Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The New United States wrote:The World Assembly is antithetical to Libertarianism. It is a world-spanning bureaucracy that, through mob rule, imposes its (often vile) will upon the nations of the world.

You don't have to participate if you don't want to, so leave people who do alone. There's nothing wrong with nations working together.

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:That I understand, but voting against new legislation just because it's new legislation and stuff like that seems illogical.

It's based on principle. Any vote for a new piece of legislation (besides a repeal) is an acknowledgement that the World Assmebly should have control over our people. It is an acknowledgement that the bureaucrats of the World Assembly have more right to dictate the policies of each nation than those nations themselves.

Condealism wrote:Because he has more than one vote in the World Assembly due to the fact that he is Delegate, as opposed to an ordinary member of the WA. He votes not for himself but for Libertatem.

I understand that he votes for our benefit. I also understand that delegates have more influence in the WA, as I was once a delegate. But not all new legislation harms us.

International Union For Peace

Midland County wrote:You don't have to participate if you don't want to, so leave people who do alone. There's nothing wrong with nations working together.

The game necessitates that we join the World Assmebly, if we ever want to do more than answer issues and post on the RMB.

Midland County wrote:You don't have to participate if you don't want to, so leave people who do alone. There's nothing wrong with nations working together.

As a raiding/defending region with an active Delegate, we are inextricably tied to the machinations of this Assembly - the most moral thing we can do is endeavor (often in vain) to reduce the amount of control it exerts over the policies of its members.

Miencraft, The New United States

The New United States wrote:It's based on principle. Any vote for a new piece of legislation (besides a repeal) is an acknowledgement that the World Assmebly should have control over our people. It is an acknowledgement that the bureaucrats of the World Assembly have more right to dictate the policies of each nation than those nations themselves.

It's not like they're voting for anything that is in any way harmful. They vote for human rights and safety.

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:I understand that he votes for our benefit. I also understand that delegates have more influence in the WA, as I was once a delegate. But not all new legislation harms us.

If legislation is truly benign, then why must it be forced on all members of the World Assembly?

Miencraft, The New United States

Condealism wrote:If legislation is truly benign, then why must it be forced on all members of the World Assembly?

The legislation is often helpful.

International Union For Peace

Condealism wrote:If legislation is truly benign, then why must it be forced on all members of the World Assembly?

If you're in the WA, you're not being forced to do anything. You are choosing to follow its rules.

Rateria, International Union For Peace

The New United States wrote:It's based on principle. Any vote for a new piece of legislation (besides a repeal) is an acknowledgement that the World Assmebly should have control over our people. It is an acknowledgement that the bureaucrats of the World Assembly have more right to dictate the policies of each nation than those nations themselves.

I see your point, but we have a say in what they pass. Many people find that essential to democracy.

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:I see your point, but we have a say in what they pass. Many people find that essential to democracy.

There's more to democracy - or, at least, the beneficial implementation thereof - than mob rule. It's majority say without regard for minority rights.

Nothing is stopping an individual nation from passing civil rights initiatives within their own borders. But for any nation that desires to be a delegate, or a defender, or an author of Security Council proposals, the WA doesn't give them a choice, and leaving is not a viable option. Furthermore, the wording of many examples of GA legislation suggests that a nation's government should be compatible with their contents - meaning that anarchy is implied to be illegal (because some laws require a government to enforce them), bureaucracy is implied to be mandatory (because some laws demand the creation of new government departments to endorse their contents), and nations can't find equally effective alternatives to the inflexible GA resolutions... at least, until they're repealed.

Miencraft, The New United States

I have to reveal something to my region. I am MtF transgender and see the rights of libertarianism as necessary to allow people like myself to not be oppressed by religious fundamentalists.

Miencraft, Hallo Island, Condealism, The American Empire In Libertatem

The Serbian Empire wrote:I have to reveal something to my region. I am MtF transgender and see the rights of libertarianism as necessary to allow people like myself to not be oppressed by religious fundamentalists.

