What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is wrong as well as irrelevant.
    Also wrong.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can't you craft any relevant economic argument? Its embarrassing! Efficiency wages was needed to understand unemployment. The original shirking perspective, which dominated that discussion, was Marxist analysis.

    I've already proven you wrong on that, providing multiple economic sources. Foot stamping is undignified.
     
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you're addressing me and my post, my answer is that it is reasonable and even beneficial to compare startup times for capitalism and socialism. Beyond that I agree with your post.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speaking in terms of the conversation! The anti-Marxism is weird (minus the McCarthyism), given Marxism is needed to understand capitalist phenomena. To ignore Marxist economics, just to maintain a right wing perspective, is so cliched.
     
    Kode likes this.
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. It's fully explained by the forcible removal of workers' rights to liberty and thus their bargaining power.
    And was wrong.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you have made false claims and provided no evidence for them. They are therefore rightly dismissed without evidence.
    All false and unsupported.
    You haven't identified any facts, just absurd cobblers.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a petty effort! Everything said were statement of facts. You know that as you cant show otherwise.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cant explain trends in unemployment via soundbite and prattle.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Trends"? Of course exogenous events do affect unemployment for, in Dr. Strangelove's delicious phrase, "reasons which must be all too obvious at this moment." However, your silly Marxist twaddle can't explain those, either. Or anything else.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your claims were nothing but bald falsehoods, outright fabrications on your part, which is why you cannot support them with any quotes from the paper.
    :lol: False. I know that your cranium is not full of fairy dust even though I can't show otherwise, because false claims advanced without evidence are rightly dismissed without evidence.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero content again. You seem to have a problem with facts. Efficiency wage analysis became a crucial part of labour economics as it achieved an understanding of unemployment by realising you cant treat the labour market in the same way as inanimate objects. Its also just factual to note that Marxist analysis played a critical role in that.

    There's no point in replying to your other post. It was just flamebait.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2020
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero content again. You seem to have a problem with facts:
    No, only a misunderstanding, as it completely ignores the three actual causes of unemployment:

    1. the requirement that the worker pay a landowner full market value just for permission to have a job (as well as to shop, access desirable public services and infrastructure, etc.);
    2. government's inability to offer more employment providing desirable public services and infrastructure because their value has to be given away to landowners instead of being recovered to fund them; and
    3. the tax burden imposed on employment and productive investment to pay for the subsidy to landowners inherent in public provision of desirable services and infrastructure not funded by recovering the land value they create.

    "Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed.” -- Thomas Jefferson
    But failed to understand why, which is explained immediately above.
    Which explains how it went so wrong.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You start with cobblers. Efficiency wages does not indicate one cause of unemployment. It does, however, understand how the market will naturally deliver it. I'm assuming your three will be Georgist grunt.

    Refer me to one empirical study that refers to landowners as an explanation for unemployment rates. Good luck!

    Refer me to one empirical study that refers to government causing unemployment because value is given away to landowners. Good luck!

    Refer me to one empirical study that refers to subsidies to landowners causing unemployment. Good luck!

    Efficiency wages is supported by the empirical evidence. Will you just dodge again in order to maintain the child-like Georgist perspective?
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, just facts.
    OK, thanks for admitting it offers no understanding of unemployment.
    Already disproved.
    Thanks for confirming once again that you have no actual scientific understanding, and no desire to acquire any. Landowners cannot possibly explain unemployment rates because landowning doesn't vary over time. See how easily your disingenuous nonsense is exposed for what it is?
    As above. An empirical study would have to involve a variable quantity. As the subsidy to landowning is effectively constant, there is no range of variation to produce an observable effect.
    As above. No variation, no observable effect. You could with equal "logic" ask for an empirical study showing that evaporation causes the oceans to be salty. We know it is true because (unlike you) we are willing to know facts and able to understand cause and effect; but there is no possible empirical study that could provide evidence for it.
    As long as the actual economic mechanisms are ignored. Efficiency wages as an explanation of unemployment is epistemologically equivalent to drought as an explanation of the oceans' salinity, based on the empirically observable reduction in their surface salinity after a rainfall.
    You refuse to know facts because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahaha, you were asked to support your position with evidence. You tried, without any merit mind you, word salad. So, let's get this right, you can't actually support your position (unlike efficiency wages) with any evidence? A yes or no will suffice ;)
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that is another objectively false claim from you. I had already provided ample evidence. You did not ask for evidence, you asked for references to empirical studies, proving that you either do not understand the epistemological basis of empirical science, or were deliberately trying to deceive and mislead readers.
    No, I tried -- futilely, I agree -- to explain a bit of empirical science to you.
    BWAAHAHHAHAAAA!!

    You ask a negative question, and say yes or no will suffice. So no matter which answer I give, you can claim I'm admitting I can't support my position with any evidence, even though you know I already have.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pathetic effort. You can't refer to evidence as you have none. Your position is no different to the standard Trumpster truther. Get back to me when you can defend your position with evidence my right wing chum!
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications. That is evidence.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The post-truth society is in full swing
     

Share This Page