Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Economic Freedom Score:
Bangladesh #131
Somalia N/A
Belize #117
Guatemala #87
El Salvador #62
Honduras #116
Nicaragua #108
Panama #68
The Congo #170, 9th-last
http://www.heritage.org/index/
Stop talking out of your ass. Most of these countries are either corrupt corporatist states or countries that have undertook free market reforms and seen great increases in prosperity as a result.
Somalia lacks the institutions for a free market, since its dominated by terrorists and communistic tribes, but nevertheless has done remarkably better under 'anarchy' than under socialism.
From Peter Leeson's 'Better off Stateless': http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf
GDP per capita - IMPROVED
Life expectancy - IMPROVED
One-year olds immunised against TB and measles - IMPROVED
Number of doctors - IMPROVED
Infants with low birth rate - IMPROVED
Maternal mortality rate - IMPROVED
Access to water - same
Access to sanitation - IMPROVED
Access to health facilities - IMPROVED
Extreme poverty - IMPROVED
Access to radios - IMPROVED
Access to telephones - IMPROVED
Access to TVs - IMPROVED
Fatality due to measles - IMPROVED
Adult literacy rate - worse
School enrolment - worse
Even constant violence, religious zealotry and tribal warfare are better than central planning, it seems.
Kings Island
As well as the middle class and poor.
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
notice how it's based on ownership and profit not "no government interference ever lest the holy chalice be dirtied"
Colonialism clearly is a manifestation of imperialism, which itself by definition is moribund capitalism.
Just because it is colonial capitalism doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't being done for the purposes of the elites to make a profit.
it's ironic because it is south korea that would suggest otherwise
Imperialism (moribund capitalism) inevitably leads to some form of colonialism.
Colonialism is a result of mercantilism.
It's because the state intervened in a massive way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5rVD_TXrjo
Has anyone watched this?
state capitalism *brain explodes, leaving black and yellow goo all over libertatem*
Capital has consistently backed authoritarian, corrupt regimes in order to allow western capital to ensure its profit margin. "Economic freedom" has nothing to do with how capitalist said country is.
Oh yes, they're doing so much worse than North Korea under Great Amazing Glorious Excellent Incredible Please Have My Baby Leader Kim Jong Un
Well, capitalism is essentially Social Darwinism quite similar to that seen under fascist regimes. The only difference is that the capitalist Social Darwinian order is primarily carried out by the market rather than the state, although the state plays an important role in protecting the interests of the market with its police, army, etc.
Well, to be fair to the NKoreans, they have been blockaded by western powers over the last several years, which seems to reach peaks whenever the country is in a state of naturally caused famines (which happen in SKorea as well, just that they can bring in food so it can be mitigated).
Nope. Knowledge/economic calculation problem. No one person can know everything about the market at any one time, so central planning will always lead to malinvestment, misallocation of resources and inefficiency. Markets allocate resources most efficiently because they are coordinated by price signals, which reflect the supply and demand of any given commodity. Two excellent essays:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth/html
I never mentioned "a business making billions of dollars in profit". Such firms account for less than 0.1% of all companies. Pretty much most businesses are small businesses that are not run by fat cats smoking cigars on their yachts.
Yes, because of the minimum wage. My nephew cannot go into McDonald's and offer to work for $4. He must work for $7.25 and that's that. Minimum wage laws eliminate the need for competition, fixing a price level that displaces any worker whose productivity is worth less than it.
Exactly. There are so many different factors that influence labour markets across different locales that it's illogical to enforce a uniform price floor across towns and cities and states that are completely different.
Huh?
You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm saying that 1. the large supply of low-skilled workers is the reason the value of their labour is low, 2. the brutality of a uniform price floor is what destroys competition in the lower end of the labour market, and 3. wages rise because of competition and advancement in the job market. No fry cook working forty hours a week is going to stay in a job at the same wage for a year, let alone three months. (Also - according to the Employment Policy Institute, 60% of minimum wage workers receive a raise within their first year.)
This is an anecdotal non-argument. I don't know what you're trying to prove here. You seem to believe that the economy is inflexible and static. That is not the case. This manager may be correct in saying that it's not in his interest to hire more employees. (But really, it depends on the productivity of the individual worker.) But I'm not saying that there should be no minimum wage to achieve full employment. I'm saying there should be no minimum wage to achieve a market equilibrium in employment. Getting rid of the MW would eliminate the distortions in the labour market and allow it to adjust to the right levels of employment and wage-rates. You don't know anything about the retail industry in Albuquerque, or the amount of poverty in Denver. Neither do I. That's the reason why we should let individual markets work instead of applying a single minimum value across 300 million people. Again, it comes back to the fallacy of central planning and the fact that nobody can know everything about the market. Free market pricing reflects the state of the economy.
You've done no research on this, have you? For the roughly one million people in the US who already earn minimum wage, 60% of them would be unaffected because they already get raises in the first year. (And obviously everyone earning above minimum wage would not be affected. I don't have the patience to argue against any moronic points contradicting this.)
So 400,000 people risk having their wages lowered in the short-term. If we assume that 400,000 workers will have their wages lowered, this is a tiny cost compared to the thousands, even millions, of new entrants into the labour market as a result of the minimum wage being eliminated. And yes, millions of people have been displaced by minimum wage hikes: https://coxrare.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/afred.jpg
Big corporations lobby for regulations in order to destroy competition. It's public choice economics 101, dude. The combined federal regulatory burden since 1949 has reduced potential GDP by 75%. If federal regulation had stayed at 1949 levels, GDP per capita would be well over $300,000. But still you advocate special favours for millionaires and artifically created monopolies, while the poor and the workers are forced to fight for the scraps or become dependent on state aid. You're for making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Fun fact: somebody working full-time on the minimum wage earns above the poverty level... if you don't factor in taxes: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm
Taxes now exceed the general cost of living in the US, which has been decreasing steadily for the past 50 years, even under the last two god-awful administrations. That's a good place to start. And obviously deregulation would be good too, especially of licensing laws.
Post self-deleted by Free Cork.
that is not what i said
north korea used to be the better korea for a while. luckily, the south korean government's economic planning board instituted a series of five year plans, promoting a policy of self-reliance and building up domestic production bringing the country plentiful unyuu
In other words, the philosophy behind each of these two ideologies is the same. It is the implementation that varies.
Can you provide an example of (what you claim is) "pure capitalism" (ie no state) existing and "working?"
Obviously, the DPRK can't thrive because it is virtually isolated and has a pretty incompetent leader whose skills are far behind those of his grandfather.
Economic fascism defined:
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and excess incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or loans. The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of laborhallmarks of liberalism.
http://econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Even V Ming has admitted before that fascism is a rogue strand of socialism (this is an undeniable fact - the original socialists were raging nationalists) that seeks an all-powerful state. In practice, this has meant either Commie-style control of the economy via expropriation (Fascist Italy) or control via coercion (Nazi Germany), in which corporations and property are controlled and directed but not owned by the state, if that makes sense.
lol define socialism and communism
Is that directed at us?
Fascism and capitalism nevertheless share a Social Darwinian nature. Those deemed "weak" within the society are to be eliminated, whether they are disabled individuals (in the case of fascism) or the economically unprivileged (under capitalism). The philosophy remains the same.
Fascism (Hitlerism in particular) sees the fundamental difference that distinguishes the "strong" from the "weak" in race/ethnicity and to some extent physical and mental capability, whereas capitalism sees it purely in economic strength. The Darwinian Nature nature is the basis for both systems.
