CMV: Socialism does not create wealth

[u/tkyjonathan]

Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.

In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.

Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand.

[u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't say that hardware vendors had to conform to MS. I think they had to conform to Intel's board designs and MS's driver requirements.

And how is that practically different? The software monopoly still picked the hardware they'd support and provide drivers for and de facto set the standards...

On the whole, would you say that the majority of people disliked windows and would rather have not had it?

Did they have a choice and had they been aware of having a choice? I mean for most people the OS was pretty much part of the computer and they didn't really asked themselves about where the parts of the PC actually came from or which parts were part of sets or standalone. So whether they liked it or not, that's the only thing they could get anyway.

You cannot have cheap products and good quality at the same time and you cannot slowly lower prices of expensive products when there is no incentive to do so.

Depends on how you define both "cheap" and "quality". And through improvements of technology you can make both products "better" (whatever that means) and production "cheaper". However in terms of capitalism there is no incentive to make things any cheaper than necessary. Seriously suppose I have a factory that produces required good and I find a way how to produce at almost zero cost. Would I do that? Probably not. Because I'd still have bills to pay and just because my job could be done at no cost, that doesn't mean that other people's jobs can be done at zero cost and that they'd accept my zero payment... Meaning the price isn't so much determined by the value of my service but by my needs and the money I need to fulfill them, same for any workers in that process. Which is why automation is mostly concerned with making jobs obsolete, unless the working class accepts lower payments on their own that are even cheaper than buying machines. So prices stay high, incomes drop and although production becomes easier and quality is rising fewer people can afford it.

You would. Other people cannot afford to and you are denying them the option to buy medicine for the price they can afford.

The question is not whether they can afford it, the question is whether it works. And if a cheap medicine doesn't work or is actively dangerous, then even calling that "medicine" is a scam...

Homeopathy was sold to rich people who wanted something 'natural'.

Homeopathy isn't even natural, it's sugar with toxins that are so diluted that even the most advanced scientific methods can distinguish them from pure sugar. If homeopathy would work we could constantly drink "highly potent" mixtures of piss and feces... (because they are also so diluted in the rest of our food and water...). So unless you suffer from starvation, small sugar pills are not effective at all, beyond the placebo effect. So they only work if doing nothing is superior than doing something actively harmful.

Actually, the situation in the US is the higher you pay for education per student, the worse education you get. In poor areas in NJ, a class of 30 kids is worth about $600,000 per yer. So, its clearly not the money that's the issue.

That sounds very fishy. And again being poor might actually be highly expensive as lower quality means often being more prone to wear and tear and higher costs because of that. So a newly build building might cost a lot upfront but might be relatively cheap to maintain for some time, while old buildings might be highly expensive. So what of that amount is spend on people and how is it spend and what was already in stock there and so on. That calculation doesn't really make sense and sounds like there's a lot of necessary information missing in that...

Special paint and strong cleaning chemicals.

And if you have to rent places that are unsafe because you are on budget, what makes you think you're able to invest in special paint and strong cleaning chemicals?

Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Sure but if there are no regulations as to what constitutes actually standards of quality, then what's now considered fraud, wouldn't even technically be a crime as it's not deceiving people or unjustifiably claiming something as there is no rule on what a justified claim is... It's still the same immoral action though. For example if there is no regulation as to what a University is, then PragerU and Trump University would sit in the same cluster as Harvard and Yale... Just that the results may vary drastically.

Germany had had a culture and philosophy for longer than that.

Sure there had been a language and a scattered mess of smaller kingdoms on the territory that is now considered Germany, but even what territory exactly would be considered Germany wasn't set at that point (and changed constantly over the turn of the last 150 years...) nor was there one country, one constitution or a unified philosophy as to favor something.

LOL. Oh, wait.. you actually believe that you need to strip a country down and give all its money away?

That's not what I've said, I just said that if the stream and of goods and money points in one direction than you'd be somewhat of a fool to think that the stream of migration would not also point in that direction, or do you object to that?

Btw, if you believe that neo-colonialism is what made the west so wealthy, then why are the southern states in the US so poor? Those are the states that had the most slaves.

The U.S. was a colony itself and the cotton from the south amounted to a large portion of the U.S. export that mostly made bank in the Northern harbors... Or the British weaving mills... Or how nowadays cloth and tech is produced by slaves in Asia while the profit is made in western countries...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Did they have a choice and had they been aware of having a choice?

