# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Debunking Crapitalism

## FreeBornAngel

Crapitalism is the economic system preferred by dictators world wide, that should be your clue.

 Let's use walmart as our example, though it could be any big box world wide distributor.

 If the people that make the products and the people that distribute the goods show up to work then the goods will be on the shelves even if the accounting department jumps off a cliff.

 The people that mine the minerals, refine the minerals into raw materials, fashion the raw materials into finished products, and those that distribute those products could care less if the corporation collects it's billions or not, as long as they continue to show up to do the work then the products continue to be on the shelves.

 We have to have workers to produce the goods, we don't have to have dollars to make the goods available.

 If the workers just take what they need from the shelves in order to continue producing the goods then the goods will continue to be produced.

 They could just order what they need from the net and have it delivered to their door.

 What I am asserting is that if the workers do the work the system continues to supply the shelves in the absence of an accounting department.

----------


## Ronin Truth

How about debunking State Capitalism first?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...50.CEsv7V-uEEA

*"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -- Ron Paul*

----------


## wizardwatson

I love Walmart.  

You know Walmart is the only credit card I have, or have ever had, where they have a program that if I lose my job they'll let me skip payments for a few months.  

I'm also cheap.  I've bounced around Target/Kmart and compared over the years and every time I think Walmart is high, the others are as high or higher.  I know people who work at Walmart.  I've never heard anyone complain about what it's like to work there.

The only people I've ever really heard complain about Walmart are from two camps.  One camp hates them because they represent a successful business and they hate anyone who has wealth.  So they judge them on tactics that every successful business uses to succeed.

The other camp is the people who like to point out how Walmart shoppers are white trashy and/or ghetto.

Both of these things show they are running a good business and offering products at reasonable prices.  Rich people are wiser savers but poor people are wiser spenders.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I love Walmart. 
> 
> You know Walmart is the only credit card I have, or have ever had, where they have a program that if I lose my job they'll let me skip payments for a few months. 
> 
> I'm also cheap. I've bounced around Target/Kmart and compared over the years and every time I think Walmart is high, the others are as high or higher. I know people who work at Walmart. I've never heard anyone complain about what it's like to work there.
> 
> The only people I've ever really heard complain about Walmart are from two camps. One camp hates them because they represent a successful business and they hate anyone who has wealth. So they judge them on tactics that every successful business uses to succeed.
> 
> The other camp is the people who like to point out how Walmart shoppers are white trashy and/or ghetto.
> ...


Everybody hates Wal*Mart, except for the customers and the stockholders. As a customer they do tend to piss me off, from time to time. 

*OPEN MORE REGISTERS!*

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> How about debunking State Capitalism first.
> *"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -- Ron Paul*


Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?
Even if crapitalism were performed by only sole proprietors it would still exploit people for their inability to produce goods.
Would you pay somebody to shave your face or mow your lawn if you could do it for yourself?
Crapitalism exploits the inability of the 'customer' to produce the product themselves.






> I love Walmart.


I love walmart, too.
I just want to use it's structure to benefit the worker and not the one percent.
As long as the workers continue to supply the goods we can eliminate the accounting department.

We have to have workers we don't have to have dollars.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?
> Even if crapitalism were performed by only sole proprietors it would still exploit people for their inability to produce goods.
> Would you pay somebody to shave your face or mow your lawn if you could do it for yourself?
> Crapitalism exploits the inability of the 'customer' to produce the product themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love walmart, too.
> ...


I didn't suggest that. Is that a part of state capitalism? We don't have to have FRNs either. 

It's your thread, do it however you want. (Excluding the labor theory of value, of course.)

BTW, a lot of the WalMart workers are also WalMart stockholders.  It's a choice thing.

----------


## dannno

I hate Walmart too.

Accounting departments within corporations are bloated due to government regulations and taxation. I learned that pretty early on in my career and have tried to stay out of accounting for that reason, it felt like I was just doing a bunch of work for my company so it could be reported it to the government properly. 

What free market capitalism does is it helps rank people's preferences for goods and services, since there is a limited availability they are distributed based on the market value of that which you produce. If that which you produce is valuable and there is a high profit margin, then that means more people want it and more people will enter the market to provide that good or service and meet those people's demands. These are called market signals, and they are very important. Your system ignores that and somehow you think it can all be coordinated centrally..

The fantasy you have about some central entity or government dictating what is produced, how much and who gets it is completely and utterly unattainable and to even work towards it leads to major inefficiencies and less of the goods and services being produced that people primarily desire.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> I didn't suggest that.  Is that a part of state capitalism?  (Excluding the labor theory of value, of course.)


Crapitalism is wage slavery, whether that wage comes from infinite customers or an employer.

I don't need the labor theory of value either.
Anything that leaves values in place is just crapitalism.
The value of life should not be measured in dollars per hour.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> The fantasy you have about some central entity or government dictating what is produced, how much and who gets it is completely and utterly unattainable and to even work towards it leads to major inefficiencies and less of the goods and services being produced that people primarily desire.


Point where I said that.
I would think that empty shelves would spur reorders and full shelves would preclude them.

I never said anything about central authority.  I would state that somebody has to enter the fact that the shelf was empty and resupply needed, but they would not be dictating what goes on the shelf, only noting it's absence.

----------


## Henry Rogue

Many dictators prefer communism, Stalin, mao tse tung, kim jong il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. Most of the rest prefer fascism, Mussolini, Hitler, Frank Roosevelt. A few moved towards capitalism, Chile's military junta, but the government still owned and controlled mining operations, China to an extent.

----------


## dannno

Stefan Molyneux has a great explanation for why modern day governments and dictators prefer a more free market capitalist system as opposed to a slave state or a communist system... it is because the people are like cattle and free market or free range cattle produce more for the farmer:

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Crapitalism is wage slavery, whether that wage comes from infinite customers or an employer.
> 
> I don't need the labor theory of value either.
> Anything that leaves values in place is just crapitalism.
> The value of life should not be measured in dollars per hour.


Am I safe in assuming that you are anti-profit?  The value of labor, not life, is measured in dollars per hour.  I can sell my labor, but not my life.  

*The Philosophy of Liberty (video)*

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Many dictators prefer communism, Stalin, mao tse tung, kim jong il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. Most of the rest prefer fascism, Mussolini, Hitler, Frank Roosevelt. A few moved towards capitalism, Chile's military junta, but the government still owned and controlled mining operations, China to an extent.


That isn't communism.
Here is a report from the time period from a person that was on the ground and had a real good idea of what communism is.

What you reference is state crapitalism, or fascism.
What you point to is the mirror image of what we have in the US.
There the gov't controls the corporations and here the corporations control the gov't. 
Mirror images.
Both fascism.

----------


## dannno

> Point where I said that.
> I would think that empty shelves would spur reorders and full shelves would preclude them.
> 
> I never said anything about central authority.  I would state that somebody has to enter the fact that the shelf was empty and resupply needed, but they would not be dictating what goes on the shelf, only noting it's absence.


Why is somebody going to go out and mine a bunch of stuff and produce something just because a shelf hundreds of miles away is empty?

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Stefan Molyneux has a great explanation for why modern day governments and dictators prefer a more free market capitalist system as opposed to a slave state or a communist system... it is because the people are like cattle and free market or free range cattle produce more:


Exactly, dannno.
This is why I propose eliminating dollars.
As long as the workers continue to supply the demand from the shelves the accounting department can get real jobs.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Am I safe in assuming that you are anti-profit?  The value of labor, not life, is measured in dollars per hour.  I can sell my labor, but not my life.


What is your life if not the hours that make it up?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What is your life if not the hours that make it up?


 The majority the waking hours of it is doing what I want. The rest are merely a means to a preferred and preferable chosen end. 

If you live to be 60, you sleep for 20 years.

----------


## dannno

> Exactly, dannno.
> This is why I propose eliminating dollars.
> As long as the workers continue to supply the demand from the shelves the accounting department can get real jobs.


Eliminating the federal reserve (dollars) and allowing people to trade in gold, silver and bitcoin would be a great start. You need money to create market signals. 

People have non-optimal jobs (like garbage men, factory workers, diving welders) when they could have a job that they would prefer more (service sector, parking attendant, etc) because they make more money at non-optimal or more dangerous job or because their customer service skills aren't as good as some people in that industry (do you appreciate good customer service?). Not everybody can have their dream job, nobody wants to work in a factory. 

People take jobs and wages that are the best option for them depending on their location and skill set, their preference for the type of work and what it pays. If you take away incentives, it all falls apart. Garbage men make good money because nobody wants the job, but it needs to get done and so there is a demand for it. If you took away that incentive, who is going to want to come pick up everybody's garbage? Nobody. 

So these signals in the market pull people into doing tasks that they wouldn't normally do, but are more lucrative. If you don't have the market signal, then people aren't going to do the more highly demanded and lucrative tasks unless you force them through slavery.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?
> Even if crapitalism were performed by only sole proprietors it would still exploit people for their inability to produce goods.
> Would you pay somebody to shave your face or mow your lawn if you could do it for yourself?


I do, do it myself and yes, I would pay someone else to do it, if my time is better spent doing something else. It's called division of labor.



> Crapitalism exploits the inability of the[/B] 'customer'[/B] to produce the product themselves.


Employers are the employees' customers.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Why is somebody going to go out and mine a bunch of stuff and produce something just because a shelf hundreds of miles away is empty?


Not exactly.
We work because we don't want to be parasites on the other workers.
Somebody has to make the cars, shoes, houses, etc,...the most efficient way to do this is by the division of labor.
The miner mines and the refiner refines because they know the farmer will grow the food and the trucker will distribute it.
I would assert that the mathematicians will devise some measure so that we can know that working in the shoe factory for 10 years is sufficient to ensure that what we eat from the farmer is equated by our production of shoes, but this number would have to be a guideline or we have just traded dollars for the new measure.
The goal is to assure ourselves that we have produced more than we have consumed and that we have left the world with more material wealth than when we entered it.

That having been said, how do we quantify grandma's giving of the one thing we all need, unconditional love?

----------


## specsaregood

/.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *What is Capitalism?*Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of* individual rights*. Politically, it is the system of *laissez-faire* (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (*rule of law* as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the *free-market*.


http://capitalism.org/

----------


## Henry Rogue

> That isn't communism.
> Here is a report from the time period from a person that was on the ground and had a real good idea of what communism is.


So did Yuri Maltsev http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8mb5555PCfU But Yuri doesn't call it communism either, He calls it socialism. I call it statism.




> What you reference is state crapitalism, or fascism.


Yep, created by the state.




> What you point to is the mirror image of what we have in the US.
> There the gov't controls the corporations and here the corporations control the gov't. 
> Mirror images.
> Both fascism.


 That's why I included Frank Roosevelt. Roosevelt controlled the corporations. Funny how dictators get democratically elected.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Hey, what a deal. An absolutely free book titled, "Capitalism - A Treatise on Economics", only 1,097 pages.

http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism...M_Internet.pdf

Enjoy during your non-slave labor, free time!

----------


## Henry Rogue

> We have to have workers we don't have to have dollars.


How are you going to force people to not create and use money,  without paying your enforcers? Are you going to pay them with food? Who are you going to steal the food from?

----------


## Barrex

Before you answer any of my question could you please explain with what would you replace current system? What would happen with people who refuse to join your new system? What books did you read regarding systems of governments and society?




> Crapitalism exploits the inability of the 'customer' to produce the product themselves.


??? What? Customer is producer of some other good that he produces and then exchanges for other products...I have inability to produce DEATH STAR (real functioning one. Big as a moon. With lazors, death rays and my own Storm Troopers). Capitalism is exploiting that i am not able to produce it by my self.




> We have to have workers we don't have to have dollars.


Are you for abolishing all currencies (dollars, euros, gold, silver)? Barter? If I   make shoes and want to exchange them for bread, how would I do it without currency/money?





> Not exactly.
> We work because we don't want to be parasites on the other workers.


Riiight....Inability to produce time machine makes me unable to invite you to my homeland 30 years ago. Yugoslavia. People "don't want to be parasites on the other workers"...lol... everyone works, everyone gets payed... doesnt matter did you sleep entire day at work or worked hard...everybody gets payed... Accountants in a firm make plans for future production but cleaning ladies dont like their new plans because accountants want to shift production toward dirtier process. If this happens cleaning ladies will have a lot more work to do. Vote is held and since there are a lot more cleaning ladies than there is people in accounting + director cleaning ladies won the vote. Factory continued to produce product that no one wanted to buy. TRUE STORY! 



> Somebody has to make the cars, shoes, houses, etc,...the most efficient way to do this is by the division of labor.


Who decides who divides labor? What happens to me (those who dont want to participate) and my property?



> The miner mines and the refiner refines because they know the farmer will grow the food and the trucker will distribute it.


I got farm. I will not farm if I dont get payed for it. I dont care if my produce is going to be distributed. I will not produce if i am not getting payed. What I produce I will eat my self and sell it on black market. What would you do with me?




> I would assert that the mathematicians will devise some measure so that we can...


Pretty big assertion. When people make those kinds of assertions millions die. Few mathematicians (small amount of people) deciding who works what, where and how much? How would you call your new system? Oligarchy? Kingdom? Tyranny?

The goal is to assure ourselves that we have produced more than we have consumed and that we have left the world with more material wealth than when we entered it.




> That having been said, how do we quantify grandma's giving of the one thing we all need, unconditional love?


I will assert that you didnt read any Austrian economists. If you did you would know that value is subjective.


P.s.
Dont take my words personally I am not attacking you I am attacking your argument.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> What you reference is state crapitalism, or fascism.
> What you point to is the mirror image of what we have in the US.
> There the gov't controls the corporations and here the corporations control the gov't. 
> Mirror images.
> Both fascism.


Private markets plus state overlords create fascism in one direction or another. 
Private markets, voluntarily exchange, prosperity, creativity, freedom.
State authority, mandate, murder, destruction, slavery, misery.
Conclusion? Get rid of markets and keep the state authority.
smh

----------


## Ronin Truth

Are there other kinds of angels besides FreeBorn?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Crapitalism is wage slavery, whether that wage comes from infinite customers or an employer.
> 
> I don't need the labor theory of value either.
> Anything that leaves values in place is just crapitalism.
> The value of life should not be measured in dollars per hour.


Corporatism is wage slavery.  Capitalism is prosperity.  The Austrian School provides the fundamentals and the data to best fashion that kind of capitalism to enhance general prosperity.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> The majority the waking hours of it is doing what I want. The rest are merely a means to a preferred and preferable chosen end. 
>  If you live to be 60, you sleep for 20 years.


Right, and how much more could you sleep if you didn't have to work on Saturdays to supply the shareholders' profits?




> Eliminating the federal reserve (dollars) and allowing people to trade in gold, silver and bitcoin would be a great start. You need money to create market signals.


No, you don't need money for market signals, reorders from the warehouses supply all the signals needed.




> Garbage men make good money because nobody wants the job, but it needs to get done and so there is a demand for it. If you took away that incentive, who is going to want to come pick up everybody's garbage? Nobody.


Not exactly, some people would do because they like the work, others would do it because it needs to be done and nobody else is stepping up.
When money is removed from the equation other motivations will suffice.
Why do you cut your hair and wear pants to work?  Assuming you do,...
Perhaps it would be determined that one needed to spend x number of hours in garbage collecting to balance out the consumption of goods.
If absolutely nobody would do the work then the work won't get done.
The learning curve will serve as an example of why things are done the way things are done.




> I do, do it myself and yes, I would pay someone else to do it, if my time is better spent doing something else. It's called division of labor.
>  Employers are the employees' customers.


I agree that dividing the work is ideal, but I don't agree that the 1% contribute on the scale that their compensation indicates.
If you exploit workers for your own profit then you are a parasite on their labor.
So, you are saying that the wage slave is exploiting the boss?




> sheeeit; I've met some mean ass grandmas in my day.  mine certainly didn't understand the concept of unconditional love.


LOL, not all will qualify,....




> http://capitalism.org/


Right, said like a true believer.
Tell me, if my dad drinks up all his money and I start with nothing do I have a choice but to submit to the lowest wage paid for my skill set?
The crapitalist can afford to wait for me to get hungry enough to agree to his exploitation, whereas I need to eat today and can only do that by agreeing to work for less than the value of my labor. 
 Is that a free market for my labor?

Crapitalism charges the highest price while paying the lowest wage.
The rich can afford to weight for wages to drop to their mutually agreed upon level while the poor must submit today or starve.
Just as no senator will be cleaning any toilets because he has enough money through other means the homeless have no choice but to accept minimum wage for cleaning the senator's toilet.
This is crapitalism at it's finest.




> So did Yuri Maltsev http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8mb5555PCfU But Yuri doesn't call it communism either, He calls it socialism. I call it statism.


Any system that needs armed thugs to keep it in place is not worthy of the label, free.




> Funny how dictators get democratically elected.


Yes, as is how the wage slaves have embraced their slavery.




> How are you going to force people to not create and use money,  without paying your enforcers? Are you going to pay them with food? Who are you going to steal the food from?


I won't have to, the people will embrace what I propose because they can see that my system rewards them better than does crapitalism.
Think how much less you will have to work if you don't have to work overtime to satisfy the greed of the shareholder.
The shareholders will have to become productive under my proposal, they will no longer get something for nothing.
How many hours less will you work if the boss's wife has to work to get her own tennis bracelet?
How many hour less will you have to work to if she has to produce enough widgets to justify her Mercedes.
Crapitalism requires that you work long enough to justify your own wages and the profit needed to buy her these things.




> Before you answer any of my question could you please explain with what would you replace current system?


Ok, imagine that the workers working today continue to work for the short term future.
Now instead of paying these workers in vouchers to the company store they just take what they need to keep producing, ie, supper, clothing, housing.
Now imagine that we transition to dividing the work among those between the ages of 20 and 45.
Anyone between these ages should look locally for work.
Anyone that wants to show up should be put to a task that they can manage to perform satisfactorily.
This can be managed online.
If more labor is needed in the mine then that should be made known and volunteers sought.
If more labor is needed in the factory then that should be made known and volunteers sought.
Over the few weeks it takes to settle things down the unemployed become employed and those not producing anything become productive.
The people involved in banking and accounting need to become employed in a task that contributes to the goods on the shelves.
We need workers to make the goods that we want to have. 
We don't need banksters and accountants to make that happen.
We do need the banksters and accountants to help with the added demand for big screen tvs.
Anyone between the age of 20 and 45 should be engaged in productive work.
Those over the age of 45 can continue to produce or retire, it is up to them.
Over the next 6 months where additional labor is required to meet increased demand will shake itself out.
Those areas of over production will be taken out of production and those workers engaged in something else, ie, do we have to have 30 different models of washing machines?  Why are we doing washing at home when the factory can do it more efficiently?
How many washing machines we need for a six month supply will be created and the excess workers moved to something else, maybe cars.
Food, clothing and shelter will, of course, be priorities.
Now before you go off the rails and start thinking centrally planned dictatorship dystopias, the locals will have to fend for themselves, if you are in an area that can't feed, clothe, and shelter it's self then you and your neighbors will have to reach out regionally for assistance, if none materializes then they will have to seek out an area that can absorb them.

Really what I replace the current system with is the current system minus dollars, bosses, and banksters.
We already have the workers supplying the shelves I just add to their numbers the extraneous workers employed in satisfying the greed of the crapitalists, ie, the managers, accountants, banksters, and shareholders.




> [Customer is producer of some other good that he produces and then exchanges for other products...


Yes, that he exchanges at a discount to the 'free' market.
Nobody sells into the market unless he makes a profit.
Nobody employs anybody unless he makes a profit on that employee.
Nobody buys anything unless the seller makes a profit on the sale.
What I propose puts the goods into the warehouse and the consumer's house at cost, minus the profits at each stage of distribution.




> [Are you for abolishing all currencies (dollars, euros, gold, silver)? Barter? If I   make shoes and want to exchange them for bread, how would I do it without currency/money?


Yes, abolish all mediums of exchange, they have led us into poverty for the majority of workers.
If you make shoes you give them up to the distributions system and draw out what you need to keep producing them, ie, food, clothing, and shelter.  In addition you can order whatever is available on the shelf, if you want a Maserati you order one, if demand outstrips supply then more workers will be added to the Maserati factory, really it will be no different than what happens when apple comes out with a new iphone, supply is created to meet demand.
Not everybody will want one of everything.
When people die their goods will still exist for the most part.
If you leave a working car then what has been consumed?, the labor that went into creating that car still exists.




> TRUE STORY!


Then shame on the people that let laziness get in the way of producing a better product.
Do you think that if more cleaning ladies had been added the outcome would have been different?
Did the cleaning ladies have access to whatever consumer goods they desired?
Could they order a Maserati from the shelf?




> Who decides who divides labor? What happens to me (those who dont want to participate) and my property?


_It is_ based on the honor system.
There will be no central planner saying do this or else.
I would presume that local busybodies would supply enough of that without outside help.
Your neighbors will know if you are bum, or not, and they will treat you accordingly.







> What happens to me (those who dont want to participate) and my property?


You get to keep your stuff, but why you wouldn't participate is beyond me.
Just as the 1% get to keep their stuff, if they can keep their lives.




> I will not farm if I dont get payed for it.


Ah, but you are paid, what do you want?
Order it from the net, perhaps you will have to wait some period of time, but you will get it as a matter of pride of the workers in that factory.
The 'pay' that you get is one share of the work done.




