So it's not a rap video because of the fanny pack??
I guess I don't get rap.

Lol @enoch. Making out is definitely not on the agenda.

And yes, sadly, stupid laws on slander and liability exist. Just like stupid laws exist elsewhere. They are crap and garbage. But if we can go to war over faulty intel, surely our elected officials are dumb enough to let faulty slander go unpunished.

At least insofar that words have little consequences, you can see that by the content I posted right? Where the rapper threatens his wife, an FBI agent, and school children, and gets off without a record (which I forgot to include the children.)

Passing along information goes like this. Is it reasonable to suspect someone is who they claim on the internet? Kind of (Because the internet is impossible to verify ANYONE.) This is important because the "woman" was claiming to be 13, felt sexually harassed in her vulnerable years, etc. It is therefore the child who is calling the harasser a pedio, and the feminist bitch simply repeating a "reasonable-to-believe" statement. Or some such. The offended would have to prove that the comments were A-Factually known by the repeater as inaccurate and B-Damaging, and C-Not made in satire (Go back to the rap video for proof that stupid arguments can be made.) Even the damage could be argued, as what "damages" were caused by that particular comment?

News does this ALL the TIME for effect. A lot of the time they preface comments with such statements as "According to an eyewitness" or "Allegedly" or some other bullshit. But that does little to mitigate false information's impact on people.

You know, if the artist has actually something to say or does it with skill or in an interesting way (like the animation here), you can not shit on rap videos.
Having said that, I must admit I liked "Anaconda" for its interesting visuals. Don't poop on them fudge machines.

Sorry for the delayed response. I got a bit busy this week, and didn't have the time/energy to dedicate that a response of this sort deserves. Thanks for your patience.

Your response suggests an adoption to Marxism which, in my opinion, is unmatched in the level of suffering it has caused, but leaving that aside...
In response to your bullet points:

#1. "ever wonder why there is an economics course and a business admin course? there is a reason for that.one is theory the other practical application. and economists get it wrong...and often."

This is the kind of thing Paul Krugman often says, and it's flat wrong. To the extent we have a free market, we have a successful exchange of goods and services at a fair and competitive price. To the extent to which we have socialism, with central planners, and governmental regulation, we have cronyism, plutocratic kleptocracy, and failure. The Austrian school of economics does a very good job of explaining -- step by step in a manner in which you can follow along using deductive logic, how such contradictions come about. Entrepreneurs are to Austrian economists as artists are to the best of art/literary critics. There's no discrepancy between theory and practice. They can clearly and accurately describe what entrepreneurs are doing. Unless you have studied Mises, you'll probably have little to no good idea as to what economics is or what it can or cannot do.

#2: fascism is, in fact, a type of socialism because it follows a socialist economic model.

#3: Yes, I've thought it through. Explain to me specifically how you arrived at your conclusions. Otherwise, you're just making assertions.

> "france is a democracy. they have capitalism AND
> socialism."

France has a mix of capitalism and socialism, not unlike the U.S. Again, to the degree that France has a free market, things work and to the degree that they have socialism, the problems arise and get worse, as they/we are seeing now. To the degree that they are socialist, they are a failure. Socialism is unsustainable because you have no economic calculation. (And the European Union, which includes France, is failing -- in case you haven't noticed. This video can provide you with the data you need to understand this.)

Socialism is planned chaos because the issue of economic calculation (and its absence) gets glossed over. The EU is partially socialist -- it's a mix -- so it can somewhat slow down the effects of socialist chaos, unlike full-blown socialist systems. But it is increasingly more socialist and the chaos increases.
To deal with this planned chaos, these mixed systems rely on Lord Keynes' theories and policies of credit expansion, which equates to basically "throwing money" at the problem.
But, (as the Keynes/Hayek rap video says) "there's a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it!"

(Quite honestly, I'm surprised that you're not for establishing stable rules for the banks. You know, so that they're no longer able to extend money/credit that they don't have without being charged with fraud.
Because if you were for such banking rules, then you would no longer support the Keynesian approaches upon which your ideology is resting. Personally, I think money and credit needs rules and, for this reason, I don't support socialism or central planning in the absence of economic calculation, which is only possible within a free market system.)

The credit expansion expands the circumference of the boom and bust cycle, slowing it down, extending the boom period, but setting things up for a worse bust. It's all very predictable. If some are still not convinced about Europe's failure, it is because even as bad as things are, the bust has not really hit. Yet, it will. Eventually.

Unlike the Dollar, the Euro is not the world's reserve currency, and there is no petro-euro like there is a petro-dollar. So Europe cannot delay the bust in the manner that the U.S. can. On the other hand, thanks to German objections, the credit expansion in Europe has not gone as high as in the U.S. so their bust may not be as disastrous as it can be for the U.S.