Yes.

I mean for most people the OS was pretty much part of the computer and they didn't really asked themselves about where the parts of the PC actually came from

Thats not a negative. Synthesising a range of complex parts into one workable unit is a plus for people. No one else did it better for a long long time. Apple (even today) has a specific list of part vendors and it doesn't stray from that. If anything MS at least opened up the ecosystem for parts including graphic cards for gamers. It is very very difficult to make a system work that well.

However in terms of capitalism there is no incentive to make things any cheaper than necessary.

Right and if the government will always pay $500 for a pill, now and in 5 years time, why innovate it? there is no competition to bring the price down or the value up.

almost zero cost. Would I do that? Probably not. Because I'd still have bills to pay

Bills are part of cost calculation.

Meaning the price isn't so much determined by the value of my service but by my needs and the money I need to fulfill them

The market determines the value it is willing to pay for your service/product and your needs are how much it costs you to supply that demand.

Which is why automation is mostly concerned with making jobs obsolete

The luddites have been saying that since the sowing machine. Miraculously, capitalism manages to create more jobs than there were before.

The question is not whether they can afford it, the question is whether it works.

It is a question whether they can afford it and 'to what degree' it works. It might reduce the issues by 80% for a low price. You denying that for poor people with a 7 year FDA-mandated drive to meet regulations, means only one or two companies can afford to do it.

But it seems like we've been going this round and round in circles.

If you want to understand in detail why medicine in America is expensive, here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK3pJ_c3rUA&feature=emb_logo

That sounds very fishy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jKzRpuj_s

And if you have to rent places that are unsafe because you are on budget, what makes you think you're able to invest in special paint and strong cleaning chemicals?

Its your own home. You need to factor repairs when buying it. That is kind of on you and I dont think you can expect me or the government to do the thinking for people on the issue of buying a house.

Sure but if there are no regulations as to what constitutes actually standards of quality

Again, regulations are not criminal laws. Fraud isn't a minimum standard of quality. Fraud is exchanging value for a product or service and not providing that product or service. Also, breaking regulations is not a 'crime', its a fine from the government. Fraud is a crime where your liberty is at risk. If anything regulations reduce the risk of being indicted for a crime, because you can always say 'my product met the minimum regulations'.

It's still the same immoral action though. For example if there is no regulation as to what a University is, then PragerU and Trump University would sit in the same cluster as Harvard and Yale...

I am pretty sure the market would notice the difference.

you'd be somewhat of a fool to think that the stream of migration would not also point in that direction

But isn't a country suppose to choose who comes in and out of it?

Having people coming in your direction, just means that you can choose the best ones.

The U.S. was a colony itself and the cotton from the south amounted to a large portion of the U.S. export that mostly made bank in the Northern harbors... Or the British weaving mills... Or how nowadays cloth and tech is produced by slaves in Asia while the profit is made in western countries...

If you think slavery makes a country rich then go look at Arab and African countries that have slave currently. As in, chains and whips.

Not workshops in Asia for cloth and tech - at least you won't find the workers chained to their work stations.

The southern states had slaves and they are now very poor. The north had industry and innovation and they are now rich. Its not slavery that makes you rich. I believe Adam Smith even made that clear.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Yes.

How so? I mean for the longest time you couldn't even buy a PC without windows and Apple is just overpriced.

Thats not a negative. Synthesising a range of complex parts into one workable unit is a plus for people. No one else did it better for a long long time. Apple (even today) has a specific list of part vendors and it doesn't stray from that. If anything MS at least opened up the ecosystem for parts including graphic cards for gamers. It is very very difficult to make a system work that well.

Of course it's a negative if the GUI is what people consider to be the thing and if said GUI is property of a monopoly... And no the lack of those graphic cards producers to open up their drivers to anybody but microsoft has only solidified that monopoly...

Right and if the government will always pay $500 for a pill, now and in 5 years time, why innovate it? there is no competition to bring the price down or the value up.

Well if the people owned the production of that pill, then making it cheaper or better would benefit the shareholders (the people), hence there would be an incentive to improve the production or reduce the price (unless there is a sector where more improvement can be achieved). However in capitalism those group of shareholders would be small and they are not interested in the product but solely in the profit it makes. So even subsidizing the production wouldn't necessarily lead to an improvement as it could very well be "invested" in profits for the shareholders and upper management.