> What I produce I will eat my self and sell it on black market


What black market?
The only 'market' I see surviving is the antiquities market.
When you can order ANYTHING to be delivered to your door how do you trade illicitly?
Without cash what will you trade it for?  Any consumer good you want will be delivered to you as a matter of worker pride.




> Pretty big assertion.


Not really, the math nerds need to do something productive, it might as well be something useful.
An objective measure that says to have a car, drive it 10,000 miles a year, and the maintenance required to leave a serviceable car when you die will require x number of hours in a factory, or x number of hours in nursing home, or whatever combination you choose to make.




> When people make those kinds of assertions millions die.


Only in a world ruled by force, my proposal is 100% voluntary, until the people agree that what I propose rewards their labor better than crapitalism then the idea will not sell.




> Few mathematicians (small amount of people) deciding who works what, where and how much? How would you call your new system? Oligarchy? Kingdom? Tyranny?


Nobody tells you where to work or how much.  Your pride at not being a parasite on the workers determines how much you work and where.
It is better to carry a bum(reflects poorly on him) than to enslave him(reflects poorly on me).

I call it utopia.




> The goal is to assure ourselves that we have produced more than we have consumed and that we have left the world with more material wealth than when we entered it.


That is the proposal.




> I will assert that you didnt read any Austrian economists.


I was a die hard crapitalist that couldn't figure out why the anarchists said 'Kill crapitalism before crapitalism kills you.' until I read what Emma Goldman and Pitr Kropotkin had to say about it.




> Dont take my words personally I am not attacking you I am attacking your argument.


I bet you can tell me what I mean when I say the social revolution, ask somebody tomorrow and if they can tell you i'll eat my hat.




> Private markets plus state overlords create fascism in one direction or another. 
>  Conclusion? Get rid of markets and keep the state authority.
> smh


The proposal is totally voluntary, unless the people recognize that my proposal rewards them for their labor better than the status quo it will never come to fruition.




> Are there other kinds of angels besides FreeBorn?


Yes, there are those that are born into crapitalism and wage slavery.






> Corporatism is wage slavery.  Capitalism is prosperity.  The Austrian School provides the fundamentals and the data to best fashion that kind of capitalism to enhance general prosperity.


So, you are saying that the Austrian school pays me $100 in wages when I create $100 in widgets?
Wage slavery under ideal conditions is still slavery.
If a portion of the value that my labor creates accrues to anybody except me the system is exploitive and I am a slave.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So, you are saying that the Austrian school pays me $100 in wages when I create $100 in widgets?


You are confusing an economic Theory of General Relativity with the actual actions of individual persons participating in an economy.




> Wage slavery under ideal conditions is still slavery.
> If a portion of the value that my labor creates accrues to anybody except me the system is exploitive and I am a slave.


You are also neglecting to account for the value of the facilities in which the widgets are produced, the cost of the equipment necessary to produce the widgets, the labor of the sales team to convince people to buy the widgets, the labor of the accounting department to bill customers, track revenue, and pay employees, the cost of research and development to create the widget....

Should all of these people work for free?  Some kind of chattel slaves to your 'ideal worker?'

----------


## mad cow

> the people will embrace what I propose because they can see that my system rewards them better than does crapitalism.


They will put your face on all the coins!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They will put your face on all the coins!


lmao

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mad cow again.

----------


## HVACTech

> http://capitalism.org/


you are SO clever! quoting yourself...

uh, what* is* Capital?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Right, and how much more could you sleep if you didn't have to work on Saturdays to supply the shareholders' profits?
> 
> *20 years of sleep out of 60 is much more than adequate, for me. I'd actually prefer requiring much less sleep. 
> 
> I don't work Saturdays and BTW I'm a shareholder too. Is this a great system or what? 
> 
> *Right, said like a true believer.
> Tell me, if my dad drinks up all his money and I start with nothing do I have a choice but to submit to the lowest wage paid for my skill set?
> The crapitalist can afford to wait for me to get hungry enough to agree to his exploitation, whereas I need to eat today and can only do that by agreeing to work for less than the value of my labor. 
> ...


 //

----------


## Barrex

What  books did you read regarding systems of governments and society? I return to this because your arguments are full of holes and misconceptions. You get basics of free markets completely wrong. You managed to contradict your self in so short explanationof your utopia. I got the feeling that you are trooling us and making thins as you go.





> No, you don't need money for market signals, reorders from the warehouses supply all the signals needed.


Yea warehouses would send all the wrong signals. You cant have real knowledge of real supply and demand in your  "warehouse economy" and therefore you cant guide distribution of sparse resources. Everyone wants luxurious items (Maserati) and since resources are sparse there would be miss-allocations and scarcity would result in shortages of everything from food to luxury items. . Communists all over the world tried this and failed.

You cant base economic system on wishes (you wish Maserati/Death Star and you get it). People have unlimited needs and wants and resources are scarce. In free market economy every single person is voting how resources are allocated by interacting, buying and selling. 



> Not exactly, some people would do because they like the work, others would do it because it needs to be done and nobody else is stepping up.
> When money is removed from the equation other motivations will suffice.


It wouldnt suffice. It was proven that it wouldnd and that it would lead to disaster. Communists all over the world it and failed.

Do you know story of 2 farmers where one wakes every morning at 5 am and other one at noon?




> I agree that dividing the work is ideal, but I don't agree that the 1% contribute on the scale that their compensation indicates.
> If you exploit workers for your own profit then you are a parasite on their labor.
> So, you are saying that the wage slave is exploiting the boss?


You make wrong point. 1%-ers are not only investors/owners of businesses. Everyone with retirement fun is one, everyone who pays anyone is one. Workers invest time and owners (1% are part of that group) invest resources. When supply of labour provided by workers and demand for that labour meet - price of workers time and skills is agreed upon and owners start projects, production etc. Also savings drive the economy. If I work hard and save 1 million dollars (or goods that are priced 1 million dollars) I get to decide what to do with it and not some warehouse entity or process. 





> Tell me, if my dad drinks up all his money and I start with nothing do I have a choice but to submit to the lowest wage paid for my skill set?
> The crapitalist can afford to wait for me to get hungry enough to agree to his exploitation, whereas I need to eat today and can only do that by agreeing to work for less than the value of my labor. 
>  Is that a free market for my labor?


No, that is not free market for your labour. Again: What  books did you read regarding systems of governments and society? What economic books did you read? Any Austrian economists? This is basic of it and you got it all wrong.

You get the job that you can. If your skill set is valued x amount of dollars you get the job that pays x amount of dollars. Investor (you could stop insulting by reffering to me and most of other forum memebers as CRAPITALIST) cant afford to wait for you to get hungry. Time is a resource and waiting is waisting time. Also when waiting to use other resources to invest into a project just because of you would be stupid.
Again: Value is subjective. Value of your labour is what you can get for it in a market. If one investor wants to wait till workers (you) are starving he will never employ anyone because other capitalist will hire workers (you). Supply and demand works both ways: Workers bid for wages and investors bid on workers skill sets and time.





> Crapitalism charges the highest price while paying the lowest wage.
> The rich can afford to weight for wages to drop to their mutually agreed upon level while the poor must submit today or starve.


 ROFL. Again: Supply and demand works both ways: Workers bid for wages and investors bid on workers skill sets and time. And again you call investors "the rich", "1%"... Now you are making assumption that almost all poeple are involved in conspiracy to "drop wages to their mutually agreed upon level". ROFL. I want to hira a guy to paint my house. All people who own anything that needs painting meet somewhere and decided to wait till all painters are starving? If one or group of people waits for price of labour to drop to 1 cent per hour because they are not hiring until  workes ar starving, then they would never hire anyone. Why? Someone else would hire those workers and make profit while those who wait would just spend time and other resources waiting. sooner or later they would spend all of their resources.

You are giving example of the extreem end of demand for labor curve= people who are unrealisticly low wages for their workers.
I give you extreem example of supply curve= people who expect to be paid 1 trillion dollars for 5 min of painting.

Those 2 never meet and never happen.




> Just as no senator will be cleaning any toilets because he has enough  money through other means the homeless have no choice but to accept  minimum wage for cleaning the senator's toilet.
> This is crapitalism at it's finest.
> Any system that needs armed thugs to keep it in place is not worthy of the label, free.


From what book did you read that this is free market? This is not capitalism or free market. This is tyranny. 





> I won't have to, the people will embrace what I propose because they can see that my system rewards them better than does crapitalism.
> Think how much less you will have to work if you don't have to work overtime to satisfy the greed of the shareholder.
> The shareholders will have to become productive under my proposal, they will no longer get something for nothing.
> How many hours less will you work if the boss's wife has to work to get her own tennis bracelet?
> How many hour less will you have to work to if she has to produce enough widgets to justify her Mercedes.
> Crapitalism requires that you work long enough to justify your own wages and the profit needed to buy her these things.


Crapitalism requires that you work long enough to justify your own wages-yes
and the profit needed to buy her these things.- NO. NO. NO.
I can also play your game and say: 
and the profit needed to buy his sick starving child loaf of bread.

Why do you hate children? Why do you want little Sally to die and starve? You filthy warehouseist (or whatever you call your self).





> Ok, imagine that the workers working today continue to work for the short term future.
> Now instead of paying these workers in vouchers to the company store they just take what they need to keep producing, ie, supper, clothing, housing.
> Now imagine that we transition to dividing the work among those between the ages of 20 and 45.
> Anyone between these ages should look locally for work.
> Anyone that wants to show up should be put to a task that they can manage to perform satisfactorily.
> This can be managed online.
> If more labor is needed in the mine then that should be made known and volunteers sought.
> If more labor is needed in the factory then that should be made known and volunteers sought.
> Over the few weeks it takes to settle things down the unemployed become employed and those not producing anything become productive.
> ...


Story of 2 farmers will show you why you are wrong. Communist countries tried to implement "work for public". It failed. 






> Those areas of over production will be taken out of production and those workers engaged in something else, ie, do we have to have 30 different models of washing machines?  Why are we doing washing at home when the factory can do it more efficiently?
> How many washing machines we need for a six month supply will be created and the excess workers moved to something else, maybe cars.


I wash my own clothes because I want to know where my clothes was before I put them on. I want my washing machine to be white, quiet, have dryer built in, monochrome touchscreen... and I am willing to pay/work more than average for it. This is my need and my want. Communist countries tried this and failed. Search this forum for: North Korean state approved haircut.



> Food, clothing and shelter will, of course, be priorities.
> Now before you go off the rails and start thinking centrally planned dictatorship dystopias, the locals will have to fend for themselves, if you are in an area that can't feed, clothe, and shelter it's self then you and your neighbors will have to reach out regionally for assistance, if none materializes then they will have to seek out an area that can absorb them.


Surely you know that communist countries did it all for the people and there was starvation, homlesness and people wearing rags - it always got to that.

I am thinking centrally planned dictatorship dystopias.



> Really what I replace the current system with is the current system minus dollars, bosses, and banksters.
> We already have the workers supplying the shelves I just add to their numbers the extraneous workers employed in satisfying the greed of the crapitalists, ie, the managers, accountants, banksters, and shareholders


.
minus dollars (currency) - no medium of exchange.
bosses (investors) - people who pay me for my time and skills.
banks - legitimate business that provides service that is in demand. I want a bank to facilitate transactions of my wealth.

You do understand that everything you wrote so far is 99% identical to Karl Marx? And I will assume that you didnt read "Das Kapital"?




> Yes, that he exchanges at a discount to the 'free' market.
> Nobody sells into the market unless he makes a profit.
> Nobody employs anybody unless he makes a profit on that employee.
> Nobody buys anything unless the seller makes a profit on the sale.
> What I propose puts the goods into the warehouse and the consumer's house at cost, minus the profits at each stage of distribution.


Or sometimes people do charitable action and buy and sell while making a loss. In free market everyone walks away from exchanges with "profit". I value your apple more than I value 1 dollar. You value 1 dollar more than you value your apple. We exchange and we are both better off. 
You didnt read "Economics in one lesson". 

What you propose is that people exchange goods without walking away from transaction better off.



> Yes, abolish all mediums of exchange, they have led us into poverty for the majority of workers.


How did it lead you into poverty? This kind of hard core communist theory is hard to come by today. Even todays socialists dont blame money for poverty.
3 caveman worked hard and each of them procuded one product with their labor- apple, fish, fur. They used gold (medium of exchange) to exchange fish, apple and a fur. After they exchanged it between them selfs all 3 of them were better off.... BUT.... wait for it.... oh the horror.... they used gold (medium of exchange) have led them into poverty.

You didnt read anything about FED (national banks)?




> If you make shoes you give them up to the distributions system and draw out what you need to keep producing them, ie, food, clothing, and shelter.  In addition you can order whatever is available on the shelf, if you want a Maserati you order one, if demand outstrips supply then more workers will be added to the Maserati factory, really it will be no different than what happens when apple comes out with a new iphone, supply is created to meet demand.
> Not everybody will want one of everything.


Yea. In your world you will have only one type of washing machine but you will have luxury items like Maserati? 

Most people will want more than economy can provide. I allready want Death Star. That alone would kill entire mankind because if I am to get it before I die everyone would have to stop doing everything else and work on my Death star.




> Then shame on the people that let laziness get in the way of producing a better product.


Ok shame on them. Your system fails... but shame on people.



> Do you think that if more cleaning ladies had been added the outcome would have been different?


Irrelevant for my example of why your system fails.



> Did the cleaning ladies have access to whatever consumer goods they desired?


No. Director didnt have it either. No one had. No one ever in any society in history of mankind had access to whatever consumer goods they desired. 



> Could they order a Maserati from the shelf?


In your world we got one type of washing machine but we got Maseratis? Resources are scarce. You cant just order stuff and expect  them to magically appear. 




> _It is_ based on the honor system.


Your system fails.



> There will be no central planner saying do this or else.


... but there will be bunch of mathematicians that will say what needs to be done. But that is not central planing somehow. And it wasnt tried and failed in communist countries before? Some mathematician will have to decide how, when, where and how much of watermelons to produce. Will you have governemet/warehouse agency just for watermelons? Since your mathematician team would need to know when to plant them, on what kind of soil, wheather to use manure or water them...and million other things that no single person or small grop can make.

Read "I pencil".




> I would presume that local busybodies would supply enough of that without outside help.
> Your neighbors will know if you are bum, or not, and they will treat you accordingly.


Local busibodies would supply enough of what?
What do you mean "treat me accordingly"? For my father and grandfather it meant that neighbors "in charge" meant it to be concentration camps and blacklisted in communist secret police books.

I am a bum if I want to decide on my own, be my own man and not some collectivist sheep. Jews have big noses, blacks are lesser race...





> Ah, but you are paid, what do you want?
> Order it from the net, perhaps you will have to wait some period of time, but you will get it as a matter of pride of the workers in that factory.
> The 'pay' that you get is one share of the work done.


Allready adressed it. Another point of failure: system based on pride.




> What black market?
> The only 'market' I see surviving is the antiquities market.
> When you can order ANYTHING to be delivered to your door how do you trade illicitly?
> Without cash what will you trade it for?  Any consumer good you want will be delivered to you as a matter of worker pride.


Cash (you mean medium of exchange) will always exist. If there is no medium of exchange I would barter. Seriously? You think that you will eliminate cash? You didnt even think about barter?



> Not really, the math nerds need to do something productive, it might as well be something useful.
> An objective measure that says to have a car, drive it 10,000 miles a year, and the maintenance required to leave a serviceable car when you die will require x number of hours in a factory, or x number of hours in nursing home, or whatever combination you choose to make.


Deciding mathematicians- allknowing ones...A math formula for every life situation and ever decision. Seriously?



> Only in a world ruled by force, my proposal is 100% voluntary, until the people agree that what I propose rewards their labor better than crapitalism then the idea will not sell.


*Free market rewards better than any other ideas. That iw why most prospereus nations with biggest middle class, most wealth created are countries closest to free market economy.*

From where would you get resources to reward people for their labor better than capitalism?




> So, you are saying that the Austrian school pays me $100 in wages when I create $100 in widgets?
> Wage slavery under ideal conditions is still slavery.
> If a portion of the value that my labor creates accrues to anybody except me the system is exploitive and I am a slave.


If woman touches me gently with her elbow by accident in a subway I was raped.
You sell your labor for profit. 
Busnisman buys it and makes profit.
Voluntary interaction.
I am doing it every day as laborer and as businessowner. I am not a slave.

----------


## osan

> That isn't communism.
> Here is a report from the time period from a person that was on the ground and had a real good idea of what communism is.


My entire family lived through "communism".  My parents and I were the only ones to escape, save those others who escaped via death.

Don't presume to tell me what communism is or is not.  I might know far better than do you.




> What you reference is state crapitalism, or fascism.
> What you point to is the mirror image of what we have in the US.
> There the gov't controls the corporations and here the corporations control the gov't. 
> Mirror images.
> Both fascism.


You seem to have some strange notions about capitalism.  First of all, you do not define the term, so for all we know you could be speaking from your anus.  You belt out a raft of assertions without definitions of terms, reducing those assertions to meaninglessness, at best.

If you have a valid point to make, you have yet to make it.  Going on a rant of sorts is not argumentation; it is mere diatribe, getting us nowhere.  How about you start by stating your understanding of "capitalism" so we at least can get an idea of that which you speak?  Short of this, you are wasting your time.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Capitalism or Competition is a tricky thing.  I think it can be both really great leading to innovation and just as easily be something terrible when a minority dominates the market and actually stifles competition.  

Some will cite government picking winners and losers in the economy as enabling this and I think that's a very fair argument.  In a lot of cases though, it just takes an industrialist (Robber Baron) and one wealthy banker backing them to just out-spend and out bid the competition.  

So I just see it as a mix.  The innovation we see in areas like Silicon Valley is astounding, and yet I'm also annoyed at how the computer industry is really dominated by Microsoft and Apple.  They are both positioned to crush any business startup they see as a threat.  

I see Capitalism as being very beneficial, but also badly flawed and there needs to be checks against corporate tyranny.  One tool might be the government if they didn't sell out for corporate donations to their campaigns.  I'm not sure if any reform can get passed to stop that.   Otherwise, maybe it's just up to the people to revolt by Unionizing.

----------


## fr33

You would not be able to post on this website if not for capitalism.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...do we have to have 30 different models of washing machines?  Why are we doing washing at home when the factory can do it more efficiently?



This is the only item I've identified where you've actually applied your theory.  It's so upside down with day-to-day living that I can only assume you're either a nudist or you don't wash your own clothes.

The rest of your posts are filled with an abundance of words like "need," "should", "abolish," etc.  Your example there was something about a rich gal buying her own bracelet instead of the schlep worker paying for it.

You sound like the extreme anti-thesis of liberty.







> What economic books did you read? Any Austrian economists? This is basic of it and you got it all wrong.


Forget about books.  I don't think the OP has ever bought a box of detergent.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Those areas of over production will be taken out of production and those workers engaged in something else, ie, do we have to have 30 different models of washing machines?  Why are we doing washing at home when the factory can do it more efficiently?


Factory?  I dunno about that.  

I have used a Laundromat if that is what you really mean.  It was nice because I could run a few machines at the same time if the place was slow and do a big heap of laundry all at once.  

Or maybe you mean a service like those companies that clean uniforms for hospitals and restaurants.  I don't think it's realistic for one facility to handle everyone's laundry in a city.  Maybe a few small places can do some of it like the Laundromat I used.

----------


## dannno

Oh man, I hate the laundromat more than any other place in the world. 

If you make me use a laundromat I am going to kick you in the balls.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh man, I hate the laundromat more than any other place in the world. 
> 
> If you make me use a laundromat I am going to kick you in the balls.


*Helpful hint # 643* If you time it right, you can do 20 loads in the same time it takes for one load.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> you are SO clever! quoting yourself...
> 
> uh, what* is* Capital?


https://www.google.com/search?q=capi....0.wnuVHkibVvA

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *Helpful hint # 643* If you time it right, you can do 20 loads in the same time it takes for one load.


.... by dropping some $50 in change.  Couple of those and you can buy your own washer and dryer.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> .... by dropping some $50 in change. Couple of those and you can buy your own washer and dryer.


That's hint # 644.

----------


## dannno

//

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

Houston, we have a communist on-board! And he's oblivious to Economic Calculation Problem that has repeatedly brought down utopian communism!

Economic Calculation Problem refers to the problem of allocating limited resources most effectively without a Price System. It's the Price System that tells everyone that more miners are needed or that more factory workers are needed or that more managers, accountants or whoever are needed, by raising the price offered for the job (wages/salaries), this way labor is most effectively allocated throughout the economy; the stronger the demand for a particular kind of labor, the more money will be offered by the employers to the people who are willing & capable of doing the job. This is why doctors or accountants or bankers or any high-paid employees get paid more than janitors or waiters or burger-flippers or whoever; it's because the demand for & supply of their kind of labor is indicated through the Price System.

Similarly, profit tells everyone where investment is needed, the stronger the demand for investment in a particular area of the economy, the higher the POTENTIAL profits to be made. And the word "potential" is important because most businesses fail in the first year so failure-rates being so high, starting a business, with no certainty of the success, is a huge risk. So those businesses that do succeed deserve their profits for taking the risk of losing their capital otherwise there would be no incentive to fund & start new businesses.

