I'm not joking. What's great about competition?
>better and cheaper services
Many services are accessible to poorfags like me and are subsidized by the govt., why should I work hard?

>serious answers only

I like socialism. (but only for White people)

>>507168881 (OP)
I'm pretty sure the answer is brown people. I'd love to be a socialist in a place full of people that looked like me.

>>507169165
>I want to make my own life worse because seeing brown people makes me feel angry

>>507168881 (OP)
I agree competition doesn't do shit. China us mogging us in a lot of technology and supposedly America is supposed to be a competitive country

>>507169059
What were his long term plans for the economy? MEFO bills made things work short-term but would create a ton of inflation long term.
>>507169165
Yeah if the law was more rigorous things would surely be better than this.

>>507168881 (OP)
Better question. Why should I subsidize your pathetic existence as a useless eater?

>>507169333
>supposedly America is supposed to be a competitive country
Checked. Yeah no, it's not as competitive as it could be. You've got GMOs and patents keeping a monopoly on plants and seeds. You've got the FED preventing you from using your own private currency, and instead you're forced to use fake money (gold standard was nuked in 1971).

I'd say your economies and markets now are rather Keynesian and controlled than free and competitive.

>>507169441
Because the state will tax you and give me your money.

>>507169300
No, they just ruin/manipulate/scam services to extinction. I'm not your terminally-online incel caricature; I have niggers that I'll kill you about, which makes me sharply aware of how they fuck things up. I don't know if you'd call it forethought or the social contract, but they just don't do it. If you supply them a service, they will not only expect you to do it but will exploit it until you're dead. It's an abstraction to them; they don't appreciate that you helped them, they just think you're the helper to be squeezed into non-existence.

>he doesn't know about the economic calculation problem
>he calls a mixed economy socialism
>its based when whitey does it

>>507169397
I mean, if it was law to torture and mutilate people that tried to invade your entity, then you'd be right.

You put them in jail for being dumb niggers, and guess what, you're now paying for their existence. And giving jobs to the retards who don't produce anything, they just farm niggers.

>>507169333
we honestly shouldnt be doing business with china. no western country should be doing business with them. they dont play by the same rules that we demand that our own businesses follow.

>>507169878
>leaves country with money
What now you stupid worthless faggot?

>>507168881 (OP)
I was a total Libertarian retard fifteen years ago
But I get it now
I'm very pro worker and pro welfare

BUT I WANT THESE FUCKING NIGGERS GONE
I WILL NEVER STOP BEING RACIST

>>507170093
>he doesn't know about the economic calculation problem
I'll read Ludwig Von Mises and I'll get back to you.
>>507170418
The coercion of socialists states allows for a kind of stability that doesn't exist elsewhere. You can go to tax havens, but can you be sure they will give you the same operable environment?

>>507170594
>socialists states
>stability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJZ--fcguDY

>>507170351
This is my only problem with socialism; you incentivize what you subsidize. And the subsidizing of lazy shitheads makes for a failed welfare state. It's all too tiresome.
>>507170093
My primary concern regarding the economic calculation problem and Austrian school economics is their characterization of economics as a rational science rather than an empirical one. How can one make predictions without empirical observation to support them? Some of their assertions also appear unrealistic; e.g the idea that in the absence of states and a monopoly on violence, individuals would establish private courts and function within a voluntary society. Yeah it's theoretically true, but it lacks practical realism. There has never been a scalable precedent throughout the history of mankind.

Socialism only works if the people who benefit from it can also be held accountable.

>>507171530
Tbf, Mises himself was not an ancap and its dubious to me that AE necessarily implies anti-statism. I would definitely read the ECP though, preferably the one on the Mises website with the postscript by Joe Salerno. Mises is very charitable towards the socialists and grants them many assumptions that they don't deserve. He then finishes off their economic system regardless in a way they were never able to rebut. But they ignore that fact to this day. The market exists for a fucking reason. It has a vital function in human societya nd its never going away. That doesn't mean rich people should get a free pass to be shitty, but a complete end to the market economic would necessarily result in a radical simplification of economic calculation (not a good thing).

>>507172311
>its dubious to me that AE necessarily implies anti-statism
Really? How would the state exist usually according to free market capitalists? Where does it get its money from? What does it enforce or oversee?

>>507173404
> “The state is the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. It has the power to apply force. That is why the liberal wants to limit the state’s activities to the narrowest possible field. All that the state is called upon to do is to protect the life, health, liberty, and private property of individuals, and to safeguard the public peace, both against internal and external enemies.”
— Liberalism, p. 37

This was Mises' view. It is not my own fwiw.

>>507173798
>protect the life, health, liberty, and private property of individuals, and to safeguard the public peace, both against internal and external enemies
That is a VERY broad definition and can be extended in practice much further than it's intended. Unless Mises has a rigorous framework within which liberalism or Libertarianism (idk which one Mises supports) can function, then I don't think his ideas can be applied irl. What can you really do to put what he says into practice? Start by privatize national assets and reducing the reach of regulations and taxes?

>>507168881 (OP)
Competition is great, which is why the peasants should work together to compete more effectively.

>>507169397
inflation was low

>>507168881 (OP)
Here’s a serious answer
You’re a nigger

>>507168881 (OP)
The idea of a market isn't founded around competition it's meant for adoption. If a market didn't exist then it's difficult to get people to adopt new tech, boomers would very well still be using CRT TVs and short wave radios. There's almost no real competition and for good reason because people don't care about rules or quality they care about winning. If I lie on an interview I'm doing it because I want a job, not because I care about what I'm doing. The idea of competition is used to threaten labor to adopt new tech. Under socialism, assuming a government has the force to back up their threats, government would simply force labor to adopt new tech at a command, but realistically most governments are paper tigers and can only convince people to do anything under duress. A mysterious foreign power is always more convincing than your own government which seems all too familiar and banal. It's simply too difficult to convince the average person in an all-powerful state in the same way it's difficult to convince the average person in an all-powerful god. It's part of the reason why all effective theology is dualistic.

>>507174402
Would it have stayed low?

>>507169059
/ thread

>>507169300
You every notice that brown people never say please or thank you.
They are like roaches that just consume and destroy

>>507168881 (OP)
>I'm not joking. What's great about competition?
It's not about it being "great", it's about it being inevitable in any stable system. All stable systems require negative feedback loops, and all negative feedback loops require competing forces.

People are going to compete regardless of what "ism" people pretend to worship. Burying your head in the sand leads to worse outcomes than accepting it because when you accept it you can at least try to engineer the system such that individual interests align with the public interest. If you delude yourself into thinking that people will magically stop competing just because you wave the correct flags and chant the correct slogans then you will feel no need to ensure that individual interests align with the public interest, and this is why basically every historical attempt at communism etc resulted in a dictator who turned the entire country into his own private property. After all any measures taken to prevent the rise of such a dictator would be, by definition, competition. You are competing against the aspiring dictator by obstructing his plans for absolute domination.

>>507168881 (OP)
White socialism might work.
The problem is that your think niggers and women are your equals, and for some reason sodomy is essential to making it work.
You deserve what has happened to your people.

>>507172311
I would say Mises' ECP argument of commensurability is the weaker one. Neurath was a pretty weird guy inspired by Ancient Egypt and the Greeks and his idea of a moneyless economy was part of his neopositivist philosophical project that operate on very different definitions of "rationality" than what Mises had in mind. It means the whole issue boils down to disagreements in the nature of rationality.

Hayek's knowledge problem is much more bulletproof.

The elites hates communism/socialism

That should tell you it's good for humanity