Jump to content


Photo

Digital Democracy and Globalisation.


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#33 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 05 March 2017 - 06:00 pm

They're private now. There's no example of a railway that was entirely or originally built by the free market, because no government allows it, so it's a non-argument to say the free market isn't good at building them

 

So privatising the fruits of socialism and big gov is the achievements of free market capitalism ?

 

railways water sewage telecommunications gas national grid

 

all the above ran at a profit and took us out the dark ages by big gov

 

and now all the above are going to shit due to your free market capitalist utopia

 

shit if it wasn't for Franco putting in all them water harvesting plants by the mountains ppl would of died last year in Spain

 

a true capitalist will not look to extract the fruit from infrastructure but instead use it to increase capacity  


  • 0

#34 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 March 2017 - 08:06 pm

They're private now. There's no example of a railway that was entirely or originally built by the free market, because no government allows it, so it's a non-argument to say the free market isn't good at building them

 

So privatising the fruits of socialism and big gov is the achievements of free market capitalism ?

 

railways water sewage telecommunications gas national grid

 

all the above ran at a profit and took us out the dark ages by big gov

 

and now all the above are going to shit due to your free market capitalist utopia

 

shit if it wasn't for Franco putting in all them water harvesting plants by the mountains ppl would of died last year in Spain

 

a true capitalist will not look to extract the fruit from infrastructure but instead use it to increase capacity  

 

BIg government projects simply leech off the rest of the economy, so taking specific success stories doesn't mean a whole lot.

 

If I robbed 100 people and bought a mansion with the money, I don't think anyone would call it a glorious triumph of my mansion building ability or the "fruits" of my labour, and it would also make those 100 people worse off. Exactly the same applies to government, but on a larger scale and with far more imprecise aims.

 

Government isn't filled with geniuses who somehow are able to plan and make better infrastructure than private companies. Even when government manages to build something high quality, it does so (at best) wastefully because it doesn't base it's calculations on market forces, but on what a bunch of people in a room decide is "good for the country" or "good for society". The Soviet Union produced vast amounts of steel -- which when viewed in isolation could be seen as an amazing accomplishment of rapid industrialisation -- but an enormous proportion of it was left to corrode by the sides of railway lines never to be used because they just produced it based on what they thought the country needed. China has been doing a similar thing; they've got entire cities which are empty and five lane motorways without a car in sight.

 

A rich, mostly free economy can support nationalised industries (the cost of which will be felt elsewhere in the economy, and will also manifest itself in the form of wasted potential -- i.e. what could've been if the government hadn't nationalised). But, the more you nationalise and the less free the economy gets, the more of a strain nationalised industries become, and the more the free parts of the economy suffer. So it only really makes sense to speak in terms of an entire economy, and the evidence is plentiful that freer markets perform better. There is nothing to suggest that further liberalisation or privatisation of the economy would lead to worse outcomes.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#35 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 05 March 2017 - 09:04 pm

so taking specific success stories doesn't mean a whole lot.

 

its not just specific tho is it

 

If I robbed 100 people and bought a mansion with the money, I don't think anyone would call it a glorious triumph of my mansion building ability or the "fruits" of my labour, and it would also make those 100 people worse off. Exactly the same applies to government, but on a larger scale and with far more imprecise aims.

 

​well building a mansion with tax money is a bit  straw man tbh  how about we take down a notch to gov built houses would you say that the capitalisation of that by thatcher has led to a better housing situation than the Chinese ? most new builds theses days are smaller and have inferior  build quality compered to the old council houses

 

Government isn't filled with geniuses who somehow are able to plan and make better infrastructure than private companies. Even when government manages to build something high quality, it does so (at best) wastefully because it doesn't base it's calculations on market forces, but on what a bunch of people in a room decide is "good for the country" or "good for society". The Soviet Union produced vast amounts of steel -- which when viewed in isolation could be seen as an amazing accomplishment of rapid industrialisation -- but an enormous proportion of it was left to corrode by the sides of railway lines never to be used because they just produced it based on what they thought the country needed. China has been doing a similar thing; they've got entire cities which are empty and five lane motorways without a car in sight.

 

and in a free market environment we can have an over abundance of tulips at silly prices

 

A rich, mostly free economy can support nationalised industries (the cost of which will be felt elsewhere in the economy, and will also manifest itself in the form of wasted potential -- i.e. what could've been if the government hadn't nationalised). But, the more you nationalise and the less free the economy gets, the more of a strain nationalised industries become, and the more the free parts of the economy suffer. So it only really makes sense to speak in terms of an entire economy, and the evidence is plentiful that freer markets perform better. There is nothing to suggest that further liberalisation or privatisation of the economy would lead to worse outcomes.

 

free markets always lead to a depression as the market participants are always seeking a better deal this can lead to differed  spending and investment 

 

a mix of both is perfect but its the free shit army on both sides of the coin that are the problem  


  • 0

#36 Salamol

Salamol
  • – BDO Lieutenant –

  • 454 posts
  • Short Name:Sal

Posted 06 March 2017 - 12:52 am

This crossed my desk earlier today: https://www.theguard...inating-poverty

Ordinarily I'd have glossed over the stealing of land & resources stuff, but after our recent conversations it struck me as particularly relevant.
  • 0

SalamolBanner.png


#37 Toglos

Toglos
  • Banned
  • 2,588 posts
  • Location:Bude
  • Short Name:Tog

Posted 27 March 2017 - 08:37 pm

 
He more than bugs me, especially his more recent stuff, but I think that particular video is more or less spot on. 

 

 

I'd say he was pretty much spot in most of the videos to be fair, including his more recent videos. I've tried the tolerance bit for the last 2 years making friends from said countries... and by the looks of it I'm probebly just about to come to the end of that chapter.


  • 0

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users