Originally posted by Artol
Sure, I have a few, I think some of them might be hard for you to find agreement with, judging from our previous discussions, especially the last one, I do believe them though.1. The form of capitalism that has developed over the last 40 years, based on work by Milton Friedman, and Friedrich von Hayek (under terms like Neo-Liberal Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, etc.), has been deeply detrimental to the world and human life, both in developing countries but also in developed countries.
2. The fall of the Soviet Union has given the United States too much power to implement its own desires, the rise of opposing powers, mainly in China, but perhaps to some degree in the EU and Russia, is a good development in that regard.
3. The distribution of property as we have it now, is fundamentally unjust and severe redistribution of this property from the most fortunate to those who are not is moral, and beneficial or even necessary to society and the economy.
4. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, sexual and gender minorities, lower classes and some other groups are socially and economically disadvantaged in the west and we should implement social and government programs to specifically benefit these groups financially and to ensure their equal participation in society, culture and community.
5. In the conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, Iran is the more honest and respectable actor.
6. Small "socialist" countries like Cuba and Vietnam have shown that alternative forms of economics are just as good or even better than capitalist forms in comparable countries, and the majority of their shortcomings are not due to the economic system, but can be directly attributed to US hegemony and their willingness to use their economic and military might (for example in the form of sanctions, embargo, coups and wars) to attack and weaken states that do not comply with the United States economic order.
7. Fiat currency is just as legitimate as the Bretton Woods system, the gold standard and even gold itself as a currency of exchange, and has the potential to be far more beneficial to people as a whole than either of those systems.
Yay, I'm allowed to quote this one. Just to be clear, I'm only addressing at length the entries I disagree with normally, but arguing as tho I'm a proponent. On the entries I genuinely agree, I may add a little comment
1.) The frame work of the free market as described by the Austrian school (or the similar Chicago school, which is sympathetic to MMT than the Austrian school) is a description of how economics work in a market with limited state intervention.
These thinkers rely on the idea that humans are rational actors, when we know they aren't. Humans are largely irrational and therefore can't make choices in their own best interest, hence they couldn't act sufficiently toward the wellbeing of others.
Austro economics are amoral and allow those with Machiavellian tendencies to excel beyond their neurotypical contemporaries, via the use of persuasive manipulations.
Over time this rewarding of the wicked aggregates, leaving a large amount of billionaires with psychotic predispositions. People with this predisposition would logically seek to act in a way that maximizes their own wellbeing, while diffusing the negative repercussions over a large amount of other people. E.g. a company dumping pollutants.
2.) Agree. A unipolar world is dangerous.
3.) Those who have accrued large amounts of land or capital continue building momentum with less and less work.
This has been phrased as: the more you get, the more you get.
This not only leads to tangible contempt in the masses, which would disrupt the standard running of society, but also ensures a lack of diversification in terms of what the land or capital could be transformed into. This is the argument for cost calculation turned inside out. If the choices of numerous sovereign individuals is necessary to create a pricing matrix, it would stand to reason that the more numerous land/ capital holders are the more we would see innovation and trends in land/capital usage, which could then be used to do economic calculation.
4.) If we had more accessible public transport we could ensure that cultural hubs would be visited more often e.g. art museums.
Cultural enrichment may lead to inspiration. This inspiration, typically impossible to experience, leads to the mastery of an artistic skill. The housing of artists could be subsidized, allowing them to make more art, which leads to more cultural hubs. A self feeding positive loop.
5.) Yup. I'm a non interventionist for foreign policy.
6.) A good example of bottom up Innovation in a top down system is in Cuba where a network of gamers set up their own internet. This was then 'co opted' by the state and now even more Cubans have pseudo internet access.
The sanctions/embargoes the u.s. puts on countries hurt the people of that country and America's simultaneously. It is a form of taxation that counts on an us vs. them mentality (I actually believe this part and I'm not steel Manning, anything but open trade is bad imo)
I know next to nothing about Viet nam.
7.) Detaching from the gold standard allows an economy to use social credulity to underscore their money's value. This means you can do what they did in that episode of South Park, where they steal the space cash from the aliens and everyone becomes super rich. In the case of the u.s. you can print 27 trillion dollars and still maintain the world standard of currency because your guns are the biggest.
This allows people only make 50k a year to get into a 300k house, or to get a zero interest car loan on a 2022 camaro, while living in public housing. Truly prosperity of this level would be impossible if wealth creation were based on actual value.
Holy sh*t this was way harder than I thought. I'm pretty rigid in my thinking and don't like that. Thank you for the post artol.