Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

August 22, 2012 by  

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Doc Sarvis

    Most of these theories are out the door when the wealth is concentrated at the VERY top (the 1%). There are so few jobs around now that exploitation of the workers is commonplace, almost required since there are few financial resources available to the masses. The middle class jobs provided by middle class employers are a bare bones proposition and the top 1% are not providing the jobs as has been talking points of conservatives for so long.

    • Munnster

      The majority of the problems come from government regulation of the marketplace. As the video explains, GM and Chrysler should have failed, but since the government STOLE at least $25 billion from the taxpayers, they still remain and feed the DemoSocialist Party kitty. Strange how the Union pensions were made whole, but the non-union pension were left high and dry. Same with the banks and the Dodd-Frank “let’s put the small entity out of business while we bail out our cronies” Act. B of A, Chase and several others should have went bankrupt. Also, redlining by the government to MAKE banks loan money to people who shouldn’t get loans was also a big contributing factor. The problem stems from the government trying to make things “fair”.

    • James

      One of the problems is that socialism or “income equality” in its various forms makes two incorrect assumptions. First it assumes that there is a way to make everything “fair” and equal. There isn’t. Here is a simple example to illustrate the point. Someone has to enforce standards even if it is only in weights and measures to ensure fair value in trade. That person then, by the very nature of their position has more power than the common man. That is neither fair nor equal, and can lend itself to abusel. (Power corrupts…)

      The second assumption is perhaps the more important of the two. Socialists (leftists, advocates of income equality) belive that if everyone had the exact same things they would all perform as if they were at the very top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and be Self Motivated. The truth is very few people are. If you look at Maslow and then The Great Divergence which talks about income inequality you can see what I mean. TGD correctly points out that the people who finish college get paid more than those who do not. The same is true when comparing those who complete high school and those who do not as well as those who finish graduate school, or receive a doctorate. Then it talks about fixing the gap. That is not in and of itself a mistake if the gap is a gap in opportunity rather than outcome. If someone does not complete any level of education due to anything but their own individual desire or merit then that problem must be addressed. However, if they choose to drop out and never return, or are actually incapable of doing the work there is nothing to fix.

      There are pleanty of jobs available for those with the education to do them. The problem is the high school graduation percentages peaked in the 1970 which means we have an excess of uneducated labor, but we are in need of educated labor. This is one of the prime reasons the salaries for those positions that require secondary or tertiary education are so high, its simple supply and demand.

      In a socialist system where everyone is financially equal those who would “drop out” in a capitalist system have even less incentive to work. If I work my hardest all day and study all night to improve myself and my worth to the collective I get exactly the same thing as the guy who sits around all day and does little to nothing. This system provides a disincentive to work.

      Look at health care. One of the things people don’t seem to understand is that having benefits does not automatically mean you will find a doctor. Many physicians are not taking new patients because they cannot handle the amount they currently have. So granting people benefits does little to nothing unless more people can be encouraged to work for 20-25+ years to become “Doctors”. In case you think I’m kidding about those number do the math. We all start with K-12 (toss kindergarten if you like) assuming you finish High School before turning 18 and giving up. Thats 12-13 years, then college to get your BS is another 4, then you go to med school for 4 more, (although you may see patients starting in the 3rd year you have to have another Doctor immediately supervise you so you don’t really help with the availability problem since you can’t do anything by yourself). Think your done? Nope, now you spend time as an intern, then a resident which adds 2 to 4+ years depending on what type of Doctor you want to be. So on the low side we have 12+4+4+2=20 and on the high side 13+4+4+4*=25. *(Or more depending on the specialty.)

      There are other factors too. The cost of malpractice for a new OBGYN is so high they will end up with negative income by the end of the year (unless all their schooling is paid off). To work around this they normally begin their practice as GYNs until they have been in practive long enough for them to build a patient base and for their premiums to drop.

      So if a physician received absolutely nothing more than the guy sitting on the corner picking his nose either in money, or status, how many people would make the effort to become a doctor, pharmacist, nurse, lawyer, chemist, architect? Only those who had a burning passion for it, and that number would be far less than we have today.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Donna

    It is my opinion the more free a market is, the more new business in that market will have jobs available to compete for and compete for workers to help them make a profit. We can all start a business and become part of the Capitalist system. It’s the only system that makes sense. Big government puts its thumb on business in too many ways thereby driving up cost and increasing the cost of goods and services that employ workers.

    • Smilee

      Our Government has been corrupted by Big Business and in effect now runs the government. they control the air waves with their distorting rhetoric and make sure the laws that get written favor them and thus the vast majority of citizens get taken to the cleaners. They lobbied for the earned income credit in which the government subsidizes the low and now the not so low individual wage earners so that Big Business does not have to pay livable wages and this took place during the Reagan administration and in the mid nineties they greatly increased it that as well as other government benefits so people could get by on lower wages in addition to child care credits and subsidies that was so profitable that many corporations opened child care centers whom receive a lot of their income from government subsidies to low paid people and the wages have now gotten so low that almost fifty percent of these wage earners no longer pay income taxes due to very low wages they now get in addition to more food stamps and other programs. Before 1980 welfare was mostly for those not working today it is for almost half the nations employees whom actually have jobs. “The working poor” It is not big business that is hindered by big government as it is doing exactly what they want it to do and this corruption of government is nothing more that writing laws that allow them to gain large increases in their wealth through this method of legal theft. This does not begin to address the direct subsidies they receive from the taxpayers today as well as regulation with so many holes in it that they are regulations mostly in name only. Big Business with its high wealth controls government today and we the people are picking up the tab. How do you really feel about all the money distributed from your pocket to the pockets of all those underpaid workers while you business laugh all the way to the bank because you paid a portion of their employees wages for them. You are your government and it is time we quit hating government and get rid it of the corruption that now exists in government. You are the government and hating it is the same as hating yourself,

  • GALT

    Is the pope catholic?

    So Bob, a six minute soundbite defense of “capitalism”? or are you defending capitalists?

    If I understand this, capitalists CAN NOT exploit because of other capitalists……and labor therefor receives close to the value of it’s production? Even though it is the natural instinct
    of the capitalist to try to get as much labor as possible for the least amount of capital?

    To continue, capitalism requires free markets = ?

    Voluntary transactions + no regulation = free markets?

    This system then permits the little, itty bitty, tiny amount of profit to be realized by the intrepid, value creating, productive risk taking capitalist…………even if this means 400% gains, on capital itself? and let us NOT FORGET the natural urge for capitalists to compete at all costs………against other capitalists………..

    Unfortunately, as stated exploitation is the goal……..competition is NOT!!!!!!!!

    So it is natural for the capitalist to both exploit ( both admitted and expected behavior ) and to seek to avoid or eliminate competition if possible……and the means for doing so
    are available by any number of methods………….so if free markets are essential, to this system given these inputs……….the expected outcome is that labor IS exploited and the overall result is a negative for society in general.

    “A man must live by his work, and his wages must be at least enough to maintain him. They must even on most occasions be somewhat more: otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family and the RACE of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.”

