Posts by driftingjackal5

urbanotter said:If we go strictly by that logic, then true capitalism doesn't actually exist anywhere on Earth.
Every single nation sets its own tax rates and hands out various subsidies, favoring certain sectors over others depending on their agenda.

I remember back when the administration in Washington was pulling funds away from private businesses to hand them over to labor unions;

everyone labeled that as a complete disaster. Then, during the 90s, the trend flipped, where they were taking money from the workers and funneling it toward corporations for $0.33.

Until someone comes up with a more precise label for this arrangement, I’m going to keep calling it capitalism, since this is clearly just one of its many iterations.😍 ☕

Nah. If we're talking actual capitalism—you know, true free markets, pure laissez-faire—it basically doesn't exist right now. Honestly, the whole term "capitalism" was weaponized by socialists just to demonize their political rivals. They frame it so they’re fighting for "society" or "the people," while "capitalists" are supposedly just greedy vultures chasing nothing but cash and profits... blah blah blah.

Personally, I prefer "free entrepreneurship." It cuts through all the noise and stops people from twisting definitions to fit their agenda.

Let's be clear here—when the government steers or manipulates the economy using tax codes, tariffs, or subsidies, that isn't free entrepreneurship. That’s controlled entrepreneurship. Or rather, non-free entrepreneurship, because the government is essentially hand-picking who wins and who loses in the market.

In that sense, there really isn't a country today where pure free entrepreneurship reigns supreme, though some are closer than others. For instance, Hong Kong is probably the closest thing to a laissez-faire market since they have almost no taxes or fees, minimal tax burdens, and zero subsidies. Then again, you can't call it a totally free market because you can't actually own land there—you just lease it from the government. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, you've got places like North Korea or Cuba, where private enterprise is nonexistent and everything is under direct state control. We’re somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately, we're leaning much closer to North Korea than Hong Kong.

urbanotter said:How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."

Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.

I’m genuinely surprised you have the audacity to label someone an ignoramus and resort to ad hominem attacks, chanting theories and demagoguery without providing a single shred of actual argument or economic evidence.
Spare me the lectures and try proving me wrong using hard facts and indicators instead.
It isn't just irresponsible; it is actively harmful to advocate for policies that prove themselves more damaging by the day, dragging us deeper into systemic issues that will become impossible to escape unless we wake up and face the reality of our situation.

In recent years, we have explicitly declared ourselves a nation whose social order is built upon private property and free market entrepreneurship.
That is written in black and white right there in the Constitution, so all your fantasies and opinions claiming this isn't capitalism are essentially meaningless.

You’re drifting off-topic just as much as I am, and since you haven't said anything intelligent—other than spreading demagoguery about things that simply don't exist—it would be best if you stopped commenting altogether.
The other members of this forum are noticing it too, and you're just going to end up drawing sanctions from the moderators, which, frankly, they would have plenty of reason to do.
That's just my take, because at this point, I see no hope of clearing anyone's delusions.☕
There is a massive difference between DECLARING something and actually DOING it. On paper, North Korea is a "democratic republic." On paper, the Communist Party of China is communist. Those declarations aren't worth the paper they're printed on... you might as well use them as toilet paper. Just like our Constitution—it's just dead ink on a page.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Wait, why not? I guess if money is being used as a tool to grab power, then yeah, it's capitalism. It isn't anarcho-capitalism—thank God for small mercies—but it's definitely capitalism.
So, walk me through it... why wouldn't you say this system isn't capitalism...

Because true entrepreneurship—which is basically just a fancy word for capitalism—relies on a system of profit and LOSS within a FREE market for goods and services. Around here, profits get privatized while losses get socialized, and let's be real... there is no free market.

Kimberly Cox59 said:I don't know, that just sounds like a total utopia to me... I mean, look at how things are now. There’s already way too much capital concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of people, so they’re starting out at such a massive advantage compared to everyone else. Anarcho-capitalism might actually be fair if we could all just hit the reset button—you know, start from scratch, basically from nothing. Then maybe everyone would be on a level playing field, and everything would really just come down to an individual's talent or how clever they are. But honestly? Even if we did that, I guess things would just slide back to the current status quo after a single generation. You'd end up with a new generation born into poverty with zero real shot at succeeding. It just seems impossible if you actually care about individual freedom.

So, I guess the main difference comes down to what I've picked up from talking to some other communists out there. Apparently, in anarcho-communism, you aren't actually allowed to work for your own benefit, trade for profit, or even hire people. It’s like, totally forbidden to enter into any kind of agreement where all parties actually agree on the terms. You know what I mean?

It’s not like there’s some rule against hiring people, right? I mean, how else would factories even run? It just wouldn't work. 🤷
The only real difference is that you wouldn't have individual bosses hiring new people anymore. Instead, it would be these worker councils handling the recruitment. And hey, trade isn't actually banned—at least not in anarchism. That's a totally different story when you're talking about state socialism. The whole system is built on exchanging goods without using money. As for working... well, communism is all about the labor, I guess.

I get where you're coming from—it feels pretty unfair that an individual isn't allowed to hire people on a large scale. I mean, sure, small businesses are a different story, but scaling up? Not so much. But then again, in a communist system, an individual wouldn't even be able to accumulate any kind of capital anyway, because there just isn't any money to go around, and all those material goods are supposedly available to everyone equally. I guess that's just how it works.

Look, on the flip side, in an anarcho-capitalist setup, you’ve got these successful individuals who can basically hire anyone who’s desperate enough to take the job just to survive. Libertarians love to chant this mantra about how those workers are "technically" free to quit and go find work somewhere else. But I guess people tend to forget that in an anarcho-capitalist world, there aren't any federal laws setting a minimum wage or guaranteeing social safety nets. Everything is up to the employer. So, what does that actually mean? Well, it means an employer is only going to pick the folks willing to work for absolute peanuts, while everyone else just sits around. It doesn't really leave much of a choice, does it? You either take a tiny, pathetic paycheck, or you don't work at all and end up starving. Either way, I don't see much room for success there. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems pretty bleak.
So, I was thinking about why anarcho-capitalism isn't actually a libertarian ideology... I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like there's a huge distinction there that people often miss. It’s such a tricky thing to wrap your head around sometimes.

How can anarcho-communism even work without eventually sliding back into a market economy? I mean, someone is always going to step up—someone who’s just a bit sharper or has some super niche skill set—and they'll naturally start demanding more in exchange for what they bring to the table. It seems almost inevitable, I guess.

So, look, anarchism isn't actually trying to kill off trade or anything. It totally relies on it, actually. But, I guess if someone gets greedy and starts demanding more than their fair share, you run into two big problems—well, at least from their perspective:
1) I mean, he already has access to tons of everything, so asking for more just seems like pure greed and arrogance, if you ask me.
2) If he keeps pushing for more, society will eventually step in and stop him. At the end of the day, he relies on everyone else just as much as they rely on him. Someone provides his food, someone makes his clothes, someone pumps his gas, someone builds his house, and yeah, someone has to fix the plumbing too. No matter how important people think he is, he isn't any more vital than anyone else out there.

If workers were to take over factories, that would basically be stealing property from shareholders and owners.

But then again, those owners have been exploiting the workers—who there are way more of, by the way—for years. So, the owners would just be forced to live in a society where their own lifestyle might dip a little, while the general standard of living for everyone else actually goes up quite a bit.

So, anarcho-communism involves force and prohibitions, whereas anarcho-capitalism is based on mutual consent, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. That’s just how it looks from a libertarian perspective.

I guess the other one is anarcho-capitalism 😁?

Overall, I don't think anarcho-communism uses "prohibitions" per se; it's more about just getting rid of the current setup, from the cultural stuff to the economic side. Since money wouldn't exist, nobody could ever end up in the situation you're describing because, well, it would just be impossible. And mutual consent is huge in anarcho-communism since it’s all built on direct democracy.

Then again, maybe anarcho-capitalism relies on force too. It’s just not direct force like "do this or get shot," but more indirect, like, "you don't have to work for me, but every other employer has the same rules, so your choice: work for this wage or starve on the street." I mean, sure, everyone has the "right" to go hungry, right?...
Also, anarcho-capitalism has some pretty big practical holes, like the whole issue of independent courts, which driftingjackal5 always seems to dodge when asked.

Unlike socialism and its derivatives, right?... 🙄

Capital is already way too concentrated in the hands of a tiny few—they're starting out miles ahead of everyone else... just totally rigged from day one.

So you're actually trying to tell me that capital can never be lost through bad decision-making—or just redistributed—simply because of how a free market for goods and services works via profits and losses?...

Just plain impossible—if you actually give a damn about individual liberty...

Look, if you actually believe in individual liberty—like, truly mean it—then you have to realize that personal freedom is a joke without economic freedom. You’re basically arguing for stripping away those rights—like the right to actually own what you produce, including capital goods—just because you can't stomach the fact that people aren't all equal... whether it's talent, ambition, intelligence, or how hard they work. It's all just a way to dodge the reality of how a free market actually functions...

It’s not like hiring people is illegal or anything—I mean, how else would factories even stay open?... 🤷
The only real difference is that you wouldn't have individual bosses hiring new staff—it’d be some kind of workers' council instead. Trade isn't banned, at least not in anarchism—state socialism is a whole different beast—because the entire system is built on exchanging goods without money. And as for working... communism is all about labor...

What’s even the point of grinding at some factory if you don't see any actual payoff? Like, what's the motivation for busting your ass all day if at the end of it, you're pulling in the same benefit as some guy with an easy desk job—or someone doing nothing at all? Honestly... And how would society even function without some kind of currency? How would you even measure the value of anyone's work or effort? We moved past bartering like 5,000 years ago once we realized that using money as a temporary store of value was way more intelligent and efficient than just swapping goods...

Cash is nonexistent—but somehow, the goods are just sitting there, available to everyone equally...

I’m asking again—in this imaginary economic setup you’re describing, what’s even the point? What's the actual motivation to work or put in any effort...

