>mfw free market capitalism was proven wrong in the span of 28 years
>mfw every single communist society has failed
>"free market"
>state enforced monopolies exist
Even while not being a free market the *free* market has prevailed.
>>396414
name a state enforced monopoly.
government subsidized markets keep failing. somehow it is the free market's problem.
>mfw the Fed was proven wrong before it even existed
>>396430
What's wrong with the fed
>>396423
For one, violence.
Next
Interstate highways and state and local road ways, telecommunications companies, banking industries, the fed, health care industry, military arms industry, oil and gas companies, "green" energy companies.
And so on.
>>396323
Hi, /pol
>>396432
Absolute debt slavery.
>>396441
Actual problems not shit tier populism
![2495734-andrewjacksontotalbadass[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MoXuqv2.jpg "2495734-andrewjacksontotalbadass[1].jpg")
>>396430
I warned you about banks.
>>396323
You see, it wasn't TRUE capitalism.
>>396414
>communism/free-market capitalism false dichotomy
stop doing this
>>396447
>State enforced private property
Exactly, that's capitalism. I think you're looking for the anarchist thread.
>>396437
>For one, violence.
>Tfw we could have cheap and freely available violence instead of this stupid state enforced artificial scarcity of inefficient violence
DAMMIT I WANT MORE VIOLENCE, CHEAPER
>>396323
We've never had a free market, and the definition of a 'true' free market is itself difficult to pin down. Capitalism has always operated under a government framework, there is just variance in more or less liberalized markets. Repercussions for fraud or the most unequivocal externalities are forms of regulations, yet the most die hard libertarians support them.
>>396460
>that's capitalism
Exactly, it's just not the free market.
>all these anarchists suddenly
BUT WHY THO
Mixed economy = federal capitalism = u.s. since the great depression.
>>396469
"The free market" is an ideal state. Ensuring that citizens own their property means that they can freely do what they like and create a market for their property.
>mfw SJW and commietards are giving way to anarcho-syndicalism
Also, Keynes warned us all 90 years ago and we didn't fucking listen. We're just reaping what it has been saw since the end of WW2.
>>396480
>mfw "the free market" is the anarchist version of "the state will wither away"
>>396480
The problem is more that some citizens own property that produces rents, the recognition and protection of which is subsidized by citizens who work to pay income tax.
>create a market for their property
So long as they're paying for this service.
>>396480
Believe it or not, there are some economists who take a more realistic view of the free market: as something that has intruded upon established custom.
This was the opinion of the famous Utilitarian Mill.
>>396469
Under capitalism it is. Private property is just like any other possession that is protected by the state for your sake which you may trade freely at will on a capitalist market.
>>396484
You literally just have to remove the state and anything that results will be "the free market".
>>396486
That seems to be an issue with government regulation of the market rather than the market itself.
>>396488
I'm confused at what you mean. The free market is not a natural entity?
Even without gov't assured property rights people could still own and defend property, but the market was much less free.
>>396501
You mean you can't have anything BUT the free market.
>letting state spooks, aka THE MOST SUCCESSFUL CORPORATION EVER, get into your head this badly
>>396484
Thinking that any one political ideology will solve all and future problems is irreconcilably stupid
>>396506
>being this much of an anarchist jew
>minarchist vs anarchist debate bubbling up
STOP
>>396482
>Keynes warned us all 90 years ago and we didn't fucking listen
Keynesian economics is exactly why the US won't stop fucking causing every war.
>>396505
>That seems to be an issue with government regulation of the market rather than the market itself.
>regulation of the market
>the market itself
They're the same thing. You may as well try to draw a distinction between the shape of a fluid and the shape of the container.
>>396510
>>396511
I'm quite reactionary but like to pretend to be an anarchist or communist online.
>>396505
>The free market is not a natural entity?
This may be a shock to you, but commerce and travel was not always so intrusive and as extensive as it is today. Mill lists examples of times when custom was preferable to letting the free market regulate prices. The Metayer system was of this nature, the rent being fixed at half the produce all the time, not being influenced by the market of property.
The cottier system of Ireland, on the other hand, during this time period was deleterious simply due to the influence of the free market on land rent.
That was the purpose all along.
Milton Friedman was the son of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, born in Brooklyn, he was raised in that environment and came of age during the 1930s. It's literally humanly impossible for him to not have been a communist. When you understand that, everything becomes clear. The idea behind free-market wasn't to increase growth and prosperity, the idea was the opposite, they wanted to increase wealth concentration, they wanted free markets to destroy independent human communities and traditions, that's why they also dismantled the religious and political basis of Christian democracy and social democracy in Europe. The whole point was the create a situation where communism would become politically viable in the West again.
You should remember that Marx himself defended free-market capitalism because he saw it as the best way to change the world in a way that completely destroyed pre-capitalist institutions and led the world to the brink of revolution. Milton Friedman was a communist, but he was a smart communist, who knew that to bring communism he would need to unleash the worst form of capitalism ever devised.
>>396513
I don't understand what you're memeing. You said that a problem with the market atm was that people pay taxes via the govt to help others own property that charges other people rent. If your government got rid of the regulation, your problem would be removed. The problem wouldn't be solved, that can only happen through regulation that is minimal and effective.
>>396529
Are you trying to tell me that the free market is somehow independent from customs of economics or mutually exclusive to those customs? Like I said earlier, the market was just less free.
People have traded between one another through all of human existence, and the laws of economics still applies to them, even if theyre trading blow jobs for spears.
>>396562
The market isn't as free when people take advantage of it
>>396572
Well, I wasn't certain if you were referring to intervention from government.
In times of lower technology and/or little means of a measure of exchangeable value (currency), I can guarantee you the prices for different sorts of goods were more regulated by custom than any sort of 'free market'.
Nowadays everything is so streamlined, regulated, and governed that it is extremely difficult to say anything regarding the agent of custom and its effect of the livelihood of people. However, my point still stands, there are times when the imposition of a free market has a deleterious effect on the population overall.
>>396562
>Milty
>crypto-commie
>implying deregulation was what adam smith meant
>>396562
Don't forget Rand's satire which was mistaken for philosophy
>>396591
I know it's far-fetched, but think about it. He was raised in an environment where literally everyone was a commie, and then his big intellectual and political achievement ended up making communism a viable political option in the Western world in the long run.
>>396562
Where does von Mises and Hayek fit in all of this?
>>396592
Adam Smith meant a rolling redistribution of wealth to keep the market free.
If the government isn't visibly and veritably redistributing money down, you can be sure it's redistributing it up, at the very least presiding over a situation where it concentrates in the hands of people who then use it to influence policy.
>>396584
Well the climate back then was nowhere near as liquid as it is now. That being said I guarantee you that if someone had a lot of chickens, hed hate to pay the same amount for a chicken that a chickenless peasant would.
>>396617
>rich people pay less
That's how it works.
How is a economic system right or wrong?
>>396623
Generally famines and poverty are bad and the opposite good
>>396617
Why the fuck would he be buying chickens if he had a ton already?
>>396562
Poe's law right here
>>396610
Why do you assume a money-making centered state? Why not assume different forms of government that aren't influenced by money entirely? U.K.'s version of a parliamentary democracy is like this, as opposed to American democracy.
>>396617
Agreed, but secrets in trades and manufactures have always existed to keep the prices up for the average consumer. This was something Smith asserted.
Hopefully we can agree though, the free market can sometimes hurt the relations between people in a state, surely now you see how it can create obsessions over covert dealings and deceitful ties between citizens, one of the main criticisms Herodotus attributes to democracy in the first place.
>>396632
Then why most well-meaning intellectuals still cling to communist revolutionary movements, even though their seizure of power is usually followed by poverty and famine?
>>396648
Or rather, that the people who overthrew the Persian empire from Smerdis said was democracy's biggest flaw. That was in like book IV of the Histories.
>>396620
>>396636
I wasn't being clear enough. The guy with more chickens values another chicken less than a guy with no chickens. The guy with no chickens is willing to pay more to have a chicken ASAP than the guy with several chickens would.
Basically I'm just saying that economic principles like supply and demand are irremovable from any economic system, independent of how free the market is.
>>396648
>Why do you assume a money-making centered state? Why not assume different forms of government that aren't influenced by money entirely? U.K.'s version of a parliamentary democracy is like this, as opposed to American democracy.
