I think I get libertarian economics now

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I think it's funny when I hear children complaining that "Capitalists" are greedy and are trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible by buying what they need (let's say, labor,mainly) as cheaply as possible and selling it for as much as possible.

Buying labor as cheaply as possible is a major reason why a libertarian society wouldn't have a middle class. There would be the capitalists who won the race to control the market and the poor they use as a labor pool. The poor would remain poor because they couldn't afford to enter the market and couldn't compete with the few established survivors of that initial race if they could. Their income would be earned through their labor alone. See the Industrial Revolution for an example of that. It would be reasonably to say that the average family of husband, wife, son, and daughter would each work 16 hour days in return for enough resources to avoid death and continue to labor and eventually produce new laborers.

Doesn't everyone do that?

Everyone would like to. The law currently forbids a lot of what companies would like to do, such as drop the minimum wage and privatize all publicly owned resources. Those laws are pretty much constantly under siege.

The bottom line is that the child who's speaking is envious because HE wants to be rich too, but IS UNSUCCESSFUL. So rather than praise the one who is doing it successfully, he complains that there is something wrong with the rich guy.

I'm legally not allowed to be rich, or even earn a substantial outside income, right now for understandable reasons. I would be fired if I, say, hit it big enough at a casino. My problem with libertarianism mostly comes from an understanding of the society that it creates and memories of living exactly like the majority of the population would under that system.

By most definitions, most people who are rich today started out either middle class or poor. Regardless, the biggest impediment to accumulating a fortune is GOVERNMENT, and there's not really much debate on that point.

I've never seen a politician on welfare...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Buying labor as cheaply as possible is a major reason why a libertarian society wouldn't have a middle class.

capitalists have to pay the highest wage possible and have highest quality products possilble.

If you doubt it start a business with lower wages and a lower quality product!! See why we say a liberal will be slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. It would be reasonably to say that the average family of husband, wife, son, and daughter would each work 16 hour days in return for enough resources to avoid death and continue to labor and eventually produce new laborers.
.

very very stupid and liberal since if it was possible to pay higher wages someone would and all the best workers would be standing at is door begging to work. Once again, you have to have the best jobs and best products to survive under capitalism.

Do you have the IQ to understand these basics???

Why not post on fridge for daily review??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. My problem with libertarianism mostly comes from an understanding of the society that it creates and memories of living exactly like the majority of the population would under that system.

.

100% stupid and liberal. China just switched to libertarian capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Do you understand??

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I think I get libertarian economics now"

It should be expressed as: libertarian 'economics.'

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"I think I get libertarian economics now"

It should be expressed as: libertarian 'economics.'

thats so important!! Thank you!!

See why we say a liberal will be a fool??

 

[dblack]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

None of the above.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes.

wrong!! libertarian philosophers never talk about social classesl that was marx who got 120 million killed through slow socialist en masse starvation

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes.

wrong!! libertarian philosophers never talk about social classesl that was marx who got 120 million killed through slow socialist en masse starvation

Yes, they do, and they killed 500 million.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"I think I get libertarian economics now"

It should be expressed as: libertarian 'economics.'

the libertarian philosophy is about freedom from liberal govt in general, not just in economic matters. Freedom is man's natural right, as the Declaration says, and therefore man functions best in his natural environment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I think I get libertarian economics now"

It should be expressed as: libertarian 'economics.'

the libertarian philosophy is about freedom from liberal govt in general, not just in economic matters. Freedom is man's natural right, as the Declaration says, and therefore man functions best in his natural environment.

Libertarianism means the strongest dominate the weakest without regard to their needs.

 

[dblack]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

 

[Agit8r]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

 

[dblack]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

Only if you don't listen.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

A) Bubbles in general ( tulips anyone) ... just let them burst
B) The natural exponential wealth accumulation which occurs naturally in capitalism due to network effect.... there is a steady tendency to create big holdings which would go completely unregulated and unchecked.
C) The combined effect of creative job destruction ( due to technology ) and massive accumulation of capital goods... this can turn into an ever increasing drop in the employment level paired with stagnant salaries.... and an evantual economic meltdown due to the drop in aggregate demand ( they seem to ignore completely the cyclic nature of economy ) .

I have yet to hear one libertarian who addresses these basic problems within their model.

 

[dblack]

Libertarian economics in one simple lesson: All interactions must be voluntary.

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

...

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

 

[dblack]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

 

[Agit8r]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

 

[dblack]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

I can't make heads or tails of this. It's a collection of unrelated statements, some true, some not true, and some incoherent. The freedom to trade with others is not a "fallacy".

 

[Agit8r]

All the self-identified "Libertarians" that I've talked to think it's perfectly okay for one person to have unchecked power over his/her neighbors, so long as that power is purely economic.

Essentially, economics are their blind-spot.

There's nothing blind about, but economic freedom is the key distinction between a liberal and a libertarian.

Economic freedom is a fallacy. Macro-economies cannot exist without the state. Money is a creation of the state. Vast economic accumulation is power enabled by the state. It is no less prone to abuse than any other.

I can't make heads or tails of this. It's a collection of unrelated statements, some true, some not true, and some incoherent. The freedom to trade with others is not a "fallacy".

This notion that economic activities are separate from state power is the fallacy. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.