    Labor Theory exists because CAPITALISM did not and has not produced any positive benefit for humanity ( currently at 7 billion and increasing ) so the there is no shortage of
    labor to exploit………and the REAL PROBLEM is that this argument regarding the choice of economic systems……….is a FALSE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

    Economic Theory is the PROBLEM because as it exists, it has no empirical relationship to REALITY, so despite the use of mathematics suggesting that the models offer a rigorous discipline that yields reliable, predictable and/or measurable outcomes……..there is no evidence to support this claim………by comparison, astrology offers an equal amount of credibility………..

    Lack of an empirical connection is due to the FACT that things like value, production, capital, etc. are all nebulous concepts …..and have no fixed definitions……..so it is not a matter of choosing among them………..they are all incomplete and doomed to failure, by themselves………but their existence indicates that they contain elements that must be addressed……….because they expose the deficiencies of each other………so the logical and intelligent solution is a synthesis that maximizes the positive and minimizes the negative of each and is built on an empirical connection to REALITY based on a valid and quantifiable measurement standard of true value and positive benefit for everyone.

    Conclusion ( for the functionally illiterate lacking comprehension skills yet are compelled to respond )

    The so called discipline of Economic’s and it’s Theories, are invalid because:

    1.) There is no empirical connection to the reality using a quantified measurement of value that is fixed and reliable.
    2.) Markets, commodities, value and many others things that represent an attempt to do so, are totally artificial constructions subject to perception and emotions, and the selfish aspects of human nature producing benefits for the minority and the expense of the majority………..resulting in continuous decline. ( to eventual extinction )
    3.) All subsets of the invalid theory of Economic’s are therefor invalid, so the choice offered here is a false one, and responses to this post defending or attacking these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor, ( no response required )

    Evidence and support for these conclusions and the understanding of the elements
    that need to be addressed to produce the empirical connection and synthesis required is available in:

    Economics Unmasked
    Debt the First 5000 Years
    Extreme Money
    Povver, Inc.
    The Great Divergence

    ” To conquer, first DIVIDE! ” ( and then hang separately )

    • James

      The basis of your refutation is that capitalists avoid competition or seek to eliminate it? So that’s why Burger King puts stores near McDonalds, and McDonalds loses money on every Happy Meal they sell?

      If your theory were correct no one would ever attempt to make a product similar to anyone else’s, yet within months of a new product or service hitting the market there are multiple capitalists out there with a similar item or service, usually for a much lower price.

      Lets go back to the fast food market example and your assertion that if there is competition then capitalists try and eliminate it. Oddly your assertion is SUPPORTIVE of what your trying to refute. How did McDonalds attempt to gain more market share in the 1980-1990′s? It sought to eliminate, the competition. In this case the competition was Hardees’s. How did McDonalds attempt to do that? It lowered its prices to the point it was losing money, believing it could outlast Hardees’s as McDonalds had more cash reserves.

      The benefits to labor were two fold. First they cut the cost of the food, giving consumers a better value. Second they paid the workers more to try and get the best people in the service industry to work for them giving laborers more income. The end result was that a number of Hardee’s stores in marginal profit areas did close, but McDonalds could not replace Hardee’s in the South simply because the people there preferred the food at Hardee’s.

      Your numbered points are specious at best.
      1.) There is no empirical connection to the reality using a quantified measurement of value that is fixed and reliable.

      If someone comes up with a better product the value of the previous product will decline. DVD players come along, VCRs drop in value, Blue-Ray players come along, DVDs drop in value. Why is that so hard to understand? If there is a blight and the amount of wheat produced drops, the price per unit will go up. If there are a very few people with the skill to do a job well the salary for that job will go up, if there are many people with the skill to do a job well the salary for that job will not. That is all pretty quantifiable. Predictability is another thing. Does not being able to predict new discoveries, natural disasters, wars, and everything else that influences the economy invalidate every theory? Of course not. Your assumption that there is some “Universal Constant” out there is what is causing you problems in understanding. A=B+C does not exist in this context. What does exist is a series of “IF Then” statements.

      2.) Markets, commodities, value and many others things that represent an attempt to do so, are totally artificial constructions subject to perception and emotions, and the selfish aspects of human nature producing benefits for the minority and the expense of the majority………..resulting in continuous decline. ( to eventual extinction )

      Everything is subject to perception, emotion, and impulse for personal gain, however unless an agreement is mutually beneficial no one will agree to it unless forced. If the forced agreement is too onerous then the person or people on the short end will break the agreement due to “the selfish aspects of human nature” i.e. the Colonies breaking away from the English Empire.

      3.) All subsets of the invalid theory of Economics’ are therefore invalid, so the choice offered here is a false one, and responses to this post defending or attacking these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor, ( no response required )

      First problem, you didn’t even come close to finding any problems with what was discussed, let alone all the “subsets”.

      Second you cannot say the theory’s are invalid and therefore the subsets are invalid. That’s a logical fallacy. Or if you prefer the Latin “post hoc ergo proctor hoc”.

      Third problem, saying “responses to this post defending or attacking these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor, ( no response required )” is the same as saying “Don’t confuse me with the facts because I’m right no matter what you say”.

      It is also an indication that you do not understand what ” empirical connection to the reality using a quantified measurement” means since you are misusing a phrase about the scientific method. A person conducting a study may have a theory but the theory and the conclusions of any study, OR review of that study or theory instantly become tainted when the person REFUSES to accept the possibility they may be wrong in their assumptions.

      Since you emphatically refuse to consider the possibility of being wrong you yourself have become subject to “perception and emotions” clouding your reasoning.

      I look forward to any and all logical response.

      • GALT

        Do you not understand what the subsets of Economic’s are?

        Did you miss the comparisons in the video and the comparisons in the essay leading to the conclusion?

        Familiar with Standard Oil? ATT? Cartels? Pricefixing? Insider Trading? Bubbles?

        How many of the listed books have you read? ( your response suggests none of them? )

        Do you know what an “empirical connection” is?

        Do you know what fraud is?

        Can you actually READ?

        Now let’s see if you can follow this……Economic’s is not a “science” or a “scientific discipline”…..therefor none of the possible variants, can be scientific, nor expected to
        work,,,,,,,,,and they do NOT work…….. ( and each, as stated, is a response to the deficiencies of the other’s…..so choosing between them is a false choice ? )

        Now you felt compelled to respond as expected…….pose questions that were already answered and cite examples which are irrelevant…….to pose questions which are irrelevant…..and end with:

        “Since you emphatically refuse to consider the possibility of being wrong you yourself have become subject to “perception and emotions” clouding your reasoning.

        So I will repeat:

        Evidence and support for these conclusions and the understanding of the elements
        that need to be addressed to produce the empirical connection and synthesis required is available in:

        Economics Unmasked
        Debt the First 5000 Years
        Extreme Money
        Power, Inc.
        The Great Divergence

        Now the first one will take care of the “invalidity” and demonstrate what
        the empirical connection should be……..the rest are how we got here
        and where we actually are……..at which point you may be capable of

        “an intelligent logical response”…….

        at worst, you at least have the possibility of being “less willfully ignorant”…….

        Are you wrong? Willing to consider the possibility? Let’s see…….?

      • James

        Your book list in point of fact negates alot of your own assertions. Economics Unmasked asserts that the wealthy manipulate the numbers to control perception and protect their own wealth.

