Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down

Interesting, considering the source.



=_fQZfFy9cFs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQZfFy9cFs


Link to an 8 minute video that includes clips from the movie.

Wow, you know the dog of lefty hypocrisy has finally barked loud enough when Mike Moore brandishes the newspaper of the master.

Sounds like bs

Originally posted by Blakemore
Sounds like bs

In terms of what ?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Sounds like bs

Well, it is Michael Moore.

Well I can't determine his basis. I disregard the whole thing.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Well I can't determine his basis. I disregard the whole thing.

You haven't heard of Michael Moore?

He did Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me. Was a Democratic darling because a lot of the sacred cows he went after were on the right, like gun control.

He also predicted Trumps 2016 election:
vMm5HfxNXY4

Originally posted by cdtm
You haven't heard of Michael Moore?

He did Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me. Was a Democratic darling because a lot of the sacred cows he went after were on the right, like gun control.

He also predicted Trumps 2016 election:
vMm5HfxNXY4 I know who Michael Moore is, personally, I think sicko was his best film ... Anyway, he's mostly hit and miss a lot of the time. He's a dead duck.

"the film argues that electric cars and solar energy are unreliable and rely upon fossil fuels to function. It also attacks figures including Al Gore for bolstering corporations that push flawed technologies over real solutions to the climate crisis."

That just sounds like facts everyone agrees upon, the problem is just that climate change deniers are going to take that to mean that we shouldn't be doing something, when really we need to get more renewable and more clean energy to ensure that electric cars are more green, to make sure that solar is in places where it is most effective, to ensure that Al Gore doesn't make too much money with bullshit....

Originally posted by cdtm
You haven't heard of Michael Moore?

He did Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me. Was a Democratic darling because a lot of the sacred cows he went after were on the right, like gun control.

He also predicted Trumps 2016 election:
vMm5HfxNXY4

He didn't do "Super Size Me", that's a different guy. He's mostly known for Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko.

The only legitimate argument against renewable energy is that its energy density simply isn't high enough and will never be high enough. Fossil fuels were about 4 to 5 times more energy dense than renewables 10 years ago and the figures have barely budged since then despite massive investment. Literally every fossil fuel is more energy dense than every type of renewable.

Nuclear is simply the only option.

I don't think he's tearing down green, so much as attacking the smoke and mirrors companies use to prove their green bona fide's to consumers and investors, while really not doing that much for the environment.

Yeah I'd watch that.


Moore doesn't come off to me as someone who punches down, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that some of his arguments have merit. I don't think anyone doubts that corporations and that kind of schilling are really putting the future of the world in front of their profits.

Still, what I wonder is if this is actually about the individuals and the organizations that are the problems, or the science itself? In which case, I'd lean towards the scientist knowing way more than this guy

Moore tend to annoy me, but I'll watch this one.

Originally posted by Artol
He didn't do "Super Size Me", that's a different guy. He's mostly known for Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko. he also did "capilism, a love story" which was shit!

Originally posted by Blakemore
he also did "capilism, a love story" which was shit!

Haven't seen it. Is he pro or anti capitalistic ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Haven't seen it. Is he pro or anti capitalistic ? he tries to make out that capilism is a system of exploitation. Then does interviews with bernie sanders and people who're suffering to justify his statement. I disagree. I think it's right to capitalize.

Originally posted by Blakemore
he tries to make out that capilism is a system of exploitation. Then does interviews with bernie sanders and people who're suffering to justify his statement. I disagree. I think it's right to capitalize.

Oh yeah that idea is wretched poison and based off of the labor theory of value, as opposed to the subjective theory of labor.

Labor theory of value = pay guy who cut down tree with a butter knife, because he worked really hard.

Subjective theory of value= pay guy with chainsaw, because he can cut down a tree quickly and safely.

Most people who follow the exploitation line also think there's a finite amount of value/money in the world, which is just factually incorrect.

Also, alot of American billionaires are crooked, but only because they're on welfare. By welfare I mean billion dollar bail outs.
If a company can't provide value to the customers, it should shut down.


To me Moore's opinion on capitalism is commie as hell, so I would be pleasantly surprised if Moore used a bunch of typically conservative talking points to base green energy.

At the same time, if that is the case that he disparages the current state of green energy it could mean he just likes to wear his anti establishment badge, so he can feel like a punko guerilla film maker

Either way he should lose weight if he's gonna be in front of the camera so much.

