Mordhau

Politics containment thread

1562 899
  • 1
  • 11 Jan
 vanguard

@ToLazy4Name said:
here have some more false things that totally aren't true

also yeah chile has tons of state interventionism at #7 in terms of economic freedom in the world while Brazil has no interventionism despite being #122 in terms of economic freedom got me again vanguard damn you're good at this

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

also yeah state interventionism is what gets you to a high per capita GDP despite Switzerland and Hong Kong both having higher per capita GDPs than the USA (Switzerland consistently is higher than us, Hong Kong fluctuates but they'll shortly have a higher number than us conistently as well)

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=67

Yeah gud argument. Idk whats the best way of capitalism government and state intervention levels, I actually don't give a flying fuck to this tbh as anyways it still is capitalism. So, as working class, why should I even care about this bullshit tbh, about whats the most efficient way to make capitalism? If capitalism does great, working class still gets fucked in the ass and owners keep stealing all the wealth produced anyways.

Point being, with State intervention or not, work exploitation via wage labour still is a thing, so is this huge inequity and lack of democracy etc.

What I do know though, is that historicaly your rulling class uses this free market bullshit to fuck with other countries economy and take control of their productive means tbh. And, through history, State intervention is fundamental to give a country economic independence from other countries domination, and thats why socialists like it so much and it does make sense. Your country did the same to England tbh when you were about to stop being a colony and shit.

In the end Mr Lazy, interventionism X free market is a discussion that corresponds to the owners, to the rulling class. For the proletariat all this shit means fuckall.

4308 6087
  • 11 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

Right, the working class is being exploited by entering into mutual agreements to perform a service in exchange for something else. The higher standard of living that all developed capitalistic nations have in comparison to other nations with little economic freedom is a sign of them being exploited. Got it. Venezuela, despite being a rapidly collapsing shithole, is better than all capitalist nations because even though its people are starving and being gunned down in the streets, at least they're not being exploited by the evil other human beings who are giving them shit for doing shit. I'll be sure to tell my friend who makes alot of money working 60 hours a week in construction that he's being exploited, and not being given recompense for a service that he chooses to put a fuckload of work into.

4308 6087
  • 11 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

Oh yeah, forgot to mention imperialism. Can't forget the evil imperialism that props up all capitlist nations, especially Hong Kong and Switzerland who are super capitalistic and thus super imperialistic by default despite Switzerland's modus operandi being "leave us alone we're neutral" and Hong Kong barely possessing any sort of defense force.

1562 899
  • 1
  • 11 Jan
 vanguard

@ToLazy4Name said:
Right, the working class is being exploited by entering into mutual agreements to perform a service in exchange for something else. The higher standard of living that all developed capitalistic nations have in comparison to other nations with little economic freedom is a sign of them being exploited. Got it. Venezuela, despite being a rapidly collapsing shithole, is better than all capitalist nations because even though its people are starving and being gunned down in the streets, at least they're not being exploited by the evil other human beings who are giving them shit for doing shit. I'll be sure to tell my friend who makes alot of money working 60 hours a week in construction that he's being exploited, and not being given recompense for a service that he chooses to put a fuckload of work into.

Where the fuck you take from its a mutual agreement? If it was so, there would NEVER be any strikes in history, because its fucking mutual agreements. Working class is doing a service to other person because otherwise it fucking starves to death due no moneys, its really not like you have a option. Take unemployement into consideration and this gets even more obvious, either you take the job that its avaliable, no matter how much they pay or the conditions, or you starve to death.

According to your link, Mauritius is the 15º most free coutnry in the world and its a fucking shithole, while Germany, 17º most free country, has WAY better living standarts. Explain me this u cuck. Lets not even compare Chile with Germany or Japan even, the 22º on that list. Maybe the best way of having capitalism is in fact with state intervention after all!

