what's wrong with economics

[littlebabyjesus]

Sure.

The question was, though: who is better at running a large economic enterprise, Cameron or Gates?

Didn't ask who is the nicer guy.

Democratic systems fail. And they produce wankers like Cameron. But take the NHS, now there's a very large economic enterprise. It continues despite Cameron. Democratic accountability forces it to (for the moment).

 

[DotCommunist]

If you decide to refuse to put a bit of money into the coffers that fund benefits, care for those who can't fend for themselves, schooling for kids whose parents can't afford to pay and healthcare for all then I have no problem with it being 'extorted' from you. In fact I'd not be arsed if they shot you for it and took the fucking lot.

I hope you die a slow, painful death - terminal piles seems apt. Cunt.

This post is not my niece by the way.

let us hope the vector is the bolivian arse wasp.

 

[7000Miles]

Private property would be impossible without the use of force or threat of use of force. Are you therefore calling for the abolition of private property?

Well, if your property is under attack then I guess force may be needed. Also, don't pull try the proudhorn "property is theft" card or relative example, its nonsense. I used to be a left winger myself before I changed my views.

If you decide to refuse to put a bit of money into the coffers that fund benefits, care for those who can't fend for themselves, schooling for kids whose parents can't afford to pay and healthcare for all then I have no problem with it being 'extorted' from you. In fact I'd not be arsed if they shot you for it and took the fucking lot.

I hope you die a slow, painful death - terminal piles seems apt. Cunt.

1. I never said I was against welfare. I said based on the other posters logic, people on welfare deserve the same punishment as tax avoiders.
2. Those things can be provided for without taxes. Private charity is one example.
3. You need some fucking help if you think I need to die a "slow painful death" for having an opinion.

You could always do the rest of us a favour and top yourself - a radical means of opting out if ever there was one.

So you can't make any kind of logical argument so resort to telling me to kill myself? Whats wrong with you?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Well, if your property is under attack then I guess force may be needed. Also, don't pull try the proudhorn "property is theft" card or relative example, its nonsense. I used to be a left winger myself before I changed my views.

1. I never said I was against welfare. I said based on the other posters logic, people on welfare deserve the same punishment as tax avoiders.
2. Those things can be provided for without taxes. Private charity is one example.
3. You need some fucking help if you think I need to die a "slow painful death" for having an opinion.

1) My comment was not in reply to that post - it was in reply to the one where you equated taxation with extortion. But in reply to that particular point - a system, the capitalist system, imposes a class monopoly on the means of production, meaning that anyone outside the monopolyholding class must sell their labour to survive. But not all of them can - because capitalism also relies on a certain level of unemployment for its continuation. So you're always going to get people who cannot earn their subsistence. Benefits are compensation for this and a bribe to not justifiably expropriate what nobody can rightfully own.
2) We used to rely on private charity for those things. The results were not pretty, as you'd know if you weren't a complete and utter historical illiterate.
3) I don't think you deserve to die for having an opinion. I think you deserve to die for having a particular opinion - one that, if acted upon, would result in untold suffering for those with the least.

So you can't make any kind of logical argument so resort to telling me to kill myself? Whats wrong with you?

I can make a logical argument, I just may choose not to because it's impossible to reason with an ideologue. But as it happens I didn't tell you to kill yourself and it was a logical argument. You asked how you might opt out of services only the government provides. I made a suggestion as to one means by which you might do so. Alternatively you could fuck off to Somalia - by the sounds of it you'd approve of the way they run things there.

 

[7000Miles]

But not all of them can - because capitalism also relies on a certain level of unemployment for its continuation. So you're always going to get people who cannot earn their subsistence. Benefits are compensation for this and a bribe to not justifiably expropriate what nobody can rightfully own.
2) We used to rely on private charity for those things. The results were not pretty, as you'd know if you weren't a complete and utter historical illiterate.
3) I don't think you deserve to die for having an opinion. I think you deserve to die for having a particular opinion - one that, if acted upon, would result in untold suffering for those with the least.

1.You have a poor understanding of what capitalism actually is and what it entails. Wage slavery, which you are basically describing without outright mentioning is nonsense. Benefits are not a natural right and are not compensation for anything.
2. Really? The so called "poor laws" which I think you are referring to are not like what I am suggesting at all.
3. No, I think life would improve actually. Look at what countries are most economically free and their HDI rating. I think you'll notice a correlation.

