This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers. — Kenosha Kid

There have been many incidents of people wanting to kill and killing the police in the US recently, and I don't think lawmakers would be a bad target for them. That's where the US is now.

Yet I was referring to Trump here. The guy who talked of an "the egregious assault on democracy" and was going to walk down with them to the Capitol and was saying that "you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated".

And if Trump's autocoup would have been successful?

So what if the Electoral voting count on January 6th would have been stopped, the votes (as Trump wished) would have sent to be re-certified to the states and a committee (that was actually suggested) would have been formed to inspect the "widespread election fraud", perhaps lead by Rudy Giuliani, and for the time being that the committee works (perhaps 6 to 12 months or more) the current Trump administration would have continued for the time being despite what Article II the Constitution says? Perhaps Biden and the democratic leadership would be put into house arrest, into pretrial detention?

How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?

(This is of course quite hypothetical as Trump simply is so inept leader that he couldn't manage to stage a successful autocoup, but still just shows logic behind those who believe the falsehoods said to them over and over.)

Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. — Banno

I do, based on: — Kenosha Kid

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.... The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of. — counterpunch

Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". The question is that if elections would be fraudulent, naturally then the winner of the elections wouldn't be lawful. And of course if the elections aren't fraudulent, then this act of saying that they were is itself sedition, a thing that might be added there.

And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. So technically it isn't a coup as a coup is defined as the removal of an existing government. The correct term is a Self-coup or autocoup. This happens when:

A nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.

I do see why it has come to this. No rally goer or protester would need to carry guns and to wear riot gear to protest if they weren’t routinely set upon by violent mobs of delusional soy drinkers. No citizen would need to stock up on weaponry if his business wasn’t burned to the ground, or if some Antifa pedophile didn’t seize entire blocks of their city. No patriot would need to exercise 2nd amendment rights if he wasn’t locked down by state order, only to find out that those who made the order are allowed to flout their very own rules. . — NOS4A2

Actually you don't see it. Your partisanship just blinds you, just like many of the ranting leftists here, who eagerly go with the flow and embrace the polarization and see this as a great wonderful struggle. The inability to look the situation objectively is here the key. Sure, there have always been a tense relation between the right and the left, but typically the fringes have been viewed as clowns and eccentric losers. The playing field has just been tense political discourse, but not extra-parliamentary action in the US. Neonazis were a joke just as were the leftist revolutionaries. Yet now the fringes have changed to be something sinister and dangerous, which just feeds the polarization and increases their popularity and the popularity to oppose them violently. And people are enthusiastic about their side, fighting for the right cause. That Americans staunchly walk under various kinds of flags is direct sign of deep polarization.

Various flags, red and black...



Perhaps it's just been such a gradual descent or that you haven't noticed it how it has change. Since the time of Bill Clinton there has been ferocious political culture of mudslinging and vitriolic accusations that has been used to rally the base. And it has worked. With Trump this type of rouse to a new level. Add then the fact how the social media has created separate echo chambers. Then take into account the recession brought down by the pandemic.

So the end result...

Trump won Texas. — frank

That's why she operated from Texas. All those seven million (or so) votes!!! :wink:

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. — Hanover

And do notice that he is reading from a teleprompter and not speaking whatever he wants, as usually.

This is classic Trump. When you go too much over, have the lawyers / aides prepare a statement that you then read and Republicans and your supporters can say that Trump "has learned" and has stepped back to the line.

Again, all evidence of “incitement” comes from that stuff in your skull, or worse, propaganda. That it closely resembles the Democrat’s articles of impeachment is no comfort.

Some may have came to the same perverse “logical conclusion” of yours, I admit, but to believe Trump is guilty for making you come to those conclusions, or in the protester’s case, to come to those conclusions and storm Congress, then that is something you’ll have to prove from evidence outside of your skull. It’s just that simple. — NOS4A2

In fact you are really the one suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. If you have the President constantly, repeatedly lying that the election would be and was stolen, the logical conclusion of those who truly believed him would be to storm the Capital. Perhaps you cannot see the long obvious reason why it has come to this, but you can easily see it with Trump supporters starting to carry last year guns quite openly in demonstrations. That's a telling sign that the country was going to more like Weimar Germany or Yugoslavia before it's breakup.

