/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.27581109]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says.

[Anonymous No.27581156]

>>27581109
OP sucking dicks increases with gay, faggot study says

[Anonymous No.27581161]

>>27581109
No one ever believed that trickle shit. The plebs never had a choice.

[Anonymous No.27581216]

I might add that if you think tax rates have any impact on the rich you're an imbecile. Rich people don't pay taxes, period. When commies talk about taxing the rich it means taking more from the middle and working class.

[Anonymous No.27581221]

>>27581109
I’m unemployed and live a life of opulence that would make kings of old blush.

Wealth isn’t numbers on a screen, it’s all the shit you take for granted as owed to you.
You will never be happy no matter how much money you acquire.

[Anonymous No.27581241]

>>27581109
Trickle down isn’t orthodox economic theory and never has been. Just because the conservatives lied to people doesn’t mean that communists aren’t or that their retarded, inadmissible theories are correct.
The free market is the most efficient method of allocating resources. If you live in the first world, you have literally nothing to bitch about.

[Anonymous No.27581243]

>>27581161
What about my non-existent ability to make money in the stock market?

[Anonymous No.27581280]

>>27581216
This. Was exposed in the Panama papers. Should be fighting against tax safe haven for the rich instead.

[Anonymous No.27581294]

>>27581221
Very correct. And as inequality rises in a free market, so does standard of living across the board. This is NOT trickle down, trickle down is tax cuts on the rich and stimulus, free market enterprise increases revenue for all but in an unequal way.

[Anonymous No.27581301]

>>27581161
>No one ever believed that trickle shit
Republicans and Reaganfags did though

[Anonymous No.27581313]

>>27581241
>The free market is the most efficient method of allocating resources.
Oh is that why I work my ass off for 20 years in order to get completely fucked

[Anonymous No.27581378]

>>27581313
>my life is bad and therefore the system is bad

[Anonymous No.27581385]

>>27581280
>tax cuts don't do anything because they don't pay any taxes
Oh so the trickle down definitely doesn't work for sure then

[Anonymous No.27581435]

>>27581385
Nobody except for old boomer conservatives (that have died) believe that trickledown works retard. You are literally arguing against nobody

[Anonymous No.27581440]

>>27581378
The system is bad because you're still fat and getting away with it

[Anonymous No.27581491]

IMAGINE GIVING A SINGLE FUCK ABOUT TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH WHEN THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE CENTRAL BANK PRINTING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND GIVING IT TO WALL STREET

You stupid fucks, stop falling for these leftist memes. We had lower taxes, lower spending, lower regulations in the 50s and we fucking thrived.

The problem is the currency, fix the currency and gas all of the leftists.

[Anonymous No.27581542]

>>27581243
Imagine not being a libertarian and being a central bank bootlicker instead.

>>27581280
LMAO all taxation should be abolished

[Anonymous No.27581550]

>>27581491
US is coming down

[Anonymous No.27581576]

>>27581109
It is what it is

[Anonymous No.27581579]

Trickle down economics isn't real, it's a leftist strawman argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpKvS7S1GY

[Anonymous No.27581728]

>>27581491
>50s
Was a fluke and America will die regardless

[Anonymous No.27581858]

>>27581542
yeah, i was in middle school once too

[Anonymous No.27581870]

>>27581579
Seriously. Never in grad school did I hear trickle down as a concept even historically.
Lefties interpret the increase in inequality that comes from industrialization and standard-of-living increases as “trickle down.” Ignoring the fact that it’s more of a “trickle up” communists have no way to actually increase and just bitch about improvements if they aren’t 100% directed towards queer disabled black transwomen.
Looking at the dislike ratio and I’m already mad again. Fucking idiots in this country

[Anonymous No.27581934]

>>27581858
>yeah, i was in middle school once too
oh so you used to be a socialist and grew up?

[Anonymous No.27582073]

>>27581542
I think we should have an additional tax placed on all lolbertarian retards

[Anonymous No.27582146]

>>27581934
nah I was a lolbert who started recognizing patterns and did some basic math

[Anonymous No.27582219]

>>27581491
>he fell for the lower taxes lower regulations meme

[Anonymous No.27582280]

>>27582073
>I think we should have an additional tax placed on all lolbertarian retards
lmao you bootlickers will never obtain power
Enjoy wageslaving sucking dick for federal reserve notes working 80 hours a week lmao

>>27582146
>nah I was a lolbert
Ohhh, so now you realized it's a good thing that your wages and savings constantly lose value as you're forced to work harder and harder?

The "I used to be Libertarian" lie is such an overplayed card at this point, just give it up.

[Anonymous No.27582311]

>>27582219
How is it a meme if there is a massive amount of empirical evidence?
I don't understand why you retards love wageslaving so much.

Imagine not wanting to live in Switzerland or Singapore lol

[Anonymous No.27582369]

>>27582280
>Ohhh, so now you realized it's a good thing that your wages and savings constantly lose value as you're forced to work harder and harder?
who are you talking to? did you even read my post?

[Anonymous No.27582401]

>>27582280
>lmao you bootlickers will never obtain power
and you will likely never obtain pussy

[Anonymous No.27582506]

>>27582369
>who are you talking to? did you even read my post?
Yes, you're not a Libertarian, meaning you support central banking and government intervention which forces you to work harder.

>>27582401
>and you will likely never obtain pussy
I just came in my gf lmao
lick more boots btw leftshitter

[Anonymous No.27582547]

>>27582506
aight I'ma head out, have fun arguing with your strawmen

[Anonymous No.27582606]

>>27582547
>have fun arguing with your strawmen
It's funny, I'm actually not strawmanning. You legitimately support central banking.

[Anonymous No.27582611]

>>27581109

[Anonymous No.27582654]

>>27581241
>If you live in the first world, you have literally nothing to bitch about.
Yeah, people can expect to be poorer than their parents but on the other hand the've got iPhones and they're not living in Somalia so it all balances out in the end. :^)

[Anonymous No.27582726]

>>27581280
on this issue, the silence of the very people who want high taxes is deafening
to be sure some of it can be quantified to ignorance, but it also evidences crab in a bucket mentality: the average leftie/commie/authoritarian does not want a just system, he just wants the neighbor down the street to not have a better life than him

[Anonymous No.27582727]

>>27581491
>guys $1700 ones makes a big giant stack of bills omg inflation!
Yeah this is the most midwit-level image I've been seeing posted lately

[Anonymous No.27583125]

>>27581491
>We had lower taxes, lower spending, lower regulations in the 50s and we fucking thrived.
This is complete bullshit though. Top rates of tax were controlled, the movement of money internationally was controlled, the government and federal reserve actively intervened in the economy to maintain full employment, and on a large scale industry was more regulated - not less.
Look at the airline industry: In 1950 if an airline wanted to start a new route it needed government permission, which could take months. If it wanted to change its prices, it needed permission and the agreement of other airlines. If It wanted to leave a route, it usually needed government permission. If an airline wanted to buy a foreign made plane, it could be refused an import license if an American company made a similar plane. The reason airline service used to be so fancy? Because they weren't allowed to compete on price. Prices were decided by the Civil Aeronautics Board domestically and by IATA internationally. This is the airline industry of the "low regulation" 1950s.

Breton Woods was not a gold standard, it was a system of exchange rate pegs with gold as a fig leaf to make it politically palatable, and the underlying reason such a system was designed was to leave governments free to intervene in their domestic economies and deliver full employment without suffering capital flight.

[Anonymous No.27583159]

>>27582727
>>guys $1700 ones makes a big giant stack of bills omg inflation!
Literally yes, you fucking retard.
Imagine going to such extreme mental gymnastics to defend your own enslavement.

>Yeah this is the most midwit-level image I've been seeing posted lately
You parasite bootlickers are so incredibly stupid it's unreal.
Go wageslave 80 hour weeks and be happy about it, slave.

[Anonymous No.27583216]

>>27582311
Singapore sucks though, Switzerland is nice cause of the landscape

[Anonymous No.27583343]

>>27583125
>Top rates of tax were controlled, the movement of money internationally was controlled
What do you mean "controlled".
Tax rates in general were much smaller back then. The rich didn't even pay those taxes, it only applied if you made the equivalent of like 20 million dollars a year in today's money. Even then there were massive loopholes.
The government spent a lot less, intervened in the economy a lot less etc.

>federal reserve actively intervened in the economy to maintain full employment,
No they didn't. The government and federal reserve created the great depression. How did that work out? Retard.

Things have been shit ever since we got off the gold standard in 1971 leading to endless money printing and government spending.
The Keynesians/MMTers got their way. Even Nixon said "We're all Keynesians now."

>Breton Woods was not a gold standard
No shit, it wasn't exactly a gold standard but the dollar was still technically backed by gold. A superior system to this was an actual gold standard like we had from 1865-1913.

[Anonymous No.27583358]

>>27582311
Not really. I don't see how you're making the connection that lower taxes means less wage slaving when it's clearly been the opposite. Also take a look at the places with the best work/life balance.

[Anonymous No.27583383]

>>27583216
Singapore is nice because they're one of the most capitalist countries on earth, meaning their workers have the highest living standards.
Truth hurts.

[Anonymous No.27583508]

>>27583358
>that lower taxes means less wage slaving
Less central banking means less wage slaving. Lowering taxes can help because it allows businesses to buy capital and increase production, but it wasn't my main point.