The workers accept the security of a regular income over the uncertainty of profits (or losses) that could be made by starting a business. So, when people say that the profits of a business should be distributed amongst workers (& that investors/owners don't deserve it) should consider whether & how many workers would want to work for a business that offered to distribute profits amongst workers ONLY IF the business succeeded, otherwise the workers wouldn't be paid at all! But most workers choose the certainty of a certain wage/salary over the uncertainty of profits/losses, if that's "wage slavery" or whatever then they have chosen it, even though they had the option to offer their labor without expecting a guaranteed return.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem



> Even if the socialists have been able to create a mighty army of citizens all eager to do the bidding of their masters, what exactly would the socialist planners tell this army to do? How would they know what products to order their eager slaves to produce, at what stage of production, how much of the product at each stage, what techniques or raw materials to use in that production and how much of each, and where specifically to locate all this production? How would they know their costs, or what process of production is or is not efficient?





> But no "market socialist" has ever suggested preserving or carrying over, much less understood the importance of, the specifically entrepreneurial functions of capitalism:
> 
> Nobody has ever suggested that the socialist commonwealth could invite the promoters and speculators to continue their speculations and then deliver their profits to the common chest. Those suggesting a quasi-market for the socialist system have never wanted to preserve the stock and commodity exchanges, the trading in futures, and the bankers and money-lenders as quasi-institutions. One cannot play speculation and investment. The speculators and investors expose their own wealth, their own destiny. This fact makes them responsible to the consumers, the ultimate bosses of the capitalist economy. If one relieves them of this responsibility, one deprives them of their very character. They are no longer businessmen, but just a group of men to whom the director has handed over his main task, the supreme direction of the conduct of affairs. Then they--and not the nominal director--become the true directors and have to face the same problem the nominal director could not solve: the problem of calculation.
> 
> For Mises, in short, the key to the capitalist market economy and its successful functioning is the entrepreneurial forecasting and decision-making of private owners and investors. The key is emphatically not the more minor decisions made by corporate managers within a framework already set by entrepreneurs and the capital markets.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

So many errors to choose from....




> Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?
> Even if crapitalism were performed by only sole proprietors it would still exploit people for their inability to produce goods.
> Would you pay somebody to shave your face or mow your lawn if you could do it for yourself?
> Crapitalism exploits the inability of the 'customer' to produce the product themselves.


No, it _solves_ the _problem_ that people cannot produce everything themselves. 

Autarchy (everyone producing only for their own consumption) means that a person will barely be able to feed himself. 

People  can live much better producing for exchange than producing for  themselves, because of the law of comparative advantage. In short, if  Franz is better at producing food than Bob, and Bob is better at  producing clothes than Franz, it is better for both of them if they each  specialize in their respective area of strength (and exchange the  resulting products with one another), rather than both trying to produce  both food and clothes. Aka, the division of labor. 




> We have to have workers we don't have to have dollars.


We need exchange (see above), and so we need money to facilitate  exchange. Barter (direct exchange of good for good) severely limits the  opportunities for exchange, and therefore the division of labor, with  all of its attendant benefits. 




> If the people that make the products and the people that distribute the  goods show up to work then the goods will be on the shelves even if the  accounting department jumps off a cliff.
> 
>  The people that mine the minerals, refine the minerals into raw  materials, fashion the raw materials into finished products, and those  that distribute those products could care less if the corporation  collects it's billions or not, as long as they continue to show up to do  the work then the products continue to be on the shelves.
> 
>  We have to have workers to produce the goods, we don't have to have dollars to make the goods available.
> 
>  If the workers just take what they need from the shelves in order to  continue producing the goods then the goods will continue to be  produced.
> 
>  They could just order what they need from the net and have it delivered to their door.
> ...


This does not  eliminate management. It just changes who the managers are. Before it  was some guys in suits, now it's the workers. 

Well, gee whiz,  that must be better, right? Now the workers get to keep the full product  of their labor!....except now the workers also have _more work_  to do. Yes, they get to divide up the salaries of the ex-managers, but  they also have to divide up their workload, don't they? So, where's the  gain? On top of that, the average worker (say, cashier at Walmart)  probably isn't going to make as prudent business decisions as someone  trained in business management, is he? Again, _division of labor_. 




> Not exactly.
> We work because we don't want to be parasites on the other workers.


Of course, people will work for free; and the seas will turn to lemonade.




> Somebody has to make the cars, shoes, houses, etc,...the most efficient way to do this is by the division of labor.
> The miner mines and the refiner refines because they know the farmer will grow the food and the trucker will distribute it.
> I would assert that the mathematicians will devise some measure so that  we can know that working in the shoe factory for 10 years is sufficient  to ensure that what we eat from the farmer is equated by our production  of shoes, but this number would have to be a guideline or we have just  traded dollars for the new measure.


Never heard of the socialist calculation problem?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Money and the wage system arise organically through the marketplace because individuals find them to be beneficial. What this barely literate moron suggests would require massive levels of brute force wielded by the state to enact, whether he will admit it or not. FreeBornAngel sounds a lot like one of those mentally-ill Zeitgeist RBE cultists to me.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Barter (direct exchange of good for good) severely limits the  opportunities for exchange, and therefore the division of labor, with  all of its attendant benefits.


I like barter when it's possible, it eliminates those nasty taxes the state wishes to impose on the exchange of money.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Money and the wage system arise organically through the marketplace because individuals find them to be beneficial. What this barely literate moron suggests would require massive levels of brute force wielded by the state to enact, whether he will admit it or not.


but but but, the workers will do all this voluntarily because pure love or something...




> FreeBornAngel sounds a lot like one of those mentally-ill Zeitgeist RBE cultists to me.


FYI, for anyone unfamiliar, that's "resource based economy," and yes they are basically idiot pop-communists who often don't realize their "fresh new" plan is just rehashed communist tripe that was theoretically obliterated centuries before they were born.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I like barter when it's possible, it eliminates those nasty taxes the state wishes to impose on the exchange of money.


Indeed. A beautiful example of how the state's economic interventions represent retrogression to more primitive forms of social interaction.

----------


## Ender

> Corporatism is wage slavery.  Capitalism is prosperity.  The Austrian School provides the fundamentals and the data to best fashion that kind of capitalism to enhance general prosperity.


Correct.

What most people, including the OP, call "capitalism" is nothing close to capitalism. What we have today is mercantilism- which is basically what the Revolution was fought over.

Real capitalism means that I can make Widget 1 and you can make Widget 2. If the populace likes your Widget 2 better than mine, then I better find a way to make a more useful widget. If YOUR widget is popular and begins to sell, then you can produce more and more widgets and bring the price down, while employing more and more people. When the government begins to interfere and plays favorites with certain corps while adding regulation upon regulation, then we have the world today- which is NOT capitalism. Add fractionalized banking to the mix and we become completely enslaved.

And as far as Walmart goes, it only gets bad-mouthed by the MSM because it won't unionize. I like Walmart and think it is much closer to a real capitalistic business than most anything else in the US.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^I think the OP's objecting to real capitalism too.

----------


## Deborah K

> Capitalism or Competition is a tricky thing.  I think it can be both really great leading to innovation and just as easily be something terrible when a minority dominates the market and actually stifles competition.  
> 
> Some will cite government picking winners and losers in the economy as enabling this and I think that's a very fair argument.  In a lot of cases though, it just takes an industrialist (Robber Baron) and one wealthy banker backing them to just out-spend and out bid the competition.  
> 
> So I just see it as a mix.  The innovation we see in areas like Silicon Valley is astounding, and yet I'm also annoyed at how the computer industry is really dominated by Microsoft and Apple.  They are both positioned to crush any business startup they see as a threat.  
> 
> I see Capitalism as being very beneficial, but also badly flawed and there needs to be checks against corporate tyranny.  One tool might be the government if they didn't sell out for corporate donations to their campaigns.  I'm not sure if any reform can get passed to stop that.   Otherwise, maybe it's just up to the people to revolt by Unionizing.


this

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> ^^^I think the OP's objecting to real capitalism too.


Of course he is.  He wants his bread delivered by servants on a silver platter for free instead of earning it 'by the sweat of his brow.'  Real capitalism would see him go hungry.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> *Helpful hint # 643* If you time it right, you can do 20 loads in the same time it takes for one load.


I used a Landromat for a while when my washer broke and I'd use 2 or 3 big washers to just do everything while I just hang around and read a book.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Capitalism or Competition is a tricky thing.  I think it can be both really great leading to innovation and just as easily be something terrible when a minority dominates the market and actually stifles competition.  
> 
> Some will cite government picking winners and losers in the economy as enabling this and I think that's a very fair argument.  In a lot of cases though, it just takes an industrialist (Robber Baron) and one wealthy banker backing them to just out-spend and out bid the competition.  
> 
> So I just see it as a mix.  The innovation we see in areas like Silicon Valley is astounding, and yet I'm also annoyed at how the computer industry is really dominated by Microsoft and Apple.  They are both positioned to crush any business startup they see as a threat.  
> 
> I see Capitalism as being very beneficial, but also badly flawed and there needs to be checks against corporate tyranny.  One tool might be the government if they didn't sell out for corporate donations to their campaigns.  I'm not sure if any reform can get passed to stop that.   Otherwise, maybe it's just up to the people to revolt by Unionizing.


What exactly is your concern? 

A firm having a large market share (even 100%) is not in itself a problem. If it can produce widgets better/cheaper than anyone else, so that no one can complete, why would we _want_ anyone else producing them? 

Large market share would only be a problem if it enabled a firm to raise prices above the market rate, to screw consumers. Economic theory tells us this is impossible, since as soon as it raises prices it will lose market share to the competition (and if none currently exists, the higher prices will draw new firms into the market). And history, to my knowledge, offers not a single example of this happening (except when the firm has governmental support).

----------


## FreeBornAngel

This post was mistakenly posted in an incomplete format, it is posted in it's entirety on the next page in post #64.


Let me state here for the record that my proposal comes without an enforcement arm, all interactions are voluntary.
I have seen multiple references to communism failing in the past and I posted this link,...Emma Goldman,....No communism in Russia, an on the spot report from someone that was a student to the people that defined the term in it's modern meaning, not the one that was coopted by the soviets, and the one commonly held by those educated in crapitalst schools.
As for the economic works that I have read, I have not read Das Kapital, I saw no need to follow that path, I have read The Conquest of Bread by Pitr Kropotkin, however he didn't have the structure that is Costco to coopt or maybe he would have been accepted in his own time.
I don't think that any of you seriously debate that the workers that fill the shelves care one whit if the accounting department collects it's billions as long as they have their bass boat, beer and wwe.
If you do dispute that the workers work is what fills the shelves and not the accounting departments book keeping the I suggest you watch somebody change a tire on your car, did the tire magically transform when you paid the bill, or was the tire changed by a worker regardless of the corporation collecting is pay?
So, banks and their servant, dollars, have led us into feudal serfdom.
If you defend this then you are just repeating what the slaves did when slavery was to the feudal lord.
Stop making arguments to justify our enslavement, please.
So, in order, from the top,....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What is that red mark on my reputation?


Busted lip. Well...like a _cyber_ busted lip, really. It isn't like a real one where yer leaking on yer keyboard or something.

Just hover over it with yer mouse for a hot second for a clearer description. I little tootip thingamabob pops up there.

I haven't read your postings so couldn't say as to why you're in the red.

I'll tell you what I'll do since you're a new member here. I'll patch that lil boo-boo up for you if I can. Wait for it. We'll see if it turns green.

Edit - All better now. You're green again. Now don't go getting into any more scuffles and we won't have any more of those boo boos. k?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Let me state here for the record that my proposal comes without an enforcement arm, all interactions are voluntary is impossible.


Good to know. 

/thread?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Yes, we would all have maids, because some random person is just desperate to come clean my house without reward. Lol

----------


## FreeBornAngel

Let me state here for the record that my proposal comes without an enforcement arm, all interactions are voluntary.
I have seen multiple references to communism failing in the past and I posted this link,...Emma Goldman,....No communism in Russia, an on the spot report from someone that was a student to the people that defined the term in it's modern meaning, not the one that was coopted by the soviets, and the one commonly held by those educated in crapitalst schools.
As for the economic works that I have read, I have not read Das Kapital, I saw no need to follow that path, I have read The Conquest of Bread by Pitr Kropotkin, however he didn't have the structure that is Costco to coopt or maybe he would have been accepted in his own time.
I don't think that any of you seriously debate that the workers that fill the shelves care one whit if the accounting department collects it's billions as long as they have their bass boat, beer and wwe.
If you do dispute that the workers work is what fills the shelves and not the accounting departments book keeping the I suggest you watch somebody change a tire on your car, did the tire magically transform when you paid the bill, or was the tire changed by a worker regardless of the corporation collecting is pay?
So, banks and their servant, dollars, have led us into feudal serfdom.
If you defend this then you are just repeating what the slaves did when slavery was to the feudal lord.
Stop making arguments to justify our enslavement, please.
So, in order, from the top,....





> You are confusing an economic Theory of General Relativity with the actual actions of individual persons participating in an economy.


What?





> You are also neglecting to account for the value of the facilities in which the widgets are produced, the cost of the equipment necessary to produce the widgets, the labor of the sales team to convince people to buy the widgets, the labor of the accounting department to bill customers, track revenue, and pay employees, the cost of research and development to create the widget....
> 
> Should all of these people work for free?  Some kind of chattel slaves to your 'ideal worker?'


What value, the workers make the factory, from the mine to completion.  They can do this for the vouchers to the company store created from nothing and loaned out at interest, or they can take a share of all that is available.
No need for marketing, either people want the widget and order it, or not.
The accounting department has fallen in a lake, they are superfluous to the production.
The actual cost of research and development is little more than the food and materials required.  




> Should all of these people work for free?  Some kind of chattel slaves to your 'ideal worker?'


Did you miss the part about getting to order whatever they want from the internet, or taking it from the shelf?
All we have to do is continue to work and everything is free.
I know the lenses put on you by sophisticated mind control techniques(mkultra) keep you blind to your enslavement, but the box has been illustrated to you, please step out it.
Your mischaracterization of my proposal is offensive to me.




> They will put your face on all the coins!


I'd prefer statues in the zocalo as coins will cease to exist in a communal paradise.




> lmao
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mad cow again.


What is that red mark on my reputation?




> *I don't work Saturdays and BTW I'm a shareholder too. Is this a great system or what?*


Just as I said, climb the ladder high enough and you'll begin to defend the ladder.





> *What exactly do you believe you are entitled to?*


I'm not entitled to anything, and I'm not asking something for nothing.
I want a system that doesn't work me to death for a pittance of the true value of my labor because a 1%'er needs to garage another Maserati.
I would like an economic system that rewards the person doing the work more than the shareholder doing nothing.
I want a system that expects everybody to contribute and not just game the system generationally so that they can make war on other human beings just to pad the dividend they get for nothing.  If your dad left you enough money to never work, why would you?  Even if it means exploiting people with less than you for their very life's blood, the time they spend in producing the widget that you had nothing to do with.
I want a system that ends war, poverty, slavery, sex trafficking, bullying, and drug pushing.
Crapitalism can't deliver on that, it thrives on it, my proposal does all that and more.




> *Life hands you a lemon, then make lemonade (and sell it at a profit).*


Seriously, you want me to join in exploiting those less fortunate than me?
No, thanks.  I know evil when I see it and I'd rather struggle against it.

[QUOTE][*The issue is NOT what the Crapitalist can afford, but rather what is your labor worth to him.*/QUOTE]
So, if my labor is not worth a dime I should just curl up in a ball and die?
If the choice to sell my labor/life into the market came without the alternative of starving then it would be a free choice, but as long as hunger drives anybody into the arms of somebody joyously waiting to exploit their hunger, the choice is (wage)slavery or death.
Just ask Ed.

[QUOTE][*Who told you what your labor is worth?* /QUOTE]
Let me rephrase that, 'What is your life worth?'
I prefer a world that respects life more than just a pawn in the pro-life movement, conservatives back the pro-lifers because they know it increases the bottom line, killing the (wage)slaves is not as profitable as exploiting them for their hunger.
I think my life/labor is priceless, a gift given to the world to prove my character, that I am worthy of the life given to me.
Do you seriously think that having money and exploiting the poor will count as a bonus when the karmic consciousness comes to collect his toll?

[QUOTE][*What else do YOU buy that is priced based solely on what you can afford?*/QUOTE]
I don't voluntarily buy anything, I am forced into the market by your being blinded by the baubles that the system affords you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm valuing your labor just as much as mine, I think you should have whatever material good you want as well.
However, I won't enslave you to my system, my system feeds you whether you work or not because to not do so make me the same as what I intend to replace.
Of course, let it go without saying that if somebody takes direct action against a bum few, if any, people will seek to avenge the bum.
I'm not saying it is right, but don't you figure that without constant protection that the bushes are in mortal peril?




> *Doesn't sound any too angelic to me. They need to ask God for a do over.*


Well, instead of waiting for the golden unicorn to magically transport me I think I will just plod along and spread the word as best I can.
Perhaps somebody with more influence will pick up the flag,...




> What  books did you read regarding systems of governments and society? I return to this because your arguments are full of holes and misconceptions. You get basics of free markets completely wrong. You managed to contradict your self in so short explanationof your utopia. I got the feeling that you are trooling us and making thins as you go.


I am making things up as I go, I've had too.
Have you heard anybody else say anything even remotely close to what I am proposing?
Here is a library that contains the seeds that I am planting.
The Conquest of Bread, by Kropotkin is a good first read, but Emma Goldman's speeches keep it concise and on point.
Brave New World was an eye opener.
As was The Iron Heel.
If you want the closest outline Looking Backwards is it.  I think the author gets bogged down in the details better left to the locals to decide for themselves, but the outline looks good.




> You managed to contradict your self in so short explanationof your utopia.


Please point to your perceived contradiction, I work hard at eliminating those thanks to Ayn Rand.

I am not trolling you, I am completely serious, as long as the workers keep working the banksters can fall in a lake and nobody would know the difference until the looked up from the yolks on their plows and realized that they could stop playing cow on the farm.
The Monkey Master, simply replace 'grows on trees', with 'we make it in the factory', and you have it.




> Yea warehouses would send all the wrong signals. You cant have real knowledge of real supply and demand in your  "warehouse economy" and therefore you cant guide distribution of sparse resources.


The evidence doesn't support your assertion, does the person responsible for reordering goods for the shelf at walmart first ask the accounting department if there is money to reorder or is the accounting done separately and subsequently?
Empty shelves, or whatever reorder point you want to set, ie, 1 week supply, 1 month supply, etc,... are not contingent on the accounting department's efficiency.




> Everyone wants luxurious items (Maserati)


Well, I'd rather have a '72 corvette.  
But even if everybody wanted a (iphone) then we make them.  Perhaps there is a backlog, but just as goods are made available today, if you have the money, so too will goods be available when the 1% are not the only people with access to them.

[QUOTE][since resources are sparse/QUOTE]
What resource can you not have if you have the money?
Name one thing that money won't buy you.




> there would be miss-allocations and scarcity would result


Only if the people mismanaged things, they are not mismanaging today why would access to luxury items change that?




> [Communists all over the world tried this and failed.


No, they didn't.
What you had was state crapitalism, or fascism.
In what is currently labeled communism the state controls the corporations and the slaves are paid a fraction of the value of their labor in currency.
In what is currently labeled crapitalism the corporations control the state and the slaves are paid a fraction of the value of their labor in currency.
They are mirror images of each other and both are fascism.
Their is no communism in Russia, there never was.

[QUOTE][You cant base economic system on wishes (you wish Maserati/Death Star and you get it)./QUOTE]
It is realistic to believe that folks will build me a Maserati, but I doubt anybody would build anybody a death star without an exploitive economic system to entice the slaves into doing the labor.
Do you think that the (wage) slaves would work in the arms industry if they could eat for free?  If they were free to chose any labor at all and not just the locally available job at the only factory in town do you think they would create the tools that kill others?




> People have unlimited needs and wants and resources are scarce.


Yes, and how much stuff can they pile up before they realize that stuff isn't making them happy and begin to give it away?
The only truly valuable resources is time, and isn't it better to use that time to do things that make you happy, rather than have to spend it creating enough value for the boss to buy his whore a bracelet so that what he allows you to keep of the value that you create can buy you some food?
Seriously?

[QUOTE][ every single person is voting how resources are allocated by interacting, buying and selling./QUOTE]
Yes, and the fact that we can't keep a week's supply of goods on the shelf says we need to ramp up production.
Empty shelves allocates resources in the absence of dollars, the need for dollars is dogma in the crapitalist religion, all bow to the $.




> Do you know story of 2 farmers where one wakes every morning at 5 am and other one at noon?


Can you link to that?
Or tell it to me?
I haven't been able to find it.




> Everyone with retirement fun is one, everyone who pays anyone is one.


Yes, the whole world is ruled by the top one percent of crapitalists, and their flunkies, they think that they have no choice because they have not been made aware that they are just monkeys on the plantation.




> If I work hard and save 1 million dollars (or goods that are priced 1 million dollars) I get to decide what to do with it and not some warehouse entity or process.


I haven't proposed changing that.
You can order what you want, you can pile it to the top of world.
Your neighbors may look at you askance, and if you are not too much of a jerk they will defend you right to do so.
But, could you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you took the work of thousands just to please your greed?
As long as you don't destroy the stuff it will be there after you are gone and it will get recycled.
The actual consumption involved of a product that exists after your death is minimal.