This really isn't normal for supporters of Presidential candidate, apart a country close to Civil War:



And Trump was arguing that the elections were stolen already in 2016, but then contrary to what he himself believed, he won the election. But now, all those justices, the whole justice system with also Trump appointed people would go along with the steal is simply ludicrous.

But I guess that doesn't personally matter so much, as you are living in a mainly peaceful Canada.

s that a lot? How many are there in total? (Working so no time to Google info) — The Opposite

211. (Yes 10 Nay 197 Not voted 4)

In light of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for. I call on ALL Americans to help ease tensions and calm tempers. Thank You. — NOS4A2

Here's the fact why this is so absolutely perverse and crazy.

Who is urging violence, lawbraking or vandalism?

(Streetlight X is even quite for a while on that)

The only thing is that Donald Trump is impeached because of inciting the storming Capitol Hill with his prolonged delusional propaganda of the elections being stolen that culminated in an event which even the US military sees as sedition and insurrection.

What on Earth is there to heal? The US Congress should do it's obvious job in this case.

Oh right, that Trump supporters estranged from reality would next time get their guns and resort to more violence?

You don't handle an angry mob by appeasing it. That makes the mob just feel more powerful. You disperse the mob, get the ringleaders and the instigators of the mob and you don't tolerate violence. Didn't you learn anything from last summer, NOS?

15 000 of the National Guard to be deployed for the inauguration in DC. To get a perspective on the number, when Obama had his first inauguration there were 4 000 National Guardsmen deployed. With Trump's inauguration in 2017 the number was 7 800. So roughly now twice the number.

And what was the reason?

I still think bannings ought to happen when the site guidelines are explicitly breached.

original argument with Benkei wasn't about the general labor theory of value, but Marx's in particular. — Maw

Still it has the same issue.

Just admit you have no idea what you are talking. — Maw

If you don't understand my point as it seems, then resorting to condescending arrogance and belittling seems the modus operandi for you. Which is very typical.

After all, what can possibly go wrong? — Bitter Crank

Like that the American economy nosedives and everything will be far worse?

But you are already seeing the tell tale signs of how bad it has become.

I ask to people to read the following letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces:

Memorandum for the Joint Force

At first it might seem just obvious statement among others during these times, but understand that this is the leadership of the US military. So you have here the Military having to say that they are with Joe Biden being their 46th Commander in Chief. And that they above all defend the Constitution and what happened was sedition and insurrection.

In a democracy it's quite unheard of that the Military has to officially acknowledge who is the winner of elections. It really isn't normal, the letter is unprecedented. And not only singed by the Chairman, but all the department heads.

This kind of letter means that they, the military, are obviously contemplating a situation where the enemy is a domestic one.

So there's the wonderful new time the Biden administration is facing.

The rental market is a good example where government control that sounds beneficial, like rental price limits, can worsen the situation and where a healthy free market solves the problem. But for the market to be healthy and to work, there are several important factors that have to be true: 1) ordinary working people have to have the ability to get a loan with normal interest rates to purchase a home and 2) there aren't limitations or difficulties on who can rent real estate and renting real estate is considered a safe investment.

If 1) doesn't apply, like is in many Third World countries, the end result is too few housing is built and that what is built is likely built only for the richest buyers. Others live in cramped housing and on rent. And when large segment of the population are forced to rent, then in the end of their lives they have nothing to give to the next generation. This is one important factor why many countries have lacked the essential middle class and you have countries with large populations but little wealth. That lack of widespread affluence means that there is no domestic demand to create a thriving service sector and retail sector. Few billionaires won't do it. Factor 2) is essential for the health of the market also: if the demand for rental apartments is high, the ability for even ordinary people to save by investing in a flat or two will be have a big effect on the market and will create that supply to deal with the demand. Also a "safe" rental market will attract institutional investors. They won't invest, if there's the possibility of very punitive legislation to "help" those who rent.

