Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Taihei Tengoku]

"Controlling for development" is an incredible weasel.

[Orostan]

Orostan,

The countries your study mentions aren’t actually socialist countries, so you are just proving Mises’ point that socialism only works in so far as it’s not actual socialism.

Additionally, any historian worth their salt knows that you can characterize a time period in a certain way if the evidence, on balance, supports that characterization. On balance, the historical evidence shows that Early America was a bastion of classical liberal thought. Pointing out a single instance where Early America was not classically liberal is not sufficient to overcome my characterization of the time period. History is not black and white. We must always ask “To what extent?”.

1) The USSR and Eastern Block were Socialist, and China is what I'd describe as a planned market. None of these countries were the best kind of socialism, but they were still had socialism.
2) You're missing my point. I'm trying to say that Capitalism has an inherent tendency to produce oligarchy, and that any Capitalist society ultimately follows the same laws as any other Capitalist society. And that's far from the only incident. Shay's Rebellion was prompted by creditors demanding hard currency (which there was a shortage of) for debt repayment instead of easier to obtain paper money, as well as a heavy tax burden on Farmers (and not on merchants). The army that went to destroy this Rebellion was funded by the Merchants, the emerging bourgeois.

[36 Camera Perspective]

So, Orostan, what are you saying is that Shay’s rebellion was caused by government intervention.

[Orostan]

Additionally, whatever progress the Soviet Union experienced is irrelevant to whether or not socialism is superior to capitalism, for we can always ask if the Soviet Union would have seen more progress under capitalism than it did under socialism. (Speaking of that, they weren’t even real socialists and relied on some capitalist mechanisms in their economy.)

One last thing. The Soviet Union stole most of its nuclear technology from the West, so you can cannot credit the Soviet Union’s fake socialism for turning them into an atomic power. You must credit Western market economies.

1) On the Economics thread, Constantinopolis pointed out that even if a Capitalist Russia followed the 1913 economic trends it would've done about as well as the USSR did. He also pointed out that Capitalism when nothing unusual happens preforming the same as Socialism during one of the bloodiest civil wars, the largest land invasion in history, and a nuclear arms race is a pretty good argument for socialism.

With your last bit, I assume you are referring to the NEP. That was ended by Stalin in 1928 if I recall correctly.

2) My point is not that the USSR had nuclear weapons. It is that it had the infrastructure, the resources, and the industrial strength necessary to build the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in history.

"Controlling for development" is an incredible weasel.

nob an argumenb xxxxddddd

[36 Camera Perspective]

Here’s a quote from an American farmer that I found while lazily trawling the Wikipedia article on Shay’s rebellion

“I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates ... been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth ... The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers.“

Sounds like these farmers were mad about government intervention in the economy and society. So tell me, Orostan, how did the free market cause Shay’s rebellion?

[Orostan]

So, Orostan, what are you saying is that Shay’s rebellion was caused by government intervention.

No. That's not what I said. I said that the rebellion was caused by the Merchant class' exploitation of the working class of that time. The government didn't even stop the revolt, a literal private army did that. The enormous tax burden on farmers was caused by the Government being absolutely broke after the American Revolution. The American government at that time was a bourgeois government.

[Orostan]

Here’s a quote from an American farmer that I found while lazily trawling the Wikipedia article on Shay’s rebellion

“I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates ... been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth ... The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers.“

Sounds like these farmers were mad about government intervention in the economy and society. So tell me, Orostan, how did the free market cause Shay’s rebellion?

These farmers had to take out loans to pay their taxes, and to just survive. This was because of the American Revolution, a war funded and backed by the bourgeois for their own interests of not being taxed. The burden of the war fell on the working class.

[Nulla Bellum]

attention all passengers

I'd call the USSR going from a society just out of feudalism to an atomic superpower that invented the technology that makes modern society possible a success, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries have done better than Capitalist countries at the same level of development.

Watch the video.

[Orostan]

I'd call the USSR going from a society just out of feudalism to an atomic superpower that invented the technology that makes modern society possible a success, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries have done better than Capitalist countries at the same level of development.

Watch the video.

I cited a study in response. I'd say that trumps an edit of a cartoon.

[Nulla Bellum]

Watch the video.

I cited a study in response. I'd say that trumps an edit of a cartoon.

>cites news article that specifically stated socialist countries weren't compared to high-income capitalist nations.

Yeah buddy, socialism has to go to the bottom of the list to find peers.

You didn't watch the video. Russia was specifically mentioned as a country where socialism doesn't work. Your cartoon argument needs work.

[Hammer Britannia]

attention all passengers

I'd call the USSR going from a society just out of feudalism to an atomic superpower that invented the technology that makes modern society possible a success, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries have done better than Capitalist countries at the same level of development.

