[Michaeluj]

However most of these economic interactions are between enterprises, they do not involve consumers, and it is quite clear that present day multi-national firms conduct planning of a similar complexity to that required under socialism all the time. The activity of the multi-nationals answers a further criticism that the operation of supply and demand to determine price is the only efficient way to proceed in the exchange of goods. In their international operations companies like General Motors simply allocate resources between countries and factories without reference to the market.

Unless this paragraph contains separate arguments, the one sentence I bolded has the distinctive feature of highlighting the reasoning for stating the argument. I did not say that all market calculation involves seeing what people want and providing it. Business-to-Business transactions must still exist. And those transactions involve arguments that I made earlier.

[daft punk]

ah, I see. well, not really but never mind. All I can say is you need computers and mass involvement in planning. It would be trial and error. Some whizz kids would probably come up with some fancy programme for working out what is most efficient.

The most basic efficiencies are getting rid of unemployment and useless jobs. That would immediately double the effective workforce. We would get rid of waste and duplication. We would be factoring in external costs, real costs capitalists ignore, like global warming. New technology could be introduced to save labour time. Pretty soon the working week would just be a few hours.

[Michaeluj]

The most basic efficiencies are getting rid of unemployment and useless jobs. We would get rid of waste and duplication. We would be factoring in external costs, real costs capitalists ignore, like global warming. New technology could be introduced to save labour time. Pretty soon the working week would just be a few hours.

None of those involve economic calculation. Unemployment and "useless" jobs are based on stable economic conditions, not really trade quality. Global warming has nothing to do with exchange. And saving labor is not part of economic calculation!

Look, calculation is based on deciding between what methods and resources you already have at your disposal. It's about the efficiency of choice, not the efficiency of productivity or of long-term factors that primarily exist outside of economic concerns.

[daft punk]

Well it doesnt sound too important then

oh, according to wiki, the economic calculation problem only applies to capital goods. As I said before, multinationals just assign these kinda things anyway, they don't get priced as such a lot of the time.

[Michaeluj]

How can you claim that a system will be the most productive when it cannot even be the most efficient? This is why calculation is important.

And I would say that calculation refers to more than capital goods, but those are prominent enough to be focused on anyway. The idea of a corporation doing much of its work by itself is similar to socialism, but we have to consider the actual extents that this occurs, what kind of factor workers act as, and how other businesses act to aid the function we've been debating.

[daft punk]

How can you claim that a system will be the most productive when it cannot even be the most efficient? This is why calculation is important.

1. In America nearly 25% are unemployed, and at least 25% do useless jobs. Get rid of that and you immediately double the workforce.

2. Intellectual property rights stop good ideas reaching the maximum number of people. Fortunately the bloke who invented the www refused to patent it precisely for this reason.

3. In socialism there would be no wars or crime.

4. In socialism you would build quality stuff to last, and do away with this weeks must have new this that the other.

5. Costs could include external costs eg global warming that capitalism cant include, so we would calculate BETTER.

6. Economies of scale, avoid duplication, especially in R&D.

7. LONG term planning, building things with long payback times that capitalists wont do, robots, green energy etc.

8. Avoid relying on cheap labour in the third world, help them become modern, sustainable economies. Use robots, not child slave labour. This will bring down population growth with any luck.

9. More motivation in many ways, for many people. In socialism the goal is to move away from the division of labour, where millions are treated like machines, but worse, disposable ones with little or no capital outlay or investment in them (maybe some training and a uniform).

And I would say that calculation refers to more than capital goods, but those are prominent enough to be focused on anyway. The idea of a corporation doing much of its work by itself is similar to socialism, but we have to consider the actual extents that this occurs, what kind of factor workers act as, and how other businesses act to aid the function we've been debating.

Well, as I say, wiki says its just capital, and my other source said a lot of multinationals' capital is moved around without any market as such.

When I worked in industry we would buy machines, but there was no real calculation. If we needed a new machine we just bought one. It was common sense. What would have made more sense would have been to buy a better one, but the people at the top are tight bastards, and would rather rely on people working 7 days, nights, whatever.

[Michaeluj]

Oh, goodness, you've missed the point.
I sigh.

1. In America nearly 25% are unemployed, and at least 25% do useless jobs. Get rid of that and you immediately double the workforce.

