Tab Content
  • idiom's Avatar
    Today, 05:11 AM
    Dunno what country Larken Rose is chained up in, but its a very american-centric viewpoint. Slavery dissolved slowly in England over 1000 years. From the Magna Carta, through feudal and corvee systems, through vagabond labour, bit by bit England became more and more democratic. It just seemed rapid in the US where it was common place for millennia and then suddenly ended by treaty. It is quite possible to imagine an ancap-corporation on its own land that allows you to live within its borders for a portion of your income, whose directors are elected by all paid up shareholders, and whose directors can change the portion of income that counts as rent. All of which would be voluntary. So his objections are based in the genesis of the system not the actions or the structure of the system. Like a Marxist saying all Capital was originally gained immorally hundreds of years ago, so no system can possibly be fair now.
    6 replies | 246 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    Today, 04:52 AM
    Violating nations rights for the rights of individuals is historically fraught with massive unintended consequences. But sometimes when you don't intervene Rwanda happens. Although that was pretty much all consequence from earlier interventions. Comes down to how much do you think you know, and if you know so much why do we even need prices?
    78 replies | 898 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    Today, 04:43 AM
    In reverse order: Lets say you are good at raising sheep, and can manage 1000 sheep on your own. That great in a closed system on your own farm, you get to have more sheep and wool that you can possibly use. You are rich in sheep and wool, regardless of what other do. As soon as you are in an exchange economy producing those sheep for exchange your productivity becomes relative. If someone can produce sheep a wee bit more efficiently than you, or better sheep, you are completely fucked. Your production capabilities become unprofitable, and thereby worse than useless, they become capital sinks. At equilibrium in a free market with no barriers to entry and so on, one only makes an profit equivalent to the risk rate plus a small premium related to cost of entry. So if an individual wants to create a profit they must create a dislocation. There are bad ways to do this, but the good ways are technology innovation, organisational innovation, market innovation, branding, or anything else that creates a temporary concrete difference between your product and that of everyone else. Either you can make something cheaper, more appropriately, or something new. One can't make a noteworthy profit by doing the same thing as everyone else in a competitive market. This is the blessing and curse of capitalism, a permanent revolution. We tolerate millions being made obsolete en masse, because what they were doing was sub-optimal, and now they can do something better. But maybe they can't, not all of them as individuals, or maybe they all can, maybe they need a boost, maybe they need to be left to become desperate enough to create the next dislocation.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-13-2018, 08:13 PM
    Foreign Aid is often give in ways that intentionally or unintentionally create horrific distortions in the target economy. Loans are often usurious requiring the country getting "help" to impose massive taxes to show they are credit worthy. It can also be disturbingly imperialistic or disruptive. For example giving money to Israel to buy weapons from the US, crowding out its native industry. Most export banks are guilty of the same thing.
    78 replies | 898 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-13-2018, 06:51 PM
    The goal isn't to ascribe blame but to describe the forces at work. The other difficulty is we are describing equilibrium conditions, when capitalism is inherently seeking of a disequilibrium as at the equilibrium nobody makes a profit. In a model market economy things should always get better, and historically in aggregate they do. The accounts quoted above were the result of massive rapid local dislocations. Peasants in England urbanized incredibly quickly with the mechanization of agriculture. Cities would double or halve from one year to the next with the incredible pace of innovation wiping out industrial centers and rebuilding them just as quickly. Thus we examine where the sweat shops come from, how we have alleviated conditions historically, if the cure is worse than the disease, etc. We also have the difference between an economic model and actual human action in the face of upheaval at beyond human scales, like when its not your neighbour that leap frogs your factory and shuts you down, but another country leap frogs your entire region and obliterates the regional economy fair and square. Are the realistic non-state responses better or worse than the reality of state interventions.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-13-2018, 03:26 PM
    8 Employers, 9 labourers.... Its just supply and demand. If supply of labour outstrips employment then you get subsistence wages and a 16 hour working day, and still one unemployed dude. If the employers voluntarily restrict the working day, you end up with a shorter working day, workers all still getting their bread, one unemployed dude, but lower productivity at the specific thing the employers are doing. Maybe you end up losing an employer or two and you end up with 5 guys with no bread. Point being with a labour surplus, the employers are punished severely for not working labourers as hard as they can as long as they can for as little as they can. So its not the employers exploiting the labourers, but competitive forces threatening employers.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-13-2018, 02:54 AM
    One of them can earn the loaf of bread in 5 hours then, the other gets no loaf of bread. Why would the second individual not under bid the first and offer to work six hours for the same total pay?
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-12-2018, 11:30 PM
    Hey, Marvel films kick ass. But yesh, there are people who become ideologically possessed. Everything they say is straight from a text book, whether Rand, Mises, Marx, or Sarte, they have an uncritical worldview and an answer for everything.
    18 replies | 463 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-12-2018, 11:12 PM
    Two paupers from the 16th century with the same productivity, both will work until they can buy bread, but the employer only needs one person to tend a machine. The wage for the day is going to end up at the price of the bread. Who decides how long they will work for?
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-12-2018, 05:57 PM
    11 replies | 260 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-12-2018, 04:18 AM
    The really evil fuckers are guys like Wakefield apparently, just digging into him. Though that colonies had a hard time because people were not compelled to become pitiful wage slaves, so colonial governments should put in price floors on land so that people have to work for the rich. Marx cites this as proof of his theories. When people bitch about colonialism, this is the dude they mean, a bloody awful strawman of colonial theory. Poor old industrialists travelling to the new world with tonnes of machinery but can't find cheap labour. My heart breaks for them. Marxists genuinely believe capitalists feel entitled to magic profit. The problem is a lot of people do, hence 2008 etc. Ayn Rand excoriated this sort pretty fiercely.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-11-2018, 03:51 PM
    Found it, in Chapter 19 Hazlitt advocates for unionization to solve the problem "The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization." Thanks for the help guys.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-11-2018, 03:35 PM
    Thanks, this is roughly what I was after and has the same conclusions I reached regarding 30 hour weeks, but doesn't address the historical cases of 7 year olds working 16 hour days. Is that simply a desirable market outcome to avoid paying tax? Also his claims that labour campaigned against 18 hour days in order to decrease unemployment is also untrue, and is straw-manning it. Unions can create serious economic difficulties, but luddite type action is not what we are addressing here. What free market mechanisms lead to a world where children aren't working themselves to the bone with menial labour? Bear in mind that the English state was also hanging 7000 people a year for the crime of begging.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-11-2018, 12:53 PM
    Its not arbitrary. We got there after centuries of labour organisation. It is enforced by the state. Before that 10 and 12 hour days were they maximums. Without maximums the working day extends to be extremely long. Do Hazlitt, Mises, or Hayek have any discussion of this? Now Marx thinks that the length of the working day is where profit comes from, right. He is wrong here, but its why socialists fixate on it, and why labour has fought for shorter work days. However his discussion of commodification is interesting in this regard. His costing of a commodity is basically marginal. The cost of something isn't what it cost to make, but the replacement value using the latest technology, so on a cost basis everything you have in stock is constantly depreciating as capitalism moves technology forward. Of note by Marx's commodity rather than surplus value framework employees are forever being overpaid. Now we look at a machine operator, a worker babysitting a machine, so easy a child can do it. Almost no opportunity for a person to differentiate their value. Also assume a market where supply outstrips demand. The value of this job is going to be set by the lowest bid. Lowest bid is going to be the cost of staying alive divided by the number of hours per day worked. Under these conditions there is strong incentive to work as many hours as physically possible. The work will also go to women or children who are cheaper to keep alive.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-11-2018, 06:36 AM
    I meant any papers on it or books. So without state intervention the ideal workday is like 12 or 14 hours? 30 hours? Is it just a continuous race to the bottom? Say you have to make $100 per day to cover your living costs. You can work 5 hours for $20 per hour. Similar person to you offers to do the same job for $10 per hour as long as they get 10 hours of work. Do you try and get 20 hours of work at $5 per hour? Or consider it in another form:
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-11-2018, 06:27 AM
    Hey, Where do I go for Austrian discussion of the length of the working day? Outside of Marx discussions about it and the forces controlling it are pretty thin on the ground. Any guidance appreciated.
    29 replies | 712 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-09-2018, 03:56 AM
    This is not a grab-em-by-the-pussy reference?
    124 replies | 2661 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-09-2018, 03:53 AM
    What happens in American bathrooms that suddenly turns people into rapists that doesn't happen anywhere else? Don't you people rape each other in unisex alleys anymore?
    14 replies | 315 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-09-2018, 03:51 AM
    Third option, Its okay if the government executes the wrong people, as long as the government is strong and stable. - Chinese attitude.
    52 replies | 1256 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-09-2018, 03:49 AM
    Good time to be in a country with a 22% debt to gdp ratio ;) We were 5.4% in 2008. Dandy.
    31 replies | 778 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-04-2018, 01:51 AM
    All the children of Hegel. A pox on both your houses.
    45 replies | 429 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    10-04-2018, 01:45 AM
    Trying to not get droned by you lot. This is pure yankee bullshit.
    4 replies | 138 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-26-2018, 05:32 AM
    Fracking. Peak Oil was a real thing, then it wasn't basically entirely because of Fracking. Basically destroyed Coal over-night. Capitalism might just create tech fast enough for us to outrun an ecological collapse.
    6 replies | 173 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-26-2018, 12:30 AM
    The Aptriot act has been around for 17 years? O/o
    2 replies | 123 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-26-2018, 12:24 AM
    Its a look that could reasonably be achieved with surgery. People doing things with their own bodies always triggers people though.
    12 replies | 301 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-25-2018, 02:59 AM
    You won't get to reconciliation, damages, restoration, or anything of that nature until the rule of law s restored. The government violated the rights of natives. For some reason you don't care about that though.
    45 replies | 1781 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-24-2018, 06:11 PM
    The last group to give up owning slaves in the USA were the native tribes.
    45 replies | 1781 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-23-2018, 05:28 AM
    Going to amend my earlier thoughts... dunno if I am crazy but Marx isn't nearly talking about the same economics as everyone else. As near as I can tell he is happy with capitalism's ability to produce wealth. Right at the beginning of Kapital though he separates wealth from value, although not clearly. His main study seems to be about how the way you spend your 24 hours each day places you in the social hierarchy. For example an automated factory produces wealth, but no value. It doesn't force negotiations between people about who does what. Value is a social currency, not gold or a price, although it can be arbitraged with gold. I have not heard many communists talk about this. Marx basically says wealth profits come from innovation, but he dismisses those. He doesn't seem to care at all about a businesses bottom line. Am I crazy? Am I taking crazy pills?
    121 replies | 20545 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-23-2018, 05:16 AM
    Netflix offers a product that is take it or leave it. A lot of people take it because Netflix offers them what they want. Who is Netflix apply to do this without prices, but only extremely precise data about what you watch and for how long, about which poster for a film you prefer among many, which series you abandon, combined with comparsions of millions of people with similar taste to you? I guess we will never know. On the upside Amazon lets you rent individual films, get Prime and knock yourself out.
    1 replies | 776 view(s)
  • idiom's Avatar
    09-23-2018, 05:06 AM
    "From each according to his ability" incentivizes people to reduce their ability. "To each according to their need" incentivizes people to increase their need. It is corrosive and immoral. If you want people to increase their ability then you need to reward it. If you want them to reduce their needs then you need to reward that too. Capitalism does both which is why it results in an unstoppable increase in ability.
    21 replies | 1560 view(s)
More Activity

