Posts by Harold Martin10

Jack Smith5 said:The funniest part of your argument is where you claim planning is impossible. Every single company—even one with just two employees—operates by looking ahead. Setting prices is essentially forecasting the future, not to mention everything financial institutions do with their projections and risk management. And what is a budget if not a plan? If there were no planning involved, why would we even bother with budget reallocations? Honestly, that was some pretty nonsensical stuff you dropped there.

Look, I’m not trying to become an expert on modern economics, so I’m not going to kill myself studying it. I’m a mechanical engineer, not an economist.
All I care about is an economy based on honest labor and getting paid fairly for that work.

Of course I don't grasp the nuances of today's economic system, because hardly anyone does. It isn't taught properly in high school, college, or university. People might memorize a few terms, but they don't actually understand how the economy behaves or how its processes function.

I wish you had made an effort to give a concrete answer to my actual question: what would happen if the government controlled the influx of fresh cash—keeping it minimal for the general market, but significant enough to jumpstart future production? But apparently, it's "logical" to you that only banks should handle that. Basically, you're saying you only get money if you pay more...

The result would be exactly what we saw during the collapse of America—hyperinflation. And why is that?

Why don't you try answering that one yourself?

urbanotter said:What truly drives the progress of these nations is the transfer of knowledge and technology rather than the mere existence of capitalism

Historically speaking, China was actually more advanced than Europe centuries ago, and it was Europe that eventually thrived by adopting and integrating the vast wealth of knowledge originating from China.

Think about gunpowder, paper, silk, porcelain...

That’s funny.

Back in the 50s, China had nuclear energy technology that Americans had only developed about ten years prior—and by the 60s, they already had functional atomic and hydrogen bombs.

On the flip side, though, they didn't have the technology to simply feed their own people—which is a much easier feat than mastering nuclear tech, and something the entire Western world had figured out by the early 20th century.

It's a nice attempt to downplay how much "Western exploiters" actually influenced the rise in living standards, I suppose.🙂

Jack Smith5 said:It’s wild to think that just a century ago, people didn't have even the basics, yet today we actually possess everything required to provide a comfortable life for EVERYONE on the planet. And what are we doing with that advantage? We’re just sitting here letting tyrants run the whole show.

Jack Smith5, it’s really not that simple. Africa today has five times the population it had a few centuries ago, which means they actually have food. They have enough food to support that same number of Africans from 100 or 200 years ago at a decent standard of living. Instead, they’ve opted to have more hungry children. If you just hand them more food—well, they’ll just end up having even more hungry children.

Education and development—those are processes that move much slower than simply handing someone a meal.

But despite all that, poverty in Africa is plummeting. Most of those disparities you're talking about are primarily happening in the West, even if things in the USA are considered within "normal" limits today. To be precise, the gaps over the last 100 years were actually even wider.

In Africa, the inequality index is dropping while the GDP is rising at the same time.

Ryan Nelson5 said:This tired narrative about the poor Indian or the poor Chinese person always resurfaces, implying that capitalism is responsible for their poverty. That's a lie. The West didn't cause poverty in India; India was impoverished long before they started working with the West. In fact, since cooperating with Western markets, both China and India have experienced massive growth and live better than ever before.

Exactly. Just look at what capitalism actually did for China:

http://data.worldbank.org/sites/defa...at_1_a_day.gif

We went from 60% of the population living in extreme poverty—which, by the way, was the result of a closed, state-planned economy—to just 15%, all within 20 to 30 years of China opening up to the West.

Kimberly Cox59 said:So, we've got an anarchist here who’s actually pushing for a social welfare state as the big alternative to libertarianism. That's interesting, I guess. Personally, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of the government entirely, but probably through a different route with totally different outcomes. But hey, if you're forcing my hand and making me pick between "anarcho"-capitalism and some kind of social welfare model—like what you see in Scandinavia or just a general social safety net—I don't really have a dilemma. I'm fine either way, maybe.

Honestly, I think the anarcho-capitalists are the biggest joke of all. They just don't seem to get that capitalism... well, you know. It’s kind of wild, really. Always. It all just leads straight to injustice and those rigid hierarchies we see everywhere, which is basically the polar opposite of anarchy. I guess that’s just how it works, maybe?

Here we go again—another "anarchist" out here pushing for state solutions. I guess it’s funny how that works. To me, it seems like the whole socialist philosophy you're peddling—and honestly, I call anyone who wants to redistribute wealth based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist—is basically built on this one idea: it's better for everyone to be equally miserable than to have any inequality when it comes to freedom. Maybe that's just how you see it, though.

What kind of freedom are we even talking about? I just don't see it. I mean, take a worker in India making shoes on an assembly line—they don't have any real freedom at all. And honestly, I guess workers in the US aren't much better off either, since their whole lives basically depend on whether their boss decides to be kind or not.

I honestly think socialism always ends up lifting the standard of living for most people. And please, let’s not even get started on North Korea—that’s just not what socialism is about at all.

If you had actually looked into this issue, you might have realized that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the main reason you're so obsessed with "Asia"—this place was basically a massive, unindustrialized rural wasteland just fifty years ago. Like, seriously, 90% of the people were just poor farmers living off whatever they could scrape together from the dirt, with absolutely zero chance of ever escaping that poverty. Communism pretty much wiped them out during those insane Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until a little bit of free enterprise managed to sneak its way into that massive country that things actually started moving forward in a big way. For instance, there’s this one super famous case from the late seventies that really shows how crazy socialism and planned economies can be—it almost completely destroyed China:
I was just reading this piece from NPR about how much the landscape in China has shifted over the years. It’s pretty wild to think about, honestly. You look at how they've handled their economic growth and it really makes you wonder about the sheer scale of the transformation. I guess it’s one of those things where you realize just how fast a massive economy can pivot when the direction changes. Maybe it's just me, but seeing that kind of shift—it's almost hard to wrap your head around. Just a lot to process, I suppose.

That’s an interesting point. Look, I’m definitely not trying to defend Maoism—that stuff is pure evil, plain and simple. But, I guess you could look at it this way... here's an example of something that actually worked. Voluntary. I mean, maybe that's just how things work sometimes? It feels like everything is becoming so much more... well, organized lately. But yeah, voluntary. I guess. Well, you also have those instances of collectivization that actually ended up driving production through the roof and really bumping up the standard of living. I guess it happened sometimes, maybe? It’s interesting how that works out.
I was just reading through this deep dive on how various revolutions actually play out, and man, it really makes you think about the cycle of things. It’s easy to get swept up in the excitement of a big uprising, but looking at history, there's always that messy transition period where everything feels like it's spinning out of control. I guess it's one of those things where the initial spark is easy, but keeping the momentum without falling into total chaos is the hard part. Maybe that's why so many movements end up looking exactly like what they were trying to overthrow in the first place? It’s a bit heavy, I know, but honestly, it’s pretty fascinating to see how these patterns repeat themselves over and over again.

I guess the modern Chinese person is actually making massive strides precisely because of how much free market they have, not despite it. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. I’d really suggest checking out this TED talk if you want to start seeing how those "exploited" workers have actually come out on top. Honestly, they seem way happier today than their parents were just twenty or thirty years ago.

So, I was just checking out this TED talk by Leslie Mitcheson about how we handle workers and productivity, and man, it really gets you thinking. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you dig in, there's so much more going on. I guess she's looking at how we structure everything in the workplace. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like such a huge part of our daily lives, right? You know, how we spend most of our waking hours just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch if you have a few minutes to spare. Just some food for thought!

Well, he's more or less saying that people are actually volunteering to come work for the city. And I mean, yeah, that’s true, obviously. But they aren't exactly heading over there just so they can...They picked up some new skills and really got out there to see the world.But honestly, how would they even make enough to actually live? Most of them are still stuck in poverty, I guess.

Nah, I think the other way to go is just being self-employed. In a truly free society—one that isn't constantly squeezing its citizens just to fund some massive social welfare programs—where taxes on small business owners and entrepreneurs are kept at a minimum or maybe even nonexistent, things change. If you can take a hobby or something you're actually talented at and turn it into your own little venture, I guess that’s just a way better move. It's probably a much more profitable option than just sitting around the house, complaining about how there are no jobs out there.

So, what happens next? You go out and start a small business, only to watch it tank because you're getting crushed by massive corporations. It’s the same story we saw with local watchmakers, tailors, and all those other small shops that just couldn't hang. Even the mid-sized factories are struggling to stay competitive these days. So, if I'm following your logic, people are supposed to just keep pouring their hard-earned cash—where would they even get that money, I guess?—into tiny startups that will probably fail 90% of the time anyway? It just doesn't seem to add up.

I mean, sure, some fields really do require you to go through the motions at a specialized university. But for most everyday jobs? I guess you don't necessarily need a fancy degree. Think about things like retail, accounting, construction, or even all those various trades. Even more technical stuff, like computer science and its cousins—you can pretty much tackle that on your own. Honestly, having a membership at your local public library and just a tiny bit of willpower and ambition to learn something new is probably enough. Maybe that's all it takes, really.