Venezuela still has wage labour, still has work exploitation, still is fucking capitalism. Try harder. Capitalism is not fucking "free market", capitalism is a mode of production based on wage labour, profit etc. Venezuela is fucking this, or are you trying to tell me they are actually communist there?

Do tell your friends that they are being exploited pls. Tell them how much they produce, and ask their salary. I have a friend who works at Embraer, he does get a shitload of money and still he can totally understand the exploitation. If he were to win the whole wealth he creates, he would be a fucking millionaire by now. Imagine your construction workers friends tbh, compare their wealth with the owner of the company's wealth, then ask yourself who is actually creating that whole wealth. Profit is a theft Mr Lazy, you are stealing the wealth other man created for no reason at all.

@ToLazy4Name said:
Oh yeah, forgot to mention imperialism. Can't forget the evil imperialism that props up all capitlist nations, especially Hong Kong and Switzerland who are super capitalistic and thus super imperialistic by default despite Switzerland's modus operandi being "leave us alone we're neutral" and Hong Kong barely possessing any sort of defense force.

Pls, man..Gotta be fucking blind to not see it happening. In fact I'll be nice with you here, its kinda hard to see how every country, if there is the possibility, will do fucking imperialism.

What capitalism does here is, if your country ever stops being the biggest fucking empire ever, other one will take its place. Its a thing of this mode of production, capitalism forces nations to exploit eachother in order to maximize profits. Idk about Switzerland, but lets take brazil for example: we are obviously exploited and victim of imperialism right? But at the same time, our rulling class is totally imperialistic with the rest of south america, and if USA ever drops the position and we still under a capitalism mode of production, be sure that Brazil rulling class wil try to take over the world and become USA. Russia probably is the same, China etc. Fucking obvious this man srsly

I never seen ANY material of your school of thought that actually even mentions this word tbh, Imperialism. Its like, for you guys this doesn't even happen lmao, if thats really the case then its borderline schizophrenic tbh. How do you explain your country's imperialism for example? What are the reasons for it, who actually wins with it, why they try so hard to preserve imperialistic policies towards the world etc?

@DerFurst said:

@vanguard said:

@ToLazy4Name said:
ye, it's becoming a frighteningly common occurrence these days for people to just up 'n' dox someone for saying something they don't like. Quite a common tactic from the left tbh. Oh, you think BLM isn't a very nice group or that universal healthcare is dumb or something like that? Here, let me post all of your public information and try to get you fired from your job. Hell yeah cool people my dudes

This is fucked up man I mean, bad tactics imo, debating is better as I see it tbh

that's because you're not the average leftist, who is willing to use violence, bullying, and outright terrorism to get their way. Plus, you're not being financed by anyone to riot like BLM is.

I'm willing to use violence though tbh, but as a last resort and against certain people only. Like, imagine the members of the Nazi government you know, their rulling class. Only way you can dialogue with those cunts is with a mosin nagant bullet in the back of their heads.

Now, no point in fucking with other proletariats because they think differently or anything. If you do this its worse even, because you are dividing the class even more! Gotta unite the proletariat against this mode of production, not fuck with it even more.

4308 6087
  • 11 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

@vanguard said:

@ToLazy4Name said:
Right, the working class is being exploited by entering into mutual agreements to perform a service in exchange for something else. The higher standard of living that all developed capitalistic nations have in comparison to other nations with little economic freedom is a sign of them being exploited. Got it. Venezuela, despite being a rapidly collapsing shithole, is better than all capitalist nations because even though its people are starving and being gunned down in the streets, at least they're not being exploited by the evil other human beings who are giving them shit for doing shit. I'll be sure to tell my friend who makes alot of money working 60 hours a week in construction that he's being exploited, and not being given recompense for a service that he chooses to put a fuckload of work into.

Where the fuck you take from its a mutual agreement? If it was so, there would NEVER be any strikes in history, because its fucking mutual agreements. Working class is doing a service to other person because otherwise it fucking starves to death due no moneys, its really not like you have a option.