10 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    A Ron Paul endorsed Liberty candidate needs your help!

    Donate today to Thomas Massie with $20.12 or something bigger!

    For Liberty!
  2. View Conversation
    ... While I was living in a warehouse for a bit over a couple months, I was able to watch all the Michael Steele "lectures"
  3. View Conversation
    I challenged you on the point your trying to make with my quote in your sig.

    Accept the challenge, and be honest
  4. View Conversation
    Logan Campbell is a hero.
  5. View Conversation
    Whatch'a doin'?
  6. View Conversation
    Ha, you're a funny guy.
    Sorry. I got bored waiting for you to say anything so I went AFK.
  7. View Conversation
    There's a lot to learn here...

    Oh -- you might be interested in these... http://interviewproject.davidlynch.c...sodes/001-jess
  8. View Conversation
    hey good to c othere kiwis on here
  9. View Conversation
    So how easy/difficult is it to create and maintain a business in New Zealand?
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 10
About idiom

Basic Information


In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
04-27-2012 12:41 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:11 AM
Join Date

9 Friends

  1. coyote_sprit coyote_sprit is offline


  2. Jeremy Jeremy is offline


  3. Nirvikalpa Nirvikalpa is offline

    Unapologetic Feminist

  4. Petar Petar is offline


  5. RedStripe RedStripe is offline


  6. sarahgop sarahgop is offline


  7. silverhawks silverhawks is offline


  8. Theocrat Theocrat is offline


    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
  9. Trisha Trisha is offline

    New Member

Showing Friends 1 to 9 of 9





No results to display...
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast








Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast