Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
You can even call them sciences, but remember that you can't use them to know something for "sure".
Knowing something for sure isn't necessary in science. Science isn't just prediction, it's also understanding. The science of economics provides several insights that other sciences do not provide. Economics provides understanding. Economics does not merely provide truisms, it also provides the explanation of several mechanisms and tendencies in economics: What happens if the price of a good goes up? What happens if I impose a tax? What happens if i subsidize a certain company? What happens if we ban alcohol? In answering these questions, you can just make stuff up, but it would not be easily accepted by the reader. A reader thinks logically and critically ( he should ), and if I answer the question "What happens if we ban alcohol?" with "everyone will stop using it", you (and others) will say, no this is not logical because of so and so. And you would be right.
Argumentation isn't just free floating words, but it is possible to find the truth by looking critically to arguments, and the best arguments 'win' so to speak.
edit. nvm
(editado)
Knowing something for sure isn't necessary in science. Science isn't just prediction, it's also understanding. The science of economics provides several insights that other sciences do not provide. Economics provides understanding. Economics does not merely provide truisms, it also provides the explanation of several mechanisms and tendencies in economics: What happens if the price of a good goes up? What happens if I impose a tax? What happens if i subsidize a certain company? What happens if we ban alcohol? In answering these questions, you can just make stuff up, but it would not be easily accepted by the reader. A reader thinks logically and critically ( he should ), and if I answer the question "What happens if we ban alcohol?" with "everyone will stop using it", you (and others) will say, no this is not logical because of so and so. And you would be right.
Argumentation isn't just free floating words, but it is possible to find the truth by looking critically to arguments, and the best arguments 'win' so to speak.
edit. nvm
(editado)
we studied the efficiency of taxes, without making any claim whether or not those taxes are 'right' or 'wrong'. It's non-judgmental economics. That does exists you know.ùù
You miss the point, even discussing efficiency you first decide what efficiency is. The judgment is in, even if you can see it.
But more than this, the starting hipothesys you need to do to exstract some "rule" from observation are so unreal that the analisys results are unuseful.
Just like we are subject to a continuing campaign of collectivist, socialist propaganda. What's your point?
Not for sure, who would pay for it?
Indeed, our wealth has come with rules and state. That wealth would have been bigger without such a big state.
History says: where there is more state, there is more wellness (obviously esxcluding communist examples because of other reasons) Without a functioning state only poverty.
You miss always that you need to sell things to a large amount of people. When you make them poor, you lack of buyers.. Having a big state that keeps people wealthy is the only system that showed to run with success in entire history!
Examples are a lot: ancient Rome in the Empire Age, Napoleon France's, 1900 USA, Europe after WW2 .
But your school forget to discuss about it.. (I don't know your school, but there are only liberal economic school in the world so I can't go wrong, :P )
You miss the point, even discussing efficiency you first decide what efficiency is. The judgment is in, even if you can see it.
But more than this, the starting hipothesys you need to do to exstract some "rule" from observation are so unreal that the analisys results are unuseful.
Just like we are subject to a continuing campaign of collectivist, socialist propaganda. What's your point?
Not for sure, who would pay for it?
Indeed, our wealth has come with rules and state. That wealth would have been bigger without such a big state.
History says: where there is more state, there is more wellness (obviously esxcluding communist examples because of other reasons) Without a functioning state only poverty.
You miss always that you need to sell things to a large amount of people. When you make them poor, you lack of buyers.. Having a big state that keeps people wealthy is the only system that showed to run with success in entire history!
Examples are a lot: ancient Rome in the Empire Age, Napoleon France's, 1900 USA, Europe after WW2 .
But your school forget to discuss about it.. (I don't know your school, but there are only liberal economic school in the world so I can't go wrong, :P )
What happens if the price of a good goes up? What happens if I impose a tax? What happens if i subsidize a certain company? What happens if we ban alcohol?
I agree with you , studing it is helpful to have a basis to discuss about those questions.
But I disagree with you because you can't really know about what will happen if..
You all have to much faith in those knowledge, but every day in your TG those "truth" are falsified!