????? We are talking about Marx — Maw

So you aren't aware just how close Marx is to Ricardo's labor theory of value? If the basic argument was (with Benkei) about the labor theory of value, referring to the origins here is totally reasonable. Might add that Smith had also similar view (as Ricardo et al).

I’m not saying that nobody planned an insurrection, I’m saying that Trump didn’t plan or incite one. — NOS4A2

Fine NOS. Even more reason to get him out. Inciting by accident / cluelessness is even worse.

I guess here the issue are things like 1) what was Trump's reaction to the storming of Capitol Hill and 2) Why did the administration did not respond even if the national guard was ready to intervene. Yet it's obvious. A President doesn't use that language of walking to the Capital and then respond by sending the National Guard in against his supporters, who he so dearly loves. This is quite straightforward in the end.

And likely you'll see it tomorrow how Trump behaves in Texas. Knowing Trump it will be hard for him to stick to the prepared teleprompter script. Just remember Trump's mixed responses after Charlottesville. Yeah, after an outcry he talked a bit from the teleprompter for a moment before going to back to his "blame all sides" rhetoric.

It's hilarious how you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. — Maw

What is quite presumable is your condescending attitude. But I guess that's the style here now. Anyway, and it's an interesting discussion.

Menger's diamond example fallaciously attempts to conflate an explicitly non-capitalist exchange with a capitalist one — Maw

The way I see it, It's basically a critique of the theories of Ricardo. But to your example:

Now both go into the market to sell. The non-capitalist does not have a price floor because there was no cost in extracting the diamond for him. He can sell for a $1 and therefore profits $1. However, capitalist does have a floor price because there is a cost to the extraction process. — Maw

True, but you are forgetting that you need a buyer here also.

Sure, the non capitalist might give the diamond away for 1$, but likely he or she would simply ask what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The fact is that buyer hardly is interested on how much work was put into finding the diamond. The diamond has subjective value to the buyer(s), either he might be looking for diamonds used by industry or interested in it as a luxury item or an eccentric store of wealth. This value has nothing to do with the amount of work put into mining the diamond (or the luck finding of it). In short, you need both the capitalist/non-capitalist and the buyer(s) to get a market and a price.

In this one instance of a competitive transaction, the non-capitalist can therefore undersell the capitalist, but then what? He can't create any additional demand, he doesn't have a mining operation to continue to extract raw diamonds. He created one instance of demand which was concluded at point of sale. That's it! But the capitalist, while not making a sale in this one instance, can continue putting raw diamonds up in the marketplace and finding demand (safe to assume non-capitalists aren't continuing to randomly come across raw diamonds on the ground) because she has a mode of production in place that can continue this process.

Yet his production is dependent on the demand of (mined) diamonds. The idea of not thinking about the demand side (and the reasons for the demand) here, but making this economic model using just the supply side costs and labour doesn't catch many important aspects. The so called input costs don't determine the final prices.

If by a new method artificial diamonds can be made by robots for that price of 1$ per carat (not thousands of dollars), industry will start a frenzy on how and where to use the new resource with likely many cutting tools having diamonds. And diamonds would fall from being a luxury item and an eccentric store of wealth. Yet the capitalist will shut his mine down or start digging up something else precious there.

You'd enjoy the paper I linked to Maw. It concludes: — fdrake

Thanks, have to look at that.

I guess the English term is shift. Sorry, I learned economics in my own language.

So when the demand changes the demand curve changes?! Wow! — Maw

Not:

Yeah. Earlier they could talk to each other. For a while

And if they are actually successful in the Senate and Trump is told he can never again hold public office, the only one helped by that will be the Republicans. — Hanover

Reminds me of Yugoslav politicians before the civil war.

The big problem is there is no evidence of any plan for violent insurrection. — NOS4A2

For fucks sake....