Lucky for you. I'm working on embassies with Gay.

anyways,

good for you! :)

The Serbian Empire, International Union For Peace

The Serbian Empire wrote:I have to reveal something to my region. I am MtF transgender and see the rights of libertarianism as necessary to allow people like myself to not be oppressed by religious fundamentalists.

Well, you have my full support.

The Serbian Empire, Rateria, International Union For Peace

Midland County wrote:It's not like they're voting for anything that is in any way harmful. They vote for human rights and safety.

They legislate that our governments must transgress the rightful confines of the state.

Miencraft, Condealism

The Serbian Empire wrote:I have to reveal something to my region. I am MtF transgender and see the rights of libertarianism as necessary to allow people like myself to not be oppressed by religious fundamentalists.

What is your preferred pronoun?

Hallo Island wrote:What is your preferred pronoun?

Female ones... You can call me Marisa.

International Union For Peace

Condealism wrote:There's more to democracy - or, at least, the beneficial implementation thereof - than mob rule. It's majority say without regard for minority rights.

Nothing is stopping an individual nation from passing civil rights initiatives within their own borders. But for any nation that desires to be a delegate, or a defender, or an author of Security Council proposals, the WA doesn't give them a choice, and leaving is not a viable option. Furthermore, the wording of many examples of GA legislation suggests that a nation's government should be compatible with their contents - meaning that anarchy is implied to be illegal (because some laws require a government to enforce them), bureaucracy is implied to be mandatory (because some laws demand the creation of new government departments to endorse their contents), and nations can't find equally effective alternatives to the inflexible GA resolutions... at least, until they're repealed.

I see your point. But how does the WA oppress the minority? Please, tell me more.

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:I see your point. But how does the WA oppress the minority? Please, tell me more.

What else is there to say? The majority of the WA decides which way not only they themselves, but also the minority, run their nations - they impose entitlements and regulations upon every member of the World Assembly, and every piece of legislation permitted to accomplish this tyranny is another infringement of a member nation's sovereignty.

Miencraft, Kings Island, The New United States

The Independence Caucus is still a thing, if anybody wants to join up and show their solidarity against the World Assembly.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_new_united_states/detail=factbook/id=273569

The New United States wrote:The Independence Caucus is still a thing, if anybody wants to join up and show their solidarity against the World Assembly.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_new_united_states/detail=factbook/id=273569

lol ew

International Union For Peace

Condealism wrote:What else is there to say? The majority of the WA decides which way not only they themselves, but also the minority, run their nations - they impose entitlements and regulations upon every member of the World Assembly, and every piece of legislation permitted to accomplish this tyranny is another infringement of a member nation's sovereignty.

Ah, thanks for explaining. But what do you mean by mob rule?

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:Ah, thanks for explaining. But what do you mean by mob rule?

You know, mob rule. Governance by a crowd. A large group of people telling a smaller group how to live their life. Democracy minus the safeguards. A popular vote without justice or equality.

DOS Reform Act is in the Laws.

I don't think it's often appreciated how bad the original President Bush was. Any foreign policy successes aside, he went out of his way to expand government, increasing taxes without so much as a trade-off for spending cuts (in 1991, his proposed budget would have actually spent more than the Democrats), passing unconstitutional top-down regulations like the Americans with Disabilities Act, bringing in 'gun-free zones' and banning imports of semi-automatic weapons. President Reagan cut the number of pages in the Federal Register in half, but Bush actually increased the number of pages, i.e. the number of regulations. All Bushes are bad, except perhaps Prescott Bush for trying to overthrow President Roosevelt.

Miencraft, Tyrinth, Hallo Island

Condealism wrote:You know, mob rule. Governance by a crowd. A large group of people telling a smaller group how to live their life. Democracy minus the safeguards. A popular vote without justice or equality.

The annoying thing about the WA is that it's not just mob rule, it's rule of the ignorant. They vote yes on nearly every proposal. For example, they voted to condemn North Korea, and then repealed the condemnation just days later. They're a bunch of hacks.

Miencraft, Tyrinth, The New United States, Condealism, Sweden And Finland

Pevvania wrote:The annoying thing about the WA is that it's not just mob rule, it's rule of the ignorant. They vote yes on nearly every proposal. For example, they voted to condemn North Korea, and then repealed the condemnation just days later. They're a bunch of hacks.

Yeah I gave up on it

The New United States, International Union For Peace

Interesting day, huh?

Humpheria wrote:Interesting day, huh?

It's been something.

International Union For Peace

Condealism wrote:You know, mob rule. Governance by a crowd. A large group of people telling a smaller group how to live their life. Democracy minus the safeguards. A popular vote without justice or equality.

Ok. Point taken. Thank you for your time.

International Union For Peace

Pevvania wrote:The annoying thing about the WA is that it's not just mob rule, it's rule of the ignorant. They vote yes on nearly every proposal. For example, they voted to condemn North Korea, and then repealed the condemnation just days later. They're a bunch of hacks.

So you're saying that the WA is full of yes-men? I find that statement true. Although there are plenty of members that aren't like that.

Pevvania, International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:So you're saying that the WA is full of yes-men? I find that statement true. Although there are plenty of members that aren't like that.

And rubber stampers who want to be known as the author of even the shortest lived of WA proposals.

International Union For Peace

Humpheria wrote:Interesting day, huh?

Yes, it has been interesting.

International Union For Peace

The Serbian Empire wrote:And rubber stampers who want to be known as the author of even the shortest lived of WA proposals.

Also true. In my day, I have seen some really absurd proposals.

International Union For Peace

Looks like the TABLOID Act is about to pass in the House.

Kings Island wrote:Looks like the TABLOID Act is about to pass in the House.

This is a victory for transparency. This is a victory for democracy. This is a victory for Libertatem.

Humpheria, Condealism, International Union For Peace

How would I create a political party in this region?

The New United States wrote:This is a victory for transparency. This is a victory for democracy. This is a victory for Libertatem.

Sounds good to me.

International Union For Peace

The New United States wrote:This is a victory for transparency. This is a victory for democracy. This is a victory for Libertatem.

Way to sugarcoat it.

International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Hallo Island wrote:Way to sugarcoat it.

How is the TABLOID. Act detrimental? I would like to know.

Pevvania wrote:The annoying thing about the WA is that it's not just mob rule, it's rule of the ignorant. They vote yes on nearly every proposal. For example, they voted to condemn North Korea, and then repealed the condemnation just days later. They're a bunch of hacks.

Yeah I gave up on it

Rateria wrote:How is the TABLOID. Act detrimental? I would like to know.

The solution is to give the house more power, not to take it from the board.

Sweden And Finland wrote:How would I create a political party in this region?

Sweden And Finland wrote:

The party system is privatized, so you don't need any permission!

Just write a factbook entry describing your party and then announce it on the RMB. After that, it would be advisable to ask [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation] to put a short description on his factbook of political parties.

If you need any help, feel free to ask! :)

International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Hallo Island wrote:The solution is to give the house more power, not to take it from the board.

Huh?

Sweden And Finland

The New United States wrote:The party system is privatized, so you don't need any permission!

Just write a factbook entry describing your party and then announce it on the RMB. After that, it would be advisable to ask [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation] to put a short description on his factbook of political parties.

If you need any help, feel free to ask! :)

OK. Thank you!

Hallo Island wrote:The solution is to give the house more power, not to take it from the board.

It's not taking any power from the board. It's simply ensuring that board proceedings are open and transparent.

The New United States, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem, Sweden And Finland

Sorry about that, guys. I clicked the wrong button.

Jim Webb is a more reasonable Democrat. Opposes the Wars on Drugs and Terror, opposes raising income tax rates and supports cutting corporate taxes. He'd get my vote over many Republican candidates.

Sweden And Finland

Pevvania wrote:Jim Webb is a more reasonable Democrat. Opposes the Wars on Drugs and Terror, opposes raising income tax rates and supports cutting corporate taxes. He'd get my vote over many Republican candidates.

I like him, but he'll never receive the Democratic nomination.

Sweden And Finland

#jokesyanksdontget: Jeremy Corbyn

Sweden And Finland

With a vote of 6 - 1 - 1, the TABLOID Act has passed in the House.

The New United States, Humpheria, Rateria, International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Pevvania wrote:Jim Webb is a more reasonable Democrat. Opposes the Wars on Drugs and Terror, opposes raising income tax rates and supports cutting corporate taxes. He'd get my vote over many Republican candidates.

The only Democrat that I have a chance of voting for is Clinton, and that's only if Trump is The Republican Candidate.

Sweden And Finland wrote:The only Democrat that I have a chance of voting for is Clinton, and that's only if Trump is The Republican Candidate.

Clinton has lied to the America people on several occasions, including regarding the Benghazi attack. She's also far further to the left economically then Jim Webb.

Miencraft, Sweden And Finland

Kings Island wrote:Clinton has lied to the America people on several occasions, including regarding the Benghazi attack. She's also far further to the left economically then Jim Webb.

Clinton is for sure going to win the Democratic candidacy. Bush and Trump are looking like they're going to get the Republican candidacy.

Sweden And Finland wrote:Clinton is for sure going to win the Democratic candidacy. Bush and Trump are looking like they're going to get the Republican candidacy.

I feel like Trump will for sure... which is bull because Rand is the way to go as far as Republicans go...

Stupid racist neo-con Trump..

Reaganomic Nws, Sweden And Finland

Sweden And Finland wrote:Clinton is for sure going to win the Democratic candidacy. Bush and Trump are looking like they're going to get the Republican candidacy.

Which is why you should vote Libertarian. If they get five percent of the vote, they get government funding in the next election.

Sweden And Finland

Muh Roads wrote:I feel like Trump will for sure... which is bull because Rand is the way to go as far as Republicans go...

Stupid racist neo-con Trump..

Yep. Rand has my full support. Realistically though, I think he doesn't have a chance so I'd probably go for either Bush or Rubio. They're not libertarian, but still better than stupid Trump...As for the Democrats, Jim Webb would be acceptable in my eyes. Hilary is a compulsive liar and an inconsiderate, Machievalian opportunist, while Bernie is an incompetent leftie redman who wants to turn 'Murica into a fricken pseudo-Nordic Model welfare state with higha** taxes...Rant over.

Miencraft, The Serbian Empire, Rateria, Sweden And Finland

Kings Island wrote:Which is why you should vote Libertarian. If they get five percent of the vote, they get government funding in the next election.

Libertarian looks like it is going to be one of the major parties in about 20 years.

Pevvania wrote:Jim Webb is a more reasonable Democrat. Opposes the Wars on Drugs and Terror, opposes raising income tax rates and supports cutting corporate taxes. He'd get my vote over many Republican candidates.

He seems to be wishy-washy on stuff like free trade though. (Fair trade...what is fair trade? Idk)

Kings Island wrote:Which is why you should vote Libertarian. If they get five percent of the vote, they get government funding in the next election.

Irony is a libertarian party trying to get government funding.

No, getting five percent of the vote means the LPUS can use it to sue the hell out of the Republicans and Democrats using that money.

International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Reaganomic Nws wrote:Yep. Rand has my full support. Realistically though, I think he doesn't have a chance so I'd probably go for either Bush or Rubio. They're not libertarian, but still better than stupid Trump...As for the Democrats, Jim Webb would be acceptable in my eyes. Hilary is a compulsive liar and an inconsiderate, Machievalian opportunist, while Bernie is an incompetent leftie redman who wants to turn 'Murica into a fricken pseudo-Nordic Model welfare state with higha** taxes...Rant over.

I think Bernie Sanders is far too left wing to even be viable.

Sweden And Finland

Trump is a publicity stunt, I don't see it

Kings Island, Humpheria, International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Trump is a publicity stunt, I don't see it

I think he's a plant by the Democrats to be frank. Trying to use him to make the GOP voters look bad.

International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Please, dear heavens, please do not let Hillary win.

That's the extent of my thoughts I'm willing to share on the 2016 presidential race.

Miencraft, International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland

Man, that Trump is really very hilarious, if Bernie becomes POTUS, then America can very easily remain a superpower for the next 50 years.

The Serbian Empire wrote:I think Bernie Sanders is far too left wing to even be viable.

I would say, you have not yet seen the actual far left, Bernie is anything but far left.

International Union For Peace wrote:I would say, you have not yet seen the actual far left, Bernie is anything but far left.

At least for American standards of economically right wing, highly authoritarian politicians Sanders is far left.

International Union For Peace

International Union For Peace wrote:Man, that Trump is really very hilarious, if Bernie becomes POTUS, then America can very easily remain a superpower for the next 50 years.

*vomits in mouth*

I'm going to need a moment to recover after reading that.

Kings Island

Humpheria wrote:*vomits in mouth*

I'm going to need a moment to recover after reading that.

Really, brother capitalism has failed the world over, if you want to vote Republican/Hilary, you can but then that would be the end of US as we know it. Socialism is the next hip thing, and the only hope for humanity. Anyways Bernie is leading among democrats as of now.

International Union For Peace wrote:Really, brother capitalism has failed the world over, if you want to vote Republican/Hilary, you can but then that would be the end of US as we know it. Socialism is the next hip thing, and the only hope for humanity. Anyways Bernie is leading among democrats as of now.

Yes we should institute public policy because it is hip.

Miencraft

Humpheria wrote:Yes we should institute public policy because it is hip.

*Yes we should institute public policy because it is the only way forward, there is no alternative.

Remember:Change is the only constant, Capitalism has been around since Reagan and it has failed as has become clear by now, the time for change has come. It is 1929 all over again, the roarinng 20s(a.k.a the 90s and pre-2007) are over, the world is failing to recover, it's time to change.

Souces:

http://www.profitconfidential.com/economy/global-economy-slows-down-earnings-and-stock-market-to-follow/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-marksjarvis-0722-biz-20150721-column.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/distraction-of-greece-aside-is-all-well-with-the-world-economy/articleshow/48133699.cms

Humpheria wrote:Yes we should institute public policy because it is hip.

*Yes we should institute public policy because it is the only way forward, there is no alternative.

Remember:Change is the only constant, Capitalism has been around since Reagan and it has failed as has become clear by now, the time for change has come. It is 1929 all over again, the roarinng 20s(a.k.a the 90s and pre-2007) are over, the world is failing to recover, it's time to change.

Souces:

http://www.profitconfidential.com/economy/global-economy-slows-down-earnings-and-stock-market-to-follow/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-marksjarvis-0722-biz-20150721-column.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/distraction-of-greece-aside-is-all-well-with-the-world-economy/articleshow/48133699.cms

Haha funny,Hoover did not even believe in free markets. In that period in time Republicans supported protectionism. Hoover raised tariffs and other nations did the same as a reaction. This meant that the demand for goods went down which lead to businesses losing revenue. If a business loses revenue that may lead to people losing jobs. It is a myth that capitalism caused the great depression. What caused it was government barriers to the market.

Kings Island

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122576077569495545

International Union For Peace wrote:*Yes we should institute public policy because it is the only way forward, there is no alternative.

Remember:Change is the only constant, Capitalism has been around since Reagan and it has failed as has become clear by now, the time for change has come. It is 1929 all over again, the roarinng 20s(a.k.a the 90s and pre-2007) are over, the world is failing to recover, it's time to change.