> USA: 78.74 Year life expectancy
> Venezuela: 74.41 Year life expectancy
>USA: 70 year life expectancy in 1960
>China: 44 years in 1960 (Back when China was an actual Communist nation and not this hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism)

Also
>Not mentioning the fact that they were comparing it to low-income Capitalists
It's almost like you are insecure about your bad ideology and have to twist the words of others/have them twist words for you.

[Orostan]

I cited a study in response. I'd say that trumps an edit of a cartoon.

>cites news article that specifically stated socialist countries weren't compared to high-income capitalist nations.

Yeah buddy, socialism has to go to the bottom of the list to find peers.

You didn't watch the video. Russia was specifically mentioned as a country where socialism doesn't work. Your cartoon argument needs work.

The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries. Russia and Eastern Europe have historically been poorer than Western Europe, and the US. They aren't as developed. What they did was compare a socialist country with a capitalist country at a similar level of development. They compared two equal countries in that regard. They found that quality of life was better in the socialist countries. That means that if Russia had remained Capitalist, there is a good chance most people would not have lived as well as they did.

I'd call the USSR going from a society just out of feudalism to an atomic superpower that invented the technology that makes modern society possible a success, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries have done better than Capitalist countries at the same level of development.

> USA: 78.74 Year life expectancy
> Venezuela: 74.41 Year life expectancy
>USA: 70 year life expectancy in 1960
>China: 44 years in 1960 (Back when China was an actual Communist nation and not this hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism)

Also
>Not mentioning the fact that they were comparing it to low-income Capitalists
It's almost like you are insecure about your bad ideology and have to twist the words of others/have them twist words for you.

You convieniently forgot to mention how Chinese life expectancy increased more than two times under Mao, or how China has one of the largest public sectors in the world. China's largest businesses are state owned. The reason China has experienced double digit wage growth for much of recent history is because of state owned companies forcing up wages.

With regards to your last part, please see what I said to Nulla Bellum.

[Elwher]

The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries. Russia and Eastern Europe have historically been poorer than Western Europe, and the US. They aren't as developed. What they did was compare a socialist country with a capitalist country at a similar level of development. They compared two equal countries in that regard. They found that quality of life was better in the socialist countries. That means that if Russia had remained Capitalist, there is a good chance most people would not have lived as well as they did.

If one wants to compare similar socialist vs capitalist countries, we actually have one good current example and one other equally good one from the recent past. In both cases, they were one country split into socialist and capitalist halves.

East and West Germany: 1991, the year of unification, GDR had a per capita income of less than half that of FRG. and an unemployment rate about 25% higher. Unit labor costs were also about 25% higher. These figures come from a 2015 article in The Economist, a reasonably reputable source https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/daily-chart-comparing-eastern-and-western-germany

North and South Korea: According to Index Mundi https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/south-korea.north-korea, the average life span in DPRK is 70.7 years, ROK is 82.5. Per capita GDP was %1,800 vs #37,500 in 2015. Industrial production growth rates: 1% vs 3.5%.

In both cases, the countries were geographically similar, being portions of the same country, and started from an identical background, the aftermath of WWII. They did not, however, progress equally as shown by the economies years later.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries.

wonder why

[Questers]

On balance, the historical evidence shows that Early America was a bastion of classical liberal thought.

That might explain why it was so poor

[The Liberated Territories]

On balance, the historical evidence shows that Early America was a bastion of classical liberal thought.

That might explain why it was so poor

And now the gdp of the uk is on par with Mississippi, while middle income US states vy with the Nordic countries and Texas has the gdp as large as Australia.

[Questers]

if classical liberalism exists, it almost definitely doesn't define american economic system LoL

[Taihei Tengoku]

What would fix this semantic game is if we took over the word "liberalism" in all its forms.

[The Liberated Territories]

if classical liberalism exists, it almost definitely doesn't define american economic system LoL

I think it is leagues closer than other countries, but unfortunately Trump wants to undo it.

What would fix this semantic game is if we took over the word "liberalism" in all its forms.

I like how it rolls off the tongue. Yet now liberal here in the US means Hillary Clinton

[Mujahidah]

I'd call the USSR going from a society just out of feudalism to an atomic superpower that invented the technology that makes modern society possible a success, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries have done better than Capitalist countries at the same level of development.

> USA: 78.74 Year life expectancy
> Venezuela: 74.41 Year life expectancy
>USA: 70 year life expectancy in 1960
>China: 44 years in 1960 (Back when China was an actual Communist nation and not this hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism)

Also
>Not mentioning the fact that they were comparing it to low-income Capitalists
It's almost like you are insecure about your bad ideology and have to twist the words of others/have them twist words for you.

