LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Torrocca]

WHICH IS WHY I SPECIFIED THE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A THING. READ ALL THE WAY THROUGH BEFORE REPLYING

So, again, you have no plan.

And I bet you definitely have a plan to implement your """national-syndicalism""", especially after making your tacit support for the Capitalist status quo abundantly clear, amirite?

[Crysuko]

So, again, you have no plan.

And I bet you definitely have a plan to implement your """national-syndicalism""", especially after making your tacit support for the Capitalist status quo abundantly clear, amirite?

NatSynd is basically corporacratic fascism, it flopped in Spain and was hugely unpopular.

[Torrocca]

And I bet you definitely have a plan to implement your """national-syndicalism""", especially after making your tacit support for the Capitalist status quo abundantly clear, amirite?

NatSynd is basically corporacratic fascism, it flopped in Spain and was hugely unpopular.

Well, yeah, obviously. There's a reason NC's tacitly supporting the status quo of Capitalism in this thread.

[Northern Davincia]

Clairvoyance is not cowardice. Socialists are permanently incapable of organizing an economy efficiently, therefore it is wise for investors to pull out before the socialist wins. There is no profit for them to make otherwise.

It's not clairvoyance to run away like a screaming manbaby from an economic model that prevents you from extracting a profit off the labor of other people. It's certainly cowardice, however, when said running-away like a screaming manbaby directly hurts those people trying to better their society's conditions.

Also imagine thinking Capitalism is remotely efficient with the sheer amount of excess and waste it produces lmao

The people "trying to better their society's conditions" do not know how to achieve such a goal. If I were an investor, I would know that a nation falling to socialism would negatively affect me. Therefore, I would withdraw before such effects impact me. It's rational self-interest in it's purest form, because you have offered no incentive for investors to remain in an unfavorable position.

Also capitalism is indeed the most efficient system when it comes to supply and demand. Until the economic calculation problem is solved, socialism can never work. Even efficient systems aren't perfect, hence waste.

[Nakena]

Clairvoyance is not cowardice. Socialists are permanently incapable of organizing an economy efficiently, therefore it is wise for investors to pull out before the socialist wins. There is no profit for them to make otherwise.

Take said profit and insert rectally, socialism is about making a better world for the proletariat, not more money for the 1%.

Thats what I do always while working up my way towards the 1%. :^)

Well, yeah, obviously. There's a reason NC's tacitly supporting the status quo of Capitalism in this thread.

I just roll with whatever works and more importantly work with what is present rather than some abstract theories.

[Northern Davincia]

Take said profit and insert rectally, socialism is about making a better world for the proletariat, not more money for the 1%.

Thats what I do always while working up my way towards the 1%. :^)

That's the spirit!

[Jack Thomas Lang]

You, ideologues: Replace capitalism with socialism/syndicalism/fascism!!!

Me, enlightened centrist: R e f o r m

[Torrocca]

It's not clairvoyance to run away like a screaming manbaby from an economic model that prevents you from extracting a profit off the labor of other people. It's certainly cowardice, however, when said running-away like a screaming manbaby directly hurts those people trying to better their society's conditions.

Also imagine thinking Capitalism is remotely efficient with the sheer amount of excess and waste it produces lmao

The people "trying to better their society's conditions" do not know how to achieve such a goal. If I were an investor, I would know that a nation falling to socialism would negatively affect me. Therefore, I would withdraw before such affects impact me. It's rational self-interest in it's purest form, because you have offered no incentive for investors to remain in an unfavorable position.

Self-interest, in regards to making a profit off the labor of others, is sheer bullshittery of the highest order especially when that self-interest comes at the expense of everyone else.

Also capitalism is indeed the most efficient system when it comes to supply and demand. Until the economic calculation problem is solved, socialism can never work. Even efficient systems aren't perfect, hence waste.

Capitalism most definitely is not the most efficient system whatsoever, and that's made strikingly apparent by its gross waste and excess. Even more so when combined with the gluttonous richness of the 1% at the expense of the rest of society.

Take said profit and insert rectally, socialism is about making a better world for the proletariat, not more money for the 1%.

Thats what I do always while working up my way towards the 1%. :^)

Well, yeah, obviously. There's a reason NC's tacitly supporting the status quo of Capitalism in this thread.

I just roll with whatever works and more importantly work with what is present rather than some abstract theories.