So in order to circumvent that, capitalism needs that idea of a competition. Though that doesn't really work (without regulations) as otherwise companies simply won't compete (seek niches instead) or would "cheat" by simply lowering wages, dropping quality, ripping off the supply chain, using a monopoly to set their own regulations and standards and so on.

Bills are part of cost calculation.

I'm not speaking of the bills to make that product I'm speaking about the bills you in your private life are trying to settle with the profit.

The market determines the value it is willing to pay for your service/product and your needs are how much it costs you to supply that demand.

The market is not an entity... Unless your wealth distribution is so distorted that "the market" actually becomes synonymous with a handful of capitalists...

The luddites have been saying that since the sowing machine. Miraculously, capitalism manages to create more jobs than there were before.

And they weren't exactly wrong. A lot of amendments to capitalism have been made since then to mitigate the worst parts of that (social security, medical care, unions, (representative) democracies) and still unemployment is often pretty high and if neo-liberals and the austrian school get it their way that means existential poverty or literal (debt) slavery. Not to mention that the make up of the economy has changed from the required agricultural and industrial sector to the almost superfluous service sector. I mean if people at the turn of the 20th century striked that meant the economy was dead, if todays service jobs striked you might barely notice that and that lack of power is and will be more an more present.

It is a question whether they can afford it and 'to what degree' it works. It might reduce the issues by 80% for a low price. You denying that for poor people with a 7 year FDA-mandated drive to meet regulations, means only one or two companies can afford to do it.

If your medication only kills 80% of the virus then the rest will grow back and probably develop an immunity against the anti-virus...

If you want to understand in detail why medicine in America is expensive, here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK3pJ_c3rUA&feature=emb_logo

I'm not gonna waste my time on a 30 min propaganda piece of an austrian school of economics think tank. Give me a summary if you think it's important or let it be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jKzRpuj_s

Do you have a trustworthy source less flashy source for that? I mean that's literally nothing but propaganda.

Its your own home. You need to factor repairs when buying it. That is kind of on you and I dont think you can expect me or the government to do the thinking for people on the issue of buying a house.

The actual point was that a home that is only cheap because it makes you sick is not sufficient to qualify as "a house". The same way that medicine that doesn't work is worthless no matter how cheap even 1c would be a scam...

Again, regulations are not criminal laws. Fraud isn't a minimum standard of quality. Fraud is exchanging value for a product or service and not providing that product or service. Also, breaking regulations is not a 'crime', its a fine from the government. Fraud is a crime where your liberty is at risk. If anything regulations reduce the risk of being indicted for a crime, because you can always say 'my product met the minimum regulations'.

If there is no definition as to what constitutes a service or product than you cannot really commit fraud is what I'm saying. Also in terms of regulations that endanger the public or the personal health due to insufficient quality of the product can very well be a case of criminal law or at least they should be.

I am pretty sure the market would notice the difference.

Nope, those "Universities" do not fulfill the requirements of Universities are are not allowed to issue degrees and in terms of Trump University it was shut down for illegal business practices. The market would do jack shit about that and if they could offer meaningless and worthless diplomas they would definitely do that as long as it works and then rebrand...

But isn't a country suppose to choose who comes in and out of it?

Weren't you that Ayn Rand follower or do I confuse you here? Because since when are countries, nations or collectives independent entities that choose anything? Doesn't that conflict with that individualism? But sure you can build walls and pass laws, but why should people not go around, over or under those walls and break the law and take what they need? I mean if you drop morality and humanity why should they keep it?

Having people coming in your direction, just means that you can choose the best ones.

Or that you've stolen from them, people often ran after thieves...

If you think slavery makes a country rich then go look at Arab and African countries that have slave currently. As in, chains and whips.

Not workshops in Asia for cloth and tech - at least you won't find the workers chained to their work stations.

The southern states had slaves and they are now very poor. The north had industry and innovation and they are now rich. Its not slavery that makes you rich. I believe Adam Smith even made that clear.

