Libertarian Anticapitalism

[kokjo]

corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.

i don't listen to them. im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.

no i don't have to come up with anything. i don't trust them, and i did not lose anything. its not my problem.
if STUPID people are listning to corrupt rating agencies, its totaly free for them to do that.

[kokjo]

If I recall correctly, food was very unsafe in the early industrial revolution, prior to regulation. Why didn't food rating agencies spring up then? Not enough internet? A conspiracy to stop them? Not enough time for the market to adjust? Since the government does an imperfect job of protecting the food supply, do any such rating agencies exist already?

The theory makes perfect sense to me, so now I wonder why it has not already happened.

1. its likely because, the workers was getting exploited by the capitalism. their did not have time for considring food safety.
2. likely... its easier to communicate over large distance, with the internet. and there by organizing alot more
3. sure, it must be the evil food companies.
4. ...
5. i don't know.

[Hawker]

Food rating agencies didn't emerge because there is no market for them.  Food safety law is not some kind of power grab; its a response to a complex problem that had to be addressed by the state after people realised they were being poisoned and demanded protection.

[kokjo]

Food rating agencies didn't emerge because there is no market for them.  Food safety law is not some kind of power grab; its a response to a complex problem that had to be addressed by the state after people realised they were being poisoned and demanded protection.

im not demanding protection.

[AyeYo]

corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.

i don't listen to them. im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.

no i don't have to come up with anything. i don't trust them, and i did not lose anything. its not my problem.
if STUPID people are listning to corrupt rating agencies, its totaly free for them to do that.

You claim was that inaccurate or corrupt rating agencies would go out of business due to being shunned by the public.  That requires that they be shunned by more than just you.  Since that's not happening, your claim is WRONG.

[kokjo]

your claim is WRONG.

no. people are stupid and naive

[AyeYo]

your claim is WRONG.

no. people are stupid and naive

And also poorly informed and ignorant, which is exactly why your claim is 100% false in the real world.

[Hawker]

your claim is WRONG.

no. people are stupid and naive

You may have a low regard for your fellow humanity but that doesn't mean you can poison them!

[JA37]

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway.
Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations.

No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species.

The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable.

Oh, there's a "commons" now. Who owns that? Can anyone use it? How much? Are there any rules or regulations in place for this "commons"?

Yes, property can be easily affected by things from the outside. Your apple farm could be affected by the factory in the next city, or state, that does something that kills off bees. However it will be impossible for you to prove that it's their actions that does so, since they are so far away and there could be another thousand reasons why your apples don't grow. So your apple farm isn't your property now since it can be so easily affected?

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

[J180]

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?

[JA37]

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?

He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

[J180]

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?

He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully.

[JA37]

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?

He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully.

It's very hard to know what another person thinks, but I do hope so.

[The Script]

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway.
Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations.

To me the idea that oil spills are good for the economy feels like the Broken Window fallacy in a new form.  Net loss, for sure.

No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species.

Agree.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable.

The market isn't an entity that thinks and feels.  It is not an acting individual.  The market is a process of trades and interactions between acting individuals.  To say that the market spares species may be technically correct but I feel that it leads to this idea that the market is a wise entity that somehow knows best.  Yes it's true that privately owning species often leads to increases in their populations, especially if they have food value (chickens, cows), but through the market process individuals can also (and have) eradicated numerous species.

[FirstAscent]

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

Dude, you need to broaden your reading. Spend a month reading some material outside of your special domain of interest. To think that the individuals you idolize and study are in turn well studied in the all the complex interactions of our planet Earth is to admit your naivete. Here are some recommendations:

http://www.amazon.com/Trophic-Cascades-Predators-Changing-Dynamics/dp/1597264873/

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wild-Things-Were-Ecological/dp/1596916249/

http://www.amazon.com/Continental-Conservation-Scientific-Foundations-Regional/

[jtimon]

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread.
Some of you may be interested in this site: http://c4ss.org/

Personally I'm for free markets and against capitalism.

it depends on what you mean by “capitalism.”

My definition of capitalism would be something like "a free market where the structure of money protects capital yields from competition".
For me, the wrong thing is capital-money. I believe that in a free monetary market free-moneys like freicoin and ripple would be the more competitive ones. But you've already told me you believe freicoin wouldn't be accepted by anyone. Ripple probably doesn't fit your definition of money, let's call it medium of exchange then.
The concept is simple but assumes that exists a minimum interest rate (basic interest) independent of growth and risk:
When the yields of the capitals of a certain sector get lower than that minimum interest rate, the investments in that sector stops, protecting the yields of those capitals from further competition. This way, there are sustained profits that don't have to fear competition.
To really free the market we need to suppress that minimum interest rate, and for that we need to know its source: the structure of capital-money.

[Sannyasi]

capitalism = better = future = grass is greener on the other side..... something must be worse and below you to recognize better and above. by thinking being a libertarian is better than being a capatalist you are being a capatalist. The only way to not be a capatalist is to not think any way is better than another way or to not take a side. I don't have a name for what I am, because giving it a name is taking a side- the side of whatever label i think is better than the next.

[jtimon]

capitalism = better = future

In fact capital-money discounts value from the future. It makes us prefer the short term.
I say I'm libertarian. Yes, that's a label.
I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money. We would be better with free-money and I believe free-money would triumph over capital-money when competing in a free market. If you believe the opposite you still have nothing to fear from people thinking like me. Because we both want a free monetary market.

[NghtRppr]

I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money.

You have a different definition of capitalism than I do.

[jtimon]

I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money.

You have a different definition of capitalism than I do.

Yes. I guess I would not see anything wrong with capitalism according to your definition.
The difference is how we want money to be. But we both want a free monetary market so we're in the same boat.