Orchestrated Flu Pandemics

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Listen, I have read Smith and Keynes, Friedman and Marx, and I do have a broad understanding of economic theories

Let's see... Two "free market" capitalists, one proponent of capitalism with state intervention and one communist. I see you stayed nicely within the black-and-white capitalism-vs-communism paradigm rather than moving beyond. You should try reading some literature from Russian anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, German philosophers like Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and Ernst Jünger or contemporary theorists like Troy Southgate, Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunić. These are the sort of thinkers that have most influence on me.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

I am not convinced by your assertion that eliminating usury will have a beneficial effect on the economy. What is even more ludicrous is to hold up the Muslims (note the correct spelling) as the paragon of economic thought. Just how wealthy are Muslim economies when you factor out their luck for sitting on a big pool of oil?

The success of a civilisation is not determined by the its GNP but by its ability to remain stable and take care of its citizens. In fact, raping the planet the capitalist way is the worst a society can develop in the long run since it might destroy our species in the long run.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Look at the effect that abolishing loans for profit, as you say, would have on capital creation. Most modern manufacturing requires significant purchases of equipment. Without loans to purchase this material, companies could never get off the ground.

That's what I suggested the possibility of governments issuing conditional loans without interest.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

This also mean that they cant hire more employees or expand when they see an opportunity to capitalize on a trend in the market.

If the company is profitable, it can expand using these profits as capital rather than using it to pay ridiculously high wages to executives.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

All of this would have a drastic negative impact on innovation and production, and hurt the economy as a whole.

There are different ways to finance big projects. For example, government grants could be given or loaned (without interests) to companies with promising ideas.

[EireEngineer]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Let's see... Two "free market" capitalists, one proponent of capitalism with state intervention and one communist. I see you stayed nicely within the black-and-white capitalism-vs-communism paradigm rather than moving beyond. You should try reading some literature from Russian anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, German philosophers like Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and Ernst Jünger or contemporary theorists like Troy Southgate, Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunić. These are the sort of thinkers that have most influence on me.
I think that I will stick with my Richard Cantillon,Turgot, and Boehm-Bawerk, but thanks anyway.


The success of a civilisation is not determined by the its GNP but by its ability to remain stable and take care of its citizens. In fact, raping the planet the capitalist way is the worst a society can develop in the long run since it might destroy our species in the long run.
Right, because there are NOOOO environmental problems in Russia or China. Its civilization btw


That's what I suggested the possibility of governments issuing conditional loans without interest.
Ah yes, creating yet another bureaucracy which then has to be funded by either higher taxes or increases in the debt, rather than just letting market forces work. Not to menion being FAAARRRRR less efficient.


If the company is profitable, it can expand using these profits as capital rather than using it to pay ridiculously high wages to executives.
Ah yes, the tired old idiom of the left: Its all those rich CEO's fault!
In fact, the costs of upgrading even one manufacturing facility in most cases would outstrip all of the executive compensations put together.


There are different ways to finance big projects. For example, government grants could be given or loaned (without interests) to companies with promising ideas.

Ah yes, the promise of having a wise panel of philosopher kings, who will, by the way, have a monopoly on all lending. Talk about dampening innovation.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

I think that I will stick with my Richard Cantillon,Turgot, and Boehm-Bawerk, but thanks anyway.

Why do you refuse to look outside of the box? Are you afraid of what you'll see?

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Right, because there are NOOOO environmental problems in Russia or China. Its civilization btw

Again, you fail to look beyond the capitalist-vs-communist paradigm.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Ah yes, creating yet another bureaucracy which then has to be funded by either higher taxes or increases in the debt, rather than just letting market forces work. Not to menion being FAAARRRRR less efficient.

Actually, the only reason why governments have debt is because rather than issuing their own money (there is no reason a government can be its own interest-free bank) governments loan it (at interest) from private corporations who themselves create money out of nothing (via fractional reserve banking). If you keep the amount of money in your country stable (to avoid inflation), there is no reason whatsoever for any country to actually loan money rather than issue it themselves.

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Ah yes, the tired old idiom of the left: Its all those rich CEO's fault!

Would you say it's fair when a CEO earn 2 million dollars a month for making high level decisions (that are often superfluous, stupid or simply ignorant) and major shareholders get their millions for just providing a small part of their capital while those doing the actual hard work (whether intellectual or physical) are only paid a tiny fraction of the profits?

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

In fact, the costs of upgrading even one manufacturing facility in most cases would outstrip all of the executive compensations put together.

I'm very much aware of corporate budgets, thank you. I work in Business Intelligence, remember?!

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Ah yes, the promise of having a wise panel of philosopher kings, who will, by the way, have a monopoly on all lending. Talk about dampening innovation.

Well.... Hitler Germany was one of the most innovative societies in 20th century history. It was a mixture of dictatorship and meritocracy and was very critical of capitalist society, yet it achieved so much in 6 years it's hard to fanthom partly by means of government sponsored projects. The made one of the most popular cars ever, they built the best roads in Europe, they built the first modern assault rifle (StG44), etc.

Inca civilisation was a largely collectivist society ruled by an arristocracy. It managed to develop succesful agricultural products in a climate with very little fertility.

These are but two examples of civilisations that were not capitalist or "democratic" yet very succesful from an economic point of view.

[EireEngineer]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Why do you refuse to look outside of the box? Are you afraid of what you'll see?

Hardly. In fact i am a big fan of eristics, and do look at specific subjects from a variety of views. I was merely stating those whom I find most convincing, as I suspect you were.

Again, you fail to look beyond the capitalist-vs-communist paradigm.
Simply pointing out where a radical diversion from our current system has failed dramatically.


Actually, the only reason why governments have debt is because rather than issuing their own money (there is no reason a government can be its own interest-free bank) governments loan it (at interest) from private corporations who themselves create money out of nothing (via fractional reserve banking). If you keep the amount of money in your country stable (to avoid inflation), there is no reason whatsoever for any country to actually loan money rather than issue it themselves.



Would you say it's fair when a CEO earn 2 million dollars a month for making high level decisions (that are often superfluous, stupid or simply ignorant) and major shareholders get their millions for just providing a small part of their capital while those doing the actual hard work (whether intellectual or physical) are only paid a tiny fraction of the profits?
You certainly have a dim view of CEO s with your wide generalization there. All talent, including that of CEO s, has a market clearing price. Neither you nor I has the particular skill set necessary to run a large corporation. True, some do make bad decisions, and the remedy is for the board to fire them. Those people at the bottom, doing the hard work as you say, have skill sets that are far more common, which is why they command a far lesser salary.


I'm very much aware of corporate budgets, thank you. I work in Business Intelligence, remember?!
Oooooooh. Im sooooo Impressed


Well.... Hitler Germany was one of the most innovative societies in 20th century history. It was a mixture of dictatorship and meritocracy and was very critical of capitalist society, yet it achieved so much in 6 years it's hard to fanthom partly by means of government sponsored projects. The made one of the most popular cars ever, they built the best roads in Europe, they built the first modern assault rifle (StG44), etc.

Inca civilisation was a largely collectivist society ruled by an arristocracy. It managed to develop succesful agricultural products in a climate with very little fertility.
And lived with a far lower standard of living then its counterparts in the European world. Oh yeah, and it was conquered by a small handful of Spaniards

These are but two examples of civilisations that were not capitalist or "democratic" yet very succesful from an economic point of view.
So basically you are saying we should become a dictatorship and all will be fine?

Pretty laughable.