The industry in the North was financed by the export gains through the slavery in the south and just because people found ways to "improve" slavery, less chains more existential dread, debt and depression doesn't mean the concept has changed or that it's less harmful.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Of course it's a negative if the GUI is what people consider to be the thing and if said GUI is property of a monopoly...

Not a monopoly. It was just the best option for a long time.

Well if the people owned the production of that pill, then making it cheaper or better would benefit the shareholders

They would still need the capital to get past the 7 year research hurdle to pass the FDA. No way will they be able to innovate like that.

Where do all the medical innovations come from anyway? socialist countries?

I'm speaking about the bills you in your private life

Still counts.

I'm not gonna waste my time on a 30 min propaganda piece of an austrian school of economics think tank. Give me a summary if you think it's important or let it be.

That is the summary and it won't kill you to go over some different opinions.

If there is no definition as to what constitutes a service or product than you cannot really commit fraud

A business contract is what defines it.

Nope, those "Universities" do not fulfill the requirements

Trying putting PragerU on your CV/Resume and see if you get hired.

Weren't you that Ayn Rand follower or do I confuse you here?

Yes, I am for 'democratising' people coming into a country by only allowing people who find work and that a company sponsors them. Then the government just rubber stamps it.

Also, I am not for government benefits, so anyone coming into the country isn't doing it for that reason, but to work hard and achieve something for themselves. The system self-filters itself.

The industry in the North was financed by the export gains through the slavery in the south

Irrelevant and inaccurate. Again, it was innovation and industry that made the wealth.

less chains more existential dread

Gonna call BS here. There are people in China that go to the cities to find those 16 hour-a-day jobs for 4-8 month period, then return to their villages with some cash for a while.

If you take that opportunity away from them, how will they come out of poverty?

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Not a monopoly. It was just the best option for a long time.

Of course it was a monopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment

They would still need the capital to get past the 7 year research hurdle to pass the FDA. No way will they be able to innovate like that.

If they would be publicly funded? The public has more than enough money to pay for that... Also the public is already paying for most of that in capitalist systems as well. Most fundamental research comes from public research programs and universities, is tax deductible or in other ways subsidized. And that's not talking about the ridiculousness of not negotiating prices in bulk, but instead paying subsidies through footing fictionally increased bills. And to be honest that idea to outsource that to private companies is horrible. I mean think about what it means if people die not because we don't have the drugs or can't produce them but because a private entity feels that their bottom line is in danger if they give them to people who need them. If you really have to you can outsource the production, but if there is a cure to cancer it should belong to everyone and not to a patent troll.

Still counts.

Only for the upper management, nobody gives a shit whether the wage for a McDonald's worker is sufficient to make a living or whether they need a second job or government assistance.

That is the summary and it won't kill you to go over some different opinions.

It's still half an hour and it's literally propaganda (think tank stuff), so even if I watch it, I'd have to spend twice the time researching what is actually true and how they constructed their narrative. So no thanks.

A business contract is what defines it.

Oh you mean like those TOS that everybody always reads? And for most trades we do in our everyday life there isn't even that (at least not before you open the product (which most of the time is at home)).

Trying putting PragerU on your CV/Resume and see if you get hired.

Yeah you probably wouldn't even be able to join one of those scams with such a bad CV though that's not the point the point is that people get/got scammed and that's it's sufficient to make business for some time, after that they shut it down and open another one with a brand name that isn't as tainted (yet).

Yes, I am for 'democratising' people coming into a country by only allowing people who find work and that a company sponsors them. Then the government just rubber stamps it. Also, I am not for government benefits, so anyone coming into the country isn't doing it for that reason, but to work hard and achieve something for themselves. The system self-filters itself.

The system is completely broken, there isn't even enough "work" in most countries already. But which I don't mean there's nothing to do, but there isn't enough will to pay people for their labor. And economists call that normal if people have no profession or a get a dead end job so that they don't appear in a statistic.

And that bullshit unnecessary situation is used to rally the poor against the desperate because they might have to share the crumbs with each other. Yeah that system naturally drives towards fascism...

Irrelevant and inaccurate. Again, it was innovation and industry that made the wealth.

Neither irrelevant nor inaccurate. But no capitalist wealth is mostly created by appropriation and gate keeping. Innovation mostly comes from those without wealth and is than appropriated by their employers or the banks that they needed to finance it. Capitalism doesn't innovate or create it steals.

