[canadiancapitalist]

It is a sweet sorrow indeed that envelopes me when I dare to glance around at our fair nation; at the condition of the citizenry and the state of our country. I will not wax poetic about our past and the lost freedom's that have accumulated with the passage of time. I do not seek to criticize or instruct, but merely to weep, for tragedy has fallen upon our land and it is a tragedy which can only be blamed on the apathy and inaction of good men such as me and you. But let us not cry yet! For the battle has not yet waned. Even still there exist coalitions of freedom loving individuals, daring to fight back against the menace of collectivism that envelops us. Even today a few brave men fight on, and we must lend them our support - mental and physical, moral and financial - if we are to have any hope for maintaining our dream of the free society.

While for many decades our nation has been under the control of depots and thugs we have in recent times been placed within a state of flux. From this chaos comes opportunity. We must recognize the need for the preservation of private property and individual rights. Look around at the world! Look at the failure of every communist regime. Look at the success where economic liberalism has been attempted. Do you deny the evidence that is in front of your eyes? Have we not had personal experience with the tragedy of collectivist control of the economy? Our nation has a proud and brave history and we must return to our historic roots of mercantilism and trade. This is the only path to prosperity.

Join with me friends! There is much you must do if you desire, as I do, freedom for every individual in this country. We must propagate ideas - the ideas of liberty. We must seek to treat our brothers and sisters humanely and embrace the ideas of voluntarism in our interactions with others. We must resist state tyranny and coercion. We must fight to defend the freedoms which are innately ours by the will of God - which the state will at every opportunity attempt to eradicate. We must fight them on all fronts, individual, economic and political. To that end I entreat you - join the Liberty Caucus today.

[albionfagan]

Where's Onnela?

I don't we've agreed upon a name, your stirring, impassioned appeal to the heart has been in vain.

[Oxymoron]

Who do you think you are Marc Anthony? There can be only one.

[Fasces]

Aye! Sell yourselves into slavery! That is the true liberty!

[canadiancapitalist]

In the world of fascism ignorance is strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery.

[albionfagan]

I think that's totalitarianism, rather than just fascism.

[canadiancapitalist]

They are both simply different shades of collectivism - the ideology that views people as part of groups instead of individuals. The final result of a society that is increasingly collectivist is total socialism - that is complete state ownership of society. The government will own your businesses, your clothing... even your wives. Everything that was once your property will belong to the state.

Is that the future you want for your children? Vassals of the state? Shall we wake up homeless on the continent our great, great, great grandfathers conquered? Shall we allow a few to dominate society? Shall we give up our freedom because we are too lazy and apathetic to rise and defend it? Shall we simply assume that someone else will save us? That the task is too onerous for such weak delicate flowers as ourselves?

NO! NO! A thousand times no! I'd rather die at the feet of an imperial soldier then pass my life in cowardice. I would rather rise up in arms against those who would impose on us their tyranny then sit idly by and watch as the state expands it's power completely over society.

[Fasces]

Wives are not property, CC, and cannot be owned - by the state, or by individuals.

[albionfagan]

They are both simply different shades of collectivism - the ideology that views people as part of groups instead of individuals. The final result of a society that is increasingly collectivist is total socialism - that is complete state ownership of society. The government will own your businesses, your clothing... even your wives. Everything that was once your property will belong to the state.

Is that the future you want for your children? Vassals of the state? Shall we wake up homeless on the continent our great, great, great grandfathers conquered? Shall we allow a few to dominate society? Shall we give up our freedom because we are too lazy and apathetic to rise and defend it? Shall we simply assume that someone else will save us? That the task is too onerous for such weak delicate flowers as ourselves?

NO! NO! A thousand times no! I'd rather die at the feet of an imperial soldier then pass my life in cowardice. I would rather rise up in arms against those who would impose on us their tyranny then sit idly by and watch as the state expands it's power completely over society.

You mean like in capitalist societies?

[Vladimir]

No one will buy this shit. Go wank over Ayn Rand

[canadiancapitalist]

Wives are not property, CC, and cannot be owned - by the state, or by individuals.

I ask you, people of Onnela, is this the world you wish to live in?

You mean like in capitalist societies?

In the free society that those of us in the Liberty Caucus advocate no man has control over another man. No man dominates society, except the parts of it which voluntary choose to become dominated. It is true that some become extremely wealthy (those who create extreme amounts of wealth) but you should not allow your petty jealousy to overwhelm you. Why should you begrudge another man for his fortune? With free market capitalism comes rapid increases in the standard of the living for the poor. It is only under capitalism that we have seen significant standard of living increases for the poor. Socialism brings us equality alright, the equality of shared poverty.

While the free society does not have a few men dominating it, this is obviously the case of the state. The head of state clearly dominates the state apparatus in nearly every country (except where they are mere figureheads, but even still there is generally a true head of state in those countries). Those at the top of the state apparatus have unrivaled power over all of society. THIS IS THE POWER THAT MY FELLOW POLITICIANS SEEK TO WIELD OVER YOU! They seek to dominate you, to enslave you, to make you their vassal and servant. I seek power for a single reason - to abolish it.

