Skip to main content

Posts

Comments on Bryan Caplan's interview with Dave Rubin...

Dave Rubin has a show on Youtube wherein he interviews various characters of a liberal/libertarian bent. In one of those interviews he chatted with Bryan Caplan on anarcho-capitalism and its corollaries.



Cool interview, huh? Below is an argument over a comment made by Caplan with regard to arbitration. [1]



~~~


SpiderDemon 11 months ago Arbitration gets problems solved in a few days? Bullshit, try months or years, and with more money than most people have to pay for it. This guy is a fraud.  This is how it works, get a loan from a bank to build a house, construction company builds your house not to code so the city won't let you live in it, bank forecloses on your house when you stop paying.  That's "anarcho capitalism" in the US. It's where the gov has set up a system where corporations are given the right to fuck people over and get away with it because arbitration and lawsuits costs tens of thousands of dollars that n…
Recent posts
So I was reading a piece on The Outline about identity politics when the author, Sean McElwee, brought up a survey he had penned and collated to establish how positions on economic and racial issues align;
Could Democrats win over racially conservative whites with economic populism? It’s unlikely, because people who oppose racial justice also tend to oppose liberal economic policies.  To test this, I created scales of economic and racial liberalism, using two questions that have been on the American National Election Studies surveys since 1972. One question asks respondents to place themselves on a one-to-seven point scale on government aid to black Americans, the other on a one-to-seven scale on guaranteeing jobs and income for all Americans. In 1972, only 54 percent of white Americans who took the racially liberal position (supporting aid to black Americans) also took the economically liberal position (guaranteeing jobs and income).  By 2016, 74 percent did. And in 1972, 77 perce…

Some cool posts on r/badeconomics

The subreddit called Badeconomics is a great place to go if, like me, you are trying to nudge your way towards being serviceably knowledgeable about economics. So I decided to share a few links to posts that recently pleased me...

Badecon posts re often so-called R1s in which an article, book, video or other piece is savaged for its economic illiteracy. The links that kick off each paragraph below are R1s added in the last two months.

Socialism is astonishing... Apparently economic growth over the past two centuries has not also led to growth in leisure time... despite clear data showing that it has.


Most Americans don't understand basic economics and r/Socialism thinks that's great... This R1 is attacking this post wherein some silly sausages get all confused over the significance of the opinions expressed in the survey, and over the consequences of actually implementing those policies.

Economists... a piece critical of economics using the matter of causes of the financial cris…

aeon.co link dump again

The Grauniad Needs to Die Soon

George Monbiot is shilling for the glorious red future again. This isn't the first time he's written about neoliberalism this year, so I guess this is on his mind a fair bit. He even did a video for Verso on the subject. Having read David Harvey's book on the same subject I am disinclined to humor any nonsense about neoliberalism anymore than I am about cultural Marxism.



~ a. neoliberal laundry ~
1. Monetarism in central bank policy
2. Privatization of lots of government organisations
3. Deregulation of many or all industries
4. Tax decreases as absolute quantities
5. Re-balancing of labor laws to be more than 50% in favor of employers
6. Decrease in funding for or abolition of state welfare benefits

Did I miss anything?

To what extent have the countries of the world implemented these policy changes since 1970? Well, Chile managed all six but went back to a 50/50 split in labour law when Pinochet was ousted. So that's one country.

The USA did 1 and 4 from the late 70&#…

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~
~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
&
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
~
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.