>when it's clearly been the opposite
Imagine being so brainwashed you think correlation equals causation. Taxes are barely lower than they were in 1950. You're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.27583642]

The statement "Tax the Rich" isn't just a calling card for the increase of tax rates. It includes the actual enforcement of existing tax legislation, closing tax loopholes so that Joe Billionaire pays the intended tax rate instead of "lol I pay 2% because my assets are in an offshore blind trust"

[Anonymous No.27583787]

>>27581109
Rich people are psychopaths.
The end.

[Anonymous No.27583897]

>>27583642
>>27583787
Taxing the rich won't benefit the poor whatsoever. The rich hardly spend any of their money, it's not like they're taking resources away from you.
Money and resources are not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.27583906]

>>27583343
>What do you mean "controlled".
Higher, I made an error since I was building towards the much more interesting point about regulations, which runs with the theme of control.
>Even then there were massive loopholes.
Those loopholes generally being "you can pay less tax if you invest your money the way the government wants you to", i.e. interference in the economy.
>The government spent a lot less, intervened in the economy a lot less etc.
Empirically untrue.
>The government and federal reserve created the great depression.
Meme, but even if it was true it lead to the New Deal. Regardless of whether you think it was "right" or not, that set the US on a Keynesian path from FDR to Nixon. You can't magically claim the 1950s as a win for small government when it was built entirely in the shadow of FDR and Truman.
>The Keynesians/MMTers got their way. Even Nixon said "We're all Keynesians now."
Conveniently, you ignore the turn away from this under Carter and Reagan.
We were all Keynesians from the end of WW2 to the 1973 oil crisis. After that, nobody has been a Keynesian. (New ""Keynesianism"" owes about as much to Keynes as it owes to Dante's Divine Comedy.)
Keynes himself was the British representative at the conference that designed Breton Woods.

Re income tax rates on the rich: Pic related.

>>27583508
Central Banking is a meme enemy.
In Britain the Bank of England has liquidated government debt several times in the last few years without much by way of inflationary effect. The BoE was nationalized in 1945 and returns any profit it makes on operations to its owner - the government. When the BoE prints money to buy govt bonds, if it holds those bonds to maturity the money goes right back to the govt. Despite this, Britain has remained around the same rates of inflation as other first world countries.

Central bank policy has been trash since the 1970s, but people who get wound up about their very existence rather than their policy failures are clowns.

[Anonymous No.27583951]

>>27581491
America was peak regulated during the 50s faggot

[Anonymous No.27584058]

>>27583951
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA No it wasn't, you people are so fucking dumb it hurts.
Back then we were the world's biggest creditor nation, now we're the world biggest debtor.

[Anonymous No.27584126]

>>27583897
Huh? By not taxing the rich tbe govt has less money for social goods like roads and hospitals, which all people use. So yes, not taxing the rich does take away resources from poor people

[Anonymous No.27584476]

>>27583906
>Higher
Not even true. Even leftists are now admitting taxes weren't that high even back then.
https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html
It was a much freer market with much less government spending.
>invest your money the way the government wants you to",
When ended up going into the pockets of the rich anyway.
>interference in the economy.
Much less than today.
>Empirically untrue.
Except it's empirically true.
The pages of regulations in the federal register are much much higher in the 50s. Obviously in time more regulations have been added, not less. Government spending was much lower, we were the world's biggest creditor nation back then, now we're the world biggest debtor.
>Meme
It's not. Please read a book. I'm glad more and more people are realizing the government created the depression. Especially since they didn't intervene in 1920 and that recession was quickly over.
>New Deal.
Which was a terrible thing that contributed to the depression. Most of these regulations were repealed after ww2 leading to the post war boom.
>that set the US on a Keynesian path from FDR to Nixon
It wasn't keynesian at all. It was keynesian AFTER we got off the gold standard. We did exactly what the keynesians wanted.
>you ignore the turn away from this under Carter and Reagan.
LMAO HAHAHAHA What "turn away from"
The damage had already been done. We were already off the gold standard. Since Carter, the government has spent an INSANE amount of money which would have been unheard of in the 50s.
>nobody has been a Keynesian
Keynesianism merged with mainstream economics. All mainstream economists support central banking and deficit spending to "fix" recessions.

>Central Banking is a meme enemy.
No, it's the MAIN enemy and they have blinded you. We would have much higher living standards and a massive decrease in prices if we didn't have a central bank.

You people should be violently prevented from voting.

[Anonymous No.27584516]

>>27581579
What else do you call it when Trump cut taxes for the rich and the conservatives claimed and still claim to this day that his tax cuts help everyone? They may not have used the term but it's the same idea.

[Anonymous No.27584561]

>>27584126
>By not taxing the rich tbe govt has less money for social goods like roads and hospitals
I don't want the government to monopolize those services.
Why would you want to live a bunch of violent parasitical monopolists more money to destroy society?
none of these things lead to higher wages, they destroy wages.
We want to increase economic production so our living standards increase, not waste money on government.

>So yes, not taxing the rich does take away resources from poor people
When resources are spent on these things, resources are taken away from things the working class COULD have consumed

[Anonymous No.27584607]

>>27584516
>What else do you call it when Trump cut taxes for the rich
He barely cut taxes, he ended up raising them in some states.
ALSO he massively increased government spending and money printing. He increased the inflation tax.

America needs a free market dictator, it's the only way to end the fed and free the markets.

[Anonymous No.27584635]

>>27584476
>The pages of regulations in the federal register are much much higher in the 50s. Obviously in time more regulations have been added, not less.
This makes the inane assumption that a regulation saying that airplane exit door lights have to be green is of the same magnitude as a regulation saying that airline ticket prices have to be approved by the government.
>We did exactly what the keynesians wanted.
Keynes wanted the Bancor, which went even further than Breton woods in controlling international capital flows. (But hey, it too was notionally pinned to gold - really, you should love him!)

Beyond that, you're not worth dealing with. It's very clear that you're going to dodge any of the interesting empirical examples (Airline regulation, the BoE monetizing UK debt) to stick to your party line. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.27584701]

>>27581313
>thinks he's in a free market

[Anonymous No.27584906]

>>27584635
>magnitude as a regulation
Stupid argument. If the pages of regulations have increased by 500% or something, do you really think those pages are all going to contain benign things?

You're actually fucking braindead if you think we have anything close to a free market now.

>Keynes wanted the Bancor,
Keynesians, not keynes wanted to get off the gold standard.
Why couldn't we just go back to the free market, free banking era of the late 1800s when we had unprecedented levels of economic growth and increases in living standards for workers?

>you're not worth dealing with.
Giving up so easily? You couldn't refute my other points. You pussies never actually debate Libertarians. I bet you unironically listen to Krugman.
You people support poverty and human suffering, you should not be allowed to vote.

>Airline regulation
We literally have more regulation now, there is so much more regulation that airlines are going bankrupt.
>the BoE monetizing UK debt
Nothing to do with america.
>to stick to your party line.
The irony.

[Anonymous No.27584951]

>>27583897
imagine being this cucked

[Anonymous No.27584971]

>>27584701
These retards are so fucking dumb, it's incredible how they fight against their own interests.
>BAWWWWWW SAVE ME GOVERNMENT

[Anonymous No.27584999]

>>27584561
You don't want the govt to monopolise roads? You want all roads to be privately owned? Imagine driving to work and having to pay 6 different tolls because you have to use roads owned by 6 different private corporations. Can't or won't pay? Guess you can't go to the supermarket then, or go to a sports game. You won't be able to leave your house since you'd have to pay to use the street outside.

In terms of healthcare, the US model seems pretty fucked to me. Many other countries such as New Zealand seem to have a much better publicly run system where people don't have to choose between selling their house to pay for treatment or dying. Just seems odd that you would support private companies that would gouge your wallet just because you got sick or injured.

[Anonymous No.27585039]

>>27584951
>you're cucked because you don't want to wageslave and want your money to actually gain value over time
lmao

>>27584635
Hey, one more thing before you leave Keynesfag. Try refuting this image.

[Anonymous No.27585153]

>>27584999
>You want all roads to be privately owned?
Yes.
> Imagine driving to work and having to pay 6 different tolls because you have to use roads owned by 6 different private corporations.
It would be cheaper than taxes and there would be much less congestion.

>You won't be able to leave your house since you'd have to pay to use the street outside.
Those roads would be community owned.

>the US model seems pretty fucked to me.
Because the government has completely destroyed it and jacked up the prices. It used to be incredibly cheap in the 50s and 60s before all this government.
Please read this image.

>Many other countries such as New Zealand seem to have a much better publicly run system where people don't have to choose between selling their house to pay for treatment or dying.
Switzerland had a mostly privatized system and doesn't have waiting lines and inefficiencies that exist in state run systems.

[Anonymous No.27585209]

>>27581221
based

[Anonymous No.27585421]

>>27584906
>I bet you unironically listen to Krugman.
This is why you are not worth dealing with. I have already stated that New "Keynesians" owe nothing to Keynes.
>We literally have more regulation now
Don't speak about industries you know nothing about.
For everyone else: Read up on the Civil Aeronautics Board. In one case, Continental Airlines had to wait 8 years to start services between Denver and San Diego, and even then only because it sued the CAB for taking so long with their application. Truly, a free market paradise!
(Today, airlines can enter and exit markets at will. If United wants to fly Denver-San Diego, that's a matter for them and the airports in both cities and nobody else.)

[Anonymous No.27585708]

>>27585153
Why would privately owned roads be cheaper than taxes? Each road owner would want to maximise profits so they would each charge the highest toll price they believe people would pay to use their road.
The govt charges you cost price via your taxes. The private company charges you cost + profit margin.

