um, no, that’s the opposite of a free market.
Free markets work when government is ejected entirely out of the equation except as a simple place to record contracts, land deeds and to provide a common monetary system.
None of that stops Globalists like Amazon and google from establishing monopolies and cartels designed to destroy free markets. Everything from safe streets to free markets is a fairytale theory without a sovereign protecting its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately Libertarians are very happy to waste everyone’s time with theories that have no basis in reality. Tariffs have a long history of securing free markets within our country. The fact that it stops a sweatshop in China from competing in our market should not be our concern.
Amazon and Google are monopolies. They have no interest in the free market other than using it to destroy the free market by crushing any alternative. They are domestic enemies to our economy and our liberties. Anti trust laws are a great way to stop a threat to its citizenry (again, the role of government)
Nonsense. govts are 100% responsible for all monopolies and corruption. you can’t have a monopoly without govt approval. we have endless regulations, and the highest corporate tax in the world. this is far from a free market. We just have the reserve currency and can print money so we can get away with this game for now.
What the mainstream refers to as CAPITALISM is not really that.
It is really CRONYISM and CORPORATISM.
“The only way to fix this will be to re-introduce sensible regulations,
as existed before: the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated investment
banking from commercial banking), the uptick rule to keep stocks from
getting short-sold into the ground, and so forth. Other regulations
should be simplified to allow small businesses easier access to get into
the market. Further, campaign finances should be reformed in order to stop huge businesses from throwing their weight around in Congress.”
All of these above “solutions” are just Band-Aids and aspirin
As previous posters have well stated…the entire fiat currency system needs to be gone.
Surprisingly it didn’t take long for the crisis to emerge after these acts were repealed.
Strangely enough expensive business start ups are a western problem. In SEA all you need is enough money for the raw materials. You want to start selling food, a gas stove on the pavement in front of your house and some plastic plates is all you need. Not much passing traffic at your house? Drive your pickup to the main road, park up and sell from the back of your pickup.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can blame laissez-faire capitalism while in the same breath admitting that our current economy is anything but laissez-faire:
P.S. Most of the common criticisms against the industrial revolution were answered by Ayn Rand in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
This article is total garbage. What’s with this site promoting socialist economic polices lately? Ironically by blaming things caused by government regulations. lol, Too big to fail is a free market problem? Is the writer retarded? I’m very close to removing this site from my book mark list.
Two articles in a week promoting this garbage, I am so sick of it. If I wanted to read this garbage I would go to the Daily KOS. ROK is framing it in a way to try and propagandize the ROK readers. “We know capitalism is better but…” I feel like they have been infiltrated or bought out by nefarious forces.
Great smear of the free market by equating it to the Mercantilist economic system we have currently going.
Did a libertarian kill your dog when you were a kid of something, mate?
The system works well; the poor have never been richer, I really don’t get why they complain. As for people wanting to get wealth, there has never been as much opportunity as today.
“If someone has ten billion dollars, how is his life going to be better off with ten billion more?”
Why is it up to you to decide how much people get to have? You do realize that usually people worth that kind of money usually don’t have it in cash, they own companies that are valued at that level or something similar.
Awesome piece. Please note that the Robber Barons belonged to the late Middle Ages, when the whole cloth of the epoch started crumbling (and when, not incidentally, kings started to suck up all the nobility’s power and borrowed lots of money to wage costly wars): the early and middle MA was economically healthier.
Once you have a central bank, government regulation that is able to pick winners and losers, courts that decide things in favor of the established interests, corporate welfare, various wealth transfer programs, and so forth you no longer have a free market.
Corporate welfare and court decisions for the wealthy goes back to at least the 1850s. Central banking ended with Jackson but reappeared with the fed in 1913. Hoover and FDR spent the 1930s with one corporatist regulation and intervention after another. The years since have only doubled down and more on those things.
There’s no free market. there hasn’t been in any of our lifetimes. Stop blaming it for what has gone wrong. What has gone wrong has done so because of the central planning, the playing favorites, the good ideas, and more that have been instituted.
Capitalism works because of competition and common moral values within a society.
Regulations should be in place to create, protect, and build competition while restricting immoral excesses.
And the Government should be in charge of running nothing other than itself, the military, and public protection services (courts, firemen, cops, etc)
Google “Milker Bills”.