former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the US Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions, Bob Bowman. Dr. Bowman campaigned nationwide for the nomination of the Reform Party of the United States of America for the presidency in 2000. www.thepatriots.us/ www.infowars.com www.prisonplanet.tv www.infowars.net www.prisonplanet.com
@Aurinkohirvi The more force you are using the more it will take to centrally plan. The more decentralize it is the more it is forced to compete with other jurisdictions for people & capital so the less it can centrally plan because competition won’t allow it to otherwise they’ll lose people & capital.
If the state owns the means of production there is no way anybody can run their own business, because they have no ownership, the state has to order them around. This is communism.
@Aurinkohirvi “What do you do to people who try to overthrow the government or who try to take property from its legal owner? You arrest them and judge them. The state in both economic systems would regard them as criminals.â€
Under liberty you have no welfare state to opt out of. You just have property you either homestead or acquire through exchange and can legally self-defend.
Rather than answering the question you changed the subject. The question refers to opting out of a welfare state.
@Aurinkohirvi “Would you now explain in turn, why mthe mega rich would prefer state ownership rather than private ownership? Because I find that very hard to believe!”
The rich usually always control any govt once you have decided that the state will decide things. If the rich do not take it over which is unlikely they will move out of it & a tyrannical ruling class will emerge within the state structure. What people want is power. Legal force by removing legal defense of others.
@Aurinkohirvi “How is state ownership…”
The difference under liberty is wealth is redistributed under individual actions of voluntary exchange under state ownership exchanges are made under central planning coercion where everything becomes a political issue decided by whomever has the most political influence with the central planners at the time.
Under extreme competition there would be no taxes, but in any case there would always be a variety of consequences for not paying your bills
@Aurinkohirvi Wages of people with the most political influence at the time will go higher in the short run, but long term is another story as you centrally plan more.
State officials have also lived very well, so you’re coming from outer space to me on that one. If people can legally plunder at will, they will.
The more you centrally plan the more you remove price and the measurements of profit, which is extremely important, and as you remove them you lose your standard of living and liberty.
@Aurinkohirvi “mega rich…”
Another point that is obvious but you are blinded to is a lot of people do not like competition and would prefer to legally plunder people or force people into exchanges with them and once that becomes the game the wealthier people will win that. The poor have no chance there, they never have, & they never can. It doesn’t matter whether the state has driven the wealthy people away beforehand or not or if a saint ran the central plan forever.
@ujisx
Voluntary wealth redistribution my eye! The laborer gets paid in capitalist system just enough so that he has to accept the job: the capitalist does not want to pay you any more than necessary! The difference is in the socialist command economy the prices & salaries are controlled, while in capitalist they are markets dictated.
In the capitalist economy wealth accumulates wealth. The poor do not voluntarily remain poor! Taxes are a way to slow down this process by redistributing wealth.
@ujisx
Yes, the one party system command economies have an elite. However, it is a political elite, not an economic one! Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong nor Joseph Stalin because they would have been economic elite. They were all guerilla chiefs who gained political power. After gaining power their favorite minons were rewarded with high political positions. The political leadership do live in luxury and yes, gain more power. But you can also LOSE it by falling out from favor. It is a clan system.
@ujisx
What liberty the middle class and the poor have? The liberty to become wealthy? Bull! Everyone should understand wealth accumulates wealth in a capitalist system. As wealth remains in the family, so does poverty. The “American dream” is an illusion. Only few people make it a success story, while the great masses of the people cannot: it’s an impossibilty! In the long run this leads to very few becoming very wealthy. Countries try to battle this development with taxes & social programs.
The first paragraph I failed to understand, but yes, it is communism and it does mean the political leadership dictates the economy. And I do not believe theat economic elite would want this. I do believe they would rather choose a fascist system where they can profit from running the political leadership. That is, the current American system.
@Aurinkohirvi Buyer & seller always value exchanges in different order. If the market is not setting price you got problems. You’re basically getting it
Even under fiat money & inflation taxes are an increasingly inefficient use of resources because they are not individually managed, people get less of what they want
Go to my blog link in my channel. Read What is Money? It is short. Study Lew Rockwell. Read Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt & The Law by Bastiat. Study Austrian Economics.
@Aurinkohirvi It is there I would think about it.