Oh yes, when nobody publicly says that they are going to attempt an insurrection tomorrow, it obviously wasn't an insurrection! Rhe storming of the Capitol Hill was a logical and obvious consequence to all the bullshit perpetrated earlier by Trump & the gang. It's no surprise that people who believe in Q-Anon bullshit do take these things seriously... when it's the biggest scam in history.

For example, the ex-Tweeter in Chief did tweet things like this one from last year December 26th:


Or this one:


Since the kidnapping plot of Gretchen Whitmer it's all quite evident where this is leading to. Or even with the pre-Trump era shooting of Gabrielle Gifford and others in 2011. Or the attack on the congressional baseball game in 2017 (where the targets were Republicans, btw). Those all were canary in the coal mine events showing just where things are going in Weimar America. But the person that increased most the polarization, the alienation and the vitriol, was President Trump.

Believe me, now for the terrorism part during the Biden years. Bombs blowing and that sort.

So happy that I and my family visited Washington DC and New York in 2019. I always remember the walk from our hotel in DC to the stairs of the Capitol Hill where the US Marine Corps Band was playing "patriotic" music in the warm summer night with a crowd of laid back Americans listening to the music. It felt so nice, relaxed and it reminded me how nice Seattle was in my childhood. Hope that America isn't lost yet.

Does this help? — Maw

Great, seems that you've found to copy paste the crucial part from Marx (I remember one Lizard brain berating me on an internet quote, but anyway).

OK, let's dissect what Marx says there above and especially this part:

but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand — Maw

Even if Marx doesn't use the name "labour theory of value", I guess this comes close to it.
So how does the cost of production determine changes (oscillations) in demand? This is the basic question I have with the labour theory of value. Yes, I guess Marx doesn't start from the viewpoint of one transaction, but from an aggregate viewpoint, yet still this is left open.

Of course the problem here I guess is the antiquated theory from Ricardo that Marx uses, even if Marx refines this.

Yet a change in demand can perfectly happen without any link to the cost of production. This is modelled in neoclassical economics as simply the demand curve moving. (And that is btw was the Menger's point: if a diamond is just picked up by accident by a passer by (with no work) or is found after a large diamond mine operates for ages (with a huge amount of work), the price of the diamond is the same).

Well no, this is putting the cart before the horse. The upper limit cost of what the general consumer is willing to put up is only known in the last instance, i.e. the products have to be produced and in market for sale. — Maw

Yes. And there's a lot of products of which price can already be quite well known in the market when the capitalist makes the calculation to invest or not. If your planning to mine a natural resource or start a dairy, I guess the price of milk or the price natural resource is quite well known to you. One dairy or mine will likely not alter the price so much.

What you refer (if I understand again correctly) would be true in a product that has never been on the market, I guess. That is the case very seldom.

Is it about state controlled economies with just different degrees of control? — frank

Yes and no.

If you argue that Sweden is state controllled economy, then I guess the US is also a state controlled economy with it's resorting to using the Defense Production Act and subsidizing heavily various industries and companies. Yet I don't think anyone here thinks Trump's USA is socialist.

A good measure is if the government start nationalizing industries and starts rationing products. Let's look at for example Venezuela has done:

So not only oil production is nationalized (which is more like the norm today in many countries). Chavez himself went to nationalize either totally or certain companies from the steel industry, gold mining, telecom, electricity and agriculture.

Needless to say that Sweden hasn't gone in a similar way and nationalized industries with such fervor. Last time they had to do that was during the banking crisis in the 1990's, where state took an active role in rearranging the banking sector (unlike in the US). However there are and have been state monopolies in Sweden (System Bolaget for liquor stores or prior Apoteket AB for pharmaceutical retailers and so on). Yet that some industries or service have been deemed so important or so costly that the state takes responsibility of them isn't something only connected to socialism. For example, you can find state owned railways in many capitalist countries.

Sorry, a bit of confusion there. I mean globalism has destroyed so much. It’s not the great success story overall, i.e. American jobs, sweat shops, etc. — Brett

Yet one cannot deny that countries like China or India do have benefitted from the current era of globalization. The US has been the loser here, and we can see it now in the current situation the country is in.

