Agna ... one more try ...

[roomy]

If Agnes read an article in a magazine proclaiming it was 'Cool to be gay' he would be extolling the virtues of gayness in his next post. That's how fucking gullible the mug is.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your emperical research begins and ends with you googling anything you agree with, you fucking mug.

Totally wrong...and I'm not surprised to see you once again contributing absolutely nothing. My empirical research is primarily derived from academic and economic journals in which studies therein are subjected to a rigorous peer-review process.

Wow....More Freudian projection.

Bandler would have a field day with your smug little ass.

Clearly, you don't have a reply to Zhang et al. or Goetz and Swaminathan. Why then do you choose to infect the thread with your imbecilities, since you have no grasp of empirical research?

So.. agna cites a single example of short-lived successful decentralization...

how many successful republics can be cited?

how many instances can be cited where his flag was raised- and totalitarianism quickly took hold?

Post this in the relevant thread. But as it were, there are numerous examples of decentralized and libertarian socialism that exist outside of Spain (the Paris Commune, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Israeli kibbutzim, the municipalities of Chiapas controlled by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, etc.), the implementation of full grassroots democracy always having been more successful than republicanism, and authoritarian state capitalism's posturing as "socialism" always having been condemned by legitimate libertarian socialists.

 

[roomy]

I know all of that Mug, but the fact is, you post what you say you believe, yet, you always post an idiots words to reinforce or indeed pretend you said first.

I shake my head in disbelief.

Why do you tell lies?

 

[Oddball]

Clearly, you don't have a reply to Zhang et al. or Goetz and Swaminathan. Why then do you choose to infect the thread with your imbecilities, since you have no grasp of empirical research?

I have a pretty good grasp of empirical "research"...Most of it I've encountered tries to prove things that defy actual physical proof (as opposed to, saaaay, aerodynamics), and makes up completely subjective criteria and/or supporting evidence out of whole cloth.

In fact, some of the sloppiest, most nebulous and inexact semantics you'll find can be found in empirical "research".

 

[Agnapostate]

I know all of that Mug, but the fact is, you post what you say you believe, yet, you always post an idiots words to reinforce or indeed pretend you said first.

I post an idiot's words...only to then pretend that I said them first after citing author names?

I shake my head in disbelief.

Why do you tell lies?

Actually, rheumatoid, claiming that I tell lies is itself a lie, since you can't post any evidence of that. I never thought I'd be saying this, but I've found someone here even stupider than Dud.

I have a pretty good grasp of empirical "research"...Most of it I've encountered tries to prove things that defy actual physical proof (as opposed to, saaaay, aerodynamics), and makes up completely subjective criteria and/or supporting evidence out of whole cloth.

In fact, some of the sloppiest, most nebulous and inexact semantics you'll find can be found in empirical "research".

You clearly don't. However, if you want to illustrate this reality, feel free to address the specific studies posted. You're going to struggle, since both studies posted thus far were rigorously peer-reviewed and controlled various factors to prevent potential methodological deficiencies. As I said to Kitty, consult Zhang et al.'s The effects of Wal-Mart on local labor markets.

We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent.

Complement it with Goetz and Swaminathan's Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty.

After controlling for other factors determining changes in the poverty rate over time, we find that counties with more initial (1987) Wal-Mart stores and counties with more additions of stores between 1987 and 1998 experienced greater increases (or smaller decreases) in family-poverty rates during the 1990s economic boom period.

Now, we both know that you're not able to form a rebuttal, but why not at least pretend?

 

[Oddball]

You clearly don't. However, if you want to illustrate this reality, feel free to address the specific studies posted. You're going to struggle, since both studies posted thus far were rigorously peer-reviewed and controlled various factors to prevent potential methodological deficiencies. As I said to Kitty, consult Zhang et al.'s The effects of Wal-Mart on local labor markets.

We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent.

Verrrrry good. I had a feeling it'd be really easy to goad you into posting some of this crap...Though I had little actual physical proof.

The bolded part translates to "we made up our own criteria".

Thank you.

 

[Toro]

Capitalism is the greatest creator of wealth and increased living standards ever.

