Libertarian Discussion Thread

[The Liberated Territories]

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

Unfortunately they'll probably find many people who will, because emotions are more powerful than logic.

[VoVoDoCo]

Here is a chance to stop big government in the UK. Take it. Sign and share this petition and stop the nanny state! https://www.change.org/p/tina-plant-cp- ... e-of-under

Done.

[Great Minarchistan]

>ancaps are monarchists
how unsurprising

It's only surprising because King Hoppe isn't reality yet.

His Holiness Al-Hoppeyyun* (PBUH)

[Great Minarchistan]

Guess what a wage is

A(n) (unfair) trade between the worker and the employer, yes yes.

If wages are currently unfair and the wealthy just want to exploit the workers, why is there unemployment?

[Orostan]

A(n) (unfair) trade between the worker and the employer, yes yes.

If wages are currently unfair and the wealthy just want to exploit the workers, why is there unemployment?

I'm glad you asked! The mass of unemployed people are called the "Reserve Army of Labor" by Marxists. In times where labor is expensive, and we have "Full Employment", Capitalists are incentivized to invest in machines to mechanize labor so that they do not need as much of it. A good example of this is McDonalds replacing cashiers with computers when the cost of having a Cashier outweighed the cost of having a computer. This puts people out of a job, and means that there are now unemployed people competing with the workers who have jobs, lowering the cost of labor. None of this is intentional on the side of the Capitalists, they are just trying to reduce expenses.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

Haha, no kidding. I could have rented out my apartment for 2, maybe 3 times as much if not for Scandilund's rent controls. At least you're not dealing with the real thing like us huppies over here.

[Orostan]

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

Unfortunately they'll probably find many people who will, because emotions are more powerful than logic.

>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

[Elwher]

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people

Unfortunately they'll probably find many people who will, because emotions are more powerful than logic.

>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

If I own a house and you want to live there, it should be between you and I how much I will charge you for the privilege. If I charge too much, I will not be able to rent the apartment because potential renters will go somewhere less expensive.

[Eibenland]

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people

Unfortunately they'll probably find many people who will, because emotions are more powerful than logic.

>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

Recent studies have demonstrated that rent controls don't work. http://www.businessinsider.com/does-rent-control-work-no-it-actually-increases-rent-prices-for-most-people-2015-9

[Orostan]

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people


>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

If I own a house and you want to live there, it should be between you and I how much I will charge you for the privilege. If I charge too much, I will not be able to rent the apartment because potential renters will go somewhere less expensive.

That assumes sellers are competing for buyers. In cities such as the one I live in, it is the opposite and has been for quite some time.

This is basic supply and demand, come on.

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people


>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

Recent studies have demonstrated that rent controls don't work. http://www.businessinsider.com/does-rent-control-work-no-it-actually-increases-rent-prices-for-most-people-2015-9

Hmmmm. I suppose the only solution then is to abolish Capitalism.

[Annihitor the Incred]

If I own a house and you want to live there, it should be between you and I how much I will charge you for the privilege. If I charge too much, I will not be able to rent the apartment because potential renters will go somewhere less expensive.

That assumes sellers are competing for buyers. In cities such as the one I live in, it is the opposite and has been for quite some time.

This is basic supply and demand, come on.

Recent studies have demonstrated that rent controls don't work. http://www.businessinsider.com/does-rent-control-work-no-it-actually-increases-rent-prices-for-most-people-2015-9

Hmmmm. I suppose the only solution then is to abolish Capitalism.

Hey, don't mess with the free market, my brou. If some cannot afford, that is not a catastroph. You are not entitled to everything you want just because you happen to exist.

[Orostan]

That assumes sellers are competing for buyers. In cities such as the one I live in, it is the opposite and has been for quite some time.

This is basic supply and demand, come on.


Hmmmm. I suppose the only solution then is to abolish Capitalism.

Hey, don't mess with the free market, my brou. If some cannot afford, that is not a catastroph. You are not entitled to everything you want just because you happen to exist.

I completely agree with your last bit. We should definitely get rid of those who only take and do not contribute to society, mostly the bourgeois.

And the free market has problems (overproduction crisis, falling rate of profit, etc.), the solution to those problems is socialism. Under a Socialist system you'd be charged the same for a house in the middle of a city or in the middle of a desert if they took the same amount of labor to produce.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Hey, don't mess with the free market, my brou. If some cannot afford, that is not a catastroph. You are not entitled to everything you want just because you happen to exist.

I completely agree with your last bit. We should definitely get rid of those who only take and do not contribute to society, mostly the bourgeois.

And the free market has problems (overproduction crisis, falling rate of profit, etc.), the solution to those problems is socialism. Under a Socialist system you'd be charged the same for a house in the middle of a city or in the middle of a desert if they took the same amount of labor to produce.

Hahaha, the middle and upper classes steal from you by engaging in economic activity that employs millions upon millions of you? How does one run a 100% tax rate state if there is no money to run it with? There is a reason property costs and salaries differ, and that is demand. Learn economics, then return and we shall joust again.

[Eibenland]

Hey, don't mess with the free market, my brou. If some cannot afford, that is not a catastroph. You are not entitled to everything you want just because you happen to exist.

I completely agree with your last bit. We should definitely get rid of those who only take and do not contribute to society, mostly the bourgeois.

And the free market has problems (overproduction crisis, falling rate of profit, etc.), the solution to those problems is socialism. Under a Socialist system you'd be charged the same for a house in the middle of a city or in the middle of a desert if they took the same amount of labor to produce.

Charging for houses based on the amount of labor only would ignore supply and demand.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Today, somebody asked me to sign their petition for rent control. Like, no, I’m not going to support your shitty economic policy.

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people

Unfortunately they'll probably find many people who will, because emotions are more powerful than logic.

>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

Ahh yes, the common refrain of those who don’t understand the economics of rent control.

At best, rent control only benefits current tenents. Why do you want the government to intervene in the economy in order to grant special privileges for a group of people at the sacrifice of everybody else?

[Orostan]

I completely agree with your last bit. We should definitely get rid of those who only take and do not contribute to society, mostly the bourgeois.

And the free market has problems (overproduction crisis, falling rate of profit, etc.), the solution to those problems is socialism. Under a Socialist system you'd be charged the same for a house in the middle of a city or in the middle of a desert if they took the same amount of labor to produce.

Charging for houses based on the amount of labor only would ignore supply and demand.

Now we come into socialist pricing. If we have a 100 demand for houses, and 101 supply, then that means a house's price would be 99% of its value expressed in labor terms. That means we should not be building as many houses, and divert resources elsewhere. If we have 100 demand, but 99 supply, the price will be 101% of the house's actual value. This means we should send more resources to building houses. Our objective is to stabilize the ratio of price:value at 0 in a socialist economy.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Hey, don't mess with the free market, my brou. If some cannot afford, that is not a catastroph. You are not entitled to everything you want just because you happen to exist.

I completely agree with your last bit. We should definitely get rid of those who only take and do not contribute to society, mostly the bourgeois.

And the free market has problems (overproduction crisis, falling rate of profit, etc.), the solution to those problems is socialism. Under a Socialist system you'd be charged the same for a house in the middle of a city or in the middle of a desert if they took the same amount of labor to produce.

Labor-time is not a homogenous unit and is useless for making economic calculations.

[Improved werpland]

My neighbor has rent control, and it's great. Poor old woman wouldn't be able to live here in this gentrifying town if it weren't for rent control!

[Orostan]

>no i will not make houses affordable for most people


>not wanting to spend all of your income on rent is an emotional problem now

Ahh yes, the common refrain of those who don’t understand the economics of rent control.

At best, rent control only benefits current tenents. Why do you want the government to intervene in the economy in order to grant special privileges for a group of people at the sacrifice of everybody else?

From reading the article, this is the impression I got:

-Rent control restricts the supply of housing by incentivizing current tenants to never move out

- Properties can be passed from one person to another person, so rent controlled apartments rarely enter the market

-Wealthier people have the connections to gain access to these rent controlled apartments

It seems like this could be solved by capping all rents a certain percentage above what it takes to sustain a building. Or having governments buy up apartments, and then selling them at a huge loss lowering the market price of housing.

Or we could abolish Capitalism.

[36 Camera Perspective]

My neighbor has rent control, and it's great. Poor old woman wouldn't be able to live here in this gentrifying town if it weren't for rent control!

She’s literally the only class of people who might benefit from rent control. Everybody else is fucked. But I guess people are eager to call in state coercion whenever the rhetoric sounds good.

[Orostan]

I completely agree with your last bit. We should definitely get rid of those who only take and do not contribute to society, mostly the bourgeois.

And the free market has problems (overproduction crisis, falling rate of profit, etc.), the solution to those problems is socialism. Under a Socialist system you'd be charged the same for a house in the middle of a city or in the middle of a desert if they took the same amount of labor to produce.

Labor-time is not a homogenous unit and is useless for making economic calculations.

I never said labor time. I just said labor. And we can use labor as a measurement. Let's say we have a toaster factory. On average, it takes 30 minutes to assemble each toaster. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it takes shorter. But on average, 30 minutes. The aggregate labor value of the Toaster is 2 hours of labor, on average. That means that the labor necessary to make the screws, components, components of those components, etc. is 1 hour and 30 minutes. So in our socialist economy, you'd have to work for 2 hours (or a bit more because taxes and whatever) to afford that toaster when the price:value ratio is 0.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Labor-time is not a homogenous unit and is useless for making economic calculations.

I never said labor time. I just said labor. And we can use labor as a measurement. Let's say we have a toaster factory. On average, it takes 30 minutes to assemble each toaster. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it takes shorter. But on average, 30 minutes. The aggregate labor value of the Toaster is 2 hours of labor, on average. That means that the labor necessary to make the screws, components, components of those components, etc. is 1 hour and 30 minutes. So in our socialist economy, you'd have to work for 2 hours (or a bit more because taxes and whatever) to afford that toaster when the price:value ratio is 0.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You don’t need to Marxsplain to me. It is impossible to turn labor into a homogenous unit like money. An hour spent working on a nuclear missile design is not the same thing as an hour spent in the fields.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Labor-time is not a homogenous unit and is useless for making economic calculations.

I never said labor time. I just said labor. And we can use labor as a measurement. Let's say we have a toaster factory. On average, it takes 30 minutes to assemble each toaster. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it takes shorter. But on average, 30 minutes. The aggregate labor value of the Toaster is 2 hours of labor, on average. That means that the labor necessary to make the screws, components, components of those components, etc. is 1 hour and 30 minutes. So in our socialist economy, you'd have to work for 2 hours (or a bit more because taxes and whatever) to afford that toaster when the price:value ratio is 0.

And what happens when 90% of it all is done automatically? Are the "workers" (really computer technicians) paid less because they work less physically, or more because they are of higher education?

[Orostan]

I never said labor time. I just said labor. And we can use labor as a measurement. Let's say we have a toaster factory. On average, it takes 30 minutes to assemble each toaster. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it takes shorter. But on average, 30 minutes. The aggregate labor value of the Toaster is 2 hours of labor, on average. That means that the labor necessary to make the screws, components, components of those components, etc. is 1 hour and 30 minutes. So in our socialist economy, you'd have to work for 2 hours (or a bit more because taxes and whatever) to afford that toaster when the price:value ratio is 0.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You don’t need to Marxsplain to me. It is impossible to turn labor into a homogenous unit like money. An hour spent working on a nuclear missile design is not the same thing as an hour spent in the fields.

Both labor creates different products, yes, but we can measure the labor content of each. If a designer is hired by the Missile Command to design a new Nuclear Missile, we can approximate the labor content of his design. We may say "You took half as much time as we gave you, therefore you worked twice as hard as we expected and will be paid twice more than you'd have been paid if you turned the design in exactly on time. And we might determine the designers pay by experience, logically if he is more experienced he will be able to make more designs. We can also pay on education, and so on. Labor in itself can never be a unit like money, but we can have a slip of paper or a card or something that represents a certain value in labor time. This is called a labor voucher, labor token, or labor currency. This system makes much more sense than Capitalist wages, which are largely determined by market forces.

If a field worker pulls in twice as much grain as the average field worker, he should be paid twice as much as the average field worker. In industrial and agricultural jobs we can pay people based on productivity.

[Elwher]

My neighbor has rent control, and it's great. Poor old woman wouldn't be able to live here in this gentrifying town if it weren't for rent control!

And because of that, someone else who can afford a higher rent cannot get an apartment.