Souces:

http://www.profitconfidential.com/economy/global-economy-slows-down-earnings-and-stock-market-to-follow/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-marksjarvis-0722-biz-20150721-column.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/distraction-of-greece-aside-is-all-well-with-the-world-economy/articleshow/48133699.cms

Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem

[quote=the_american_empire_in_libertatem;12889575]Haha funny,Hoover did not even believe in free markets. In that period in time Republicans supported protectionism. Hoover raised tariffs and other nations did the same as a reaction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney-McCumber_Tariff

Kings Island

The American Empire In Libertatem wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122576077569495545

Wow, you are quoting wsj to support capitalism, that is like quoting world socialist to support socialism, find a neutral source first, even CNN has admitted stagnation, anyways what is the first quarter GDP growth rate of US, i guess negative.

http://fee.org/resources/detail/great-myths-of-the-great-depression-pdf-and-audio

The American Empire In Libertatem wrote:http://fee.org/resources/detail/great-myths-of-the-great-depression-pdf-and-audio

Okay but the article also states that, the great depression started due to monetary policy easing, which is the current scenario, interest rates in US have not been increased for 8 years now. Credit is cheap, the point to be noted is that capitalism has never delivered growth with tight monetary policies, so if you want growth in capitalism, that ultimately leads you to depression, thus jeopardizing the entire concept of growth in capitalism.

International Union For Peace wrote:Really, brother capitalism has failed the world over, if you want to vote Republican/Hilary, you can but then that would be the end of US as we know it. Socialism is the next hip thing, and the only hope for humanity. Anyways Bernie is leading among democrats as of now.

You're Indian, right? You of all people should recognise just how great capitalism is. Until the 1990s, India was a stagnant socialist state, and most people earned below a dollar a day. Since the early 90s, poverty has fallen from 45% to 22% as a result of market reforms, deregulation and trade liberalization. Hell, it's because of capitalism that you're criticizing it right now on your computer. Capitalism has cut world poverty in half in the last 25 years. And what do the socialists do? Bitch and complain that capitalism is putting people in poverty. And I love how you mentioned socialist Cuba when talking about poverty, a country whose GDP per capita is half of the average income of a poor American. A "poor" American has an average income of around $10,000. That makes him richer than 80% of the world population. Cuba has a low poverty rate by its own standards, but those standards are not very good, since people are poor in general. Rich people in socialist countries are poor people in capitalist countries.

Please take an economics course.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem

If it wasn't for capitalism, poor Indians would be working in farms than the IT sector...

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem

International Union For Peace wrote:Capitalism has been around since Reagan

Umm...

Capitalism has been existent since at least the 14th century.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, The New United States, Humpheria, Right-Winged Nation, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem

International Union For Peace wrote:Okay but the article also states that, the great depression started due to monetary policy easing, which is the current scenario, interest rates in US have not been increased for 8 years now. Credit is cheap, the point to be noted is that capitalism has never delivered growth with tight monetary policies, so if you want growth in capitalism, that ultimately leads you to depression, thus jeopardizing the entire concept of growth in capitalism.

Well the solution to that is to abolish the central bank.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, Humpheria, The American Empire In Libertatem

Pevvania wrote:You're Indian, right? You of all people should recognise just how great capitalism is. Until the 1990s, India was a stagnant socialist state, and most people earned below a dollar a day. Since the early 90s, poverty has fallen from 45% to 22% as a result of market reforms, deregulation and trade liberalization. Hell, it's because of capitalism that you're criticizing it right now on your computer. Capitalism has cut world poverty in half in the last 25 years. And what do the socialists do? Bitch and complain that capitalism is putting people in poverty. And I love how you mentioned socialist Cuba when talking about poverty, a country whose GDP per capita is half of the average income of a poor American. A "poor" American has an average income of around $10,000. That makes him richer than 80% of the world population. Cuba has a low poverty rate by its own standards, but those standards are not very good, since people are poor in general. Rich people in socialist countries are poor people in capitalist countries.

Please take an economics course.