Look, on the flip side, in an anarcho-capitalist setup, one successful guy can just hire up anyone who’s economically desperate enough to take the job. Libertarians love to chant this mantra about how those workers are "officially" free to quit and find something else... but they conveniently forget that in an AnCap world, there aren't any federal laws setting a minimum wage or guaranteeing social safety nets. The employer calls all the shots on pay. Basically, it means bosses will only pick the folks willing to work for peanuts, while everyone else can just go screw themselves. You aren't actually giving the worker a choice—it's either work for a pathetic pittance or don't work at all and starve. Either way, you're screwed...

So you think an "employer" wouldn't have competitors in the labor market looking to hire the same people? Honestly, it seems like you don't even grasp WHAT a free market actually is, let alone why that kind of "exploitation" wouldn't even be possible in a truly free one. Go watch this video AGAIN http://youtu.be/IFbYM2EDz40 and if it still doesn't click, I really can't help you.

Also, anarcho-capitalism has practical flaws, like the whole issue of independent courts, which driftingjackal5 refuses to answer no matter what.

Another lie. I already gave you a link to a video that you decided to ignore (even though you pretended to watch it), so here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

I think Milton Friedman would explain this way better than I ever could, but if you don't understand English, just say the word and I'll help you out.

urbanotter said:It feels like all these followers and devotees of guys like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are ultimately the ones who steered us right into this mess we're in today.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that you possess such a deep well of knowledge, even if that expertise has left us navigating a situation where an exit strategy feels almost impossible to find.

Low labor costs aren't the only way a manufacturer can hold their own against the competition. In my experience, much more critical factors like automation, niche specialization, and constant innovation tend to drive the real value. To put it simply, if someone else out there can manufacture a product both cheaper and better than you can, then it actually makes sense to import that item rather than wasting resources trying to build it domestically. Following that same logic, if you can pivot to specialize in a different area where you can produce goods more efficiently and with higher quality than your rivals, you’ll find yourself in a great position to export. At the end of the day, the consumer is always the one who comes out on top.

It feels like we've been stuck listening to the same theoretical mantras, recycled logic, and empty demagoguery for twenty years now. It’s a cycle that never yields actual results, and honestly, it's exactly why we find ourselves in such a massive mess—to borrow a phrase from that former thief who used to run the show as Prime Minister.

You’ve hit on a crucial point there—local manufacturers, absolutely crushed by heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, simply can't compete on price with imports from countries where the tax overhead is a fraction of what we deal with here. That really is the heart of the issue. I don't think the answer lies in slamming our borders shut against foreign goods, because that just ends up punishing the American consumer with higher prices at the checkout counter. Instead, the real fix is a massive reduction in the tax burden; otherwise, nobody is going to find it worthwhile to actually build anything on American soil. Of course, quality and global competitiveness don't just appear overnight—building a truly successful business takes years of grit and investment—but without cutting those taxes, that progress will never happen. Relying on "closed borders" or "high tariffs" isn't just a primitive form of mercantilism; it also flies in the face of the very economic policies the Federal Government has been pursuing for decades as we've worked to integrate into a global system built on free trade and the removal of customs barriers.

It feels like I’m just listening to the same broken record over and over again. Honestly, I’ve been hearing this exact same lamentation for twenty years now, and yet, I don't see any actual progress being made. If anything, it feels like we’re just sliding backward.
To be honest, I find myself leaning toward a much more straightforward, almost primitive approach to politics—one that focuses on establishing truly equal trade relations between nations. I would take that over our current system any day. The way things are running right now feels like it’s actively working against the interests of our community, serving only to line the pockets of a tiny handful of individuals while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the economic policies of the American government are actually working, or that we’ve become a successful nation with a bright outlook for the future?

If that’s really how you see things, then I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. You seem to be overlooking the harsh reality of our current situation and where we're headed, a point that our honorable Secretary of the Treasury actually conceded quite candidly during his address this evening.

I can't help but feel that our current political landscape is steering us toward a sort of "elite league," where prosperity and profit seem reserved exclusively for those at the very top. It feels like we’re watching a system designed to benefit the heavy hitters while everyone else—those who share similar struggles or simply want a fair shot—gets left behind. Even after years of trying to navigate these waters, so many people find themselves stuck in the same cycle of hardship and instability, never quite reaching that level playing field we were promised. It reminds me of a few years back when I was struggling to get a small business off the ground; no matter how hard I worked, the systemic hurdles felt insurmountable compared to the giants in the industry. We just seem to be spinning our wheels while the powerful continue to pull ahead.

How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."

Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.

urbanotter said:It’s actually quite simple.
They’re essentially playing on consumer psychology, targeting people who are feeling the squeeze on their wallets by pushing these cheap, imported goods that honestly leave a lot to be desired when it comes to quality.

It feels like we’re stuck in a bit of a losing battle lately. When you look at our domestic manufacturers, they’re essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They are constantly weighed down by heavy taxes and a massive mountain of regulatory costs that just keep piling up. Meanwhile, we’re seeing an endless wave of imports flooding the market from countries where the tax burdens are practically nonexistent and the labor costs are a fraction of what we pay here. It makes it nearly impossible for a local business to stay competitive on price when they're playing by such different sets of rules.
When you look at the big picture, this kind of policy really guts domestic manufacturing, which inevitably leads to people losing their jobs. It’s a domino effect—once those positions vanish, the average person's purchasing power just evaporates. I’ve seen it happen in several Rust Belt cities where once-thriving industrial hubs suddenly turned into ghost towns; families who used to be self-sufficient find themselves struggling to make ends meet, often relying heavily on their parents for support or leaning on government assistance just to get by.