No, the philosophy does not remain the same. Fascism is comprehensive state targeting and elimination of undesirable elements. Capitalism is economic coordination along the lines of free markets and free people. Death and starvation of 'the weak', as you put it, under capitalism is misleading and false. One, this does not happen, as capitalism results in reduced poverty and higher standards of living for all, especially the poorest people. In the last twenty years world poverty, defined as those living under $1 a day, has been cut in half, particularly in China and India, which have adopted market reforms. Secondly, as I said before if capitalism kills people than somebody starving in a desert is being oppressed by the cacti. lol
It is the exact opposite of the philosophy of solidarity and mutual cooperation that is emphasized by socialism.
Fascism is heavily into class cooperation and unity behind the state.
why does capitalism require free markets? or "free people"? market reforms don't mean much if you're being tutored to death in a basement at which point i would say you are very much not free people tbh.
Because the fundamental characteristic of fascism is a struggle between ethnicities and states, as opposed to classes. It regards economics as a secondary field, not the primary.
Mussolini in particular created labour unions and emphasized solidarity and understanding between them and employers, so not really.
Pevvania
Capitalism is, by definition, the management of the economy through non-intervention IE free markets.
Miencraft, Pevvania
king "mussolini was a cool guy[citation needed]" island
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/NkoreaGdp.png/800px-NkoreaGdp.png
As you can see, during that entire period North Korea was blockaded by the West. They were doing fine, economically, for a long time up until the fall of the Soviet Union. That Russian aid was the glue holding the North Korean economy together is commonly accepted.
Yeah, there was planning for sure, but South Korean economic policy in the 60s and 70s was driven by looking outwards. Adopting a labour-intensive, industry-based economy and opening up the economy to foreign trade drove its success. But state planning, it seems, held South Korea back. Average growth in the 60s and 70s was around 8%, and inflation in the 70s was in the double digits. Free market and monetarist economic reforms in the 1980s killed inflation and reinvigorated the economy. GDP growth between 1982 and 1987 was 9.2%, and 12.5% between 1986 and 1988.
except it isn't
What does that even mean? It's a complete non-sequitur.
I could then equally have said "If Stalin killed people then a man drowning in the ocean likes to eat fish." What you said means absolutely nothing.
Well, I have more important stuff to do than debate the black & yellow snakes that got ripped apart in New Republica last night. I'm out.
I didn't say Mussolini was cool. He was awful. I was simply showing that he emphasized cooperation and state planning.
Considering I view state planning as bad, you're not making a whole lot of sense.
Come, now, must you resort to as homenem when you lose?
oh no. it appears we have just been owned by a cool ass dude.
Pevvania
please interpret all references to mussolini being a cool guy in the future as a joke, poorly executed or otherwise. i am also not losing because lol every dictionary disagrees with you.
Yes: the Crisis of the 14th Century. In the 14th Century the peasants rebelled against their feudalist masters, taking back stolen land they had truly been exploited on, purchasing land themselves and forming towns. They used their new freedom to develop land, sell goods and grow crops. Feudalism was overthrown, and capitalism arose in its place. Capitalism, then, arose as a reaction to the state. Because the feudal lords were in effect the precursors to the politicians of the modern nation-state. The feudalists were appointed by the monarchy and collected 'tribute' from the peasants whose land they stole to pay to the king in exchange for protection and power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Crisis_of_the_14th_century
Cooperation, amongst the "right race," fascists work on racist principles, we operate under class-based principles, that is the difference.
Not the Oxford dictionary.
supporters of free-market capitalism have a vested interest in making out that capitalism = free market and free market = capitalism when this is not true. capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production for profit and... that's it really. anything about "freedom" is tacked on by people with the agenda that capitalism > freedom regardless of he actual definition of capitalism.
I've explained what this means. Capitalism cannot kill people. Capitalism is not an entity, ffs. People die of starvation because they are poor.
Except poverty isn't caused by capitalism. In fact, poverty is reduced by it. Massively. The Industrial Revolution saw the greatest reduction in humanity's poor that the world has ever seen.
Miencraft, Kings Island
do you have it front of you
One thing: fascism is not inherently racist. It's inherently nationalistic, but not inherently racist. Nazism, though, is designed to be racist. Mussolini appointed several Jews to government posts before he decided to suck up to Hitler.
Post self-deleted by Hallo Island.
"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. National pride has no need of the delirium of race."
More private ownership of the means of production means more capitalism and less state. So we can reasonably conclude from this that the more capitalism there is, the freer the market is. And free markets require all participants to consent to trades involving themselves and their property. So from this we can say that natural rights-based anarcho-capitalism is the 'most' capitalist economic system.
And what is poverty caused by Pevvania?
Surely it is in the interests of a business owner to pay the worker as little as he can get away with in order to maximise his profit margin?
I would love to stay here and continue this discussion, but it is getting rather late here, toodaloo!
Capitalism is correlated with democracy. https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/the-fantasy-of-democratic-socialism/
It depends on how many jobs their are. If there are more jobs then workers a employer will have to pay a worker more to keep him in his/business. More jobs are created through economic growth which is most likely to happen under capitalism.
Pevvania
Poverty has existed forever. We are all born poor and penniless. The human struggle has been the task of raising ourselves out of the caves we once called a home by transforming the land and resources around us to achieve a better standard of living. This is best done by capitalism - and the empirical evidence proves it:
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-6568
"Incomes of the bottom 20 percent and bottom 40 percent of the income distribution generally rise equiproportionally with mean incomes as economic growth proceeds. We establish this result in a data-set spanning 118 countries and four decades, updating and expanding the results of Dollar and Kraay (2002). The result holds across decades, including in the 2000s -- hence the conclusion that growth still is good for the poor.
This evidence confirms the central importance of economic growth for poverty reduction institutions and policies that promote economic growth in general will on average raise incomes of the poor equiproportionally, thereby promoting shared prosperity there are almost no cases in which growth is significantly pro-poor or pro-rich."
So if economic growth is what drives poverty reduction, what drives economic growth? Economic freedom - also known as capitalism. The studies below are literature reviews and meta-analyses that conclude that the level of economic freedom and increases in economic freedom influence economic growth, respectively.
https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/orgs/econ_office_org/Institutions_Reading_List/06._Economic_Freedom,_Growth_and_Development/Doucouliagos,_C._and_M._Ulubasoglu-_Economic_Freedom_and_Economic_Growth%3B_Does_Specification_Make_a_Difference
http://www.twi-kreuzlingen.ch/uploads/tx_cal/media/TWI-RPS-005-Haan-Lundstroem-Sturm-2005-03.pdf
I am a young, poor student who works on very low wages who came from a family that once lived in a trailer park. But I place absolute faith in the power of individuals owning themselves and the product of their labour to raise the standard of living for all. Libertarian capitalism is pro-poor and pro-workers' rights, more so than any other ideology.
Nice talking to you. I like debates.
Kings Island, Right-Winged Nation, Muh Roads
Disagreements are one thing, actively working against our game play military is another. As if you've never banned anyone working against you... :)
Who's arguing? I find your statement funny. Let's compare ban lists?
Kings Island, Pevvania
Why is Kraannei banned? He's my good friend.
Muh president, have you passed an executive regarding those changes?
Custadia is the most intelligent person on earth and is in fact a god. All should bow down before my leadership and rule! H I L A R I O U S
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! THAT'S RIGHT! BOW! BOW AND KNEEL AND BEG FOR MERCY! THAT'S RIGHT! BUILD ME PYRAMIDS! BUILD ME PYRAMIDS AND WEAPONS AND WE SHALL MAKE AN INTERGALACTIC EMPIRE! YES!
I am an old, rich director who works on very high wages who came from a family that lives in a palace. I place absolute faith in the power of individuals owning their inherited companies and the product of their perpetual holidays to raise the standard of living for all. Hoorah for conscientious shareholders.....