Explain what about them? In an absolute monarchy the monarch effectively owns everything. — Pfhorrest

That would be owned by the government in a democracy. Not that there isn't private property. I think that people in Brunei, Monaco or Saudi Arabia do have private property.

It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time. — Echarmion

Of course. When we look at the history of nearly all Western nations, there have been those critical times when a socialist revolution was possible. Let's not forget that Germany indeed experienced after WW1 brief revolts.

That depends on what you understand by "socialism" — Echarmion

I think a good divide would be with social democracy and with the more communists and marxist-leninist. Social Democratic ruled Sweden is quite different from Cuba (or Venezuela) are quite different.

"It" being that only leftists argue for economic reform and welfare? I'd agree with you. — Echarmion

Yes, this was what I was meaning.

. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. — Brett

Apart from seriously diminishing global povetry, but who cares about little things like that.

Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution. — Echarmion

Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy can still see the needs of the people and react to social issues before they turn into open revolution.

But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook. — Echarmion

Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power? Look at history.

And I simply don't buy it.

Where I live, which has the so-called "Nordic model", has an capitalist free market system, yet might look like to people in the US as socialism. Still, the country is capitalist. Here the welfare model is promoted by the right also, no political party has here as it's intension to demolish the welfare state. So I don't really by the argument that the right or conservatives are against welfare state and that the only ones arguing for it is the left or capitalism inherently leads to unrestrained power. It simply isn't true.

And trade unions? Trade unions don't have to believe in a socialist ideology. They are there just to promote the interests of the employees towards the employer. It's quite reasonable. What isn't reasonable is not to have trade unions and then think that all employers would behave decently. Perhaps if you are part of the workforce that is highly sought after, you can get a great deal, but if there many people to replace you, look out!

To give an example why trade unions are non-political: the vast majority (likely 99%) of officers in the Finnish army belong to their own trade union, which is part of the academic trade union. And none, literally none of them is a leftist. During the 20's and the 30's the Communists tried to infiltrate the Finnish Army (on the belief that they could do it just like they had infiltrated the Russian Imperial Army). They had no success, not even one person, which is pretty dismal. Again these issues aren't things just pushed by the left.

Capitalism is the concentration of ownership of capital in relatively few hands. — Pfhorrest

Capitalism is the ownership of industry is held in private hands. Private ownership doesn't lead to that. For example, land ownership hasn't concentrated into relatively few hands, there are lot of small landowners in every country. Competition leads to larger producers being more efficient than smaller ones and the most likely situation is an oligopoly situation where there are a few large companies which dominate a large part of the market, but a huge portion is made up of a vast amount of small companies with niche segments of the market. Perhaps here one should make a difference between capitalism and market economy.

Ownership of something is just is having rights in it, and vice versa. If the public has rights to the profits of industry, e.g. if taxation is legitimate, then that is in effect (even if ot in name) at least partial public ownership. — Pfhorrest

And how do you explain absolute monarchies then? Hobbes? How much different is the state actually if it's a monarchy or a republic? The postman is the same postman even if the monarchy is overthrown and is replaced with a republic.

Nowadays in a post-agricultural economy there is capital other than land, which is not subject to exactly those same old feudal laws. But if it is legitimate for the state to tax the proceeds from that capital, then the state in a practical sense owns an interest in it, regardless of the words used in statutes to describe that relation. — Pfhorrest

For the state it's not only an issue of checks and balances, it's also interested in it's own power.

It's a movement that considers every economic theory had something useful to say and that economist should be aware of all of them. — Benkei

With that I can agree with. Any economic theory that gets support usually have a point and a kernel of truth in them. And what is obvious is that real economic policy and real economic structures don't follow the pure ideological theories, but are a mixture of many.