[Vladimir]

Would the following measures suit your grand scheme?

Cutting social expenditures, also known as austerity,
Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
Devaluation of currencies,
Trade liberalization, or lifting import and export restrictions,
Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of domestic stock markets),
Balancing budgets and not overspending,
Removing price controls and state subsidies,
Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,

[canadiancapitalist]

Some of those measures I support, some I oppose. What is your point?

[Vladimir]

Those are IMF's SAP policies which lead to the following:

-Poor countries must export more in order to raise enough money to pay off their debts in a timely manner.
-Because there are so many nations being asked or forced into the global market place—before they are economically and socially stable and ready—and told to concentrate on similar cash crops and commodities as others, the situation resembles a large-scale price war.
-Then, the resources from the poorer regions become even cheaper, which favors consumers in the West.
-Governments then need to increase exports just to keep their currencies stable (which may not be sustainable, either) and earn foreign exchange with which to help pay off debts.
-Governments therefore must:
spend less
reduce consumption
remove or decrease financial regulations
and so on.
-Over time then:
the value of labor decreases
capital flows become more volatile
a spiraling race to the bottom then begins, which generates
social unrest, which in turn leads to IMF riots and protests around the world
-These nations are then told to peg their currencies to the dollar. But keeping the exchange rate stable is costly due to measures such as increased interest rates.
-Investors obviously concerned about their assets and interests can then pull out very easily if things get tough
-In the worst cases, capital flight can lead to economic collapse, such as we saw in the Asian/global financial crises of 1997/98/99, or in Mexico, Brazil, and many other places. During and after a crisis, the mainstream media and free trade economists lay the blame on emerging markets and their governments’ restrictive or inefficient policies, crony capitalism, etc., which is a cruel irony.
-When IMF donors keep the exchange rates in their favor, it often means that the poor nations remain poor, or get even poorer. Even the 1997/98/99 global financial crisis can be partly blamed on structural adjustment and early, overly aggressive deregulation for emerging economies.
-Millions of children end up dying each year.

etc etc, enjoy the long read:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/s ... of-poverty

This is really what we want for Onella or whatever our country is called isn't it?

[RonPaulalways]

Would the following measures suit your grand scheme?

Cutting social expenditures, also known as austerity,
Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
Devaluation of currencies,

A free society does not force the people to use a devaluing currency. This is the hallmark of central banking.

Cutting social expenditures is a wise move. High social expenditure leads to bankruptcy and societal collapse, and that is NOT what you want (e.g. USSR, Yugoslavia).

Low social expenditure along with other positive policies lead to rapid economic development and unparalleled increase in standard of living (South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan).

[Vladimir]

^ that, of course, was coupled with combinations of protectionism, heavy foreign investment due to pre-existing infrastructure and an educated (or abundant and subdued) labour force, special economic zones and special creditor positions in relation to the US.
Where you should look at the real consequences of "free markets" and reduced social spending are SAPed countries where it has led to unemployment, poverty and collapse of manufacture.

[Dr House]

Well to be fair, even though developing countries with free economies don't really develop the brute productivity needed to become fully industrialized they do perform better than countries that have neither an industrial policy nor a free economy, due to higher efficiency of production. A prime example of this is Chile, which while it will probably never catch up to the developed World already outperforms the rest of South America and almost all of Latin America in various key economic and social indicators.

[HoniSoit]

they do perform better than countries that have neither an industrial policy nor a free economy, due to higher efficiency of production.

The point is not that 'developing countries with free economies' don't develop but that they often don't achieved balanced development due to subordination to and dependency on the industrialised countries, or don't develop in a way that reduce poverty evenly.

[Demosthenes]

:lol:

Who do you think you are Marc Anthony? There can be only one.

Indeed, the pretender...

[RonPaulalways]

^ that, of course, was coupled with combinations of protectionism, heavy foreign investment due to pre-existing infrastructure and an educated (or abundant and subdued) labour force, special economic zones and special creditor positions in relation to the US.

Notice I wrote:

Low social expenditure along with other positive policies lead to rapid economic development and unparalleled increase in standard of living (South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan).

Besides low social spending levels, arguably the only other policy that the aforementioned countries shared was a focus on infrastructure development.

Heavy foreign investment was largely due to an environment friendly to industry, which again goes back to low social spending/taxation.

It shouldn't be glossed over how little the rapidly developing east Asian nations spend on social welfare.

For example, South Korea, as a percentage of GDP, spends the least of any OECD country on health care. China spends, as a percentage of GDP, even less than South Korea on health care. Singapore spends a quarter what the US and most developing nations spend on health care.

It's not just health care. Asian tigers have historically had very low levels of welfare. What money the government does spend to intervene in the economy is for developing/subsidizing industries. While I disagree with this sort of intervention, at least the east Asian governments don't naively assume that reducing the disincentives for not producing will magically make society more productive.