When you look at what trade actually means between two nations—basically the exchange of goods and services—it becomes pretty clear where we stand. Right now, our exports only account for about half of what we’re bringing in through imports. Until we can find a way to balance that scale and flip the script, I don't see us changing any course; we're essentially stuck on this current trajectory.

While globalization has certainly succeeded in opening up the floodgates for the free movement of goods and capital, it hasn't quite delivered on its promise to level the playing field regarding business conditions or wage standards. It’s an interesting paradox to observe, really; we see this massive push for the seamless flow of products and investment across borders, yet there remains such a heavy emphasis on protecting the mobility of labor and people. I remember reading an analysis once that pointed out how much more friction exists when you try to move talent compared to moving commodities, and it feels like that imbalance still defines our modern economy.
The only people truly reaping the rewards from this entire setup are the capital owners—the ones who architected the system in the first place and, if they ever feel threatened, aren't afraid to defend their interests with hired mercenaries or actual weapons.

The other participants in this era of globalization and free markets are essentially facing two outcomes: they either see their standard of living steadily erode, or they manage to scrape by with just enough profit to barely pull themselves out of the poverty they were stuck in.

Your explanation just proves you don't have a clue about basic economics—stuff like comparative and absolute advantage, or how specialization drives progress and innovation. Seriously, go look up "comparative advantage" before you try to have an informed discussion with me. By the way, even Adam Smith talked about this, so it's pretty obvious you don't understand the "capitalism" you hate so much.

Cheap labor isn't the only comparative advantage a manufacturer can use to compete. Automation, specialization, and innovation matter way more. Basically, if someone can make something better and cheaper than you, it makes sense to import it instead of making it yourself. Same logic applies to you—if you specialize in something else and can produce it better and cheaper than anyone else, then you'll be able to export. At the end of the day, consumers always win.

You're right about one thing, though—"domestic manufacturing, burdened by taxes and fees, cannot price-compete with imports from countries where business is done with far lower taxes and levies." That’s exactly the problem. The fix isn't slamming the borders shut against foreign products (that just hits the American consumer with higher prices)—it's significantly slashing the tax burden so anyone would actually bother producing something in America. It doesn't mean quality and competitiveness happen overnight—building a successful business takes years—but without cutting those taxes, it’s never happening. "Closing borders" and "high tariffs" aren't just primitive mercantilism; they run directly counter to the policy the Federal Government has been pushing for decades to join organizations based on eliminating tariffs and promoting free trade.

urbanotter said:Until the majority realizes this and pushes for change, true freedom remains out of reach.

Our entire way of life and how we behave is dictated through the design and control of the financial and monetary systems.

This is achieved through manipulation and by feeding us delusions, such as the idea that we should wait for salvation from foreign capital or outside investors.

The world isn't filled with philanthropists and Good Samaritans; instead, it is dominated by greed, avarice, and self-interest.

The only way out of this mess is to rely on our own strength and protect our interests from both our own leaders and those "Samaritans" from overseas. As the old saying goes, if you help yourself, God will help you.

There are two main things causing us the most harm.
-An unprotected, open market that dictates exactly what we are supposed to consume.
-The current model of monetary and financial policy.

I believe the only thing the average person can do is vote for the party they feel is the lesser of two evils—the one actually attempting to address these two core issues.

For now, that would be the Labor Party, who, despite all their flaws as a political organization, seem to recognize exactly where the deepest problems in this society are hidden.

Look, PLEASE explain to me how an open, free market could possibly "hurt" consumers—and how in a free market anyone can "dictate" what you choose to buy? 🙂

urbanotter said:You're just spinning theories and making insinuations here; some of these methods have actually worked in certain places and helped economies perform better.

The US Dollar is one of the currencies that has seen massive amounts of money printing and has lost the most value since we abandoned the gold standard, yet the economy remains relatively stable despite the astronomical military spending that no other country matches.
I provided a link showing that other nations are following similar paths, but you don't seem interested in the arguments themselves. You're just protecting your own image and sticking to dogmas that you refuse to even question, rejecting any differing perspective without actually addressing the points made.

I never once suggested doing things in secret; my point was actually the opposite, focusing on the laws that should regulate how that money is spent.