Originally posted by Blakemore
he tries to make out that capilism is a system of exploitation. Then does interviews with bernie sanders and people who're suffering to justify his statement. I disagree. I think it's right to capitalize.

It's hard to take anti-capitalism messages seriously from a guy who made enough money complaining about capitalism to form his own Scrooge McDuck money pit.

Work should merit respect. Exploitation should merit nothing. Making work should never be something to demonize.

Originally posted by cdtm
It's hard to take anti-capitalism messages seriously from a guy who made enough money complaining about capitalism to form his own Scrooge McDuck money pit.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Work should merit respect. Exploitation should merit nothing. Making work should never be something to demonize.

Anti capitalism sentiment often go hand in hand with incompetence in some form or another.

Originally posted by cdtm
It's hard to take anti-capitalism messages seriously from a guy who made enough money complaining about capitalism to form his own Scrooge McDuck money pit. that's a very good point. He got money from complaining about a system that creates money XD

See that's where things get stupid.

Is it pro capitalist if you make money?

Capitalism isn't inherently "When a person get the money for the thing."

It's a system itself. So I don't know how hypocritical Michael Moore is in at least that aspect

He makes money from complaining about a system of making money.. the hypocrisy is clear....

Originally posted by Blakemore
He makes money from complaining about a system of making money.. the hypocrisy is clear....

But like, I make money? Does that make me hypocritical if I'm critical of capitalism?

Do you have a job? Does that make you a capitalist?

To answer the first question, yes. To answer the second question, no. Unfortunately I don't have a job. I'm sorry.

Capitalism is the system of mutually agreed upon trade. If you're anti capitalism then you're anti human.

Originally posted by Blakemore
To answer the first question, yes. To answer the second question, no. Unfortunately I don't have a job. I'm sorry.

You don't have to apologize to me for that.

Having a job and pointing out the bad aspects of capitalism does not make one a hypocrite. One can also both be a capitalist and critical of the bad parts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Having a job and pointing out the bad aspects of capitalism does not make one a hypocrite. One can also both be a capitalist and critical of the bad parts.

This is sensible.

The thing is, although I ****ing hate customer service, I feel like it's more respectful if I criticize capitalist ideas if I was working right now

Originally posted by Robtard
Having a job and pointing out the bad aspects of capitalism does not make one a hypocrite. One can also both be a capitalist and critical of the bad parts.


What do you think are the bad parts ?

I like how people are against Capitalism, but have a net worth in the millions.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What do you think are the bad parts ?

Environmental damage/pollution in the pursuit of the last penny. What mega corporations like DuPont get away with to earn their shareholders that extra half percent. While a small business owner can go out of business for a single violation.

Capitalism can/does further inequality as not everyone is born with the same opportunities and it tends to favor those born with the most. Look at Reagan's policies and what they did to the wealth gap in America and our middle class.

Originally posted by Robtard
Environmental damage/pollution in the pursuit of the last penny. What mega corporations like DuPont get away with to earn their shareholders that extra half percent. While a small business owner can go out of business for a single violation.

Capitalism can/does further inequality as not everyone is born with the same opportunities and it tends to favor those born with the most. Look at Reagan's policies and what they did to the wealth gap in America and our middle class.

Have you considered that the companies who pollute and still exist only do so as benefactors of an incestuous relationship with the state ?
For example the covid lockdowns resulted in the largest redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class. Look at how good apple and Nike did during the lockdowns while almost a quarter of small businesses shut down.



Do you think inequality is intrinsically bad ? For example I'm not equal with NBA players, in terms of athletic ability, is that bad ?

Originally posted by Klaw
I like how people are against Capitalism, but have a net worth in the millions.

I remember Russell Brand discussing this. He said when he was poor, discussing the bad aspects of capitalism meant he was just jealous of rich people. When discussing it after he became rich he was derided as a virtue signalling champagne socialist. It was like they just didn't want to address his point.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I remember Russell Brand discussing this. He said when he was poor, discussing the bad aspects of capitalism meant he was just jealous of rich people. When discussing it after he became rich he was derided as a virtue signalling champagne socialist. It was like they just didn't want to address his point.

The poor have more to gain from capitalism than they ever could from socialism.

The poorest of the poor in America have more access to food and health care than Kings did 300-400 years ago.

Well, what is the point?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The poor have more to gain from capitalism than they ever could from socialism.