>Those roads would be community owned
Errr no they wouldn't, they would would be privately owned. Road Corp Inc would own your street, and it would have potholes and the lamposts won't work, but you'll have gouged by massive tolls to use it. Don't like it? Build your own road.

[Anonymous No.27585745]

>>27585421
>I have already stated that New "Keynesians" owe nothing to Keynes.
Both new and old keynesians are braindead. You cannot even refute these images:
>>27585039
>>27584906

>Don't speak about industries you know nothing about.
What about banking? What about healthcare? What about education?
Obviously there is much more intervention in these things now since the 50s.
Who gives a shit about airplanes? They removed some regulations and added different ones in some of these sectors, but the overall level of regulation is higher.

[Anonymous No.27585799]

>>27582726
There's this smug Dutch cunt who's on various talk shows and has been arguing that exact point: if we want to tax the rich, we need to take a dump on tax havens. And he believes the US has the power to do so. It's a strawman that nobody is arguing this point Anon. Tax havens are a massive problem, they are at the center of the rich not paying their taxes.

[Anonymous No.27585895]

>>27585708
>Why would privately owned roads be cheaper than taxes?
The government wastes most of it's money and doesn't try to cut costs or be more efficient.
>Each road owner would want to maximise profits so they would each charge the highest toll price
But they're competing with each other, in the same way mcdonalds competes with burger king. They want to lower prices.

>Errr no they wouldn't,
EERRRRRRR yes they would bud. When new communities are formed, people form community organizations which take care of roads leading up to their houses.

[Anonymous No.27585909]

>but the overall level of regulation is higher

[Anonymous No.27585995]

>>27585799
>we need to take a dump on tax havens.
lmao you guys are so fucking retarded it's hurts
IMAGINE wanting the government to have more money
Holy fuck kill yourself.
Why do you think wages for workers are so high in "tax havens" like Switzerland, it's almost as if lowering taxes on the rich creates wealth and raises living standards.


> they are at the center of the rich not paying their taxes.
Nigger, you could take all the money from the rich and it would fund the government for 6 months. Money is just pieces of paper, it's not actual physical goods or services you absolute morons.

[Anonymous No.27586022]

>>27585895
>But they're competing with each other, in the same way mcdonalds competes with burger king. They want to lower prices.
If someone owns the streets around your house who are they competing with? Helicopter companies? Couldn't they use their monopoly to destroy property values by making the area shitty, scoop up everything at pennies on the dollar and then fix it up again?

[Anonymous No.27586038]

>>27585909
>>but the overall level of regulation is higher
Yes you fucking idiot.
Go lick more boots elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.27586081]

>>27581221
/thread

[Anonymous No.27586127]

>>27586022
>If someone owns the streets around your house
First off, they wouldn't, those would be community owned. Secondly there are reasons why they couldn't price gouge you and it would be cheaper than government roads, Walter Block wrote a book on this.

>Couldn't they use their monopoly to destroy property values by making the area shitty, scoop up everything at pennies on the dollar and then fix it up again?
They would LOSE MONEY doing this in the first place, there's no reason to do it.

[Anonymous No.27586140]

>>27585995
You advocate against the state, but believe in community-owned roads. All you want is microstates.

[Anonymous No.27586245]

>>27581161
Conservatives Unironically do

[Anonymous No.27586247]

>>27586140
>government is when private individuals own shares in a company

[Anonymous No.27586260]

>>27585895
Lol there's only one street outside your house. That road owner literally has no competition since it's the only way your vehicle is leaving your property. You either pay, or you never leave your house.

>when new communities are formed, people form community organisations which take care of roads leading up to their houses
Sorry but Doris the 90yr old widower, John the mechanic, and Timmy the paperboy are not gonna be out there laying new roads. You'll need to get Road Corp Inc to lay the road which they will then own.
Even if you tried to bring in materials to build a new road, you'd have to haul them in on existing roads. Oh, looks like Road Corp Inc controls the use of vehicles carrying road building materials on their roads, guess they won't allow you to bring materials in. Too bad.

[Anonymous No.27586282]

>>27586245
No they don't. They believe in creating wealth. Please learn economics.

[Anonymous No.27586321]

>>27586247
>a community coming together to take care of essential utilities whose value lies in something else than making profit is a free market

[Anonymous No.27586349]

>>27586245
it only works for them because their followers are too stupid to figure out what the fuck trickle down economics even are. You tell them massive tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to them and create and jobs and shit and they will gobble that shit up like cornbread.

[Anonymous No.27586400]

>>27581109
it's almost as if they've been lying to us this whole time. pretty sure PNK fixes that for us by balancing at least the justice system. (the current tax system is injustice)

[Anonymous No.27586415]

>>27586260
>That road owner literally has no competition since it's the only way your vehicle is leaving your property. You either pay, or you never leave your house.
Those roads would be community owned.
>You'll need to get Road Corp Inc to lay the road which they will then own.
If we had anarchism today. People wouldn't allow some random company to just come in and monopolize the roads.

Anyway, read this book, it's answers all of your concerns and more, much better than I can.
https://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-Highways-Economic-Factors-ebook/dp/B005NCLQXA

[Anonymous No.27586471]

>>27581109
And Jews had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.27586509]

>>27586321
Yes, this is a thing which is possible and regularly happens in a free market. Thanks for understanding.

>>27586349
>it only works for them because their followers are too stupid to figure out what the fuck trickle down economics even are. You tell them massive tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to them and create and jobs and shit and they will gobble that shit up like cornbread.
It's the opposite, it's you gullible idiots who have lead to believe that conservatives actually believe this. It gives you an invisible enemy to fight against while the central banks and governments rob you blind. Enjoy being a tool.

[Anonymous No.27586617]

>>27581313
>I made shitty life choices and career plans, but I don’t want to take responsibility. It must be the system’s fault.

[Anonymous No.27586659]

>>27581294
Go to a third world country then faggot.

[Anonymous No.27586684]

>>27586509
No, it doesn't, because that defeats the purpose of a free market. You take that road out of the free market. It's always the same with you lolbertarian idiots. You see the overwhelming regulation we have in place, a lot of which is crippling and suffocating, and then you go back to a world with no regulation at all and dream up a place where people come together to engage in peaceful business where everyone respects each other's property rights. When someone brings up the human desire for disrespecting people's property rights, you say that communities will come together to protect them. Well what the fuck do you think governments or states are? A free market is utopian. You might as well be a communist.

[Anonymous No.27586722]

>>27581294
You are so full of shit by the way. Disgustingly so. You're literally getting high on your own sanctimonious farts. Go to any third world country. The poor live in shacks and the wealthy live in luxury. You know how I know you've never been to a third world country? Because I have, because I grew up rich, and you sre a middle class cuck who's sucking jew dick.

[Anonymous No.27586765]

>>27581109
What did 50 years of welfare do?

[Anonymous No.27586778]

>>27581542
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Too many Sanders supporting retards here refusing to acknowledge just how much the government intervenes in the private sector and fucks up the market system.

[Anonymous No.27586841]

>>27586684
>No, it doesn't
So you're admitting you're denying reality?
I just showed evidence of this happening in my image.
You're saying it's impossible for people to come together to own certain things in a free market?
Many private communities ALREADY have private roads they collectively own.

>because that defeats the purpose of a free market.
A free market just means individual rights you absolute moron. Holy fuck you people are retarded.
>and dream up a place where people come together to engage in peaceful business where everyone respects each other's property rights.
Yes, it worked in the past. What's the problem?
Do you think I'm against the law or something? I want property rights to be violently enforced.
>When someone brings up the human desire for disrespecting people's property rights, you say that communities will come together to protect them.
No I'm saying if someone tried to do that they would be arrested or killed.

[Anonymous No.27586885]

>>27586415
>Those roads would be community owned
How? Road Corp Inc built and own the existing roads, and if you want a new road they want to build and own it too. How will you force them to give up ownership of it? If they don't like your terms they will refuse to build the road. You try to build it yourself and they block vehicles carrying roading materials. Literally, what will you do? I'm curious as to how you intend to overcome this.

[Anonymous No.27586973]

>>27582280
>>27581542
Lolbertarians just want to lick corporate boots a lot more than they already do.

[Anonymous No.27586983]

>>27581870
Exactly! Just look at the fucking historical data for real household income. It’s been nothing but climbing. Yet, because this assholes aren’t mailed a $5,000 NEET bucks coupon every week and have to earn their standard of living, they endlessly bitch about how everything has failed.

[Anonymous No.27587023]

>>27582401
LMAO you let that lolberg own you? fcking embarassing

[Anonymous No.27587062]

>>27582146
Might want to try running through the numbers again, you keep coming to the wrong conclusion.

[Anonymous No.27587113]

>>27586885
>Road Corp Inc built and own the existing roads
No they don't. Any new community would have their own private roads.
If we abolished the state today, the roads connecting to communities would be owned by the people living there.
>How will you force them to give up ownership of it?
They won't own them in the first place.

>I'm curious as to how you intend to overcome this.
Bro, just read the book, it explains all this shit in detail.
https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Privatization%20of%20Roads%20and%20Highways_2.pdf
>>27586973
>Lolbertarians just want to lick corporate boots a lot more than they already do.
LMAO Says the faggot who thinks it's a good thing that the government prints money and gives trillions of dollars to bankers and corporations.
You people get mad at us for wanting to stop this parasitism.
Libertarians are the most strawmanned ideology.

[Anonymous No.27587118]

>>27581216
This. This is how european welfare states are being financed

[Anonymous No.27587126]

>>27586973
But you're the wage-slave not him, so who's shoving the boot up his throat

[Anonymous No.27587173]

>>27587023
How does it feel to have low IQ and constantly get rekt by Libertarians. No wonder we statistically have the highest IQs of every political ideology.

[Anonymous No.27587220]

>>27587118
Imagine thinking this is a good thing.
Switzerland is better than Greece and Spain. Fuck welfare state cuckery.

[Anonymous No.27587221]

>>27582654
But taxes have only risen compared to earlier generations so why do you think it's the problem of tax cuts that your parents lived better?

[Anonymous No.27587287]

>>27581870

"trickle down" is mediaspeak for supply side economics, ie, Chicago school. You'd know that if you went to uni.

[Anonymous No.27587310]

>>27582654
Back then was called the golden age because we were literally on a gold standard and had a much freer market.

[Anonymous No.27587322]

>>27587221
I'm indifferent one way or the other to tax cuts, but the people who implemented them also oversaw the abandonment of full employment (not "full economic employment", which doesn't mean anything) as a policy goal.

[Anonymous No.27587372]

>>27587220
Nah man look at denmark 42% CGT and 56% top marginal tax rate (starts from about 7k a month and upwards) Spain is nothing compared to nordic countries. Yes we have a high living of standard and I kind of should not bitch about our system but good luck getting rich by wagecucking and investing here. In order to become a millionaire here you need to the same effort of getting 5 million networth in Switzerland or the US.

[Anonymous No.27587379]

>>27587310
You're contradicting yourself broken record-kun.
>>27583343
>No shit, it wasn't exactly a gold standard

[Anonymous No.27587483]

>>27587113
Interesting, so your community will own the roads. How will you pay for the upkeep of them? Will you pay for the upkeep of just your own street, or all streets in the community? Will there be like *a tax* for road upkeep? Who will collect this, some form of *community government*? Sounds weirdly familiar....

[Anonymous No.27587485]

>>27587126
>But you're the wage-slave not him
I'm working from home doing nothing and getting paid, so I'm happy with this.

>>27587113
>LMAO Says the faggot who thinks it's a good thing that the government prints money and gives trillions of dollars to bankers and corporations.
How would Libertarianism stop any of this?

[Anonymous No.27587506]

>>27587372
>Nah man look at denmark
They tax the living fuck out of their citizens and they get very little in return.
They, like sweden don't tax corporations because they want them to grow the economy.
Switzerland is the freest market in europe and has the highest living standards for workers, there is no comparison.

>Spain is nothing compared to nordic countries.
Spain is a less free market than nordic countries.

>>27587379
It was a technical gold standard(much more than the current system) so this statement is accurate.
Good job at not being able to respond to my other points though.
Imagine thinking we have less healthcare interventionism now than in the 50s lmao

[Anonymous No.27587550]

>>27581301
>supporters of an actor who became president are economic geniuses

yeah ok

[Anonymous No.27587652]

>>27587506
maybe spain is less free market but less taxes and you can see that spanish people are much wealthier than nordic people

[Anonymous No.27587653]

>>27587485
>How would Libertarianism stop any of this?
Abolish the federal reserve and implement free banking. Allow prices to actually fall as real production increases, so real wages increase.
Money wouldn't be flowing into the stock market, it would be a much smaller part of the economy as it is now.

>>27587483
>How will you pay for the upkeep of them?
Road maintenance companies.
>Will you pay for the upkeep of just your own street, or all streets in the community?
Depends on contracts people sign. Your legal rights in that area may not be protected if you don't pay for road maintenance

>Who will collect this, some form of *community government*?
The difference is it's voluntary and decentralized.
Anyway, I don't want to get into the basics of ancap right now.

[Anonymous No.27587654]

>>27581109
taxes are important to pay, for everyone. However, SUTER is protecting your privacy, but it's still important for you to be honest and pay your taxes. Right anon?

[Anonymous No.27587713]

>>27587652
yeah but their public infrastructure is falling apart and they're in huge amounts of national debt.

Why do you think the germans and french are so pissed?

[Anonymous No.27587715]

>They, like sweden don't tax corporations because they want them to grow the economy.
https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/denmark/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income
>The corporate income tax (CIT) rate is 22%.
https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/sweden/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income
>Taxable income is subject to corporate tax at a flat rate of 20.6% applying from 1 January 2021.

[Anonymous No.27587749]

>>27581491
>retard thinks $20.67 in 1933 is worth the same value as in 2020

[Anonymous No.27587798]

>>27587653
>Abolish the federal reserve and implement free banking. Allow prices to actually fall as real production increases
It would work in an ideal world, but how would you prevent shit like the 08 crisis happening then, also how would you actually make sure prices fall as production increases?
Corporations can just as easily charge the same prices across the board and export the rest for maximum gain.

[Anonymous No.27587830]

>>27584999
You’re really underestimating the ingenuity of people and companies. It makes no sense for companies to build a road and have a price so large that people are unable to pay it (not to mention it just begs the question why competitors wouldn’t step in). You’re assuming I can’t simply buy a subscription plan that gives me access to all roads made by X, Y, Z and so on. You’re assuming someone wouldn’t see the potential in aggregating all of these services separately offered by X, Y, Z, ..., and then selling me an easy to purchase single package. (Netflix doesn’t make every film they offer, but they do a great job bringing all these films together under a single bundle.) Etc.

[Anonymous No.27587860]

>>27587652
>but less taxes
kek, no, they pay more

>that spanish people are much wealthier than nordic people
HAHAHAHAHA Do you believe taxes are what make societies wealthier?
Nordic countries are wealthy because they are more economically productive than Spain, their currencies are worth more, their companies are more productive etc.
I can't believe basic economics is totally lost on the average person these days.

>>27587715
That's actually quite low.
You're forgetting that Sweden had one of the freest markets in the world up until the 60s, they were already an industrial powerhouse with high living standards, they've only declined since then.

>>27587749
That's not what the image is implying at all you absolute brainlet.

[Anonymous No.27587910]

Strange, I swear that goalpost as at "don't tax", but now that I look again it appears to be at "Quite low"

I must have Dementia.

[Anonymous No.27587960]

>>27587749
You know the imagine is showing the declining purchasing power of a dollar, right? It's not a "hurr shoulda bought gold bc gold went up!"

They picked an oz of gold as a standard unit of value against which to measure the dollar, and... Do you even understand the language I'm using? I have a feeling your IQ is so low that everything I just typed went right over your head.

[Anonymous No.27587991]

>>27587715
Yeah but compared to 50+% marginal tax rate on income that is basically nothing

[Anonymous No.27587999]

>>27587798
>but how would you prevent shit like the 08 crisis happening then,
The 08 crisis was CAUSED by the federal reserve.
https://mises.org/wire/fed-and-housing-bubblebust
What do you think happens when you print a bunch of money to artificially stimulate the economy, this new money goes into places like stocks and housing and distorts the economy.

>also how would you actually make sure prices fall as production increases?
It happens naturally as production increases. Without a central bank, you always have falling prices. This is a GOOD THING.

>Corporations can just as easily charge the same prices across the board and export the rest for maximum gain.
No, they compete with each other.

[Anonymous No.27588048]

>>27587653
Seems pretty light on detail, I mean already you have issues because Brian doesn't own a car so he doesn't want to pay for road upkeep, Jim only wants to pay for the upkeep of his road since it's a quiet road and therefore doesn't need much, while Frank thinks it's unfair that he has to pay the most since his street is the busiest as everyone else uses it. Who is going to enforce these rules? You'd almost need a community police force, but who will pay for that? My my, things are getting complicated aren't they.

[Anonymous No.27588058]

>>27587910
okay I should have said "don't really tax" or, "most of the tax burden is laid on the people, not corporations" etc

[Anonymous No.27588111]

>>27588048
Man, just read the book. I'm not that well read in road privatization. Everything you have said has been answered though, these are very common concerns.

[Anonymous No.27588185]

>https://mises.org
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
>Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
>This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.

>Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.
normal people

[Anonymous No.27588229]

>>27587999
>No, they compete with each other.
How do you ensure they actually compete and not form Cartels like OPEC that make deals with each other to keep prices high, thus being beneficial for all parties except the consumer?

[Anonymous No.27588297]

>>27587830
The company would just look to set the price at the maximum amount that you're willing to pay. They're not going to do you any favours by charging a lower price.
How would competitors step in? They'd have to build a new road to your house, but Road Corp Inc owns the existing roads around your house and won't allow a competitor to use them to haul materials to build new roads. What will you do?
It's like you believe private corporations are benevolent and will go out of their way to help you.

[Anonymous No.27588329]

Another thread where libertarians get btfo kek. 2020 effectively killed it off as an ideology in real time anyway.

[Anonymous No.27588383]

>>27588185
Why do you retards always go with low hanging fruit against us when you cannot actually respond to our economic theory?

Almost no Libertarians believe in this version of Children's rights, the guy got it wrong. There are many Libertarians who refute this.
Try refuting the economic calculation problem, price signals, Austrian business cycle theory or something.
You literally can't.

>>27588229
>How do you ensure they actually compete and not form Cartels like OPEC
OPEC is literally a government cartel, like all cartels are. Businesses have massive financial incentives to break cartels.
I just realized the first 3 pages of the book respond to your arguments in detail. Please just read them, it will be worth your while trust me.