Actually, economic protectionism is the greatest creator of wealth, a condition utterly anathema to laissez-faire conceptions. For example, consider Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder. As noted therein:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

This is wrong.

Like all social sciences, you always can find someone who bucks the conventional wisdom. However, the overwhelming consensus amongst economists is that free trade is the best creator of wealth. As Alan Binder notes

For more than two centuries economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy.

Free Trade: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

I have repeatedly posted the empirical evidence supporting this notion and do not feel like doing it again.

 

[Agnapostate]

Verrrrry good. I had a feeling it'd be really easy to goad you into posting some of this crap...Though I had little actual physical proof.

The bolded part translates to "we made up our own criteria".

Thank you.

I'm afraid not. The bolded part translates into "we controlled for the factors that some mendaciously assert are problematic." Your desperate flailing to avoid confrontation of this empirical research is too easily seen through and is blatantly idiotic. I'd recommend pursuing a different course of action.

This is wrong.

Like all social sciences, you always can find someone who bucks the conventional wisdom. However, the overwhelming consensus amongst economists is that free trade is the best creator of wealth...I have repeatedly posted the empirical evidence supporting this notion and do not feel like doing it again.

Nope. Your comment was not a response to my post. Whether or not "free trade" is an appropriate path for presently developing nations to follow is irrelevant; what my post was intended to address was the reality that regardless of that, the means by which America and Britain became great powers was through protectionism rather than "free trade." You've previously referred to the "failure" of the Smoot-Hawley tariff to attempt to "rebut" this, but you failed to consider the role of deflation.

 

[Toro]

Nope. Your comment was not a response to my post. Whether or not "free trade" is an appropriate path for presently developing nations to follow is irrelevant; what my post was intended to address was the reality that regardless of that, the means by which America and Britain became great powers was through protectionism rather than "free trade." You've previously referred to the "failure" of the Smoot-Hawley tariff to attempt to "rebut" this, but you failed to consider the role of deflation.

Except that much of your link is wrong. Britain's growth accelerated after the repeal of the Corn Laws. America's growth was primarily internal. Most of the manufacturing base developed not because of tariffs but because of the enormous expansion of the internal market within the US.

As for Smoot-Hawley, the data is adjusted after deflation. Sorry.

Empirical evidence around the world suggests that economies which are open grow faster than closed economies. I don't feel like doing this again, but here is one of many pieces of empirical evidence showing this to be the case.

News & Broadcast - Poverty Drops Below 1 Billion, says World Bank

 

[Oddball]

Verrrrry good. I had a feeling it'd be really easy to goad you into posting some of this crap...Though I had little actual physical proof.

The bolded part translates to "we made up our own criteria".

Thank you.

I'm afraid not. The bolded part translates into "we controlled for the factors that some mendaciously assert are problematic." Your desperate flailing to avoid confrontation of this empirical research is too easily seen through and is blatantly idiotic. I'd recommend pursuing a different course of action.

Problem being is that those factors are not subject to positive control in any case. That "some" would point to them doesn't automatically mean that they are the only mitigating factors, in a market matrix of infinite and indeterminate factors.

That last admonition is interesting....Were I afraid of confronting this drivel, why is it that I'm still here?? And if you're so cocksure that your "evidence" is bullet proof, what do you gain by me pursuing a different course of action??

Truly inquiring minds want to know.

 

[JBeukema]

Easy, dud... he';s still avoiding other points...

 

[Oddball]

I have not even begun to parse.

 

[Agnapostate]

Except that much of your link is wrong. Britain's growth accelerated after the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Are you sure you read the link? No mention of the Corn Laws was made. But while we're on the topic, your black and white thinking on the matter isn't appropriate here either. As noted by Chang:

Britain's free trade policy was motivated in part by its desire to promote its industries. Many of the strongest campaigners for free trade, including their leader Richard Cobden, believed that free imports of agricultural products by Britain would discourage manufacturing in competitor countries that would not have developed without the presence of the British Corn Laws.

