Lol socialism is way different from that. They don't just take taxes in the form of income, they take away the private property of certain people and spread it around. Also over half of anything produced on the lands in a certain village goes to the government. My friend's grandfather used to live in america at the start of the 20th century, made his fortune there and then came back to eastern europe. he owned pretty much half a city, buildings, factories, developed farmlands, and when socialism was introduced he was practically left with nothing. And say you don't agree to let go of your possessions, private property and production from what's left (however they see fit) - you're instantly proclaimed a traitor to the regime and sent over to jail for torture or worse.
Why I Don't Vote
- Thread starter RAZE1
- Start date
Lol socialism is way different from that. They don't just take taxes in the form of income, they take away the private property of certain people and spread it around. Also over half of anything produced on the lands in a certain village goes to the government. My friend's grandfather used to live in america at the start of the 20th century, made his fortune there and then came back to eastern europe. he owned pretty much half a city, buildings, factories, developed farmlands, and when socialism was introduced he was practically left with nothing. And say you don't agree to let go of your possessions, private property and production from what's left (however they see fit) - you're instantly proclaimed a traitor to the regime and sent over to jail for torture or worse.
lol what? read the posts above yours. hes clearly controlling the situation because of elite social dynamics skills. because he can. you know?
I don't think there are many people here who don't understand the difference between a fully socialist country and the USSA. Of course our silly constitution grants us "the right" to not have our actual property stolen outright and split up... History is full of examples that sound worse than our own present.
However, what we have actually accomplishes the goals of socialism in sneakier ways. We've got a huge, perhaps a majority of people now, that live on government assistance. Obombacare is certain to worsen that situation. When the state Does want to take your land here, although it is more rare for them to do so, it doesn't tell you to give up a percentage of your stuff to help the greater good; it declares "Imminent Domain" and steals it from you outright. The FED & the IRS work together in tandem to steal the ALL the actual wealth from everyone, which they've had a 98% success rate over the last 100 years doing. Capital controls are becoming quite draconian now too, read up on FACTA and you'll see that it's starting to sound like Hitler himself designed our monetary system. This shit just keeps piling up, and if you added up all the city, state, and federal taxes you pay on top of each other you'd get a percentage of your wealth that can be described as nothing short of socialistic, if not downright enslavement. The only difference is that politicians here have become really good at hiding these facts from the sheeply masses.
The fact that Brand can control a conversation is a given. He is awesome at this, and it is awesome that he can actually see the real problems in society (unlike 3/4ths of the ppl on this board) and speak out about them. Sadly, what mattseh and I agree on is that Brand doesn't have an intelligent answer for Paxman, basically stuttering when asked and almost shouting "muh socialism!" out of desperation. It's heartbreaking to watch, actually.
You only think economics is a non-science because you don't understand Austrian (the only non-pseudo) economics.
Ever wonder whose fault taht was (start listening @3:33)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5EsnQUybKU"]Freedomain Radio - Myths of World Wars Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
blowback: a bitch since pre-1917
I agree to the similarities and honestly don't know which is worst.. having the law in the open fucking u or getting fucked and not knowing it. Still, I think the essential difference here is that in a modern-day capitalist society ANYONE from any background can make/do whatever they set their mind to regardless of governmental restrictions. We've had billionaire drug dealers.
All a person needs to do is put in a lot of hard work, make smart decisions, learn to be flexible and have some self discipline to get to the top of a capitalistic society. In socialism, even if an individual qualifies for all that they're still forced to constantly bow down to something they might not believe in. China is a perfect example today. They basically send off bulldozers to rural communities and tear down people's houses and then build cities out in the middle of no where. No-one can speak out against it or they'd be committing suicide.
I've been hearing about Austrian economics plenty, do you know of some resources on it (books, video, etc) to help me better understand. Also you sound like you'd have no problem devising a global utopian society in a 5 minute interview so I'd like to hear about how you'd handle it.
I believe you've got the USA of 1950 confused with the USSA of 2013. That really isn't possible anymore... All the rich people today get there through cronyism now.
Read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One lesson... In fact, you can even watch it, all chapters of it are on youtube now:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDOYHm2C-r0]Economics In One Lesson, Chapter 1: The Lesson - YouTube[/ame]
Then read the Law: Bastiat's The Llaw
After that there are tons of resources to continue your unavoidable knowledge binge on Mises.org. Enjoy!
There is no such thing as Utopia and never will be. Human nature cancels it out without fail.
But I wouldn't have much of a problem designing a free market solution to society if only free-minded folks could escape government. No good way of doing that yet; but I suspect it will be had through technology in the coming decades how that the internet is here.
