Will /pol/ return to libertarianism now that trumpism has failed this hard ?
>>540001242Fuck kikes and economics
>>540001242>unless both parties benefitI mean that's just clearly not true.
A perfectly free market of the type he describes is a practically impossible abstraction that ignores how coercion doesn't have to take the form of someone literally holding a gun to your head
>>540001448It obviously is true. If you don't benefit from the exchange, then don't make the exchange.
>>540001571Liar. Do you make this lie?
>>540001469The type of coercion you're thinking of is practically impossible in a free market.
>>540001648>in desert>need water>someone charges $1000 a bottleI make the exchange, im not happy about it. Free market
>>540001648>governments dont exist bro
Who cares about money. You can always become poor, then become rich again, and repeat.The most important thing is RACE.However, there is one thing which is even more sacred than race and that is the BIBLICAL JEWISH LAW.
>>540001727with the profits I could fund utilitarian philosophers to convince you that you are happy about it :)
>>540001727How did this scenario come about? If you think about it more than not-at-all you'll realize such a scenario is practically impossible in a free market. This would be a perfect opportunity for some arbitrage as entrepreneurs could make good profits by importing water to the desert. Prices would be driven to the equilibrium.
>>540001768>the government will coerce us >so let's give more power to the government
Free markets are an abstract ideals that can only exist in the presence of perfect availability of information and zero ability for rent seeking and bribes. It's just the Pseud appeal to popularity to justify for profit rape of civilization.
>>540001571Yeah no one is forced or pressured into bad agreements. Look, every libertarian "philosophy" is just working back from a tautology and no true Scottsdale. You guys only matter insofar as you clear the path for elite finance to deregulate everything and then re-regulate it to their liking. After that your masters cast you aside for another decade.
>>540002202>perfect availability of information and zero ability for rent seeking and bribesIt is a fallacy to conclude that because agents lack perfect information that the government should make decisions for us because the government also lacks perfect information.
>>540001242propertarianism executed libertarianism. and while doolittle isn't sufficient to build on, there is no going back.
>>540002016This is a flaw of individualist thinking it general. Yes, there is usually an economically rational course of action that's capable of resolving almost any difficulty, but much of the time that course of action is so arduous as to be practically impossible. The individualist, however, simply writes this off as "well, I guess you don't want it that badly" or "it's not my fault you're not strong and capable enough to do it yourself". If I wanted a cheaper version of Starlink, could I start my own rocketry and satellite internet companies to do so? Theoretically, yes. Practically, that's virtually impossible, and in the gap between the two a world of coercion is possible, which the existence of the theoretical course doesn't magically render as a perfectly voluntary exchange
>>540002999>If I wanted a cheaper version of Starlink, could I start my own rocketry and satellite internet companies to do so? Theoretically, yes. Practically, that's virtually impossible The question isn't if you will do it, it's if the market will do it. If the variables(start up cost, risk, expected returns, etc) make it rational to start a new internet rocketry company or to expand an existing one, then it will most likely happen. As it is right now, SpaceX is losing money so don't expect anyone to be copying their business model anytime soon. >in the gap between the two a world of coercion is possible, which the existence of the theoretical course doesn't magically render as a perfectly voluntary exchange Give an example. How is the exchange not perfectly voluntarily? What does it mean to be imperfectly voluntarily?
A real free market has never been tried.
>>540001571>If you pay 1000 for a bigger that generates 100 profit per year... Then those kikes wouldn't do that for zero profit for 10 years while breeding more aggressive+dependent slaves! Companies operate at a loss to squash out competition all.the.time. Even the ice trading empire back in the day faced that, yes that ice: frozen water.
>>540004139What exactly are you complaining about, that prices are too affordable?
>>540001648Watch the latest smarter every day
>>540003475What if what "the market wants" is slaves?
>>540004418Labor is a resource that needs to be allocated like any other. Competitive wage labor more efficiently allocates labor than slavery. Forcing the allocation of labor via slavery is no different from forcing the allocation of any other resource via price controls and subsidies.
>>540001242Nope, I vote always for maximum chaos and the guy the shit eating journos hate most, milquetoast lukewarm incels (known here as political broilers, their whole life is curated and they are 100 percent fakey fakey fake) with no personality will never get my vote, simple as
>"erm, socialism could never work because of the ECP you stupid commie">all private firms make centralized planning decisions with AI assistance now>stock trading is done though centralized trading algorithms and you're considered stupid and asking to lose money if you stray from them
>>540001242never. woke destroyed your market bullshit. why should I ever care about markets, when you can use malinvestment through money printing to do everything my group while harming yours?
>>540005088Stock markets aren't capitalism.
>>540001242Will lolbertarianism reject open borders and child fucking? No? Then there's no reason to ever support your retarded excuse for an ideology.
>>540001242All individualists argue for government to be weak, expensive, tyrannical and at the service of oligarchs and Jews.
>>540005247>muh bordersBy restricting immigration, the government directly intervenes in labor supply, artificially making it scarce resulting in inflated labor costs.Anti-immigration is anti-free market. If you don't support the unconditional free flow of labor and capital you're literally a communist.
>>540005247>reject open bordersWe reject open borders so long as the state exists. Having a welfare state that takes from taxpayers and gives to immigrants is obviously not the free market. But without a state, or at the very least without welfare, then immigration is good. >reject child fucking No can do.
>>540001242Why am I forced to buy insurance? Why is there only 1 place to buy electricity, gas and water from?
>>540001242Trump is Libertarian's fault. You should have supported Jeb.