That Capitalism works as intended - for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many - isn't exactly a point in its favor for the common clay of society, and is in fact all the more reason to get rid of it for something that actually does work for the many.

[Northern Davincia]

The people "trying to better their society's conditions" do not know how to achieve such a goal. If I were an investor, I would know that a nation falling to socialism would negatively affect me. Therefore, I would withdraw before such affects impact me. It's rational self-interest in it's purest form, because you have offered no incentive for investors to remain in an unfavorable position.

1. Self-interest, in regards to making a profit off the labor of others, is sheer bullshittery of the highest order especially when that self-interest comes at the expense of everyone else.

Also capitalism is indeed the most efficient system when it comes to supply and demand. Until the economic calculation problem is solved, socialism can never work. Even efficient systems aren't perfect, hence waste.

2. Capitalism most definitely is not the most efficient system whatsoever, and that's made strikingly apparent by its gross waste and excess. Even more so when combined with the gluttonous richness of the 1% at the expense of the rest of society.

1. It doesn't come at the expense of everyone else. Profit cannot be made unless a mutual exchange takes place, and this exchange (if done wisely) will benefit both parties. That includes the laborer, of course.
2. I'm not convinced by your envy. Waste and excess are inevitable in any economic system, but the market responds correctly to shifting interests and demands.
If the wealth owned by the 1% were distributed to the teeming masses, it would lose its value instantly because of inflation.

[Torrocca]

1. Self-interest, in regards to making a profit off the labor of others, is sheer bullshittery of the highest order especially when that self-interest comes at the expense of everyone else.



2. Capitalism most definitely is not the most efficient system whatsoever, and that's made strikingly apparent by its gross waste and excess. Even more so when combined with the gluttonous richness of the 1% at the expense of the rest of society.

1. It doesn't come at the expense of everyone else. Profit cannot be made unless a mutual exchange takes place, and this exchange (if done wisely) will benefit both parties.

I guess poverty doesn't exist anymore /s

2. I'm not convinced by your envy. Waste and excess are inevitable in any economic system, but the market responds correctly to shifting interests and demands.

"Envy". Fucking lmao, as if I want to be rich. I want society in charge of itself and the people within in charge of themselves through democratic means, not some stooges who happened to be born to the right parents or some shit lording over everyone else because they privately own everything.

If the wealth owned by the 1% were distributed to the teeming masses, it would lose its value instantly because of inflation.

I don't give a fuck about wealth redistribution, I give a fuck about eradicating the system of privatized economics to end this stranglehold that leaves everyone else impoverished or generally poor so that a greedy few can live in excess.

[Nakena]

That Capitalism works as intended - for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many - isn't exactly a point in its favor for the common clay of society, and is in fact all the more reason to get rid of it for something that actually does work for the many.

I don't really care in the end as long as it works sufficiently good, and isnt some kind of totalitarian or otherwise horrible system like xtreme capitalism (like USA is close to) or some marxist-leninist bolshevist crap (like GDR, USSR...)

If people are dying on the street or having no health care because "muh freez" its a bad sign. Same when shelfs are empty because bolshevist ideological bullshit. (Venezuela anyone?)

Thats neither good.

I am not particulary ideological when it comes to some things. Which probably, is rare here.

[Nova Cyberia]

So, again, you have no plan.

And I bet you definitely have a plan to implement your """national-syndicalism""", especially after making your tacit support for the Capitalist status quo abundantly clear, amirite?

If I ever did seriously try to implement national sydncialism on a national scale I would at least want to have a plan lmao

[Northern Davincia]

1. It doesn't come at the expense of everyone else. Profit cannot be made unless a mutual exchange takes place, and this exchange (if done wisely) will benefit both parties.

I guess poverty doesn't exist anymore /s

2. I'm not convinced by your envy. Waste and excess are inevitable in any economic system, but the market responds correctly to shifting interests and demands.

"Envy". Fucking lmao, as if I want to be rich. I want society in charge of itself and the people within in charge of themselves through democratic means, not some stooges who happened to be born to the right parents or some shit lording over everyone else because they privately own everything.

If the wealth owned by the 1% were distributed to the teeming masses, it would lose its value instantly because of inflation.

I don't give a fuck about wealth redistribution, I give a fuck about eradicating the system of privatized economics to end this stranglehold that leaves everyone else impoverished or generally poor so that a greedy few can live in excess.

Poverty is on the decline, yes. Good things take time. The very existence of a middle class is proof enough that capitalism does not act as a stranglehold on wealth.
I want people to be in charge of themselves through individual means, rather than my neighbors deciding what is best for me. There are enough self-made folk to show how birthright isn't the most important factor.

[Torrocca]

That Capitalism works as intended - for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many - isn't exactly a point in its favor for the common clay of society, and is in fact all the more reason to get rid of it for something that actually does work for the many.

I don't really care in the end as long as it works sufficiently good, and isnt some kind of totalitarian or otherwise horrible system like xtreme capitalism (like USA is close to) or some marxist-leninist bolshevist crap (like GDR, USSR...)

If people are dying on the street or having no health insurance because "muh freez" its a bad sign. Same when shelfs are empty because bolshevist ideological bullshit.

Thats neither good.

I am not particulary ideological when it comes to economics.

Economic ideology is important, though. "Working sufficiently good" isn't good enough, especially given the many different metrics that can be used to define that. A system that builds one person's richness at the expense of others can easily be argued to be "working sufficiently good" if that's the purpose of said system, and it alternatively could be argued to be entirely dysfunctional if it does the exact opposite of that given goal.

[Torrocca]

I guess poverty doesn't exist anymore /s



"Envy". Fucking lmao, as if I want to be rich. I want society in charge of itself and the people within in charge of themselves through democratic means, not some stooges who happened to be born to the right parents or some shit lording over everyone else because they privately own everything.



I don't give a fuck about wealth redistribution, I give a fuck about eradicating the system of privatized economics to end this stranglehold that leaves everyone else impoverished or generally poor so that a greedy few can live in excess.

Poverty is on the decline, yes. Good things take time. The very existence of a middle class is proof enough that capitalism does not act as a stranglehold on wealth.

Poverty's hardly on the decline. And don't you dare pull that "extreme poverty chart" bullshit from the World Bank or whatever.

I want people to be in charge of themselves through individual means, rather than my neighbors deciding what is best for me.

Society isn't a one-way street where you can enjoy the value it gives but then tell it to fuck off when it asks of something from you, bud.

There are enough self-made folk to show how birthright isn't the most important factor.

Self-making your own wealth on the back of other people's labor isn't magically any better than being born into wealth accumulated via the same means.

[Nakena]

I don't really care in the end as long as it works sufficiently good, and isnt some kind of totalitarian or otherwise horrible system like xtreme capitalism (like USA is close to) or some marxist-leninist bolshevist crap (like GDR, USSR...)

If people are dying on the street or having no health insurance because "muh freez" its a bad sign. Same when shelfs are empty because bolshevist ideological bullshit.

Thats neither good.

I am not particulary ideological when it comes to economics.

Economic ideology is important, though. "Working sufficiently good" isn't good enough, especially given the many different metrics that can be used to define that. A system that builds one person's richness at the expense of others can easily be argued to be "working sufficiently good" if that's the purpose of said system, and it alternatively could be argued to be entirely dysfunctional if it does the exact opposite of that given goal.

No. My point is extremes are bad. The one extreme is being totalitarian force things onto people (supposed to help them but not necessarily doing so) or just leave them alone so they can do it all themself (which isn't working out either because we humans need each other). And that is if we are only assuming the best intentions here. Because more often than not 1st comes down to totalitarism and second is just anti-social like i dont care, not my business > modern USA a society that atomizes itself.

But lets get back to the point:

Those extreme viewpoints or derivations thereof aren't going to get any better if they are supplemented with entire tl;dr of books and related ideologies to explain or justify it.

At the end of the day they do remain bad.

[Torrocca]

Economic ideology is important, though. "Working sufficiently good" isn't good enough, especially given the many different metrics that can be used to define that. A system that builds one person's richness at the expense of others can easily be argued to be "working sufficiently good" if that's the purpose of said system, and it alternatively could be argued to be entirely dysfunctional if it does the exact opposite of that given goal.

No. My point is extremes are bad. The one extreme is being totalitarian force things onto people (supposed to help them but not necessarily doing so) or just leave them alone so they can do it all themself (which isn't working out either because we humans need each other). And that is if we are only assuming the best intentions here. Because more often than not 1st comes down to totalitarism and second is just anti-social like i dont care, not my business > modern USA a society that atomizes itself.