I think it's a waste, too, though I think you're number is exaggerated even while including participants to those reports who are no longer looking for employment. That's why I'm a libertarian. If you can't understand my point or are surprised that I said this, you are not thinking in terms of your opponent and are living in a bubble or your own isolated beliefs. Basically, this point is nulled by considering how other people can improve conditions.
Additionally, the Austrian School believes that recessions are almost always caused by economic calculation violently kicking the economy. Do I have to explain the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle?

2. Intellectual property rights stop good ideas reaching the maximum number of people. Fortunately the bloke who invented the www refused to patent it precisely for this reason.

That's politics.

3. In socialism there would be no wars or crime.

HA! HAHA! HAHAA!!
It's hilarious that you're trying to claim something so general.

4. In socialism you would build quality stuff to last, and do away with this weeks must have new this that the other.

Congratulations: You just killed freedom.
I debated the plausibility of conspicuous consumption and decided that it is a myth or just something that is so minor in a purchase that it's just like icing on a huge cake: little work goes into striving for it compared to the rest of the "purchase" and it's a sweetener. I say give the people what they want, let them waste their money. You can't assume that people will change for your convenience.

5. Costs could include external costs eg global warming that capitalism cant include, so we would calculate BETTER.

It's not calculating: it's guessing based on certain parameters and predictions. Calculation requires rational data, not the notion that 'less carbs in the air is good,' or 'less cut-down trees is good.'

6. Economies of scale, avoid duplication, especially in R&D.

For a socialist scale, it would have to be worse for calculation, which you state is of a reduced quality for even corporations. Sure, it produces more, but is the allocation of the resources efficient? If you have only one business performing one suited task, how can you feasibly tell if it's being performed the most admirably? You don't have wages, physical examples of greater efficiency, the problem that entities of such a vast size would have trouble adjusting even if a more effective is way discovered (they wouldn't even be able to calculate when such a transition to newer methods be made or how long they should last before they effectively paid for themselves). Duplication is about diversity and the chance of evolving into entirely new methods that can be exploited. And R&D has to be balanced based on consumer demand, like all other things, because that is the ultimate purpose of the economy.

7. LONG term planning, building things with long payback times that capitalists wont do, robots, green energy etc.

Yes, you would need astronomical funds, the safety of preserving that for years, and a business not built on satisfying consumer demand every hour of every day.

8. Avoid relying on cheap labour in the third world, help them become modern, sustainable economies. Use robots, not child slave labour. This will bring down population growth with any luck.

Okay. Free money and robots. Your plan is incredible. Why didn't I think of that!?

9. More motivation in many ways, for many people. In socialism the goal is to move away from the division of labour, where millions are treated like machines, but worse, disposable ones with little or no capital outlay or investment in them (maybe some training and a uniform).

The hilarity is cumbersome because it makes my sides ache.

When I worked in industry we would buy machines, but there was no real calculation. If we needed a new machine we just bought one. It was common sense. What would have made more sense would have been to buy a better one, but the people at the top are tight bastards, and would rather rely on people working 7 days, nights, whatever.

Who is this 'we', who is this that you're buying from? Isn't there a valid choice of the upper echelon buying from 'themselves', I presume, or from an external company? Also, haven't you considered that buying a 'better one' instead of a 'cheap' one is also part of economic calculation? After all, resources are spent on quality, and those resources could go to a business that really needs them.

[daft punk]

Frankly, a piss poor job of answering my post.

[Michaeluj]

See this smilie? I'm sure that you believe that this physical representation is of, to you, utter brevity, for it does, by the implication of immediate cogitation, define itself as a scope of condemnation that is of equivalent size to a something that lacks of impact, a small circle upon the set of virtual reality. It's an object of minor importance, correct? Well, it shall defy!
By methods that you manage to have appropriated by whatever mechanisms you possibly acquired in your life, consider how this thing is, by acting like a striation in the void, expressing in contempt of everything you said, everything you believe, even the hands that made what you conveyed, and, thus, everything about you. Stare into the eyes that are the symbol of pure and utter vitriolic hate against the composition and the surroundings that encompass everything, all that which brought the foe, for it is the immensity of pure form that exists in absolute contradiction to the manifestation of all that is good and reasonable and, nay, acceptable under the foundations of civilization! Proportions mean nothing to this thing, for it is pureness incarnate of imminence against which you are the merest transience! His is reprisal against obsolescence, foe of culpability, and the detriment of all that is odium. This is both the paradigm and the appellation that shall mortify you with the veneer of deleterious, facile, cogent salience against vacillate antagonists.
For it is the entirety of what I could never possibly be able to say. By acting alone, undefended by an ounce of elucidation, it can only be everything, for it is only begun as my unsaid words, which exist as infinite permutations across the vastness of probability and illiminable distances across a macrocosm which, in themselves, contain the impression of words too verbose to be formulated by the boundary conditions of the universe.

