pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Sep \ parent \ on: Smashing the Western Illusion of Democracy Politics_And_Law
It's not a claim. It's an opinion.
I did identify your error, though. It's known as post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You're ascribing causality to things that happened after the fact. Markets create prosperity. Rulers funnel some of that prosperity to suit their own ends. The later does not cause the former.
This is less about libertarianism, than it is my training in economics. Your story doesn't make economic sense. Centrally directed resource allocations do not enhance prosperity. They create distortions in the market, known as dead weight losses, that reduce overall well-being.
What you're demonstrating is a light form of Stockholm Syndrome, where you prioritize the preferences of the ruling class over the preferences of yourself and the other captives. (That is my libertarianism speaking.)
I pointed out that there are no examples in history of a wealthy economy without a healthy nation state working in concert with private enterprise.
You did not have not and cannot give an example of where a wealthy economy has ever emerged in isolation from nation state governance.
You characterise governments/rulers as parasites 'funneling some of that prosperity to suit their own ends'.
Yet you cannot show any single example in the know history of humanity where private enterprise prospered in isolation and without the collaboration of a government that helps foster and enable the wealth creation, technology, infrastructure, military and resource access that is required to build a strong economy.
You have zero logical retort to the numerous other examples I have given such as Chinas successful strategy of making Russia and Iran monetary and resource tributaries and dependents upon China who at the same time attack the US as proxies imposing huge costs upon the US empire while earning China ever increased profits and captive markets.
That is a highly successful nation state power projection directed strategy in full view and progressing with deadly precision as we watch on helplessly ~ but you have no reply or response because free markets cannot and will not logically respond to let alone reverse such concerted nation state power projection!!
Today the US government is infected with parasitic rentseeking corporate infiltration that cripples any attempt to build and progress a strategic approach where the US and its interests are advanced in a untied and cohesive manner.
In stark contrast today Chinas poliburo clearly does manifest a strategic vision and is directing capital flows toward that strategy known as Belt and Road global resource domination.
reply
I’m not expecting to change your mind, but I’ve told you what mistake you’re making, why it’s a mistake, and why I believe you’re making it. Disregard all of that if you like. I really don’t care.
reply
You have not refuted any of the facts and issues I have raised.
I have regarded everything you have written and none of it refutes what I have written.
If you can refute anything I have posted here please explain what.
Again I predict you cannot, as I have successfully predicted previously.
When challenged to substantiate your claims you have failed on each and every occasion in this contest of ideas.
You might feign not caring but the truth is any neutral observer can read through the dialogue and see you have not succeeded in refuting anything and that your assertions have been either baseless (ie you do not understand economics- but you cannot demonstrate a single example of this assertion) or have been disproved by my responses.
China is rising- never before has a nation state advanced its power and wealth more swiftly - and this is demonstrably due to the combination of free enterprise markets and determined co-ordinated strategic direction of capital by the CCP Poliburo.
reply
I’m not a historicist, so bombarding me with your interpretations of economic history isn’t going to accomplish anything.
History is too multicausal to draw clear conclusions. That’s why we develop and test theory.
reply
I have not only referred to history, but have pointed to history to support my reasoning - and history does provide that support.
Ignore history at your peril.
I note your ongoing inability to respond to any of my challenges for supporting evidence of your views.
reply
Get any Econ 101 textbook if you want to read about deadweight loss.
If you’re just going to pretend that I didn’t give my reasons, why should I continue talking to you?
reply
What reasons have you given that have not been refuted?
In referring to deadweight loss you confirm you have not understood the argument that any economy must assert its will in competition with other competing economies/nation states and that the ultimate expression of that struggle is war- while all the sub war levels of that assertion rely heavily upon the nation state and its ability to marshall resources to assert its will.
War and its more subtle derivatives which always continue during
peaceful' eras rather sidelines the usual logic of market forces.
How exactly you minimise the wastage due to 'deadweight' loss in this context is closely linked to the quality of government you have.
I have compared the relevant governments- the USAs one where rentseeking corporates own the government vs the Chinese government where it is composed of a politburo over 80% of whom are trained engineers.
reply
Good night