We thus view a role of the Corn Laws and an interest in their temporary preservation even by "free trade" advocates that the crude conceptions of those policies as deplorable mercantilistic constrictions fail to note.

America's growth was primarily internal. Most of the manufacturing base developed not because of tariffs but because of the enormous expansion of the internal market within the US.

There would have been development with or without tariffs as a result of internal expansion, but my claim was merely that broadly protectionist policies played a role in augmenting that development. What have you to say specifically to this?

As for Smoot-Hawley, the data is adjusted after deflation. Sorry.

Nope. As previously noted, Irwin's The Smoot-Hawley Tariff: A Quantitative Assessment proves otherwise. Consider the abstract:

In the two years after the imposition of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in June 1930, the volume of U.S. imports fell over 40%. To what extent can this collapse of trade be attributed to the tariff itself versus other factors such as declining income or foreign retaliation? Partial and general equilibrium assessments indicate that the Smoot-Hawley tariff itself reduced imports by 4-8% (ceteris paribus), although the combination of specific duties and deflation further raised the effective tariff and reduced imports an additional 8-10%. A counterfactual simulation suggests that nearly a quarter of the observed 40% decline in imports can be attributed to the rise in the effective tariff (i.e. Smoot-Hawley plus deflation)

As also previously noted, the tariff rate remained in the average range established since the Civil War period. In 1875, for instance, the average rate ranged between 40 and 50%. In 1913, the average tariff rate on manufactured products was 44%, whilst the 1931 rate was only 4 percentage points higher at 48%.

Empirical evidence around the world suggests that economies which are open grow faster than closed economies.

I posted no advocacy of a "closed economy" anyway, and your comment wasn't relevant to my post. The benefits of trade are typically decidedly mixed, which is why fair trade is often able to facilitate an appropriate provision of benefits without incurring the costs that "free trade" often does. But that's not relevant to the main point that I made, and honestly, analysis of growth in the capitalist economy must necessarily be more expansive than mere cursory investigation of the effects of trade. As long as capitalism suffers from the deficiencies of the maximization of static efficiency and the maximization of dynamic efficiency being incompatible, both the optimal creation of new resources and the most effective utilization of those resources once created will not be present to the fullest degree.

Problem being is that those factors are not subject to positive control in any case. That "some" would point to them doesn't automatically mean that they are the only mitigating factors, in a market matrix of infinite and indeterminate factors.

Nope. It's a mere absurdity to dilute empirical research to such an extent. While there are undoubtedly factors that simply cannot be controlled to the degree that researchers desire, there was a clear attempt to engage the most critical one (the endogeneity problem) through time and geographic analysis. You clearly did not understand this, and instead chose to desperately flail and haphazardly claim that effectively all empirical research is worthless, an obviously fallacious assertion.

That last admonition is interesting....Were I afraid of confronting this drivel, why is it that I'm still here?? And if you're so cocksure that your "evidence" is bullet proof, what do you gain by me pursuing a different course of action??

Your problem is that your ignorance is so far-reaching that you really don't know how ridiculous your statements have been. JBeukema is at least clever enough to engage in the time-tested art of selective quotation and thus avoid comments that are above his head, and KK knows when it's time for her to make a quick exit and avoid the reality that she's clueless on the economic front, but you're not skilled enough for this, and instead end up mangling things horribly with your clumsy attempts to sound informed.

Easy, dud... he';s still avoiding other points...

This coming from a person who's ignored essentially half of the comments made in my first post in this thread? I'll tell you what: When you address the trade-offs between static and dynamic efficiency and internal and external efficiency that capitalism is prone to, I'll let you make this comment without challenge. Until then...

 

[Oddball]

That last admonition is interesting....Were I afraid of confronting this drivel, why is it that I'm still here?? And if you're so cocksure that your "evidence" is bullet proof, what do you gain by me pursuing a different course of action??

Your problem is that your ignorance is so far-reaching that you really don't know how ridiculous your statements have been. JBeukema is at least clever enough to engage in the time-tested art of selective quotation and thus avoid comments that are above his head, and KK knows when it's time for her to make a quick exit and avoid the reality that she's clueless on the economic front, but you're not skilled enough for this, and instead end up mangling things horribly with your clumsy attempts to sound informed.