China: The Shittiest Parts of Both Systems

[Hammer Britannia]

You convieniently forgot to mention how Chinese life expectancy increased more than two times under Mao

>Conveintly forgeting Mao killed 50 million
>Conviently forgetting that it was still only 64 at the end of his reign

[Orostan]

The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries. Russia and Eastern Europe have historically been poorer than Western Europe, and the US. They aren't as developed. What they did was compare a socialist country with a capitalist country at a similar level of development. They compared two equal countries in that regard. They found that quality of life was better in the socialist countries. That means that if Russia had remained Capitalist, there is a good chance most people would not have lived as well as they did.

If one wants to compare similar socialist vs capitalist countries, we actually have one good current example and one other equally good one from the recent past. In both cases, they were one country split into socialist and capitalist halves.

East and West Germany: 1991, the year of unification, GDR had a per capita income of less than half that of FRG. and an unemployment rate about 25% higher. Unit labor costs were also about 25% higher. These figures come from a 2015 article in The Economist, a reasonably reputable source https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/daily-chart-comparing-eastern-and-western-germany

North and South Korea: According to Index Mundi https://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/south-korea.north-korea, the average life span in DPRK is 70.7 years, ROK is 82.5. Per capita GDP was %1,800 vs #37,500 in 2015. Industrial production growth rates: 1% vs 3.5%.

In both cases, the countries were geographically similar, being portions of the same country, and started from an identical background, the aftermath of WWII. They did not, however, progress equally as shown by the economies years later.

1) You have a fair point, but West and East Germany did not have equal starting positions. The Soviets weren't too interested in rebuilding Eastern Germany, while West Germany got tons of American money to prevent socialism from coming in. In 1991 the GDR was experiencing economic trouble along with the rest of the Eastern block, so using numbers from there might not be the greatest indicator of economic health.
2) North Korea has been cut off from much of the world for a very long time. South Korea meanwhile has had billions of dollars of US aid funneled into it, and has had access to the rest of the world. If most of the world was socialist and North Korea was Capitalist, we'd see something similar to what we see now. And besides that, It's debatable if North Korea meets the criteria for socialism anymore.

Also, isn't NK's economy growing faster than SK's right now? I might be wrong on that, but I think I remember reading about it a while back.

The reason why they excluded high income Capitalist countries was because there were no high income socialist countries.

wonder why

Perhaps because they did not have established industrial economies in most cases, hmmm?

if classical liberalism exists, it almost definitely doesn't define american economic system LoL

I think it is leagues closer than other countries, but unfortunately Trump wants to undo it.

What would fix this semantic game is if we took over the word "liberalism" in all its forms.

I like how it rolls off the tongue. Yet now liberal here in the US means Hillary Clinton

Hillary is a Liberal though.

You convieniently forgot to mention how Chinese life expectancy increased more than two times under Mao

>Conveintly forgeting Mao killed 50 million
>Conviently forgetting that it was still only 64 at the end of his reign

Those numbers were produced under Deng, who was trying to discredit Mao. People died during the Great Leap Forward, but not as much as that. And even if they did, that famine was caused by drought, flooding, and increased peasant consumption of food. Not by Mao.

[Taihei Tengoku]

wonder why

Perhaps because they did not have established industrial economies in most cases, hmmm?

wonder why

[Hammer Britannia]

>Conveintly forgeting Mao killed 50 million
>Conviently forgetting that it was still only 64 at the end of his reign

Those numbers were produced under Deng, who was trying to discredit Mao. People died during the Great Leap Forward, but not as much as that. And even if they did, that famine was caused by drought, flooding, and increased peasant consumption of food. Not by Mao.

OK, now you are just defending deaths by saying "It wasn't mao and people want food so that's why people died"

"nob an argumenb xxxxddddd"

[Orostan]

Perhaps because they did not have established industrial economies in most cases, hmmm?

wonder why

They used to be agrarian economies. That's why.

Those numbers were produced under Deng, who was trying to discredit Mao. People died during the Great Leap Forward, but not as much as that. And even if they did, that famine was caused by drought, flooding, and increased peasant consumption of food. Not by Mao.

OK, now you are just defending deaths by saying "It wasn't mao and people want food so that's why people died"

"nob an argumenb xxxxddddd"

Alright, in that case let's apply the same standard to Capitalism. Let's count deaths from preventable disease and hunger, and leave out things like imperialist wars.

nine Millon people die from hunger every year. A further three million die from preventable disease. In total that is 11 million people that die every year, but don't have to. Society as a whole can provide for them. It is not profitable too though.

Let's see how many people have died but didn't have too since the year 2000. 11 times 18 is 198, and even if we cut a little less than half of this off we still get 100 million that have died since 2018. The Black Book of Communism (known for exaggerating numbers) says communism has killed 100 million people, presumably white christian small business owners. Even if we take that estimate as correct (it's not), conditions created by Capitalism are killing more people than Communism ever did.