Election

[Humodour]

So the Bailout has been rejected...oh if only McCain didn't go back to Washington to 'do his job'

 

Sarcasm aside, so what's the next step? Do they try to push for an altered Bailout plan or will they stand by as this financial storm bashes various companies and banks?

 

Apparently it'll be a few weeks till the bill gets a chance to pass again.

 

But I think one or two days now will be enough to cause the biggest collapse in history.

[random n00b]

For some reason, I didn't see your post before. You must be moderated, or I'm especially dense today.

 

*shrug* We do it here in Australia (have for almost 30 years). You might have noticed I find economic libertarianism laughable, and the accusations that I'm a socialist or a liberal equally laughable. Once you get past the ideology barrier and just go "what the heck, let's just pick the best bits and stop trying to lay blame", it gets a lot easier.

Yeah, but Australia isn't a superpower, nor aims to become one, right? I mean, it hasn't had to go against the biggest fish in the pond. That's what I meant by coming on top. You can be aligned in some way or another and practice different variations of a model. But can that model become THE standard? Is it capable of generating more wealth than the others, because ultimately that's what matters? If the "third way" is practiced just in a few places here and there, is it really a solution for everyone?

 

 

Now, I think the world is changing. A lot. The next 10 years will be amazing not just for America but the world - if we consider current trends, development in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, the Internet, and this new economic uncertainty in America.

I'm skeptical with regards to that. As taks pointed out, the impressive economic growth in China is merely the expansion of free market where there was none before, and once they have reached the level of market saturation of modern economies, the growth will decrease. Not to mention the immense poverty and social inequality problems - problems it shares with India. Brazil is a different story though, but poverty and corruption aren't negligible there either.

 

And also, the US may have crashed, but I'd say they aren't burning yet.

 

I think the Internet is a really empowering tool for the Third Way and social democracy in general, so if I had to predict, I'd say yes - it can become a prevalent ideology.

I'm sure it's a very marketable idea. After all, everyone likes the state giving them stuff and taking "from the rich". A popular idea is not necessarily a good idea, though.

[Humodour]

For some reason, I didn't see your post before. You must be moderated, or I'm especially dense today.

 

*shrug* We do it here in Australia (have for almost 30 years). You might have noticed I find economic libertarianism laughable, and the accusations that I'm a socialist or a liberal equally laughable. Once you get past the ideology barrier and just go "what the heck, let's just pick the best bits and stop trying to lay blame", it gets a lot easier.

Yeah, but Australia isn't a superpower, nor aims to become one, right? I mean, it hasn't had to go against the biggest fish in the pond. That's what I meant by coming on top. You can be aligned in some way or another and practice different variations of a model. But can that model become THE standard? Is it capable of generating more wealth than the others, because ultimately that's what matters? If the "third way" is practiced just in a few places here and there, is it really a solution for everyone?

 

Again, I'm hopeful. It's becoming the dominant economic policy in Europe, and its starting to influence American politics. Sarkozy - leader of France - certainly seems to think something similar to it is the way of the future for Europe: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/...2374595726.html

 

I'm not going to say 'emphatically yes' or anything, because I just don't know. I think it's got a better chance of holding on than Reaganomics, though. The thing is - they overlap enough that the Third Way ends up being a natural evolution of laissez faire's failure.

 

Now, I think the world is changing. A lot. The next 10 years will be amazing not just for America but the world - if we consider current trends, development in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, the Internet, and this new economic uncertainty in America.

I'm skeptical with regards to that. As taks pointed out, the impressive economic growth in China is merely the expansion of free market where there was none before, and once they have reached the level of market saturation of modern economies, the growth will decrease. Not to mention the immense poverty and social inequality problems - problems it shares with India. Brazil is a different story though, but poverty and corruption aren't negligible there either.

 

And also, the US may have crashed, but I'd say they aren't burning yet.

 

America won't burn. It'll be more a partner with the BRIC than a leader, though.

 

Frankly, I'm uncertain about China's direction. India has the right idea, but needs to overcome bureaucratic concerns. Russia... is Russia.

 

But Brazil, yeah, I think it's perfectly well placed to become a real superpower. Its local position in South America is enviable, from a trade perspective. Its corruption and poverty have fallen dramatically under their current leader. In fact, it's not really in poverty anymore - it recently moved to middle income status (from memory the definition is: 80% of people own a TV, a bike/car, and a house). It has even switched from exporting its goods to local consumption, because its population can now sustain that economically.