If youd make better use of your memory, youd remember that i know a lot about austrian economics. its still a non-science though. economics is part of physics and entirely explained by one very simple formula. every stupid little thing those economists add is either just the formula explained (in very bad and/or unintuitive ways) or bullshit (lies).
economics is endemic to all processes and doesnt discriminate between the large and small scales and inanimate vs. animate objects (which makes it a discipline of physics). dE = 0 and dS > 0 explains it all (those two are the very foundation of why things work the way they do). no need for economists. they just make it more difficult to understand so they have a job. its a breeding ground for idiots who aspire to be politicians but are somehow still too stupid or not tough enough for the bitchfest that is law school.
any problem posed in economy is a non problem. people who are actually intelligent dont try to solve them because they already are solved by very simple intuitive arguments. when i was younger i didnt know whether politicians were too stupid to understand things or just evil. thats changed because the german leadership bitch somehow acquired a ph.d. in physics. she knows.
Yeah! Fuck Visual Arts, Dancing, Music, Philosophy, Psychology, Mythology, Spirituality, Economics, Psychiatry, Fiction, any type of Creativity, Video Games, etc. Reject everything except the current but temporary scientific paradigm that blows like the wind!
Dude... I know several people who were born in the lower middle class who are now balling out control because they worked hard and were clever, not because they were born into it or given it or through nepotism or whatever.
The worst thing to do is start thinking in black and white terms. Shit ain't that drastic... yet.
that would really gross your alpha buddies out, wouldnt it?
pick a book on logical deduction up. it will help your business endeavours. i promise
Logical Deduction, as presented by wayn3:
1a. Economics has a hard time taking into account human free will, therefore...
1b. (First contradiction to the deterministic argument that's about to be laid forth in step 2.)
2. ... economics is a subset of physics (macro or micro? he's not sure). Tries to get rid of the free will argument by encapsulating these by allowing for wiggle room by alluding to perturbations in the calculations.
3. Makes a statement to destroy the 2nd contradiciton about how economics doesn't take into account Macro vs. Micro, despite things called micro- and macro-economics.
4. Therefore, Economics is useless and made more difficult by idiots who want to keep their jobs, because the flow of money is already explained by Astrophysics and Quantum physics alike!
youre digging your own grave. your only valid point is that "economics is a non-science" is obviously wrong. i dont know your level of education and im not going to make any guesses about it. at least not publicly.
what i know is that economists lack the will to understand mathematics (from personal experience, like, actually talking to those students) and their curriculum doesnt prepare them for anything beyond matrix multiplication.
your wild assumption about my lack of economics education is just trying to rhetoric device me. ive performed more actual science in the field than youve read about.
the fact that people divide micro and macro might be reasonable. or it might not be. your textbooks say it is. people like you treat science like theres a right idea and lots of wrong ones. kind of sketchy.
anything beyond that is red herring about physics concepts you dont understand. its up to you to choose your battlefield. dont choose the one i work with full-time.
if you want anything about economics explained in a language that is efficient and actually able to express things precisely, youre invited to pay my usual hourly rate. you might not be able to understand the results, though.
the free will argument is a cute one. even those who propose it claim that its bullshit like 2 sentences later every time. the allegiation that it cant be modelled is a stupid one. a failure to have the correct model is not proof that it cant be modelled. logic fail again. all physics models are wrong all the time. such is the nature of natural sciences. they still gave you lazors and a level of medicine that outgrows the buying power of formerly wealthy nations.
Is that right, bruh bruh?
Is that right, bruh bruh?
You take pride in all this, don't you? I'm not sure what your goal is on these here internets, but mine is to dick around and have a good time, not get all flustered and blood pressured before I run into my day job. (thankfully i don't get flustered or have a day job)
The truth is, I have a couple degrees, one of them being in nuclear engineering and I've held government clearances very few will dream of, been inside the live containment of nuclear reactors, jacked off in primary and auxiliary system bathrooms, declined jobs to build a-bombs, and studied quite a bit of dat der physics, micro and macro.
but then, leveraging my knowledge of economics and entrepreneurship, I then decided to abandon without care what you take so much pride in so that I could do what you wish you could do, which is work from home full time on the internets, dicking off on forums whenever I feel, and trolling potatoes on wickedfire.
Your vast knowledge of complicated systems surely has you whipping a silly little computer algorithm, right? If you can disregard economics as they playground of idiots who are siphoning a paycheck, then SURELY you are CHOOSING not to make Google your bitch? Or am I missing something? My deductive reasoning skills aren't up to par.
Your science dick, economics dick, and internet marketing skills dick are all three still falling short of ya boy. I'll let you touch it if you want.
Maybe all that radiation exposure I had makes me think it's fun to dilly dally with you on the intradets. But I think it's more likely the mushrooms.
I thought it's common sense by now humans don't have free will. I doubt it changes anything as far as building an efficient economic model or w/e though. Should probably use "human condition" instead of free will.
If only we could get enough people to write in, "no confidence" instead of checking the R or D box.
I am well aware that we do not have a parliamentary system and it would not have a direct impact, but can you imagine the cultural implications of major news networks reporting that ___% had voted no confidence?
I am well aware that we do not have a parliamentary system and it would not have a direct impact, but can you imagine the cultural implications of major news networks reporting that ___% had voted no confidence?