Anyway, this discussion has veered way too far into Off-Topic territory, and it wouldn't be right to keep pushing it and testing the patience of the moderators.☕

LOL, you seriously want to compare the world's reserve currency—the backbone of the strongest economy on the planet—to the currency of some tiny, insignificant nation? You're trying to weigh a currency that sees tens of trillions of dollars circulating constantly against a local currency where the historical peak was maybe 80 billion? Do you even grasp the scale we're talking about here? Besides, the United States doesn't just "print money"—they take on debt by issuing government bonds through the central bank. And the Federal Reserve? It’s not state-owned; it’s basically a cartel of the biggest private American banks. There is zero similarity to what's happening in a smaller economy, so how could there be? People will accept Dollars even when it becomes obvious they're worthless, but who's going to accept our local cash if we start devaluing it? Why would they? What kind of factor are we in global trade or industry that anyone would "take our word for it"? Seriously, man, stop embarrassing yourself. Which "other countries" are doing this? Germany? England? Japan? How can you even bring up those examples like they have anything to do with us? You want an example? Fine, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

If I’m remembering correctly, your theory—and Jack Smith5’s too—is basically that "if the government just did everything behind closed doors, nobody would know and there wouldn't be inflation." Which is total nonsense... Inflation isn't about people noticing things getting more expensive; it's the actual act of pumping more money into circulation, whether that's organic or manufactured. Ever since we ditched anything resembling a "hard" backing to limit how much cash the government can print (like bimetallism used to do), there’s basically zero ceiling on how much artificial inflation they can cook up. The facts are pretty blunt—inflation is a hidden tax. By printing money out of thin air, the government devalues every single dollar currently in play, which means they’re effectively taxing anyone holding that cash. Obviously, those with big savings or liquid assets take the biggest hit, but really, the whole economy gets wrecked because real wealth is being siphoned off into the hands of the state... where they can redistribute it however they want (which, let's be real, definitely isn't helping the savers or the working class they literally ROBBED through this artificial inflation).

Some people here seriously need to pick up an intro to economics textbook before they keep making fools of themselves. Here’s a quick lesson: How is "the public" supposed to know if the government prints money to cover its debts if they do it behind closed doors and only funnel it into federal projects? I mean, who actually thinks those projects get built by bureaucrats? If the government prints cash to build a hospital, it’s contractors doing the work, not some desk jockey. And if they’re getting paid in this newly printed money, what do you think they do with it? They aren't just going to stash it under a mattress or leave it sitting in a vault forever... If that cash hits the market, the game is over. Asking how the market "knows" there's more money in circulation is like asking a glass how it knows it's got more water in it. It's common sense. God, I was actually hoping for some constructive debate here, but instead, I’m stuck explaining basic concepts to grown adults? Stop embarrassing yourselves...

lonetrucker4 said:He completely misread the political landscape once the League of Communists of America fell apart back in January 1990. He claimed the country could survive without the party control, but even then, it was obvious to me that wasn't going to fly.

On the money side, you're claiming his moves only helped for a month before hyperinflation kicked in. That's just flat-out wrong. You’re probably younger than me—maybe you were just a kid back then and don't remember clearly. Don't try to lecture me until you've actually done your homework.

By the way, back in late 1989, Milton Friedman himself visited the region, gave a lecture in Mexico City, and actually gave the Marković administration a thumbs up. Here's my piece on that from 2008.

On December 29, 1989, Milton Friedman, the legendary American economist and father of neoliberalism, spent time in the region and knew the situation inside out. An economic journal ran an extensive interview with him (journalist: Vlado Baum, US correspondent). Friedman argues that the old socialist self-management model is dead—the only way forward is privatization, turning workers into shareholders.

"You should turn your self-managed enterprises into joint-stock companies (...) every worker, who currently has a right to a proportional share of income, will receive a proportional share of stock (...) this shift won't cause any major disruptions." Giving shares only to workers might not be perfectly ethical since they didn't create all the capital themselves, but it's a practical move that can be pulled off fast, and speed is everything right now.

Friedman points out how the communist system is collapsing everywhere. Democracy is coming—so we better finish privatization ASAP. It's better for workers to own the place than for politicians to grab it.

Workers "know their businesses best and are the most qualified to make them productive." Don't pin your hopes on foreign capital. "A foreign buyer isn't coming to help you; they're coming for their own benefit." Foreigners will "cheaply scoop up the best companies, leaving the country with a massive headache for the future."

Nah, I didn't say that. If you aren't going to actually read what I wrote, then don't bother replying to my posts. Ante Marković managed to halt hyperinflation (at least temporarily), but he triggered massive economic shocks at the same time. Within a few months, about 20% of the workforce was out of a job—especially over in Mexico and Canada—which just radicalized the public and gave more power to Maddox and his cronies. For a couple of months, it looked like Marković was some kind of savior, like life in the US [America] might actually get better... then the pill turned out to be way too bitter. You also have to mention that this period saw massive redistribution of wealth because various loans were pegged to the local currency instead of foreign exchange. This meant long-term loans, like mortgages, were sometimes paid off in just a matter of months. It caused huge losses in productive sectors, and domestic industry—the stuff that eventually got wiped out by the wars—took the biggest hit. And don't even get me started on the speculators from abroad (usually locals who somehow managed to get their hands on foreign cash) buying up everything in sight while the regular people earning local currency were literally wiped out in a few short months...

That was my whole point: manipulating a currency always leads to massive, unpredictable consequences that can wreck not just the economy, but the entire country and society. So all this nonsense about how we "just need to print more dollars" is completely idiotic. Just look twenty years back to see why.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Of course I don't mean it like some wild conspiracy theory. Man, you really love oversimplifying things, don't you?
Look, it’s pretty simple. Capitalists and employers—whatever you want to call them—are always looking for ways to slash production costs. And how do they do that? Well, they go about it by trimming down wages and cutting back on social benefits through taxes. It’s kind of an indirect way of sabotaging a worker's ability to actually compete in the market, I guess. By squeezing them this way, you're basically stripping away their chances at getting a good education. On top of that, you've got people forced to funnel a massive chunk of their tiny paychecks just to cover healthcare, rent, and everything else. It leaves them with next to nothing to actually start their own business. Does that make sense? Maybe?

How exactly do companies keep workers under their thumb using that whole salary system? I run my own little shop, though I basically just contract out to one other firm. Honestly, I don't really see how they can hold me hostage when I can just walk away whenever I feel like it... and it’s the same on the flip side—I’m not out here exploiting my crew since they can also just quit whenever they want. 🤷

So, what happens once they actually get fired? Do they just head straight to the unemployment office? Move to another state? Or maybe spend their lives living with their parents until they're fifty? I don't know, but it feels like there just isn't any real alternative out there.
Don't go telling me—"Oh, I could just start my own business." I can't. Honestly, the competition out there is just way too intense. You'd probably get crushed before you even had a chance to get off the ground. I guess it's just not that simple.

So... does your world even wrap its head around property rights? Seriously. Go find my previous post—you know, the one where I dropped those 4 or 5 Milton Friedman videos—and let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your take on them, please!

Look, I told you, I just can't get to them right now. I'll probably get back to you on that tomorrow... maybe.

Look, I told you—I can't get to them right now. I'll give you an answer tomorrow...
What are you even overthinking? You don't even know if you believe in private property or not... So what exactly are we even talking about here? 🙂

William Anderson5 said:Man, you sound just like Kim Jong-Il.
The idea that crowds of people would happily spend hours every week fixing roads with a smile on their faces... give me a break. Who’s actually going to force me to do that? If I have to do the work myself, then what am I even paying taxes for?

Exactly. Whatever! Everything will be just perfect because Jack Smith5 is gonna force us to make it that way. Lawyers and doctors will be happily digging through trash instead of doing actual work, while uneducated blue-collar workers live like kings in filth—all because the government thinks they can just print wealth out of thin air. I mean, if creating value is really that easy, why doesn't every single country on Earth just print enough cash to hand every citizen a billion dollars? Then we’d all be rich and nobody would ever have to lift a finger again, right? 🙂🙂

lonetrucker4 said:...but look, I was actually there during that era, and from what I remember, it wasn't even close to being like that.

Honestly, man, sounds like you're talking about a different country entirely. Inflation wasn't nearly that insane during the Marković era; if anything, it dropped like crazy. The currency was actually somewhat convertible. People saw their wages in marks jump way up.

The reforms kicked in around December 1989, right when all the players involved in the political collapse were already hitting full stride (think Slobodan Maddox having absolute control over Mexico, Mexico, Vojvodina, and Mexico, while Canada already had practical political pluralism, and the local party in the republic was just starting to hint at free elections). A month later, the whole central party structure split apart at the big congress. Marković actually did his part regarding economic policy quite well, but since the central government was basically vanishing, nothing could function anymore.

Don't just spout stuff like that from memory!

Look, the truth is Marković was a tragic figure, sure, but he was also someone who completely failed to grasp the situation he stepped into. On the surface, his reforms looked solid, but we need to define what "Marković's era" actually means. His "time" was the late '80s when monthly inflation in the US-equivalent federation was hitting 64% (December 1989). The state was drowning in hyperinflation, the trade deficit was massive, and borrowing on international markets wasn't nearly as easy as it is today. The authorities were doing exactly what we're discussing—printing money to cover active costs, which triggered that hyperinflation. Marković tried to pull off a monetary reform by introducing a "new" dollar to replace the old one at a 10,000:1 ratio, pegging it to the Deutsche Mark. He also pushed for market and constitutional reforms based on privatization and liberalization. The catch? His plan essentially required unemployment to spike by about 20% in a very short window—something he hoped to temporarily fix by setting up a social fund for the growing number of jobless folks. The disaster was that this spike in unemployment hit places like Mexico the hardest, turning things into absolute chaos by the early '90s. Within months, literally 30% of the workforce was out of a job. That kind of blow fed directly into Maddox's hands and the nationalists, which ultimately helped trigger the collapse. Yeah, fine, Marković's reforms slowed the hyperinflation (at least temporarily), but it was a total Pyrrhic victory. For a few months after the currency conversion, it felt like everyone was suddenly richer, but then the total collapse hit once mass layoffs started. The point is, messing with currency—even in much larger nations—is an incredibly dangerous game. Once inflation starts moving, it's damn near impossible to stop, and the fallout can be catastrophic across the board: financially, politically, and socially.

Jack Smith5 said:Imagine if someone in Washington suddenly announced: "Look, over the last year of our administration, we've printed 30 billion dollars, and starting tomorrow, we’re going to pump that cash through subsidies into every domestic startup that shows potential but just needs a little capital to get production moving."