>>540001242Until the next Republican puppet comes along to continue endless wars for Israel and the oil companies
>>540004216>>540001641communists pretending they don't understand things again.
>>540006343>pretending
No.
the free market leads to the present market when you simply assume participants won't act like niggers
>>540001242No.Free markets always end in taxpayers bailing out big corporations and thier CEOs.
>>540001242>le free market memeThe goal of the system is to trick you into thinking free markets are real when they're a fiction created by a centralized state. If you threaten the state and the owners of the state by say trying to create your own bank they'll kill you.
>>540001242https://youtube.com/shorts/4nwOBzKfY-0?si=g1HR7KTm1NGz8Pwq>Nothing to see Herr goylem.
You worship this?
>>540001648>Uh the free market is defined as no coercion, so coercion cant exist in a free marketI am very smart
>>540007566If there's coercion, by definition it's not a free market, stop playing dumb commie.
>>540001242So, define mutually beneficial relationships. This generally is the goal of all financial relationships: I get something at a fair price and you mutually agree to that exchange.But mutually beneficial quickly breaks down when its necessities vs what are you willing to pay.
>>540007953Not willing so much as able.
>>540007664>real free markets have never been tried
>>540007664But wouldn’t high prices on basic necessities be a form of coercion as well? I generally try to counter my dissatisfaction with the price by extending the life of the product. I tend to buy cars every ten or more years, keep a cellphone for at least 5 years. I can’t do that with a loaf of bread though. Its life expectancy is less than a week. It’s a necessity that requires frequent replacements and has gotten ridiculously expensive for what it is. It’s a form of coercive treatment that could be tempered with more affordable pricing or alternatives. A loaf of bread used to be the gold standard for stability in pricing. Now it’s the poster child for runaway pricing.
>>540001242No. I'm tired of jews being our thoughtleaders. It's all just to serve them and their ends
>>540008409If bread has a high price, there's an incentive to make and sell your own for short-term profit, driving its price down long-term.
You know what Friedman also advocated for?Free movement of labor uninhibited by borders and nation. Libertarianism is just the perspective of the corporation that wants to exploit you and sell out everything that makes you human. No tradition, sovereignty, religion, or anything else can survive the globalism it wants to produce.
>>540001392>fuck economicsexplains most /pol/ takes>>540001469low IQ, the abstraction is still something we should try to get close to
>>540001242Milton Friedman is retarded the fundamental axioms agreed upon by economists are false meaning everything they do is false as wellOnly windowlickers listen to economists
>>540001448its true, it just means we dont live in a free market in the usa
>>540008743he also suggested UBI and voluntary service instead of conscriptionconscription ended in the US and he got his voluntary service idea going, but no UBI yet
>>540002217This is the lowest IQ take I've seen in a while. It's interesting how a simple comment can say so much about a person's innate cognitive abilities, or lack thereof.YOU saw libertarians say things like >that's not real capitalism!>there was coercion involved in that so that doesn't count!So, you decided that it's a tautology and "no true scottsdale". That conclusion is a consequence of having a simple mind with limited reasoning abilities. The reality is that normies keep saying things such as>capitalism forces us to pay taxes that go to corporate bailouts!>capitalism keeps printing free money for themselves and prices keep rising!>capitalism keeps killing small business with regulations so they can't compete with big corps!And its not capitalism doing that. And we keep pointing that out, which is so tiresome. And then because we say "that's not real capitalism" a lot, you come to the conclusion that it's a "no true scottsdale" fallacy, that's just being dense as fuck.
>>540007566No, free markets tend away from coercion.
>>540007953>But mutually beneficial quickly breaks down when its necessities vs what are you willing to pay.Why? Give an example scenario.
>>540009418Totally bro, economists are all lying bro. Anything that you can't process and don't understand is a lie.However, simpler slogans like>make X pay!!!>its rich people's fault!!!>its the immigrants fault!!>everything is part of a jewish higher plan!!Is definitely the truth because THAT is something you can understand and get behind, right?
>>540010050>NYOOOOOOO YOU CANT DOUBT THE HECKIN ECONOMISTERINOS THEY'RE PERFECT THEYD NEVER IGNORE THEIR BLINDSPOTSif you want an example of just one of these blindspots then look at the Law of Diminishing ReturnsIt claims that the cost of production rises as things scaleHowever, Alan Blinder, the Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve in 1994-1996 did a study of a huge number of US manufacturing and other large corporations. His research found that for 89% of them, as things scaled, the cost of production would either remain constant or decrease, and only 11% saw increasing prices.This is direct empirical evidence to the contrary. In an actual hard science, people would disregard the law as an invalidated hypothesis, but because economists are not scientists and are instead High Priests of the Modern Religion, a.k.a.- neoliberalism, globalism, human exceptionalism, and growth at all costs, they just handwaved it away and cope by pretending that the law has strict conditions it must follow.The real reason they cope? Because it literally breaks the mathematics that economists use. They don't care about their model actually representing reality, they care about the mathematics being tractable. Well, newsflash, if your model doesn't represent reality, then youre no different than the theoretical physicists studying M theory since it's completely untestable. If you like modern economics because of the math, sure, fine, whatever, but DON'T FUCKING PRETEND THAT IT'S REALISTIC. The fact that we're using models in direct contradiction of how reality works as our guide posts for our culture and laws is fucking retarded, a recipe for disaster, and a massive part of the reason as to why the modern world fucking blowsRead the following and fucking weep you brainlethttps://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610440684