The boom and bust cycle cannot occur in an anarchy because you need a central bank with powers of credit expansion to make it happen.
The alternative explanation, the "animal spirits" (a la Lord Keynes) posits that all businesses suddenly make mistakes at the same time, and/or all consumers at the same time decide to stop buying, causing the bust. I doubt it. That's no explanation at all.

> "my point is that health care should be a collective project
> but i believe i also entertained a free market solution as well."

I think you need to define what you mean by "collective" because the free market is as collective as it gets. I don't think you grasp what the free market means (i.e., voluntary interactions that allow for economic calculation and involve zero violence, allowing for better service and cheaper prices). Unless you understand this, no further discussion will lead to very much.

You say some things should be done collectively. I say many things must be done collectively. That's the basic premise of Austrian economics, the division of labor. You cannot do everything yourself. That's one reason I say that the free market economy is as collective as it gets.

> "i am a dissident. an anarchist."

If you're an anarchist, then you don't believe in government, by definition. So you can't be a socialist, as socialism requires a government to manage things. Without government, the only thing left is voluntary exchanges, which is the definition of a free market, economic capitalism (not to be confused with sociological capitalism).

You shouldn't rely on economists to tell you how things are. See for yourself. Again, only the Austrian school (that I know of) enables you to follow deductively on your own and make rational sense of the market activity.

You say economists are "probably wrong." How do you know? Economics isn't mysterious heuristics and sociological prophesy. It's like mathematics. You don't need to "believe" me that 2 + 2 = 4. You can deduce it for yourself.

I think that if you can learn a few basic economic lessons (which you can easily verify for yourself), you'll understand better where I'm coming from. (Then you'll be a coherent anarchist and not sound so confused ).

If you are an "anarchist," then who do you want administering things if not the government?

Hayek was much more of an anarchist (again, the rap video:
"The question is who plans for whom? Do I plan for myself, or leave it to you? I want plans by the many, not by the few.")

An anarchist who thinks otherwise is not much of an anarchist, is he?

Nah, he's practicing to be in a rap video.

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Hey Sluicegate,

Alas your "witch hunt rap" video appears to be dead! :


Thanks for the heads up. I tried and failed to get a replacement, even with help of fellow sifters.

Hey Sluicegate,

Alas your "witch hunt rap" video appears to be dead!

Wow.

None of you motherfuckers heard a word officer Lucas was saying.



"This Sounds like the beginning to a rap video"

"Wow, I feel really sorry for that guard. He seems to view himself as barely one step up from the inmates, but if I was in that environment every day, I'd probably feel the same."

And then, homophobe baiting, pointless dissertations on the United States rank in regards to incarceration, and overall disgust at US culture.

Post Racial my ass.

Twats.

Almost seems like the beginning to a rap video.

But yeah, society is all kinds of fucked up due to a whole lot of people having no representation. Hell they don't even pretend to care much anymore.

Like Russ Roberts, I would agree that people's biases tend to drive the economics they believe in. But I think it's as true of the left as the right. Free marketers like Hayek and redistributionists like Keynes. I don't think you or I are free of these bias. In this case, the best thing is to try to argue the actual case rather than just dismissing people's arguments ad hominem style. Can you dismiss Russ Roberts congressional testimony? Do you deny he's an actual trained economist?
.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^pyloricvalve: Would this persuade you there is still debate on this? Perhaps not.. Not even the rap video convinced you there was a debate? . I thought this was also an interesting analysis. . My links disappear for some reason.. Anyway there's a long list of economists that don't support stimulus at Cato Fiscal Reality. The other is How economists analyze the stimulus by Arnold Kling. >> ^NetRunner: Actually, it's not really a persisting argument amongst actual trained economists. The Austrian theory of economics has been invalidated time and time again by facts, but it lives on because it's a branch of economics that appeals to the ideological right. My accusation is that Austrian economics is the hobbyhorse of people pushing an ideological agenda, and not dispassionate people looking for objective truth. Anything you might cite from CATO in support of Austrian economics will just add weight to that argument. In any case, one doesn't need to adopt the Austrian view of economics to disagree with the stimulus. There is a segment of the Chicago school economists who have their own theories about why the stimulus would be ineffective. I think they're wrong, but at least there's a real honest-to-god debate going on amongst actual economists happening there.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Would this persuade you there is still debate on this? Perhaps not.. Not even the rap video convinced you there was a debate?
.
I thought this was also an interesting analysis.
.
My links disappear for some reason.. Anyway there's a long list of economists that don't support stimulus at Cato Fiscal Reality. The other is How economists analyze the stimulus by Arnold Kling.
>> ^NetRunner: Actually, it's not really a persisting argument amongst actual trained economists. The Austrian theory of economics has been invalidated time and time again by facts, but it lives on because it's a branch of economics that appeals to the ideological right.


My accusation is that Austrian economics is the hobbyhorse of people pushing an ideological agenda, and not dispassionate people looking for objective truth. Anything you might cite from CATO in support of Austrian economics will just add weight to that argument.