I mean, seriously, how is some kid out there—someone who’s actually got tons of potential but zero dollars in their pocket—supposed to go after a degree in the sciences or social studies if they can't afford tuition? And please, don't give me that "just go to the library" line... I guess it's just not that simple.

I guess that’s just another thing about libertarianism. It kind of leads to this spiritual emptiness, you know? Since everyone is just hyper-focused on chasing the next dollar, there isn't much room left for anything else.

I mean, you're totally mixing up your terms here—and I bet you're doing it on purpose, too. Look, the world we’re living in right now isn't some free-for-all of laissez-faire or pure entrepreneurship. It's actually dominated by corporatism, or maybe neo-mercantilism if you want to get technical. It’s all about markets that are centrally controlled and partially managed by big players. Just my two cents, I guess.

I get that, but honestly, I don't think a pure laissez-faire approach would be any better. Right now, it seems like the wealthy prefer corporatism because the government provides them with a certain level of security. Just look at China—it’s basically just total cooperation between big business and the state, where the party manages any social unrest using funds provided by the industrialists.

Look, I guess it’s just a statistical fact that when you look at the entire history of the human race, despite all the massive headaches we deal with today, things are actually... well, different. Maybe they're just feeling less hungry? I guess. Or maybe they're just more satisfied. It's hard to say, really....fewer wars, at the very least. Less sickness, less illiteracy. I guess that’s really all we can aim for, right? Maybe just keeping things simple like that.And, you know, at the very least, we're looking at political inequality.

I guess you could say those socialist systems are largely to blame for how things turned out...

I honestly think we’re living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans first crawled out of their caves. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. And look, regardless of how you personally feel about all that, the statistics really tell a story. They show this massive upward surge that lines up perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist—or even quasi-capitalist—ways of running an economy. I guess the numbers don't lie.

It obviously aligns with industrialization—I mean, how could it not? 😕
Also, I wouldn't bother making comparisons to the pre-industrial era.

And hey, driftingjackal5, how would the justice system actually work in "anarcho"-capitalism?

Personally, I'm not even asking you to prove that "always" part. What I'm really looking for is just one single, concrete example of a country that has practiced socialism for a long stretch of time—say, half a century—and managed to prosper just as well as the capitalist nations surrounding it.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Who isn't working? I mean, most unemployed people aren't just sitting around by choice—at least, I guess 99% of them aren't. And honestly, free education (funded by taxes) is great for everyone, especially for folks in lower income brackets who wouldn't be able to afford tuition on their own. How is that anything but fair?

Marxist? Goodness, no. I'm an anarchist, actually.

Look, a "worker" is still just an individual with all their own rights. The difference between a "worker" and a "boss" is simply that instead of investing property, they invest their labor.

Right, but isn't it also true that their assets are, say, a few million times smaller than the boss's, so without some kind of social safety net, they wouldn't even have a chance at moving up in life?

The "boss" pays for the "worker's" time at a rate established by the equilibrium of supply and demand in a free market.

Basically, whatever they feel like paying. ☕

An unskilled worker won't be able to sell their labor for a high price simply because the supply of unskilled workers is high and demand is low. A highly skilled worker can sell their labor for a much higher price, especially if demand is high too. That's why, for example, an unskilled street cleaner earns a low wage, while a highly skilled programmer earns a high one.

Sure, but why are there so many unskilled workers, like in Asia for instance? It's not that they aren't smart; it's just that they don't have access to that education because of the extreme poverty they live in.

There is no exploitation whatsoever if both parties—the "boss" and the "worker"—enter into that relationship by mutual consent and voluntarily.

Sure, I get that, but the other option for the "worker" just ends up being unemployment and general poverty.

Education isn't just something that happens inside a classroom or at a university. It’s constant, you know? It happens whenever someone who works actually tries to get better at what they do. Back in the day, people used to call this apprenticeship. You'd have an unskilled worker putting in the time for a tiny, maybe even symbolic, paycheck until they finally mastered the craft and could call themselves a pro. That way, even people who didn't have any practical skills or the chance for a formal degree could—if they had enough grit—build a better life for themselves and their families.

That sounds brilliant. But wait, how would social sciences even be taught under that plan? They don't exactly turn a profit. What about astronomy? Or zoology, for most cases?

Besides, that whole "evil industrialist" trope of yours feels like it was ripped straight out of a Charles Dickens novel... Maybe try stepping into the 21st century a little bit.