The UK as an example of a government that isn't influenced by money? This is a country where you could literally buy a seat in the House of Lords.
>money-making centered state
This is one the things the state has to concern itself with. Everyone votes on policy and law because everyone has to follow the policies and laws implemented; and taxation is focused on properties that the state recognizes and protects from homesteaders.
>>396632
>Generally famines and poverty are bad and the opposite good
Under what conditions?
>>396648
Undoubtedly, I agree that an unchecked, free market is a dangerous thing. However you mentioned espionage and underhanded tactics as a creation of a free market and I can't agree with that. I concede that a free market allows those ills to grow and fester, and that a freer market is more susceptible, but I honestly think that corruption is an inevitability in all systems and that regulations on the market are permissible to limit corruption.
>>396654
>Basically I'm just saying that economic principles like supply and demand are irremovable from any economic system, independent of how free the market is.
Even though these are things that make the market less free?
The guy selling chickens really should know that someone with a chicken farm has more money than a guy with no chickens. Deciding to sell chickens at a higher price to a pauper than to a fellow chicken-man is effectively a cartel keeping people out of the chicken market.
>>396649
They believe in its inevitability. A few bodies is unfortunate but necessary. It's 2015, come on.
>>396677
Yeah the rich guy would have more money, but why would he want more chickens when he already has oh, SO many?
"The free market" isn't an end phase. When, if ever, there is a wholly free market, whoever makes more money faster from the start will have more money indefinitely, barring mistakes.
Say that a savvy poultry man makes a killing on the new chicken market. He's got tons of birds, stragiecially invested in coops to make more birds. He has so many birds in fact, that he decides to pick out his sub-prime hens and flood the market with them.
Suddenly there's a surplus of shitty chickens that no one really wants, and the average chicken index plummets. Suddenly people with a couple ok chickens lose their hovel because the regent lord bought a bunch of fucking trash chickens and doesn't need more.
Now in order to make a profit, someone has to have some top-tier tits. Someone like the asshole who started all of this, and saved his blue chip chickens until the price of good chicken skyrocketed, like now.
A free market becomes less free as the value of the market solidifies in earners and stratifies the market between the earned and earners.
>>396727
>"The free market" isn't an end phase. When, if ever, there is a wholly free market, whoever makes more money faster from the start will have more money indefinitely, barring mistakes.
This is what happens in real life. They have more money for whatever reason, and they use it to control the state so they no longer have competition.
>A free market becomes less free as the value of the market solidifies in earners and stratifies the market between the earned and earners.
So tax properties that produce rent and give that money to everyone as a basic income.
>>396562
>It's literally humanly impossible for him to not have been a communist.
I laughed in real life.
Free market means a market free of economic privilege, be it coming from government influence or the influence of larges sums of capital. It's the people with the capital that that want you to think it only means free of government interference. Because at one point in time, there were monarchies, and aristocrats sought to curry favor. Even with early democracy, suffrage was not universal, and it was landowners or others with some form of economic privilege could influence government. The influence of government and the influence of private capital used to be one of the same.
It's only in modern governments with universal adult suffrage did those with capital start pushing the idea of free markets free of government regulation. This is no accident of course, the idea was, as always, to maintain their economic privileged. With less direct and explicit control and collusion with government, those with capital would prefer purely private forms of economic privilege to manipulate the market.
The general population started to appropriate a tool, government and regulation, that was once used for the elite, it's no wonder they try to decry it in an attempt to conserve their privileged status.
>>396562
I honestly can't even tell if this is a joke
>>396745
But that tax was the problem to begin with
>>396799
Property tax?
Maybe when it's applied blindly, ideally it would only be on second and subsequent properties, or properties owned by non-citizens (foreigners or corporations).
>>396323
>proven wrong
Last time I checked "free market capitalism" was an actuality of human social relationships, not a theoretical position. Human social relationships can't be proven "wrong" except from the stance of another human social relationship: ie, to prove a human activity wrong is a political act. There's a board specifically for that, and you know it. So why don't you fuck off to there forever >>>/pol/
If you're actually interested in the economic ideology of monetarism and neoliberalism, there's a board for that too!~ >>>/biz/
Fuck off. Never come back. Economic historians are so much more worthwhile than you, as are political economists.