 

This crash positions the BRIC really well for success afterwards. I think we'll see the bunch of them competing with their own unique economic systems. Chances are at least one of them will be a Third Way style system. I think they'll all end up being mixed market systems though, not laissez faire, and not socialist.

 

Re China: the expansion of the free market is a natural step towards both the Third Way and laissez faire, so the verdict is still out on that one.

 

I think the Internet is a really empowering tool for the Third Way and social democracy in general, so if I had to predict, I'd say yes - it can become a prevalent ideology.

I'm sure it's a very marketable idea. After all, everyone likes the state giving them stuff and taking "from the rich". A popular idea is not necessarily a good idea, though.

 

"taking from the rich"? And why don't you think the Internet is a good idea?

 

I'm talking about freedom of information, and global connectivity. Brazil has already taken this by the horns - it really aims to be a technology economy, like Israel, Ireland and Iceland.

[taks]

you keep mentioning the "laissez faire failure" yet neither i, nor anyone else, have ever actually witnessed such a "failure." certainly you aren't referring to what is happening now, are you?

 

taks

[taks]

Yeah, but Australia isn't a superpower, nor aims to become one, right? I mean, it hasn't had to go against the biggest fish in the pond.

which also means it gains the benefit of US tax dollars when it comes to defense, as do many other countries. that's a pretty big bennie.

 

taks

[Humodour]

you keep mentioning the "laissez faire failure" yet neither i, nor anyone else, have ever actually witnessed such a "failure." certainly you aren't referring to what is happening now, are you?

 

taks

 

No, I knew laissez faire was a failure before the stock market crash. It is morally and socially bankrupt, and leads to corporatism.

 

Yeah, but Australia isn't a superpower, nor aims to become one, right? I mean, it hasn't had to go against the biggest fish in the pond.

which also means it gains the benefit of US tax dollars when it comes to defense, as do many other countries. that's a pretty big bennie.

 

taks

 

Australia's mutual defence treaty with America has bugger all to do with the validity of an economic model. ANZUS stems from WW2 when Japan was invading East Timor, and it would exist regardless of the success or failure of America today. Do not try to cheapen it.

[taks]

No, I knew laissez faire was a failure before the stock market crash. It is morally and socially bankrupt, and leads to corporatism.

oh, yeah, that nonsense. totally without merit, but hey, whatever. when you can demonstrate that foregoing the rights of one over another, i.e., one person has more rights than another, you can claim some moral superiority. till then, just another socialist that just.doesn't.get.it.

 

Australia's mutual defence treaty with America has bugger all to do with the validity of an economic model. ANZUS stems from WW2 when Japan was invading East Timor, and it would exist regardless of the success or failure of America today. Do not try to cheapen it.

if you're going to be an ass, be an ass, but quit misrepresenting what i have said. i never said it did, just noticed that the world benefits from the US military might. really, is it possible for you to make a single argument without misrepresenting someone?

 

taks

Edited September 30, 2008 by taks

[Humodour]

No, I knew laissez faire was a failure before the stock market crash. It is morally and socially bankrupt, and leads to corporatism.

oh, yeah, that nonsense. totally without merit, but hey, whatever. when you can demonstrate that foregoing the rights of one over another, i.e., one person has more rights than another, you can claim some moral superiority. till then, just another socialist that just.doesn't.get.it.

 

I'm a socialist again? Great fallback, that.

 

I did expect that response from you though, since you don't understand the benefits of such basic things like universal healthcare or welfare.

 

Neither does McCain, so it's ironic that you should quote him.

 

Australia's mutual defence treaty with America has bugger all to do with the validity of an economic model. ANZUS stems from WW2 when Japan was invading East Timor, and it would exist regardless of the success or failure of America today. Do not try to cheapen it.

if you're going to be an ass, be an ass, but quit misrepresenting what i have said. i never said it did, just noticed that the world benefits from the US military might. really, is it possible for you to make a single argument without misrepresenting someone?

 

taks

 

I simply called you for bring up America's military might out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion about economics. What was your purpose for doing that?

[taks]

I'm a socialist again? Great fallback, that.

no, the truth. read some von mises. there is no "middle ground." you're either a capitalist or a socialist (collectivist, actually). pretending to "enjoy the fruits of both" is nothing more than a ruse. rubes such as yourself are either self-deluded, or incapable of understanding.

 

I did expect that response from you though, since you don't understand the benefits of such basic things like universal healthcare or welfare.

i do understand the benefits: reduced quality of care, being trapped in a welfare cycle. nowhere, ever, has anyone ever been able to show that either of these things actually improve the quality of life. face it, the only thing that can improve the quality of life, for everyone, is a means to build wealth. there's only one way to do that.

 

Neither does McCain, so it's ironic that you should quote him.

not sure where i quoted that idiot.

 

I simply called you for bring up America's military might out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion about economics. What was your purpose for doing that?

i didn't bring it up, i was actually responding to a direct quote regarding their military (or lack thereof). yet again you can't read, apparently. your reply was about their "economic model" to which i never referred. i simply pointed out they get a benefit, a huge economic benefit, whether you like to believe it or not. since you can't read, i guess you can't understand. not a surprise.

 

taks

[Xard]

I'm a socialist again? Great fallback, that.

no, the truth. read some von mises. there is no "middle ground." you're either a capitalist or a socialist (collectivist, actually).

 

 

Congrats taks, by using this line of reasoning you forever lost your cause

 

Mankind is collectivistic by its very nature. Not so much as in communism, but nevertheless collectivistic which I guess for you means socialist.

[taks]

Congrats taks, by using this line of reasoning you forever lost your cause

my god, you are deluded.

 

Mankind is collectivistic by its very nature. Not so much as in communism, but nevertheless collectivistic which I guess for you means socialist.

bull****. um, socialism IS collectivist, so is communist, fascist, marxist, etc. there is no meaningful difference. they are all variations of the same.

 

tell me, do any of you read anything other than pro-collectivist rants? really, what the heck are they teaching you eurosnobs?

 

taks

Edited September 30, 2008 by taks

[random n00b]

Again, I'm hopeful. It's becoming the dominant economic policy in Europe, and its starting to influence American politics. Sarkozy - leader of France - certainly seems to think something similar to it is the way of the future for Europe

As much respect as I have for Mr. Sarkozy... he's just another politician. And in that intervention in particular he's doing what politicians do best, lay blame without taking any and appealing to the masses. Exactly what does it mean to "inject morality into capitalism"? And how is he (are we) going to "reinvent" it? Don't fall for that load of hogwash.

 

As some Klingon foreman put it, "our ships run on dilithium, not talk!"

 

 

"taking from the rich"? And why don't you think the Internet is a good idea?

 

I'm talking about freedom of information, and global connectivity. Brazil has already taken this by the horns - it really aims to be a technology economy, like Israel, Ireland and Iceland.

You got me wrong. I'm talking about the "third way" (which I suspect is just a trendy name for good ol' social democracy), not the Internet.

 

 

I simply called you for bring up America's military might out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion about economics. What was your purpose for doing that?

Military power is usually strongly related to the strength of an economy. And in the case of superpowers, this is ALWAYS so. Edited September 30, 2008 by random n00b

[taks]

I'm talking about the "third way" (which I suspect is just a trendy name for good ol' social democracy)

it is, and mopes like krezack don't understand why. socialism in any form is still socialism, and it cannot succeed long-term. it does not have a means to account for demand, period. "injecting morality into capitalism" is an unbelievable concept. it requires immoral decisions: giving a buyer more rights than a seller, giving the underprivileged more rights than the privileged. yeah, that's moral. good thing these backers of the "third way" get to determine morality for others... nice of them to assume that responsibility for folks like me, otherwise i'd just go along living in sin.

 

Military power is usually strongly related to the strength of an economy. And in the case of superpowers, this is ALWAYS so.

yes, not only did he misrepresent me, he didn't even understand why it matters. the bigger powers all spend roughly the same percentage on their respective militaries (as a function of GDP). but the smaller ones do not. they all benefit from the fact that the US has around 30% of the total global GDP, which means a really, really big military stick.

 

taks

[Jaesun]

I am voting for Obama.

[taks]

i still don't know who i'm voting for, but obama ain't on the top-10 list. i've heard the libertarian candidate is in a large part responsible for the ridiculous drug-laws, though he has also apparently since stated that they were a mistake. hindsight, however, does not free those that were unjustly incarcerated as a result.

 

taks

[Xard]

Congrats taks, by using this line of reasoning you forever lost your cause

my god, you are deluded.