Yes before 1991 people were poor, but here is one thing you missed out, people were poor because money was worthless, things were not monetized, the government owned most things and provided most things, 95% of the workers were employed by the government in state industries. Money is not everything, if you ever lived in a socialist state you would know, people had a lot of things, all these things were state issued not bought, no one had money, no one needed money.

Poverty? yeah a lot of Indians were poor, poor of what? green paper(a.k.a monney), they got what they needed, why bother with money, capitalism just provided a monetary value to things, people had state issued homes, that home was after the economic reforms of 1991 made available for sale to the market, voila the people are rich(earlier you could not put a cost to that house, because you were not allowed to sell it)

Monetizing things people own, adding that monney to people's value makes people get out of poverty, but guess what they had that thing before that asset was capitalized and yo they now have capital, in India a thousand state companies were sold, all that money was added to government coffers, capitalist logic-->the government is richer.

In Cuba money buys few things, is money a collectors item? Why would Cubans get money, and where would they get the money from? They get free transportation, free housing, free healthcare, free phones. Now would you like to collect money brother. Money =/= an awesome life, hard for someone who has lived in the US to understand, visit the Nordic countries sometime.

Economics is irrelevant to socialism, because socialism makes money useless, money is an old institution established by the monarchy to collect taxes(what the libertarians actually oppose), if you want freedom, abolish money, economics only affects people's lives when money controls their life, take the money out, and you won't need the economics.

From 1991 onwards my parents' disposable income doubled every 3 years(this is the reason capitalism finds massive support among Indian millenials and those who joined the workforce after 1991), but the current generation growing up(including me) owe no loyalty to capitalism, jobs are hard to come by, when they do our incomes are at best equal to our parents, nothing more, pre-2010 it was not rare to make triple of what your dad makes, as your first pay.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If it wasn't for capitalism, poor Indians would be working in farms than the IT sector...

Yes let capitalism be credited for every good thing after 1991.

Muh Roads wrote:Umm...

Capitalism has been existent since at least the 14th century.

Before WW2, it was either feudalism or colonialism or mercantilism not capitalism, capitalism cannot exist in a non-democratic state, as I have explained before.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/does_capitalism.html

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Well the solution to that is to abolish the central bank.

You do understand that the central bank gaurantees the USD, are you suggesting a currency like Bitcoin.

International Union For Peace wrote:Before WW2, it was either feudalism or colonialism or mercantilism not capitalism, capitalism cannot exist in a non-democratic state, as I have explained before.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/does_capitalism.html

Capitalism existed way before WWII. Capitalism existed during the Industrial Revolution for certain, but it was not as regulated like now.

International Union For Peace wrote:You do understand that the central bank gaurantees the USD, are you suggesting a currency like Bitcoin.

No.

I am suggesting that currencies be issued privately by the banks, and that currencies compete freely in the market. Free market banking worked successfully for a hundred years, and in Scotland had only a failure rate of 4/1000 (compared to like 30/1000 for England).

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No.

I am suggesting that currencies be issued privately by the banks, and that currencies compete freely in the market. Free market banking worked successfully for a hundred years, and in Scotland had only a failure rate of 4/1000 (compared to like 30/1000 for England).

This is an interesting concept. But how would it work?

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:This is an interesting concept. But how would it work?

The only way it could work is if the US paid off all of its debts, something that isn't likely anytime soon. But the theory is that competing currencies would naturally bring the currencies in question to an equilibrium, where market demand would set its own interest rates naturally and buffer against inflation.

Miencraft, International Union For Peace

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The only way it could work is if the US paid off all of its debts, something that isn't likely anytime soon. But the theory is that competing currencies would naturally bring the currencies in question to an equilibrium, where market demand would set its own interest rates naturally and buffer against inflation.

Thanks for explaining. But how would the values of each currency be set?

International Union For Peace

Rateria wrote:Thanks for explaining. But how would the values of each currency be set?