The poorest of the poor in America have more access to food and health care than Kings did 300-400 years ago. Not sure what you're asking, but if you're asking if "greed" is the reason, then yes, that was my point.

Dunno. But I do know that there are people who could have been a great doctor, architectural engineer or nuclear scientist, but didn't because they were born in 'x' situation instead of 'y'. Could even extend that to people with athletic ability.

In some societies, that is the case.

Probably most.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what you're asking, but if you're asking if "greed" is the reason, then yes, that was my point.

Dunno. But I do know that there are people who could have been a great doctor, architectural engineer or nuclear scientist, but didn't because they were born in 'x' situation instead of 'y'. Could even extend that to people with athletic ability.

I'm asking if you understand the difference between a business in a true free market (meaning sans state intervention, inflation, protectionism, sanctions, taxation, etc.) and a business in a mixed/socialist economy like America's.

In the USSR alot of people, who were very capable in other fields, got funneled into physics/ hard science because it's harder to inject doctrine at gunpoint into hard science. Do you think many people have the opportunity to become a doctor in North Korea, where they have an invisible caste system based on who your grandparents supported during the Korean war ? Or what about in Cuba where doormen make more than doctors ?

I don't know if a true free market exists in today's societies.


I'm not a proponent of dictatorships. I'd also argue there is probably no true communism country in practice today. Even China has capitalism mixed in.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know if a true free market exists in today's societies.


I'm not a proponent of dictatorships. I'd also argue there is probably no true communism country in practice today. Even China has capitalism mixed in.

The Scandinavian countries approach it. Sweden is a shining example. They adopted socialistic practices, which severely damaged their economy, then they switched back to free market principles and now they're one of the top economies in the world.
The way Sweden pays for their social programs is by taxing the poor.

To me, it's obvious that the more control a state has in a market, the worse a market does. Therefore, no state would completely allow the market to serve the needs of the customer. The input of the sovereign consumers choices create a price index of demand, which tells manufacturers what goods to produce. This is not only necessary, but also the only way to morally and effectively allocate resources, leading to lower levels of pollution. Stake holder capitalism is bullshit because the consumer is supposed to be supreme. Without the input of the consumer the business will fail, thus why they need state titty.

Any economy that isn't a free market is by definition socialist, if controlled top down by workers, or communist if controlled by state.

China had to incorporate free market principles because the world was leaving them behind, as it has been since the beginning of their "century of humiliation". They only appear economically successful because they use violence to jail billionaires and steal their wealth, they infiltrate our colleges to steal research and tech.
You can only kill your Elon musks and not innovate for yourself for so long before you collapse under your own weight.
A single sanction on cotton had enormous impact on them.
Plus we know they lie about their reporting because communist countries work on a shoot the messenger style.
Lastly, what china has is called state capitalism, which is oxymoronic, but also definitionally what is meant by fascism, aka a nationalized economy with free market pockets, and don't forget that it would be an ethnostate as well, yay 92 percent Han Chinese.

It's true, the more money the government controls, the less a society can prosper. I think it was benjamin franklin who said "those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither"

Originally posted by Blakemore
It's true, the more money the government controls, the less a society can prosper. I think it was benjamin franklin who said "those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither"

I quote that @ everyone. I think I'm self righteous but idk how not to be. Kinda sucks

The more you know, the happier you aren't.

Originally posted by Blakemore
The more you know, the happier you aren't.

I think happiness is for drug addicts, I'm about satisfaction/eudaemonia.

Contempt

Originally posted by Blakemore
Contempt

Are you saying you like contempt ? Or you feel contempt towards me ?

I was only joking about not liking happiness

= me

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Are you saying you like contempt ? Or you feel contempt towards me ?

I was only joking about not liking happiness

= me I felt you were expressing contempt, I have no contempt towards you.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I felt you were expressing contempt, I have no contempt towards you.

Oh no lol I was trying to be funny, but it was a bad attempt.
Contempt is costly for the holder.

😂

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Oh yeah that idea is wretched poison and based off of the labor theory of value, as opposed to the subjective theory of labor.

Labor theory of value = pay guy who cut down tree with a butter knife, because he worked really hard.

Subjective theory of value= pay guy with chainsaw, because he can cut down a tree quickly and safely.

Most people who follow the exploitation line also think there's a finite amount of value/money in the world, which is just factually incorrect.

Also, alot of American billionaires are crooked, but only because they're on welfare. By welfare I mean billion dollar bail outs.
If a company can't provide value to the customers, it should shut down.


To me Moore's opinion on capitalism is commie as hell, so I would be pleasantly surprised if Moore used a bunch of typically conservative talking points to base green energy.

At the same time, if that is the case that he disparages the current state of green energy it could mean he just likes to wear his anti establishment badge, so he can feel like a punko guerilla film maker

Either way he should lose weight if he's gonna be in front of the camera so much.

I think your explanation of the labour theory of value is somewhat lacking. While nowadays mostly associated with Marxist thinkers, traditionally the labour theory of value has been a capitalist idea as well. The question is basically where does surplus value come from in a market interaction, and believers in the labour theory of value believe that the transforming element is labour, while capital is a static factor. So your example with a butter knife or chainsaw is pretty good, a butter knife or chainsaw by themselves can not create value, only the work of a person creates the value if they use the butter knife or the chainsaw, the tools just have different magnifications of their labour ability. The theory by itself doesn't really say anything about how we should organize the economy though.

It can be one building block the argument of the extraction of surplus value of labor and the equation of that as exploitation of the worker, though, it's not a bad argument really.

Originally posted by Artol
I think your explanation of the labour theory of value is somewhat lacking. While nowadays mostly associated with Marxist thinkers, traditionally the labour theory of value has been a capitalist idea as well. The question is basically where does surplus value come from in a market interaction, and believers in the labour theory of value believe that the transforming element is labour, while capital is a static factor. So your example with a butter knife or chainsaw is pretty good, a butter knife or chainsaw by themselves can not create value, only the work of a person creates the value if they use the butter knife or the chainsaw, the tools just have different magnifications of their labour ability. The theory by itself doesn't really say anything about how we should organize the economy though.

It can be one building block the argument of the extraction of surplus value of labor and the equation of that as exploitation of the worker, though, it's not a bad argument really.

It's not based on labor whatsoever, outside of cost calculation, it has to do with the subjective valuation made by each and every individual consumer.

I thought labour meant work communialy, not some socialist bs

Originally posted by Blakemore
I thought labour meant work communialy, not some socialist bs

This should help you

https://mises.org/wire/critique-labor-theory-value

Originally posted by ilikecomics
This should help you

https://mises.org/wire/critique-labor-theory-value it only raised more questions

Originally posted by Blakemore
it only raised more questions

Ask them and ill give you my idiosyncratic opinion

Comparing a shoe shine to a haircut like it's 1933.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Comparing a shoe shine to a haircut like it's 1933.

That's not a question, so I'm not sure how to respond.
I could lecture, but I prefer a dialogue.

The question is, why make the comparison?

Originally posted by Blakemore
it only raised more questions

1st sentence says:

Before proceeding, we should be clear on what an economic theory of value is supposed to do: its task is simply to explain the exchange value of particular goods and services.


Why focus on particulars ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
1st sentence says:

Before proceeding, we should be clear on what an economic theory of value is supposed to do: its task is simply to explain the exchange value of particular goods and services.


Why focus on particulars ? particular scenarios were mentioned.

Originally posted by Blakemore
particular scenarios were mentioned.


Yes, to illustrate a larger abstract point. Would it help if you replaced both services with modern examples ? Or are you intentionally missing the point ?

What is the point?

Originally posted by Blakemore
What is the point?

That the cost of a product is based on someone voluntarily trading money from it, not how much labor went into it.

Maybe try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

Money has no value other than the tacit consent, so I agree with you, if that's your argument.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Money has no value other than the tacit consent, so I agree with you, if that's your argument.


You're describing Fiat currency, not money. Money used to be backed by gold, until fdr made private ownership of gold illegal and forced everyone to give their gold to the government.

Yeah but you can't eat gold. :/

Originally posted by Blakemore
Yeah but you can't eat gold. :/

Think of a car. When you own a car your ownership is represented by a title.

Gold is analogous to the car, in this example, and money is a title representing ownership of a proportional amount of gold.

Money, Fiat or not, is the thing most sought after and traded for.

In prison this often turns out to be smokes or blocks of ramen(which you can eat)

But value comes from what you can do with it. I can't put gold in my car, a battery, eat it, etc

@artol

Completely agree. I am an anarchist and come from that pov, I am biased, but I've yet to see a compelling argument for the labor theory of value. If you have an essay or article or something, Id love to read it.

@ artol

So ya like quanitative easing, huh ?