        There is an emprirical relationship according to Max-Neef and Smith, you just never see the right numbers. The problem with Unmasked is the same problem all BIG CONSPIRACY theorys have. If more than one person knows the secret, it won’t be a secret for long.

        Which leads into Debt The first 5,000 Years. According to Greaber people rebel when the wealthy and powerful get out of control. Which is, ironically, exactly what the video was saying.

        So I suggest you go re-read all the books in your list, only this time do it with a dictionary in your lap.

        Here are the definitions of a few words your currently misusing or misunderstanding just to save you some time.

        em·pir·i·cal
        derived from or guided by experience or experiment (see Science)
        OR provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (again see Science)

        sci·ence
        a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
        OR systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
        OR any of the branches of natural or physical science.
        OR systematized knowledge in general.
        OR knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study

        ec·o·nom·ics
        ( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
        ( used with a plural verb ) financial considerations; economically significant aspects: What are the economics of such a project?

      • GALT

        What was supposed to be here is below……..

  • Palin16

    The 99% (Occupiers) are really the 0.01%.

  • s c

    Geepers, kids. Other than ‘religion,’ nothing brings out retarded parrots quite like the “exploitation of workers” topic (thank LENIN and Marx for that insane term). For those who can read and write [and THINK], when exploitation is brought up, you must bring up the EXPLOITATION of an entire nation via UNIONS, our ‘friends’ in Russia, public education, p c insanity and the sickness known as no personal standards..
    Ask a ‘Democrat’ about the MANY ways they exploit Amerikans. They should know, people. They’ve been doing it for MANY generations. It’s probably in their collective DNA.
    When you’re trying to ensalve the last free nation on the planet, putting your own kids in chains is a SMALL price to pay {ref. the ends justify the means}.

    • James

      I understand your frustration. I know that your not likely to change the mind of people like GALT who publicly admit they refuse to listen. I would like you to remember something when you feel the need to vent. Most elections are determined by the undecided and it is in our best interest to put our opinions out with as much supporting evidence as possible and to keep it as civil as possible because you never know when an voter who is up for grabs may be reading.

      • GALT

        Really? You have a very vivid imagination……..what is there that I should be listening too?
        What are you seeking to change my mind about? Do you imagine that any of this is “new to me”……….

        On the other hand, if you have not read any of the listed books, all of what I have presented here will be NEW to YOU……….and you will also understand, what the subject actually is……….although after you are, it will be interesting to see…….what you will find that I need to be convinced of…….or need to listen to………since your reality will be quite
        different than what you believe it to be at the moment…….

        In the interest of accuracy…..I refuse to listen to the “wilfully ignorant”……

        The choice is up to you……….but the subject here is not “capitalism v. labor theory”…..

        So there is nothing here for ME to be listen to or be convinced of………

      • James

        Why in the world are you responding to me about a comment I made to SC? This was not directed at you. If you want to comment about this comment then please re-read SCs comment and my response so you get the context.

        It should become clear to you that I was simply suggesting we all present our arguments (both for and against) in a civil mannner. Name calling and insults don’t help us understand each other, nor will it illustrate the argument for those who are undecided no matter what the topic.

        I will respond to one item in your reply. I see no reference to “wilfully ignorant” responses or any other qualification. You stated in your original post and I quote:
        “responses to this post defending or attacking these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor, ( no response required )”

        For that reason I do not belive I could do or say anything to change your views, and I’m not trying to. All I was attempting to do was to point out that you had stated your argument in a less than convincing way. You may be right in your argument because I know one irrefutable fact .

        I am not omnicient.

        Since I am not “all knowing” I could be wrong. The way you stated your argument had logical and linguistic holes in it. Some of your statements contradicted the sources of knowlege you cite which undermines your credibility.

        Why did you say Irrelevant and non sequitor…were you going for a humorous ending?

        non se·qui·tur: is not clearly related to anything previously said
        ir·rel·e·vant: is not applicable or pertinent to the topic or situation

        The denotation is synonymous, even if the connotation is slightly different.

      • GALT

        You made a reference to me, that was sufficient reason……and since you posted above,
        the only other point that needs to made here……is that willfull ignorance is a descriptive condition………or did you have something else in mind with the “name calling”?

      • GALT

        And to continue from below, James, we can add the description “functionally illiterate” also as a condition…….

        Your book list in point of fact negates alot of your own assertions. Economics Unmasked asserts that the wealthy manipulate the numbers to control perception and protect their own wealth.

        I hope that you are not claiming to have actually read it, because my advice to you is, that you should read it again, for the first time? Your understanding of what the book said would hardly constitute an “unmasking” of economics……..

        What the book does do at the outset, is demonstrate that economics is NOT a science, and why this is true……..which refutes your dictionary definition stating that it is….and your understanding of what dictionaries do, as opposed to what they should do…….which in the present, seems to be the destruction of meaning, rather than defining it…….a simple example would be decimate: which has managed to become a synonym for annihilate and is now commonly used to define catastrophe’s, battle casualties, death tolls, etc. Dictionaries seem to be based on “usage”…….get enough ignorant people using a word incorrectly enough times and you can alter the meaning of a word to anything you like….as this site demonstrates on a daily basis…..but back to the book.

        It traces this pseudo science from it’s modern daddy, Adam Smith, the source of the unattributed quote used in my essay ( page 26 ), in it’s attempt to attain such status through the use of mathematics, in mimicry of Newton to the present day absurdity of the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics ( in memory of Alfred Nobel ) as a Nobel Prize, which is not as bad as the KKK’s Martin Luther King award, but not by much.

        There is an emprirical relationship according to Max-Neef and Smith, you just never see the right numbers.

        Really? Not the book I read…….the empirical relationship that the book does establish begins with the deconstruction of the “growth model” of economics……infinite growth requires infinite resources, which are not available to us……..so the empirical connection required by economics to become a “science”, needs to be founded on the Laws of Thermodynamics, because the present theories and models are derived largely from the effects of using stored energy…….a source which is NOT infinite and therefor unsustainable and whose reality is slowly re-asserting itself…….and meeting obvious resistance from the direct beneficiaries as well as the future victims, who are ignorant, willfully ignorant, functionally illiterate, lazy, stupid or too scared to consider the changes that will be required to alter this path.

        It continues by demonstrating the myths that are currently being used to “deny” the TRUTH of this “empirical connection”, such as “infinite sustainability, the environmental Kuznets curve”, etc. as well as showing the real debts and the energy costs of energy, and the contribution to this idiocy by measuring “wealth in terms of money”.
        And there is MORE: but at this point it is clear that we haven’t read the same book, or you are clearly in one or more of the descriptive groups above……..

        Which leads into Debt The first 5,000 Years. According to Greaber people rebel when the wealthy and powerful get out of control. Which is, ironically, exactly what the video was saying.

        Does it? Given your comprehension of the first book I suppose that you might believe that to be true……..but again, your description does not seem to embrace anything resembling the book that I read, which is two and half times longer than the first one, is based on archaeological evidence, and begins….again…..by smacking Adam Smith upside the head by refuting his mythological, barter, money, credit sequence and showing that the evidence indicates the proper sequence is credit ( until 800-600 BC ): money introduced primarily for funding armies, conquest, etc. and then barter: when these monetary systems break down.

        It deals with……..wait for it………DEBT: ( what a shock ) and the various responses to it through out history……as well as the cultural differences regarding it, using various examples…….. ( read book for specifics ) as well as the primary mechanism of incurring, increasing and immortalizing debt through USURY. ( with various examples depending on the system in place ( credit, money or barter ) and other things, like slavery, forgiveness, bankruptcy, etc. ) and it identifies the actual source of “markets”….and it demonstrates that europe is irrelavent to most of world history until the sixteenth century, where most of the gold and silver ended up, and why this brief bump is coming to an end.

        So at this point, not so ironically, these books have nothing to do with the video, which is a defense of capitalism vs labor theory in the attempt to demonstrate that exploitation of labor does not occur. ( and can not because of the virtues of capitalism )

        We have now successfully completed the loop…….and you may return to my original post……..and start again………and if your comprehension fails regarding the meaning of invalid, subsets, economics, and/or empirical……and responses which might be non sequitor and/or irrelevant……you might try actually READING the books…….because you are correct, you are not omniscient……..and that may be only the beginning of your problems?

      • James

        Galt… Do you really read the replys instead of scanning them? I ask becuse I clearly stated the comments were directed to S C and his/her use of language. While calling everyone who responds to your post “willfully ignorant” is certainly not a nice thing to say, and certainly isn’t going to help you convert anyone to your way of thinking, it is a mild rebuke compared to some of S Cs comments.

        SC used the words “retarded parrots”, implied anyone who disagreed with Livingston was a communist, lacked the power of rational thought, and was willing to make slaves of their children.

        I would hope we could agree the sort of language S C used is inappropriate, even if it is the only thing we agree on.

      • GALT

        I thought my first response made that clear……..

        I know that your not likely to change the mind of people like GALT who publicly admit they refuse to listen.

        s.c. did not address me directly and as a result I have no reason to care what he has to say………nor do many other’s……..if you wish to waste your time attempting to change a pattern of behavior or style, with someone who has never deviated from it…..feel free.

        Unfortunately, you made reference to me in doing so…….and whatever you were attempting, your characterization was challenged…….and clarification was requested…..

        Hopefully you understand the rest of my responses and I apologize for the mispost, regarding “economics” and your claim to having read the books……..

        I could have posted it above too, and can if you want………

        s.c. will not change, anymore than DavidH,, Vigilant, or the guy who insists on
        posting in all caps………and no doubt many more……..

        Changing the behavior of these people……..consists of teaching them NOT TO RESPOND
        to me……..or even show up in any thread, where I happen to be……..and my primary target is and has always been, the MAIN author’s of these crap topics……which prompts the frenzied idiocy that follows……………..which if posted early enough usually limits it to a minimum………..but in any case, I have no enemies here……..and I agree, meaningful dialog is difficult………but from time to time, a point can be made….and someone re-directed to consider what would constitute “enlightened self interest”………..

        Your mild rebuke aside…….you should understand that I am willing to attempt to explain what I decide to write about to whatever extent is required………with whomever seeks to
        understand or merely pretends to…….and so you should have no further questions, including my “insertion” into your attempted instruction of s.c………which you could have avoided by not attempting to use me as an example AND getting it wrong to boot…..

        Whether you choose to agree or not, I can not control……..my goal, is simply to eliminate
        any doubt…….that no reasonable basis exists to grant any credibility to support that disagreement………capisk? ( capice in italian , probably sans accent mark )

        • James

          So your intent is to make sure no one replies to you? Perhaps I can help, because there is a very simple solution. Send your response directly to the author rather than posting it in public. It will save you endless hours of attempting to bully people into leaving you alone.

      • James

        Galt..there is no way I am going to do a full summary of all the points made in even one of the books listed. If I did that I might as well submitt it as a doctoral thesis. At this point I feel like one of the blind men arguing about what they are touching (an elephant) based on the limited area they can reach, because the books and the videos make similar points, despite your assertion to the contrary.

        Lets see if we can get one point of reference in common. Yes, the english dictionary is a “as in use” dictionary. The word “Science” is not something I see as having been corrupted by slang, especially when you use it in terms of the last definition “knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study”.

        Every book you cite is a scientific study where factual information and thoretical principals are studied systematically. In order to disprove something effectively (A. Smiths theorys in this case) you have to use historical facts and figures or set up a controlled test to generate repetable results. Obviously we can’t create an alternative world and experiment on it so we use historical data. This all fits into the definition of science, so why in the world do you continue to argue it is not a science and that scientific principals do not apply?

        Early physics models of collisions were not all that reliable because they did not account for the variables of elastisity (energy lost in the deformation of the objects) and the effects of friction (resistance to movement caused by one object moving across another object while under the effects of gravity or pressure). They weren’t wrong just incomplete. Which brings up another place you contradict yourself.

        You state “so the logical and intelligent solution is a synthesis that maximizes the positive and minimizes the negative of each and is built on an empirical connection to REALITY based on a valid and quantifiable measurement standard of true value and positive benefit for everyone.” This conflicts with the earlier statement “there is no evidence to support this claim (that) the use of mathematics suggesting that the models offer a rigorous discipline that yields reliable, predictable and/or measurable outcomes.” because according to you the current theories are absolutely wrong and have “no empirical connection to the reality using a quantified measurement of value that is fixed and reliable.”

        One last quote from you I would like to use to illustrate the point. You clearly state “these books have nothing to do with the video”, yet in the video it clearly makes the point that it is difficult (not impossible) for the capitalists (or government) to exploit the workers because they will rebel if they are paid so little they cannot live without wallowing in debt. In one of your favorite books DEBT: The First 5,000 Years it clearly states many armed conflicts have started because the wealthy elite and govenment exploited the farmers/laborers by indebting them to the point their children were forced into debt peonage.

        In other words you can only push a man so far before he punches you in the face, either litterally or figuratively. Both the video and the book make the point that it has happened many times in our history, the video simply adds that since this is a well known historical fact about economics, todays capitalists GENERALLY refrain from pusing the workers too far.

        No one, not even you, is omnicient. You are however passionate about your position, which is a very good thing, because the bane of a free republic is apathy. People must care about what is going on in the world and freely debate it, no matter what their opinion, so that when the elections are held we are informed about the candidates and can vote for the person who is most qualified to do the job, not because he/she belongs the same party as I do. Currently there is not enough meaningful disscusion and we keep electing people who “present well” but have no other qualifications for the job.

        The only danger in being passionate is that it can lead to illogical conclusions, disregarding what the “other guys” are saying, and twisting the facts to support our position. That is why I encourage people to speak in a civil manner and to use the scientific method anytime they try to make a decision because it is always applicable.

        You have made some obvious errors, either in reading the books or looking at the video. I would guess it’s probably the video since I highly doubt you read the books after you saw the video. Try looking at it again since your preconceptions seem to have made you miss the fact that part of the support for Livingstons argument was in agreement with the historical facts in Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Either that or you just can’t stand to admit you made a mistake.

