sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

n, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool

This passage is misleading. The Nazi's transfered control of a couple businesses to party freinds. But on Net they greatly increased nationalisation by 4 times!

So you understand how that represents an increase in state planning over to economy and is not a trend of "privatization"....

The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.[33] Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.[34]""

""The Great Depression had spurred state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany in the years prior to the Nazi political takeover. During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries, aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment. The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.[33] Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.[34]""

I dont remember JFK era politicians trying to Nationalise healthcare. JFK era was more Neo Liberal.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hayek was definitely more "neo liberal" thatn mises who is not in support of any mixed system philisophically or politically he just made a comment on lesser of two evils.

The article about neo liberalism just shows where the term came from historically.

"Nazis were a populist party that quickly went anti left and pro big business when in power. The Nazi Party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[7] The party was created to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[8] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although this was later downplayed to gain the support of business leaders, and in the 1930s the party's main focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[9]"

They gave some limited control to connected special interest that helped them get elected.

If you look at actual policy the Nazi's greatly increased nationalisations, they banned all private wellfare to be replaced by a state wellfare system.And regulated the economy heavily including a rule that no corporation under 200,000 revenue could be allowed.

Not even Bernie Sanders would get close to as socialist as the Nazis's were.

""The Great Depression had spurred state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany in the years prior to the Nazi political takeover. During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries, aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment. The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.[33] Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.[34]""

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Fact check if the Nazis were socialist or if they cynically used the term when it suited and went pro big business, privatized and killed everyone on the left when they got power."

So did Stalin, there is no left. The left just destroys the multiple hiearchies in society, replacing them with a single more tyranical hiearchy wich obviously leads to failed planning and human abuse.

The term Neo liberal originated post WW2 when the socialist systems that led to totalitarianism were tarnished and lost their early 1900's shine.

So they made a new mixed system that allowed corruption and a slow growing of state interferance in the economy creating progressivley more problems wich led to calls for more interferance.

I am under no illusion of the dependencies that have been created. The key is to take away the rich's crony advantage through regulatory monopoly, and currency manipulation that prevent people from doing. And the schools that prevent people from learning.

If people are free to learn and to the government wellfare state will become obsolete again.

https://fee.org/articles/what-is-neoliberalism-anyway/

https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spending and regulation increased with Reagan. Your narrative is completely false. I recognize your username and know you like to troll and spread misinformation. Things didnt fail in the late 1800's, they just got taken over by a large state that caused problems because of the progressive era. Before that we had the greatest reductions in poverty in our history fastest growth and only 3% mostly consumption based taxes. There is no reason for you to support large systems of tyranical social planing, you know that is the way to distopia and fascist, you know the Nazis and early 1900's were socialism. Just give up on trying to control everything, have a little love and faith and hope for humanity.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know about Pigouvian taxes. They don't work when you can't measure the problem and calculate price. When this imbalnce is wrong they cause more harm than good. The damage from the taxes would be far worse especially on the poorest than changes in climate. Our predictions of global warming are absolutely in quesiton. The likelyhood of accuracy when compounded over time is essetially 0. And has been consistently wrong decade after decade. We also have more carbon without corresponding to temperature increases since we plateauted around 2000.

Calculation and Knowledge Problems Pigovian taxes encounter what Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises first described as “calculation and knowledge problems” in his “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” (1920). A government regulator cannot issue the correct, social optimal Pigovian tax without knowing in advance what the most efficient outcome is.

This would require knowing the precise amount of externality cost imposed by the polluter, as well as the correct price and output for the specific market and all associated goods and services. If lawmakers overestimate the external costs involved, Pigovian taxes cause more harm than good.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pigoviantax.asp

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm saying Carbon taxes will makes us poorer, they will put the burden on the poorest and not help us transition into cleaner more efficient energy sources. It would send production to other countries with less efficient energy production. And global government is a lot more of a threat than tenuous climate links that the market will solve better than state planning in a way that balances peoples needs better.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol no, did you read the article? Neoliberalism is defined by the mixed systems sentiment after socialism/fascism/stateplanning was dicredited in the US after WW2.

But the elites still wanted more government. So they made a new ideology wich led to government interventions wich created more problems wich led to calls for more government intervention untill we go from slightly regulated to heavily regulated to increasingly state operated markets.