Correct, you have no option but to be altruistic and provide someone else with something they want in exchange for what you want. If you don't, you starve, as you should. If the work you can get isn't up to your standards, then you can go on strikes and such in order to convince your employer to do what you want, or you can fuck off and start your own business and socialize the wealth you create within your own business.

4308 6087
  • 11 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

Also this

4308 6087
  • 11 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

Also, is "imperialism" to you simply the act of investing in a foreign economy? If a company from country A invests in the economy of country B (opening up a branch of their business there, becoming a stock holder on a new startup, etc) is that what you would classify as "imperialism?"

1562 899
  • 1
  • 12 Jan
 vanguard

@ToLazy4Name said:
Also, is "imperialism" to you simply the act of investing in a foreign economy? If a company from country A invests in the economy of country B (opening up a branch of their business there, becoming a stock holder on a new startup, etc) is that what you would classify as "imperialism?"

No.

I mean CIA training military around the world to make coups that will install governments that will fuck with national companies and economy as a whole, to babysit businessman in USA. In some cases even raping democracy man, or founding terrorist groups, surrounding russians with nuclear weapons, influencing elections etc. You know, alienating whole nations to your country's rulling class interests and shit. These are the things that make your country empire Mr Lazy, what else could I be talking about here. If you watched Mr Noam video about american imperialism (idk if I posted it, here it is anyways https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kcPyqMWems ), these things that happened through your country's history you see, since the beggining of it and all.

@ToLazy4Name said:

@vanguard said:

@ToLazy4Name said:
Right, the working class is being exploited by entering into mutual agreements to perform a service in exchange for something else. The higher standard of living that all developed capitalistic nations have in comparison to other nations with little economic freedom is a sign of them being exploited. Got it. Venezuela, despite being a rapidly collapsing shithole, is better than all capitalist nations because even though its people are starving and being gunned down in the streets, at least they're not being exploited by the evil other human beings who are giving them shit for doing shit. I'll be sure to tell my friend who makes alot of money working 60 hours a week in construction that he's being exploited, and not being given recompense for a service that he chooses to put a fuckload of work into.

Where the fuck you take from its a mutual agreement? If it was so, there would NEVER be any strikes in history, because its fucking mutual agreements. Working class is doing a service to other person because otherwise it fucking starves to death due no moneys, its really not like you have a option.

Correct, you have no option but to be altruistic and provide someone else with something they want in exchange for what you want. If you don't, you starve, as you should.

Yes, but its no fair deal. Worker wins money per hour, while owner wins per product. Nike factory, 200 shoes per hour, each one costs 100 dollars. Woker recieves 5 dollars per hour. I need money, but why shouldn't it be a fair deal? Why the owner has to stay with most of the wealth created while providing shitty conditions to the workers, unless they fucking threat to kill his family and the whole fucking national economy due strikes? Some cases only with the threat of a civil war the owner cunts give sort of a better condition. This lead us to the next point

If the work you can get isn't up to your standards, then you can go on strikes and such in order to convince your employer to do what you want

Then the State sends the police to rekt your shit if the strike gets out of hand and starts affecting national economy (imagine here metal workers strike for instance, not one factory but a whole cathegory of workers), or employer simply fires the leadership of the strike to give example, and hire other cunts paying even less. Or even, and probably the most smart move, owners buys the labour union (very common practice in Brazil tbh, falls into corruption cathegory maybe?) so there are never any really significant strikes that will actually improve the worker condition, but the strikes that happens are actually carefully planed by the owners WITH the labour union. Labor unions can even be used to defuse strikes!

or you can fuck off and start your own business and socialize the wealth you create within your own business.

What if every worker tryies to do this? Can you imagine a whole cathegory of workers who suffer the same thing, all of them quit the job and start their own business. This is utopia Mr Lazy, not real option at all. Even if they did, most of the business created wouldn't be a success, thus forcing them back to the proletariat class, and the circle of capitalism repeats itself once again.