Um-hmmmm...So we've established that you don't like me and feel completely free to insult me at every turn.

Yet your "superior intellect" fails to supply any rebuttal of any intellectual substance.

If I'm so easy, why the pre-pubescent cheap shots???

Bring it, plebe.....Amuse me.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, c'mon, Agnes!

Can't you copy-n-paste faster than this???

 

[Agnapostate]

Um-hmmmm...So we've established that you don't like me and feel completely free to insult me at every turn.

Yet your "superior intellect" fails to supply any rebuttal of any intellectual substance.

If I'm so easy, why the pre-pubescent cheap shots???

Bring it, plebe.....Amuse me.

I never claimed any superior intellect; I merely noted that you had a marked ignorance of this topic, but chose to pretend otherwise. If you desired otherwise, you could easily remedy that, but you choose to instead regurgitate rightist cliches and talking points that avoid serious analysis. That's why you've been so cowardly as to avoid my challenges to a one-on-one debate on a website suited for that purpose, despite your claims of my intellectual inferiority.

Oh, c'mon, Agnes!

Can't you copy-n-paste faster than this???

You once again repeat a false assertion without taking care to provide evidence, even though I've provided evidence of my own to the contrary...not that that's anything new for you.

 

[Oddball]

Um-hmmmm...So we've established that you don't like me and feel completely free to insult me at every turn.

Yet your "superior intellect" fails to supply any rebuttal of any intellectual substance.

If I'm so easy, why the pre-pubescent cheap shots???

Bring it, plebe.....Amuse me.

I never claimed any superior intellect; I merely noted that you had a marked ignorance of this topic, but chose to pretend otherwise. If you desired otherwise, you could easily remedy that, but you choose to instead regurgitate rightist cliches and talking points that avoid serious analysis. That's why you've been so cowardly as to avoid my challenges to a one-on-one debate on a website suited for that purpose, despite your claims of my intellectual inferiority.

You really think you're a sneaky little shit, don't you??

If I only chose to recognize what a genius you are and desired such genius, then I'd be a genius too...Right??

In the meantime, those "rightist cliches and talking points that avoid serious analysis" go unrefuted with anything more than personal asides, like accusations of regurgitating rightist cliches and talking points that avoid serious analysis, and of cowardice.

If you're such hot shit, who needs to go anywhere else??

You want to call me out, call me out for all here to see.

Bring it, plebe....I grow more amused of your arrogance by the minute.

 

[JBeukema]

Seeing as the entire premise of the thread, Agna, is for you to explain yourself- you sure seem to avoid doing so, and spend more time making personal attacks against your challengers and creating excuses to not answer questions. Just like in the other thread

Just admit that you can't build any real case against capitalism in principle- or forward any alternative to the a republican form of government- and we'll leave you alone to believe whatever you wish, without requiring you to defend your beliefs. All you have to do as admit that you can't and cease to forward your assertions in the future.

 

[Agnapostate]

If I only chose to recognize what a genius you are and desired such genius, then I'd be a genius too...Right??

Nope. I certainly never claimed to be a genius myself...so you can estimate what the chance of me claiming that you're one would be. I merely observed that you're deeply ignorant of the subject matter of this thread, so instead choose to flail desperately to make it appear as though you're paying attention. The problem is that you fall flat on your face. JB can at least maintain the illusory pretense of a response, if not the reality. You can't even achieve that.

In the meantime, those "rightist cliches and talking points that avoid serious analysis" go unrefuted with anything more than personal asides, like accusations of regurgitating rightist cliches and talking points that avoid serious analysis, and of cowardice.

Those comments were made because they accurately summarize your post style. Your dimwitted idiocy about "authoritarian central planning" and "Stalinism" isn't anything that I couldn't have regurgitated to me by hundreds of other ignorant rightists on political message boards. Instead of admitting that there are obviously facets of socialism and capitalism alike that you're unfamiliar with (or better yet, not getting involved in the first place), you choose to initiate personal attacks against those who've actually consulted empirical research and serious analysis of such matter. Hence...I reciprocate.