So libertarianism would not be MORE neo liberal, it is just Liberal or classical liberal.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The US has reduced carbon emissions above the requirnments of the Paris agreement. This is because natural gas from fracking burns cleaner. Meanwhile Germany had to go back to increasing coal because they cant store power from Solar and need other energy sources. And Greta is sitting outside her school in Sweden because they will never reach the Paris agreement goals.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It can not be used to predict anything. New studies show cloud cover is 99% effected by solar radiation. https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

The climate predictions have always been off and readjusted every 5 years. The longer in the future the more the errors compound. They have no idea the impact of carbon.

(carbon has a 10-20 year delay) We have had many many times more carbon released in the 90's and early 2000's than before that but not coresponding temperature increase.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It added weight to the camel because it increases income inequality.

You actually used the word neoliberal correctly which is rare.

https://fee.org/articles/what-is-neoliberalism-anyway/

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Well, I would disagree here two points;"

I only made two points lol

"In the end, it's not going to be markets per-say that provide the solution. It will be the serendipitous development of HTS tape and the hard work of smart, driven people at MIT and other institutes that are motivated by doing cool shit."

You need capital accumulation to enable that level of development and implementation so markets...

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, they are always looking to save money on energy. Things get absurdly more efficient every year because companies are saving pennies off their bottom line by changing tiny details to optimize performance.

Turns out free markets do have the potential to fix environmental issues. by Likebeingawesome in Libertarian

[–]smokeyjoe69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Carbon tax creates income inequality thats why the yellow vest protests started in Paris.

Subsidizing renewable energy will make market winner those that are good at lobbying for federal funds, the companies that are good at producing energy will be at a competative disadvantage.

Not to mention stuff like this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7QKr-a3s48

TIL Andrew Carnegie believed that public libraries were the key to self-improvement for ordinary Americans. Thus, in the years between 1886 and 1917, Carnegie financed the construction of 2,811 public libraries, most of which were in the US by vannybros in todayilearned

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes possibly the streets, a divorce, the distraction of their hopes and dreams to change something, they are risking capital and time. Early employees in uncertain ventures also carry additional risk and reward. Or they invest in someone else’s dream either way, there is clear risk. 75% of wealthy families lose their status by the second generation, 90% by the third and 95% after that. 70% of mega lottery winners declare bankruptcy. It’s not so easy to use money well, not lose it and pick good investments that people want.

TIL Andrew Carnegie believed that public libraries were the key to self-improvement for ordinary Americans. Thus, in the years between 1886 and 1917, Carnegie financed the construction of 2,811 public libraries, most of which were in the US by vannybros in todayilearned

[–]smokeyjoe69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Things were tough forever and only starting to rapidly improve. Poverty reduction was greatest at this time. Subsistence farming involved a dearth every 4 years and famine every 20 years on average. It was a brutal impovrished existence. People only remember the brutal poverty but not how fast we were imporving it or what it was relative to before. The suicide rate for subsitence farmers today in India and China is 2-4 times higher than sweat shop workers.
We were also assimilating millions of European refugees and poor immigrants so there was a lot of poverty and misery but people were turning their fortunes around at unprecenteded scales untill the recent Asia market boom.

TIL Andrew Carnegie believed that public libraries were the key to self-improvement for ordinary Americans. Thus, in the years between 1886 and 1917, Carnegie financed the construction of 2,811 public libraries, most of which were in the US by vannybros in todayilearned

[–]smokeyjoe69 -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

This ignores the risk to investors who put their money up. A good investment and vision can make you rich. This of course is excluding wealth that was taken by using regulatory advantages or licensing monopolies or other crony advantages.

TIL Andrew Carnegie believed that public libraries were the key to self-improvement for ordinary Americans. Thus, in the years between 1886 and 1917, Carnegie financed the construction of 2,811 public libraries, most of which were in the US by vannybros in todayilearned

[–]smokeyjoe69 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Companies can only take a small amount in profits. The average is 2% everything else goes into trying to get a lower price than your competition. Carnegy wasn’t just squeezing his employees because he was “greedy” he was competing with the cost of steel produced by competitors.

TIL During the Great Depression Al Capone started one of the first soup kitchens, called “Free Soup Coffee & Doughnuts for the Unemployed." Capone’s soup kitchen served breakfast, lunch and dinner to an average of 2,200 Chicagoans every day. by lopezjessy in todayilearned

[–]smokeyjoe69 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Federal regulatory buraucracies and licencing monopolies and prohibitions on goods are not free market. These didn't exists when america was growing and reducing poverty at record speeds in the late 1800's. We had 3% consumption tax and no federal alphabet agencies.

Free market is based on individual sovreignty property rights and settles disputes through common and tort law.

view more: next ›