Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Free Cork wrote:Bangladesh

Somalia

Belize

Guatemala

El Salvador

Honduras

Nicaragua

Panama

The Congo

Basically the entire third world

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

Billymcfappen wrote:Indeed. It would bring economic growth to a grinding halt for the financial elites.

As well as the middle class and poor.

Kings Island wrote:I understand the Scotsman's fallacy and it doesn't apply. Capitalism in the correct sense of the word is private management of the economy, IE without government intervention. I would, for instance, argue that Britain's management of India was not capitalist because they favored British citizens and companies, and intervention is not capitalist.

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"

Kings Island wrote:True capitalism (like that found in Hong Kong) does not rely on state interference. The poverty of, for instance, India is due to oppression by the British government.

Profit can be found in manorialist and (in this case) mercantilist systems, not just capitalist ones.

Colonialism clearly is a manifestation of imperialism, which itself by definition is moribund capitalism.

Kings Island wrote:I understand the Scotsman's fallacy and it doesn't apply. Capitalism in the correct sense of the word is private management of the economy, IE without government intervention. I would, for instance, argue that Britain's management of India was not capitalist because they favored British citizens and companies, and intervention is not capitalist.

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.

Pevvania wrote:Even constant violence, religious zealotry and tribal warfare are better than central planning, it seems.

it's ironic because it is south korea that would suggest otherwise

Free Cork wrote: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.

Imperialism (moribund capitalism) inevitably leads to some form of colonialism.

Billymcfappen wrote:Colonialism clearly is a manifestation of imperialism, which itself by definition is moribund capitalism.

Colonialism is a result of mercantilism.

Free Cork wrote: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 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.

Alyakia wrote:it's ironic because it is south korea that would suggest otherwise

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.

Pevvania wrote: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, 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).

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote:Wouldn't it all be easier if you just had central planning, eh?

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

Alyakia wrote:did i misread or did you mistype your first sentence or are there actually people that think the only reason a business making billions of dollars in profit can't afford to raise wages is because of minimum wage?

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.

Alyakia wrote:counting $0.50 above minimum wage also seems like it's cheating. you're also ignoring that a lot of minimum wage jobs have high turn over and are not the kind ones you can really have a wage dispute over.

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.

Alyakia wrote:the reality is that depending on region there can be anywhere from 2x to 10x more unemployed people than jobs and the competition between workers for jobs is stronger than the competition between capitalists for workers.

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.

Alyakia wrote:to thinks the guys that put up advice on how to claim benefits in their break rooms

Huh?

Alyakia wrote:are fighting tooth and nail against each other to hire unskilled labour at the lowest possible wage when there are 10 more people that will take their place they can pay is delusional.

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.)

Alyakia wrote:i also struggle to understand the other arguments. i found a post from a manager on the subject and it was very interesting. apparently he was debating with a guy and the guy was legitimately shocked when he was told that no if minimum wage was halved he would not hire twice as many workers. in order to maximize profit he is already working with the least workers he can get away while still running the place. if he has 3 janitors and 5 cooks and has to pay them $7.25 is he going to go hire 6 janitors and 10 cooks if we get rid of minimum wage? of course he isn't. he would be, in his own words, be a bad manager if he wasn't already getting rid of excess labour. i really can't understand why he would hire more workers than he needs to just because he could pay them less.

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.

Alyakia wrote:but why would they?

if the argument is that minimum wage puts the wage above what their market worth would actually be then surely the result of repealing minimum wages laws would be that their wages would fall back into line with the value of their labour (i.e. down)?

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

Alyakia wrote:and like i said, companies that make literal billions do it as well, they are not being strangled by regulation and wish they could pay higher wages but just can't those poor souls. it is not an "afford" problem.

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.

Alyakia wrote:and what is your proposed solution? there is a reason the living wage is called the living wage. welfare? inhuman super workers with 3 jobs?

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.

Pevvania wrote: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

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

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

In other words, the philosophy behind each of these two ideologies is the same. It is the implementation that varies.

Pevvania

Can you provide an example of (what you claim is) "pure capitalism" (ie no state) existing and "working?"

Pevvania wrote: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

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.

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

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 labor—hallmarks 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

Alyakia wrote:lol define socialism and communism

Is that directed at us?