[Anonymous No.27588457]

>>27588329
>Another thread where libertarians get btfo kek.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah dude WE'RE the ones getting btfo here
Are you even reading this thread?
The absolute cope of this poster.
Fucking bootlickers lmao

>2020 effectively killed it off as an ideology in real time anyway.
It's only made us stronger and got people talking about the fed and PMs again lmao

[Anonymous No.27588498]

>>27588383
>it's not TRUE libertarianism!

[Anonymous No.27588532]

>>27581221
So that's where my tax money goes uh

[Anonymous No.27588556]

>>27586973
Say's the wagecucking imbecile. You must like getting that boot shoved down your throat. "PLEASE I WILL WORK BETTER MASTER, JUST INCREASE MY WAGE"

[Anonymous No.27588592]

>>27588498
Yes.
lol is this actually your argument?
Come on now, you guys have been getting stomped on this entire thread, try actually refuting some of these points or images.
Enjoy your low hanging fruit and straw grasping.

[Anonymous No.27588640]

Im a libertarian because I love cunny!

[Anonymous No.27588667]

>>27588592
>try actually refuting some of these points or images.
You plainly demonstrated for the entire thread to see that the only reason to engage with anything you've said is to annoy you when you side stepped the case of the CAB.

>>27588640
No no no not TRUE libertarianism delete this!

[Anonymous No.27588705]

>>27587485
And I thought it couldn't get any worse. "PLS regulate me gooberment, I'm a sole proprietor who wants regulated and taxed burdened"

[Anonymous No.27588729]

>>27588640
I'm a communist because I love cunny!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

[Anonymous No.27588750]

>>27588111
These are basic questions, surely you have the answers to the most immediate issues that come with the societal design that you are promoting.
We haven't even begun to explore the cross-community trade interactions and associated rules. Seems like a bit of a minefield to be honest.

[Anonymous No.27588769]

>>27588729
Communism is gay and I'm not a fag simple as.

[Anonymous No.27588780]

>>27588667
>You plainly demonstrated for the entire thread to see that the only reason to engage with anything you've said is to annoy you when you side stepped the case of the CAB.
You ignored all of my main massive arguments and counterpoints and focused on something irrelevant lol

>No no no not TRUE libertarianism delete this!
Reminder that leftists are admitted pedophiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

[Anonymous No.27588818]

>>27588750
>These are basic questions
Answered in the first 3 pages. Do you want me to copy and paste them for you dude?
Roads is a boring subject to me. I lead you in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.27588828]

>>27581109
>retarded leftypol shlll thread
>bizzare obsession with getting handouts
>complete inability to understand that it comes from white middle class men, a mostly goes to brown invaders
>absolutely no understanding of economics

[Anonymous No.27588862]

>>27581161
>unironic socialist on a business board
>reddit opinions are shared by all
>failed to pass high school economics too
You're a joke.

[Anonymous No.27588879]

>>27588828
>>absolutely no understanding of economics
That's just what all leftists do.

[Anonymous No.27588902]

>>27586659
Go play on a highway, retarded commie faggot.

[Anonymous No.27588976]

>>27586722
>muh poor country
You know nothing of the world around you, reddit retard. They're not actually poor because they let producers keep a lot of what they produce.

[Anonymous No.27589006]

>>27588780
>You ignored all of my main massive arguments
You seem to have the order of posts in this conversation confused.
You posted >>27581491 to which I replied with >>27583125
The first "main massive argument" was my extensive detailing of the regulations of the CAB, which you did not even engage with in >>27583343 and which you further side-stepped as the conversation continued, culminating with "Who gives a shit about airplanes?"

Between my first post and yours there was no "main massive argument" either, just low effort shitflinging: >>27581542 , >>27581579 , >>27581934 , >>27582280 , >>27582311 ,>>27582506 ,>>27582606

Aren't Thread IDs fun?

[Anonymous No.27589101]

>>27588329
Now I really love to give all my money to foreign invaders, tax the economy into the ground and give up my guns and speech. Thanks, dem-voter.

[Anonymous No.27589125]

>>27588818
>Roads are boring
I just bought your road, the other residents on your street sold it to me since I said they could have free use of it. However I'm going to charge you $500 each time you use it. What you going to do? You can't get food, and I won't allow vehicles to deliver to your house. Looks like a choice between paying or starving. Roads looking pretty interesting right about now.

[Anonymous No.27589147]

>>27589006
>detailing of the regulations of the CAB
I already explained how this is just one industry out of many, it's not even one of the most vital ones.
Interventions have massively increased in the main ones that heavily effect peoples lives like banking, healthcare, education, food etc. leading to reduced quality, insane price increases, corruption etc.
So, yes, who gives a shit about airplanes?
Some regulations were repealed while others added in the airplane industry. It's a wash.

[Anonymous No.27589180]

P.H.D. in economics here
you saw the trickle down in the price of TVs

[Anonymous No.27589194]

>>27589125
Man lmao, all this shit is refuted in the first 3 pages. The words are not even small.
Are you afraid you might learn something?

[Anonymous No.27589243]

>>27589180
yes and it's funny that the places where there wasn't a trickle down and instead a massive price increases are the goods/services the government is heavily involved in like healthcare, education etc

[Anonymous No.27589271]

And he's back to playing the role of a broken record, complete with an inaccurate assessment of the state of regulation in an industry he clearly knows nothing about, but would really, really like to be more regulated than it was 70 years ago.
very fun.

[Anonymous No.27589409]

>>27589271
hey, why don't you respond to this post:
>>27589147
:^)

[Anonymous No.27589448]

>>27583383
>chews gum
>gets sent to prison
Ok anon

[Anonymous No.27589457]

>>27589271
>state of regulation in an industry he clearly knows nothing about
You mean like healthcare lmao
See:
>>27585153

[Anonymous No.27589500]

>>27583508
Fuck you, more or less regulation means shit for the cucks at the bottom of the ladder. They will always wageslave
I bet you think Q is coming back don't you.

[Anonymous No.27589546]

I am running quite the surplus in (you)s against our gish galloping friend.

[Anonymous No.27589619]

>>27589500
>Fuck you, more or less regulation means shit for the cucks at the bottom of the ladder.
Less "regulation" means goods are cheaper for them and they have more jobs with higher wages

>I bet you think Q is coming back don't you.
I'm a Libertarian. Why are you confusing me with a MIGAboomer?

[Anonymous No.27589676]

>>27589546
Still no argument from you
I thought you said you were leaving.

[Anonymous No.27589715]

>>27588862
>Thinks /biz is an actual business board
Gtfo retard

[Anonymous No.27589746]

>>27589194
Surely you could summarise it in a few short sentences right. I mean, these are the fundamental principles of your ideaology, I don't know why you're struggling to apply them to a basic scenario about roads.
If you're having issues already, it doesn't bode well for any more complex situations, like cross-border trade etc.

[Anonymous No.27589750]

Libertarians will have you believe deregulating the market is enough, problem is companies are already in bed with the state, acting on their behalf. Ironically libertarian demands are unenforceable without the state given the ideological demands. That, or the sphere of power merely shifts to companies where they merely continue only to be concerned with the bottom line. With this in mind the same opposition that's brought against the state needs to brought against those companies, either that or the concern with "liberty" is a false one and a misunderstanding of what it even consists of.

[Anonymous No.27589776]

>>27587860
Less taxes obviously make people wealthier. That's why Swedish are poorer than Swiss or americans

[Anonymous No.27589783]

>>27589619
You are beyond retarded if you think that. Less regulation means higher profits at the same prices. I bet you watch a lot of youtube libertarian vids don't you anon.

[Anonymous No.27589851]

>>27589783
inb4 muh free market. No. Markets form monopolies. Individuals do not have as much choice as you would wish them to. Companies eventually form the role that governments do but with even less oversight. KYS tea faggot, no one cares about your shitty ancap memes.

[Anonymous No.27589925]

>>27589746
See:
https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Privatization%20of%20Roads%20and%20Highways_2.pdf

>>27589783
>Less regulation means higher profits at the same prices.
Retard. If there are less regulations and it's cheaper to do business, a company can lower their prices and the rest of the companies will have to lower theirs too or lose business. It's the same thing as if a new manufacturing process was developed that made goods cheaper and one company started using it, if the other ones don't they will go out of business.

> I bet you watch a lot of youtube libertarian vids don't you anon.
I bet you have no idea what Libertarianism even is and haven't read any Libertarian books.

[Anonymous No.27589983]

>>27587860
>You're forgetting that Sweden had one of the freest markets in the world up until the 60s, they were already an industrial powerhouse with high living standards, they've only declined since then.
This actually a very interesting topic, what do you think is the biggest reason for their decline? I have always wondered how they are where they are today. They missed both world wars basically (actually they profited from them by selling commodities to germany i.e), they are an old super power almost with generational wealth and still they are basically at the same level as Finland today. Given that we the finns only gained independence a hundred years ago, were a piss poor little agriculture economy always before that and suffered horribly in the WW2.

I find that outrageous. I only know that they have taken like 20% immigrants in the last decades and they have had social democrats in power from the 1970s. What caused the social democrats if they had such well functioning capitalism before that? Don't people see how social programs have only made the country to decline?

[Anonymous No.27590004]

>>27589851
>Markets form monopolies
It's literally the opposite. Markets break up monopolies. It's governments that form monopolies and then blame it on the market.
>Companies eventually form the role that governments
This has never once happened in historical free markets.