 

Mankind is collectivistic by its very nature. Not so much as in communism, but nevertheless collectivistic which I guess for you means socialist.

bull****. um, socialism IS collectivist, so is communist, fascist, marxist, etc. there is no meaningful difference. they are all variations of the same.

 

tell me, do any of you read anything other than pro-collectivist rants? really, what the heck are they teaching you eurosnobs?

 

taks

 

I don't read any "pro-collectivist rants", I've been a lot more "right" person politically and my background is completely middle class and academic. In recent year I've become much more radical so to speak, but not communist or anything like that. My problems with capitalism stems forefront from morals and values of life it promotes and with "socialism" from the levelling everyone to same mass of "workers". I'm very individualistic so group mentality is hard for me.

 

However, despite my personality I do recognize the fact human beings are collectivistic by their nature. It is unsepatarable part of the human nature. We're pack animals to use (way too) crude and unsophisticated words biologist might use.

 

It is psychological fact and once you deny reality of this collectivism you're fighting a losing fight. Collectivism is one of the keys to ever so mysterious morals (which science haven't explained at all, despite some incredibly flimsy theories by evolutionary psychologists) which in turn might be the most defining aspect of mankind.

 

You can't take collectivism out of human mind.

 

ergo: if collectivism = socialism

 

World already is socialist and shall be so evermore

 

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

 

See? I too can play with Big Names to get support for my "sociopolitical views"

 

John Maynard Keynes was *not* socialist btw; unless we use your good/bad dischotomy

 

Or Noam Chomsky perhaps?

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Meshugger]

MIKE GRAVEL!

 

 

 

(i just had to say it)

[taks]

I don't read any "pro-collectivist rants", I've been a lot more "right" person politically and my background is completely middle class and academic. In recent year I've become much more radical so to speak, but not communist or anything like that. My problems with capitalism stems forefront from morals and values of life it promotes and with "socialism" from the levelling everyone to same mass of "workers". I'm very individualistic so group mentality is hard for me.

i could care less where you think you stand politically, if you favor any collectivist mechanism, you are inevitably promoting socialism, even if you don't think you are. the mythical "third way" is nothing more than an incremental step towards such an end. saying you're individualistic, yet promoting such a system is either hypocritical or delusional. in either case, you ain't individualistic.

 

why, too, is it so hard to really look into what the word "moral" means, and realize that the only true "morality" is one in which everyone is treated equally, and no one person has rights that are more important than another's? there is one, and only one, system that guarantees this moral equality.

 

However, despite my personality I do recognize the fact human beings are collectivistic by their nature. It is unsepatarable part of the human nature. We're pack animals to use (way too) crude and unsophisticated words biologist might use.

no, this is utter nonsense. we are individualistic by nature. not sure where you are getting these concepts.

 

It is psychological fact and once you deny reality of this collectivism you're fighting a losing fight. Collectivism is one of the keys to ever so mysterious morals (which science haven't explained at all, despite some incredibly flimsy theories by evolutionary psychologists) which in turn might be the most defining aspect of mankind.

again, you're either making things up, or just plain lacking in understanding of human nature.

 

[Xard]

However, despite my personality I do recognize the fact human beings are collectivistic by their nature. It is unsepatarable part of the human nature. We're pack animals to use (way too) crude and unsophisticated words biologist might use.

no, this is utter nonsense. we are individualistic by nature. not sure where you are getting these concepts.

 

It is psychological fact and once you deny reality of this collectivism you're fighting a losing fight. Collectivism is one of the keys to ever so mysterious morals (which science haven't explained at all, despite some incredibly flimsy theories by evolutionary psychologists) which in turn might be the most defining aspect of mankind.

again, you're either making things up, or just plain lacking in understanding of human nature.

 

I comment on this now:

 

READ PSYCHOLOGY

 

or hell, read history, anthropology or biology

 

Humans are collective animals. There's no way around that. Ever heard of S-O-C-I-E-T-Y for example? Ever looked into mind of early or Middle Age man? Ever heard of empathy or self-sacrifice for collective? Ever heard of far east countries like "China" or "Japan"?

 

 

Man is not communistic by nature (which is the reason why communism fails), because people are individuals and need something to call their own. That's basic psychological need. Communism also presumes best out of men which ultimately leads to its downfall.

 

However mind of men are also heavily collectivistic which is basically foundation of our whole culture; it is something without with our civilizations wouldn't exist.

 

Humans are not like eagles, humans are like apes or ants or any other hivelike lifeform. Society is not born out of social contract; Aristoteles was right all along. Man is social animal by their very essence.