[QUOTE][What economic books did you read? Any Austrian economists?/QUOTE]
Yes, I have read Von Mises.
Now, having lived under a communist regime you understand how controlling sources of information is critical to maintaining control, correct?
Why do you figure that the mirror image of communism has led the people to Von Mises?
Why don't they lead you to Kropotkin or Bakunin?
Yes, Von Mises presents a better picture than the status quo, but he keeps you (wage)slaving on the farm.
You have not been presented with an alternative to feudal serfdom under the 1%, only a choice in who the 1% will be.
Look where they are directing you away from if you want to escape your masters.
Looking to their solution will not lead to your freedom.




> This is basic of it and you got it all wrong.


Do I?

[QUOTE][(you could stop insulting by reffering to me and most of other forum memebers as CRAPITALIST)/QUOTE]
Just as soon as I get a choice that isn't between a t**d and a crap sandwich,....I'll be glad to do that.




> Time is a resource and waiting is waisting time.


Without leisure to contemplate alternatives I would never realize that I am a slave.
Religions were invented by old men that wanted to get laid, they were the only member of the tribe with the leisure and motivation to invent them.
Ask yourself why crapitalist economics wasn't invented as a 'science' until after the anarchists were winning the hearts and minds of the workers at the end of the 19th century.

[QUOTE][Workers bid for wages and investors bid on workers skill sets and time./QUOTE]
If that were true why does the gov't have to create a minimum wage?
Don't you think that any business man would be silly to pay more in wages than he had to?

[QUOTE][All people who own anything that needs painting meet somewhere and decided to wait till all painters are starving?/QUOTE]
If you can find somebody that doesn't paint houses for a living you may get a price lower than the market price, but you can bet just as all the professional house painters know the bottom price for painting a house, so too do the owners know the bottom wage to pay for factory workers.
Check out starting pay in your area, it doesn't matter if you work in a factory and create 1000's of dollars in value or if you work in a warehouse moving those products around the starting pay will not vary by more than a dollar or two.




> This is tyranny.


And what is tyranny's favorite economic system?
It sure isn't anarchism, or anarcho-communism.




> I can also play your game and say: 
>  and the profit needed to buy his sick starving child loaf of bread.


Yet you defend the very system that denies that child bread unless his father submits to exploitation?
My system would give him not just bread for free, but the doctors, too.
Try get a doctor without submitting to corporate exploitation today.




> Why do you hate children? Why do you want little Sally to die and starve? You filthy warehouseist (or whatever you call your self).


Ok, now I know you haven't been paying attention, I don't deny anybody anything, it is crapitalism that requires work for food.

[QUOTE][Communist countries tried to implement "work for public". It failed./QUOTE]
Again, that wasn't communism, it was fascism.




> North Korean state approved haircut.


Ok, what is your point, I am not proposing fascism?
No men with guns are needed to keep my proposal as the preferred economic system, the people freely choose it or it doesn't happen.




> You do understand that everything you wrote so far is 99% identical to Karl Marx? And I will assume that you didnt read "Das Kapital"?


And your point is?
If Marx would have advocated the free choice of the people in following his advice perhaps we would all be Marxist, but he didn't, he sent men with guns to control the people and tyranny was the result.
How is that any different than crapitalism?




> What you propose is that people exchange goods without walking away from transaction better off.


No, what I propose is gifting your labor in return for the gifts of labor that you receive.
What you are defending is the denial of your labor until somebody agrees to give you something.




> How did it lead you into poverty?


By offering me a return on my invested time that wasn't sufficient to justify my investment.
My time is worth more than your wage.




> This kind of hard core communist theory is hard to come by today.


Do you see that as a function of the educational system denying this theory as an option?
Had you heard of Kropotkin before I mentioned him?
Were you aware that other options exist, not just (wage) slavery?

[QUOTE][You didnt read anything about FED (national banks)?/QUOTE]
I know creating currency for cost and loaning it out at face value and at interest is evil,....




> Yea. In your world you will have only one type of washing machine but you will have luxury items like Maserati?


That isn't what I said, I asked if we needed 30 models of washers when 15 of those models are exactly the same.
Having a Maserati is just a matter of ramping up production to meet demand.
Not everybody will want a Maserati, nor have a place to store it safely out of the weather to insure it's continued existence after my demise.




> Most people will want more than economy can provide.


Demand is being met today with plenty of unemployed and unnecessary employees.




> [That alone would kill entire mankind because if I am to get it before I die everyone would have to stop doing everything else and work on my Death star.


Well, unless you can devise a system of slavery to get people to do things they don't want to do I would propose that you would have a hard time finding workers to build your death star.
They would rather spend the day at the beach with their families.




> Your system fails... but shame on people.


It wasn't my system, and yes, shame on them for shirking their work and honor.




> [No one had. No one ever in any society in history of mankind had access to whatever consumer goods they desired.


Obviously you are not one of the one percent.  I guess JP Morgan couldn't buy anything he wanted, you can look at his book collection today.
How many workers do you think he had to exploit to buy books?
Do you find it ironic that you desperately defend your masters without any hope of ever joining them?




> Read "I pencil".


Indeed, how can you presume to call a pencil your's and sell it at a profit when you had nothing to do with the production?




> [For my father and grandfather it meant that neighbors "in charge" meant it to be concentration camps and blacklisted in communist secret police books.


Right, and men with guns were enticed by vouchers to the company store to enforce the decrees of the most criminal amongst them.
That is not the proposal, no men with guns forcing you to comply.
But, in a free world I won't deny that some will take direct action to stop you from exploiting the system by consuming and not working.
Under my proposal your work will accrue to all of humanity, and not just John D, his progeny, and favored lackeys.

[QUOTE][If there is no medium of exchange I would barter./QUOTE]
You miss a fundamental point in the proposal, there will be no tit for tat trades, you are trying to view what I propose through lenses of crapitalism and that will not work.
Perhaps in antiques and rarities barter will continue, but for the most part it is a gift economy.  You gift your work and receive gifts from the work of others.




> A math formula for every life situation and ever decision. Seriously?


Yep, like there isn't one today?
Do you think that the one percent haven't paid mathematicians to determine your net worth to their bottom line today?
Why do you think some people get away with crime while others get caught the first time?
Because when the flunky cop puts your name into the computer the computer crunches the numbers and tells him to let you go, or not.

[QUOTE][*Free market rewards better than any other ideas.*/QUOTE]
Until now.
Now you are aware that you need not be limited to what the boss allows you to keep from the value that your labor creates, you must only unite with the other workers and throw of the monkey master.
My system rewards you far better than crapitalism.




> From where would you get resources to reward people for their labor better than capitalism?


Where does crapitalism get them to put into the hands of the 1%?




> I am not a slave.


Keep telling yourself that,....




> My entire family lived through "communism".  My parents and I were the only ones to escape, save those others who escaped via death.
> 
>  Don't presume to tell me what communism is or is not.  I might know far better than do you.


Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't use communism to describe fascism.
What your family survived was state crapitalism.
Am I right when I say that your family worked for wages and used a fiat currency for exchanges?
Did you read the link?  It isn't very long.
It starts out:

Communism is now on everybodys lips. Some talk of it with the exaggerated enthusiasm of a new convert, others fear and condemn it as a social menace. But I venture to say that neither its admirersthe great majority of themnor those who denounce it have a very clear idea of what Bolshevik Communism really is. Speaking generally, Communism is the ideal of human equality and brotherhood. It considers the exploitation of man by man as the source of all slavery and oppression. It holds that economic inequality leads to social injustice and is the enemy of moral and intellectual progress. Communism aims at a society where classes have been abolished as a result of common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It teaches that only in a classless, solidaric commonwealth can man enjoy liberty, peace and well-being. 
My purpose is to compare Communism with its application in Soviet Russia, but on closer examination I find it an impossible task. As a matter of fact, there is no Communism in the U.S.S.R. Not a single Communist principle, not a single item of its teaching is being applied by the Communist party there. 


That you would call the exploitation experienced by your family communism is a debasement of the term.

[QUOTE][  First of all, you do not define the term/QUOTE]
Ok, lets use the Austrian schools definition.
You work for me, you create $100 worth of goods, I give to you $40 and call us even, thanks.  Have a nice day.
In the process I, and my fellow crapitalists, end the day with all the stuff and slaves to service us.




> If you have a valid point to make, you have yet to make it.


Did you miss the part where I said, 'we have to have workers we don't have to have dollars', and proved it through sound logic?




> I see Capitalism as being very beneficial, but also badly flawed and there needs to be checks against corporate tyranny.


If we eliminate rule by force this won't be a problem, as long as we accept that the men most willing to use violence get to be in charge then we will always be their slaves.
Until I don't have to work to eat I am a slave to the man who gives me work.




> You would not be able to post on this website if not for capitalism.


How do you figure?
I have outlined an economic system that gives me everything I want in return for working in a productive career.
Just because crapitalism has forcefully dominated the people does not mean that it is the only system capable of making the internet available.

[QUOTE=NorthCarolinaLiberty;5860066]This is the only item I've identified where you've actually applied your theory.[quote]
I don't follow, tell me where I haven't shown that dollars are superfluous to changing the starter on your car or making washing machines available to consumers.




> Your example there was something about a rich gal buying her own bracelet instead of the schlep worker paying for it.


Pardon me if I don't want to work overtime because the boss needs to buy his wife some flowers because she found out about his whore's bracelet.
Crapitalism exploits me to the advantage of the boss, which mostly benefits his wife in that she gets trinkets and doesn't have to work because the value that I create is diverted to her whim.




> You sound like the extreme anti-thesis of liberty.


Do I?
Or have you been led to believe in a lie?
As noted by RP himself?
http://www.dailypaul.com/310764/well...liam-casey-cia




> Forget about books.  I don't think the OP has ever bought a box of detergent.


One day I went into this restaurant and was looking over the menu.
It had lawyers for $2.
It had doctors for $30.
But hippies were $250.
And I said, 'Why are hippies soooo much?'.
And the chef said, 'Have you ever tried to clean one of them?'.




> Oh man, I hate the laundromat more than any other place in the world. 
> 
>  If you make me use a laundromat I am going to kick you in the balls.


I would presume that we would all have maids.
Under my proposal a lot of people are going to need to find productive work and consumer demand for factory products won't fill that need.  Just look at all the people that don't work in factories today.
So, no, nobody will make you go to the Laundromat, though you can if you want.




> .... by dropping some $50 in change.  Couple of those and you can buy your own washer and dryer.


Indeed,....




> Houston, we have a communist on-board!


Can we limit that to the definition found here and skip all the disputing of state crapitalism under the soviet model?
Please?




> And he's oblivious to Economic Calculation Problem that has repeatedly brought down utopian communism!


No, I'm not.
Empty shelves allocate today, accounting balances the books. 
If the shelves are empty resupply continues, if you can't give your product away you need to find something else to do.
Resources allocated.




> Economic Calculation Problem refers to the problem of,....blah blah blah,....


I'm sure I covered this above,...
Von Mises is just another monkey master.
'If you don't seek out opinions inimical to your own you will only know what is already known to you.  Discoveries are made outside that box.'   FBA




> There is enormous inertia  a tyranny of the status quo


To quote your own signature.




> So many errors to choose from....


Well, lets get started,....




> No, it _solves_ the _problem_ that people cannot produce everything themselves.


Wrong.  Division of labor does that, not wage slavery.




> Autarchy (everyone producing only for their own consumption) means that a person will barely be able to feed himself.


Agreed.




> We need exchange (see above),


Yes.

[QUOTE][ and so we need money to facilitate  exchange./QUOTE]
No.
If I change the starter on your car it is changed whether you pay or not.
We need only a motivation to cause me to change your starter and my proposal does that in the absence of vouchers to the company store.




> Barter (direct exchange of good for good) severely limits the  opportunities for exchange, and therefore the division of labor, with  all of its attendant benefits.


Right, this is why I outline a system that ends tit for tat trades.

[QUOTE][This does not  eliminate management./QUOTE]
No, but it does eliminate the tyranny of the managers.
No longer do you have to eat the crap sandwich served up by your boss, in fact, managers would be elected by those doing the work.
No longer would appointment from on high give you the manager's job.




> Now the workers get to keep the full product  of their labor!....except now the workers also have _more work_  to do.


I agree, more could be found to do, this is why I submit that one needs an objective measure to know for sure that you have contributed enough to justify your Maserati.
However if this measure becomes an enforced rule then we have crapitalism with this measure in the place of dollars, therefore the measure is a guideline and not rule.




> Of course, people will work for free; and the seas will turn to lemonade.


Not for free, for a free pass to the store.
Instead of being given vouchers in the amount allowed by the boss you can get what you need for free.




> Never heard of the socialist calculation problem?


Never heard of anarcho-communism?




> Money and the wage system arise organically through the marketplace because individuals find them to be beneficial. What this barely literate moron suggests would require massive levels of brute force wielded by the state to enact, whether he will admit it or not. FreeBornAngel sounds a lot like one of those mentally-ill Zeitgeist RBE cultists to me.


Thanks for your lovely words,....first they ignore you,...then they laugh at you,....then they attack you,....then you win,....

The proposal is voluntary, either the people recognize it as better to it doesn't float.


[QUOTE=r3volution 3.0;5860624]but but but, the workers will do all this voluntarily because pure love or something...
Indeed they will.
If only to end poverty, war, human trafficking, and drug pushing, things that crapitalism thrives on.




> Of course he is.  He wants his bread delivered by servants on a silver platter for free instead of earning it 'by the sweat of his brow.'  Real capitalism would see him go hungry.


Come on, gunny, I have never said anything even remotely like that.
The whole proposal hinges on people working to justify their consumption.
Stop letting your mind coast in neutral and explore the area presented to you.




> What exactly is your concern? 
> 
>  A firm having a large market share (even 100%) is not in itself a problem. If it can produce widgets better/cheaper than anyone else, so that no one can complete, why would we _want_ anyone else producing them?


I would presume that this is what would happen under my proposal. 
Each factory would represent the epitome of that product.  
Some would still want to make their own shoes, and they would find willing consumers, just as walmart brings us generics and some people still grow tomatoes.

All I'm proposing is that instead of the value I create being used to benefit the one percent it should be used to benefit all of mankind.

I'm not going to have time to correct the typos, please see your way past them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Wrong.  Division of labor does that, not wage slavery.


What  you call wage slavery (production for sale on the market - as opposed  to production for barter or production for one's own use) maximizes the  division of labor.




> one needs an objective measure to know for sure that you have contributed enough to justify your Maserati
> 
> ...
> 
> Not for free, for a free pass to the store.


Aside  from the question of how you arrive at that objective measure (see  socialist calculation problem); if workers get vouchers in exchange for  their work, and they can use these vouchers to buy things, how is this  different from workers getting money in exchange for their work, and  using the money to buy things? In effect, vouchers are money in your  system. 

I presume your idea is that these vouchers will  represent the "full product of their labor," whereas money wages do not.  Is that correct?




> No, but it does eliminate the tyranny of the managers.
> No longer do you have to eat the crap sandwich served up by your boss,  in fact, managers would be elected by those doing the work.
> No longer would appointment from on high give you the manager's job.


What about the workers on the losing side of those votes? Are they not subject to managerial "tyranny" just as before?

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Busted lip. Well...like a _cyber_ busted lip, really. It isn't like a real one where yer leaking on yer keyboard or something.
> 
>  Just hover over it with yer mouse for a hot second for a clearer description. I little tootip thingamabob pops up there.
> 
>  I haven't read your postings so couldn't say as to why you're in the red.
> 
>  I'll tell you what I'll do since you're a new member here. I'll patch that lil boo-boo up for you if I can. Wait for it. We'll see if it turns green.
> 
>  Edit - All better now. You're green again. Now don't go getting into any more scuffles and we won't have any more of those boo boos. k?


Thank you for your concern,....and first aid,....




> Yes, we would all have maids, because some random person is just desperate to come clean my house without reward. Lol


I'm starting to doubt your claim to gunny status, unless the corps tolerates this level of inattention to detail because the war has lowered the level in the barrel, I find it hard to believe that you are in fact a gunny.
Seriously, gunny(?), nowhere have I stated that you would get nothing for your labor, I have continuously stated that you only have to take what you need to keep producing.




> What  you call wage slavery (production for sale on the market - as opposed  to production for barter or production for one's own use) maximizes the  division of labor.


Ok, maximizes the division of labor to benefit,...whom?
Certainly not the worker, she gets the lowest wage the crapitalist can get by with offering, any improvements in efficiency accrue to the owner.




> Aside  from the question of how you arrive at that objective measure (see  socialist calculation problem);


I'm not sure how to prioritize labor, the fact is more people want doctors than want cat skinners so some measure of the work done is needed to ensure that I skin enough cats to not be a drain on the world.
Perhaps it will be determined by minds with more access to the numbers that cat skinning can never equal doctoring and that I need to spend my productive time in some other endeavor and leave the cat skinning until I retire.
These things will shake out in the course of time.
What won't change is that under crapitalism I can work at a menial job my entire life and still end up homeless despite the value of the labor I did being in excess of what a house and food to see me out would cost.




> if workers get vouchers in exchange for  their work,


No actual vouchers, that wouldn't differ from the status quo.
Just take what you need from the shelf and contribute what you can to the pile of goods.
No tit for tat trades, that is just crapitalism with other means than dollars.




> What about the workers on the losing side of those votes?


They are free to seek other productive means if they don't agree with the outcome of the vote.
Not free like today where the choice is starve or put up with it, but free in that they can get on plane, go anywhere in the world, be met by somebody that will help them get productive, and try their luck there.
How many people do you know that can quit their jobs and pack up today?
Sure they are free to do that, but how do they meet their debt obligations in the mean time?
My world comes without the immediate need to provide food, and free plane tickets.
All because the worker trusts her fellow workers to keep working.




> Are they not subject to managerial "tyranny" just as before?


No, today you can be fired because the manager doesn't like your shoes, whereas under my proposal you will only be asked to leave if you can't do the work.
The worker's themselves will decide who deserves to sit on his tail and manage.

----------


## mad cow

> How many people do you know that can quit their jobs and pack up today?
> Sure they are free to do that, but how do they meet their debt obligations in the mean time?
> My world comes without the immediate need to provide food, and free plane tickets.
> All be


Do you have a cult people can join?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

Left libertarians sure are funny. How about this: in a properly decentralized world, you can have your ancom abject poverty because you've illegalized informative market signals, and I can have my backward, reactionary, capitalist civilization that's swimming in wealth. Sound good? Good.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Do you have a cult people can join?


Yes, though we avoid the use of the term, cult.
We find it to be demeaning to be lumped in with folks that embrace their slavery.




> Left libertarians sure are funny. How about this: in a properly decentralized world, you can have your ancom abject poverty because you've illegalized informative market signals, and I can have my backward, reactionary, capitalist civilization that's swimming in wealth. Sound good? Good.


Man, I get tired of pointing this out,....the reorder of goods originates in the absence of goods from the shelf, the accounting done to balance the books has nothing to do with the shelf being empty and the goods being reordered.
The goods got to the shelf separately from the accounting department.  The accounting department did not put one thing on the shelf.
If the accounting department fell into the lake the workers would still have goods to put on the shelf simply by continuing to work.
Please stop regurgitating the dogma that has been manipulated into you.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ok, maximizes the division of labor to benefit,...whom?


Everyone. Greater division of labor --> more production --> lower prices --> higher standard of living




> Certainly not the worker, she gets the lowest wage the crapitalist can get by with offering, any improvements in efficiency accrue to the owner.


First, I am amused that you chose to use the feminine pronoun. 

Second, to the issue at hand; workers are paid the the discounted marginal revenue product of their labor. Which is to say they are paid an amount equal to the additional revenue their labor brings to the firm, discounted by prevailing interest rates (this reflects the return on the owner's capital investment - i.e. the capital that the worker requires to do his work). No employer can pay more than this (that would mean he's losing money), nor can he pay less (since the worker will be bid away by another employer). In other words, competition between employers for labor pushes wages up to their discounted marginal revenue product. Just as competition between businesses for capital goods (say, fork-lifts) keeps the price of forklifts at their discounted marginal revenue product (DMRP). 

Third, the point above is why capital accumulation benefits workers. As more capital is added to the production process, the DMRP of labor increases. For example, the guy running the shirt-sowing machine is going to be paid more than a guy sowing shirts by hand, because he produces more shirts per hour, and thus generates more revenue. See: the history of the world in the last 200 years. 




> I'm not sure how to prioritize labor, the fact is more people want doctors than want cat skinners so some measure of the work done is needed to ensure that I skin enough cats to not be a drain on the world.


In other words, you need a ratio between the value of medical services and the value of cat skinning services.

If only there was some system under which people could freely exchange these services through a standard medium of exchange, thereby establishing an exchange ratio (price). If we had such exchange ratios (prices) for all goods and services denominated in a common unit (say, dollars), then we'd be able to determine how much cat skinning is equal to how much doctoring - and so workers' pay could be made equal to the value of what they're producing. 

Alas, no such system exists....




> No actual vouchers, that wouldn't differ from the status quo.
> Just take what you need from the shelf and contribute what you can to the pile of goods.


If workers can just take whatever they like from the common storehouse, why are you trying to figure out the value of their labor?

I thought you wanted it to be such that workers only got goods equal to the value of their labor? 

If not, then you have another problem - why would anyone work at all? What's the incentive?