Ask Japan how their economy is doing as a result of printing fiat currency.

P.s. you speak kind of how jaden2.0 does. Have you debated him ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ artol

So ya like quanitative easing, huh ?

Ask Japan how their economy is doing as a result of printing fiat currency.

P.s. you speak kind of how jaden2.0 does. Have you debated him ?

I am not a fan of quantitative easing per se, I do believe in Modern Monetary Theory as a framework, but I would use it differently than the Fed does, mainly for a jobs program and some other economy boosting measures. In terms of Japan, as far as I know most people view its economic policy as something relatively positive that has stabilized things after the deeply shocking crash. Regardless of what you think of it though, it certainly is a great example that critics of QE, that claim it will lead to inflation, are completely wrong.

Edit: I have not discussed anything with jaden as far as I remember

Originally posted by Blakemore
I prefer things I can use. I have no use for gold. It has a high melting point, useful in battle, I guess... That's about it.

It is also used in semiconductors, but of course its main value comes as a value storage, which is based on the faith of people in it.

Valuable?

Originally posted by Artol
I am not a fan of quantitative easing per se, I do believe in Modern Monetary Theory as a framework, but I would use it differently than the Fed does, mainly for a jobs program and some other economy boosting measures. In terms of Japan, as far as I know most people view its economic policy as something relatively positive that has stabilized things after the deeply shocking crash. Regardless of what you think of it though, it certainly is a great example that critics of QE, that claim it will lead to inflation, are completely wrong.

Edit: I have not discussed anything with jaden as far as I remember


Putting Japan on hold for a second, do you think fiat currency is legitimate ?

As i previously said, money is a title representing ownership of real value e.g. gold (or petrol if you're kissenger lol), with that as context would you want someone to duplicate the deed to your house or our car ?

Depending on how you answer that depends on how I answer Japan.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x

I seem to also not be able to quote you. So I will do it by hand.



I don't think I am incorrect in this when looking at modern developed states like the US and Canada, Europe and Japan. It just seems like an accurate description. The state guarantees the property rights, arbitrates disagreements and enforces its property decisions through force when necessary. I'm not saying that modern states are the only system that can ensure property rights, and I would agree that good will within communities is an important factor everywhere as well, but we should at least accept the mere objective description of how property rights are arbitrated in modern states.

Your point about arms in a power vacuum is exactly the fear I pointed out, there's no guarantee that in a power vacuum my arms are any more powerful than those of the people who want my property. I do not believe that I would be able to stand up to Exxon or Amazon if they desired my property, they are just more powerful, so my only choice would be to join some other organization that can aid my rights and then we are already back to a para-state organization that will ask for financial and social compliance for their aid, just as the state does now.



I have read this article before, as it states itself, this is somewhat of a fringe opinion, and the vast majority of articles and scholarly work does not really view Somalia as a great success story. But that is not the important point to me, my point was that I would prefer to live in a modern state that guarantees my property rights, rather than a state-less custom and individual force based social order like Somalia or others we could conceive.



I believe that fiat currency doesn't replace value with force. But is a representation of both value and force, just as all previous systems of monetary exchange were.



I have heard of it. And I agree with a lot of it, I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky and his work in Manufacturing Consent explains a lot of problems I have with the current order. I of course do not think that it is something that is happening to me, not to a degree that clouds my judgement (which I guess you don't either with your believe in free market, anarchist capitalism).

Yuval Noah Harari often talks about the narratives that we use to organize society, and I do think that is true. Believe in states, democracy, capitalism, communism, social democracy and others share a lot of similarities with believes in religion, in god kings, in naturalism, etc. I don't view that as a negative or positive at the face of it though, we should look at the actual, real world implementations to decide what we like and what we do not like about the societies we find.

I agree with you on the American empire, I don't believe that libertarianism and anarchist capitalism is the answer, though I used to when I was younger. If anarchism is really important to you, maybe you should look into some traditional left forms of anarchism, they are more intellectually coherent, people like the aforementioned Chomsky (who I believe is an Anarchosyndicalist) for example.

I think libertarians see very real problems in society but come to the wrong conclusions as they are caught in the ubiquitous power of capitalism. The tagline "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" is very apt for a lot of people. If you are interested in that particular aspect, maybe you could read the late Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism", it is a relatively short book, but it describes this type of fallacy pretty well. Again, I would suggest to try to go to the strongest sources, people who actually believe in it, rather than places like Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, the Mises Institute, where you will receive a very weak, straw man version of a lot of these political movements.

Gun owners belong to such an organization.

The NRA.

Or the Gun Owners of America, or the Jews for the Preservation of Gun (A real organization)

Generally speaking, if this gas company came for your land by force, and there was no govenment protections, you would find no shortage of gun owners willing to help defend your property.

@ artol



// Property rights are maintained with or without a state, hence why I'm an anarchist. Property rights are axiomatic, as long as humanity exists. If a state infringes on an individual's property rights e.g. dekulakization, l

// This ignores the fact that Amazon and Exxon only have money through providing value or government welfare. Because I'm an anarchist the government welfare is automatically something my argument will ignore here. If Amazon started hunting down and expropriating the property of it's customers, it wouldn't have funds for very long.
You act as though civilization has the same has the same incentive structure as a maximum security prison, it doesn't. In a civilization, without the perversion of the state, the order is maintained through the division of labor, which requires mutual autonomy.
Also if you think private entities would hunt you down because they have bigger guns, why does this not apply to the government ? They have the biggest military ever assembled on the planet, and yet you posit the state is a necessary entity to maintain civility. So youre left with either; the acknowledgement that the state is illegitimate but you have faith that the status quo will be maintained, even tho you argue in a free market society that the guys with the biggest guns will immediately come for you, or alternatively youd have to acknowledge that the thing holding Amazon or exxon back from destroying you now is their profit based incentive structure and that that wouldn't change sans a state.


// All of the opinions from the mises institute are fringe that doesn't make something untrue. I don't think you'd argue that tho because that'd be an obvious case of argumentum ad populum.

You keep impling that a state is what backs your property rights, when the truth is that as long as a state exists you're property rights are illusionary. The state takes a third of your income at gunpoint, the gun is the part that makes it non mutual and thus violates the non-aggression principle. I know you like MMT, however the fact is that the printing of money (QE) has resulted in a 27 trillion dollar deficit ( quite a bit of that being money given to the 1 percent aka corporate welfare) meaning each citizen is born with 60k in debt and it's also seen in the resultant lessening of the dollars buying power aka inflation.

Inflation can be simply illustrated with this little thought experiment. If you have an economy with 10 oranges for sale and 10 coins minted, the obvious price structuring would be one orange equals one coin. If one were to suddenly mint 10 new coins this wouldn't suddenly add value to the oranges, but your orange would now cost two coins, as the seller of the orange would be aware of the perceived increase in wealth. If you printed 27 trillion coins an orange could be a million coins. Oof plus you'd have to hire someone to move all those coins.

// This is false, money has always been backed by value until the heads of nation states figured out that control of the currency equals a deeper level of societal control. This is because money arises naturally through voluntary exchange, as commodity currency, and then as standardized money from private mints.

'Just as the money itself can arise without the intervention of political authorities, so too can the private sector handle the operations of turning the commodity money into coins. Indeed, numismatists agree that some of the highest-quality coins (and tokens) ever produced originated in eighteenth-century Britain from private mints.'

I know you don't subscribe to Austin economics, but the description of money here is factual.

https://mises.org/wire/theory-and-brief-history-money-and-banking

If you have a left perspective on how money comes about I would love to read it.


// I don't think that it clouds judgement, to me it is an intellectual labor saving device, as well as existential analgesic.
For example a wash board Baptist, who conceptualizes reality as an arena for two Promethean Giants to battle over the ultimate fate of all sentient life isn't someone who would think with sophistication in other areas. Then you have people like jung, who thought about religion on a deeply philosophical and psychological level. I'm an antitheist, but I wouldn't call jung deluded or stupid. Ive even read theological works I've enjoyed.

I'm sure I think within the paradigm of compensatory control because I view rothbard's work as a worldview, not just an ideology. It's helped organize my life and alleviate existential terror. But it's important to note that austrolibertarianism is a system of legality and economics, and says nothing of moral/ethical standards or aesthetic tastes, etc. (That's the cult of Objectivism lol) and leaves room for a religious system, for example, to coexist with austrolibertarianism.
The main thing I pull away on a legal level is don't hurt other people, and on an economic level it's that mutually agreed upon exchange is the only legitimate exchange and thus necessary for any economy of any kind to exist. On at least this reductionistic level, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree.

// I completely agree and love anything I've heard from that guy (limited to podcasts).


// Hard for me to disagree with anything here.
https://mises.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-recipe-ruin
What do you think this gets wrong ?



// Libertarians dont believe in capitalism.
A free market, as described by austrolibs is unrealized, and will be as long as there is a state. A pillar of libertarian thought is the non aggression principle, the state is aggression incarnate.
There would still be violence without a state, there just wouldn't be monopolized violence, that also prints the money and codifies the laws.

Originally posted by cdtm
Gun owners belong to such an organization.

The NRA.

Or the Gun Owners of America, or the Jews for the Preservation of Gun (A real organization)

Generally speaking, if this gas company came for your land by force, and there was no govenment protections, you would find no shortage of gun owners willing to help defend your property.

reminds me of the Hebrew hammer

Also, the Cato institute is a political think tank. The von mises institute is about scholarship.

@artol I just got the communist manifesto, the marx-engals reader (has stuff from capital), a mikhail bakunin book, and an anarchist reader that includes people like proudhon

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@artol I just got the communist manifesto, the marx-engals reader (has stuff from capital), a mikhail bakunin book, and an anarchist reader that includes people like proudhon

Cool, the Communist Manifesto isn't really a good starting place, imo, a) it's Marx and Engels' earlier work and they developed their stance significantly, and b) it's a political polemic to get people affected by unjust treatment to take action, the Marx and Engels reader, if it is by someone who actually is sympathetic to their view, or perhaps even a Neo-Marxist, sounds like a good idea.

You raised a lot of points in your reply to me, and I would like to respond in some depth, but I don't think I have the time currently, I hope I might in the near future, but I can't promise that, I hope you'll forgive that.

Originally posted by Artol
Cool, the Communist Manifesto isn't really a good starting place, imo, a) it's Marx and Engels' earlier work and they developed their stance significantly, and b) it's a political polemic to get people affected by unjust treatment to take action, the Marx and Engels reader, if it is by someone who actually is sympathetic to their view, or perhaps even a Neo-Marxist, sounds like a good idea.

You raised a lot of points in your reply to me, and I would like to respond in some depth, but I don't think I have the time currently, I hope I might in the near future, but I can't promise that, I hope you'll forgive that.

The reader is just an anthology of their works, so I'd think pro commie.

Life is busy, I totally understand

@ artol ludwig von mises was the one to point out the issue of cost calculation under a socialist/communist economy.

Are you saying that computers can over come this problem ? I don't see how, as humans are fickle and their tastes change constantly. Ithe first corporation who could predict consumer choices would immediately eclipse it's opponents, because they wouldn't need to do consumer research, in addition to perfectly allocating resources.
I don't see any evidence to suggest a corporation could emulate praxeological deduction.

An economic breakthrough of that caliber would surely have articles written about it. As far as I know cost calculation is only possible under a societal order operating on the division of labor, where each consumer is sovereign and free to choose.
So send me a paper if you know one.


https://mises.org/library/planned-economy-and-economic-planning-what-peoples-republic-walmart-got-wrong-about-nature

@ artol what is a mixed economy and how is it possible ?

Either the economy is decided by choices made in a free market, or it is not. Von mises says as much in his magnum opus, human action.

How could the free market lead to economic ruin ? This would completely ignore history and the massive amount of wealth creation that occurred sometime in the mid 19th century. This was a result of property rights being respected.

Every example we have of a centrally planned economy is one that is ruinous. This is solely due to the cost calculation problem, that you're probably tired of hearing about by now.

What internal planning could walmart perform that would increase their profits while relying on methods outside of providing value to the consumer via fulfilling their needs, based on previous purchases ? I don't get what other information source you could mine from.

You're fine, hayek is more recent. I'm less familiar with his work because I'm told mises said it better. Liberalism by von mises was one of the most challenging books I'd ever read, until I cracked human action. I'm on page 260 of over 900. My next mission is man, economy, and state, by rothbard, which is 1500 pages.

I'm not an economist either, which is why I think austrolibertarianism
Isn't as popular as it should be because of it's scholarly density.
At the same time it becomes really simple once one understands praxeology, from Austrian economics, and the NAP, from libertarianism.
Praxeology says people have wants and seek to satisfy them. The NAP says to not aggress on anyone or their property. I can't see any objections to this two axioms other than the insistence that it's more complicated than that.


I am excited to watch the film and am thankful for the recommendation !

Lmao

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bankruptcy-brazoselectric-texas-outag-idUSKCN2AT1FE