Higher standard of living under fascism than communism, individuals have greater control over property, thus resources are more efficiently managed.
Communism is the ultimate power, but fascism increase the output of the serfs, central planning doesn’t work.
It’s an inbred fascist socialist system not a free market economy or laissez-faire. Capitalism does not describe it, but that word is widely used for political reasons to maintain control.
@Aurinkohirvi The problem is law, we do not need legislators or rulers, we just need legal competition so the problems of the world do not have monopoly solutions but are voluntary adapted through competitive legal discovery & the best solutions emerge. Central planning has to be localized & contain to very small geographical areas. Liberty self organizes wealth & maximizes it use & with morals. All any state can do is basically lower standard of livings at the expense of special interest groups
@Aurinkohirvi It does not really matter how many parties there are, it is matter of how much force is used & where & whether or not there is a competition for how that force will be used. I think political parties are a big mistake.
You can’t really separate any form of political power from the economy. What you ideally want is political power removed & law created by competitive legal discovery & then voluntary adapted to determine people’s kismet.
@ujisx wrote “central planning doesn’t work.”
Central planning did work really well for a long time. From the 1920’s to 1970’s Soviet Union’s economy grew faster than in the Western Europe or in the USA. The living standard and science as well. China was a command economy still about 15 years ago, and also saw good development. Still, both countries changed into ultra-capitalism.
Errr…how does fascism “increase output of the serfs”? Is that Civilization game econimics? Do you mean slavery?
@Aurinkohirvi Central planning does not work because there is no way any central planner can know what people will want, what prices should be, how much to produce, and how resources should be allocated. There is no way any computer could know either. You are too young to remember seeing the bread lines on TV from the Soviet Union. Western Banksters always kept it a float.
“Errr” Serfs have a higher degree of ownership and control. You never read what I told you to read.
watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
@ujisx
I’m too young? I was born in early 60s, and live in Finland, right next to Russia. I know full well Soviet Union food lines (BTW, bread they ate more than westerners!), they had agriculture production problems, well mostly throughout the Soviet era. But the people’s living standard and production both in heavy and consumer industry still saw a huge growth, topping the western growth for decades of time, all the way until the Brezhnev’s stagnation era. It’s not a debatable issue!
@Aurinkohirvi Well I remember seeing fairly regularly on TV growing up here in the United States people in the Soviet Union standing in long lines trying to get food and then showing no food on the selves in the stores. I think they were being rationed food, which would be one of the results of central planning. Are you saying those were all staged events, because I for sure remember seeing them? I have never seen anything like that here in the United States ever.
@Aurinkohirvi The state is the biggest killer as well, with Soviet Union leading the way. R.J. Rummel book Death by Government it says the Soviets killed 61,000,000 of there own people. Stalin killed 43,000,000. Most of the deaths 39,000,000 were due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto.
China is second on the list mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered.
That is another result of central planning.
@ujisx
Nope, the people queueing for food were real, although that was mainly of the stagnation era thing. People did have food, but they didn’t have GOOD things like meat, fish, fruits and such. And Soviet Union needed to import food: its agriculture never was run nearly as good as the industry.
Nope, the U.S. (or any west European country) agriculture produced better. But the industry production and living standard growth in the Soviet Union were faster than in the west.
@ujisx
Watched that video (watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A) but couldn’t find anything about how fascism would “increase output of the serfs”. But it did agree what I said about that “the laborer gets paid in capitalist system just enough so that he has to accept the job.” That he is a modern age slave with an illusion of freedom, as the video put it.
@ujisx
Yeah, Stalin was completely ruthless. You are hard pressed to find a Finn who would admire him! Genarally we consider him as a big a-hole. They all were who were supporting him (or they were soon dead ones if you gave him a reason to suspect your loyalty). Communists, fascists, whatever, leaders can massacre their people. Even your American soldiers are sent again and again to wars with false claims and false flag self inflicted wounds. What do they care? Apparently nothing!
I wrote: “people did have food, but they didn’t have GOOD things like meat, fish, fruits and such.” Let me clarify this. They did have good things too, but in lesser amounts than in the western countries. It was mainly the good things they queued about. If you heard some shop got a delivery of something nice, everyone went to get it (or practically sent their grandma to queue it).
could someone name some of the corporations??
@kreculjkreculj monsanto