@ToLazy4Name said:
Also this

Ok, 3 points:

A) the poverty thingy. Well, Marx for instance talks about where does the wealth concentration comes from, not poverty. Thats why the whole labour exploitation thingy. I really don't get about who he is talking about here, I never read shit trying to explain poverty, in fact, they explain capital accumulation logic and shit. They explain where does wealth comes from, what causes one country to be rich as fuck etc.

B) Natural course of events X human made events. Big and obvious falacy. There is no "natural" course of events in human society, there is class struggle, this is the thing that shapes human society: rulling class is not a solid block, they conflict with each other, and not only that, as the working class conflicts with them as well. This struggle between classes is what builds the world we live in. Even fucking Adam Smith talks about it on his writings man, I mean.. This whole point is broken because doesn't consider class struggle and is from a quite deterministic point of view that even Adam fucking Smith would say its broken. This is ideology you see, lack of honesty.

C) Wtf I dont even. "world has never been a even thing, even geography and shit", yeah, so what? What does this prof? Does this explain why some countries are rich as fuck while others are eating shit? His geographic point of view actually fucks him pretty hard in this point, because if that was true, then Brazil would be one of the most OP countries in the whole world, we have a fuckload of natural resources AND manpower. Our culture is basically like USA's culture (a mix of EU, Africans and native people), and honestly, here we have so much fucking natural resource man its not even funny. Probably we could isolate ourselves if we wanted, and you guys would be fucked not us. We could monopolize a shitload of materials and put the price high as fuck, like your country did with cotton back then.

Lets be fair Lazy, what a shitty video man. I'm not even being fair with the man speaking because honestly, 4 mins man, I had to watch and rewatch the video like 3 times to try and make some points about it, and my points are fucking weak because its too short and badly explained, I don't even know where does he wanna go with these points. Whats he trying to say? Whats he criticizing? Very shallow content tbh, if you have bigger interview or something it would be better for debate imo. Or even a wall of text, I like walls of text man send them in tbh if you have. I don't mind.

4308 6087
  • 12 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

@vanguard said:
No.

I mean CIA training military around the world to make coups that will install governments that will fuck with national companies and economy as a whole, to babysit businessman in USA. In some cases even raping democracy man, or founding terrorist groups, surrounding russians with nuclear weapons, influencing elections etc. You know, alienating whole nations to your country's rulling class interests and shit. These are the things that make your country empire Mr Lazy, what else could I be talking about here. If you watched Mr Noam video about american imperialism (idk if I posted it, here it is anyways https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kcPyqMWems ), these things that happened through your country's history you see, since the beggining of it and all.

See, now that you're defining what you mean instead of throwing it in with a bunch of other stuff that I thought you were conflating it with, i'm agreeing with you. Many major powers meddle in the affairs of other nations far too much, the USA being the most egregious of these by far, and it needs to stop. It's why I vote for people like Rand Paul, who want everyone to be left the fuck alone. Conflating this with capitalism, however, isn't something I agree with, and again i'll point to Switzerland and Hong Kong.

@vanguard said:
Yes, but its no fair deal. Worker wins money per hour, while owner wins per product. Nike factory, 200 shoes per hour, each one costs 100 dollars. Woker recieves 5 dollars per hour. I need money, but why shouldn't it be a fair deal? Why the owner has to stay with most of the wealth created while providing shitty conditions to the workers, unless they fucking threat to kill his family and the whole fucking national economy due strikes? Some cases only with the threat of a civil war the owner cunts give sort of a better condition. This lead us to the next point

Who decides what is a fair deal? Why is what you think of as a fair deal what the entire world should think of as a fair deal? Hell, better yet, why in this specific instance do you think that the worker should get all of the money from the shoe being sold? Did the worker pay for the raw materials that are being used to make the shoe? Did the worker even make the entirety of the shoe himself, or did multiple people make different parts of the shoe? Did the worker pay for the factory or building or whatever that he's working in? The answer to most of those questions i'm going to assume is "no" which makes me very confused as to why you think he should get all the money from making the product when he likely wouldn't be making a product in the first place without the owner putting his ass on the line by starting up the business. You're ignoring the costs that must be met to keep the business afloat.

@vanguard said:
Then the State sends the police to rekt your shit if the strike gets out of hand and starts affecting national economy (imagine here metal workers strike for instance, not one factory but a whole cathegory of workers), or employer simply fires the leadership of the strike to give example, and hire other cunts paying even less. Or even, and probably the most smart move, owners buys the labour union (very common practice in Brazil tbh, falls into corruption cathegory maybe?) so there are never any really significant strikes that will actually improve the worker condition, but the strikes that happens are actually carefully planed by the owners WITH the labour union. Labor unions can even be used to defuse strikes!

Congratulations, you have a corrupt and authoritarian government. I pity your situation and hope it gets better. In the mean time, i'll continue to apply these practices over here in the USA where we don't get our heads cracked open for disagreenig with our employer and petitioning him for things.

@vanguard said:
What if every worker tryies to do this? Can you imagine a whole cathegory of workers who suffer the same thing, all of them quit the job and start their own business. This is utopia Mr Lazy, not real option at all. Even if they did, most of the business created wouldn't be a success, thus forcing them back to the proletariat class, and the circle of capitalism repeats itself once again.

Oh, so the workers wouldn't be able to run their own businesses and socialize the profits? Then why would the other companies be able to?

@vanguard said:
Lets be fair Lazy, what a shitty video man. I'm not even being fair with the man speaking because honestly, 4 mins man, I had to watch and rewatch the video like 3 times to try and make some points about it, and my points are fucking weak because its too short and badly explained, I don't even know where does he wanna go with these points. Whats he trying to say? Whats he criticizing? Very shallow content tbh, if you have bigger interview or something it would be better for debate imo. Or even a wall of text, I like walls of text man send them in tbh if you have. I don't mind.

His point is that you don't explain why one place is poor, you explain why another place is rich. Why is Hong Kong doing so well for itself despite the fact that it's a tiny area with almost no natural resources surrounded by the choking smog of China? Literally everything is arrayed aganist it, yet in spite of this it has rapidly advanced its economy and in the course of roughly ~100 years it has gone from a near third world shithole to an economic focal point with a GDP that rivals the USA (and it'll likely surpass it shortly considering its massive growth up to this point). If you can provide me with an answer other than "it has the most free, capitalistic economy on the entire planet and citizens with the will to take advantage of it" then i'd like to hear it.

3907 4088
  • 12 Jan
 Sammy

Anyone else agree that we should get rid of money, that way no one is poor.

4308 6087
  • 12 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

@Sammy said:
Anyone else agree that we should get rid of money, that way no one is poor.

Tru

1562 899
  • 12 Jan
 vanguard

@ToLazy4Name said:

@vanguard said:
No.

See, now that you're defining what you mean instead of throwing it in with a bunch of other stuff that I thought you were conflating it with, i'm agreeing with you. Many major powers meddle in the affairs of other nations far too much, the USA being the most egregious of these by far, and it needs to stop. It's why I vote for people like Rand Paul, who want everyone to be left the fuck alone. Conflating this with capitalism, however, isn't something I agree with, and again i'll point to Switzerland and Hong Kong.

Very fair point imo.

But idk Mr Lazy, maybe Switzerland and Hong Kong doesn't do the same thing as USA simply because they are not in position to do so. But then, I'm talking here about shit we can't be sure about it right, its the "what if" territory. What if Switzerland or Hong Kong became the global military super power, where more then 50% of major business and important shit belongs to them?