      • GALT

        No one is asking for a dissertation, simply respond to the points raised as to what is actually SIGNIFICANT in the book(s)……which you avoid, so again non sequitor, and then you seek to mis-state what was said……regarding the subsets, which is irrelevant.

        1.) the subject is the validity of economics. As explained it is not valid, which is covered in the book and could not be missed by anyone who actually read it, including the empirical
        connection which is established using the Laws of Thermodynamics. ( and explained in the book. ) What emerges from this empirical connection, makes references to the present subsets irrelevant, since they no longer exist………in any recognizable form, and neither does Economics, since the measurement system is no longer based on money.

        2.) the original essay deals with these subsets in reference to this video as a false choice, since the foundation upon which they rest is INVALID ( see paragraph 1. ) The paragraph which you misrepresent, states that as subsets of the present INVALID theory, their existence is simply a response to their individual deficiencies……Labor Theory does not arise because Capitalism works, it is a response to the FACT that it doesn’t work, and in turn, also fails, because it to is based on an invalid foundation, that of economics itself.
        The synthesis, btw, does require the empirical connection to be present which is clearly present in the paragraph you quote.

        So, we have not, nor have never been talking about the same thing, which was anticipated and the purpose of the non-sequitor/ irrelevant warning……..and are still not, nor is there any indication that you read the books………and if you actually did, you have far more serious problems than I can remedy……btw I acknowledged your confession of non omniscience……..I did not claim it for myself…….and Mr. Livingston has not read these books either…….the closest he’s gotten to any of this stuff, is Confessions of an Economic hit man and a book by Buckminster Fuller, which he has removed from his reading list,
        and the only thing that suggested he had anything intelligent to offer. This site is for business……..it has no other purpose……..the primary posts are to invite and incite potential customer’s…..which explains the normal idiocy which is the daily result…..although I question that any of the poster’s here are contributing to the income stream…….but then again, how many do you actually need?

        For future reference, many of my posts are directed at focusing on asking the right questions…….which is clearly a challenge for most here, since they have all the answers and solutions to everything……..and can also read minds, assign political affiliations,
        discern one’s lifestyle, and recognize that all the people that disagree with them, are in fact “one and the same” and of course PAID, to disrupt this hotbed of revolution…..

        If you do seek to engage me in the future, you may wish to verify that you actually grasp
        what is being said, rather than assuming that you do……..saves a lot of time, as you can see, since most of this exchange has been wasted…….with you telling me what I mean, and then arguing with your own misconceptions…….while ducking my questions and ignoring the attempted re-direct……..but that is up to you…….

        ” To conquer, first DIVIDE! ” ( and then hang separately )

        • James

          I love the fact that you choose not to answer any question I raise declaring them all “non sequitor” yet you expect me to respond in detail to all of your questions. Even when I do respond, pointing out provable errors like your assertion that nothing in the video has any relation to Debt: The First 5,000 Years you just ignore it. I also love the fact that you seem to think your omniscient, or at the very least refuse to acknowledge you are not, despite the fact you keep misspelling non sequitur.

      • GALT

        P.S. you do realize that other than the fact that his name is displayed, this video is not by Livingston……..nor has he deigned to comment on it, or respond to my post which was directed at him…….not you?

        • James

          Even though your stated goal “consists of teaching them NOT TO RESPOND
          to me……..or even show up in any thread, where I happen to be” Im going to respond by repeating my earlier suggestion.

          If you don’t want to be part of a discussion don’t post. Simply email the author (or in this case) the person who posted the video.

      • GALT

        James, you really, really, really DO need to work on your comprehension skills…..where does it say I do not want to part of the discussion? Why would I want to conduct a private conversation with any of the author’s who initiate or attempt to initiate a topic?

        My purpose regarding the author’s is clear, those who need to be trained and have been,
        are identified…..Inter-actions between Mr. Livingston and I, were minimal in the beginning
        and none for quite some time now…….but it did require his unquestioning lap dogs a bit of time to catch on……..and if you object to s.c.’s approach, you’ll really love these guys.

        Thanks for the advice, n/a of course……when or until next time, take care.

        • James

          ” …..where does it say I do not want to part of the discussion?”

          That’s a joke right? You have got to be kidding. OK, guess not. Let me refresh your memory with a direct quote from you. No retyping or paraphrasing just good old copy and paste.

          “Changing the behavior of these people……..consists of teaching them NOT TO RESPOND to me……..or even show up in any thread, where I happen to be……..”

          “and responses to this post defending or attacking these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor, ( no response required )

          The funniest thing about your disclaimer at the end of your post is that you are telling everyone not to reply, even if they agree with you!

          Im going to guess you don’t see that, so let me explain. You state all the subsets of economics are false. Then you say anyone “defending or ATTACKING these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor.” Getting the picture now? If they are also attacking the subsets of economics they are also saying they are false which supports your position.

          Simply put, your telling people who agree with you that any input they might have is irrelevant and non sequitur. So forget trying to influence people who disagree with you, work on trying not to insult the people who agree with you.

          As to your wonderful comment about my lack of comprehension let me say this. Communication is only possible when the sender and receiver both work at making things clear. If my comprehension seems lacking to you, perhaps you are being unclear or are misunderstanding what I am saying.

          Your paragraphs are not nearly as bad as this example, so please don’t take this literally. Just look at this then look at what you have written as if you were a college professor grading a paper for readability and clarity.

          Perhaps by…conclusions.. eliminating the …you might…. style of stringing….together out of order….. making it perfectly clear…arguements.. before..the disjointed…facts….topic…..irrelevant statements that call to…make your …an earlier discussion…returning to the current….thrown in for no clear reason….rambling.

          Perhaps by eliminating the disjointed rambling style of stringing together out of order facts, conclusions, irrelevant statements that call to an earlier discussion, (thrown in for no clear reason, before returning to the current topic), you might make your arguements perfectly clear.

          Same words, different order and correct punctuation (for the most part).

          OMG. I was re-reading your posts and mine and there is simply no way you could possibly believe the statements you made indicate in any way shape or form that you want to have a discussion, with anyone, about anything. Unless you were trying to bait people into an argument. You refuse to address or acknowledge your self contradictions, argue simple definitions, your just trolling for someone to argue with aren’t you?

          No one could be arrogant enough to think themselves omniscient. No one is so ignorant they could not see that they have made contradicting statements. Ok come clean are you a TROLL or some sort of anarchist?

      • GALT

        James, you don’t come off a being someone that is without potential intelligence, but this is getting to be like a remedial reading class……..I am going to do this one LAST time, and I am going to go S L O W L Y and C A R E F U L L Y so you can F O L L O W me……
        O K A Y ?

        ” …..where does it say I do not want to part of the discussion?”

        That’s a joke right? You have got to be kidding. OK, guess not. Let me refresh your memory with a direct quote from you. No retyping or paraphrasing just good old copy and paste.

        “Changing the behavior of these people……..consists of teaching them NOT TO RESPOND to me……..or even show up in any thread, where I happen to be……..”

        Functionally illiterate? Can not manage to follow contextual flow? Or relevance?
        Let’s see……..while your cut and paste is well done in that you managed to get the WHOLE sentence………standing alone like that, it doesn’t support your conclusion
        unless you make an ASSUMPTION…….and that just “makes and ASS of YOU and
        UMPTION!” Some one who wasn’t LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT would have needed
        to ask a question………..Who are THESE PEOPLE whose BEHAVIOR needed to be CHANGED? For you to reach your conclusion THESE PEOPLE must mean everyone, since that is the only way discussion does not happen…….