> hey are free to seek other productive means if they don't agree with the outcome of the vote.
> Not free like today where the choice is starve or put up with it, but  free in that they can get on plane, go anywhere in the world, be met by  somebody that will help them get productive, and try their luck there.
> How many people do you know that can quit their jobs and pack up today?
> Sure they are free to do that, but how do they meet their debt obligations in the mean time?


....so if the worker in your society doesn;t like the job, he can leave.

How is that different from capitalism?




> My world comes without the immediate need to provide food, and free plane tickets.


Oh, of course. LOL

So, who produces these things? Can I just keep looking for a job forever, eating free food and travel ling around the world?




> No, today you can be fired because the manager doesn't like your shoes,  whereas under my proposal you will only be asked to leave if you can't  do the work.


Suppose you can do the work, but someone else can do it better - can you be fired?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Nobody likes the accounting department.  Nothing new.

----------


## mad cow

> Man, I get tired of pointing this out,....the reorder of goods originates in the absence of goods from the shelf, the accounting done to balance the books has nothing to do with the shelf being empty and the goods being reordered.
> The goods got to the shelf separately from the accounting department. The accounting department did not put one thing on the shelf.
> If the accounting department fell into the lake the workers would still have goods to put on the shelf simply by continuing to work.


I bet you could sell this to the Venezuelan government,their shelves are empty.

Well,maybe not _sell_ it _per se_,what with the whole no money thing and all. 
Perhaps they would put a few Maseratis on the take whatever you want shelf with your name on them.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Crapitalism is the economic system preferred by dictators world wide, that should be your clue.
> 
>  Let's use walmart as our example, though it could be any big box world wide distributor.
> 
>  If the people that make the products and the people that distribute the goods show up to work then the goods will be on the shelves even if the accounting department jumps off a cliff.
> 
>  The people that mine the minerals, refine the minerals into raw materials, fashion the raw materials into finished products, and those that distribute those products could care less if the corporation collects it's billions or not, as long as they continue to show up to do the work then the products continue to be on the shelves.
> 
>  We have to have workers to produce the goods, we don't have to have dollars to make the goods available.
> ...


HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!  !!

Oh man, now THAT is a hoot.

1. I assure you there are more socialist nations in the world today than capitalist  one. Welfare, taxation, government intervention in the economy (any where form money manipulation to bailouts and government seizure)  are the hallmarks of almost every nation on the planet, all hallmarks of socialism. So your founding premise is bollocks.

2. Sure, wouldn't it be grand if people really did do back breaking labor for complete strangers out of the kindness of their hearts? Turns out though that isn't how the world works. People want to prosper as much as possible and gain as much as they can for expending their time and effort on things.

3. You don't understand how scarcity works do you? Money isn't limited because of the Cabal's secret  plan to crush the proletariat. Money is limited because resources are limited. Only so much exists to go around, money included. That is, until you go on a fiat system and then you have a ton of money and even fewer products.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Yes, though we avoid the use of the term, cult.
> We find it to be demeaning to be lumped in with folks that embrace their slavery.
> 
> 
> Man, I get tired of pointing this out,....the reorder of goods originates in the absence of goods from the shelf, the accounting done to balance the books has nothing to do with the shelf being empty and the goods being reordered.
> The goods got to the shelf separately from the accounting department.  The accounting department did not put one thing on the shelf.
> If the accounting department fell into the lake the workers would still have goods to put on the shelf simply by continuing to work.
> Please stop regurgitating the dogma that has been manipulated into you.


The accounting department is a vital part of putting products of shelves. Accounting directs the ebb and flow of money, ensuring people get paid to do the work necessary. You keep talking as if  products magically order themselves from raw materials and teleport onto  shelves. They don't. People do it, and they do it because they get paid to do it. Without that incentive very few, if anyone, would continue to work. Turns out people only take back breaking crappy jobs when they have  incentive to do so, incentive beyond mere survival- people want to succeed and get as much as they can for their efforts. Your "world" is a world full of lack, a lack of workers, a lack of goods, a lack of wealth, a lack of success, a lack of everything except worldwide shortages and poverty slavery. For all your talk of dogma, you;re the only one producing a inviolable faith in something that has never been shown to exist.

----------


## osan

> Man, I get tired of pointing this out,....the reorder of goods originates in the absence of goods from the shelf, the accounting done to balance the books has nothing to do with the shelf being empty and the goods being reordered.
> The goods got to the shelf separately from the accounting department. The accounting department did not put one thing on the shelf.
> If the accounting department fell into the lake the workers would still have goods to put on the shelf simply by continuing to work.
> Please stop regurgitating the dogma that has been manipulated into you.


You just demonstrated an utter absence of any understanding of financial accounting.  I strongly suggest you take a basic accounting class, that you may learn just how wholly mistaken you are on this point.  Accounting is the central mechanism by which the most fundamental business decisions are made.  But don't take it from me - after all, I just have a graduate degree in all this.  Take a class - you can take them FREE online.  When you do, you will learn what accounting actually is.  At the moment, you have no correct understanding of its broader and truer role in the decision-making process.

Do you know the role of concepts such as "return on assets", "return on capital", and "return on investment"?  Do you know the relationship between them?  It is a crucial relationship - key to knowing how to make business decisions, and they are all expressed mathematically in a triangle relationship that, when learned and understood tends to be VERY illuminating.  You appear to be in dire need of illumination.




> The accounting department is a vital part of putting products of shelves. Accounting directs the ebb and flow of money, ensuring people get paid to do the work necessary. You keep talking as if  products magically order themselves from raw materials and teleport onto  shelves. They don't. People do it, and they do it because they get paid to do it. Without that incentive very few, if anyone, would continue to work. Turns out people only take back breaking crappy jobs when they have  incentive to do so, incentive beyond mere survival- people want to succeed and get as much as they can for their efforts. Your "world" is a world full of lack, a lack of workers, a lack of goods, a lack of wealth, a lack of success, a lack of everything except worldwide shortages and poverty slavery. For all your talk of dogma, you;re the only one producing a inviolable faith in something that has never been shown to exist.


THIS is a pretty good summary.  I would suggest you take the ego, zip it behind your fly as would be prudent, and try to learn something so you do not make a fool of yourself before people who know better.  I've been in business over 30 years, was pretty successful, and managed billion-dollar projects back when a billion dollars was still a lot of money.  I am a Wall Street veteran and have seen real business in action all of my adult life and it is NOTHING as you claim.  So why not sit back, crack a beer, unwrap yourself a bit so you don't burst an artery, and take in some truth from people with knowledge and experience?  I promise you will not regret it if you approach them sincerely.

----------


## Barrex

> Let me state here for the record that my proposal comes without an enforcement arm, all interactions are voluntary.


only good ghing about your proposal 




> I have seen multiple references to communism failing in the past and I posted this link,...Emma Goldman,....No communism in Russia,


I forced my self to read it. What a pile of garbage. She complains(looks for excuses) example: about difference between nationalization and socialization.



> When a certain thing does not belong to an individual or group, it is  either nationalized or socialized. If it is nationalized, it belongs to  the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of  it according to its wishes and views. But when a thing is socialized,  every individual has free access to it and use it without interference  from anyone.


ROFL. Semantics. Nacionalized/socialized. Nation is social structure.
If there is only 50 luxury boats and there is 200 people. Out of those 200 people 100 want luxury boat. Impossible to have "free access to it and use it without interference  from anyone.". Replace boat with any other scarce resource.
She is uneducated in basics of economics... and she also doesnt know what communism is, or how it is reached:




> those constructive social and economic policies of Bolshevik Communism which resulted in the fearful famine in 1921.


ROFLMAO. That famine was not some freak accident flaw in the system. It was planed and it is a feature in the system. Since you didnt read "Das Kapital" or any books that communism is based on:
There is no communist state. Communism is stateless society. In order to get to that stateless society there needs to be 500 years of socialism during which selected "appropriate" people would be brainwashed, educated and conditioned to act in accordance with rules of communist stateless society. During those 500 years all backward races, nations and people (Pole, Irish , Scotsmen, Roma, best workers, entrepreneurs, owners, rich etc.) are to be exterminated. 

If people are lazy to read one book they could at least read short summary of 10 planks of communism. There is no shame not reading something but there is bug shame in preaching something you dont know anything about (systems of government or lack of it).

People are calling your idea communism because it is more or less communism. Only difference so far is no use of force and somewhat warehouses. 




> What?


LOL. Google terms that he wrote. Study them.







> Do you seriously think that having money and exploiting the poor will count as a bonus when the *karmic consciousness comes to collect his toll*?






> I am making things up as I go, I've had too.
> Have you heard anybody else say anything even remotely close to what I am proposing?
> Here is a library that contains the seeds that I am planting.
> The Conquest of Bread, by Kropotkin is a good first read, but Emma Goldman's speeches keep it concise and on point.


It is never a good argument when you admit that you are making things up as you go.



> Brave New World was an eye opener.


Did ou read 1984. 2 Best books I have ever read.




> If you want the closest outline Looking Backwards is it.  I think the author gets bogged down in the details better left to the locals to decide for themselves, but the outline looks good.


You wonder why your idea is 90% communism? Looking Backwards :...*Now, Bellamy, of course, was familiar with the pioneer work of Marx. And that part of it which he liked he took over...I am among those who first became interested in Socialism through reading "Looking Backward"...*

Dude, your idea is communism without socialism/path to communism. Even Karl Marx understood that it is impossible to reach to your  utopia the way you are suggesting it... and he would know a thing or two about it... since he is grandfather of your utopia.

Besides: You base your utopia on belletristic novels...




> Please point to your perceived contradiction, I work hard at eliminating those thanks to Ayn Rand.


You have no luxury of different washing machines but you got luxury of '72 corvette (or other luxury car).





> I am not trolling you, I am completely serious, as long as the workers keep working the banksters can fall in a lake and nobody would know the difference until the looked up from the yolks on their plows and realized that they could stop playing cow on the farm.
> The Monkey Master, simply replace 'grows on trees', with 'we make it in the factory', and you have it.


Except Monkey Master is STATE (politicians, state employees...) and special interest groups (lobbyists, some banks, war profiteering military industrial complex) and not owners of factories, business etc. We all agree that current situation is bad but you misdiagnosed the problem.





> The evidence doesn't support your assertion, does the person responsible for reordering goods for the shelf at walmart first ask the accounting department if there is money to reorder or is the accounting done separately and subsequently?
> Empty shelves, or whatever reorder point you want to set, ie, 1 week supply, 1 month supply, etc,... are not contingent on the accounting department's efficiency.


Expand your chain of "reordering". In first link there is miner, farmer, then those who transport, then those who melt, refine and process, then those who transpor it again......before last link in a chain there is your wareohouse worker...last chain is buyer.

When you pay for a product I am sending signal to every single person in that chain how valuable thing that they do to me is. When I buy pencil for 1 dollar, that dollar is distributed do every link in a chain. That signal signals miner that it is viable and needed to mine for iron, copper, graphite etc.; farmer that it is needed and viable to produce food for miners; truck driver that it is viable and needed to transport food to mines etc...

I suggest you read: I pencil.
It will show you how to produce one simple thing needs imput labor and know-how of millions. Millions of signals. It is impossible that your team of mathematicians could calculate it.




> Well, I'd rather have a '72 corvette.  
> But even if everybody wanted a (iphone) then we make them.  Perhaps there is a backlog, but just as goods are made available today, if you have the money, so too will goods be available when the 1% are not the only people with access to them.


7 billion people on earth. 7 billion '72 corvettes (or equivalent luxury items). No way that everyone can have luxury item. You would need to shift resources from everything and just produce '72 corvettes. No food, no water, no electricity, no medicine... and that is with only one luxury item. I want at least 10.






> What resource can you not have if you have the money?
> Name one thing that money won't buy you.


When I said: There is not enough resources (scarcity) to buy everyone 7 billion people 7 billion '72 corvettes. Even if it was there would be better ways to use them than it is to produce 7 billion '72 corvettes.



> Only if the people mismanaged things, they are not mismanaging today why would access to luxury items change that?


They are not mismanaging today because of prices - a way that millions communicate in economy by simply buying and selling. Remove prices and money and you remove communication between people. Miners wouldnt know how much and what to mine, wheater mining is profitable/viable. Producers wouldnt know cost of mining silver or producing wood/lumber. They would produce pencils from silver instead of lumber... and it costs 10x more to excavate amd refine silver than it is to produce wood for pencil = misalocation of resources.

Like I wrote: 7 billion people on earth; 7 billion '72 corvettes...impossible

When governments are involved there is mismanagement.



> No, they didn't.
> What you had was state crapitalism, or fascism.
> In what is currently labeled communism the state controls the corporations and the slaves are paid a fraction of the value of their labor in currency.
> In what is currently labeled crapitalism the corporations control the state and the slaves are paid a fraction of the value of their labor in currency.
> They are mirror images of each other and both are fascism.
> Their is no communism in Russia, there never was.


How can you say there was no communism in Russia if you didnt read Das Kapital? You and that article that you are linking to are wrong. I explained it above.




> It is realistic to believe that folks will build me a Maserati, but I doubt anybody would build anybody a death star without an exploitive economic system to entice the slaves into doing the labor.


No it is not. Again:7 billion people on earth. 7 billion '72 corvettes...impossible



> Do you think that the (wage) slaves would work in the arms industry if they could eat for free?


"eat for free" crap. There is no free lunch. Someone had to pay for it... or in your case work for it. This nonsense about "wage slave"... Ill play it: Why are you for slavery?
You want to give some people "free lunch" and other people must work to provide that "free lunch". You are keeping real slaves. Slaves that must work for your "warehouse economy" to produce "free lunches" for others. 




> If they were free to chose any labor at all and not just the locally available job at the only factory in town do you think they would create the tools that kill others?


You have tendency to ask loaded questions. In reality like in your economy if people would choose any work they want nothing would be produced. 90% of the people would choose to be workers in cozy offices. I would choose to be beer taster. 




> Yes, and how much stuff can they pile up before they realize that stuff isn't making them happy and begin to give it away?


Lets say your utopian economy can produce 100 stuff that people can pile up before it collapses. In that case they could pile up 10000000 stuff before they start thinking that it doesnt make them happy. This means your utopia would collapse 100ts of times. People have unlimited needs and wants and resources are scarce!!!!




> The only truly valuable resources is time, and isn't it better to use that time to do things that make you happy,


Yes.


> rather than have to spend it creating enough value for the boss to buy his whore a bracelet so that what he allows you to keep of the value that you create can buy you some food?
> Seriously?



And you $#@!ed it up again with another loaded question. Also dude you bring feeling of unease in me with this kind of language:Jews have big noses, blacks are lesser race; bosses whores. It is very very thin line between your attitude and "lets kill,rape, exterminate them. I know you are saying that in your utopia there wouldnt be use of force but you are using language and rhetoric that Karl Marx used for those groups that were hunted down by communists and Hitler used when he wanted to "deal" with "Jewish problem".

When you buy something profit doesnt stay at "the boss" and his whore. When you read I pencil you will know that that money goes all the way to miners, farmers, truck drivers, factory workers etc. "The boss" is organizing people and in free market economy he gets payed for it. He is needed part of economy just like any other person.



> Yes, and the fact that we can't keep a week's supply of goods on the shelf says we need to ramp up production.Empty shelves allocates resources in the absence of dollars, the need  for dollars is dogma in the crapitalist religion, all bow to the $.


Explained above in more details but I will clarify it again. In free market you get millions of signals just to produce pencil and you would replace that with:"no goods =need goods= ramp up production". This is not nearly sufficient interaction/communication for efficiently allocate resources. 






> Can you link to that?
> Or tell it to me?
> I haven't been able to find it.


In your (or communist) utopia there were 2 farmers. You(or your mathematicians or communist government) gave each a farm. Both farms had a house and a field. Honest farmer was waking every morning at dawn-5 am. Second one was lazy and would wake up at noon. Honest one was working entire day and lazy one was working only 1 hour every day. Autumn came and honest farmer had plentiful harvest but lazy one had almost nothing. Then you (your mathematician squad or communist government) came and said "we are all equal"; "we are better than capitalists" yada yada yada... and you took everything from honest farmer and split it into 3 equal parts. 1/3 was returned to honest farmer, 1/3 was given to lazy farmer and 1/3 was taken by you and your mathematician squad (or communist government).

Question: Next year. When will honest farmer wake up?





> Yes, the whole world is ruled by the top one percent of crapitalists, and their flunkies, they think that they have no choice because they have not been made aware that they are just monkeys on the plantation.


You are referring to crony capitalism (state, politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups...). We agree that there is a problem. You are misdiagnosing it and prescribing completely wrong remedy.




> I haven't proposed changing that.
> You can order what you want, you can pile it to the top of world.
> Your neighbors may look at you askance, and if you are not too much of a jerk they will defend you right to do so.
> But, could you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you took the work of thousands just to please your greed?
> As long as you don't destroy the stuff it will be there after you are gone and it will get recycled.
> The actual consumption involved of a product that exists after your death is minimal.


Lets say that there is only 1% of people like me (the whole world is ruled by the top one percent of crapitalists). Your entire system would change nothing then. 1% would still get all the luxury while everyone else works for that luxury... and I know that there would be more than 1% of the people joining those old 1%. I know because I saw it in communist Yugoslavia.



> Yes, I have read Von Mises.


...and you link to a comic book. So far it is belletristic and comic books. I meant did you read serious books.



> Now, having lived under a communist regime you understand how controlling sources of information is critical to maintaining control, correct?


Yes.



> Why do you figure that the mirror image of communism has led the people to Von Mises?
> Why don't they lead you to Kropotkin or Bakunin?


What mirror image? And nothing and no one led people to Von Mises.




> Yes, Von Mises presents a better picture than the status quo, but he keeps you (wage)slaving on the farm.
> You have not been presented with an alternative to feudal serfdom under the 1%, only a choice in who the 1% will be.
> Look where they are directing you away from if you want to escape your masters.
> Looking to their solution will not lead to your freedom.


Funny.The closer countries are to free market the more prosperous they are. The closer they are to communism (and your utopia is 90% communism) worse they are of.



> Do I?


Yes you do.This is basic of it and you got it all wrong.




> Without leisure to contemplate alternatives I would never realize that I am a slave.
> Religions were invented by old men that wanted to get laid, they were the only member of the tribe with the leisure and motivation to invent them.
> Ask yourself why crapitalist economics wasn't invented as a 'science' until after the anarchists were winning the hearts and minds of the workers at the end of the 19th century.


Your words:


> Do you seriously think that having money and exploiting the poor will  count as a bonus when the karmic consciousness comes to collect his  toll?


 No religion and you have religion.
Little humor:





> If that were true why does the gov't have to create a minimum wage?


Government soednt have to create min. wage. In fact minimum wages are hurting people. Government is part of the problem. 




> Don't you think that any business man would be silly to pay more in wages than he had to?


Yes. If he pays too little without government workers would simply leave to higher bidder or just start their own business. Licensing, regulation and other government programs make that very hard.


*You are bloddy statist.*




> If you can find somebody that doesn't paint houses for a living you may get a price lower than the market price, but you can bet just as all the professional house painters know the bottom price for painting a house, so too do the owners know the bottom wage to pay for factory workers.
> Check out starting pay in your area, it doesn't matter if you work in a factory and create 1000's of dollars in value or if you work in a warehouse moving those products around the starting pay will not vary by more than a dollar or two.


You completely missed the point. Business owners who want to starve workers will get bankrupt because other business will hire those workers.




> And what is tyranny's favorite economic system?
> It sure isn't anarchism, or anarcho-communism.


You are statist.





> Yet you defend the very system that denies that child bread unless his father submits to exploitation?
> My system would give him not just bread for free, but the doctors, too.
> Try get a doctor without submitting to corporate exploitation today.
> Ok, now I know you haven't been paying attention, I don't deny anybody anything, it is crapitalism that requires work for food.









> Again, that wasn't communism, it was fascism.


Lol.



> Ok, what is your point, I am not proposing fascism?


No. You are proposing communism without violence. Same end result.



> No men with guns are needed to keep my proposal as the preferred economic system, the people freely choose it or it *doesn't happen.*


*doesn't happen.*





> And your point is?
> If Marx would have advocated the free choice of the people in following his advice perhaps we would all be Marxist, but he didn't, he sent men with guns to control the people and tyranny was the result.
> How is that any different than crapitalism?


My point is that you are 99% communist and a statist. You equate crony capitalism with free market. Learn the difference.


Sorry dude. I simply cant go on. Educate your self. Read at least: 
Economics in one lesson- Henry Hazlit
The Law- Frederick Bastiat
Road to Serfdom- Friedrich Hayek 

When you read them I will answer any questionyou got. I read those idiots that you suggested. Seriously. If you want to pretend that you know what is right choice you need to know both sides. When you get to know my side then we will talk. I know your side and your arguments. You dont know basics. I hope you read those books and that we will continue our argument after that.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Man, I get tired of pointing this out,....the reorder of goods originates in the absence of goods from the shelf, the accounting done to balance the books has nothing to do with the shelf being empty and the goods being reordered.
> The goods got to the shelf separately from the accounting department.  The accounting department did not put one thing on the shelf.
> If the accounting department fell into the lake the workers would still have goods to put on the shelf simply by continuing to work.
> Please stop regurgitating the dogma that has been manipulated into you.