Aha, so it's 21st-century humane capitalism, featuring the widest gap between the rich and the poor in history. Cool.🙄

Well, who *isn't* working? You've got the unemployed—most of whom could probably find low-wage jobs if they had to, though we still end up importing labor for those roles—along with early retirees who essentially "earned" their benefits through corruption, people sitting in administrative roles or at state-owned companies where positions were handed out based on political connections, and certain folks who received subsidies that were never properly monitored afterward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a social safety net, but I am against an overbearing, hyper-socialized state like the one we see here in the US (where the government's share of the GDP is over 40%, making it one of the top five countries for total tax burden). Education and basic healthcare are definitely things that should be socially supported—but all those other "social rights" that make up the bulk of the budget? Those really need to be trimmed down.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Well, if you ask me—and this is just how my own moral compass spins—it probably depends on how much they actually give away and how well-off the shop owner was to begin with. But strictly speaking about the law? Yeah, that person is a thief.

You claim the government takes from the rich to give to the poor. I honestly can't think of a single real-world example where that actually happens.

Look, just because the social safety net here in America isn't working quite the way it should doesn't mean we ought to scrap the whole thing. Maybe we should just try to fix it instead. 🤷
And I mean, even our somewhat lacking social programs still manage to provide some support to the unemployed and those struggling...

So, I guess if the kiosk owner happens to be Bill Gates, it's perfectly fine for the poor to just rob them blind?

Drew Lee7 said:Wait, what? And then what happens to the property? Are we supposed to just ritually burn it all once someone kicks the bucket? 😂

Come on, libertarians, let’s hear your brilliant plan. 🍿

That depends entirely on who owns the store. 🤷

Could you maybe elaborate on that a bit more?

Kimberly Cox59 said:Personally, I find libertarianism pretty appealing, but honestly, only the left-wing kind...

Why? Well, I guess it's because capitalism—especially that extreme anarcho-capitalist version—just feels inherently unfair. Right-wing libertarians love to moan about how "taking" someone's hard-earned property is wrong, but they totally overlook the fact that a lot of that wealth comes from exploiting people. It's just simple logic, really. If some massive industrialist is paying his workers peanuts, those workers don't stand a chance at actually getting ahead in society. So, taking a slice of that tycoon's wealth to fight poverty isn't really "theft," in my opinion.

That just doesn't make sense to me. If anything, Catholics should probably be fighting for free schooling, because that’s exactly what "loving your neighbor" is all about.

There are really only two possibilities here—either they think teachers and professors should just work for nothing.

Oh man, lol 🤣

But look, can the government pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Of course not. The state is essentially a monopoly on the legal use of force. When faced with a demand for "free education," the state responds by using coercion—through taxes—to seize property from one person to give to another. In this scenario, they'd take money from every taxpayer to cover the costs for those demanding "free schooling."

Yeah, sure, but they'd end up taking more from the wealthy folks who can actually afford a small hit like that. Plus, in an anarcho-capitalist world, everyone would have to pay for schooling anyway, so where's the actual difference? 🤷

Is it because taking from those who work and sharing it with those who can't is actually fair and just?

@Amanda Patel2 — it’s a far cry from the 19th century or anything before that—back when nobody actually did a thing, yet everyone somehow had everything they needed.

briskdrifter3 said:And then there are the other geniuses—the ones who think it’s perfectly fine to slaughter the chicken just to get one golden egg. They can act surprised when, after driving thousands of citizens—and even worse, thousands of businesses—straight into bankruptcy, the banks wonder why nobody wants to take out loans anymore or why business has completely dried up.

The whole economy is basically just a massive bubble built on debt from the government, corporations, and everyday people alike. So, let's get real—if you were in charge right now, what exactly would you do? How would you actually fix a crisis like this?

briskdrifter3 said:If we actually had a functional system in place, news like this would result in the banks collapsing rather than ordinary people ending up out on the street... It’s the institutions themselves—those executives sitting in high-rise offices—who bear the brunt of the blame. They hand out loans without a second thought regarding repayment, which seems to be the standard practice lately. Their entire purpose—the very reason they spent years studying at places like Wharton or Harvard—is to forecast the global economic landscape and decide whether to deploy capital or pull back. But instead, because of their sheer incompetence, arrogance, and blatant greed, it’s the everyday Americans who took out those loans who pay the price. And what’s truly infuriating? Those same bureaucrats will likely walk away with even larger bonuses, facing absolutely zero consequences for the mess they've made.

If you'd actually taken the time to read the article instead of just skimming the headline, you'd see that most of these bad loans are tied to corporations. As far as individual citizens go, they're still doing a pretty decent job of servicing their debts to the banks
.

dustyheron5 said:

Jim Rickards' take on an Armageddon scenario—unlikely, perhaps, but certainly not impossible.