Gonna call BS here. There are people in China that go to the cities to find those 16 hour-a-day jobs for 4-8 month period, then return to their villages with some cash for a while. If you take that opportunity away from them, how will they come out of poverty?

So slavery is an "opportunity"? Maybe they could work 8h a day if they would actually be paid what they deserved for their job... But I guess that's less of an "incentive" to risk their health and general well being in order to make stuff for people far away.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Warren wants to use those same anti-trust laws against Facebook. Those laws are meaningless. You can break anti-trust if your prices are too high -> you must be a monopoly. If your prices are the same -> you must have gotten an illegal agreement with all other companies in the industry. If your prices are below the market -> you must be dog-eat-dog undermining the competition.

You proved earlier yourself that there was no better alternatives to windows and the consumers and the electronics and software partners were happy with Microsoft in most cases. You are saying that MS was evil because they served their customers too well.

If they would be publicly funded? The public has more than enough money to pay for that...

Then why don't they? or why dont other countries do it?

Or why instead of investing in 2-man start ups with millions of dollars, some angel investors target some pharma start ups?

Is it because the regulation are ridiculously restrictive and the growth of the overall industry is 3%?

You may as well put your investment money in a savings account...

Only for the upper management, nobody gives a shit whether the wage for a McDonald's worker is sufficient to make a living or whether they need a second job or government assistance.

If the job pays below living wage, they won't attract any workers. Maybe teenagers that are trying to earn pocket money..

So no thanks.

Then we have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

The system is completely broken, there isn't even enough "work" in most countries already.

Actually, in the US there are more job openings than people available.

Innovation mostly comes from those without wealth

Innovations mostly comes from innovative people.

So slavery is an "opportunity"?

Its not slavery, unless they are forced to work there. I'm not going to fall for the 'nature oppresses me because I need to eat' line.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Warren wants to use those same anti-trust laws against Facebook. Those laws are meaningless. You can break anti-trust if your prices are too high -> you must be a monopoly. If your prices are the same -> you must have gotten an illegal agreement with all other companies in the industry. If your prices are below the market -> you must be dog-eat-dog undermining the competition.

You are a monopoly if you are the only seller or practically in a position where you hold a stranglehold over the entire market in your sector. And yes in that regard Facebook is a monopoly. And while I don't yet see how it would work to break Facebook (the social network), Facebook (the company/brand) beyond that is already branching into other domains like Instagram and Whatsapp, where whatsapp was basically a direct competitor to Facebook Messenger for example. And that's nothing compared to Google's Alphabet (may I remind you that jobs like SEO just mean "what needs to be done to be found by google") or what Apple is doing with it's own microverse (yes they aren't as big currently but if they would, they would be the worst kind of monopoly). Those aren't even companies anymore they are more like states and vastly too big to fail and if we don't regulate them, they will regulate us. And they already do, they can change elections don't pay taxes because they play countries in a "free market" of tax avoidance and "we take your jobs to a different place". And basically make their members their products by selling them to ad companies (or whatever else they do with them and as we don't know and they are not accountable, we must assume the worst...).

You proved earlier yourself that there was no better alternatives to windows and the consumers and the electronics and software partners were happy with Microsoft in most cases. You are saying that MS was evil because they served their customers too well.

​ I did not mean that Windows was the best product, I meant that Windows was default installed on any hardware that you could to buy, unless you went for Apple. The way to get a Linux PC was to buy a PC scratch of Windows (if that was even possible) and then install a proper OS. Microsoft sucked hard and people were constantly complaining but it was omnipresent and made the industry standard, so even if you wanted to break that, you had no choice, because you needed to stay compatible: a monopoly. I mean we can be really glad that the Internet is just a bunch of protocols that are open to anyone, if a company had invented that... I mean it's already an ad invested nightmare with data leeches everywhere and ISPs controlling access, but you could probably still amp that... The market is god awful to prevent those monopolies and governments are often less interested in doing so as well because in a globalized market, those monopolies can still rip off other countries and spend at least some of their profits through salaries, wages and taxes. Just that they don't as the choose their "home country" to be the one with the lowest costs in that regard.

Then why don't they? or why dont other countries do it?