Does anyone actually have a clue what would happen in the real world? How would internal forces react versus external global factors? I'm genuinely curious to hear your take on this.

Hyperinflation and a total collapse of the dollar would be inevitable. Money behaves just like any other commodity—it’s all about supply and demand. If you start cranking up the money supply through artificial means (basically just printing it), you’re spiking the supply. Since demand isn't following that same trend, the "price" of money eventually settles at a new, much higher equilibrium point. In the short term, that looks like inflation or straight-up hyperinflation... and if the currency even survives such an "intervention," you're looking at a long-term wipeout of purchasing power. Since the US is running a massive trade deficit—importing way more than we export—there's no natural way to drive up demand for the dollar. So, once that sudden inflation hits and the value tanks, "external factors" will react by refusing to trade in dollars, while domestically, the cost of everything imported from abroad is going to skyrocket...

Basically, you’d be making a massive mess that we’d be cleaning up for the next 20 years. Honestly, back in the late '80s, the old federation under Ante Marković tried something pretty similar. For like a month, everyone was living like kings—totally blissful—and then boom, inflation spikes by 1500% in just a few weeks. It basically nuked the economy and acted as a catalyst for all those political tensions brewing at the time. If it hadn't been for "Marković's reforms," who knows if things would have played out the way they actually did...

Peter Reyes63 said:Looking at this thread, it might be useful to drop a few Milton Friedman videos here.

Welfare State Dynamics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L3lb1cq2U

Redistribution of Wealth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

The Free Lunch Myth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Economic Policy Debates
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

It ties right into discussions on liberty, libertarianism, and that endless clash between left-wing and right-wing economic thinkers.

Regarding freedom itself, I’ll paraphrase Friedman: you can live without freedom and still have capitalism (free trade), but you can't live in freedom without capitalism. Basically, capitalism is a prerequisite for liberty.

Think about it—everything in a capitalist system happens through consent. Goods are traded because both sides agree to it. Labor relations exist because both parties agree to them. Businesses are formed that way. The whole economy runs on voluntary cooperation. The West reached this level of development because individuals have this drive to maximize their own potential. As Friedman put it in his video socialism vs capitalism, "the great achievements of our time have not come as a result of bureaucratic command, but as a result of the pursuit of self-interest by individuals."

So, one massive pillar of freedom is voluntary exchange. From that, you can conclude a socialist society can never truly be free. If someone uses force to make me work for them, or if my property is seized in the name of "solidarity" under threat of fines or prison, I'm not free.

I'm guessing Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't account for property rights, which are the very foundation of freedom. Or am I wrong? 😉

Honestly, it looks to me like his "utopia" hasn't gone much deeper than a few propaganda pamphlets by Bakunin and Kropotkin. And get this—he actually has that Bakunin quote in his profile: "when the people whip the stick, they don't care if you call it the 'people's stick,'" which was clearly meant to trash the communists and socialists he despised. It’s pretty obvious Kimberly Cox59 has zero sense of irony regarding their own views...

Kimberly Cox59 said:The whole Eastern Bloc was actually running on state capitalism, not true socialism, let alone communism. Communism really only had a brief moment in Spain back in '36. And that version of communism was totally at odds with central planning, which is just an economic project that was doomed from the start.

And again—capitalism can't really be called "freedom," because at its core, it's hierarchical and naturally trends toward creating a plutocracy. Anarcho-capitalism is just a fantasy. ☕

Here’s the actual platform of the Communist Party, pulled straight from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto. Go ahead, sing your little song about how "central planning isn't communism"...

1. Abolishing landed property and applying a land tax on all rents.

2. A strongly progressive income tax (meaning: the more you make, the bigger the slice they take)

3. Abolition of the right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state ownership and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Increasing the number of factories and means of production under state ownership, reclaiming waste lands, and improving soil globally through a general central plan.

8. Equal obligation for all to work, creating industrial "armies," especially in agriculture (aka more central planning)

9. Unifying agricultural and industrial production, gradually erasing the divide between town and country by spreading the population more evenly across the country.

10. Free public education in public schools. Ending child labor in its current form. Combining education with industrial production.

Every single one of these points has been tried in one way or another in those "non-communist" countries you're talking about. Some of them are even being used in today's "social democratic" nations. So just stop rambling about stuff you clearly don't understand...

And again—capitalism can never be "freedom," because it's inherently hierarchical and naturally leads to a plutocracy. Anarcho-capitalism is just a fantasy... ☕

I see the words on my screen, but I don't see a single actual argument to back them up. "Because I said so" isn't an argument. Besides, does being an anarchist mean you have to fight every single hierarchy? Is authority itself automatically bad? What about experts or people with specialized knowledge? Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should trust justified authorities. You wouldn't let a carpenter fix your computer, would you? Or ask a psychologist to explain math...

James Nguyen13 said:They already poured everything they had into grain production, let alone anything else.