 

Again there wouldn't be any problem with these parts of your views if you'd give up the ridiculous and artificial "us and them" setting of capitalism and "collectivism". This leads to:

 

 

collectivism = socialism

 

--> world already is socialist and shall be so evermore"

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Moatilliatta]

Calling the whole 'third way' thing socialism is kinda missing the point. The 'third way' was a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. Third way has to my knowledge always been a free market with a heavy state theory prioritizing stuff like education and technology.

 

I mean, I do realize why you guys (Taks and RN) call them socialist as they do miss the point of socialisms failure entirely. But calling them socialist when they're trying to distance themselves from it is missing the point more than those guys who are third way.

 

@Xard

Be careful that you do not fall into the bottomless pit commonly reffered to as conservatism and by that I obviously do not refer to the specific political ideology commonly used by conservative party but rather the general ideology of not wanting to acknowledge the good parts of the now and the future. You get what I mean.

[random n00b]

we are individualistic by nature.

I agree with that. On the other hand, we are social animals by need.

 

 

Calling the whole 'third way' thing socialism is kinda missing the point. The 'third way' was a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. Third way has to my knowledge always been a free market with a heavy state theory prioritizing stuff like education and technology.

 

I mean, I do realize why you guys (Taks and RN) call them socialist as they do miss the point of socialisms failure entirely. But calling them socialist when they're trying to distance themselves from it is missing the point more than those guys who are third way.

Well. Distancing oneself from a group takes more than just saying so. If the so-called "third way" adherents still hold fast to certain socialist principles of management... how are they not socialists? Granted, there's shades of gray in everything, and I want to avoid making any sort of value judgement of one group or another. But... that's what they are.

[Xard]

I could also add every single pre-european South American culture on that list.

 

I don't read any "pro-collectivist rants", I've been a lot more "right" person politically and my background is completely middle class and academic. In recent year I've become much more radical so to speak, but not communist or anything like that. My problems with capitalism stems forefront from morals and values of life it promotes and with "socialism" from the levelling everyone to same mass of "workers". I'm very individualistic so group mentality is hard for me.

i could care less where you think you stand politically, if you favor any collectivist mechanism, you are inevitably promoting socialism, even if you don't think you are. the mythical "third way" is nothing more than an incremental step towards such an end. saying you're individualistic, yet promoting such a system is either hypocritical or delusional. in either case, you ain't individualistic.

 

I feel stupid for having to spell this out: There's a lot more to individualism than merely financial matters.

 

And I'll never advocate goverment driven communist economy. You're in odds with me and majority of other humans on this planet when it comes to existence and viability of "the third way". Some sort of third way is what drives all democracies.

 

And if there exists no Third Way (still "lolwut" inducing thinking) that's just one more point towards "collectivism".

 

why, too, is it so hard to really look into what the word "moral" means, and realize that the only true "morality" is one in which everyone is treated equally, and no one person has rights that are more important than another's? there is one, and only one, system that guarantees this moral equality.

 

oh yes, no doubt

 

 

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

few sane economists, or people in general, give a rat's arse about what keynes says. again, give me a definition of morality, a true definition, that favors one person over another.

 

Indeed?

 

Keynes' theories were so influential, even when disputed, that a subfield of macroeconomics called Keynesian economics is further developing and discussing his theories and their applications. John Maynard Keynes had several cultural interests and was a central figure in the so-called Bloomsbury group, consisting of prominent artists and authors in Britain. His autobiographical essays Two Memoirs appeared in 1949.

It is also thought that John Maynard Keyne's ideas of defecit budgeting and the Reflationary Cycle gave Franklin D. Roosevelt direct affect on his 'New Deal' campaign, allowing him to improve it to create some more laws such as the FCA (Farmers Credit Administration) which allowed a lot of farmers able to keep their farms during the American depression.

 

 

 

See? I too can play with Big Names to get support for my "sociopolitical views"

using big names, and understanding what their messages mean are two totally different concepts. you don't understand their message.

 

yes, btw, both keynes and chomsky are/were socialists. sorry if you can't see that, but it is true.