>KYS tea faggot, no one cares about your shitty ancap memes.
You bootlicking morons literally support central banking monopolization and then seethe hard whenever we advocate for free banking so these banking cartels will go bankrupt.
Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.27590052]

>>27589851
>Companies eventually form the role that governments do but with even less oversight
This is why lolbertarianism is retarded in a nutshell. Corporations and other powerful private entities fill the void of government but without having to worry about appeasing plebs to keep getting elected.

[Anonymous No.27590073]

>>27589983
>what do you think is the biggest reason for their decline?
The fact they massively increased taxes, money printing, gov spending, regulations etc.
Thankfully they got rid of a lot of these policies in the 90s or they would have been like Greece by now.
https://mises.org/library/sweden-myth

[Anonymous No.27590154]

>>27590052
>This is why lolbertarianism is retarded in a nutshell.
Imagine learning ZERO history or theory and just repeating this retarded nonsense because it "feels" right. You absolute moron.

>Corporations and other powerful private entities fill the void of government but without having to worry about appeasing plebs to keep getting elected.
Why did the exact opposite happen in historic free markets though?
Why did free banking lead to less bank cartels?

[Anonymous No.27590335]

>>27588329
Vice versa from my standpoint, the ancap guy is literally destroying the radical left MMTtard.
>2020 effectively killed it off as an ideology in real time anyway.
And what is this supposed to mean? The endless money printing has only raised awareness and worry of the potential inflation in many people, and austrian economists like Peter Schiff are getting more and more followers

[Anonymous No.27590343]

>>27589983
>and they have had social democrats in power from the 1970s
From the 30s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party#Riksdag
From 1932 until 1976 they were in government for an unbroken period. Then from 1982 to 1991 and from 1994 to 2002.

Far from making the country decline, the country was at its strongest when the SAP was at its strongest. The social democrats have been in decline ever since the late 1980s when they abandoned social democracy. (Kjell Olof Feldt, their finance minister, put foward the sort of low tax arguments you'd see from libertarians today.)

[Anonymous No.27590392]

>>27590154
You need to fucking kill yourself. Markets form monopolies by squeezing competition through dodgy tactics. Prices may drop. Competition dies. Prices rise like crazy. Everyone is gouged for thing. New competitor tries and innovates, gets fucking blasted by company through patent trolling lawsuits.
Your fucking fantasty land does not work, and will never work. You are worse than communists, because you believe an unfeeling uncaring corporation will be good for humanity. At least commies believed that government could help people.

You are an animal and need to be shot.

[Anonymous No.27590403]

(slight clarification: the reason i didn't note their government from 2014 to now is because it's plainly a weak minority coalition, while the coalitions of the 2000s were stronger.)

[Anonymous No.27590476]

>>27590335
Based

>>27590343
>the country was at its strongest when the SAP was at its strongest.
First off, they didn't implement all of those polices at once. Secondly when they were implemented it caused stagnation. There were no new jobs on net created in Sweden for decades.
Imagine thinking government spending creates economic growth instead of destroying it.
There's a reason Switzerland is far better than Sweden.
https://mises.org/library/sweden-myth

Imagine ENJOYING getting taxed for something that would cost a lot cheaper in a free market.

[Anonymous No.27590532]

*yawn*

[Anonymous No.27590547]

>>27589925
>I bet you have no idea what Libertarianism even is and haven't read any Libertarian books.
What is the best and most interesting starter libertarian/ancap book you would recommend to read?

[Anonymous No.27590637]

>>27590392
>You need to fucking kill yourself.
lmao you're mad
>Markets form monopolies
Why are there literally no examples of monopolies forming without government intervention then
inb4 muh standard oil
> Prices may drop.
Which benefits consumers. This is a good thing.
>Prices rise like crazy.
Prices only rise thanks to the central bank you cucks love so much.
During the late 1800s period with no central bank, we had constantly falling prices with rising wages.

>Your fucking fantasty land does not work, and will never work.
Why when it was actually tried from 1865-1913 in USA it resulted in a massive increase in economic production and higher living standards for the working class?
Explain this.

>You are worse than communists, because you believe an unfeeling uncaring corporation will be good for humanity. At least commies believed that government could help people.
LMAO HAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah man it really worked in their countries.

>You are an animal and need to be shot.
lmao you parasitical bootlickers won't do shit
The right wing owns all the guns in this country.
Why don't you go live in north korea if you love being enslaved so much.

[Anonymous No.27590684]

The economy existing at all is the problem, it needs to be eliminated.
Economics is a scam, but the communist way of doing that is not that answer. The government and the economy need to be dealt with at the same time.

[Anonymous No.27590689]

>>27590343
Explain anon. In the 70s Sweden had one of the lowest tax rates in the whole europe, then what happened?

[Anonymous No.27590693]

>>27589925
Yeah, I see it. And? The first 3 pages are a whole bunch of wild assumptions that hardly make any sense. It doesn't answer anything, it's literally a make believe scenario of a world where private corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders. Have you applied any critical thought while reading this?

[Anonymous No.27590715]

>>27590547
Machinery of Freedom

[Anonymous No.27590781]

>>27590532
>top marginal rate barely changed
Even though, this is extremely deceptive and doesn't tell us anything, especially since tax receipts were the same then as now.
Even leftists don't believe this shit anymore.
https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html
If you didn't get your news from buzzfeed you would understand this.

[Anonymous No.27590842]

>>27590547
>What is the best and most interesting starter libertarian/ancap book you would recommend to read?
For starters Economics in One lesson

Then Read man, economy and state by Rothbard, what has government done to our money by rothbard
there are many others

If you want quick facts on things, read mises.org articles

[Anonymous No.27590910]

>>27590154
Stop cherry picking antiquated data to support your argument, you retarded faggot. Look at the real world today, how are the current monopolies caused by the government? They're the result of the free market and if the government did it's job it would be breaking up all the fagman companies immediately.

[Anonymous No.27590921]

>>27590693
>The first 3 pages are a whole bunch of wild assumptions that hardly make any sense.
Ah, I see you didn't read it.
>scenario of a world where private corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders.
But they WOULD act in the interest of their shareholders you moron.
>Have you applied any critical thought while reading this?
Have you?

[Anonymous No.27590950]

>>27590637
>Goes line by line through argument
>Says that things are the exact opposite
>Posts zero proof

Ok anon.

Also, I never even mentioned central banks. ALL FUCKING BANKS are part of the problem. Oh muh local texan bank has the best interests of texans at heart. No. They will capture the market, dominate, and then raise prices.

Thought experiment.

If you were a company that offered private roads. You saw that you could buy your next biggest private road competitor out straight away, but you knew that if you did, you would become Texas' largest and most dominant private road company. You would buy them right? YOu would have to, because you have a fiduciary obligation to. But then you realise when the ink is dry. Oh, I don't have to worry about compettors anymore, they don't exist, why would I bother with earning 10 bitcoin per quarter, when I could raise prices and make 20 bitcoin? What would you do. What would your neighbours do?

I am right, and you know it. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. YOU. FUCKING. KIKE.

[Anonymous No.27590980]

>>27590910
>Stop cherry picking antiquated data
Hey guys, the entire industrial revolution in america was "cherry picked data".

>how are the current monopolies caused by the government?
Through central banking and regulatory capture.
Mainly central banking though which prints money and artificially inflates their stock prices

[Anonymous No.27590991]

>>27590689
The trick of this graph is to counter social security contributions as taxes. As the paper itself says
>Social security contributions became more important than consumption taxes in the mid-1970s. During this period, the “Haga policy” was implemented, a major component of which was a significant increase of social security contributions to finance lower income taxes

[Anonymous No.27591012]

Why is it either corporations or the central bank?
Destroy both.

[Anonymous No.27591054]

>>27587749
Completely missing the point

[Anonymous No.27591107]

>>27590980
The industrial revolution was a century ago, that's exactly my point. Everyone knows too much government can result in monopolies, similarly so does the compete absence of it. This is horseshoe effect in action where socialists and libertarians are literally both as retarded as each other with their idealistic fantasies.

[Anonymous No.27591255]

[Anonymous No.27591293]

>>27590950
>>Posts zero proof
You want proof dumbfuck? Here you go?
Why did real wages massively increase during the late 1800s?
https://i.imgur.com/DoXNFKB.png
Why did working hours fall significantly during this time when the government wasn't involved and unions were only 4% of the entire workforce?
https://i.imgur.com/wakbZI3.png
Literally just cry more. You support banking cartels and seethe when people want to break them up.
>Also, I never even mentioned central banks.
Central banks are what you support, it's what all leftists and liberals and conservatives support. It's only Libertarians who are against them.
Central banks give private banks and corporations endless power and endless money.

>No. They will capture the market, dominate, and then raise prices.
lmao you cannot magically "capture the market"
During the late 1800s period there were no magic monopolies. You literally have ZERO evidence of a single one.

>Thought experiment.
Private roads is something completely different and much more complex and is answered in this book.
https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Privatization%20of%20Roads%20and%20Highways_2.pdf

Why not talk about firms selling something like oil or shoes first before we get into the complexities of land rights issues.

>I am right, and you know it. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. YOU. FUCKING. KIKE.
It worked wonders in the late 1800s and Sweden as well during this time.
Don't worry though, if you leftist shitstains tried your pathetic revolution, you would get fucking killed so fast it's not even funny.

[Anonymous No.27591342]

The libertarian is correct desu.

Also you guys are still living under the illusion that corporations want free market.
This is incorrect. Corporations are much more comfortable and lucrative in a highly regulated economy, as they have legions of lawyers and lobbyists to ensure it's never too harmful to them, and serves only to ruin the smaller competition.
They only play the "muh free market" cards when dealing with actually independent governments like China.

[Anonymous No.27591354]

>>27591107
>The industrial revolution was a century ago, that's exactly my point.
SO WHAT? Do the laws of economics magically change when time changes?
This era lasted like 60 fucking years and it created the middle class and there were no monopolies.
Why wouldn't it work now?

>similarly so does the compete absence of it.
No evidence.

>This is horseshoe effect in action where socialists and libertarians are literally both as retarded as each other with their idealistic fantasies.
Peak low iq centrism

[Anonymous No.27591449]

>>27591012
Then how do you run the economy dipshit?

You're against people forming their own banks yet you're against central banking?
WHAT?

>>27591342
>The libertarian is correct desu.
Of course I'm correct and based. Thanks fren.

[Anonymous No.27591540]

>>27591449
There simply is no economy >>27591012, it's a scam. The government is also a scam. Don't regulate anything, because what you're trying to regulate shouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.27591598]

Wish I was living in the 1860s-1913 period so that I could enjoy a peaceful life with no economic crises to worry about. Just the long, calm, peaceful waters of the 1865–67 recession
1869–70 recession
Panic of 1873
Long Depression / Great Depression of 1873–1896, the longest economic contraction in US history.
1882–85 recession
1887–88 recession
1890–91 recession
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896
1899–1900 recession
1902–04 recession
Panic of 1907
Panic of 1910–1911
Recession of 1913–1914

[Anonymous No.27591650]

>>27590921
I read it. $3 a month was the only figure given. Does that cover all costs? The upfront infrastructure installation costs of under road sensors? The on-going road maintenance? The vehicle emission reduction devices? All for $3 a month. No other monetary figures are provided.
Why don't you start a company providing this, and charge customers $3 a month. Surely if it's so great you should have no qualms about being at the forefront of this.

[Anonymous No.27591692]

>>27591598
Lucky for you that every single one of those recessions was caused by government intervention and Libertarians have written countless books and papers explaining in detail why each and every one happened.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Panics

:^)

[Anonymous No.27591750]

>we need to get rid of the federal reserve, it causes depressions!
>except all the depressions that happened before the federal reserve existed, which the government also did!

[Anonymous No.27591757]

>>27591650
>Why don't you start a company providing this
It's illegal, the government owns all the roads and land surrounding them.
You kind of missed that point about credit card companies and competing road companies having an incentive to let competitor's customers use their roads didn't you?

[Anonymous No.27591830]

>>27591750
lmao see:
>>27591692

[Anonymous No.27591957]

>>27590343
>more nonsense from the reality-divorced leftist
Correlation doesn't mean causation. There was more factors to the relative decline of sweden than taxation. International competition, from more free economies, is what really hurt. Socialism has always been a massive drag here. t. swede

[Anonymous No.27591966]

>linking the libertarian version of prolewiki or metapedia and expecting anyone to take you seriously

[Anonymous No.27592036]

>>27591957
>from more free economies
Free economies like the People's Republic of China lel

[Anonymous No.27592054]

>>27590910
>t. incredibly stupid marxist

[Anonymous No.27592090]

>>27591966
Is this actually your argument lmao
It's mainly just links to books and academic papers on each panic/recession.

God you people are dumb.

[Anonymous No.27592126]

>>27581216
Retard

[Anonymous No.27592131]

>>27592036
Sweden's been in a decline for a long time, brainlet. This started long before china started exporting cheap electronics and manufactured goods.

[Anonymous No.27592141]

>>27581542
> the government MADE these companies treat me like shit
Libertarianism is a mental disorder.

[Anonymous No.27592143]

>>27592036
>Free economies like the People's Republic of China lel
Man, what the fuck are you even saying anymore? lmao

[Anonymous No.27592215]

>>27592131
Every country says this. Sweden has barely declined compared to the European average.

>>27592143
That China is a non-free economy which exports cheap manufactured goods, partially accounting for the relative decline of US and European manufacturing.

[Anonymous No.27592233]

>>27592141
>> the government MADE these companies treat me like shit
You people just retardedly oversimplify and strawman people because you're too dumb to read a book.
Enjoy wageslaving until your 90 for 80 hour weeks because you wanted to get paid in federal reserve notes instead of real money.

[Anonymous No.27592279]

Imagine if we were living in a world where humans didn't have the genes responsible for the personality type of a commiecuck.

What a world that would be.

[Anonymous No.27592290]

>>27586321
>the government represents the community

[Anonymous No.27592304]

/biz/ believes in trickle down economics but let me tell you, it doesn't work. It has never worked.

[Anonymous No.27592314]

>>27592215
>That China is a non-free economy which exports cheap manufactured goods, partially accounting for the relative decline of US and European manufacturing.
China just takes advantage of USA's status as world reserve currency. Also they aren't responsible for the economic decline in the west, they're just taking advantage of the west's stupidity

[Anonymous No.27592320]

>>27592233
>working at all ever

[Anonymous No.27592374]

>>27592304
>/biz/ believes in trickle down economics
Trickle down economics is nothing but a leftist strawman yet you were DUMB ENOUGH to believe it actually exists you fucking retard.
Enjoy not understanding the real enemy is central banking.

[Anonymous No.27592400]

>>27592279
Imagine a world where people didn't have genes.
Now that would be a world.

[Anonymous No.27592471]

>>27591757
I think you're missing the point. If you create a company to do this then the people will force the government to give you control over the roads since they will believe you can provide the service at a lower cost to them.
Actually, if you don't start a company to do this you're literally costing everyone money since you're forcing them to pay the government cost and not offering a cheaper alternative. In fact, it would be in the interests of the people to force you to create the company. Fucking wild, guess you're creating a roading company.

[Anonymous No.27592474]

>>27592374
>Trickle down economics is nothing but a leftist strawman
/biz/ unironically believes in leftist strawman LOL

[Anonymous No.27592536]

>>27581491
unironically this
stop fucking pumping on supply side
pump on demand side with stimmie checks

[Anonymous No.27592559]

>>27592474
>/biz/ unironically believes in leftist strawman LOL
Well, no, you do since you brought it up.

>>27592471
>If you create a company to do this then the people will force the government to give you control over the roads since they will believe you can provide the service at a lower cost to them.
The government isn't involved in the roads whatsoever in this system.

[Anonymous No.27592754]

>>27581491
based

[Anonymous No.27592753]

>>27583343
>The Keynesians/MMTers got their way. Even Nixon said "We're all Keynesians now."

nigger keynes fucking says gold digging, not fucking give money to the rich, he fucking says spend it on housing or infrastructure
FUCKIGN SPEND IT ON EMPLOYING PEOPLE NOT FUCKING STOCKS AND BONDS AND FUCKING FREE LOANS FOR THE RICH

[Anonymous No.27592935]

>>27584476
>No, it's the MAIN enemy and they have blinded you. We would have much higher living standards and a massive decrease in prices if we didn't have a central bank.

Are you retarded. The lack of inflation is the decrease in prices and wages.

[Anonymous No.27592988]

>>27584607
kek trump was that meme dictator he just made things worse

business niggers don't know how to solve the problem because any solution is socialism in their eyes

[Anonymous No.27593022]

>>27592559
You're going to need a transition though from current system to your system. Hence you're going to need the govt to give control of the roads over to you at some point.
The fact that you haven't started a company yet to provide this service is pretty scummy to be honest. I mean, how much money could people be saving if control of all roads was yours. Every day you wait people are losing money, and it's literally your fault. I imagine some people might be pissed when they find out that they've been taxed all this extra money unnecessarily when you have the solution at hand and have done nothing about it.

[Anonymous No.27593156]

>>27592753
>not fucking give money to the rich
His ideology always results in that. That's what central banking does always.

>spend it on housing or infrastructure
Instead of leaving that money in the private sector so the people can build their own housing and infrastructure.
>FUCKIGN SPEND IT ON EMPLOYING PEOPLE
Why? Why divert resources from actual production towards government waste?

>>27592935
>The lack of inflation is the decrease in prices and wages.
If we didn't have inflation, wages would stay the same, but prices would fall and our living standards would rise. This is what happened from 1865-1913 in USa.

[Anonymous No.27593527]

>>27592215
> Sweden has barely declined compared to the European average.

Because the average European country is even more leftist than Sweden.

[Anonymous No.27593537]

>>27593156
sorry I pressed escape and my post got deleted

Give me another 5 min to write it again

[Anonymous No.27593641]

>>27593156
>inflation
>hire worker for $15k
>sell car for $20k
>10% inflation
>hire another worker for $15k
>sell car for $22k
>10% inflation
>hire another worker for $15k
>sell car for $24k
>everyone employed
>must poach employee
>hire another worker for $16k

DEMAND SIDE ECONOMICS DEMAND SIDE ECONOMICS

[Anonymous No.27593747]

>>27593156
>deflation
>hire worker for $15k
>sell car for $20k
>10% deflation
>hire another worker for $15k
>sell car for $18k
>10% deflation
>hire another worker for $15k
>sell car for $16k
>have trouble making profit
>stops hiring
>10% deflation
>sell car for $14k
>car sold for less than I pay the worker
>fire workers
>unemployment everywhere
>rehire workers at $12k

[Anonymous No.27593943]

>>27593747
>>have trouble making profit
>>stops hiring
Costs of capital goods also decrease, you don't lose anything, in fact you gain.