In case you are paralyzed by my epic repose, so that you are incapable of reverting to anything, in the physical realm, by the diatribe of symbolism's power and the exploitation that I can use from it to define reality, here is it again.






(Also, make an intelligent response!)

[daft punk]

One by one

Quote:
1. In America nearly 25% are unemployed, and at least 25% do useless jobs. Get rid of that and you immediately double the workforce.


I think it's a waste, too, though I think you're number is exaggerated even while including participants to those reports who are no longer looking for employment. That's why I'm a libertarian. If you can't understand my point or are surprised that I said this, you are not thinking in terms of your opponent and are living in a bubble or your own isolated beliefs. Basically, this point is nulled by considering how other people can improve conditions.
Additionally, the Austrian School believes that recessions are almost always caused by economic calculation violently kicking the economy. Do I have to explain the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle?

You are a libertarian because 22% of Americans are unemployed? You think more free market creates more jobs? The recession is caused by the free market, and the cuts you advocate make it worse. The FT admitted this over Greece, while simultaneously calling for more austerity! In 1929 they allowed companies to go under and the result was 33% of the American economy smashed, fascism, and world war. The free market got it's way from 1979-2007 and the result is global turmoil.

You ignore my point which is that socialism would double the number of people doing useful work in America. By useful I mean what benefits mankind - public transport, wind and solar power, building energy efficient houses.

Your system builds weapons and has got us to the stage where American food requires an equal amount of oil to produce it, while destroying the soil, water and climate. It has got us to the stage where there is enough food but millions starve.

In Africa where there is hunger, tell me, what happens to the price of food? Does it go up or down? And what does that do?

Quote:
2. Intellectual property rights stop good ideas reaching the maximum number of people. Fortunately the bloke who invented the www refused to patent it precisely for this reason.


That's politics.

As I say, piss poor. Answer my point.

Quote:
3. In socialism there would be no wars or crime.


HA! HAHA! HAHAA!!
It's hilarious that you're trying to claim something so general.

If everyone was equal, and there was no money, no shortages of anything, how much crime would there be? If there were no countries how much war would there be?

Have you studied this? Does domestic violence increase or decrease during a recession?

[Michaeluj]

You are a libertarian because 22% of Americans are unemployed? You think more free market creates more jobs?

Yes, and

the cuts you advocate make it worse.

In the short-term, any cuts have negative effects, in the short-term, and

The FT admitted this over Greece, while simultaneously calling for more austerity! In 1929 they allowed companies to go under and the result was 33% of the American economy smashed, fascism, and world war.

Appeal to Authority, also try to learn the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, and

The free market got it's way from 1979-2007 and the result is global turmoil.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=135144

You ignore my point which is that socialism would double the number of people doing useful work in America. By useful I mean what benefits mankind - public transport, wind and solar power, building energy efficient houses.

Nope, I did all 9 and more.

Your system builds weapons and has got us to the stage where American food requires an equal amount of oil to produce it, while destroying the soil, water and climate. It has got us to the stage where there is enough food but millions starve.

Again, politics for the part regarding war. For food, consider why oil is used. Finally, consider why poor people deserve free food when they can't even make their own. Why should I give them free stuff?

In Africa where there is hunger, tell me, what happens to the price of food? Does it go up or down? And what does that do?

If they primarily depend on imports, then rising oil prices would raise food prices and encourage domestic production that'll reduce oil expenditure.

Quote:
2. Intellectual property rights stop good ideas reaching the maximum number of people. Fortunately the bloke who invented the www refused to patent it precisely for this reason.


That's politics.


As I say, piss poor. Answer my point.

As I said earlier, there are pros and cons to intellectual property, so what really matters is the extent that the method is chosen and what are its effects. Weak or strong, short or long, intellectual property codes can be modified for any desired effect. I already stated how a unified structure would end up causing long-term inefficiencies, so something less than total freedom of information ought to be selected.

If everyone was equal, and there was no money, no shortages of anything, how much crime would there be?

Give everyone everything for free, and of course their would be no crime.

If there were no countries how much war would there be?

Here, you are saying, "My system is perfect because I have weeded out any possible flaws in the conditions that it inhabits. Therefore, it's clearly better than the opposition's." If I were to claim that my world would be 100% libertarian and, thus, have no wars--heck, let's go as far as say no countries--, you would not be able to dismiss me without contradicting yourself. Additionally, such claims do nothing for the argument, so they should be dropped so that we focus on arguments pertinent to calculation. Stop talking about war. Stop pretending that your system will operate under perfect conditions that make flaws impossible, while holding others to low standards.

[daft punk]

Quote:
4. In socialism you would build quality stuff to last, and do away with this weeks must have new this that the other.

Congratulations: You just killed freedom.
I debated the plausibility of conspicuous consumption and decided that it is a myth or just something that is so minor in a purchase that it's just like icing on a huge cake: little work goes into striving for it compared to the rest of the "purchase" and it's a sweetener. I say give the people what they want, let them waste their money. You can't assume that people will change for your convenience.

Fashion is not a myth. And consumers do not choose to buy rubbish, they tend to buy it believing it is fit for purpose.

Quote:
5. Costs could include external costs eg global warming that capitalism cant include, so we would calculate BETTER.


It's not calculating: it's guessing based on certain parameters and predictions. Calculation requires rational data, not the notion that 'less carbs in the air is good,' or 'less cut-down trees is good.'

are you saying there is no such thing as AGW? Besides, we know oil is getting harder to find, and it takes an equal amount of oil to grow America's food, so that is clearly not sustainable, especially for poor farmers in backward countries.

Quote:
6. Economies of scale, avoid duplication, especially in R&D.


For a socialist scale, it would have to be worse for calculation, which you state is of a reduced quality for even corporations. Sure, it produces more, but is the allocation of the resources efficient? If you have only one business performing one suited task, how can you feasibly tell if it's being performed the most admirably? You don't have wages, physical examples of greater efficiency, the problem that entities of such a vast size would have trouble adjusting even if a more effective is way discovered (they wouldn't even be able to calculate when such a transition to newer methods be made or how long they should last before they effectively paid for themselves). Duplication is about diversity and the chance of evolving into entirely new methods that can be exploited. And R&D has to be balanced based on consumer demand, like all other things, because that is the ultimate purpose of the economy.

When did I say calculation is reduced for multinationals? There would be wages for several generations, they would fade out as more things were made free and wages grew closer to equal. There would be some friendly competition - but with information and resources shared. R&D would be directed by boards including consumers.

Quote:
7. LONG term planning, building things with long payback times that capitalists wont do, robots, green energy etc.

Yes, you would need astronomical funds, the safety of preserving that for years, and a business not built on satisfying consumer demand every hour of every day.

We just doubled the workforce and made things more efficient.

Quote:
8. Avoid relying on cheap labour in the third world, help them become modern, sustainable economies. Use robots, not child slave labour. This will bring down population growth with any luck.



Okay. Free money and robots. Your plan is incredible. Why didn't I think of that!?

Because you are not a genius like me. We robots are very clever. We never complain either, we are hard workers. We typically cost about $45K, an average American's wage.

Quote:
9. More motivation in many ways, for many people. In socialism the goal is to move away from the division of labour, where millions are treated like machines, but worse, disposable ones with little or no capital outlay or investment in them (maybe some training and a uniform).

The hilarity is cumbersome because it makes my sides ache.

In socialism, even the robots will be treated like humans, and the humans will definitely be, becasue production will be done for need not profit.

Now, when I'm done with you, off to the scrapheap (dole queue) please.

Quote:
When I worked in industry we would buy machines, but there was no real calculation. If we needed a new machine we just bought one. It was common sense. What would have made more sense would have been to buy a better one, but the people at the top are tight bastards, and would rather rely on people working 7 days, nights, whatever.


Who is this 'we', who is this that you're buying from? Isn't there a valid choice of the upper echelon buying from 'themselves', I presume, or from an external company? Also, haven't you considered that buying a 'better one' instead of a 'cheap' one is also part of economic calculation? After all, resources are spent on quality, and those resources could go to a business that really needs them.

We bought internally (second hand) or externally (new or second hand). The calculation was, can we get away with cutting a 12 inch ruler in half to save buying a six inch one (true example). It was, a shit hot saw would cost £tens of thousands, so it's payback time would be long, even if it did get jobs done quicker. So let's just get a cheap second hand one and get the lads to work weekends.

More labour, backward equipment.

I was testing parts for oil wells, aerospace and so on, pretty top end industry where turnround was critical.

[Michaeluj]

Fashion is not a myth. And consumers do not choose to buy rubbish, they tend to buy it believing it is fit for purpose.

So why will consumers choose to buy non-rubbish under socialism?

are you saying there is no such thing as AGW? Besides, we know oil is getting harder to find, and it takes an equal amount of oil to grow America's food, so that is clearly not sustainable, especially for poor farmers in backward countries.

No, I'm saying that you can't calculate with the environment under consideration. The best you can do is play around with numbers or laws, like in city-building games.
I also have literally no idea why you're talking about how farmers have to pay for American food, unless what you're really saying is that they can't compete with that. But that still raises questions of what argument, pertaining to the subject, you are trying to make with this.

When did I say calculation is reduced for multinationals?

When you consistently spoke of how they trade materials within themselves? By not regarding what you said in the manner that I have perceived, you still don't seem to grasp the concept of calculation.

There would be wages for several generations, they would fade out as more things were made free and wages grew closer to equal. There would be some friendly competition - but with information and resources shared. R&D would be directed by boards including consumers.

If all wages are equal, then it doesn't matter what education you can purchase because every teacher costs the same amount. Additionally, with equal wages, this means that the only calculation regards buying machinery that used the least labor-hours and using less labor-hours in general, correct?

Additionally, if resources are shared, does this not mean that resources are free, and that prices produced are, thus, with labor inputs not counted in those capital goods, utterly arbitrary?

Quote:
Quote:
7. LONG term planning, building things with long payback times that capitalists wont do, robots, green energy etc.

Yes, you would need astronomical funds, the safety of preserving that for years, and a business not built on satisfying consumer demand every hour of every day.

We just doubled the workforce and made things more efficient.

?

Um, hail libertarianism?

Because you are not a genius like me. We robots are very clever. We never complain either, we are hard workers. We typically cost about $45K, an average American's wage.

You just lost all credibility for especially this segment. Therefore, I'm dropping it. Same with:

Quote:
9. More motivation in many ways, for many people. In socialism the goal is to move away from the division of labour, where millions are treated like machines, but worse, disposable ones with little or no capital outlay or investment in them (maybe some training and a uniform).

We bought internally (second hand) or externally (new or second hand). The calculation was, can we get away with cutting a 12 inch ruler in half to save buying a six inch one (true example). It was, a shit hot saw would cost £tens of thousands, so it's payback time would be long, even if it did get jobs done quicker. So let's just get a cheap second hand one and get the lads to work weekends.

More labour, backward equipment.

There we go. It seems that it's better for you to work more than for those who built your machinery to work more.

[daft punk]

Quote:
You are a libertarian because 22% of Americans are unemployed? You think more free market creates more jobs?


Yes, and

Quote:
the cuts you advocate make it worse.


In the short-term, any cuts have negative effects, in the short-term, and

Quote:
The FT admitted this over Greece, while simultaneously calling for more austerity! In 1929 they allowed companies to go under and the result was 33% of the American economy smashed, fascism, and world war.


Appeal to Authority, also try to learn the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, and

Quote:
The free market got it's way from 1979-2007 and the result is global turmoil.


viewtopic.php?f=26&t=135144

Yes well the FT does know a bit about economics. Your thread is what? That government spending continued to increase after Thatcher/Reagan? How is that relevant? The neoliberal shift got finance industry deregulated and that made it grow massively and that created an enormous bubble which popped in 2007. This subject is too big to go into here. When Thatcher got in, unemployment went up. As I say, we had 30 years of neoliberalism and the end result in America is 22% unemployed and the same again doing useless jobs.

A socialist government would simply sack all the useless jobs and create millions of useful ones. Easy peasy.

Quote:
Your system builds weapons and has got us to the stage where American food requires an equal amount of oil to produce it, while destroying the soil, water and climate. It has got us to the stage where there is enough food but millions starve.


Again, politics for the part regarding war. For food, consider why oil is used. Finally, consider why poor people deserve free food when they can't even make their own. Why should I give them free stuff?

A I say, piss poor response. Now, how about something proper. Consider why oil is used, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? You are talking to a scientist who knows scientists who have worked for Greenpeace. Step up your game! Poor people don't want free food they want to be able to grow their own. But it doesnt help that Americans eat too much and waste a large percentage of the food.

Now, read up on Bill Clinton apologising for destroying the agriculture in Haiti.

Quote:
In Africa where there is hunger, tell me, what happens to the price of food? Does it go up or down? And what does that do?


If they primarily depend on imports, then rising oil prices would raise food prices and encourage domestic production that'll reduce oil expenditure.

The local price goes up when there is a shortage, simple market economics. This means the poorest have even less chance of getting enough to eat. This is a fact. The market kills. I say, kill the market!

As I said earlier, there are pros and cons to intellectual property, so what really matters is the extent that the method is chosen and what are its effects. Weak or strong, short or long, intellectual property codes can be modified for any desired effect. I already stated how a unified structure would end up causing long-term inefficiencies, so something less than total freedom of information ought to be selected.

Sorry that was so boring I fell asleep before I finished. What is positive about intellectual property? As if I cant guess.

Give everyone everything for free, and of course their would be no crime.

ah, so your laughter has now turned into agreement with me?

Here, you are saying, "My system is perfect because I have weeded out any possible flaws in the conditions that it inhabits. Therefore, it's clearly better than the opposition's." If I were to claim that my world would be 100% libertarian and, thus, have no wars--heck, let's go as far as say no countries--, you would not be able to dismiss me without contradicting yourself. Additionally, such claims do nothing for the argument, so they should be dropped so that we focus on arguments pertinent to calculation. Stop talking about war. Stop pretending that your system will operate under perfect conditions that make flaws impossible, while holding others to low standards.

Nah, listen. Your so-called libertarian thing is basically capitalism and capitalism is very much tied to the nation state. In fact capitalism created nation states. This is a fact and you are being silly.

However socialism can only be built by the working class along internationalist lines. It can only work on an international basis. All wars are about economics. Socialists do not start them, capitalists do. In a socialist world you would have no countries and international planning. In a communist world there would be no governments, armies, police, prisons, none of that.

The only way socialism could happen is on an international basis. This is the basics of Marxism. There is nothing like that in capitalism, and nationalism is a frequently used tool of the bourgeoisie.

Now, explain to me why the first British troops deployed in WW1 went to Iraq.

[Michaeluj]

Yes well the FT does know a bit about economics.

Again, you have been using Appeal To Authority, which is a clearly evident logical fallacy. Don't use it again. Use your own arguments, and do not claim that you're correct because of the grace of someone else's words.

Your thread is what? That government spending continued to increase after Thatcher/Reagan? How is that relevant? The neoliberal shift got finance industry deregulated and that made it grow massively and that created an enormous bubble which popped in 2007. This subject is too big to go into here.

Exactly, it is far too big. It is big because the lines are not as clear as one would think, which is exactly as I explained in the thread. You cannot argue the importance or efficacy of a law: Therefore, you cannot define the quality of change that has occured by a political party by the merits of a few laws alone; Therefore, I used a combination of both spending and number of laws to show a general government inclination that moves against Neoliberal policies. If your argument is that only banking regulation decreased and stayed down, then, please, post such a rebuttal in that thread; however, in terms of total government change, you cannot look at the provided evidence and see that Neoliberalism obviously occurred. You would be saying that something happened despite the numbers being completely different from expected. Oh look, obesity increased, so that means that all fast-food enterprises disappeared.
And, again, you are blatantly ignoring Austrian Theory, which cannot be disproved by using banking deregulation as an argument, for, if lending is not restricted, then, in combination with central banking, actual loans created by the monetary expansion would still occur and would still destabilize the economy.

Now, how about something proper. Consider why oil is used, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? You are talking to a scientist who knows scientists who have worked for Greenpeace.

With this response, I hoped that you would answer your own question for why expensive oil was actually spent. Is it cheaper than the alternatives? Is it faster? Is it cheaper to use it than to transition to alternative methods? I surely expected you to answer your own grievance: Why do they do something so apparently wasteful?
But then you immediately wrote this:

Poor people don't want free food they want to be able to grow their own. But it doesnt help that Americans eat too much and waste a large percentage of the food.

Here, you are focusing on another argument, denying further rebuttal against this subject. Indeed, the existence of a reason would probably invalidate your argument. After all, if people didn't do things because they are stupid, you would have no reason or authority to claim that they're not working optimally and that you should fix their methods.