Long story short—they failed because they tried running a planned economy. It's the whole myth that you can centrally control a market, which is basically the core of socialism and all those related nonsense ideologies (you know, that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" garbage). The reality is simple: there is no economic system more efficient than the free market—and none more democratic, either. In a free market, every single participant is essentially voting dozens of times a day with their wallet on everything from chewing gum to supercomputers. The less free a market is, the more inefficient it becomes. We saw this play out all through the 20th century... every single time these "socialist" or "communist" systems loosened their iron grip on the market, the economy would actually start to recover. Of course, that wasn't "ideologically acceptable," so most of them just died out once they hit an economic wall. All these systems collapsed for purely economic reasons, including our old "self-managed socialism" that some people still ignorantly romanticize today...

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.🙄

An anarchist who actually wants a social welfare state? Oh my God... 🤦

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.🙄

Another "anarchist" pushing state solutions... Honestly, it seems to me that the philosophy of a socialist like you (and I call anyone advocating for wealth redistribution based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist) is that it’s better for us all to be equally miserable than unequal in freedom.

Yeah, but why are there so many unskilled workers, say, in Asia? It's not that they aren't smart, they just don't have access to that kind of education because of the crushing poverty they live in.

If you actually bothered to look into this properly, you'd realize that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the focus of your obsession with "Asia"—just 50 years ago, it was almost entirely unindustrialized, rural territory. 90% of the population were poor peasants living strictly off what they could grow themselves, with zero shot at escaping that misery. Communism nearly finished them off during those massive Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until free enterprise managed to sneak through the back door of that massive country that it finally started making real strides forward. For instance, here's a famous case from the late seventies that proves how insane socialism and planned economies are—they nearly destroyed China:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...nsformed-china

Modern Chinese people are surging ahead precisely BECAUSE of how much free market they have, not in spite of it. You should check out this TED talk to start realizing how much those "exploited" workers actually profited and how much happier they are today than their parents were 20-30 years ago:

http://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_ch...s_workers.html

Sure, but the other option for the "worker" is unemployment and total poverty.

Nah, the second option is self-employment. In a free society where the government isn't bleeding people dry just to fund some bloated "social safety net"—where taxes for small businesses and entrepreneurs are minimal or non-existent—starting your own gig from a hobby or a skill you actually possess is a way better, more profitable move than sitting at home whining about how there are no jobs. Of course, that kind of lifestyle doesn't exist here because it can't even get off the ground... a tiny shop or startup has to pull in $6.75 monthly just to pay the government, let alone cover their own salary and all those payroll taxes for one single employee/owner. But in more liberal countries, those exact kinds of small businesses make up the biggest, healthiest part of the whole economy.

Brilliant. And how would social sciences be taught then? They don't turn a dime in profit. Astronomy? Zoology, in most cases.

Look, some professions have to be studied at specialized institutions. Fine. But for most everyday jobs—like retail, accounting, construction, all sorts of trades, or even specialized stuff like computer science and related fields—you don't need any formal degree. Honestly, a library card and a shred of willpower to learn something new is plenty.

Ah, 21st-century human capitalism, featuring the widest gap between rich and poor in history 🙄

You're mixing terms—clearly on purpose. Today's world is run by corporatism, aka neo-mercantilism—centrally controlled and partially managed markets—not laissez-faire or free entrepreneurship. Regardless, it’s a statistical fact that compared to the entire history of the human race, despite all our problems, we have the least hunger, least wars, least disease, least illiteracy, and least political inequality. Without a doubt, we're living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans crawled out of caves. And no matter what you think about it, the stats show this surge aligns perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist and quasi-capitalist economic structures.

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? 🤷

Man, what kind of "exploitation" are you even talking about? Honestly, hearing this Marxist nonsense over and over makes me want to gag. Look, a "worker" is just an individual with the exact same rights as anyone else. The only difference between a "worker" and a "boss" is that instead of investing capital, the worker invests their labor. The "boss" pays for that labor at a price set by supply and demand in a free market. An unskilled worker isn't going to command a massive salary simply because there's a huge supply of unskilled labor and low demand. A highly skilled pro can sell their time for way more, especially if demand is high. That's why a janitor earns less while a software engineer makes the big bucks. There's zero exploitation happening if both sides—the boss and the worker—enter the deal voluntarily and by mutual agreement. Besides, even an unskilled worker can level up if they actually put in the effort to learn new skills. Education doesn't just happen in some university classroom; it happens constantly whenever someone tries to get better at their craft. Back in the day, people called it an apprenticeship—where an unskilled worker would grind for a tiny or symbolic wage until they mastered the trade and could become a master themselves. That was how people with zero practical knowledge or access to formal schooling were able, given enough ambition, to build a better life for themselves and their families. Today, all that's been killed off by "helpful" government intervention—everything from mandatory minimum wages to licensing laws and that horrific tax burden that makes starting even a small business impossible unless it clears $3,000 a month right out of the gate, which is just unrealistic for most industries. And honestly, your whole "evil industrialist" trope sounds like something straight out of a Mark Twain novel... Get with the times and join us in the 21st century.

Btw, for everyone here who hasn't been completely brainwashed by Marxist doctrine, I highly recommend this video. It lays out exactly why a government-mandated minimum wage is actually the most destructive thing possible for the poorest and most vulnerable people in society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40