In any case, one doesn't need to adopt the Austrian view of economics to disagree with the stimulus. There is a segment of the Chicago school economists who have their own theories about why the stimulus would be ineffective. I think they're wrong, but at least there's a real honest-to-god debate going on amongst actual economists happening there.

Would this persuade you there is still debate on this? Perhaps not.. Not even the rap video convinced you there was a debate?
.
I thought this was also an interesting analysis.
.
My links disappear for some reason.. Anyway there's a long list of economists that don't support stimulus at Cato Fiscal Reality. The other is How economists analyze the stimulus by Arnold Kling.

>> ^NetRunner: Actually, it's not really a persisting argument amongst actual trained economists. The Austrian theory of economics has been invalidated time and time again by facts, but it lives on because it's a branch of economics that appeals to the ideological right.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

That's a good summary of the Keynesian response. I guess my answer would be that even supposing the 10% unemployed were neatly then employed in building these weapons this would just be temporary. Later they will eventually all be unemployed again having wasted time and money in training for "fictional" work.

It seems to me that building real military spaceships would require real skills, real work, real factories, real technology, and there's no particular reason why if the demand for military spaceships evaporated, that they wouldn't just pivot into trying to serve a different market, like, say, commercial spacecraft.

That's the kind of adaptation free markets are supposed to be good at, right?

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Even if that work had some beneficial side effects, making unnatural economic growth will still be a net cost to the economy versus spending time finding real jobs. These are what they really 'should' in some sense be doing. To do this would surely be better unless you claim the 10% will continue unemployed permanently.

There's no reason to think additional idleness accelerates the process of someone finding their "right" job. That also presupposes that there's a right and a wrong job, and that there's inherently some economic damage being done by seeing someone doing real work producing real goods rather than having them stay idle and wait for Godot.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

These arguments can be seen in the two Hayek/Keynes rap videos. There are two inconsistent models of the economy. How can we decide which one is right? This argument is very old so I guess it's not that easy... Maybe look at long run growth in more and less interventionist countries? I suspect growth will be faster in the less interventionist nation.

Actually, it's not really a persisting argument amongst actual trained economists. The Austrian theory of economics has been invalidated time and time again by facts, but it lives on because it's a branch of economics that appeals to the ideological right.

That's not to say everything Hayek ever said was wrong, but the Hayekian idea that Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy will inevitably lead to utter ruin has definitely not been borne out by the facts. Also, no country that has followed a Hayekian prescription for recessions (keep money tight, and implement fiscal austerity) has ever done anything but deepen their recession and prolong their recovery.

That's a good summary of the Keynesian response. I guess my answer would be that even supposing the 10% unemployed were neatly then employed in building these weapons this would just be temporary. Later they will eventually all be unemployed again having wasted time and money in training for "fictional" work. Even if that work had some beneficial side effects, making unnatural economic growth will still be a net cost to the economy versus spending time finding real jobs. These are what they really 'should' in some sense be doing. To do this would surely be better unless you claim the 10% will continue unemployed permanently.

A typical argument against my response is that the economy is like a pump and that this is pump priming. Demand from these people's fictional labour will create the new jobs. The Austrian reply to that is that the pump metaphor is simply not valid and the economies grow organically. If you force a branch to grow with artificial sunlight, when that fake light gets turned off the branch will wither and all the people involved in its support spend a lot of time looking for what they should have been doing. I think Hayek would claim this type of fake labour policy is what causes the 10% unemployment to begin with.

These arguments can be seen in the two Hayek/Keynes rap videos. There are two inconsistent models of the economy. How can we decide which one is right? This argument is very old so I guess it's not that easy... Maybe look at long run growth in more and less interventionist countries? I suspect growth will be faster in the less interventionist nation.


>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^pyloricvalve: Just seems like straight up broken windows fallacy. If we spent 18 months preparing for war with aliens we might all be employed but we'd end up with a bunch of weapons pointed at the sky. Otherwise we could have spent the time making ipods, cars or whatever good or service you might want. Doesn't what he's saying just sound wrong? It clearly would not be a good thing for the world to spend 18 months that way.. I think that's the real problem with the broken window "fallacy" -- it assumes that as your starting point you already have full employment and no idle infrastructure or capital. That's not true in our situation at all. Unemployment is around 10%, factories are being left idle, and companies are sitting on mountains of cash. The idea here is to get people back to work doing something, because even if they're producing things there isn't a high demand for (windows, alien-fighting spaceships), it's not like those things come at the cost of the other things they would've otherwise been producing, since they're not producing anything at all right now. Oh, and in the case of alien-fighting spaceships, there's a pretty high chance that the technology and industrial infrastructure that's developed to build them will be able to be re-purposed for consumer goods once the alien threat is shown to be fake. Ideally instead of faking an alien invasion, we'd just have the government go and invest directly in our infrastructure (transportation, education, power generation), but without the alien threat it doesn't seem like Congress is willing to engage in any more fiscal stimulus, no matter how economically sound it would be.