        Of course an INTELLIGENT person, wouldn’t have had to make an assumption……..
        and someone who wasn’t looking for an argument ( because they can’t admit they’re wrong and won’t quit ) when searching desperately in hind sight, might have noticed
        that the question of who THESE PEOPLE were…..was no mystery. Watch how easy this is:

        “s.c. will not change, anymore than DavidH,, Vigilant, or the guy who insists on
        posting in all caps………and no doubt many more……..

        Changing the behavior of these people……..consists of teaching them NOT TO RESPOND to me……..”

        All you had to do was read the preceding sentence to know who these people are,
        or copy and paste it here……and your question is asked and answered……clearly not everyone……..but there is always room for more, are you applying? Wanna know how the training of DavidH and Vigilant was accomplished…….just like this……and while like you, they continued to post and claim victory……..they looked like fools to any third party.
        This achieved the final step…….avoiding the threads I post in……Livingston, got to watch this…..even tried to interfere……but he is not a stupid man……..which is why, we have not had any problems…….and when he is challenged, he is also smart enough to see where the path leads…….so his main tactic is to avoid going there.

        “and responses to this post defending or attacking these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor, ( no response required )

        The funniest thing about your disclaimer at the end of your post is that you are telling everyone not to reply, even if they agree with you!

        Im going to guess you don’t see that, so let me explain. You state all the subsets of economics are false. Then you say anyone “defending or ATTACKING these subsets are irrelevant and non sequitor.” Getting the picture now? If they are also attacking the subsets of economics they are also saying they are false which supports your position.

        What picture? BTW You devote another paragraph and repeat this
        ( in other words ) and then say……..

        As to your wonderful comment about my lack of comprehension……

        “He who laughs last……..” One more TIME……..M O R E SLOWLY.”

        1.) Lacking an empirical connection to REALITY, ( the set ) ECONOMICS, is invalid. ( see Economics Unmasked, directly as well as clarifications already offered referencing it. )

        2.) This primary post was in response to the video, which concerned two subsets, Capitalism and Labor Theory ( Marx )……a defense of one, concerning an attack
        by the other. ( exploitation )

        3.) A relevant response is one that agreed or disagreed with the validity of ECONOMICS based on the lack of the “empirical connection”. ( any reference
        to the subsets is irrelevant………….any argument that did not address the
        “empirical connection”…….would be ( non sequitor ).

        Therefor sequitor responses;

        4.) I agree that Economics is invalid because it lacks an empirical connection. ( to REALITY )…….or
        I disagree that Economics is invalid because it lacks an empirical connection.
        ( because )

        While you have claimed that you are not omniscient, your behavior seems to suggest otherwise…….you see things that do not exist, assign meaning which is not there, and then seek to argue……..what has not been said……..based on a comprehension, you do not have…….and you just keep going.

        Now you have a number of choices here……….the first one is, to consider that all the
        things you have said ( several times ) in your last post, seem to apply to YOU…….

        An intelligent person seeking to engage in a reasonable discussion or debate when
        seeing something that they do not understand or are not clear on, DOES NOT attempt
        an ARGUMENT. There is a simple method to avoid making this mistake, which should be quite obvious to you, since I have used it any number of times here……..

        So…..Do you FINALLY understand that #4 above is the point of my post…..in response to the video?

        Do you FINALLY understand ( comprehend ) the meaning, nature and limits of the WARNING?

        BTW you might be interested to know that the ending of your post…….

        No one could be arrogant enough to think themselves omniscient. No one is so ignorant they could not see that they have made contradicting statements. Ok come clean are you a TROLL or some sort of anarchist?

        I am, to answer your question…… a “e.i.P.L.F.” (c) all rights reserved, and clearly
        since you seem to know everything…….no explanation should be required. None, will be given in any case, until and when I am ready.

        Your ending is similar to that of “those people”……….in the final stages…..in actuality,
        it was all they could manage most of the time, anyway…….sorry if the “style” bothers
        you………..there is a point, but I won’t bother you with an explanation……since previous attempts have been wasted……..and this little exercise, is the last bit of time I am willing to waste………on you.

        There are questions here, response is not optional, failure to respond is a response.

        ( think you can figure out what that means? )

        • James

          Your secondary statement regarding whom you are trying to train not to respond does list some examples it also states “and no doubt many more…” making it open ended. You do not in any location indicate you would like to disscuss anything. In fact your initial “( No Response Required )” disclaimer is a blanket statement to everyone. How you can fail to comprehend that is beyond me.

          Since you cannot seem to comprehend you are issuing blanket statements, or your own glaring self contradiction, in addition to your bizzar addiction to ellipsis (You do understand that …. indicates you are intentionally leaving out one or more words in a sentece?), I have been forced to conclude you are in fact a TROLL.

          One friendly bit of advice. Since I did not immediately recognize e.i.P.L.F. I looked it up under copyright since you indicated it was copyrighted material. I did not find it, obviously since it is not registered. You should avoid doing that in the future, although I’m going to assume it was a joke rather than reporting it. All though why I think you will understand the law is probably a bad assumption since you can’t understand that the systematic study of any topic is a science.

          FALSE USE OF COPYRIGHT NOTICE

          The present copyright law (17 U.S.C. sec. 105) makes the following provision to prevent the misuse of the copyright notice:
          Any person who, with fraudulent intent, shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this title, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article, or with fraudulent intent shall remove or alter the copyright notice upon any article duly copyrighted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000. Any person who shall knowingly issue or sell any article bearing a notice of United States copyright which has not been copyrighted in this country, or who shall knowingly import any article bearing such notice or words of the same purport, which has not been copyrighted in this country, shall be liable to a fine of $100.

      • GALT

        James, you really don’t know much about anything…..key phrase is “required by this title”,
        which doesn’t apply to me……..and since this a statute, unless there is an implementing regulation, it wouldn’t apply to anyone unless they were stupid enough to believe it…..no doubt you would be one of those……a theory which we can test right now.

        James you are charged with ( any bs statute you like ). How do you plead?

        Now the nasty part, which is the fine……..which I could not possibly pay so the action would be a waste of time……but extremely dangerous for you, especially if you got someone to listen to you, because then you would be guilty of fraud and violation of 18 USC 241, an would enjoy free r& b for 10 years in a comfy federal facility……

        Nice last gasp closing though…..”many”…. to you means ” everyone”…….fortunately for you, no one has witnessed your less than stellar performance here…….which any unbiased person would be happy to tell you……..i am sorry you are so intellectually fragile……..if you plan on sticking around and engaging the likes of s.c. or any of the livingston lap dogs, you may reflect back on your time with me here with fondness…
        have fun…….I will check back to see how you responded to the charge…..other than that,
        have a nice life……

        • James

          Wow, talk about big assumptions!
          1. You assume people can’t be prossecuted for false use of copyright marks and statements under US Code?
          2. You can’t possibly have assumed I sent you the whole statute, did you?
          3. You incorrectly assumed the phrase “as required by this title” meant you didn’t fit the requirements when in fact it refers to the proper form and format of a copyright notice i.e. the small c within a circle. It goes on to say “or words of the same purport” to stop sneaky people from putting something similar, but not exactly the same, on their works to avoid the copyright fees and avoid the penalties for misuse.