$#@! off, plebe. I know more about anarcho-communism than you do. I've read Kropotkin, I've read Malatesta, Goldman, and all the rest. I'd bet I'm more informed about any school of anarchism, whether it's mutualist, communist, collectivist, individualist, egoist, primitivist, post-leftist, trans-humanist, feminist, nationalist or capitalist. Stop pretending you're more evolved than the people who disagree with you, all you are is an economic illiterate.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Capitalism cheerleaders - 183, Debunking angel - ZIP!

----------


## wizardwatson

> Capitalism cheerleaders - 183, Debunking angel - ZIP!


And yet we've "never had capitalism", and yet "capitalism has done more for the benefit of mankind than all other systems combined".

Hard to attack capitalism when it's responsible for everything good, and yet we've never had it.

Nice nest they've feathered for themselves.  Easy to defend.

Economics isn't really that hard to understand.  It all breaks down to basic theft in my opinion.  Even the intricate nature of inflationary credit can be explained as theft and miscommunication of price.  You don't need Mises.  All Mises really did was re-label methodological individualism.  Tried to nail down "thinking" and put a pretty bow on it.

So ultimately "debunking" something as intentionally nebulous as "capitalism" is futile.  Because capitalism is just a label for methodological thinking about economics.  

But we're oh so proud of our labels.  And it's fun to beat up on the little guy and tell him to "$#@! off, plebe" instead of sharing some of our precious knowledge.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And yet we've "never had capitalism", and yet "capitalism has done more for the benefit of mankind than all other systems combined".
> 
> Hard to attack capitalism when it's responsible for everything good, and yet we've never had it.
> 
> Nice nest they've feathered for themselves. Easy to defend.
> 
> Economics isn't really that hard to understand. It all breaks down to basic theft in my opinion. Even the intricate nature of inflationary credit can be explained as theft and miscommunication of price. You don't need Mises. All Mises really did was re-label methodological individualism. Tried to nail down "thinking" and put a pretty bow on it.
> 
> So ultimately "debunking" something as intentionally nebulous as "capitalism" is futile. Because capitalism is just a label for methodological thinking about economics. 
> ...


I gave him a free book. http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism...20Internet.pdf Will he read it? I'll SWAG, very doubtful. 

I sense that he is still at that age where he already knows everything.

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Not exactly.
> We work because we don't want to be parasites on the other workers.
> Somebody has to make the cars, shoes, houses, etc,...the most efficient way to do this is by the division of labor.
> The miner mines and the refiner refines because they know the farmer will grow the food and the trucker will distribute it.
> I would assert that the mathematicians will devise some measure so that we can know that working in the shoe factory for 10 years is sufficient to ensure that what we eat from the farmer is equated by our production of shoes, but this number would have to be a guideline or we have just traded dollars for the new measure.


If I want to barter I can do it based on my own values and needs. Unless, of course, you want to measure out my work as the highest level one can achieve. Then you got my vote.
This is the same garbage that FDR did during the Great Depression. Fix prices and wages. Couldn't have played any favorites for political gain could he? 
How'd that work out overall for the economy?




> The goal is to assure ourselves that we have produced more than we have consumed and that we have left the world with more material wealth than when we entered it.


Spend it all before you go. You can't take it with you and it'll help the economy.




> That having been said, how do we quantify grandma's giving of the one thing we all need, unconditional love?


Replace grandma with dog, then you'll have something. I don't think you ever had a dog though.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Everyone. Greater division of labor --> more production --> lower prices --> higher standard of living


 Right, and how much higher would that standard be if taxes and profits were not taken at each exchange?




> First, I am amused that you chose to use the feminine pronoun.


 Why, too invested in patriarchy?



> Second, to the issue at hand; workers are paid the the discounted marginal revenue product of their labor.


 Blah, blah, whaaa??

 Look this is all just window dressing to the slavery.  
 We have to have workers to do the work, we don't need fancy dogma to keep them doing it.
 If you can take whatever you want from the shelf would you agree to continue working?
 I say the majority of workers recognize that what I offer is a better compensation package.




> See: the history of the world in the last 200 years.


 I'm seeing the people demand more from the feudal lords and the feudal lords scrambling for justifications to keep the sheeple in line.
 I get that as a cog in the crapitalist machine you are too invested to just toss it all away and join me in calling for the revolution, but that doesn't change the facts, we have to have workers, we don't have to have banksters taking the lion's share.
 If crapitalism was going to raise the average worker out of poverty why hasn't it?
 Why is half the crapital in the hands of the one percent.
 I say that is because the system is working as designed, ie, to concentrate control and wealth in the hands of the overlords.




> In other words, you need a ratio between the value of medical services and the value of cat skinning services.


 Yes, I would like to know that my 25 years of producing cars balances out my consuming of doctor's care, the food I ate, and the gas I burn in hot rodding my '72 'vette.
 I think it is important to have a gauge of my consumption in relation to the wealth of the world.
 I don't think that this gauge should replace dollars and be crapitalism under other means, but I do think that a guideline of this type is relevant.




> Alas, no such system exists....


 /sarcasm, I get it, but the system you defend comes with a permanent underclass that will always feed the dominant overclass while the overclass does nothing but consume.
 My system necessitates that every single person on earth produce for themselves or be outed as the parasite on the labor of others that they are.




> If workers can just take whatever they like from the common storehouse, why are you trying to figure out the value of their labor?


 In order to ensure that I have not lived as a parasite on the labor of others.
 I'm not looking for a tit for tat trade of my work for consumption, though some will, and others will contribute on the lines of Steve Jobs.
 Under my proposal work hours drop to less than 25 hours a week for 20 years.
 I don't have access to the numbers, but that is what was predicted by Kropotkin.




> I thought you wanted it to be such that workers only got goods equal to the value of their labor?


 Well, more accurate would be to say that I want the workers to produce an excess over what they consume.
 This excess can be small, or large, depending on the commitment the person feels towards humanity as a whole.




> If not, then you have another problem - why would anyone work at all? What's the incentive?


 Somebody has to make the goods or there will be no goods, any reasonably sane person gets that, if they want goods then they have to contribute to the division of labor.




> ....so if the worker in your society doesn;t like the job, he can leave.


 Absolutely.
 In the change over period we can ask that people hold onto their current job until somebody comes to replace them.
 As long as the current workers continue during the transition it can be seemless from here to there.




> How is that different from capitalism?


 Hmm, let's see,...how about no ruling overlords that consume lavishly without contributing anything, the end of commoditizing human beings, the end of poverty, and populating the nearby planets.
 Imagine research and development not contingent of some greedy parasite letting go of some crumbs to support it.




> Oh, of course. LOL
>  So, who produces these things? Can I just keep looking for a job forever, eating free food and travel ling around the world?


 As an individual, yes, but somebody is going to have to work, perhaps not even a majority.
 However don't be surprised if your neighbors put you in the class that the panhandlers currently occupy, because, that is what you would be.




> Suppose you can do the work, but someone else can do it better - can you be fired?


 Sure, if the collective that runs a collective endeavor doesn't want you around, why would you stay when you can seek out a collective that will welcome you with open arms?




> Nobody likes the accounting department.  Nothing new.


 Well, I think it is more those that live from the work of the accounting department that are disliked.




> I bet you could sell this to the Venezuelan government,their shelves are empty.


 I doubt it, they have a parasite class ruling their country, too.




> Well,maybe not _sell_ it _per se_,what with the whole no money thing and all. 
>  Perhaps they would put a few Maseratis on the take whatever you want shelf with your name on them.


 There are people there that are exposing the people to the option,...
 The people outside the united snakes are much more well versed in the social revolution because the flashy light box here doesn't include it in the sheeple's programming.




> HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!  !!
>  Oh man, now THAT is a hoot.


 Glad I could help,....




> 1. I assure you there are more socialist nations in the world today than capitalist  one.


 Point to one country that doesn't have wages and fiat currencies issued by a central bank.




> all hallmarks of socialism.


 State socialism, not anarcho-socialism.
 Do you know the difference?




> So your founding premise is bollocks.


 I'm afraid it's your premise that need more data.




> People want to prosper as much as possible and gain as much as they can for expending their time and effort on things.


 I'll be back, can't save draft

so, continuing,....

My proposal delivers that.
With the added benefit of decreasing the hours needed to retire to comfort.




> 3. You don't understand how scarcity works do you?


I understand it just fine, I think it is you that fails to understand that scarcity is by design to keep prices high and the workers producing.




> Money isn't limited because of the Cabal's secret  plan to crush the proletariat. Money is limited because resources are limited. Only so much exists to go around, money included.


My evidence to support my assertion.
It is you that doesn't understand the economics around you.




> That is, until you go on a fiat system and then you have a ton of money and even fewer products.


I rest my case,....




> The accounting department is a vital part of putting products of shelves.


Perhaps you should examine that statement.
What exactly did the accountant do?
Did he mine the metal?  Did he refine the ore? Did he create the good, or ship it?
The accountant did nothing but bleat his support of a system that keeps him from actually having to produce something.




> You keep talking as if  products magically order themselves from raw materials and teleport onto  shelves.


Did you read the proposal?
If you did your comprehension is poor.




> Your "world" is a world full of lack, a lack of workers, a lack of goods, a lack of wealth, a lack of success, a lack of everything except worldwide shortages and poverty slavery.


Ok, now I know you didn't read, nor understand, what I have proposed.




> For all your talk of dogma, you;re the only one producing a inviolable faith in something that has never been shown to exist.


Am I?




> You just demonstrated an utter absence of any understanding of financial accounting.


Did I?




> I strongly suggest you take a basic accounting class, that you may learn just how wholly mistaken you are on this point.


Why?  So I too can parrot back the mindless blather of crapitalist economics?
No thanks, I would rather find alternatives to my (wage) slavery.




> But don't take it from me - after all, I just have a graduate degree in all this.


That you can sit through the mind numbing hours of economics class while being able to retain what has been mindlessly parroted to you by a professor more interested in banging the blond beside you than finding an escape from is slavery is telling.
I can have a doctorate in economics and still not understand that wage labor is wage slavery to a ruling class, in fact, the whole time spent in obtaining my doctorate was indoctrination to not do exactly that.




> At the moment, you have no correct understanding of its broader and truer role in the decision-making process.


Here, let me give you a short course in understanding your enslavement.
Here, and here.
Take a few minutes to understand that you will always be at the mercy of those that can afford to employ you, you are not free.




> Do you know the role of concepts such as "return on assets", "return on capital", and "return on investment"?


Indeed I do, I have quite the education in them, thanks.




> THIS is a pretty good summary.


No it isn't, it's crap, designed to keep the dupes producing in the mines.




> I would suggest you take the ego, zip it behind your fly as would be prudent, and try to learn something so you do not make a fool of yourself before people who know better.


That would probably work with an undergrad, but I know the truth and if you take the time to read those two links, so will you.




> So why not sit back, crack a beer, unwrap yourself a bit so you don't burst an artery, and take in some truth from people with knowledge and experience?


I've already had enough economics classes, you will do what you have asked me to do and take the time to read the class I suggest for you?




> I promise you will not regret it if you approach them sincerely.


Let me sincerely state that every dollar in your pocket is a dollar of somebody else's misery.
If you don't understand why then you do not understand crapitalist economics as well as you think.




> only good thing about your proposal


It is a big one, huh?
Just ending rule by force would make my proposal unattainable.  The differences would be slight at best.




> I forced my self to read it. What a pile of garbage. She complains(looks for excuses) example: about difference between nationalization and socialization.


Ok, but you did catch where she said there was never any communism in Russia, didn't you?




> If there is only 50 luxury boats and there is 200 people. Out of those 200 people 100 want luxury boat. Impossible to have "free access to it and use it without interference  from anyone.". Replace boat with any other scarce resource.


Only in the absence of continued production.




> She is uneducated in basics of economics... and she also doesnt know what communism is, or how it is reached:


I'll agree that in her time the structure that is Costco didn't exist, she couldn't seize it and put it to her ends, as can we.

If the old anarchists had lived until today they would alter their calls to action in light of the gains made in the interim, ie, the 40 hour week, medical insurance, retirement plans, all things advocated by the anarchists in the early 20th century that have now been realized.
Her call would be for the workers that make up the world wide distributors to seize those assests and put them to benefiting the people doing the work and not those exploiting the workers for their work.
Notably those economists that neither produce nor restrict their consumption to that attainable at minimum wage.




> That famine was not some freak accident flaw in the system.


The 'business cycle' is a tried and true method of buying factories at fire sale prices.




> [Since you didnt read "Das Kapital" or any books that communism is based on:


Well, at least not those based on thugs forcing people into compliance, ie, state communism.




> [There is no communist state.


Huh?




> Communism is stateless society.


Not in Bolshevik Russia it wasn't.




> In order to get to that stateless society there needs to be 500 years of socialism during which selected "appropriate" people would be brainwashed, educated and conditioned to act in accordance with rules of communist stateless society.


I bet I could do it with 5 hours of network tv access split over a couple weeks.




> [People are calling your idea communism because it is more or less communism.


Indeed it is, stateless communism.
Voluntary, not forced by thugs and overseen by a ruling class.




> [Only difference so far is no use of force and somewhat warehouses.


Big difference, their warehouses were empty because you can't push a chain uphill or herd cats.




> It is never a good argument when you admit that you are making things up as you go.


When is the truth not a good argument, when you are wrong.
I've made this proposal from the ingredients of the past, mostly from my own observations and applications of what the early anarchists wrote.
What I have proposed is both preferable to the status quo and attainable with simple ingredients.




> Did ou read 1984. 2 Best books I have ever read.


Yes, when I was ten, my mother recommended it.
Do you know these?
The Iron Heel, by Jack London
Looking Backwards, by Edward Bellamy
And then there were none, by Eric Russell

Good reads for all of you here on this board, but I think you will enjoy them most, Barrex, they follow the thesis of 1984 and BNW.




> Dude, your idea is communism without socialism/path to communism.


Umm,...yes, just as Proudhonne, Bakunin, and Kropotkin imagined.
Why would I want to slaughter people to force socialism on them when we can just skip to anarcho-communism directly, thereby missing all that killing?




> Even Karl Marx understood that it is impossible to reach to your  utopia the way you are suggesting it


That is because KM was an idiot and a tool of the oppressors.
He was financed by the Rothschilds and was tool of capitalist oppression.
The banksters have long understood the need for secrecy in their endeavors.




> since he is grandfather of your utopia.


More like an evil stepdad,...




> Besides: You base your utopia on belletristic novels...


I do use the novels to help people get an outline of the proposal, but they each come with flaws that kept them from being generally accepted as the answer to crapitalism.
My proposal comes without those flaws.




> You have no luxury of different washing machines but you got luxury of '72 corvette (or other luxury car).


I'm sure you can order your washing machine to fit your needs, but they need not be reproduced by more factories than efficiency dictates.
Brand names and competition between them would subside.




> We all agree that current situation is bad but you misdiagnosed the problem.


Ok, I'm listening for both your diagnosis and recommend treatments.




> last chain is buyer


Which differs from my consumer how?




> When you pay for a product I am sending signal to every single person in that chain how valuable thing that they do to me is.


The same signal I send when I take one from the shelf, I just eliminate the craptialist crap.
If the shelf is empty make another pencil.




> [Millions of signals. It is impossible that your team of mathematicians could calculate it.


One signal, is the shelf full or empty.
How fast is supply meeting demand.
If a month's supply is consumed in a week production must increase.
You are making this harder then it needs to be, all in support of your own enslavement.




> 7 billion people on earth. 7 billion '72 corvettes (or equivalent luxury items).


How is that any different than today?
Only the accounting method is different.
Production will increase or decrease to suit demand.
If everybody on the planet wants a 'vette then the 'vette factory will be expanded to meet that demand, the excess can be taken from the Isuzu factory as nobody wants one of those.
Or whatever,....




> I want at least 10.


What would you do with them?
Are you prepared to endure the derision of your neighbors along the lines that panhandlers endure today?
If you consume excessively you will be derided by your neighbors.




> There is not enough resources (scarcity) to buy everyone 7 billion people 7 billion '72 corvettes.


We aren't buying, we are building, and whatever resources that would have gone into some other car can be diverted to the 'vette factory to meet demand.
As long as people don't demand impossible amounts then what I have proposed will float.
They won't do that for the same reason that they wear pants to get their haircut so they can mow the grass.




> Remove prices and money and you remove communication between people.


So, give me another one of those can't be communicated except in the form of dollars?




> They would produce pencils from silver instead of lumber... and it costs 10x more to excavate amd refine silver than it is to produce wood for pencil = misalocation of resources.


Only if idiocy takes the place of common sense.




> When governments are involved there is mismanagement.


Well, you got that right,...




> How can you say there was no communism in Russia if you didnt read Das Kapital?


Ok, you are correct, there was state communism which is indistinguishable from state crapitalism except in that the gov't controls the corporations in state communism and the corporations control the gov't under state crapitalism, they are mirror images of each other.
Emma, of course, meant that there was no communism in that the thugs forced the people to comply rather than the people complying because it met their needs.




> ["eat for free" crap. There is no free lunch.


You are correct, the bum eats at the expense of the worker.
However the reference was to the worker having to submit to the lowest wage because he has to be exploited to eat under crapitalism.
Whereas under my proposal he only has to suffer whatever derision is dished out by his neighbors.




> You want to give some people "free lunch" and other people must work to provide that "free lunch".


Have you been taking lessons from Gunny?
You know that is a mischaracterization of what I have proposed.




> You have tendency to ask loaded questions.


Indeed I do.




> In reality like in your economy if people would choose any work they want nothing would be produced.


Which is it, do they choose the work they want or do they choose not to work at all.
If they choose the work they want then something is produced.




> 90% of the people would choose to be workers in cozy offices


Producing what, exactly?




> I would choose to be beer taster.


I'm sure that position would be available to the folks that produce beer.
I doubt that that is all that you would do without being derided by your neighbors.




> Also dude you bring feeling of unease in me with this kind of language:Jews have big noses, blacks are lesser race; bosses whores.


Just calling them as I see them.  How many bosses do you see that don't have wives that put up with their crap for the money?




> It is very very thin line between your attitude and "lets kill,rape, exterminate them.


Isn't that what they do to the workers?
If they defend their exploitation of the workers by force then force will have to be used to free the workers.
Not because we want it, but because they demand it.




> When you read I pencil you will know that that money goes all the way to miners, farmers, truck drivers, factory workers etc


Right, just after the boss takes out his cut at each point.
What he spends it on is secondary.




> Question: Next year. When will honest farmer wake up?


Ok, I agree, at some point the exploited wakes up and refuses his yoke.
But you'll notice that I have repeatedly stated that my system comes without thugs to take things from those that produce it.




> You are referring to crony capitalism (state, politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups...).


Nope, I am referring to any system that leaves wages and owners in place.
Crapitalism always comes with an exploited class and an overclass.




> Your entire system would change nothing then.


OMG, you must be getting tired.




> ...and you link to a comic book. So far it is belletristic and comic books. I meant did you read serious books.


Von Mises is as serious as you get in crapital economics, he just needed a dumbed down way to communicate his economics to a dumbed down population.




> What mirror image? And nothing and no one led people to Von Mises.


I've explained the mirror image, and I am getting tired,....
Von Mises established the Austrian school,...




> Government is part of the problem.


Well, at least we share that opinion.




> [You are statist.


Now you are just blabbering,....




> You are proposing communism without violence. Same end result.


Well, minus a ruling class exploiting a laboring class,....

[QUOTE][My point is that you are 99% communist and a statist./QUOTE]
Now you are using the big lie tactic,....




> When you read them I will answer any questionyou got.


I have read them, thanks.
Now answer why the shelves won't have products on the shelves if the workers continue to put them there.




> $#@! off, plebe.


Are you sure that is the argument you are looking to assert?




> Stop pretending you're more evolved than the people who disagree with you, all you are is an economic illiterate.


Then why do you support a system that leaves wage slavery, and the ruling class paying the wages to the slaves, in place?

Keep walking down the voluntaryist path and you will come to where I am,....just as I did before you.




> Capitalism cheerleaders - 183, Debunking angel - ZIP!


Umm,...I have at least one, me.




> And yet we've "never had capitalism", and yet "capitalism has done more for the benefit of mankind than all other systems combined".
> 
> Hard to attack capitalism when it's responsible for everything good, and yet we've never had it.
> 
>  Nice nest they've feathered for themselves.  Easy to defend.
> 
>  Economics isn't really that hard to understand.  It all breaks down to basic theft in my opinion.  Even the intricate nature of inflationary credit can be explained as theft and miscommunication of price.  You don't need Mises.  All Mises really did was re-label methodological individualism.  Tried to nail down "thinking" and put a pretty bow on it.
> 
> So ultimately "debunking" something as intentionally nebulous as "capitalism" is futile.  Because capitalism is just a label for methodological thinking about economics.  
> ...


Make that one and a half,....
Thanks, WW.




> I sense that he is still at that age where he already knows everything.


Seems that I am not alone,....




> If I want to barter I can do it based on my own values and needs. Unless, of course, you want to measure out my work as the highest level one can achieve. Then you got my vote.


Make that two and a half.
You work is the highest level one can achieve, it entitles you to one share of all the work.
I would presume that folks that contribute on the level of Steve Jobs, or Henry Ford would find very little derision from their neighbors regardless of how much they consume.




> This is the same garbage that FDR did during the Great Depression. Fix prices and wages.


Well, except that I fix wages and prices at working.
The numbers will be along the lines of from the age of 20 to 45 for 25 hours a week and you get one share of the work with all the bells and whistles.
You can have whatever car, house, clothes, or electronics that strike your fancy.