Argumentation isn't just free floating words, but it is possible to find the truth by looking critically to arguments, and the best arguments 'win' so to speak.
I disagree, to find the truth discussing is impossible, the truth doesn't esxist at all!
:D
I agree with you , studing it is helpful to have a basis to discuss about those questions.
But I disagree with you because you can't really know about what will happen if..
You all have to much faith in those knowledge, but every day in your TG those "truth" are falsified!
Argumentation isn't just free floating words, but it is possible to find the truth by looking critically to arguments, and the best arguments 'win' so to speak.
I disagree, to find the truth discussing is impossible, the truth doesn't esxist at all!
:D
You miss the point, even discussing efficiency you first decide what efficiency is. The judgment is in, even if you can see it.
Well, efficiency is just the relation between inputs and output, isn't it? There is no other way of determining what efficiency is. For instance: imagine we want to tax pollution. How much % of the tax is in the end paid by the polluters? There is no judgment in that. We don't say that you should or shouldn't tax pollution. We don't say if the efficiency is high enough or not to maintain the tax.
Not for sure, who would pay for it?
?
History says: where there is more state, there is more wellness (obviously esxcluding communist examples because of other reasons) Without a functioning state only poverty.
No, you interpret history that way. History doesn't say that.
Examples are a lot: ancient Rome in the Empire Age, Napoleon France's, 1900 USA, Europe after WW2 .
But your school forget to discuss about it.. (I don't know your school, but there are only liberal economic school in the world so I can't go wrong, :P )
(My university is the KULeuven, a historically catholic university.)
The Roman Empire had a far less big government than we do now, what the hell are you talking about?
Well, efficiency is just the relation between inputs and output, isn't it? There is no other way of determining what efficiency is. For instance: imagine we want to tax pollution. How much % of the tax is in the end paid by the polluters? There is no judgment in that. We don't say that you should or shouldn't tax pollution. We don't say if the efficiency is high enough or not to maintain the tax.
Not for sure, who would pay for it?
?
History says: where there is more state, there is more wellness (obviously esxcluding communist examples because of other reasons) Without a functioning state only poverty.
No, you interpret history that way. History doesn't say that.
Examples are a lot: ancient Rome in the Empire Age, Napoleon France's, 1900 USA, Europe after WW2 .
But your school forget to discuss about it.. (I don't know your school, but there are only liberal economic school in the world so I can't go wrong, :P )
(My university is the KULeuven, a historically catholic university.)
The Roman Empire had a far less big government than we do now, what the hell are you talking about?
But I disagree with you because you can't really know about what will happen if..
Well, I can't help it if you don't believe prices will go up demand rises. I can't help it if you don't believe prices will go up when something is banned. I can't help it ...
I disagree, to find the truth discussing is impossible, the truth doesn't esxist at all!
If you say the truth doesn't exist at all, you cannot be sure the truth doesn't exist. 'Cause that would be the truth, but it doesn't exist ...
Well, I can't help it if you don't believe prices will go up demand rises. I can't help it if you don't believe prices will go up when something is banned. I can't help it ...
I disagree, to find the truth discussing is impossible, the truth doesn't esxist at all!
If you say the truth doesn't exist at all, you cannot be sure the truth doesn't exist. 'Cause that would be the truth, but it doesn't exist ...
There is no other way of determining what efficiency is. For instance: imagine we want to tax pollution. How much % of the tax is in the end paid by the polluters? There is no judgment in that.
there's a lot..
what pollution is, who are polluters you think to get mesured?
?
the university are paid by gov's or by private donations, ask yourself what kind of objectives they must get. Nobody gives money for nothing. Gov's work for politics private for profit.
No, you interpret history that way. History doesn't say that.
obviously. Economy is this!
(My university is the KULeuven, a historically catholic university.)
OMG!
The Roman Empire had a far less big government than we do now, what the hell are you talking about?
and we are fare more rich than the romans were..
you miss the point, how can you confront two societies wealth in 2000 years of differences, confront them with their contemporary!
there's a lot..
what pollution is, who are polluters you think to get mesured?
