Agnapostate:Social democracy is merely a different breed of capitalism, which falls into the category of the more leftist Rhine capitalism rather than the more rightist form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. The Anglo-Saxon model, of course, illustrates the inefficient nature of attempting to implement a "free market" economic framework, which is a utopian fantasy with no applicability outside of the textbook.
The reason Scandanavian "socialism" is able to allow its people more freedom is because its a social democracy. Social democracies recognize that the market is for the benefit of the people living and trading in it. Its not really working if it doesn't benefit the people at large. Eventually, as more countries implement similar policies more people will effectively be able to contribute, and tax rates will drop even lower. Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent.
Adam E Zandarski
Pskapompos: Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent.
Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with progressive / social-democratic policies, such as a central banking, anti-trust legislation, nationalization and erosion of property rights, whatsoever.You guys really need to read up on libertarian theory and positions before you accuse us of supporting the status quo. And check your premises.
I have no clue what this means.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Agnapostate:Social democracy is merely a different breed of capitalism,
It's a shame that's bullshit, otherwise you might have a point. Capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production, social democracy means publicly owned means of production.
Agnapostate:The Anglo-Saxon model, of course, illustrates the inefficient nature of attempting to implement a "free market" economic framework, which is a utopian fantasy with no applicability outside of the textbook.
Perhaps if you'd read more than Noam Chomsky you'd understand that free markets cannot be implemented.
Agnapostate:though short of the efficiency that socialist economic structure is required to guarantee,
A socialist economy is impossible, once again if you'd bothered to read the seminal works of the economy who this institute is named after, you'd know this.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Why thankyou very very very much.
I'm goign to Sweden for a year a have a research project on the Swedish social healthcare system, and am hoping to expand it to socialism in general.
I may post my finding back here.
Ugh. The above was not properly edited and the site is not letting me edit for some reason. So what it should say is...
"Why thank you very very very much for the post and links.
I'm going to Sweden for a year abroad and have been given a research project on the Swedish social healthcare system, although I am hoping to expand it to socialism in general.
I may post my findings back here."
Why, if it's 40% expropriation as opposed to say 60% (a lot more in either case if you factor in fiat money), it's capitalism!
To darkness I condemn you...
Pskapompos: Social democracies recognize that the market is for the benefit of the people living and trading in it.
Social democracies recognize that the market is for the benefit of the people living and trading in it.
I dont see capitalism being any different.
I have always thought that freedom and self-managemnent are the foundation of a prosperous society
Pskapompos: Its not really working if it doesn't benefit the people at large.
Its not really working if it doesn't benefit the people at large.
How do you measure that benefit?
A happy slave is still a slave.
Pskapompos: Eventually, as more countries implement similar policies more people will effectively be able to contribute, and tax rates will drop even lower.
Eventually, as more countries implement similar policies more people will effectively be able to contribute, and tax rates will drop even lower.
I dont see that happening, historically once the state has some power it always wants more.
Anyway social-democracy is just a bunch of "socialists" that renounced marxism and socialism but they still wear their red shirts for the "nostalgia".
Giles Stratton:It's a shame that's bullshit, otherwise you might have a point. Capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production, social democracy means publicly owned means of production.
I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production. Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
Giles Stratton:Perhaps if you'd read more than Noam Chomsky you'd understand that free markets cannot be implemented.
I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written any major commentary on economic framework; amongst libertarian socialists, that seems to be the purview of Albert and Hahnel. That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable. ;)
Giles Stratton:A socialist economy is impossible, once again if you'd bothered to read the seminal works of the economy who this institute is named after, you'd know this.
Mises was never anything other than buffoonishly incompetent during the course of the economic calculation debate. Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920. This was followed by his inability to respond to the theoretical model produced by Oskar Lange, instead attacking its feasibility. This was then followed by concessions by Hayek and Robbins, who abandoned the concept of the "impossibility" of socialism to some extent.
Following this, market socialism gained a post-Hayekian element, which ensures that it is now able to circumvent the socialist calculation debate. For instance, Burczak's Socialism After Hayek: (Advancements in Heterodox Economics) elaborates on elements of Hayek's inconsistency, which is why David Prychitko notes that the book is "an advance well beyond the great 'socialist calculation debate,'" considering that advocates of decentralized socialism are able to utilize a Hayekian critique to analyze tacit and distributed knowledge issues in capitalism.
More than that, the decentralized nature of libertarian socialist economic structure also permits anarchists and other libertarian socialists to circumvent the socialist calculation debate to some degree, as with the aforementioned Albert and Hahnel, for instance.
Agnapostate:I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production.
Ignorance of economics? If you want to push this nonsense you're going to have to assert it, why is the Austrian school ignorant of economics?