 

Chomsky was; Keynes wasn't unless we're using taksish speech

 

what i find interesting is that every time folks like you mention how "moral" your position is, you never can address how you deal with equality. you can't, because it is impossible. your position is self-righteous and hypocritical at best. why am i not self-righteous? because i believe that you have the same rights as me. i do not get any favors over you. we should both be treated equal. i don't think krezack should be treated any better than you, nor bill gates, nor someone living on the street. your position, however, requires that you tell me who gets better treatment, and who gets worse treatment. you decide that someone else is underprivileged, therefore i must sacrifice my rights to favor them.

 

I'll write more personal answers after I unearthe my book on social philosophy (I must check few terms) but for beginners Criticism of capitalism would be good starting point, especially parts Democracy, Economical Freedom, Imperialism and Human Right violations, Religious Criticism (esp. Christian socialism etc. because Christianity is base of whole western values) and last but not least and Noam Chomsky's great critiques that got its very own section.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

READ PSYCHOLOGY

 

or hell, read history, anthropology or biology

sorry, but still not true, and history beyond 100 years ago hardly counts. when communities were small, socialism was required. not so anymore.

 

Humans are collective animals. There's no way around that. Ever heard of S-O-C-I-E-T-Y for example? Ever looked into mind of early or Middle Age man? Ever heard of empathy or self-sacrifice for collective? Ever heard of far east countries like "China" or "Japan"?

ah yes, china as an example, dictatorship, communism. moving towards free market and capitalism... yeah, good example. examples of collectivist societies is not proof that we are as such by nature, it is merely proof that some are capable of asserting their will over others.

 

Man is not communistic by nature (which is the reason why communism fails), because people are individuals and need something to call their own. That's basic psychological need. Communism also presumes best out of men which ultimately leads to its downfall.

communism/collectivism is an immaterial difference. it is, at best, sematic.

 

collectivism = socialism

 

--> world already is socialist and shall be so evermore"

hopefully, no. but either way, you need to shed your programming. really, you're smart enough, i don't understand why you can't do it.

 

taks

[Xard]

we are individualistic by nature.

I agree with that. On the other hand, we are social animals by need.

 

That's Hobbesian line of thought with only social contract stopping the war of everyone against everyone - it doesn't have any basis and idea wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for era when Hobbes lived.

 

However, as it should be very clear by now, his ideology was way too pessimistic and basic anthropology studies on stone age men shows it to be false.

 

Man is both collectivistic and individualistic by needs (and in latter by sense of ego) and on which side one eventually leans depends on their culture, situation and their own free choices - though without sufficient abilities and knowledge third factor plays least role (but it still plays!). I'd say situation is the most important factor, although social psychologists might prefer culture.

[taks]

I feel stupid for having to spell this out: There's a lot more to individualism than merely financial matters.

immaterial. financial matters are ultimately what is used to survive. no one person can do everything, therefore he needs to obtain the services and products of others. the most equitable way to do this is through trade. since not everyone has something the other needs, or wants, we have money. suddenly it's a financial thing.

 

You're in odds with me and majority of other humans on this planet when it comes to existence and viability of "the third way". Some sort of third way is what drives all democracies.

since when does any consensus mean anything? the rest of the world has spent its life in poverty, subjugated to the very thing you claim will save them. of course they advocate a third way, it is easy to advocate taking from others to serve their own needs. instead, we end up with more of the same.

 

Indeed?

yes, indeed. keynesian philosophies don't work, and there aren't many sane economists that believe in him. funny your quote regarded policies in the 40s, not today.

 

Chomsky was; Keynes wasn't unless we're using taksish speech

no, austrian economist speak, true capitalists. there is no middle ground, anyone that thinks there is is either self-deluded, lying or simply incapable of understanding.

 

I'll write more personal answers after I unearthe my book on social philosophy (I must check few terms) but for beginners Criticism of capitalism would be good starting point, especially parts Democracy, Economical Freedom, Imperialism and Human Right violations, Religious Criticism (esp. Christian socialism etc. because Christianity is base of whole western values) and last but not least and Noam Chomsky's great critiques that got its very own section.

so, you mean, you can't deduce morality from your own beliefs? i don't care what wiki's criticism of capitalism is, it was written by someone that approves of socialism, i.e., one of them thar self-deluded, lying or incompetent folks i mentioned already.

 

certainly my economic beliefs stem from those such as von mises (who admittedly, i haven't read a lot of... economics can be sooo boring), but my sense of morality is my own, not borrowed from someone else. either way, you have yet to provide a solid rationalization of what morality is, one that is actually moral. one that actually treats everyone as equal. try it, i dare you.

 

taks