If you're such hot shit, who needs to go anywhere else??

You want to call me out, call me out for all here to see.

Bring it, plebe....I grow more amused of your arrogance by the minute.

Is "plebe" intended to be some kind of personal insult?

Seeing as the entire premise of the thread, Agna, is for you to explain yourself- you sure seem to avoid doing so, and spend more time making personal attacks against your challengers and creating excuses to not answer questions. Just like in the other thread

Nope. I've explained almost everything and am wrapping things up at this point; the reality of your insufficient replies is an obvious one to objective analysts of this thread. You "respond" with weak talking points and a lack of reply to nearly half of my comments.

Just admit that you can't build any real case against capitalism in principle- or forward any alternative to the a republican form of government- and we'll leave you alone to believe whatever you wish, without requiring you to defend your beliefs. All you have to do as admit that you can't and cease to forward your assertions in the future.

That reality is far different has already been evidenced by the insufficient nature of your responses, as well as those of my other so-called "opponents." The fact that your response is the best in this thread so far should serve as a mark of deep disgrace to proponents of capitalism, since it made no effort to address the remarks that I made about capitalism's inefficiency and was riddled with numerous inaccuracies when you attempted to address the nature of capitalism's immorality.

 

[JBeukema]

. I've explained almost everything and am wrapping things up at this point; the reality of your insufficient replies is an obvious one to objective analysts of this thread. You "respond" with weak talking points and a lack of reply to nearly half of my comments.

You have addressed nothing of the criticisms of your system, and you have simply chosen to ignore several key problems, including the glaring contradiction regarding your call for the theft of property and labor from the working class in order to support a class of leeches (which i personally suspect you would be a member of) as an inherent part of your system, per the very ideal that you forwarded in the other thread while denouncing the 'theft of surplus labor' in a capitalist system, all the while ignoring the fact that such contracts are not compulsory (unlike what you proposed), can be nullified by either party at any time (one can quit), and can be negotiated to achieve the most desirable results through unionization, strikes, and walkouts by the workers and through layoffs, the hiring of those willing to cut the best deal, and negotiation of benefits by the employer. You ignore the initial investments and principles put up by the entrepreneur and other investors and seek to nullify willful contracts and steal from those more successful to you what is rightfully theirs by their own investment skill because you personally feel they do not deserve to benefit from their investments, negotiations, and other efforts. You denounce what you consider theft from one class by other other, while arguing not for an end to the theft of property and wealth, byu merely a reversal of the status quo and a class struggle that is targeted less at benefitting the lower classes than punishing those that have ucceeded or been fortunate enough to, through birthm, happenstance, or their own labors, achieve a standard of living better than your own. Your system is punative in nature and glorifwes the authoritarianism and tyranny of the masses, while entrusting the mob with the Stateand ignoring the lessong iof history- when even your beloved examples of 'success' were unable to survive in the real world, where a State must be able to not only sustain, but also to defend itself. You are too focused on idealism and naivete to realize that the very nature ofg man your system depends on does not exist and that if it did, neither your system nor any other would be needed in the first place.

That reality is far different has already been evidenced by the insufficient nature of your responses, as well as those of my other so-called "opponents."

The reality is that time and again you have been unable to brings your prosed systems or your criticisms of the principles of capitalism to terms with reality or the most basic of observations or simplest of questions or criticisms. For all you reading and propaganda, you are no different from Mao: your pretty words might sound inspiring, and it might be tempting to be swept up in idealism and grandiose dreams of destroying the bourgeoisie and creating the type of paradise found only in religious mythology, but the slightest touch of reality shows it too be too fragile to survive for any length of time in the harsh reality of the world that we have inherited or the very heart and nature of Mankind, that would inhabit it.


You speak of the 'immorality' of capitalism, presupposing a non-existent objective morality that fits your world view and ignoring social contract or the will of the masses while simultaneously showing yousrself incapable of defening the very aspects your system that you criticise when present in any form of capitalism. You claim a moral highground, yet cannot sdefend it when challenged.