Pevvania wrote: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 labor—hallmarks 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.

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.

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

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

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

It is the exact opposite of the philosophy of solidarity and mutual cooperation that is emphasized by socialism.

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

Pevvania wrote: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

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.

Pevvania wrote:Fascism is heavily into class cooperation and unity behind the state.

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.

Billymcfappen wrote:It is the exact opposite of the philosophy of solidarity and mutual cooperation that is emphasized by socialism.

Mussolini in particular created labour unions and emphasized solidarity and understanding between them and employers, so not really.

Pevvania

Alyakia wrote: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.

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

Free Cork wrote: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).

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

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.

Alyakia wrote: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

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.

Kings Island wrote:Capitalism is, by definition, the management of the economy through non-intervention IE free markets.

except it isn't

Pevvania wrote:Secondly, as I said before if capitalism kills people than somebody starving in a desert is being oppressed by the cacti. lol

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.

Alyakia wrote:king "mussolini was a cool guy[citation needed]" island

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?

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

oh no. it appears we have just been owned by a cool ass dude.

Pevvania

Kings Island wrote: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?

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.

Free Cork wrote:Pevvania

Can you provide an example of (what you claim is) "pure capitalism" (ie no state) existing and "working?"

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

Kings Island wrote: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?

Cooperation, amongst the "right race," fascists work on racist principles, we operate under class-based principles, that is the difference.

Alyakia wrote: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.

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.

Free Cork wrote: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.

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

Kings Island wrote:Not the Oxford dictionary.

do you have it front of you

Free Cork wrote:Cooperation, amongst the "right race," fascists work on racist principles, we operate under class-based principles, that is the difference.

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.

Pevvania wrote: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.

"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."

Alyakia wrote: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.

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.

Pevvania wrote: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.

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!

Free Cork wrote: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.

Capitalism is correlated with democracy. https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/the-fantasy-of-democratic-socialism/

Free Cork wrote: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!

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

Free Cork wrote: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!

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

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:

...unless, of course, you disagree with the State of Libertatem.

Disagreements are one thing, actively working against our game play military is another. As if you've never banned anyone working against you... :)

Free Cork wrote:As if typing the letters H I L A R I O U and S somehow makes an argument.

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.....

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote: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!

何それ

Pevvania

Hallo Island wrote:Why is Kraannei banned? He's my good friend.

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.

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote: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!

it's almost like you're custadia

Alyakia wrote:何それ

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/60255552.jpg

Pevvania wrote: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.

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

Hallo Island wrote:At least I can assure you that he's a good guy.

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.

Kings Island wrote: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

Pevvania wrote: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.

Is it possible to repeal a repeal in the WA? I've seen the Red Fleet use that clause to justify today's invasion.

Pevvania wrote:it's almost like you're custadia

What do you mean by this?

Kings Island wrote:Is it possible to repeal a repeal in the WA? I've seen the Red Fleet use that clause to justify today's invasion.

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

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Question for all:

Are you a follower of the [B]Chicago School of Economics[/B] or the [B]Austrian School of Economics[/B]?

The Austrian School.

Pevvania

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Question for all:

Are you a follower of the [B]Chicago School of Economics[/B] or the [B]Austrian School of Economics[/B]?

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.

Kings Island wrote:Muh president, have you passed an executive regarding those changes?

I don't really like to use executive orders, rather, I am hoping the board will soon vote on these changes.

Muh Roads wrote: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

Muh Roads wrote:I don't really like to use executive orders, rather, I am hoping the board will soon vote on these changes.

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.

The Aradites wrote: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.

same reason ancaps don't just go live in the forest

Cause closing embassies is a massive betrayal. Feeling lonely?

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote:There are some. They tend to be besieged.

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

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Question for all:

Are you a follower of the [B]Chicago School of Economics[/B] or the [B]Austrian School of Economics[/B]?

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.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Both Slavija and Glorious Nations Of Iwaku will pay dearly for their betrayal. I urge a declaration of war on both.