We've seen in history that its not even a capitalism thing, in fact its more of a class divided society thing. Imperialism always happens man. I'm not sure if Switzerland and Hong Kong would do the same, but don't you agree that, seeing how history of class divided society has developed so far, there is a big fucking chance that they would do the same? Even because free market capitalism still is a form of class divided society. I think yes, idk, I don't see any reasons to answer no to this question tbh. Maybe you do and I would be glad to read it.

@vanguard said:

Who decides what is a fair deal?

Well I'm talking about the tendencies here, I'll quote adam smith so you don't say I'm biased tbh:

“What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch08.htm

Why is what you think of as a fair deal what the entire world should think of as a fair deal?

Because its what historicaly the working class has been fighting for. Point being, its not what I personaly think its a fair deal, its the way we've being going for quite some time now.. Working class struggle still basically the same man.

Hell, better yet, why in this specific instance do you think that the worker should get all of the money from the shoe being sold?

Because this would mean that classes were abolished (no longer there is labour exploitation), thus MANY conflics would simply cease to exist. The idea is to abolish conflicts caused by the actual organization of labour, it would be good not only for the working class, but for the rulling class as well as this conflics does affect their life quality and shit.

Did the worker pay for the raw materials that are being used to make the shoe?

Yes, the wealth he creates is the one that will be used to buy raw materials in order to keep production going.

Did the worker even make the entirety of the shoe himself, or did multiple people make different parts of the shoe?

"He" here is a class, so yes, as a class he did all the work by himself. Rulling class produces nothing, working class produces everything, thats why its called working class tbh.

Did the worker pay for the factory or building or whatever that he's working in?

Yes, see the answer about raw material. As a class, not only he paid for the factory or building, but he also built that shit himself, invented the machinery, installed it etc.

The answer to most of those questions i'm going to assume is "no" which makes me very confused as to why you think he should get all the money from making the product when he likely wouldn't be making a product in the first place without the owner putting his ass on the line by starting up the business. You're ignoring the costs that must be met to keep the business afloat.

I can see your point man, but we aint talking about individuals here, we talking about classes. Thats my point you see. Some individuals have to gamble their life to make a business go, ok I see that happening, its true. But think about it, some individuals dont, some of them are already bank owners, and were from the royal family in the past and shit. You know what I mean? This is why we must bring it to the sphere of classes.

Also one side note: when talking about owners here is not the man that owns a small as fuck business and is raped by banks and shit. We are talking here about you know, the businessman that is effectively rulling class, that buy government, that makes CIA go and fuck with Latin America so his business goes well, declare wars on middle east and fund terrorist groups etc, no the ones that are borderline proletariat. These, well, they are borderline proletariat man, just a little push from the economic lords and they become proletariat or even worse.

Congratulations, you have a corrupt and authoritarian government. I pity your situation and hope it gets better. In the mean time, i'll continue to apply these practices over here in the USA where we don't get our heads cracked open for disagreenig with our employer and petitioning him for things.

The corrupt authoritarian government is just a reflex, in fact, a tool of a corrupt and authoritarian class of businessman as I see it, and its not a Brazil thingy, because there are N corporations from the most diverse places you imagine corrupting everything they touch here in Latin America, seems to be the modus operandi of this shit tbh. I mean, isn't there corruption in USA as well? Everywhere there is, seems to be normal even. Can you imagine capitalism without corruption?

Its what Plato says, you can't have real democracy with huge economic inequity or some shit, because democracy implyies that people will vote for shit that is for the common good you know, with huge inequity either A) poor as fuck people will vote for things beneficial only for themselves or B)rich as fuck people will vote for things that will keep them being rich as fuck.

So you know, as long as we have these huge disparity between countries, and within countries the disparity in the population, idk what to do about corruption man srsly. It brings us to the point of class divided society and its contradictions you know what I mean?

Fuck, I reach the limit of the worlds allowed, will continue in the next post ayyy lmao

1562 899
  • 12 Jan
 vanguard

@vanguard said:
What if every worker tryies to do this? Can you imagine a whole cathegory of workers who suffer the same thing, all of them quit the job and start their own business. This is utopia Mr Lazy, not real option at all. Even if they did, most of the business created wouldn't be a success, thus forcing them back to the proletariat class, and the circle of capitalism repeats itself once again.

Oh, so the workers wouldn't be able to run their own businesses and socialize the profits? Then why would the other companies be able to?

I was more talking about like, imagine if idk, 1000 business opened today. Many of them die right, for N different reasons. I wasn't pointing out that socialization would break the business, but that the market itself would make many of these business break, and the owner goes back to proletariat etc.

@vanguard said:
Lets be fair Lazy, what a shitty video man. I'm not even being fair with the man speaking because honestly, 4 mins man, I had to watch and rewatch the video like 3 times to try and make some points about it, and my points are fucking weak because its too short and badly explained, I don't even know where does he wanna go with these points. Whats he trying to say? Whats he criticizing? Very shallow content tbh, if you have bigger interview or something it would be better for debate imo. Or even a wall of text, I like walls of text man send them in tbh if you have. I don't mind.

His point is that you don't explain why one place is poor, you explain why another place is rich. Why is Hong Kong doing so well for itself despite the fact that it's a tiny area with almost no natural resources surrounded by the choking smog of China? Literally everything is arrayed aganist it, yet in spite of this it has rapidly advanced its economy and in the course of roughly ~100 years it has gone from a near third world shithole to an economic focal point with a GDP that rivals the USA (and it'll likely surpass it shortly considering its massive growth up to this point). If you can provide me with an answer other than "it has the most free, capitalistic economy on the entire planet and citizens with the will to take advantage of it" then i'd like to hear it.

Well m8, Idk the history of hong kong tbh, I bet there is a lot to do with how that place was managed through history. For example, I bet USA never really fucked with them as hard as it does with some Latin America countries correct? While I do agree that free market does have influence on what it is today, I think that if you say that its the ONLY reason why it is like it is today is flawed. There are more reasons man. If you want to get deeper into the Hong Kong thingy, I'll try to read some of its history and try to come up with solid arguments pointing out exact things in their history that can be used to explain its actual success, besides free market. But you understand what I mean? Do you think that free market alone is what makes it gud today?

Also, when you say a place is good, we shouldn't talk only about economy. I mean, maybe the life quality there is kinda shit you know what I mean. Maybe free market is good for the economy, but bad for the population, but I'm talking shit here, I never really studied hong kong and all, I wouldn't know. But I imagine, by the pictures I saw, that it isnt the best place on earth to live lol

What I'm trying to say is, although free market might bring prosperity, you can't simply say its only because of that, because we have places that have free market that are worse then places who actually have serious State intervention in the economy, so there must be more things going on besides free market or state intervention right?

4308 6087

@vanguard said:
What I'm trying to say is, although free market might bring prosperity, you can't simply say its only because of that, because we have places that have free market that are worse then places who actually have serious State intervention in the economy, so there must be more things going on besides free market or state intervention right?

First, i'm not gonna bother to respond to your first post before this one because all you're doing is taking individuals and grouping them together. I refuse to engage with such collectivist thought. It's the very antithesis of everything I hold sacred. Now, onto what i'm actually qouting here:

Yes, this is true, and it again cuts back to the point that Sowell was making: things aren't even. Some countries have better resources, some have citizens who are more hard working, some have citizens who are more intelligent and so on 'n' so forth. Factors that would hold back a country (as opposed to simply not propelling it forward, like a lack of the previously mentioned traits) would be things like a corrupt government, inefficient police force and authoritarian control of the economy, which are almost always present in the nations of the world who aren't doing very well.

Edit: Also in regards to one nation being less economically free than another yet being better off or vice versa, you've always got to take into account history. I mean, if Hong Kong overnight became a 100% socialist state, you couldn't exactly say it got to where it is thanks to socialism, you'd have to wait to see how it ends up going down the line before judging anything, same as if Russia suddenly went 100% free market. This is why I like using Pinochet as an example (though I know you disagree with my conclusions on Pinochet, I think you can see my point here).

We could go on about our invididual philosophies literally forever. Honestly, I think if you and I want to have a fruitful discussion here that will actually go somewhere we should start discussing individual policy choices themselves (tax rates, regulations, health care, laws, etc) and not overarching concepts of systems and the like. This might also get others to chime in other than Furst since they'll just need to type up their opinion on the currently discussed policy and not a novel about their entire world view.

1562 899
  • 12 Jan
 vanguard

I agree with you man about history thingy, its exact what I think.

I see now, our main diverging point is about the collectivis X individualist point of view. Really a tough contradiction that is a huge discussion in itself tbh

What you think about health care though? State should give "free" health care or not?

I think its fair to take taxes from the most wealth people, like, everyone pay taxes ok, but rich people pay more, and this taxes goes to educate and keep the lower classes healthy in order to reduce inequity and thus make democracy more possible. What you say? Don't you think this is sort of a healthy state intervention in society?

4308 6087

@vanguard said:
What you think about health care though? State should give "free" health care or not?

No. It leads to higher costs or lower standards of medical care (or both) in all cases that I have been able to look into. The two major places that i'm aware of that have mainly privatized healthcare are the USA and Switzerland, both of which consistently rank among the highest in terms of their standard of health care. Unfortunately, thanks to Obama this is starting to change in the USA with his ridiculous policies causing our health care costs to become rapidly elevated with his shitty health care system (which is why most Americans want Obamacare repealed).

@vanguard said:
I think its fair to take taxes from the most wealth people, like, everyone pay taxes ok, but rich people pay more, and this taxes goes to educate and keep the lower classes healthy in order to reduce inequity and thus make democracy more possible. What you say? Don't you think this is sort of a healthy state intervention in society?

The rich automatically pay more taxes if you're going off of a percentage basis. 10% of 10k is much less than 10% of 100k. Making the rich pay higher actual percentages is, to me, outright immoral and on a policy note it's inefficient. If you tax the rich heavily, then usually one of two things will happen: they will outright leave your nation, or they will find ways to avoid the taxes. In the case of business taxes, they'll raise their prices correspondingly or, again, they'll leave your nation (which is why many businesses get oursourced to different countries). The state is actually losing revenue if you raise the taxes too high. This concept is known as the laffer curve, if you want to go to wikipedia and look at a bunch of dumb shit.

Edit: Also, higher taxes = less money to spend = lower economic growth

1369 2250
  • 12 Jan
 DerFurst

We could go on about our invididual philosophies literally forever. Honestly, I think if you and I want to have a fruitful discussion here that will actually go somewhere we should start discussing individual policy choices themselves (tax rates, regulations, health care, laws, etc) and not overarching concepts of systems and the like. This might also get others to chime in other than Furst since they'll just need to type up their opinion on the currently discussed policy and not a novel about their entire world view.

A funny thing to say after I just gave you damning proof that Israeli Mossad agents were planning on bombing a bridge in New York during 9/11 while dressed up as Muslims to blame the Palestinians, all the while dancing and celebrating the death of 3000 people that day like god damn psychopaths. This means that the Mossad agents likely had foreknowledge of the event, which implicates the entire Israeli government. Despite this, the FBI was given direct orders to cease all investigation, round up a few thousand Arabs as scapegoats for the media, and then send these fuckers home without so much as a month in detainment. Seriously, screw you.

4308 6087
  • 12 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

yo furst r u ok bud

1369 2250
  • 12 Jan
 DerFurst

@ToLazy4Name said:
yo furst r u ok bud

you're as much of an ideologue as anyone, and yet have the gall to call someone else out on it. the amount of dissonance going on in your mind is absurd

4308 6087
  • 12 Jan
 ToLazy4Name

furst look man we're here for you just let it all out