> Replace grandma with dog, then you'll have something. I don't think you ever had a dog though.


Yeah, they were crap factories, but if I get stable enough I'm sure I will get another one.
As for the dog's consumption what does he want?
His love is worth some level of consumption.

Ok, no time again to proof read, you get it the way it came out,...

----------


## Snowball

> I love Walmart.


We're going to see how much you love it when the Chinese are making $15/hr and their new currency is 
worth more than the Fed Note in your pocket. Wal Mart is the TEMPORARY beneficiary of sellout politicians 
who sold this country down the drain in the 1990s and shut down millions of small company retailers. 
It's not about "hating anyone who has wealth", it's about recognizing the fact that the policies which 
created that wealth were detrimental to freedom.

----------


## wizardwatson

> We're going to see how much you love it when the Chinese are making $15/hr and their new currency is 
> worth more than the Fed Note in your pocket. Wal Mart is the TEMPORARY beneficiary of sellout politicians 
> who sold this country down the drain in the 1990s and shut down millions of small company retailers. 
> It's not about "hating anyone who has wealth", it's about recognizing the fact that the policies which 
> created that wealth were detrimental to freedom.


I love the Chinese.

Besides, inflation is good for me, I have negative net worth.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Everyone. Greater division of  labor --> more production --> lower prices --> higher standard  of living
> 
> 
> Right, and how much higher would that standard be if  taxes and profits were not taken at each exchange?


Taxes? Higher by some amount.

Profits?  Virtually non-existent, since without profits there is (a) no  incentive, and (b) no possibility of economic calculation (_again_, see socialist calculation problem). 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> First, I am amused that you chose to use the feminine pronoun.
> 
> 
>                              Why, too invested in patriarchy?


LOL...




> Originally Posted by r3volution  3.0
> 
> Second, to the issue at hand; workers are paid the the discounted  marginal revenue product of their labor.
> 
> 
>                              Blah, blah, whaaa??


Before one repudiates free market  capitalism and attempts to develop an alternative social order, it might  be prudent for one to have some_ slight_ grasp of economics. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution  3.0
> 
> See: the history of the world in the last 200 years.
> 
> 
> If  crapitalism was going to raise the average worker out of poverty why  hasn't it?


Are you unaware that the standard of living for the average person has increased by orders of magnitude since, say, 1800?

To wit: you are currently sitting in front of a computer in an air-conditioned room, rather than dying of smallpox in a hovel. 

....eh, for the rest, I've lost interest. 

Good luck with your revolution.

 Personally, I'm rooting for the capitalist pigs.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Are you sure that is the argument you are looking to assert?


It's not an argument, it's an assessment. And an accurate one, plebe. Do try to remember to address your betters with more respect. 





> Then why do you support a system that leaves wage slavery, and the ruling class paying the wages to the slaves, in place?


Division of labor and hierarchical firms are more efficient than the alternatives. There will always be a person or group of people who lead the firms and people who follow orders. Hierarchy exists for a reason, and attempts to abolish it will simply see it reorganized. Hierarchy is either overt or covert, but it's always there.




> Keep walking down the voluntaryist path and you will come to where I am,....just as I did before you.


Except I'm not a voluntarist, I'm a Heathian and a reactionary. I went through my "libertarian socialist" phase in my early twenties; I've been where you are and moved on since then. No one should ever be impressed when someone says "I was X and now I've evolved to Y". Political and philosophical changes go in all sorts of directions; it is not a linear path. You're not some more evolved version of a libertarian, you're just a utopian dimwit.

----------


## osan

> Besides, inflation is good for me, I have negative net worth.


That is a _very_ short-sighted assessment.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That is a _very_ short-sighted assessment.


So is "I don't care I have guns, ammo, and plenty of food" which is the mantra of half of the forum members.

----------


## osan

> Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?


Who said anything about supporting wage slavery?  Going to a job to produce items of value for others is not perforce wage slavery.  You need to learn to separate the pure theories from the inept or dishonest practice.  You also need to learn to spot and properly assess faulty labeling when you encounter it.  For example, if I enact the Pure And Proper Human Freedom Act and it places everyone into iron manacles, it behooves you to be able to deduce that the label has absolutely nothing to do with the substance.  This is a problem, an inadequacy in average thinking that is so pervasive as to merit very real, deep, and valid fear in the thinking man.




> Even if crapitalism were performed by only sole proprietors it would still exploit people for their inability to produce goods.


I have no idea what you mean by "crapitalism" - is this supposed to be some clever snark against "capitalism"?  It seems so, but I will not assume it.  If it is, how do you propose to have an adult discussion, or is that not your intention?




> Would you pay somebody to shave your face or mow your lawn if you could do it for yourself?


Sure.  I can build furniture, but most of that which is in my home has been made by others.  I can and have build tools and machinery, but most that I have is factory made.

Your post is a rambling mess, starting with your use of the as-yet meaningless term "crapitalism".

----------


## osan

> So is "I don't care I have guns, ammo, and plenty of food" which is the mantra of half of the forum members.


How so?

----------


## wizardwatson

> How so?


Wiz:  So what are we doing about liberty, liberty movement?

Liberty movement:  Ron Paul 2008!!!  Ron Paul 2012!!!  Rand Paul 2016!!!

Wiz:  Hmmm.  Electoral politics is certainly a part of the strategy but given how bad things are shouldn't we develop more comprehensive strategies and work on actually organizing supporters beyond GOTV efforts?

Liberty movement:  You can't herd cats.  Besides, I don't really care, I have plenty of ammo and food.

More clear, osan?

----------


## osan

> Wiz:  So what are we doing about liberty, liberty movement?
> 
> Liberty movement:  Ron Paul 2008!!!  Ron Paul 2012!!!  Rand Paul 2016!!!
> 
> Wiz:  Hmmm.  Electoral politics is certainly a part of the strategy but given how bad things are shouldn't we develop more comprehensive strategies and work on actually organizing supporters beyond GOTV efforts?
> 
> Liberty movement:  You can't herd cats.  Besides, I don't really care, I have plenty of ammo and food.
> 
> More clear, osan?


Purely fallacious.  The having guns/ammo/food deal is not posited as a long-term strategy for living, but rather as a short-term plan for surviving the dangers that are likely to strike at us.  Take your pick at the possibilities - Chinese aggression, Russia running amok, our government going simple on its own, Islamic loons, EMP attack, economic collapse by one of a fair number of possible avenues... the list is healthy and varied.  There is nothing short-sighted about having a strategy for surviving these brands of possible future events.  Perhaps you have seen posts that explicitly say such things, but in five years here I have never seen this once expressed.

It is pretty clear that normal channels will not be forthcoming with the desired results, whether because the nation is too far gone down the road to tyranny or the American people are too far gone mentally.  Either way the result is the same: continuing the merry skipping down the lane to perdition as we brunch at our favorite chain outlet at the mall.

We recently had our chains yanked with the apparent nonsense about establishing and empowering proper grand juries by which means is it asserted we may hold accountable those who are doing us in.  I have yet to see anything substantive in the way of a demonstration that this notion is anything better than wishful thinking.  I would change my mind 180* if so much as one of the 3000 counties in the USA were to successfully establish and operate such an instrument.  I will not be holding my breath in wait.

What does that leave?  A simple choice: kill Themme with extreme prejudice or capitulate because Theye will not be negotiating for partial settlements.

You have conflated two things that are not the same.  You have apprehended a subset of a rational world view and posited it as the full monty of some vaguely referred population.  That's a non-starter and a major error in reasoning.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> We're going to see how much you love it when the Chinese are making $15/hr and their new currency is 
>  worth more than the Fed Note in your pocket. Wal Mart is the TEMPORARY beneficiary of sellout politicians 
>  who sold this country down the drain in the 1990s and shut down millions of small company retailers. 
>  It's not about "hating anyone who has wealth", it's about recognizing the fact that the policies which 
>  created that wealth were detrimental to freedom.


Right, the gov't needs dependents to stay in power, mom and pop were not dependent enough, but their kids sure are now.
After 7 days of rioting they will get on the cattle cars just to get a sandwich.




> I love the Chinese.
>  Besides, inflation is good for me, I have negative net worth.


Then you should jump on my bandwagon, debts would be quashed in the transition.




> Originally Posted by *FreeBornAngel* 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *r3volution 3.0* 
> Everyone. Greater division of  labor --> more production --> lower prices --> higher standard  of living.
> 			
> 		
> ...


What do you figure the standard of living would be if we weren't constrained by the limits of crapitalism, ie, profits vs r&d, profits vs wages, profits vs everybody's standard of living?
If nasa was restrained only by the worker's ability to deliver the goods do you figure we would be on the moon now?
If research scientists were restrained only by their own limitations and the limits of the worker's ability to make the materials available to them do you figure we would have robotic personal assistants?
Do you figure if the robot makers weren't restrained by the ruling class's need to keep the people occupied, and out of the libraries and streets, most labor would be done by robots?  
Does McD's really need people, or could their pseudo-food be made robotically?
You try to use crapitalist rhetoric to confine me, but I am outside the slave cage, perhaps you should ponder the possibilities as well.




> Originally Posted by FBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by r3
> 
> ...


I understand economics just fine, thanks.
It's you that defends an economic system that perpetuates a two class system, those in poverty that work for those that live in opulence, with varying degrees in between, with the rhetoric developed to keep the sheeple in awe of complex, convoluted theories and producing.
Seriously, can crapitalism stop human trafficking and poverty?  
No, because it created them in the first place.
My proposal does both in it's first week of adoption.




> Originally Posted by *FreeBornAngel* 
> If crapitalism was going to raise the average worker out of poverty why  hasn't it?                                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> ...


Those dying in hovels were a minority in those days, the majority lived lives independent from the ruling class on farms where they grew their own food until 1920.
I'm not saying that life hasn't improved, the anarchists, and others, of the labor movement sacrificed their lives on the crapitalists' machine guns to get the 8 hour day, retirement benefits, health insurance, et al, do you think the crapitalist would have given any of that to the worker if the worker hadn't risen up?  Why do you think we have been allowed to have air conditioning and computers?  I figure it served the purposes of the crapitalists by making life comfortable enough to keep the wage slaves out of the streets.
But again, what would our standard of living look like if the greed of crapitalists hadn't concentrated half the wealth in their own hands?
What would you do with double the amount of wealth?  Would you use it to raise your standard of living?
You really can't compare my system to crapitalism unless you can get your head outside the limits that crapitalism presents.
If you could go to the store and get whatever you wanted how long would it take to have everything?
How many flat screens do you need?
At what point is your conspicuous consumption satisfied?
Would you really need 32 pairs of shoes?
Seriously, in an environment that respects the labor of the worker as the current paradigm respects ties, short hair, and a neat yard, the supply of most things will satisfy demand in short order.




> Personally, I'm rooting for the capitalist pigs.


Of course you are, your mind control programming was designed to keep you from doing anything else, so kick back, turn down the a/c, flip the channel to golf, and try to ignore the reality around you.






> Originally Posted by *FreeBornAngel*  
>  Are you sure that is the argument you are looking to assert?
> 			
> 		
> 
> It's not an argument, it's an assessment. And an accurate one, plebe. Do try to remember to address your betters with more respect.


Well, just as soon as you back up your claims I will sure give you your due.




> Originally Posted by FBA
> 
> Then why do you support a system that leaves wage slavery, and the ruling class paying the wages to the slaves, in place?
> 
> 
> Division of labor and hierarchical firms are more efficient than the alternatives. There will always be a person or group of people who lead the firms and people who follow orders. Hierarchy exists for a reason, and attempts to abolish it will simply see it reorganized. Hierarchy is either overt or covert, but it's always there.


I agree, somebody has to direct the direction of the group.
In a productive setting somebody will keep the production on track while others actually produce.
This will be determined by consensus.
However, that won't be a top down dictatorship as most hierarchies currently are.
Anyone not happy with the arrangements can seek work elsewhere and not have any bills to meet in the mean time.
Under crapitalism(and heathianism) if you are not happy with your job you live under a bridge and starve until you find another, hardly a free choice.




> Except I'm not a voluntarist, I'm a Heathian and a reactionary.


So, if Wikipedia is to be believed you want a central dictator to keep things rolling smoothly as the wealth migrates from the plebes to the ruling class?
Seriously?
You don't see any problem with centralized dictators keeping non-rent payers from having a house?
Please stop calling yourself an anarchist,....you are giving us a bad name.
As for reactionary politics as defined by Wikipedia, good luck with that, I, and presumably anyone else that can't define heathianism, won't be submitting to your tyranny anytime soon.




> You're not some more evolved version of a libertarian, you're just a utopian dimwit.


Well, perhaps, but at least I recognize the danger that is coercive control over others.

My proposal delivers on it's promise of utopia, whereas your heathianism is just the status quo on steroids.





> Originally Posted by *wizardwatson*                  Besides, inflation is good for me, I have negative net worth.
> 			
> 		
> 
> That is a _very_ short-sighted assessment.


Cynical and economically accurate,....




> So is "I don't care I have guns, ammo, and plenty of food" which is the mantra of half of the forum members.


All of which can be short circuited by simply going to work like normal and refusing to pay at the pump/register.
Look at all that cashiers that will be out of work, they can find something productive to do to help meet the added demand that freedom from economic slavery will bring.




> Originally Posted by FreeBornAngel
> 
> 
> Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?
> 
> 
> Who said anything about supporting wage slavery?
>   Going to a job to produce items of value for others is not perforce wage slavery.


Any system that leaves wages in place is slavery because I have no choice but to submit to the exploitation of the employer to obtain supper.




> You need to learn to separate the pure theories from the inept or dishonest practice


And you need to recognize that hunger forces me to submit unless I can get lunch for free.
If I have to find an employer to exploit my labor, by paying me less than it's full value, in order to have a roof over my head I am a slave to the system.




> I have no idea what you mean by "crapitalism" - is this supposed to be some clever snark against "capitalism"?  It seems so, but I will not assume it.  If it is, how do you propose to have an adult discussion, or is that not your intention?


Oh, excuse me, I didn't mean to insult your religious beliefs,....
Crapitalism is just that, crap.
That you have been blinded to that by the flashy light box and education as defined by the gov't approved schools is not my doing.
We can have an enlightened conversation, but I will be doing my best to slay your sacred cows, you may not be prepared to endure that.
It wasn't easy for me to accept that everything I had been taught by people I respected was false.
I presume it will be difficult for you as well.




> Sure.  I can build furniture, but most of that which is in my home has been made by others.  I can and have build tools and machinery, but most that I have is factory made.


Of course, the division of labor makes life easier for us all.
No need to learn how to make paper or beer.
My proposal takes that into consideration.
The only thing we stop making is billionaires, most other work continues.




> Wiz:  So what are we doing about liberty, liberty movement?
>  Liberty movement:  Ron Paul 2008!!!  Ron Paul 2012!!!  Rand Paul 2016!!!
>  Wiz:  Hmmm.  Electoral politics is certainly a part of the strategy but given how bad things are shouldn't we develop more comprehensive strategies and work on actually organizing supporters beyond GOTV efforts?
>  Liberty movement:  You can't herd cats.  Besides, I don't really care, I have plenty of ammo and food.
>  More clear, osan?


If voting changed anything it would be illegal.  Emma Goldman  Mark Twain





> We recently had our chains yanked with the apparent nonsense about establishing and empowering proper grand juries by which means is it asserted we may hold accountable those who are doing us in.


The solution to what is ailing us will not be in exchanging this master for that master.
It will take a paradigm shift and my proposal does exactly that.
We continue to work just like today except we just don't pay at the pump.
We will also have to stop accepting that those most willing to use violence are the best suited to rule.
A true shift in the paradigm.
The end of violent domination of the people and their economics.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I understand economics just fine, thanks.


I've seen no evidence of that. 

Not only do you not understand free market economics, it seems you don't even understand socialism.

All of the socialist visions are fatally flawed, but yours is - in addition - barely intelligible. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by FreeBornAngel
> 
> ...


Yes, it has improved by orders of magnitude, by whatever metric you want to use: income, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.




> the anarchists, and others, of the labor movement sacrificed their lives on the crapitalists' machine guns  to get the 8 hour day, retirement benefits, health insurance, et al, do  you think the crapitalist would have given any of that to the worker if  the worker hadn't risen up?




Complete nonsense.

E.G. The average real wage of _unskilled_ labor increased ~700% in the 19th century alone, long before any meaningful union activity or social welfare programs.




> Why do you think we have been allowed to  have air conditioning and computers?  I figure it served the purposes of  the crapitalists by making life comfortable enough to keep the wage  slaves out of the streets.


Ah yes, the massive increase in living standards of the last two centuries - dwarfing the combined accomplishments of the preceding 10,000 years - was just a trick!




> You really can't compare my system to crapitalism unless you can get your head outside the limits that crapitalism presents.
> If you could go to the store and get whatever you wanted how long would it take to have everything?


Free everything in unlimited supply!? Just by eliminating prices and making rational economic calculation impossible!? How can I lose!?




> Seriously, in an environment that respects the labor of the worker as  the current paradigm respects ties, short hair, and a neat yard, the  supply of most things will satisfy demand in short order.


Of course, comrade, of course, and the seas will turn to lemonade and lions shall lay with lambs.

*Communism is a mental disorder*. Seek help.

----------


## Occam's Banana

This nonsense is basically just Oskar Lange - warmed-over, watered-down and grossly oversimplified.
It's just "market socialism" - only without prices (and even Lange wasn't foolish enough to go that far).

Ludwig von Mises dealt with all this a long time ago: https://mises.org/library/end-social...bate-revisited

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by *osan*You just demonstrated an utter absence of any understanding of financial accounting.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I?


That is a non-answer.  So noted.





> I strongly suggest you take a basic accounting class, that you may learn just how wholly mistaken you are on this point.





> Why? So I too can parrot back the mindless blather of crapitalist economics?
> No thanks, I would rather find alternatives to my (wage) slavery.


This presupposes facts not in evidence.  As to your reference to "wage slavery" and the implications given there by context, you are incorrectly drawing cause-effect relationships.  I fully agree that wage-slavery exists in places, but that is not the result of the existence of the demonstrably effective principles of financial accounting.  The issues are quite separate.  Just as I may employ a hammer either to help you build an addition to your home or stove in your skull, accounting as a tool may be used to help guide the decision making process of a free business or a wage-slavery operation.

I would also advise some serious caution in your use of "wage slavery" because it speaks nothing of nature and cause.  What is "wage slavery", whence does it arise, who engages in its administration, and so forth.  These are points that are well to have in hand any time such a term is to be made use.





> But don't take it from me - after all, I just have a graduate degree in all this.





> That you can sit through the mind numbing hours of economics class while being able to retain what has been mindlessly parroted to you by a professor more interested in banging the blond beside you than finding an escape from is slavery is telling.
> I can have a doctorate in economics and still not understand that wage labor is wage slavery to a ruling class, in fact, the whole time spent in obtaining my doctorate was indoctrination to not do exactly that.


And here all you succeed in accomplishing is the assassination of your own credibility.  I've been in business 35 years in a wide spectrum of endeavors in terms of clients, environments, and so forth.  I have an appreciably broad experience base, have lived in 12 states from sea to shining sea, earned seven degrees, and all of this tells me that you are very mistaken in your opinions.  I fully agree that there is much that is very wrong about the current scheme of things, but do not agree as to the ultimate causes.  You make up a childish term, "CRAPitalism", as if that in itself served in itself to demonstrate your point, and go on with your fallacious conflations, evasions, and failed reasoning.  That is your right, but some of us here know better because we have lived the things against which you speak and know that you are deeply  mistaken on many points.  Try reining your emotions in a bit - I'm serious - and start by either using "capitalism", or at least defining with precision and completeness what you mean when you refer to "crapiltalism".  If you are simply attempting to vent your invective, you fail for any of the valid and truthful reasons already given here in response to your OP.




> At the moment, you have no correct understanding of its broader and truer role in the decision-making process.
> 
> 
> Here, let me give you a short course in understanding your enslavement.
> Here, and here.
> Take a few minutes to understand that you will always be at the mercy of those that can afford to employ you, you are not free.


Yeah, I am well aware of my status and my state of being.  I would slice and dice your presumptuous nonsense every which way, but I suspect that will prove a waste of my time.  

I am self-employed and have been for a long time.  What you attempt by implication is pure FAIL.  





> Do you know the role of concepts such as "return on assets", "return on capital", and "return on investment"?
> 
> 
> Indeed I do, I have quite the education in them, thanks.


Well then why not state your qualifications.  I am an MBA with about 35 years in business as both employee and CEO, as well as chief cook and bottle washer.  I cut my professional teeth on Wall Street and have worked all over these United States.  I've managed billion-dollar projects, back when that was still a lot of money.  I've managed projects in the private and public sectors and teams as large as 124 people.  I've taken failed or failing projects and put them back on the rails and taken them to successful completion.  I have testified before bodies such as FCC, state PUCs, and the DoJ.  There is a lot I have seen and many people with whom I have become acquainted over the years.  Can you say the same?  If so, let us see the summary as I have put to you right here.  My point is not to brag but to demonstrate that my views are valid and not the products of wishful thinking based in no real-world experience.

You are correct in your broad assertion that something is amiss in the world.  No rational man will deny this.  However, your chain of reasoning as to causes and effects is pretty vague and therefore pretty lousy.  Or perhaps it is just a careless expressive style at work.  You speak in vagaries, making broad and unsupported assertions.  What is a thinking man supposed to do with that?  As yet, you remain largely non-credible.  If you have any interest in being taken seriously, you need to get into some better habits of communicating your ideas because your apparent logic has many very large holes in it.




> I would suggest you take the ego, zip it behind your fly as would be prudent, and try to learn something so you do not make a fool of yourself before people who know better.
> 
> 
> That would probably work with an undergrad, but I know the truth and if you take the time to read those two links, so will you.


Oh please.  How about you give an example from your vast real world experience in how that which you assert is demonstrated?  Let us have something concrete from your personal experience that shows us you have the chops to make credible arguments.

I may or may not look at your links... time permitting, as I have a house to finish.

----------


## osan

> Wiz:  So what are we doing about liberty, liberty movement?
> 
> Liberty movement:  Ron Paul 2008!!!  Ron Paul 2012!!!  Rand Paul 2016!!!
> 
> Wiz:  Hmmm.  Electoral politics is certainly a part of the strategy but given how bad things are shouldn't we develop more comprehensive strategies and work on actually organizing supporters beyond GOTV efforts?
> 
> Liberty movement:  You can't herd cats.  Besides, I don't really care, I have plenty of ammo and food.
> 
> More clear, osan?


Actually, no.  I asked how the "mantra" which you attributed to "half of the forum members" was so attributable.  I see no answer in your response.  That bit about herding cats makes no sense to me.  Perhaps I'm just not smart enough.  What say we let this one go, OK?

As to the broader question - what would you have the "liberty movement" (whatever that might be) do?  Shall we start shooting?  I have myself many times suggested that this is the one side of the decision branch to which we shall all ultimately arrive: fight or capitulate.  However, I do not see it as being quite yet the time, if for no other reason than that far too many Americans are still lolling at the mall, thinking everything is A-OK and that Bammy is their savior and so forth.  I don't know what the best answer is, given the realities.  Sure, the bulk of Americans rising up from their stupors, suddenly imbued with the knowledge of their rightful places in the world and the wisdom to lend force to the restoration of their rights would be the best path forward.  I do not, however, intend on holding my breath in wait for that eventuality.  Voting harder appears, after so many decades of the precise same deeper result, to have proven itself one of the paths of insanity, so I must reject that one out of basic self-respect, if nothing else.  We have been apparently abused with the various snake-oil solutions such as mystical, magical-beast grand juries by which we the people would take all tyrants by their testicles and serve out proper justice and warnings to all who would violate the "public trust".  The only thing remaining is to start shooting.  Will YOU fire the first round?  Didn't think so.  Until then, perhaps you are as stymied as are the rest of us.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Can we limit that to the definition found here and skip all the disputing of state crapitalism under the soviet model?
> Please?


It's because the communism as defined there doesn't work. Because if there are no prices, wages & profits then nobody knows what, where, when & how much is needed, that's the economic calculation problem; so eventually, a few "leaders" take over & tell people what to do, they become the de facto rulers, which is what leads to state-communism.




> I'm not sure how to prioritize labor, the fact is more people want doctors than want cat skinners so some measure of the work done is needed to ensure that I skin enough cats to not be a drain on the world.


Well, then you need figure out how to prioritize labor without prices, wages & profits because that's the reason why communism has always failed & will always fail.

And since you want a "classless" society, & everybody is entitled to the same amount of goods & services, there will be a shortage of doctors & massive surplus of cat-skinners that don't have much work to do. If you want more doctors than cat-skinners then you need a system that compensates the doctors a lot more than cat-skinners, which is why capitalism pays doctors more than cat-skinners, it reflects the demand & value of their labor compared to the demand & value of the labor of cat-skinners.

If you don't have a comprehensive plan of action with all the minute details figured out then you're just building castles in the air, appealing to emotions rather than reason.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> Originally Posted by *FreeBornAngel*                  I understand economics just fine, thanks.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I've seen no evidence of that.
> Not only do you not understand free market economics, it seems you don't even understand socialism.
>  All of the socialist visions are fatally flawed, but yours is - in addition - barely intelligible.


Well, clearly my economics do not coincide with your economic views.
That doesn't invalidate my position.
I never claimed to be socialist.
In fact, by the commonly held definitions my proposal is neither communist, nor socialist.  Both of the current definitions of those comes with wage slavery and I end that practice in my proposal.




> Complete nonsense.
>  E.G. The average real wage of _unskilled_ labor increased ~700% in the 19th century alone, long before any meaningful union activity or social welfare programs.


Can you link to those numbers?
Any rise in wages came from the refusal of the worker to accept the lower wage.




> Ah yes, the massive increase in living standards of the last two centuries - dwarfing the combined accomplishments of the preceding 10,000 years - was just a trick!


Something other than crapitalism is at work here, I assert that rising education levels are to blame.



> Free everything in unlimited supply!? Just by eliminating prices and making rational economic calculation impossible!? How can I lose!?


Sort of,...rational decisions are made by the shelves being empty.
The person reordering goods for walmart doesn't first consult the accounting department, she just reorders from the supplier.
Walmart's supply of goods continues in the absence of the accountant provided the workers continue to create and stock the goods.
We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.




> *Communism is a mental disorder*. Seek help.


And crapitalism is a crime, we know who you are,...you have name plates on your desks,....

[QUOTE=Occam's Banana;5871995]This nonsense is basically just Oskar Lange - warmed-over, watered-down and grossly oversimplified.
 It's just "market socialism" - only without prices (and even Lange wasn't foolish enough to go that far).
Then he didn't solve the problem.
As long as we divide ourselves into employee and employer we will always have second class citizens.
The rich will exploit the poor for their poverty.




> That is a non-answer.  So noted.


Perhaps the answer is not obvious to you.




> I strongly suggest you take a basic accounting class, that you may learn just how wholly mistaken you are on this point.





> Why? So I too can parrot back the mindless blather of crapitalist economics?
>  No thanks, I would rather find alternatives to my (wage) slavery.





> This presupposes facts not in evidence.


Does it?




> I fully agree that wage-slavery exists in places,


Well, at least you are that intellectually honest,...



> demonstrably effective principles of financial accounting.


How demonstrably?
The stocker at walmart does not consult accounting to reorder goods, the two are exclusive of each other.
The accountant doesn't tell the stocker it's time to reorder and the stocker doesn't consult the accountant.




> The issues are quite separate.


See, even you agree,...




> I would also advise some serious caution in your use of "wage slavery" because it speaks nothing of nature and cause.


Why would I call slavery freedom?
Why would I call myself free when I can be taken into custody for not agreeing that wearing a seatbelt is a good idea?
When did free to follow the rules replace actually being free in the minds of the majority?




> What is "wage slavery", whence does it arise, who engages in its administration, and so forth.


Wage slavery is when you can choose between starving and living under a bridge or getting a job.
The current paradigm is slavery because if I don't submit to working for less than the value my work creates then I am left to starve.
Unless I am willing to support the shareholder from the value I create with my work then I can live under a bridge.




> And here all you succeed in accomplishing is the assassination of your own credibility.


If my credibility revolves around being a good slave then I don't want any, thanks.



> I've been in business 35 years in a wide spectrum of endeavors in terms of clients, environments, and so forth.


So, there is your problem, you are too invested in crapitalism to see yourself outside of it.
You have climbed the economic ladder high enough that now you defend having to climb a ladder.
The slave masters have made you a house slave instead of a field slave.




> You make up a childish term, "CRAPitalism",


I think it accurately, and succinctly, defines the deal I am offered.




> I have an appreciably broad experience base, have lived in 12 states from sea to shining sea, earned seven degrees, and all of this tells me that you are very mistaken in your opinions.


So, unless I am 'successful' as defined by your matrix I am not credible?
I, too, have a past to point to, but I prefer to be judged on my current assertions because in the past I have been a jerk.




> I fully agree that there is much that is very wrong about the current scheme of things.


Then why don't you embrace an alternative to the current scheme that does more than just rearrange the deck chairs/masters?




> I am an MBA with about 35 years in business,...I cut my professional teeth on Wall Street,....  I've managed billion-dollar projects,... I have testified before bodies such as FCC, state PUCs, and the DoJ.,...


So, again, you have climbed the ladder high enough to defend your house slave mentality.
I have lived an eventful life as well, and now I can present an alternative to the matrix as engineered by the engineers of consent, can you?
You point to your success within the paradigm as evidence of your qualification to judge it.
I point to my assertion, we have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars, as proof of my escape from it.
I have no desire to call slavery freedom.
Ignorance is not my strength.




> Let us have something concrete from your personal experience that shows us you have the chops to make credible arguments.


Is not my ability to see outside the box created to enslave my mind sufficient to demonstrate that I have chops?
If you proposed any changes to the paradigm would you use the nomenclature of your enslavement to do so?,...ie, 'free markets', 'end the fed', if only we had different masters,....etc,...
Face it, osan, you are trapped in an invisible box and happy to be there.




> I may or may not look at your links... time permitting, as I have a house to finish.


Make yourself happy, if we were geographically neighbors I would probably come help you, not because of the rewards you could offer, but because of the chance we would have to debate the slavery you defend.




> It's because the communism as defined there doesn't work.


I will agree that the time wasn't right for my proposal before the big box stores were created, but now that they do exist, we can continue to fill the shelves will tossing off the monkey masters that the accountants, ceo's, and shareholders, are.




> Because if there are no prices, wages & profits then nobody knows what, where, when & how much is needed,


Empty shelves indicate the need for more production, the shelves overflowing indicate less production is needed,...do you need more indicators?
If you can't give your product away perhaps you should seek other work,...




> which is what leads to state-communism.


State communism came from the same banksters controlling the west controlling the east,...
The same bankster families financed hitler, stalin, pol pot, bush and Clinton,...
He who has the gold makes the rules,...





> And since you want a "classless" society, & everybody is entitled to the same amount of goods & services


That isn't what I have illustrated.
All I have asserted is that working entitles you to one share of the work.
Not everybody will need the same amount of goods, some people are quite happy with a minimum of consumption.
Excessive consumption will come with the same neighborly derision as currently befits the homeless.




> If you don't have a comprehensive plan of action with all the minute details figured out then you're just building castles in the air, appealing to emotions rather than reason.


I think I have laid it out pretty comprehensively, we just keep working and stop paying at the pump.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Well, just as soon as you back up your claims I will sure give you your due.


When I make a claim that needs backing up, I do it. Some things are simply self-evidently true.





> I agree, somebody has to direct the direction of the group.
> In a productive setting somebody will keep the production on track while others actually produce.
> This will be determined by consensus.


What a horrible idea. Why on Earth do you think that "consensus" (if one can even be reached in the first place, which is hardly a given) is a good way to choose who leads a firm? There is absolutely nothing meritocratic about the masses choosing who leads them, as history has thoroughly demonstrated.




> However, that won't be a top down dictatorship as most hierarchies currently are.
> Anyone not happy with the arrangements can seek work elsewhere and not have any bills to meet in the mean time.
> Under crapitalism(and heathianism) if you are not happy with your job you live under a bridge and starve until you find another, hardly a free choice.


I hear this a lot from leftard libertarians, and your problem is not with capitalism, but with reality. To maintain one's existence, one must produce. This would be true in an anarcho-communist collective too, or the society would be eaten alive by free riders. 





> So, if Wikipedia is to be believed you want a central dictator to keep things rolling smoothly as the wealth migrates from the plebes to the ruling class?
> Seriously?


Um, no. That's your strawman, plebe.




> You don't see any problem with centralized dictators keeping non-rent payers from having a house?


Since I am a radical decentralist, there wouldn't be much in the way of non-rent payers, as the political unit would be as close to the organic community as possible. The right of exit would be respected at all times, and secession would be allowed if a business bought the land out from under the CEO. Also, Heathian corporations would compete with one another to provide the best service of law to the masses.

Moreover, a Heathian CEO is not a dictator. There is a more thorough balance of power within Heathianism than any state that has ever existed, or any mob rule advocated by left anarchists. The social contract would be transformed into an actual contract that is agreed upon by all who liv within the Heathian civilization.




> Please stop calling yourself an anarchist,....you are giving us a bad name.


$#@! you. You don't have a monopoly on that term, plebe. Heathianism is a form of anarchism, whether you like it or not.




> As for reactionary politics as defined by Wikipedia, good luck with that, I, and presumably anyone else that can't define heathianism, won't be submitting to your tyranny anytime soon.


Wikipedia scholars are so funny. Why not try actually reading the thinkers, instead of looking for cliff notes? I did with left anarchism. I ask too much, I know.





> Well, perhaps, but at least I recognize the danger that is coercive control over others.


If the right of exit and secession are respected, there is no coercive control by any reasonable definition.




> My proposal delivers on it's promise of utopia,


Ye Gods. Whenever someone seriously talking about utopia, RUN! Mass butchery is on the way very soon. You'd think someone who claims to question 




> whereas your heathianism is just the status quo on steroids.


First of all, saying something is "status quo" is not an argument. Secondly, there is nothing remotely status quo about Heathian anarchism. You either don't understand Heathianism, don't understand the status quo, or (more likely) both.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

> When I make a claim that needs backing up, I do it. Some things are simply self-evidently true.


To whom?
Nothing is given a pass in good science.
Just as jurisdiction should always be challenged in law, so too should all 'self-evident' 'truths' be questioned.




> There is absolutely nothing meritocratic about the masses choosing who leads them, as history has thoroughly demonstrated.


Right, those most willing to use violence have always drug us around by the hair.
It's time to change that, rule by force is wrong.
If you can't get a consensus do you think you can just push people around with your thugs?




> To maintain one's existence, one must produce. This would be true in an anarcho-communist collective too, or the society would be eaten alive by free riders.


One must absolutely produce, you have read the proposal?  It is better to carry a bum than to enslave him.
We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.
As long as the workers that worked today work tomorrow we can just stop paying at the pump and everything is free.
As long as you contribute in excess of what you consume the excess piles up to the benefit of all.




> Um, no. That's your strawman, plebe.


Heathian,...The Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned by single private corporations, which would own and rent out the land and housing over the area, and provide all conceivable "public services": police, fire, roads, courts, etc., out of the voluntarily-paid rent.

Hardly a strawman, you want a central dictator living from the rent he collects from the masses.
Whoever controls the corporations would control the planet.
Are you a paid troll?
You are certainly no anarchist and heathian anarchism is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
No anarchist would advocate for a central corporation to control everything.




> Also, Heathian corporations would compete with one another to provide the best service of law to the masses.


Your ignorance of anarchism is showing.
There is no need for law services in a society that cooperates for the betterment of all.
Only when using violence and/or deception brings more pleasure are laws needed.



> and secession would be allowed if a business bought the land out from under the CEO.


So freedom is not inherent in my being born but is a condition that I can buy from my owner?




> Moreover, a Heathian CEO is not a dictator.


He's going to have to be because any body that understands anarchists knows that they will not comply with this scheme, too much centralized power.




> any mob rule advocated by left anarchists.


Any one that advocates rule by force is not an anarchist and needs to quit misusing the term.




> $#@! you. You don't have a monopoly on that term, plebe. Heathianism is a form of anarchism, whether you like it or not.


Nor do you, and no it's not.
Just as what happened in the ussr was not communism.




> Why not try actually reading the thinkers, instead of looking for cliff notes?


Ok, link to them, I am going to have some reading time soon.




> If the right of exit and secession are respected, there is no coercive control by any reasonable definition.


Ok, as long as you don't send thugs to enforce your edicts.
What happens when I spend my money on whores and not rent?
Do my wages equate to the full value of my labor or does some boss take a profit?
Does my rent equal the cost of housing me or does the ceo take a profit and live from not working but collecting the rent?




> Whenever someone seriously talking about utopia, RUN! Mass butchery is on the way very soon.


Well, I would agree, except that rule by force is ended under anarchism, and my proposal.
My proposal comes closest to utopia of all proposals that I have seen.
And then there were none, Frank Russell
Looking Backwards, Edward Bellamy
The Iron Heel, Jack London




> You either don't understand Heathianism, don't understand the status quo, or (more likely) both.


Rule by force I understand just fine, but if you'll link to some authors I will give a good faith attempt to understand why your proposal comes with a central authority collecting rents and claims to be anarchism.

----------


## FreeBornAngel

What??
Was it something I said?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What??
> Was it something I said?


If it were not for it being a PITA to type on this phone I'd be in on this circular conversation.

What incentives would one have to say, TIG weld over bagging groceries? Or to crawl around in the desert heat changing oil over say, ordering the replenishment needed for grocery stores? Who decides who does what? You?

Would you concede that such a system is incredibly inefficient? That such a system is the epitome of totalitarianism?

Or are robots (that don't even exist yet and quite possibly will never exist) expected to perform the majority of work? An army of machines will require an army of workers to fix said machines. If it's all the same, I'd rather answer phones in the supreme leader's palace rather than fix robots. As would a large portion of society.

"No leaders", logic will be insulted with. As naive as that is (considering that some sort of central bureaucracy would need established to decide how many airplane mechanics 'we' need versus customer service representatives), all work is not equal.

----------


## erowe1

> Crapitalism is the economic system preferred by dictators world wide, that should be your clue.
> 
>  Let's use walmart as our example, though it could be any big box world wide distributor.
> 
>  If the people that make the products and the people that distribute the goods show up to work then the goods will be on the shelves even if the accounting department jumps off a cliff.
> 
>  The people that mine the minerals, refine the minerals into raw materials, fashion the raw materials into finished products, and those that distribute those products could care less if the corporation collects it's billions or not, as long as they continue to show up to do the work then the products continue to be on the shelves.
> 
>  We have to have workers to produce the goods, we don't have to have dollars to make the goods available.
> ...


Why would workers work when they don't get paid?

----------


## erowe1

> Nothing is given a pass in good science.


That's not true. Science, like all searches for truth, must operate on the basis of certain assumptions. And these assumptions can't themselves be based on science, or else they would be circular, which is no different than giving them a pass.

----------


## erowe1

> Ok, but why should we leave wage slavery in place?


What is "wage slavery"? And what is the alternative to leaving it in place?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well, clearly my economics do not coincide with your economic views.
> That doesn't invalidate my position.


Economics is not a  matter of opinion. It is a matter of logic and (if we're talking  history) facts; your logic is unsound and your facts are wrong.

I am aware, however, that you will never change your mind (religious fanatics rarely do). 




> I never claimed to be socialist.


Putting feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

In other words, it doesn't matter what you claim, your proposal is in fact a type of socialism.

If you don't want to be called a socialist, stop advocating socialism. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Complete nonsense. E.G. The average real wage of _unskilled_ labor increased ~700% in the 19th century alone, long before any meaningful union activity or social welfare programs.                            Can you link to those numbers?
> 
> 
> Can you link to those numbers?


Couldn't  find my original source, but there are lots of estimates out there. All  of them have real wages increasing by several hundred percent.

This one estimates nominal wages as increasing 233% while the CPI dropped 33%, for a increase in real wages of 249.5%.

And, again, that's for unskilled labor, the proletariat. 




> Any rise in wages came from the refusal of the worker to accept the lower wage.


Uh, duh.

Wages  are a result of negotiation between employee and employer. The employer  cannot pay more than the marginal revenue product of the laborer's work  (i.e. how much additional revenue his brings in to the business), and  the worker is going to go to the employer who offers him the most money -  with the result that employers compete for workers so that wages hover  at a level just below their marginal revenue product. Why do wages rise  over time? Because the marginal revenue product of labor rises. Why?  Because of capital investment (a worker sewing shirts by hand produces less shirts per hour than one working the shirt-sowing machine). 

But I repeat myself...




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Ah yes, the massive increase  in living standards of the last two  centuries - dwarfing the combined accomplishments of the preceding  10,000 years - was just a trick!
> 
> 
> Something other than crapitalism  is at work here, I assert that rising education levels are to  blame.


We're talking about unskilled labor - education has nothing to do with it. 




> Sort of,...rational decisions are made by the shelves being empty.
> The person reordering goods for walmart doesn't first consult the accounting department, she just reorders from the supplier.
> Walmart's supply of goods continues in the absence of the accountant  provided the workers continue to create and stock the goods.
> We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.


In your system:

 there is no incentive to produce anything, 

no way to know what to produce or how much, 

no way to know which is the most efficient way of producing it, 

and no one tasked with trying to answer those questions (I guess it just comes to the workers in a dream or something...).

Your system, if actually adhered to for any length of time (which it wouldn't and couldn't be), would quickly result in death by starvation for virtually everyone on the planet (that's what happens when _nothing_ is being produced). The Soviet Union would actually be preferable, as they managed to produce _something_ (not very much, mind you, but something), because they used coercion. But you eliminate all incentives for voluntary production and also eschew coercion, the result being a bunch of confused people loafing about with rumbling bellies.

----------


## Weston White

> Capitalism...Walmart


If Walmart engages in capitalism then why does it depend on government aid, though acquisitions of land, tax breaks, Obamacare exemptions, and social justice programs for their underpaid part-time employees?

----------


## rg17

Communism=Obamneycare, social security, taxed to death, political correctness and you know the rest.

----------


## Traditionalist

I'm not a Capitalist myself, at the moment my dream society would consist largely of Free Market Socialism, similar to Distributism. But the OP's post is just incoherent and too silly to really tackle. It seems they're proposing some market-less Anarcho-Communist society if I understand correctly.

----------