And Marx talking about the obvious problems in the 19th Century societies does have a point. I'm not saying that Marx as a philosopher would be unimportant. What I was saying that his economic theories haven't been so successful as neoclassical economics and there is a reason for this, even if Marxian economics is taught in various universities around the World. When I was in the university, Marx was taught to us in several courses while for example Austrian school economics was only covered in a voluntary study group by a small group of students, which I unfortunately turned down when asked to join. That tells a lot, actually.

I remember a professor in the university telling that Marx also made the prediction that the proletariat might not focus it's efforts on creating a communist revolution, but simply to demand more pay. Looking at the labor movement in the West, that is the way it went. What is notable is that capitalist societies in the West did make an effort to improve the situation. If someone like Bismarck introduces the first social-welfare legislation to counter the socialists demand, who actually is then behind the improvements, Marx or Bismarck?

Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat) — Maw

Say and Say's law isn't part of the economic theory of supply and demand on which modern mainstream economics is based on. I'm not familiar with what Bastiat has said on this.

Value for Marx in his Labor Theory of Value is determined by socially necessary labor time in a given society — Maw

Which doesn't take into the account of demand in the equation. That simple.

But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build. — Maw

And here what you have described the market mechanism of both supply and demand tell far better what is going to happen.

Because if those costs the capitalist faces, the proletariat she has to keep alive at the bare minimum to gather those raw materials and to produce the good, is only one part of the equation. How many are willing to buy that good and for what price is needed and is absolutely crucial. If the costs are so high that only an eccentric millionaire can buy the good and is indeed willing to buy the good at the price that covers the capitalists costs and gives her a reasonable profit, then not much good will be produced. If that doesn't cover it, then the good won't be manufactured in the first place. No production, no proletariat working for the capitalist, no capitalist, actually. Only people doing some other stuff. If at a lower price more people are willing to buy the good, the capitalist might prosper more.

This just shows how more in line with reality is the supply and demand model to the Marxian model. The idea that the work put into the production is a one sided model which doesn't take into account how the market mechanism and pricing works.

If that private ownership were truly considered complete and sacrosanct, then the taxes that fund the social programs of a welfare state would rightly be considered theft. — Pfhorrest

I don't think that industry being owned privately means this "complete and sacrosanct" libertarianism you talk of. The kind of Ayn Randian libertarianism in the US isn't any kind of natural consequence or end result of capitalism, it is just one result that has happened in one specific country, which has a multitude of reasons why it has gone the way it has. The idea that if you have capitalism, then you social programs and welfare state is considered theft is just quite bizarre.

In short, who owns the industry and trade doesn't define everything in a society nor does it define how the society holds itself together. There are many other issues here as every society has developed from a past version of itself that existed prior modern capitalism.

If the laws of the land hold it justified and right for the state to confiscate some of the wealth of those private owners for the benefit of all of society, that is in effect saying that the people as a whole, represented by their democratic state, have some rights in that wealth, i.e. a stake in it, a bit of ownership of it. — Pfhorrest

Well, actually no.

It's simply called taxation.

And people are and have been perfectly OK with taxation for millennia to fund the state. And that state can be a monarchy, an Empire, a theocracy or whatever. People have understood that if you are going to have something like armed forces to defend the society, that obviously costs something. That libertarian individualism you refer to is a quite recent idea in the history of nations and them taxing their people.

A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. — Pfhorrest

I think people understand that societies made up of capitalists are far more complex than that. Let's remember that capitalism is private ownership of trade and industry while the classic definition of socialism is ownership of these by the community. Modern social democracy doesn't strive for that anymore, just to "curb the excesses of a market economy", hence just to regulate capitalism, in my view.

And also here is the crucial question: even if trade and industry is in private ownership, why cannot social cohesion and solidarity still prevail? A society is far more complex than just trade and business. There are many other bonds people have with each other than that. The counterpart might not be socialism, but perhaps social cohesion.

SSU says things like Marx has been proven wrong because supply and demand explain the economy better and yet thinks to be taken seriously. — Maw

The issue with Benkei was about Marx's value theory of labour. That actually has to do with supply and demand. Marx apparently wrote a lot else more, which isn't proven right or wrong by this.

As Carl Menger said way back in his time about the theory:

There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good.