We saw this kind of chatter all over the internet back in 2006—if not even earlier, though I wasn't really paying attention then.🙂 I distinctly remember those big-name gurus claiming the US dollar would be completely worthless by 2008.

Thomas Anderson6 said:Look, I don't doubt Linic's intentions—they're likely good—but the direction is fundamentally flawed. The economy isn't moving because fixed costs are suffocating us; they make us completely uncompetitive. Linic, there is only one way forward: aggressively scrap EVERY single parafiscal levy—from NBC fees to road tolls—implement massive hiring incentives, put intense pressure on local governments to slash utility burdens (or better yet, abolish them), and streamline all investor permitting...
A significant reduction in healthcare taxes and payroll contributions, paired with a radical slimming down of the federal bureaucracy.
Then, maybe you can actually hope for something.

The average American tends to push back against these kinds of moves—usually because wealthy entrepreneurs become their biggest target. It's funny how things work, isn't it? As soon as you try to trim the fat or lower labor costs, suddenly everyone acts like they're "starving."

ironstag8 said:history.
History tends to loop back on itself—mostly because people rarely bother to actually learn anything from it. ☕

It's pure idiocy. It’s like something out of a slapstick comedy where everyone loses their minds. ☕
And let's not forget how unpredictable global markets can be.
The real idiocy here is that we don't hold any gold, that we sold off our reserves, and that while everyday Americans see their wealth leaking out through the cracks, the Government couldn't care less.

I don't think history actually repeats itself—anyone who really studies the subject knows that's a bit of a stretch. Sure, you'll see certain patterns or similarities between different eras, but there isn't some scientific rule governing it. So, I guess we’re back to relying on crystal balls, aren't we? ☕

Melissa Sanchez17 said:I honestly don't get why these "non-believers" think we "believers" actually believe this bull market is going to last forever 😕

It’s because of certain claims—stuff like 'gold can't be overvalued,' or 'gold prices have been manipulated for 2,000 years and will stop in five years,' and so on.

From what I can tell, shadow isn't even claiming that gold and silver aren't solid investments right now; he’s simply debunking the flawed logic some gold and silver enthusiasts use to try and talk people into buying up precious metals.

For instance, the idea that the global financial system is on the brink of total collapse and there's zero chance fiat currency survives—but somehow, we won't see any gold confiscations or a Third World War, instead everyone will just collectively wake up and say, 'Hey, this cash is basically worthless paper, let's start trading in gold,' suddenly making all these gold bugs 100x wealthier overnight. I mean, where exactly are you getting that crystal ball from? 🙂

Melissa Sanchez17 said:I honestly don't get why these "non-believers" think we "believers" actually believe this bull market is going to last forever 😕

It’s all because of those claims—you know, things like saying gold and silver "can't possibly be overpriced," or arguing that the US dollar standard today is nowhere near what it was back in 1971.

In America, you don't really see traditional conservatives—or if you do, they're pretty much a rarity.

What we actually have are national socialists. Honestly, it's essentially the same deal as the Communist Party USA back in the old days. That group had a massive nationalist streak too, though they just rebranded it as Americanism.

nimbleowl10 said:Man, seriously, the reason it feels this way is because the current monetary system is totally rigged—it's unfair, immoral, and broken right down to its core. It basically forces people into debt slavery while charging interest on nothing but thin air.

It all traces back to 1913, when Woodrow Wilson was essentially misled into approving the creation of the Federal Reserve. After he realized what happened, he actually said:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. No longer a government by free opinion...but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

That’s where all our modern headaches come from—the bubbles bursting and the constant crises. In nature, when a system isn't working and shows how inefficient it is, it either evolves or it dies out. This whole monetary setup has been struggling to evolve since 1907. Personally, I'm all for ending this misery, even if it means our generation takes the hit, just to make sure things are better for the kids coming after us.

IMHO, you're being a bit naive. In the real world, whenever these kinds of broken systems have collapsed suddenly, they were usually just replaced by even worse ones.

The system is definitely unjust, but we can only change it for the better if we shift our collective consciousness regarding what "better" actually looks like. If we manage that, maybe there wouldn't even need to be a collapse—the transition could happen relatively smoothly.

nimbleowl10 said:That first post was spot on. Tomorrow is gonna be a blast—honestly, I'm rooting for a total collapse of the global monetary system if it means a better future for humanity, even if our generation ends up totally screwed in the process.

Is getting wiped out really better than what we have now? Care to explain the logic there?

If that kind of lifestyle is what you're actually looking for, why not just unplug from the internet, buy some farmland, raise some pigs, cows, and sheep, and live off the land?