Alternatively you could fuck off to Somalia - by the sounds of it you'd approve of the way they run things there.

http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/Somalia

Somalia improved in anarchy, funny that.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Well, if your property is under attack then I guess force may be needed. Also, don't pull try the proudhorn "property is theft" card or relative example, its nonsense. I used to be a left winger myself before I changed my views.

You said that you were against taxation because it is involuntary. Put private property is also involuntary e.g., If I enter somebodies private land I could be liable to a civil or criminal penalty. Therefore i suggest that if you are against all involuntary relationships you also have to reject private property.

 

[SpineyNorman]

1.You have a poor understanding of what capitalism actually is and what it entails. Wage slavery, which you are basically describing without outright mentioning is nonsense. Benefits are not a natural right and are not compensation for anything.
2. Really? The so called "poor laws" which I think you are referring to are not like what I am suggesting at all.
3. No, I think life would improve actually. Look at what countries are most economically free and their HDI rating. I think you'll notice a correlation.

http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/Somalia

Somalia improved in anarchy, funny that.

1) No U - for someone whose understanding of what capitalism is completely misses out err... capitalism you're quick to throw that around. And it isn't wage slavery, just plain old wage labour.
2) As I said, an historical illiterate. The poor law - and all subsequent unemployment relief - was in part a response to the failure of charitable relief and in part a means of imposing labour discipline.
3) That's because you're a fucking idiot. look at life expectancy in the former Soviet countries before and after the fall of the USSR - I think you'll see a correlation. It's funny how if you define economic 'freedom' in such a way as to automatically exclude the poorest countries (in these property rights will always be unstable - that's how the transition to capitalism works) you get the desired result. I could similarly point to the correlation between comprehensive welfare safetynets, reduced income inequality and mental and physical wellbeing. All it tells us is that if you choose the right proxies to measure you;ll get the results you want.

And lol - an anarcho-capitalist (a contradition in terms if ever there was one) loonsite does not a reliable source make.

 

[Idris2002]

1.You have a poor understanding of what capitalism actually is and what it entails. Wage slavery, which you are basically describing without outright mentioning is nonsense. Benefits are not a natural right and are not compensation for anything.
2. Really? The so called "poor laws" which I think you are referring to are not like what I am suggesting at all.
3. No, I think life would improve actually. Look at what countries are most economically free and their HDI rating. I think you'll notice a correlation.

http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/Somalia

Somalia improved in anarchy, funny that.

Your link conveniently omits the fact that since the early 2000s, more and more of Somalia has been brought under some kind of reconstructed state. This is a far more likely source of the improved development indicators your link cites. Take this point for example:

In 2006, Puntland was the second territory in Somalia after Somaliland to introduce free primary schools, with teachers now receiving their salaries from the Puntland administration.[190] From 2005/2006 to 2006/2007, there was a significant increase in the number of schools in Puntland, up 137 institutions from just one year prior. During the same period, the number of classes in the region increased by 504, with 762 more teachers also offering their services.[191] Total student enrollment increased by 27% over the previous year, with girls lagging only slightly behind boys in attendance in most regions. The highest class enrollment was observed in the northernmost Bari region, and the lowest was observed in the under-populated Ayn region. The distribution of classrooms was almost evenly split between urban and rural areas, with marginally more pupils attending and instructors teaching classes in urban areas.[19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You said that you were against taxation because it is involuntary. Put private property is also involuntary e.g., If I enter somebodies private land I could be liable to a civil or criminal penalty. Therefore i suggest that if you are against all involuntary relationships you also have to reject private property.

The logic displayed in this post is truly stunning.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The logic displayed in this post is truly stunning.

Indulge me.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The logic displayed in this post is truly stunning.

You're too modest - it's nowhere near as stunning as your informed critique of Marx.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The logic displayed in this post is truly stunning.

Seems pretty watertight to me.