Agnapostate:Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
Publicly owned hospital, roads, finacial sector, military and courts amongst other things. Also high levels of regulations and taxation that essential put large amounts of capital under state control. That sounds like collectivised means of production to me, perhaps not entirely, but then, nobody has said it will entire do so.
Agnapostate:That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable. ;)
Actually it's generally acknowledged that Mises was not awarded the Nobel prize in economics because the prize is awarded by the central bank, with whom he was not particularly popular, so they waited until his death and awarded it to another Austrian. Also, Rothbard was nominated for the prize by a number of European economists, but died subsequently and before he could receive. Menger's Principles is also one of the fundamental works in the neoclassical paradigm, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Agnapostate:Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920. This was followed by his inability to respond to the theoretical model produced by Oskar Lange, instead attacking its feasibility. This was then followed by concessions by Hayek and Robbins, who abandoned the concept of the "impossibility" of socialism to some extent.
Only he did address it, in his book Socialism, in fact the only way the socialists could respond to Mises' challenge was to focus of the weaker Hayekian (also explicated by Robbins) exposition of the calculation problem.
Which brings me on to this:
Agnapostate:Following this, market socialism gained a post-Hayekian element, which ensures that it is now able to circumvent the socialist calculation debate. For instance, Burczak's Socialism After Hayek: (Advancements in Heterodox Economics) elaborates on elements of Hayek's inconsistency, which is why David Prychitko notes that the book is "an advance well beyond the great 'socialist calculation debate,'" considering that advocates of decentralized socialism are able to utilize a Hayekian critique to analyze tacit and distributed knowledge issues in capitalism.
Who gives a damn about Prychitko, he's a hermeneuticist and hardly an Austrian. As I said, those individuals don't even understand the Misesian challenge, so it's no suprise that they reject the weaker Hayekian argument (also rejected by Austrians, see Salerno, Hoppe, Hulsmann, Rothbard and Herbener on this)
Agnapostate: Giles Stratton:It's a shame that's bullshit, otherwise you might have a point. Capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production, social democracy means publicly owned means of production. I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production.
I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production.
So who makes the decisions on these public properties? Sounds like your back at square one.
Agnapostate: Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
"involves public ownership", but "does not collectivize"...ooook?
Agnapostate: I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written any major commentary on economic framework; amongst libertarian socialists, that seems to be the purview of Albert and Hahnel. That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable.
I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written any major commentary on economic framework; amongst libertarian socialists, that seems to be the purview of Albert and Hahnel. That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable.
And meanwhile the free market is producing everything and everybody wants to corrupt or move it's works around.
Agnapostate: Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920.
Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920.
Care to elaborate on "Pareto efficient socialist economic models"? Wikipedia didn't really help me here.
That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable. ;)
Aww an attempt at an insult. How cute.
Actually it was Lange who could never respond to him because Lange had no real clue what he was arguing against (he assumed he was arguing against something akin to neoclassical equilibrium models.) Kirzner documents the history of this debate. If you're going to say Mises was "buffoonishly incompetent" you're going to have to demonstrate it with more than just assertions. Hayek's and Robbins' "concessions" stemmed from their own confusion, in fact. So much for being "buffoonishly incompetent".
As regards the "anglo-saxon" system of economy, where the government largely directs and controls economic activity, it is to that extent more socialist, yes... though not a left-wing variant thereof.
Actually it's generally acknowledged that Mises was not awarded the Nobel prize in economics because the prize is awarded by the central bank, with whom he was not particularly popular, so they waited until his death and awarded it to another Austrian. Also, Rothbard was nominated for the prize by a number of European economists, but died subsequently and before he could receive. Menger's Principles is also one of the fundamental works in the neoclassical paradigm, so I don't know what you're talking about
He means their leftist economic credo.
Actually if this idiot had read anything by Mises, he would know what he was talking about. Instead he comes charging onto the forums for God knows what reason to rant about the buffoonishly ignorant Misesians.
Yeah, but of course no one really has covered this topic.
Agnapostate:I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics
Ok, now try something that isn't a blatant lie. And remember: lying gets you banned.
Knight of Bwaahahahahaha
wilderness: Pskapompos: Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent. I have no clue what this means.
Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other.
If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government.
The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!"
DASawyer: wilderness: Pskapompos: Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent. I have no clue what this means. Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other. If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government. The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!"
Slow down with something specific. I still have no clue what this says other than after reading this a dreadful feeling is trying to overcome me. Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow.
Pick something real. I don't do 'what if's', unless I voluntarily pick up a good dystopia novel, and this fiction isn't shiny enough for me to bite. Thanks.
wilderness:Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow
I tripped once and wrote down my thoughts. It came out something like this. I'm not saying your tripping, but I can make just as much sense of my trips thoughts as the above.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap