Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Do you read Mises?

I've read Human Action and several articles of his (including [url="http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp"]Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth[/url]. I was reading Theory and History as well, but got distracted.

I love reading Mises!

anarkhos has argued socialism before on this site dexkaden. There is a thread called communism earlier that hold many comments from anarkhos. If you just read that first comment though, you could tell that Austrian economic thought was in the first post though given the distrust of the federal reserve found mostly in that line of economic thinking.

Mostly, I thought of Mises because Mises used Crusoe as an example of why planned economies don't work.

Well, von Mises surely isn't alone in using Crusoe as an example. It's a common imaginary construct in Classical Economics. I'm sure it predates von Mises by at least a generation, but I can't cite a reference ATM.

I really would not have taken the Crusoe thing as the only thing anyway, if only because Crusoe could so easily make an easy example to use and because only hearing of Crusoe one can invoke it. Using Crusoe could conceivably be used by anyone to show microeconomic ideas although I suppose that anarkhos' use of it is very Austrian. The hatred of the Fed is almost purely Austrian though with few non-Austrian scholars seeing the same issues.

Dude, you capitalists are PLAYING INTO THE CORPORATE GAME!

Seriously though, I actually take a stance whereby you should "tax the rich until the pips squeak" (Denis Healey NEVER actually said that). Although - unlike a lot of these 'socialists' (wet, centre-left liberals and socialists are two completely different things), I don't adopt an attitude that appears to hate the middle classes more than the undeserving rich.

Undeserving. Ya, we should take money from rich people, because they are ALL a**holes, apparently, and give it to other people who are "deserving" of it. Maybe Bill Gates should stop donating millions of dollars, everywhere, and we should just TAKE his money. Ya, thats what we'll do, we'll be like Robinhood.

Ever think its this attitude that prevents people from helping? No one wants to help a whiner or a generalizer or an accuser. I sure as hell wouldn't, I dont care how sick/poor you are.

I'm sure if you were rich you'd be on a totally different viewpoint but its always easier to argue what you know instead of actually seeing something through someone else's eyes.

i am not a CAPTIALIST, i will give anything to the great cause, i am willing to give up all luxries
to the Great cause.

Perhaps I phrased it badly, but I didn't say ALL rich people did I? Now, there's a difference between the likes of Bill Gates and the likes of the landed gentry (the people I was inferring): that key difference being that the former has EARNED their money and the latter hasn't - contrary to what I've maybe lead you to believe I don't oppose people having money. The South Park reference were merely meant to be funny, even ironic - believe it or not.

Like Robinhood? No, I'm not that zealous.

Oh, and your last paragraph? Absolute rubbish, because that point could apply to anyone - not just me. Even yourself.

Are you gullible, idiotic, sarcastic or maybe even a bit irrational? My professor opened my eyes to your ignorance, man...

Even now, you sound like you want to generalize all rich people while stating "I'm not generalizing." What is it? You have to tax ALL rich people. Who cares if they earned it or not? Once you die, are you saying that those remaining funds shouldnt go towards their family but should be subject to massive taxes? Whats the point in striving to even earn money (I'm asking from a neutral stand point as I'm not persuaded by money) if you're just going to lose most of it to taxes? You work hard to earn more opportunities to be taxed?

Again, I'm not for financial ANYTHING and would love to rid of banks/finances, but this is prejudice.



I'm not rich, yet, here I am arguing for them. Does it apply to me for sitting in someone else's shoes? Not likely. While it COULD apply to me it does not 'here' as I'm not arguing "someone elses" stand point on the subject (mine is to rid of all finances (I'm sure to be alone with that one)).



Chalk me up for "sarcastic"

As well, wouldn't it be better to get rich people to spend money as that causes the economy to "operate" which causes more jobs, etc. Then people EARN it.

It hurts my firebrand (smoking hot) pride to admit defeat. My only defence being that it's human nature to contradict yourself (i.e. too lazy to formulate a convincing argument).

Though I'm tempted to sigh: "You knew what I meant!"

If I'm capable of doing what I appear to be capable of doing in other threads (killing it), this Socialism discussion is probably over.

I really don't know what you meant about 'taxing' the rich outside of the 'old' idea of it. Do you have a different approach then the usual argument put forth in regards to this? I'd be more then willing to hear it out!

As long as people realise I'm not some Marxist pillock, I'm not really bothered. I have what I call 'right-wing sensibilities' (stances regarding crime and so on) but object to people who think it's a divine right to have five properties (housing shortage? Don't make me laugh); to have a holiday abroad (people complaining about the price of private education meaning they have to have holidays in Cornwall rather than Cyprus - The Daily Telegraph); and to have the opportunity to get get bladdered more than once a week (every weekend is bad enough).

Although, like I said, I'm not some 'old' style Red I can't stand the flimsy, bed-wetting tendencies of the Leftish liberal elite, that appear to populate and poison ever facet of life, either. I'd maybe retract far enough as to say that it's perhaps not taxation that's the issue - it's the pointless waste of money: politicians claiming expenses right, left and centre (NO PUN INTENDED LOL LOL) when their salaries would easily suffice; local councillors wasting taxpayers money to fund a desire for endless supplies of coffee and biscuits; and pricey initiatives that teach roadsweepers how to use their BRUSHES properly.

Here in the UK, we really need to buck up our ideas on how local government is run, because you hear stories about people who get jobs at the council being told to stop "working so fast" (it puts the others to shame, you see). The aforementioned initiatives are put together by people who do it for the sake of it.

I agree but here's the thing. While I think people should be able to own as many properties as possible, I'm also suggesting that with some responsibility and respect. I can't tell people what they can and can't do. However, I can offer the suggestion that all this property, etc. really means nothing. It IS selfish but I cannot force someone to be "unselfish." I, myself, think my apartment is all I need (well, the people next to me to keep it down when they fight and to stop smashing things)



I agree, again. One young fellow, 26 or so, is actually taking his salary of "28000" a year, which is what someone on his local council would receive, and is only keeping "2000" of it. He states the reason for doing so is that "being on council is not a full time job and I shouldn't receive money for such a "job." I couldn't agree more. Politicians on the BIG level receive WAY more money then I think they are worth. I KNOW people's work ethics and its "socialize first, do work second." Not everyone but a BIG chunk. I'm imagining this is why it takes so long for a government to do anything - it would require work to be done and no one does any. Why would I assume a government job is any different from anyone else's?

This is why I want government to be removed. I hate relying on other people, especially when they are slow or incompetent. I can manage my own life and its not my problem if others cannot, I shouldn't suffer. I'm going off on a tangent.



Yup, work slower. There isn't enough work for everyone so if you work slower, we can ALL be paid.