Obv: Sweezy and Baran, Monopoly Capitalism.
>>396884
Nice autist rant 10/10 desu
>>396884
>Advocating for the relentless pursuit of money
>>396423
Amren.
Auslardia's NBN.
>>396945
You seem to be functionally illiterate. Try the Cartoon History of the Universe Parts 1-3, and then the Cartoon History of the Modern World (1-2), then the Cartoon History of the United States
>>397081
>Auslardia's NBN.
25 year rule
>>396462
You don't understand the basic concept of violence do you?
The state has complete and total monopoly over violence.
>>397277
Arguing from your definitions is the definition of question begging.
For states without a monopoly over violence, see most states prior to 1776.
The true thing that was proven wrong was adding anything to Communism rather than just communism
Aka China, who say their communist but clearly there is tons of capitalism
>>397309
No, every state must have a monopoly over violence.
Otherwise it isnt enforceable. The only reason any sort of organization of people to form a common governance can ever exist is with a state monopoly on violence.
Hence why anarchy, communism, and so on fail. They cannot defend themselves from outside pressure because they have no market economy, so are crushed, or any monopoly of violence, so are crushed.
>>397418
That's just a basic weberian definition of state tho
>mfw free market capitalism's promises are about as utopian as soviet socialism and the only decent alternative is social democracy
>government bailing out shitty companies instead of letting them die out of the inability to compete
>"free market"
>>397433
Yes, and it is a sociological definition, not a historical actuality.
Claiming that your theory precedes the text ("documentary record of the past.") is question begging. "God exists, give me that, and I'll prove why god exists." Fuck off. Seriously.
>>397471
Are you retarded?
>>397595
No, I'm a lecturer.
>>397625
A lecturer on retardation I assume. Seriously, go back to >>>/trash/
>>396323
>Smith literally said 'Don't go crazy with financial deregulation'
>we ignore it and the financial crisis happens
Ignoring Smith isn't free-market capitalism, son.
>>397643
>>397595
This b8 is HARRIBLE
>>397653
Smith extensively argues for state regulation.
>>397418
Power is power, simply put.
>>397471
In what state can exist without power, or a monopoly on violence, that is not devoured by outside pressures?
Rhodeisa lost its monopoly on power upon trade with SA and Angola/Portugal, devoured by outside pressures.
>>397701
>Power is power, simply put.
And entirely ahistorical. Entirely. >>>/x/ opcit.
>>397701
>In what state can exist without power, or a monopoly on violence, that is not devoured by outside pressures?
England then Great Britain. Parliament did not control the magistracy.
France to 1789.
The American colonies to 1776 where the crown and patrician elite contended.
Are you this fucking dumb?
>>397678
Smith came up with the Invisible hand, literally advocating for the existence of a trickle down effect with chaos in economics, hoping for the equilibrium point of supply and demand to be reached, while using the other principles of his definitions with terms he helped define in economic thought. He was just an accurate descriptor and historian. The Wealth of Nations is not just a book about the 18th century economic thought, but an actual look at the religious, cultural, and economic history anthropologically.
>>397277
>The state has complete and total monopoly over violence.
Try to steal my property and you will find out the state does not have a monopoly on violence.
>>397800
>Smith came up with the Invisible hand
Yes, and it is contextualised in a discussion of capitalist greed against the whig state as a representation of the social.
>literally
we already know you're a shithead who hasn't read Smith
>advocating for the existence of a trickle down effect with chaos in economics
Precisely not.
>hoping for the equilibrium point of supply and demand to be reached
Bohm-Bawerk and the reconfiguration of political economy as politics based on the subsumption of utility beneath effective demand comes A HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS LATER
We know you're in second year, stop this fucking sophomoric shit.
>>397678
Only in certain areas, otherwise he opposed it
>>397814
>>we already know you're a shithead who hasn't read Smith
Different anon, take it easy though
>>397800
Jesus Christ, actually read Smith. He mentions the invisible hand once. All he's saying is the market acts as a mechanism to determine prices. Smith thought rich people were evil and what help the free market back. He explicitly advocated of things we understand now as the living wage and protections and regulations in favor of laborers.
>>397800
I don't like thinking of Smith as describing anything per se.
>>397826
If there's one thing that is intolerable, apart from the failure to reference sources at all, it is the deliberate misconstrual of sources.
I hope you agree, in that, I think I should be able to trust the exegeses of anonymous posters on a malaysian macrame forum.
I cry every time an ancap, Austrian, libertarian or whatever shitstain economic thought people belong to misquotes Smith.
>>397831
It is futile to insult people like that for having a different interpretation of Smith. After all, you're on a Tuvalan throat-singing text adventure site.
>>397828
The mercantilists, not all the rich
>>397836
I'm a different anon, that's not a different interpretation of what he meant, that's a total and backwards reinterpretation against what he stood for by cherry picking phrases and using them out of context. It's intellectually dishonest. If you want to apply his concepts to your own line of thought, but trying to falsely appeal to authority by projecting your own values onto him and trampling his legacy is horse shit.
How can a normative theoretical system be 'proven' wrong?
>>397840
>The mercantilists, not all the rich
Not just the merchantilists, that was just the biggest and most obvious problem at the time. Any economic privilege that could cause undue advantage (and disadvantage to others) in the market.
The rich not included, people who found a diamond on the ground and heirs that had no interest in being successful, just spending all their money.
>>396756
>rich people like regulation when rich people have influence in government
>rich people hate regulation when poor people have influence in government
>>397828
>He mentions the invisible hand once.
The concept of the invisible hand is throughout The Wealth of Nations. I think that concept is presented once explicitly in the book, however the concept is ubiquitous nearly throughout the book as a concept where chaotic and free behavior in markets is examined.
>>397814
>of political economy as politics based on the subsumption of utility beneath effective demand comes A HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS LATER
So the concept of utility beneath 'effectual' demand actually was presented by Mr. De Quincy in Logic of Political Economy which is only about 80 years later. Close, but 20 years is enough for you to be concerned
>tfw it wasn't
>>397865
Internal contradiction.
Criticism of the normative basis.
Appeal to empirical reality as refuting the connection of a system to reality.
>>397868
Not all mercantilists.
;).
Smith's attitude towards rents, including monopoly, is repugnance.
>>397886
It'd be enough for me to be concerned if my concern was centred on the failed political economy, rather than its critique.
In contrast, pissing over dicks who misuse Smith is almost as good as a rub-tug-and piss on troughman at a bathhouse.
>>397895
So the concept of supply and demand and the equilibrium points were developed by Adam Smith, just not directly. The basis for these concepts were popularized by Adam Smith though.
>>396432
private interests are running the governments money reserve and interest rates
>>397277
no it does not
>>397353
no it isn't unenforceable without violence you can make a state that provides benefits to those who live with in it as a way of maintaining it and it doesn't need a monopoly on violence to survive against outside force
>>396423
Lots of them in Latin America
>basic services
>telecommunications
>even booze
>>396432
Printing money at much faster rates than value is created
>>399405
Same for Turkey before Erdoğan. The name of the booze+cigarattes was literally "The Monopoly" lol. Liquor shops are still called monopoly shops.
>live under a roof
>have endless supply of cheap food
>electricity, water, TV, internet
>emergency services, police, fireman
>live in vast cities filled with flourishing businesses and restaurants
>have a car with which you can drive anywhere over the vast network of roads and bridges
>or literally fly anywhere thanks to the miracle of air travel
>enjoy vastly higher quality of life and life expectancy than the rest of the world
>go on internet "CAPITALISM HAS FAILED HURRR DURRRR"
I hate my generation.
How the FUCK was this not posted yet?
>libertariantards
>>403028
This is from the New Yorker btw
>>396423
Name a monopoly that has been sustained without government support
I can only think of one: The Dabeers Beers diamond company
>>403074
NTS
>mfw collectivism will never ever be more successful than competitive capitalism
>>397353
>No, every state must have a monopoly over violence.
The military of switzerland hasn't killed anyone for a very long time.
And they don't have the death penalty.
So they only have a monopoly over violence de juno. De facto, it's a complete prohibition of violence.
>>403714
Wait, you seriously don't understand what the state monopoly on violence is, do you? What kind of thing do you even think a state is?
>>403050
It was from a blog on their website.
>>396444
Public debt isn't just a populist issue, though.
>>396441
>debt
>bad
Okay, Cletus.