          However, if your not attempting to sell or liscence the work, I seriously doubt you would be prosecuted even if you sent a copy directly to the copyright office with a note attached saying “hey this doesn’t apply to me”. Whoops! I made an assumption.
          Ok, they might prosecute you if the note was really, really rude.
          Library of Congress
          Copyright Office
          101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
          Washington, D.C. 20559-6000

          Your code reference is just plain funny.

          4. You assume that making a suggestion to help keep you out of potential trouble I could possibly be infringing on your rights i.e. freedom of speech? What a crazy assumption! All I said was don’t claim it’s copyright material if itsn’t! That’s the same as saying hey if thats illegal don’t do it.

          I said nothing about teaching you not to respond to me or even show up in any thread, where I happen to be. Oh, wait, that was you.

          It does not matter how inane or enlightened the comment the right to speak (type in this case) and be heard(read) is protected, unless they are commiting libel, or violating legal restrictions regarding priviledged or classified information (or violating the terms of use of the site). Your practice of teaching people not to respond, and to avoid any topic you choose to attempt to dominate no matter if is directed at one or all however does fits 18 USC 241 far better than anything I have ever written. Depending on your current location you could also potentially be charged with Cyber-Bullying, and or Cyber-Stalking.

          If you knew anything at all about the law you would have accused me of violating the statutes about Non-Lawyers Dispensing Legal Advice (illegal in 49 of the 50 states under various headings) and/or accusing me of practicing Law on the internet without pass the Multi-State Bar. Which would have been assumption #5 and/or #6, but those would be fairly safe assumptions since you and I could be in any english speaking part of the planet, or you and/or I could be bilingual, so the odds of us being in the same jurisdiction is slim, and as stated before you and I don’t know what each other do for a living do we?

          Which take me back to the original topic. Math is not perfect yet it is a science. Physics both theoretical and applied makes some reasonable assumptions, therefore they are not as pure as math, yet are also science. Chemistry (Physical, Quantitative, Qualitative,…) makes even more assumptions and yet is still a science. Yes, the more variables there are, the more assumptions we make the less “pure” the science. It does not change the fact that the systematic study of anything is still a science.

          Economics makes lots of assumptions, and may or may not account properly for all the variables at any given time. Yes, resources are finite. So are the grains of sand on the beaches of Maui. If your economy was based on selling those individual grains at a price that gave you enough income to sustain your lifestyle at 1,000 grains per year you will be dead long before it runs out. So it doesn’t matter in this case that it is finite. What matters is will the fact that we are treating something as infinite matter when it is not.

          Yes, we will run out of oil, etc., etc,. etc… Simply because we will run out of a resource does not mean that you cannot apply scientific methods to an analysis of the economy, no matter what theory you ascribe to, or are trying to refute. Yes you have to be mindful of when we are going to run out of a particular resource because when the material becomes scares the model will have to be adjusted. The question is when will we run out, when will the system fail? If the resource/system is going to run out/fail after the sun goes nova, it really doesn’t make any difference does it?

          This planet is only one grain of sand in the universe. We know we can get to our moon, we have proven Mars is feasible with current technology. Will we go further? Who know? We should husband our resources like we won’t be able to gather any useable resources from anywhere else. We should constantly look at ways to improve while doing our best to make that effort a waste of time by getting off this planet and expanding our pool of resources.

          5. Your biggest assumption of all is that we are doomed to failure on our current course.

          This type of thinking promotes hasty, poorly thought out changes based on the assumption that “anything” is better than this. I believe the best description of that is what falls from the southern end of an equine facing north.

          Capitalism is as close to a true meritocracy as we can get. You should get what you deserve based on the level of effort you put out. When people see they can get ahead by working hard they try harder, unless of course someone is trying to get donations from those people to “speak for them to the oppressors” while telling them “we can’t get ahead because we are (insert random group description here)!”

          Without some benevolent all knowing all powerful force decending and taking control of this planet capitalism is the best economics gets. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? No. Why? Human beings are not perfect, so nothing we do will ever be perfect. Does that mean we trash everything we do simply because its not perfect? That would make even less sense. Do we need to be vigilant and watch for abuses? Absolutely!

          One final question. What exactly do you think you accomplish yammering on like you do and attempting to stifle free speech? That’s rhetorical by the way. You should concider changing your handle to Don Quixote. All your doing is tilting at windmills, although I’m sure you think your casting pearls before swine.

          TTFN

      • GALT

        You didn’t plead to the charge………another non sequitor, extremely irrelevant post, which
        insists on the continued demonstration of your functional illiteracy and wilfull ignorance.

        Feeling bullied? aw…..somehow that hasn’t stopped you from exercising your right to continue to demonstrate your inability to grasp what the relevant response was…under your right to free speech………the last time I checked though, it doesn’t include any requirement that I respond to it…….or can not set the conditions under which I will respond to it. I did, You failed to meet them…….and you are still talking about the subsets.

        So continuing the demonstration of your grasp of language skills…….you believe that most people would regard the following…..

        You should avoid doing that in the future, although I’m going to assume it was a joke rather than reporting it.

        as friendly legal advice? Let me be of some assistance to you….

        e.i.P.L,F. (c) P.L.F. (c) w.i.A.L.F. (c) A.L.F. (c) P.L.F.ism (c) “all rights reserved” and just for fun UCC 1-207/308 “without prejudice”

        Definitely not a joke…….so you no longer have to assume. ( must be a refreshing change for you NOT having to make assumptions in order to twist meaning so that you can pretend to argue against it? Now you have something very precious and rare in life…CERTAINTY.)

        The Science of Law? The Science of Mathematics?

        The last time I checked, one required a licence to “practice” the first, and in the second case, one was THE language of the other……..

        The training which seems to be of some concern to you, is entirely self induced and self re-enforcing……….the process is the same……but eventually, others will become involved and the balance shifts……..goals and intent become clear as rhetoric fails to establish consistency or logical foundation…….and in having no support……the w.i.A.L.F. makes a choice regarding the appropriate action.

        This was a fairly simple exercise…..with a very specific topic….Economics is invalid because it rests on a non empirical foundation……..and while it uses mathematics
        in an attempt to quantify certain things in terms of value and establish relationships between them……..these fail, because there is no empirical basis on which this value
        has been or can be shown to have been reliably assigned.

        It is therefor irrelevant to argue which of the failed variants of an invalid approach is to
        be preferred……( and attempts to do so……such as the video….would be non sequitor )

        Economics Unmasked provides the basis and support for this, and also the means
        by which an empirical foundation can be established.

        You claimed to have read this book……..yet there is no evidence that you have….and
        you persist in arguing for that which has been demonstrated to be invalid, in a form that is the WORST possible variant…….without reference to the suggested alteration, in either acknowledgement of, or argument against, or the obvious consequences of failing to do so.

        In short, you are irrelevant and have firmly established your credentials as just another
        w.i.A.L.F. ( c ) Thank you for the exercise, but your time has expired.