But lets get back to the point:

Those extreme viewpoints or derivations thereof aren't going to get any better if they are supplemented with entire tl;dr of books and related ideologies to explain or justify it.

At the end of the day they do remain bad.

There's literally nothing bad with socially or cooperatively owning the means of production, though. What's bad is coopting that idea to create an authoritarian regime, a-la the Soviet Union.

[Liriena]

Except that's not true. At all. He hasn't prevented a crisis. His austerity and failure to deliver on his promises of foreign investment helped precipitate the crisis.

[x] doubt

You can doubt all you like but the reality of our lives right now speaks for itself: unemployment, poverty and homelessness have dramatically increased. Businesses big and small have been closing by the hundreds. Our manufacturing sector is in agony.

While these problems would have likely been there under a Scioli presidency, there is an argument to be made that the Kirchnerists' protectionism, currency controls and strong emphasis on subsidies went a long way into keeping our economy from collapsing on itself even when there were the first signs of a possible recession in the last days of Kirchnerism.

Show me these statistics.

Sure thing.

Diego Coatz, the executive director of the Argentine Industrial Union, which represents our industrial sector, spoke of an 8,5% drop in industrial activity over the course of Macri's presidency and 68.994 industrial jobs lost just this year.

The IPA, which represents small industrial businesses, acknowledged over three thousand businesses which either closed or went clandestine over the past five years, with 128.000 jobs lost. In the past twelve months, 1.500 small industrial businesses either went bankrupt or laid workers off.

The textile industry was hit the hardest, with a 27% loss between 2015 and 2018, according to the economist Ariel Schale.

In 2018, our poverty rate was already the highest since 2010, standing at around 33% in the third trimester of that year.

As for unemployment as a whole, you can check the unemployment rate over the years here. While nowhere near the cataclysmic level of 2003, it has risen significantly under Macri.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yeah, ngl, it's kind of weird.

No it's not, cockroaches are great. Cockroaches use kung fu to avoid becoming a zombie.

This does a good enough job summing my old beliefs up tbqh

Those were dark days indeed.

"The Jews can have their rights outside of the Third Reich."

Wow. Invoking Godwin.

[First American Empire]

Ah yes, Macri's excuse: it's everybody else's fault.

Well, given that he's been keeping the Argentine economy from going tits-up for four years, I don't think it's his fault.

On the contrary. He destabilized the Argentine economy to the point that it utterly collapsed on the slightest prompting, even though literally nothing changed yet.

[Great Minarchistan]

You know what they say, third time's the charm.

Imagine blaming the Socialists because of the fact that a bunch of Capitalists investors ran away from a country's stock market because their guy didn't win votes.

oh wow dude the market likes to price factors and news on its price lets blame capitalists because they dislike my anti business rhetoric, absolutely unsurprising

[Great Minarchistan]

That people will take their money elsewhere if you elect morons who will wreck your economy.

And replace it with something that suits the people rather than profit. But yes tell me how numbers on a bank account are more important.

I actually mind my 1000s parked on a bank account, but I comprehend it if you dont. Feel free to waste away your savings with the homeless while at it

[Crysuko]

Imagine blaming the Socialists because of the fact that a bunch of Capitalists investors ran away from a country's stock market because their guy didn't win votes.

oh wow dude the market likes to price factors and news on its price lets blame capitalists because they dislike my anti business rhetoric, absolutely unsurprising

It's nowhere close to the election and already they scatter like roaches at mere talk. Shameful, really.

[Crysuko]

And replace it with something that suits the people rather than profit. But yes tell me how numbers on a bank account are more important.

I actually mind my 1000s parked on a bank account, but I comprehend it if you dont. Feel free to waste away your savings with the homeless while at it

I'd prefer to upturn the system that put them there in the first place

[Great Minarchistan]

Not only is the Argentine Peso collapsing, so is the Argentine economy.
Second-largest economic crash in any country since 1950, with the S&P Merval Index dropping a heart-stopping 48% in a day.
And it's not even the general election yet. Miiiiight want to rethink the Peronists on this one, Argentina, lest you default a third time in twenty years.

Ah yes, Macri's excuse: it's everybody else's fault. Nevermind that we were, in fact, far better off under the Kirchners. And curse y'all for making me say that aloud.

guys we be better when gubmint make up stats and freeze prices xd