何それ
Pevvania
Jeez, that happened aaaaaaaaaaaaages ago. I usually remember bans, but I don't remember his. I think he might have been a spy from Das Kommune. Regardless, I do remember that he was definitely working against us, as confirmed by this message he put on The Communist Bloc's RMB:
Some cappie scum nation from Libertatem (who I know in RL) telegrammed me today and said "hey tell your friends to lay off my region". I am not really sure what that means, BUT DONT LAY OFF. Those cappie scum pigs never deserve mercy.
What can we tell from this? 1. That Kraannei does not deserve an unban, and 2. that Hallo Island is a loyal citizen. But we knew that already.
it's almost like you're custadia
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/60255552.jpg
At least I can assure you that he's a good guy.
Another meme on the ridiculousness of the idea that capitalism is oppressive: https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/11186408_1049327058428296_1627902911_n.jpg?oh=89207cea688ae95623021a8db5dea470&oe=55982FC4
Even if he is a good guy, he's a good guy who seeks the destruction of our region.
cappie is the silliest sounding insult
Pevvania
Yeah, I didn't deny that.
So I noticed that the recent SC resolution to repeal Liberate CAPS (SC #180) contains the clause;
Emphasizing further that the former native members of CAPS may rightly seek further retribution for this crime.
I know the WA is and has for some time been under the control of the left, but I'm suprised at how blatant it's become.
I wouldn't say the WA is controlled by the left. It's just a bunch of sheep, really, that can be moulded by whatever power that gains quorum. We passed Condemn North Korea by a very wide margin, for example, only for it to be repealed days later by a similarly large number of votes.
Nobody thinks when they're voting in the WA. It's just another example of an ignorance-based tyranny by majority.
Miencraft, Kings Island
Is it possible to repeal a repeal in the WA? I've seen the Red Fleet use that clause to justify today's invasion.
What do you mean by this?
Not sure. I suppose you'd just submit a new proposal.
Question for all:
Are you a follower of the [B]Chicago School of Economics[/B] or the [B]Austrian School of Economics[/B]?
Pevvania
The Austrian School.
Pevvania
Bit of both. I like the the empiricism of the Chicago School, but it's too reliant on Keynesian tropes. It has continued to press the inevitability of 'bleeding out' a troubled economy via monetary policy, despite the supply-side school's assertions that negative effects of tight money can be offset by tax cuts.
I don't really like to use executive orders, rather, I am hoping the board will soon vote on these changes.
*wink wink nudge nudge* Hallo
Can you repost them? They've been lost under the sea of posts about central planning.
I just want to know, if communism is so great, then why aren't communists starting communes? Then maybe the oh so oppressed worker can go to the commune instead of being "forced" to work for a business.
Both Slavija and Glorious Nations Of Iwaku will pay dearly for their betrayal. I urge a declaration of war on both.
There are some. They tend to be besieged.
Post self-deleted by Kings Island.
same reason ancaps don't just go live in the forest
Cause closing embassies is a massive betrayal. Feeling lonely?
The great thing about a libertarian society is that you're free to join a commune. But you can't exactly run a business in a communist society.
Republic Of Minerva
the austrian school is the mickey mouse school of economics. much like the foundation of austrian economics, the basis of my statement cannot be disproven by experience or fact and you just need to accept it.
Seems like a bit of an overreaction considering they just closed embassies. On a brighter note, check out The Commonwealth Of Crowns defiance of the red fleet on their RMB
Pev,
The Board passed a bill that I authored 4 aye to 1 absent. It can be found in my factbooks, and is called The Department of State Reform Bill.
Kings Island
Will the state department now employ diplomats?
Also, when are elections?
Yes. It always has, but now it will, uh, do it better.
Technically they already do, I think.
For what?
The next board.
Two months, unless there is a recall election.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about...Declaring war (on the RMB), which you obviously have no prospect of winning? Really? If I were you, I'd stop trying to play raiding game with the big boys and focus on defending your own [s]allies[/s] um...I mean satellites from us.
I'm almost 99% sure that was a joke.
Hey, you, get off of my cloud!
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.