?
the university are paid by gov's or by private donations, ask yourself what kind of objectives they must get. Nobody gives money for nothing. Gov's work for politics private for profit.
No, you interpret history that way. History doesn't say that.
obviously. Economy is this!
(My university is the KULeuven, a historically catholic university.)
OMG!
The Roman Empire had a far less big government than we do now, what the hell are you talking about?
and we are fare more rich than the romans were..
you miss the point, how can you confront two societies wealth in 2000 years of differences, confront them with their contemporary!
I did not base all my ideas on other peoples ideas, in fact, I thought of some of these ideas independently, while I took ideas from other people (I don't see what's wrong with it), while applying a great degree of criticism.
Ofcourse it's no problem to use ideas of others, in fact it's really difficult to come up with new ideas that has never been written down in some economic book already. If you would be able to do that you could write your own new and unique economic book and maybe even have found the solution to all current problems.
But I do think you have looked mainly at one side of the story and used ideas of economists on the same side as what you think is the right way. To be really able to think outside the box you should know all sides, also the complete oppposite and if possible even ideas that seems to be unrelated but not completely, and use the best of all these ideas and then find a way to combine these ideas to something new (almost) no one ever thought of, or even come up with something completely new and unique (which is nearly impossible).
This doesn't count for the economic model you are defending, libertarism, as this is well inside a box. The fact it already exists is one of the proofs of that.
I don't believe in utopia.
I think you do, and this will be a never ending discussion.
Before there was any form of nation state, there were historical examples of libertarian-like societies.
Isn't this pointing at the obvious? If there isn't a nation state it is automaticly liberterian-like? Not really an argument to defend libertarism.
Besides, before WWII the number of strikes show that the system was all but perfect, here are many examples: Ford Strike, Pullman Strike and many more strikes (List of strikes). If you read them you can see a patern of exploitation of the workers.
And most countries in western Europe that have become what they are today have done that with some kind of social-liberal democracy system. Greedy capitalism of today has changed a lot in less then a decade and is one of the main reasons why we have a crisis. Social-capitalism has to take over again.
I think it is very strange that libertarians are accused of believing in an utopia, while a well functioning, moral, uncorrupted government is (IMO) the greatest utopia of all times.
The negative behaviour of people you wrote in this part will always exist, doesn't matter who will be in charge. Expecting this will become less with less government interventions and to think we will be better of is nothing more as a wish and unrealistic and therefore a utopia. If you give for example companies complete freedom, even worse people that can't be send away after 4 years will rule over our money and lives.
EDIT: so to think some pre-WWII, and already during that time, failing system and only survived mainly in the US because of WWII as people had other more important things to care about as go to strike (and after WWII equal rights and government intervention ment being a communist and enemy of the state), would be the answer for todays problems ... no I don't think so :P
(editado)
Ofcourse it's no problem to use ideas of others, in fact it's really difficult to come up with new ideas that has never been written down in some economic book already. If you would be able to do that you could write your own new and unique economic book and maybe even have found the solution to all current problems.
But I do think you have looked mainly at one side of the story and used ideas of economists on the same side as what you think is the right way. To be really able to think outside the box you should know all sides, also the complete oppposite and if possible even ideas that seems to be unrelated but not completely, and use the best of all these ideas and then find a way to combine these ideas to something new (almost) no one ever thought of, or even come up with something completely new and unique (which is nearly impossible).
This doesn't count for the economic model you are defending, libertarism, as this is well inside a box. The fact it already exists is one of the proofs of that.
I don't believe in utopia.
I think you do, and this will be a never ending discussion.
Before there was any form of nation state, there were historical examples of libertarian-like societies.
Isn't this pointing at the obvious? If there isn't a nation state it is automaticly liberterian-like? Not really an argument to defend libertarism.
Besides, before WWII the number of strikes show that the system was all but perfect, here are many examples: Ford Strike, Pullman Strike and many more strikes (List of strikes). If you read them you can see a patern of exploitation of the workers.
And most countries in western Europe that have become what they are today have done that with some kind of social-liberal democracy system. Greedy capitalism of today has changed a lot in less then a decade and is one of the main reasons why we have a crisis. Social-capitalism has to take over again.
I think it is very strange that libertarians are accused of believing in an utopia, while a well functioning, moral, uncorrupted government is (IMO) the greatest utopia of all times.
The negative behaviour of people you wrote in this part will always exist, doesn't matter who will be in charge. Expecting this will become less with less government interventions and to think we will be better of is nothing more as a wish and unrealistic and therefore a utopia. If you give for example companies complete freedom, even worse people that can't be send away after 4 years will rule over our money and lives.
EDIT: so to think some pre-WWII, and already during that time, failing system and only survived mainly in the US because of WWII as people had other more important things to care about as go to strike (and after WWII equal rights and government intervention ment being a communist and enemy of the state), would be the answer for todays problems ... no I don't think so :P
(editado)
there's a lot..
what pollution is, who are polluters you think to get mesured?
Dude, think for yourself. When a tax is being proposed, it has a clear target and a clear objective. To evaluate that objective on efficiency is no judgment.
the university are paid by gov's or by private donations, ask yourself what kind of objectives they must get. Nobody gives money for nothing. Gov's work for politics private for profit.
Who says so?
obviously. Economy is this!
Once again: ?
OMG!
It's an ancient university. Those are most of the time catholic. It doesn't mean they're still that catholic today. It's the highest ranked university of Belgium.
and we are fare more rich than the romans were..
you miss the point, how can you confront two societies wealth in 2000 years of differences, confront them with their contemporary!
Dafuq? We're speaking a different language I suppose. You're the one who referred to the Roman Empire, not me.
what pollution is, who are polluters you think to get mesured?
Dude, think for yourself. When a tax is being proposed, it has a clear target and a clear objective. To evaluate that objective on efficiency is no judgment.
the university are paid by gov's or by private donations, ask yourself what kind of objectives they must get. Nobody gives money for nothing. Gov's work for politics private for profit.
Who says so?
obviously. Economy is this!
Once again: ?
OMG!
It's an ancient university. Those are most of the time catholic. It doesn't mean they're still that catholic today. It's the highest ranked university of Belgium.
and we are fare more rich than the romans were..
you miss the point, how can you confront two societies wealth in 2000 years of differences, confront them with their contemporary!
Dafuq? We're speaking a different language I suppose. You're the one who referred to the Roman Empire, not me.
I was wron again thinking we can discuss.
So I'll stop it here and now, you can keep on with your faith in market and in what they teach you at school.
reality goes elsewhere, but does it matter?
So I'll stop it here and now, you can keep on with your faith in market and in what they teach you at school.
reality goes elsewhere, but does it matter?
It's allready for a long time clear you can't discuss with Levitate... He has very clear ideas (good or bad I won't discuss) and is very stubborn in this. In the light of this ideas he will comment on everything you say without considering your words or "adapting" his idea to other influences, ideas or advices...
A wise man once said that you are as old as since the last day you changed your mind... Levitate must be very old...
(editado)
A wise man once said that you are as old as since the last day you changed your mind... Levitate must be very old...
(editado)
About the Utopia stuff:
I think we all have an idea, at least when taking part in such discussions, (or something of an idea) about the way a society would work best given a number of parameters. Collectivism vs. Individualism, the degree of egalitarianism, trust in government, trust in people in general, the degree of environmental protection etc. etc.
I think we all have an idea, at least when taking part in such discussions, (or something of an idea) about the way a society would work best given a number of parameters. Collectivism vs. Individualism, the degree of egalitarianism, trust in government, trust in people in general, the degree of environmental protection etc. etc.
It's allready for a long time clear you can't discuss with Levitate...
No, people like you or El Pupe can't discuss with me. There are people who don't share my ideas, but who can discuss with me.
No, people like you or El Pupe can't discuss with me. There are people who don't share my ideas, but who can discuss with me.
This doesn't count for the economic model you are defending, libertarism, as this is well inside a box. The fact it already exists is one of the proofs of that.
But most people refuse to take a libertarian POV because of their collective/socialist POV. They refuse to consider whether the government is evil or not.
Isn't this pointing at the obvious? If there isn't a nation state it is automaticly liberterian-like? Not really an argument to defend libertarism.
No. There is also something like anarchism or libertinism (mind the difference with libertarianism!).
And most countries in western Europe that have become what they are today have done that with some kind of social-liberal democracy system. Greedy capitalism of today has changed a lot in less then a decade and is one of the main reasons why we have a crisis. Social-capitalism has to take over again.
The capitalism I stand for is social.
If you give for example companies complete freedom, even worse people that can't be send away after 4 years will rule over our money and lives.
Enlighten us, why is this?
so to think some pre-WWII, and already during that time, failing system and only survived mainly in the US because of WWII as people had other more important things to care about as go to strike (and after WWII equal rights and government intervention ment being a communist and enemy of the state), would be the answer for todays problems ... no I don't think so :P
Was the era pre-WWII a libertarian society then?
But most people refuse to take a libertarian POV because of their collective/socialist POV. They refuse to consider whether the government is evil or not.
Isn't this pointing at the obvious? If there isn't a nation state it is automaticly liberterian-like? Not really an argument to defend libertarism.
No. There is also something like anarchism or libertinism (mind the difference with libertarianism!).
And most countries in western Europe that have become what they are today have done that with some kind of social-liberal democracy system. Greedy capitalism of today has changed a lot in less then a decade and is one of the main reasons why we have a crisis. Social-capitalism has to take over again.
The capitalism I stand for is social.
If you give for example companies complete freedom, even worse people that can't be send away after 4 years will rule over our money and lives.
Enlighten us, why is this?
so to think some pre-WWII, and already during that time, failing system and only survived mainly in the US because of WWII as people had other more important things to care about as go to strike (and after WWII equal rights and government intervention ment being a communist and enemy of the state), would be the answer for todays problems ... no I don't think so :P
Was the era pre-WWII a libertarian society then?
Well I did not defend anything as far as I remember. But after dealing with interesting or questionable accounting ideas and kind of fraud for the past 10 hours I might not remember that because it is not first on my agenda.
You seem to be on a high horse, just because you studied some economics for 3 years. Or have read something about a sidepart of an economic theory that is to some part questionable among the major economic contributors nowadays. You do not tangle with admitting any flaws in your preferred theory out of, I don't know, maybe blindness. A theory is not perfect and does not work on everything, in a theory there are only major parts included, several parts left out and so on. Economics one on one. That is stubbornness of the worst kind showed by you and I can tell you that is not a good thing for most of the time. Well basically never a good thing.
Let me tell you I do not value your opinion a bit, I kind of made it my sunday-funday to see if there is some real knowledge behind it. Only to some part, let me tell you.
I honestly don't give a rats ass what some student from somewhere thinks about me, because I know I could smash you easily in pretty much every field of business or economics and lure you into traps because of your obvious stubbornness.
Well just my two cents, got to go, save the world. ^^
You seem to be on a high horse, just because you studied some economics for 3 years. Or have read something about a sidepart of an economic theory that is to some part questionable among the major economic contributors nowadays. You do not tangle with admitting any flaws in your preferred theory out of, I don't know, maybe blindness. A theory is not perfect and does not work on everything, in a theory there are only major parts included, several parts left out and so on. Economics one on one. That is stubbornness of the worst kind showed by you and I can tell you that is not a good thing for most of the time. Well basically never a good thing.
Let me tell you I do not value your opinion a bit, I kind of made it my sunday-funday to see if there is some real knowledge behind it. Only to some part, let me tell you.
I honestly don't give a rats ass what some student from somewhere thinks about me, because I know I could smash you easily in pretty much every field of business or economics and lure you into traps because of your obvious stubbornness.
Well just my two cents, got to go, save the world. ^^
Damn, just thought of, you probably misunderstand or don't understand this one yet again. ;-)
Are you planning on saying anything at all that might be relevant?
Stop focusing on people, start focusing on content. Or leave.
(editado)
Stop focusing on people, start focusing on content. Or leave.
(editado)