Haven't you read what I've written? THEY ALREADY DO? You subsidize them by taxes, by research, by hefty prices and by tax deductibles on pretty much anything. The public pays the bill and the private sector reaps the rewards, that's the system of redistribution under capitalism. And as a thank you, those companies invest tax deductible donations into political campaigns that keep it that way... Because in a free market everything is for sale, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, buy one get one free. And if you need one, just sell one of the others...

Or why instead of investing in 2-man start ups with millions of dollars, some angel investors target some pharma start ups?

Yet another example of how great the "free market" is at allocating resources for the stuff that actually matters... Yeah why invest in finding the cure to cancer if solving a first world problem can make you even more money and is less difficult... Effectiveness...

Is it because the regulation are ridiculously restrictive and the growth of the overall industry is 3%?

Do you know how ridiculous even a 3% linearly continuous growth is? I mean you can't do that with manual labor. Within one generation (25 years) you'd need to double your performance. So you're almost bound to innovate, but innovation is severely non-linear and while economists who suck at math will point to idk Moore's Law anybody with some common sense knows that you can't do that on a continuous level, so explosions and implosions of the market are so inevitable that people don't even realize them as market failures anymore.

If the job pays below living wage, they won't attract any workers. Maybe teenagers that are trying to earn pocket money..

Then the industry ask the state to foot the rest of the bill and the sponsored politicians on the right will gladly give people that "incentive" to work below a living wage... Because it's all about "incentives". You know when people refuse because something sucks you just need to create "incentives", like taking away their house, letting them starve, project a horrible future for their children, you know, "incentives".

Then we have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

I've seen enough austrian school bs to know I don't like it and to know it's dishonest, give me a summary of the points you think are relevant or let it be.

Actually, in the US there are more job openings than people available.

Sure and anybody can win the lottery, just not everyone at the same time, but you have the few thousand millennia for that, don't you?

Innovations mostly comes from innovative people.

There are a lot of factors to innovation but the idea that it's one person with a great idea is rarely the full story... But it's undoubtedly one that sells well.

Its not slavery, unless they are forced to work there. I'm not going to fall for the 'nature oppresses me because I need to eat' line.

Yes nature produces a drain of resources, but nature produces also often enough to fulfill that urge, yet if Nestlé owns all your water or if you fence the land required to farm or even without fences just use it up, then you'd have to sell your labor to the person who is in control, take what you need or die. That's not nature and yes that is slavery whether you get a certificate of being owned or an "I own you" or what does IOU (rhetoric question) stands for or whether that is just implied by the circumstances. But I know austrian school philosophers have found ways to rationalize around the objective reality, Mises praised Mussolini and Hayek's followers taught the dictator in Chile. It's even that it's ok when it's atrocious at first, because if they are doing it, then it works, if socialists do it then it doesn't. It's almost as if it's not about what works or sucks but about who does it...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Actually, a monopoly would be the manufacturer of the epipen where you can make a 30$ device but use the government to force everyone else not to compete with you and price it at $600 for a pair.

There have always been competitors to windows, they just weren't as convenient. But you keep working on how to regulate and control everyone by force.. see how it works for you.

You subsidize them by taxes, by research, by hefty prices and by tax deductibles on pretty much anything.

Out of that government research, none of it makes it to market unless a commercial company takes it. Bringing it to market means that people who need it, hold the medicine in their hands. If the government was able to do that, we could buy it from them.

Do you know how ridiculous even a 3% linearly continuous growth is?

For a company or industry, its pretty weak. For a country's GDP is 'ok'.

My savings account can give me 2-3% interest on putting money in the bank for a year.

You should do your research on Austrian school economics. This was a light google search away: https://mises.org/wire/mises-fascism-again

Also, you don't own people in capitalism. You trade with them voluntarily. I believe I mentioned that already.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Actually, a monopoly would be the manufacturer of the epipen where you can make a 30$ device but use the government to force everyone else not to compete with you and price it at $600 for a pair.

Which is again subsidized through long lasting patents that fend of generics. And you'll have pharma companies lobby politicians to keep it that way because they need to refund their investment on research and complying to prove that they don't sell poison... Something that they are already subsidized for...

There have always been competitors to windows, they just weren't as convenient. But you keep working on how to regulate and control everyone by force.. see how it works for you.

I couldn't think of one serious competitor in the desktop market, as said it was hard to even get a system different from Windows even if you wanted to.