 

[DotCommunist]

You're too modest - it's nowhere near as stunning as your informed critique of Marx.

earlier in the thread JC compared economics to biology, as a proper science. Thats a manifestation of the problem right there. 'It's the economy, stupid'. Taken as natural and true as breathing, eating and shitting.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

earlier in the thread JC compared economics to biology, as a proper science. Thats a manifestation of the problem right there. 'It's the economy, stupid'. Taken as natural and true as breathing, eating and shitting.

JC is a biological oddity in that he uses the same orifice for all three of those bodily functions.

 

[Idris2002]

earlier in the thread JC compared economics to biology, as a proper science. Thats a manifestation of the problem right there. 'It's the economy, stupid'. Taken as natural and true as breathing, eating and shitting.

Except that the science the hardcore mathematical economists are trying to emulate is physics - which is capable of a degree of precision and rigour, and genuinely lawlike theories, which no social science can ever pretend to.

 

[butchersapron]

Except that the science the hardcore mathematical economists are trying to emulate is physics - which is capable of a degree of precision and rigour, and genuinely lawlike theories, which no social science can ever pretend to.

Oh they can pretend to all right - and in the everyday language this is pretence in economics case is translated into the common sense of the balanced budget and the domestic economy as the national economy and other idiocies.

 

[Idris2002]

Oh they can pretend to all right - and in the everyday language this is pretence in economics case is translated into the common sense of the balanced budget and the domestic economy as the national economy and other idiocies.

Well, quite.

 

[DotCommunist]

The nations credit card. When george was trotting that one out I thought 'is he really suggesting we're all so thick as to view the business of national economics as ma beetons?'

 

[Idris2002]

The nations credit card. When george was trotting that one out I thought 'is he really suggesting we're all so thick as to view the business of national economics as ma beetons?'

She - the evil one, say not her name - was only a grocer's daughter after all.

 

[kabbes]

Except that the science the hardcore mathematical economists are trying to emulate is physics - which is capable of a degree of precision and rigour, and genuinely lawlike theories, which no social science can ever pretend to.

Indeed.

The basic principle of a science is that it leads to falsifiable, testable predictions. Economics does not do this, at least in its classical form. Behavioural economics is more scientific in approach and it leads to very messy results as a consequence -- results ignored or unknown by right-wing ideologues who trump "economics" as their justification for their nonsense.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The basic principle of a science is that it leads to falsifiable, testable predictions..

Yes and no. I don't think we should limit science to this. In evolutionary biology and astronomy, for instance, making testable predictions can be tricky or impossible. Some scientific disciplines are more descriptive than predictive.

 

[isvicthere?]

"Theft:
The action or crime of stealing."

Try to refuse to pay the income tax. If you do, you are put in prison. You cannot opt out or chose which services the tax goes to. Therefore, the income tax is the government stealing your money because you are not able chose whether this money can or can't be taken from you. Maybe a better word would be "extortion"

So not "theft" then?

 

[isvicthere?]

I'm not a big fan of cholera or open sewers either

Yes, but what if I "choose" to have open sewers? You're oppressing me with your (probably communist) public hygiene!

 

[isvicthere?]

Well, if your property is under attack then I guess force may be needed. Also, don't pull try the proudhorn "property is theft" card or relative example, its nonsense. I used to be a left winger myself before I changed my views.

"Proudhorn"? Wasn't he a 19th century French porn star?

 

[DotCommunist]

I used to be a left winger myself before I changed my views.

why do they always say this?

 

[8ball]

why do they always say this?

Easier to just read it as "I used to pretend to be a left-winger when I didn't have any money and was trying to get laid."

 

[Idris2002]

why do they always say this?

Because they're congenital liars.

 

[kabbes]

Yes and no. I don't think we should limit science to this. In evolutionary biology and astronomy, for instance, making testable predictions can be tricky or impossible. Some scientific disciplines are more descriptive than predictive.

I'm pretty sure that falsifiable, testable predictions are pretty much the definition of the scientific method. Both the sciences you mentioned do manage it, tough as it is. And where they don't, that's not science, it's speculation.

 

[8ball]

Because they're congenital liars.

Not always. People choose to believe things based on whether it fits their interests - truth value is often quite far down the list of priorities.

 

[JimW]

Usually a rhetorical trick to pretend they've give due thought to "left" explanations before they woke up to the "real world" of classical economics circular reasoning.