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,

Muh Roads wrote:Changes in bold and underlined

The WAR Act

Section IV

Establish official guidelines for the government of Libertatem, when handling SC proposals and votes

Subsection I

The President shall be given the discretion of voting on SC proposals and votes however they wish, and shall be trusted to vote in a fashion that benefits Libertatem

Subsection II

The citizenry of Libertatem are entitled to vote on SC matters however they wish, except in the event of an SC liberation on a region captured by Libertatem

Section III

In the event of a SC liberation against a region captured by Libertatem, it will be considered treasonous and punishable to the highest degree of Libertatem law to vote "for" unless explicit instructions to vote "for" are given by the incumbent President

Muh Roads wrote:FRAUD Act

Future Regional Activity Unfair Discourse Act*

Section I

Purpose of the Act

Subsection I

Clarify specific laws on puppet use

Subsection II

Address voter fraud

Subsection III

Foreign puppets

Subsection IV

Citizenship

Section II

Clarify specific laws on puppet use

Subsection I

Any nation classified as a Citizen is entitled to the use of puppets

Subsection II

Said puppets ARE NOT Citizens, and do not have voting rights nor the right to stand for public office

Subsection III

Puppets of foreign, non-citizen nations, when not officially representing a foreign region, may not apply for citizenship

Subsection IV

Citizens are entitled the ability to exchange citizenship between the nations under their control, but only if the receiving nation is also eligible for citizenship

Subsection V

All public offices and ranks shall be transferred along with their respective nations

Section III

Address voter fraud

Subsection I

Any Citizen may have only one vote in any office or legislative election or referendum

Subsection II

Only Citizens of Libertatem may vote in any office or legislative election or referendum

Subsection III

No nation that has resided in Libertatem for less than five days may apply for citizenship

Subsection IV

Any nation convicted of voter fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the sitting Attorney-General

Section IV

Foreign dignitaries

Subsection I

Foreign nations acting on behalf of any foreign entity must identify themselves as dignitaries to be granted proper rights

Subsection II

These puppets must identify themselves as foreign dignitaries to the manager of internal affairs before being granted citizenship

Subsection III

After having residency for at least ten days, these nations may apply for citizenship

Subsection IV

If a foreign dignitary retires from their diplomatic position before they are eligible for citizenship, yet remains in Libertatem in an unofficial capacity, their required residency period will be lowered to no more than five days unless granted citizenship by the board

Section V

Citizenship

Subsection I

Only Citizens may hold office and vote in public elections, they are not required to do either

Subsection II

One must be a resident by at least five days before being eligible for citizenship

Subsection III

Citizens who wish to stand for public office must identify their World Assembly if any nation to the President or Manager of Internal Affairs

Subsection IV

Once attaining office, they must inform the President or Manager of Internal Affairs the location of their World Assembly nation whenever relevant

Subsection V

After the residency requirement is met, a nation must notify the Manager of Internal Affairs

Subsection VI

The Manager of Internal Affairs will keep a public list of Citizens, and will manage the status and list of Citizens appropriately

Section VI

Annulment of Citizenship

Subsection I

Every Citizen has the right to renounce their Citizenship

Subsection II

Once renounced, their Citizenship can be restored upon an application to the Manager of Internal Affairs followed by enduring the five day waiting period once more

Subsection III

Alternatively, an individual that has renounced citizenship may bypass the five day waiting period, at the Board's discretion

Subsection IV

Citizenship of a nation can be revoked by the Manager of Internal Affairs or President, on the grounds of treason or other grievous violation of the law[/box]

Authored by [nation]Humpheria[/nation] and signed into law by [nation]Pevvania[/nation].

*Act amended by [nation=short]The New United States[/nation] on 27th of June 2014. Amended material highlighted in bold.

Some simple changes, lowering citizenship requirements. Changes underlined.

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

Hallo Island wrote: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.

Will the state department now employ diplomats?

Also, when are elections?

Kings Island wrote:Will the state department now employ diplomats?

Yes. It always has, but now it will, uh, do it better.

Kings Island wrote:Will the state department now employ diplomats?

Technically they already do, I think.

Kings Island wrote:Also, when are elections?

For what?

Hallo Island wrote:For what?

The next board.

Two months, unless there is a recall election.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Both Slavija and Glorious Nations Of Iwaku will pay dearly for their betrayal. I urge a declaration of war on both.

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.

Billymcfappen wrote: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.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Both Slavija and Glorious Nations Of Iwaku will pay dearly for their betrayal. I urge a declaration of war on both.

Hey, you, get off of my cloud!

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