        ” To conquer, first DIVIDE! ” ( and then HANG, separately )

        • James

          Classic!

          Ignore the points the other person makes, accuse them of mental deficiencies, spew forth a continuous stream of disconnected nonsensical gibberish until the other person looks confused, then declare yourself the victor.

          Wonderful political tactics. What office are you running for?

      • GALT

        James says:
        August 26, 2012 at 7:46 am
        Classic!

        Rope a Dope? Yes it is and it is extremely effective.
        Ignore the points the other person makes,

        What points? Your posts were non sequitor and irrelavent with no response required as indicated by the warning in the initial post. You chose to ignore this warning, repeatedly…..with the obvious result.

        Q.E.D.

        accuse them of mental deficiencies,

        Willful ignorance and functional illiteracy are not mental deficiencies although they might be be symptoms of them………once again, you provided the evidence, quite insistently,….Q.E.D.

        You were expecting a different result?……….. = ?

        spew forth a continuous stream of disconnected nonsensical gibberish until the other person looks confused,

        This was a fairly simple exercise…..with a very specific topic….Economics is invalid because it rests on a non empirical foundation……..and while it uses mathematics in an attempt to quantify certain things in terms of value and establish relationships between them……..these fail, because there is no empirical basis on which this value has been or can be shown to have been reliably assigned.

        It is therefor irrelevant to argue which of the failed variants of an invalid approach is to be preferred……( and attempts to do so……such as the video….would be non
        sequitor )

        Economics Unmasked provides the basis and support for this, and also the means by which an empirical foundation can be established.

        This point was returned to and repeated at least seven times……….yet each of your responses was non sequitor and irrelevant, with various attempts and distractions, to include……

        Claiming to have read the primary source, yet clearly demonstrating that you had no understanding of what was contained therein……because constructing a relevant response which met the conditions of the warning would have been simple for anyone who possessed a minimum of comprehension skills.
        Your comprehension consists of the following:

        Your book list in point of fact negates alot of your own assertions. Economics Unmasked asserts that the wealthy manipulate the numbers to control perception and protect their own wealth.

        There is an emprirical relationship according to Max-Neef and Smith, you just never see the right numbers. The problem with Unmasked is the same problem all BIG CONSPIRACY theorys have. If more than one person knows the secret, it won’t be a secret for long.

        Which leads into Debt The first 5,000 Years.

        That represents the sum total of your comprehension of this book and your attempt to construct a relevant argument……..let us see how it compares to:

        The Amazon Book Description

        The economic system under which we live not only forces the great majority of humankind to live their lives in indignity and poverty; it also threatens all forms of life – indeed life itself. Economics Unmasked presents a cogent critique of the dominant economic system in order to help transform our society into one in which all forms of life will be protected. The first part of this book is devoted to showing that the theoretical constructions that have been selected, work mainly to bring about injustice. The second part is concerned with what should be the foundations of a new economics where justice, human dignity, compassion and reverence for life must be the guiding values.
        Not much similarity there. How about this:

        “As is clear from the title, the book argues that modern neoclassical economics is a mask for power and greed, a construct designed to justify the status quo. Its claim to serve the common good is specious, and its claim to scientific status is fraudulent. The latter is sought mainly by excessive mathematical formalism to the neglect of concrete facts and real values. The mathematical formalism is in imitation of nineteenth century physics (economics viewed as the mechanics of utility and self-interest), but without any empirical basis remotely comparable to physics. Pareto is identified a villain here, and to a lesser extent Jevons.

        The hallmark of a real science is a basic consensus about fundamentals. There is no real consensus in economics, so how can it claim to be a mature science? Easy, by forcing a false “consensus” through the simple expedient of declaring heterodox views to be “not really economics,” eliminating history of economic thought from the curriculum, instigating a pseudo-Nobel Prize in Economics, and attaining a monopoly on faculty positions in economics departments at elite universities.” Herman Daly

        Not getting any better…….. How about this:

        “They identify what they consider to be the foundations of a new economics, which are articulations of the very core of our work here at nef:

        The economy should to serve the people, not the people the economy;
        Development is about people, not objects;
        Growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth;
        No economy is possible in the absence of eco-system services;
        The economy is a sub-system of a larger and finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.” Nic Marks


        Your claim would seem to suggest a complete lack of comprehension…….although I think there is a simpler explanation; You are a liar and foolish enough to believe that you could get away with it.

        Which makes the following quite revealing

        spew forth a continuous stream of disconnected nonsensical gibberish until the other person looks confused,

        Sorry, for the repetition but this seems to be an exact description of what you have attempted and of course you may feel free to demonstrate how this is mistaken because the evidence is available for all to see…….so you simply have to ‘cut and paste’ everything you have said that is not a non sequitor and relevant to the topic of the validity of Economics, as noted.
        then declare yourself the victor.
        There is no victory here, but as I said I have specific goals and purpose regarding those things about which I choose to engage……..failing to achieve them here, and making it fairly obvious that you were not interested or capable of addressing the topic in an intelligent and reasonable manner…….and had no intention of doing so, the only thing available was the EXPOSURE of your goals and intent which led to the following summation: ( repeating again )

        You claimed to have read this book……..yet there is no evidence that you have….and you persist in arguing for that which has been demonstrated to be invalid, in a form that is the WORST possible variant…….without reference to the suggested alteration, in either acknowledgement of, or argument against, or the obvious consequences of failing to do so.

        In short, you are irrelevant and have firmly established your credentials as just another w.i.A.L.F. ( c ) Thank you for the exercise, but your time has expired.

        ” To conquer, first DIVIDE! ” ( and then HANG, separately )

      • GALT

        Super p.s. I despise duplication of effort……..so obviously I have copies of everything here because I believe in efficient training….still my goal is for you to evolve to at least A.L.F. and maybe join up as a P.L.F……..How do you get to Carnegie Hall? If you can’t afford to rent the place, or find someone who will…….practice, practice, practice…….and given the challenges here…..you do have potential……I shall be watching…..

        • James

          Since you stated you would be watching curtesy compelled me to let you know I am entirely too busy with hurricane prep to continue at this time.

          Tried to hit post without spending anymore time on this but just couldn’t without noting that A.L.F. is a registered mark for an old TV show (the main character Alien Life Form) as is ALF, alf,ALF Products and several other varients.

          I’ll get back to topic if we don’t get blown/float away.

    • James

      Typed too fast…reverse denotation and conotation in the last sentence.

  • GALT

    Oh and another P.S. “economics unmasked” is the critical component, and if the sum total of your understanding is…….of Debt the first 5000 years ……that people get fed up eventually………so what……..I raised far more critical points that you could have acknowledged and/or responded to……..yet you continue to deflect this from the topic at hand……..to the irrelevant …and to some minor and somewhat questionable observation.

    So much for warnings……..but again, no response required……take my advice and TAKE MY ADVICE! or just let it go next time………you’ll have ample opportunity for confrontation
    with others here……..most of it will be mindless but give’em hell anyway……..

    I have specific topic targets and goals regarding them, so you will have most of the 6 or 7 topics a day to yourself…….and most of the days…….enjoy.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.