In fact, this argument also seems to be loaded with pure cogitative dissonance: You wrote that the capitalized method of producing crops is wasteful in terms of allocation (after being wasteful, detrimental to the environment, etc). Then you switch arguments to say that the problem is that foreigners can't grow their food. However, you, more recently, write here that Americans both eat too much and waste it, implying that, by using their own crops, foreigners are deprived, which means that the issue is not that they can't grow but that they aren't given easy (cheap) access.
You are stepping over so many points that you don't even have an actual foundation to argue on. Stick with one argument so that you can't avoid my responses by shifting to another argument.

Now, read up on Bill Clinton apologising for destroying the agriculture in Haiti.

What? Subsidies, bigger crops, and possibly cheaper prices? You know I hate government subsidies.

The local price goes up when there is a shortage, simple market economics. This means the poorest have even less chance of getting enough to eat. This is a fact. The market kills. I say, kill the market!

In the short term, as long as economic conditions remain at a fairly healthy level. They would be at least be at a somewhat healthy level if they followed my economics platform.

Quote:
As I said earlier, there are pros and cons to intellectual property, so what really matters is the extent that the method is chosen and what are its effects. Weak or strong, short or long, intellectual property codes can be modified for any desired effect. I already stated how a unified structure would end up causing long-term inefficiencies, so something less than total freedom of information ought to be selected.

Sorry that was so boring I fell asleep before I finished. What is positive about intellectual property? As if I cant guess.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you bored of this argument or are you feigning boredom to not act like you simply forgot what I said?

Nah, listen. Your so-called libertarian thing is basically capitalism and capitalism is very much tied to the nation state. In fact capitalism created nation states. This is a fact and you are being silly.

Wow, I did not think that such tenuous connections could be purported as a legitimate response. Under the enormously general term that is capitalism, which was, by nature of being easy to establish, practically universal, and having been founded after tribal property and then feudal property was created, of course only capitalism was there to create nation states. Egypt's ancient socialism was already dead by the time that happened! Additionally, you are still thinking in the short term. You are basically saying that, since all rats put in a maze became lost, they would never find the cheese.
Wait, why am I trying to point the flaws of one of the worst arguments I ever heard?

[daft punk]

Am I supposed to remember who said what a month ago?

[Michaeluj]

Well, you could read....

[daft punk]

I dont really buy the appeal to authority thing. If I was arguing with a creationist I would quote the science, if I was arguing with a global warming denier I would quote the science. Otherwise it's all just personal opinion based on what? The FT is a legitimate authority on economics. That's not to say that it is always right, but it is an authoritative voice of the capitalist class. The capitalists take the FT seriously. An appeal to authority is only a fallacious argument if I state that it MUST be true. I am giving it as a piece of evidence. The fact that Marxists and the authoritative representatives of capitalism say the same thing should carry some weight, we both agree that the sun rises in the west. Anyway, it is a fact that the Greek economy went downhill after the first round of austerity measures, I simply stated the fact that the FT managed to admit it while calling for more cuts!

Quote:
Your thread is what? That government spending continued to increase after Thatcher/Reagan? How is that relevant? The neoliberal shift got finance industry deregulated and that made it grow massively and that created an enormous bubble which popped in 2007. This subject is too big to go into here.

Exactly, it is far too big. It is big because the lines are not as clear as one would think, which is exactly as I explained in the thread. You cannot argue the importance or efficacy of a law: Therefore, you cannot define the quality of change that has occured by a political party by the merits of a few laws alone; Therefore, I used a combination of both spending and number of laws to show a general government inclination that moves against Neoliberal policies. If your argument is that only banking regulation decreased and stayed down, then, please, post such a rebuttal in that thread; however, in terms of total government change, you cannot look at the provided evidence and see that Neoliberalism obviously occurred. You would be saying that something happened despite the numbers being completely different from expected. Oh look, obesity increased, so that means that all fast-food enterprises disappeared.
And, again, you are blatantly ignoring Austrian Theory, which cannot be disproved by using banking deregulation as an argument, for, if lending is not restricted, then, in combination with central banking, actual loans created by the monetary expansion would still occur and would still destabilize the economy.