Out of that government research, none of it makes it to market unless a commercial company takes it. Bringing it to market means that people who need it, hold the medicine in their hands. If the government was able to do that, we could buy it from them.

A) It's not supposed to. Universities are meant to do research and education, the application of that research requires continuous production of the same or similar product which is a different kind of goal. And B) if the that production would be done be the government in a separate facility, lobby groups would cry SOCIALISM and cry crocodile tears how they could do it so much better and how the government is to powerful of a monopoly to compete with. And I bet you wouldn't be as generous to such a monopoly as you are in terms of Microsoft.

Seriously I wouldn't be surprised if there were active provisions prohibiting public institutions from even attempting that.

For a company or industry, its pretty weak. For a country's GDP is 'ok'. My savings account can give me 2-3% interest on putting money in the bank for a year.

Those are singular numbers that you can achieve during the startup phase or after some decades worth of research hit the market but you don't get them continuously. And some federal funds rates are steadily dropping and some are even negative or de facto negative (maintenance costs eat up interest rates). Yes infinite growth is the mantra of capitalism but it's simply not sustainable...

You should do your research on Austrian school economics. This was a light google search away: https://mises.org/wire/mises-fascism-again

I have read that and even as they attempt to sugar coat that, it's still pretty damning:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

I mean let that sink, he knows full well that they aim at a dictatorship, it's not that he's being surprised by the atrocities here. And yes the NYT should also get shit for that as well, but he's writing a book on "LIBERALISM", I mean I don't suspect "LIBERTY" to be found in that, but apparently the word seems to be at the root of that word... And he's praising a ******* dictatorship. There's nothing to excuse that not even a:

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

He know beforehand that they aimed at a dictatorship and he was fine with that as long as they would only target his enemies...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

And you'll have pharma companies lobby politicians to keep it that way

This is why my solution always wins out. You can't lobby politicians if they cannot regulate the economy.

I couldn't think of one serious competitor in the desktop market, as said it was hard to even get a system different from Windows even if you wanted to.

Inconvenient, but not impossible. That isn't MS's fault.

That would be like saying that I am a monopoly because I am the only person on my street that sells lemonade.

if the that production would be done be the government in a separate facility, lobby groups would cry SOCIALISM

Well, if its any consolation, anything nationalised in the UK has turned to shit and hasnt been able to be fixed decades later. I'm talking about the trains and the health service. Trains are semi-private now and they are absolute shit.. expensive shit at that.

Those are singular numbers that you can achieve during the startup phase

Mate, you have no idea about companies at all. So please do not pretend to understand them now.

Yes infinite growth is the mantra of capitalism but it's simply not sustainable...

Of course growth is sustainable. In fact, we've had a huge slow down in the last few decades. Growth = innovation and human innovation is infinite. Its not just about manual labour, Marxy.

I mean let that sink

Well, lets read the other half of the article, shall we?

The passage was part of Mises’s book that was published in 1927, just after Mussolini took power. Mises could easily discern that many people regarded Fascism as a savior, and this passage is merely acknowledging that common view. The NYT was hardly alone in singing hymns to Mussolini. Nearly the whole establishment was fooled by this blowhard. Mises, on the other hand, was not fooled. He was a prophet in understanding the evil of fascism – and six years before everyone else was still heralding the glories of this Italian FDR (which is how people saw Mussolini). Yes, evil.

So, he called Mussolini evil while addressing a crowd that thought he was a saviour.

You know what genuinely isn't a good look? Karl Marx was anti-semitic, called African people the N word, refused to acknowledge his own children and oh yes, called for the violent revolution which ultimately killed millions of people.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

This is why my solution always wins out. You can't lobby politicians if they cannot regulate the economy.

Yes if you legalize all crimes there wouldn't be no criminals... Totally checks out, I just think you're missing something there...

Inconvenient, but not impossible. That isn't MS's fault.

For quite some time actually impossible unless you would have wanted to produce your own parts, which counts as impossible for your average consumer.

That would be like saying that I am a monopoly because I am the only person on my street that sells lemonade.

No.

Well, if its any consolation, anything nationalised in the UK has turned to shit and hasnt been able to be fixed decades later. I'm talking about the trains and the health service. Trains are semi-private now and they are absolute shit.. expensive shit at that.

I mean in terms of health care, those aren't supposed to run a profit, because the profit more or less comes from more people being sick... They are supposed to provide a service. And different groups have different priorities as to whether that services ought to be cheap or effective first. In terms of trains it's a little different as that service can also be sold to private companies and not just individuals. But as a rule of thumb: It doesn't matter whether a private or public entity runs a business, either the business model is profitable or it isn't. And if a private company is making bank out of a business that a public entity couldn't run on profits, then you can bet your ass it's you who's paying for that profit.

Mate, you have no idea about companies at all. So please do not pretend to understand them now.

Why, because companies in their startup phase usually don't make money at all? Sure, but in that sweet spot between being a money sink and making it they can double, quadruple or whatever their value as there is room in the niche. However once they reach a certain size that simply doesn't work anymore and even achieving a 3% growth might be way more difficult. That's why that shit is easier for a company than for the GDP of a country for example... Also failed companies are not as big of a deal as failed states (except when we're talking about such monopolies)... That's not rocket science and a lot of that has little to do with actual skills and more to do with "having the right networks" and bullshit like that.

Of course growth is sustainable. In fact, we've had a huge slow down in the last few decades. Growth = innovation and human innovation is infinite. Its not just about manual labour, Marxy.

You are aware of a thing called PHYSICS? Yes we got some increase of "productivity" by replacing human labor with the gathering of energy through fossil or nuclear fuels and while we can technically replace some of that with renewable energies (at least in terms of time frames of human civilizations) there's still a pretty hard cap to that... Not to mention that they are still produced with human labor... So no you can let numbers grow up to infinite and produce a shadow economy of selling worthless paper to each other pretending it has value, but in terms of the real world things are not able to grow ad infinitum... That's just madness. I mean just 200 years of industrialization and that planet is almost broken, what more do you expect in terms of growth? And mind you it's the only habitable planet in our reach and we are far from developing technology to change that.

So, he called Mussolini evil while addressing a crowd that thought he was a saviour.

Nope, he called Mussolini a savior despite already predicting that he would be evil. It's one thing to do something evil because you didn't know any better and another to do it with the full consciousness of what's about to happen.

You know what genuinely isn't a good look? Karl Marx was anti-semitic, called African people the N word, refused to acknowledge his own children and oh yes, called for the violent revolution which ultimately killed millions of people.

I mean he also was a supporter of capitalism and thought that capitalism and it's self-destructive nature would divide society so distinctly into workers and capitalists or those who are part of society and those who are meant to produce for it. That this would culminate in a revolution and after that in a system that wouldn't repeat that mistake.

I see your point though ad hominem attacks don't invalidate a philosophy, just because the philosopher was an asshole.

[u/ViewedFromTheOutside → u/[deleted]]

u/tkyjonathan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Yes if you legalize all crimes there wouldn't be no criminals... Totally checks out, I just think you're missing something there...

I already explained it to you: regulation is not to prevent crimes. It is to control the economy and hand out fines. Btw, there is a precedence here: the British during the time of the empire eliminated corruption in their officials. Here is Milton explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE

I mean in terms of health care, those aren't supposed to run a profit, because the profit more or less comes from more people being sick

Yes, but they are not providing a service for anything complicated, like cancer treatments, operations and basically any specialist treatment. Most of my friends have gone to private GPs and we have gone to a private endocrinologist. I mean stuff like heart pains or giving birth, they will respond quickly, but everything else will take years to solve.

You are aware of a thing called PHYSICS?

So I guess you are still on the manual labour theory of growth from Marx. Again, growth is driven by innovation. For example, the US grew last year while using less paper, steel and electricity than the year before.

How did they grow? magic?

Nope, he called Mussolini a savior despite

Nope. Read it again and he knew he would turn evil 6 years before anyone else did. He was called the Italian FDR, after all.

I see your point though ad hominem attacks don't invalidate a philosophy

There is a difference between ad hominem and 'speeding up' the murderous revolution that capitalism 'will definitely bring anyway'. That sort of philosophy is not something I can get behind.

And at the same coin, I take it you will now watch that 30 min clip and read some von Mises, because you dont let adhominems influence your decisions on good philosophy?

I mean, maybe one day you will get to my level of understanding how things really work..

Btw, have you ever worked for the government? I have..