Here the laws of supply and demand are a far better model.

The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty. — NOS4A2

Then again look at present social democracy in Europe. Not hardly the movement that would have as it's agenda of doing away with capitalism. Yet social democracy is the actual movement that has prevailed and been very successful in the West, not totalitarian communism. The simple reason is that if something works and people are happy with it, then any political movement has to go with it and just bite it's tongue, however much the thing goes against their core ideology. Hence it's not so one sided as you think.

Yes we can! Bush signing Medicare part D in 2003, hence even Republicans are totally capable of enlarging the welfare state.

What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer. — Echarmion

If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation.

Have you been living under a rock the past 12 years? Marxist economics has been vilified for years. — Benkei

Carl Menger lived from 1840 to 1921, hence this isn't anything new. Marxist economics has been questioned right from the start and rightly so.

Like any theory about human action it's flawed but it's definitely experiencing a revival since 2008. — Benkei

Well, Marxists have allways said that it has experienced a revival. I thought Neo-Marxian economics was a big thing in leftist circles in the 1970's and 1980's with guys like Paul Sweezy.

The way forward is heterogenous economics and Marx is part of it. — Benkei

Explain a bit more what you mean by this, if you have the time.

Nuclear fusion will never be a viable power source on earth. — counterpunch

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I'll get back to you when it is...

In any case, there was a time when I valued these views; I still do, though not as I once did. But now it seems a repository for bigotry, jingoism, nationalism and is anti-science and anti-reason. — Ciceronianus the White

First, don't let the populism of Trump distract you here. Just because the GOP in America is in chaos doesn't mean that conservatism around the World is in chaos and has been defeated by right-wing populists. That's a false narrative, which naturally is eagerly upheld by people from the left.

Just ask yourself, which conservative leader has been in power in the West for the longest?

Angela Merkel.

Of course the Trumpist doesn't even realize that the German chancellor is from a conservative party, just as the typical American leftist today abhors the actual social democrat leaders in the West (of whom Tony Blair was actually the prime example). Yet it's telling that the moderate left and the moderate right are totally sidelined as focus is given to the populists in the media.

But what are the real power structures? The political division in the European Parliament tells something about the true power balance in the EU. And which is the largest faction? The EPP, center-right as it is known. And btw Angela Merkel's party belongs to the EPP, just like the local Conservative Party Kokoomus from here (whereas the UK Tories belonged to the ECR).



In my view the idea that conservatism has lost to right-wing populism simply isn't true. Conservatism hasn't fallen into jingoism, nationalism and anti-science reasoning. It's one narrative promoted by those who oppose conservatism.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. — counterpunch

?

You mean H-bombs don't work or what? I assume you mean something else. Nuclear fusion can be done...it just typically uses more energy that it creates, if I have any idea about physics (which might not be so).

Jackson first achieved fusion when he was 12, just hours before he turned 13 on Jan. 19, 2018. His achievement was affirmed by representatives of the Open Source Fusor Research Consortium on Feb. 2

What is Trump doing with his new found free time? — Benkei

Yes, he is likely missing those 88 million followers that he had on Twitter. (I guess the 51 people he followed aren't so much missing him)

Without Twitter, he is missing something:


Trump is now going to Texas to see his much beloved wall. 400 miles of it. And visit the Alamo. I think after the forced on him talk, which he barely could make through reading from the teleprompter, Trump will get to be back himself tomorrow.

All he needs is to see his fanatic supporters, and off he goes...

I totally agree with your argument on the importance of energy. That is crucial. The most abhorrent and lunatic ideas are those that assume that there are too many people and the solution we have to go back to some time that the person in his or her fantasies thinks is optimal.

Also I agree with that the solution is higher living standards, as that has and will curb population growth. Also more wealthy people, not those on the brink of starvation, will happily preserve nature. Even if the poorest do understand what is happening, what can you do if you haven't anything else and the immediate problem is how to feed your family today and tomorrow? What has happened now in Asia, would be far more than welcome to happen in Africa.