Not sure what you are referring to. I'm not gonna read the whole thread a month later. The Austrian school had its way over the last 30 years of neoliberalism. You seem to wanna deny that happened. I have no idea why. Thatcher and Reagan began deregulation, took down trade barriers, restricted the unions, privatised stuff. In Britain all the big utilities were privatised, gas, electric, telecoms, rail, water, airways, buses, coal, you name it. Thatcher was followed by Blair who did not change things. Similar story in America. This happened in Canada, Australia, Europe and so on. It coincided with the demise of the USSR and the entry of China and India into the global market. The world market doubled in size which gave a temporary boot to the world economy. In Canada for example between 1995 and 2004, production grew by 133%, but government revenue shrank by 30%, leaving large fortunes in the hands of corporations. In Chile they actually killed the President and thousands of people, had a military coup, to get the neoliberal agenda underway. Friedman called these horrendous events a miracle! He spent a week there after the coup. Friedman was head of the whole Chicago School/Austrian way of thinking and advisor to Reagan. The Economist described him as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it". The largest privatisation in history was in Japan in 2004 where they privatised the post in which 1/3 of government employees worked. It is true that public sector employment in America has not dropped vastly despite the wishes the the politicians. I think one reason was the growth in the military during the 1980s. Also there are simply more people there, and the private sector has had problems since the 1970s. I know you dont like appeals to authority but again if you look at any research or the journals of capitalism they all say that the world was neoliberal from 1979-2008. Eg The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

typical example

Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction

David Harvey
Graduate Center of the City University of New York

Abstract

Neoliberalism has become a hegemonic discourse with pervasive effects on ways of thought and political-economic practices to the point where it is now part of the commonsense way we interpret, live in, and understand the world. How did neoliberalism achieve such an exalted status, and what does it stand for? In this article, the author contends that neoliberalism is above all a project to restore class dominance to sectors that saw their fortunes threatened by the ascent of social democratic endeavors in the aftermath of the Second World War. Although neoliberalism has had limited effectiveness as an engine for economic growth, it has succeeded in channeling wealth from subordinate classes to dominant ones and from poorer to richer countries. This process has entailed the dismantling of institutions and narratives that promoted more egalitarian distributive measures in the preceding era.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/610/1/21.abstract


In fact the number of federal workers in America has dropped from 6.4 million in 1967 to 4.44 million in 2010, sspite population growth.
source
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTa ... ce1962.asp

With this response, I hoped that you would answer your own question for why expensive oil was actually spent. Is it cheaper than the alternatives? Is it faster? Is it cheaper to use it than to transition to alternative methods? I surely expected you to answer your own grievance: Why do they do something so apparently wasteful?

Why do they use oil to grow food? Because it means in the short term they can get high yields with low labour power. It is not sustainable. And it is no use to poor farmers in the third world who need to be more self sufficient.

Here, you are focusing on another argument, denying further rebuttal against this subject. Indeed, the existence of a reason would probably invalidate your argument. After all, if people didn't do things because they are stupid, you would have no reason or authority to claim that they're not working optimally and that you should fix their methods.

In fact, this argument also seems to be loaded with pure cogitative dissonance: You wrote that the capitalized method of producing crops is wasteful in terms of allocation (after being wasteful, detrimental to the environment, etc). Then you switch arguments to say that the problem is that foreigners can't grow their food. However, you, more recently, write here that Americans both eat too much and waste it, implying that, by using their own crops, foreigners are deprived, which means that the issue is not that they can't grow but that they aren't given easy (cheap) access.
You are stepping over so many points that you don't even have an actual foundation to argue on. Stick with one argument so that you can't avoid my responses by shifting to another argument.

Ok, you want to keep things simple. Using oil to produce food is gonna be a problem when the oil runs out.


[quote="Michaeluj]Wow, I did not think that such tenuous connections could be purported as a legitimate response. Under the enormously general term that is capitalism, which was, by nature of being easy to establish, practically universal, and having been founded after tribal property and then feudal property was created, of course only capitalism was there to create nation states. Egypt's ancient socialism was already dead by the time that happened! Additionally, you are still thinking in the short term. You are basically saying that, since all rats put in a maze became lost, they would never find the cheese.
Wait, why am I trying to point the flaws of one of the worst arguments I ever heard?[/quote]

Ancient Egypt socialist? You are having a giraffe. As for capitalism, it started to surface in the 1200s and first became the dominant system in 3 bourgeois revolutions - England 1940, Holland about the same time, and France 100 years later. Germany was late on the scene and America didnt need one as such but it did have its own version, in two parts, the war of independence and then the civil war.

[ingliz]

we both agree that the sun rises in the west

No, we do not.

The sun rises in the "east".

In Britain in winter, roughly speaking, the sun will rise in the south east and set in the south west and in summer conversely it will rise in the north east and set in the north west.

[daft punk]

just checking youre still conscious ingliz.