By market demand, again. Probably these currencies would be backed by something, maybe a mix of gold and silver. But even for fiat currencies, its values would be set by the users. Remember that the only reason $20 is worth $20 is because the majority of people believe its $20 and treat it as such.

The primary benefit of this system is that its the banks who are caring to the needs of their customers, and not the government's central planning which can only make guesses thru its models. In addition there is a liability incentive.

Miencraft, International Union For Peace

Republic Of Minerva wrote:By market demand, again. Probably these currencies would be backed by something, maybe a mix of gold and silver. But even for fiat currencies, its values would be set by the users. Remember that the only reason $20 is worth $20 is because the majority of people believe its $20 and treat it as such.

The primary benefit of this system is that its the banks who are caring to the needs of their customers, and not the government's central planning which can only make guesses thru its models. In addition there is a liability incentive.

Ah, point taken. Thank you for your time.

Republic Of Minerva, International Union For Peace

International Union For Peace wrote:Before WW2, it was either feudalism or colonialism or mercantilism not capitalism, capitalism cannot exist in a non-democratic state, as I have explained before.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/does_capitalism.html

Mercantilism ended in the early 19th century.

I'll remind you that Hoover decided to close the stock exchange following the crash. Had it remained open, a partial recovery would have occurred almost immediately.

Instead, the closure led to a panic and a run on the banks, which led to banks going bankrupt and calling in loans from businesses and individuals, which led to massive closure and the Great Depression.

Furthermore, the crash would not have occurred without protectionist policies. The crisis was entirely due to government intervention.

Miencraft, Pevvania

International Union For Peace wrote:Yes before 1991 people were poor, but here is one thing you missed out, people were poor because money was worthless, things were not monetized, the government owned most things and provided most things, 95% of the workers were employed by the government in state industries. Money is not everything, if you ever lived in a socialist state you would know, people had a lot of things, all these things were state issued not bought, no one had money, no one needed money.

Poverty? yeah a lot of Indians were poor, poor of what? green paper(a.k.a monney), they got what they needed, why bother with money, capitalism just provided a monetary value to things, people had state issued homes, that home was after the economic reforms of 1991 made available for sale to the market, voila the people are rich(earlier you could not put a cost to that house, because you were not allowed to sell it)

Monetizing things people own, adding that monney to people's value makes people get out of poverty, but guess what they had that thing before that asset was capitalized and yo they now have capital, in India a thousand state companies were sold, all that money was added to government coffers, capitalist logic-->the government is richer.

In Cuba money buys few things, is money a collectors item? Why would Cubans get money, and where would they get the money from? They get free transportation, free housing, free healthcare, free phones. Now would you like to collect money brother. Money =/= an awesome life, hard for someone who has lived in the US to understand, visit the Nordic countries sometime.

Economics is irrelevant to socialism, because socialism makes money useless, money is an old institution established by the monarchy to collect taxes(what the libertarians actually oppose), if you want freedom, abolish money, economics only affects people's lives when money controls their life, take the money out, and you won't need the economics.

From 1991 onwards my parents' disposable income doubled every 3 years(this is the reason capitalism finds massive support among Indian millenials and those who joined the workforce after 1991), but the current generation growing up(including me) owe no loyalty to capitalism, jobs are hard to come by, when they do our incomes are at best equal to our parents, nothing more, pre-2010 it was not rare to make triple of what your dad makes, as your first pay.

False. Taxes in early history were collected in goods such as grain and beer as well as in money. Currency is necessary as a means of exchange to simplify complex transactions.

You're "the state provides everything" argument is silly. The Indian government never had the resourced to care for the whole population, and the Cuban and North Korean people are impoverished.

Rateria

Mien, when are we opening up your department again? We've got folks waiting.

International Union For Peace wrote:Before WW2, it was either feudalism or colonialism or mercantilism not capitalism, capitalism cannot exist in a non-democratic state, as I have explained before.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/does_capitalism.html

I'm on break at work, I'll explain my point of view later on today.

Does anyone have tips for my factbook?

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.