Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

if the social security is higher than the minimum wage (minus taxes, housing, social expenses) multiplied with ~ 25-40 hours of work a week, the minimum wage is not a minimum wage anymore. The social security is.
But if you lower the social security significantly you are back to the days of the 20's and 30's of the last century in Europe. You know, back in the days when a major public society had to live from day to day work and feed themselves in soup kitchens.
Big companies would love that because work is cheap again, but the merely educated man will struggle to survive from day to day and working is more interesting because it is the only option than studying to work yourself up.
Plus the Tax income of the government will decrease significantly.
Oh and what happened with Europe when a large workforce wasn't able to educate themselves and looked for easy answers (back then there were other problems too, especially in Germany) but in the end that was one of the problems that lead to either communists or fascists. And we all know how that ended.
It is basically like playing with the devil.
There are nowadays other keys to solve our problems but you can't explain them in three sentences. And that is a problem.

but to make it a good discussion we then have to look at % of the income needed for food, water, housing etc in all countries and that's a bit to much.

Even if that is so, so what?

I don't believe in lower prices :) I can't think of any product that has become cheaper after the right price was set. All only became more expensive.

Basic tv's. They have risen in price the last years because tv's have changed, but tv's of the same quality have dropped dramatically to 10 years ago. Like any electronic product.

But I expect you are pointing at monthly costs. In that case, one must look at real prices and not nominal prices. I guess you only watch nominal prices if you haven't found a single thing that is cheaper over the course of history.

And yes, poorer people need more help, but the question that comes to my mind is how it's possible that people with a 40 hour job can live below the poverty line because of the fix costs, that's not right. It's just not right to give these people even less with lower minimum wages.

Once again: the point is that they either get a low paid (below minimum wage) job or no job at all. Wanting them to get no job at all in this case seems not 'right', doesn't it?

Yes, they also have to earn the minimum wages like everyone else working in the Netherlands.

I highly doubt so. For instance, truck drivers can work here for a few days at Polish price levels if they drove from Poland to Belgium. They also don't suffer the big taxes and social contributions Belgian employees suffer.

The moment you have kids it's a completely different story and often these people are those who have problems.

Nobody forces them to take kids. They either chose to have kids (and therefore they are financially responsible for their kids) or made some error (:p). They must bear the consequences, not the society.

Only because of some criminals in nice suits who made a mess of it we now have a crisis.

If I cannot call taxes theft, you shouldn't call people who exploit the law in a very ... original way criminals. And collectivism is also the problem there, not the solution. Bankers could go there way because 1) the central bank in some countries is corrupt (which is why I want to abolish central banks) and 2) they knew the government had to pay for it if it all went wrong. Which is basically what happened. If there would be no such thing as a government guarantee, they wouldn't have taken such huge risks.

And to answer your question, the moment it's needed the government has to step in to prevent poverty, they should, and not to fund these organisations as 'vakantiebank' and 'voedselbanken' but to prevent they are needed.

I actually agree on this. The difference is that my opinion about 'when is it needed' is simply never. Never the government is needed to prevent people of getting into poverty ;-)

The point is how it looked like in the 19th and part of the 20th century. I would like to see ppl like you (or the leaders of the parties who are sooo for cheap work) work like my great grandfather worked in the weaving mill 6 days a week for 10 hours and a 1 hour footwalk to get there (just in case you wonder, you wouldn't last a month, as would I). with not enough money to educate your children as you would have wanted.

That indeed is the view I stand for. Stupid leftists, only trying to make individualists and capitalists look like rich selfish bastards from 19th century. Come back when you actually have something to tell instead of trying to frighten people.

There is a reason there are unions, parties for the working class, ideologies and so on today. Like in every system with greedy ppl back in the days and nowadays ppl exploit their power. But if you would follow your preposition consequently we should have dictatorships in our countries (kind of funny thought at first but it is logical, not a thought of me btw.)

Yes, I am all for dictatorships. I am - as a libertarian - for dictatorships. Makes sense.

Oh no, it doesn't.

So in a way to shorten it you are a greedy, selfish person who is ready to exploit ppl who have not been so fortunate by nature or their family background as you have been. That makes you an opportunist a person I despise but learned to live with. I only have one wish for ppl like that: that they one day have to feel what it feels like.

All hail selfishness.

You can read that in every economics book of the past 50 years.

Depends on the economists you chose to read. If you only read economists who follow a logic like the broken window fallacy, you might think that. I have news for you: the Austrian School exists.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny, if so good luck.

I am no leftist or rightist or libertist or supidist just by the way.

That indeed is the view I stand for. Stupid leftists, only trying to make individualists and capitalists look like rich selfish bastards from 19th century. Come back when you actually have something to tell instead of trying to frighten people.

no that is how it looked like. Just because you are not educated about that doesn't mean you are wright.
The big bosses usually care more about themselves than they care about anyone. I actually had the chance to talk to a few ppl who are major players in this world after working hours and most of them were only looking to increase their own fortune and well being.
I assume if you have those ideas you try to strike it rich one day. Good luck with that. If your parenthood or education or your bright mind would give you some kind of a clue, think about those who were not as fortunate then you were. I am not talking about me.

Yes, I am all for dictatorships. I am - as a libertarian - for dictatorships. Makes sense.
you didn't get the point. dictatorships are perfect in the way that the ruling process is simple and corruption is minimal.

libertarian
so what are you then a neo-libertarian?

All hail selfishness.
well in a way you have to be selfish in todays society, but there is the saying: "treat them as you want to be treated". It is thousands of years old but still bears what is still important. Don't treat people like scum just because you might be physically or mentally stronger than them, just because you basically have the power to.

Did you actually read the Austrian School - Books?
I did. And I stand by my point. Read again what I wrote.

Which major part of the Austrian theorie are you talking about btw?
Austrian economics, neo-austrians or maybe Menger with the utility or several of the other parts?

You seem to think that the Austrian School is majorly different from every other economic view you can have. That is not correct. It is sometimes another view they take at processes and that ends up in different standpoints. Which does not lead to major differences, consequently.

Just because you are not educated about that doesn't mean you are wright.

Yep. In September, I'll have my Bachelor in Economics, but I'm not educated. Seems legit. Btw, talking about non-education, look at how you write right.

I assume if you have those ideas you try to strike it rich one day. Good luck with that. If your parenthood or education or your bright mind would give you some kind of a clue, think about those who were not as fortunate then you were.

You don't know a thing about my situation. Don't pretend you do. It only makes you laughable. You probably think I was born in a rich family that had no health issues. I have some news for you: that's not the case.

you didn't get the point. dictatorships are perfect in the way that the ruling process is simple and corruption is minimal.

Well, the ruling process is simple, but let's say there are other flaws with the system that make me not a fan of dictatorship at all.

so what are you then a neo-libertarian?

No, libertarian (because in the Anglo-Saxon world, liberal is not the same as continental liberal). Also known as neo-liberal or ultra-liberal by anti-liberals.

well in a way you have to be selfish in todays society, but there is the saying: "treat them as you want to be treated". It is thousands of years old but still bears what is still important. Don't treat people like scum just because you might be physically or mentally stronger than them, just because you basically have the power to.

I agree on this. And the solution is more individualism and less government interference.

Did you actually read the Austrian School - Books?

Yes.

Which major part of the Austrian theorie are you talking about btw?

Well, basically the classics. La Loi, The Road to Serfdom, Anarchy state and utopia, ...

I prefer the philosophical libertarian books over the pure economic ones.

Well I write in a hurry doing about 3 things at once. Mistakes occur then.
Good luck with your degree.
I wrote that you are not educated about these certain things, which seems to be a fact as you know nothing about it obviously. No one can be fully educated about several certain things despite even a lot of things. At least I never met one and some years ago I helped writing a textbook with my professor back then, who is one of the most brilliant minds I ever met and I had more knowledge in certain parts of the theory than him just because I worked three month on it (so much for my education), he certainly knew much more than me though, no misunderstanding intended.
You will evolve through knowledge in your life and change your views through a lifetime.

You don't seem to know the basics. The basics are Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises. With Theory of Money and so on.
The evolution are neo austrians.

La Loi What? who is that?
Give me the names and proper descriptions, then I might have an Idea if I have an Idea what you are talking about.

La Loi by Frédéric Bastiat.

I have been taking a walk and thought about the broken window fallacy on the way. I thought that the broken window fallacy could actually lead to government rather than being an argument against government. This is purely economical and has nothing to do with morality and stuff.

Suppose that there is no government at all in a country and there are big income differences. The rich have capital in the form of real estate, factories etc. The poor start demonstrating. Theoretically it could happen that the poor start destroying the capital. It could then be cheaper to pay the poor instead of letting them riot. Suppose that a couple of the rich don't want to pay, then the poor and the rich that are willing to pay can form a front against those who don't want to pay (the rich that want to pay have to pay less if they can force the others, or the poor will get more), forcing them to succumb. It is then in everybodies interest to have a government arrange this (if prices of food go up, you might get riots anyway, so a higher transfer is needed, and in case that the wages rise, taxes can possibly be lower). If you strictly don't want a government you could end up with insurers paying the money to the poorer people. A similar analogy could go for environmental problems.

Does this make any sense to you, Levitate, or not?

Well who is the rest from?

You seem to have a knowledge of sidelines of the liberatarian economic understandings and the Austrian school. So did you read Menger and Mises or at least a comprehension? Because you might not understand what the rest is about. I know the parable of the broken window of course but never read "la Loi" or a comprehension of that.
To me quite honestly it seems you like some ideas but do not understand them to all extend. And if you have a degree in something does not make you an expert, it still makes you a scholar. You know even if you like the idea and agree to it you still have to be critical about it. That is a good advice for your bachelor thesis, take it from someone who finished his diploma and the thesis with a 1,5. Be critical even if you seem to fully agree with it and find the roots of the thesis, even if you still like the thesis take into consideration why other people disagree.