Also you are massively confusing/oversimplifying everything you are saying.

[Anonymous No.27593955]

>>27593747
Do you realize that the 12k that the workers get in the end of this imaginary story buys more goods than the 15k they originally got?

[Anonymous No.27593997]

>>27581109
Just wait bro it's coming

[Anonymous No.27594131]

>>27593943
If you own 2 billion in stocks then you just made money from nothing in the deflation case. How many stocks does the average worker own? zero?

>>27593955
Some of them are unemployed, so they are worse off.

[Anonymous No.27594327]

>>27581491
>the 1950s boom was due to smart economics!

Yeah it had nothing to do at all with the fact that Asia was still a third world country recovering from a world war, China was still a feudal farming country recovering from a world war AND a civil war, Europe was devastated and recovering from a world war, and Russia was larping as a redditor and not even trying to compete in global business.

Nah we don't need to smash the power and influence of the rich to create stable economies where everyone actually has a chance to earn real wealth. We just need to pull up our boot straps, deregulate and cut taxes, and physically destroy all our business rivals.

[Anonymous No.27594333]

>>27594131
>If you own 2 billion in stocks then you just made money from nothing in the deflation case.
It wasn't from nothing, it was from correctly predicting consumer demand.
>How many stocks does the average worker own? zero?
They don't want to own stocks and worry about the risk. It's better if they just collected a paycheck.
Also even if they all got stock in the company and went to spend their gains, they would just be bidding up consumer prices, meaning it would be exactly like they didnt own any shares at all.

>Some of them are unemployed
They wouldn't be, you can hire more workers if need be because the cost of your inputs is lower.

Anyway, none of this matter because this system worked wonders from 1865-1913.

[Anonymous No.27594413]

>>27594327
>you can boost your economy by destroying all of your trading partners

lmao at this retarded logic, it makes no sense if you think about it for more than 5 seconds

[Anonymous No.27594441]

>>27594131
Nah, the workers would get fired only if they didn't want to take a pay cut. And they would do that only when they have some other place willing to pay them more.

If you factor in the fact that deflation is not going to be so rampant, the whole thing becomes a meme. Meanwhile actual non-imaginary dollar inflation is close to 10%.

[Anonymous No.27594985]

>>27593527
Delusional. A few spend more on welfare (Including Finland, which further up in the conversation was compared positively to Sweden) but there are far more European (and EU) states that tax and spend less than Sweden than there are states that tax and spend more.

[Anonymous No.27594995]

>>27594333

>It wasn't from nothing, it was from correctly predicting consumer demand.

But right now the fed just hands out 0% or even negative interest rates to banks. Those banks add a risk premium to cover defaults and risk of inflation, etc. That risk premium will always be higher for your average joe who wants to start his own company. So by lowering interest rates you are causing inflation on the wrong side. It's just free money for the rich.

Demand and supply have to grow together or else what the Fed is doing will just cause an imbalance in the economy. I'm honestly not even advocating for 10% inflation. In a real economy 2% is enough as long as it reaches the right hands.

If you let the government hire people to do I don't know. Grid maintenance in locations with wild fire risk then you would not only reduce unemployment but you would also reduce the "controlled blackouts". It's basically a jobs program and you can cancel it once unemployment is low again.


>>27594441
You need a little inflation. 10% is too much. 2% hits the sweet spot. Whatever the Fed is doing is wrong. It's not just the amount of money that is important. It's how the money is allocated in the economy. But my point still stands that a little bit of inflation will nudge the economy toward growth.

[Anonymous No.27595007]

[Anonymous No.27595090]

>>27586245
That's not true, i don't believe in lower taxes because I think it will let billionaires improve the economy, I believe in lower taxes because I don't want my money going over sees or into a low info voters mouth.

[Anonymous No.27595348]

>>27594995
>It's just free money for the rich.
no shit
>In a real economy 2% is enough as long as it reaches the right hands.
Why don't we just abolish inflation so our real wages rise because prices have fallen?
You're so fucking clueless. Inflation is a scam period.
Price decreases are the reward for capitalism and these go to the workers.

[Anonymous No.27595417]

>>27595090
>i don't believe in lower taxes because I think it will let billionaires improve the economy
It will though

[Anonymous No.27595773]

>>27595348
If I put all my savings into deflationary Bitcoin and it goes up year over year then why should I spend them? If I spend them I will lose out on future gains. People will laugh at me that I spent $1000 worth of bitcoin on pizza at a restaurant.
If I cut back on spending then what will happen to the incomes of those restaurant workers if I stop going there?

[Anonymous No.27596015]

>>27592474
Yeah, retards like >>27593997 need to fuck off back to re-ddit.

[Anonymous No.27596020]

>>27595773
>then why should I spend them?
When you want to buy things.
There would be a much higher savings rate in a deflationary economy.
Also the value of money wouldn't go up as much as btc does. btc is just a meme]

>People will laugh at me that I spent $1000 worth of bitcoin on pizza at a restaurant.
No they won't. People still want to buy things. There's no point in saving money if you can never use it.

[Anonymous No.27596086]

>>27595773
Bro just read mises articles and get involved with Austrian economics
https://mises.org/wire/deflation-always-good-economy
https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth

[Anonymous No.27596090]

>>27592304
Take high school economics classes, retard. Learn what supply side economics is.

[Anonymous No.27596154]

>>27586245
Only Neo-Liberals & Neocons believe that hogwash

[Anonymous No.27596218]

>>27596020
>There would be a much higher savings rate in a deflationary economy.
I am completely with you, but I just wonder how would that affect the economic growth if people consume less? Aren't companies inevitably gonna make less profits?

[Anonymous No.27596430]

>cut a deal to send all industry to China because they will give you millions of dollars
Haha oops what happened to the middle class let's punish small businesses with higher taxes, environmental penalties and a higher minimum wage and unlimited flood of illegals that will work for a third of what minimum wage requires

[Anonymous No.27596442]

>>27581109
Wealth naturally concentrates upwards.
Trickle-down theory could, at best, slow down upwards wealth accumulation. It's a parachute against the eternal gravity of economics.
It can't reverse the direction. Nothing can.

Stop being mad at the rich, and ask yourself instead why you care so much about the unskilled and thoughtless cattle that are supposedly losing out. Do they deserve to accumulate wealth? Why?
Become middle-class, and begin accumulation of wealth. You will quickly stop caring about how the poor supposedly got screwed.
The truth is, most poor people deserve it.

[Anonymous No.27596533]

>>27586245
>>27586349
>>27596154
>80 iq leftists continue to spam nonsense about subjects they have no understanding of

[Anonymous No.27596539]

>>27596218
>but I just wonder how would that affect the economic growth if people consume less?
People will end up consuming MORE, there will just be less consumption at the beginning but as mass production increases people would have a lot of savings and cheaper prices so consumption would massively increase

The difference is that it would actually be based on really increases in efficiency and supply unlike the fake central bank booms we have now

[Anonymous No.27596690]

>>27588828
Please, niggers, and spics, take all my middle class, white, male money. I'm really going to stick it to those evil white, rich people that jews have taught be to hate by giving you all my money.

[Anonymous No.27596796]

>>27586349
>You tell them massive tax cuts for the rich
You're unironically too dumb for politics. In reality, trump's tax cuts greatly benefited the middle class. We could all see that we also got a cut, you incredibly stupid shill.

[Anonymous No.27596889]

>>27596533
I voted for Donald Trump you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.27596906]

You retarded reddit niggers need to go back. You're braindead cattle who should learn you place.

[Anonymous No.27597054]

>>27596889
>i didn't vote for the party that's absurdly terrible and much worse than the other one
That's a pretty low standard.

[Anonymous No.27597479]

>>27588457
true, the events during summer made even more former libertarians realize the primacy of race and demographics

[Anonymous No.27597561]

>>27596690
Does that count the money you spend on sending them to prison.

[Anonymous No.27598956]

>>27589194
Jesus youre such a brainlet its not even funny. You cant argue the modt basic issues that governments have solved hundreds of years ago yet you feel so superior. Libertarians are the ultimate cucktards

[Anonymous No.27599210]

>>27596539
interesting
is the functioning of deflationary economy covered in the economics in one lesson book?

[Anonymous No.27599679]

>>27598956
>HE THINKS GOVERNMENT HAS SOLVED AND NOT COMPLETELY DESTROYED THE ROADS INDUSTRY
LOL

>>27599210
I'm not sure but it's definitely covered in Rothbard's books, Mises books etc
Anything on mises.org is great
Austrian economics is very interesting, don't listen to the haters, 99% of the time they are strawmanning it.
https://mises.org/wire/deflation-always-good-economy
https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth

[Anonymous No.27599871]

>>27588556
>Say's the wagecucking imbecile. You must like getting that boot shoved down your throat.
You'd wagecuck 10x harder in a lolbert society because there would be no welfare or protection for workers.

[Anonymous No.27600256]

>>27599679
The fact that your roads are shit is exactly and 100% related to deregulation and corporate infiltration of politics. Why do you think this shit works in Germany, France, hell even Guatemala.
But keep deflecting libtard

[Anonymous No.27600404]

>>27581161
I used to

[Anonymous No.27600426]

>>27599871
>b-bu-but you could have the choice of not paying for public services and feudalism was far better than this system, I love getting rimmed by my landlord

[Anonymous No.27600565]

>>27600256
Actually when you look into facts you can see that the countries with the best roads are places like Hong kong, Switzerland, Singapore - basically all the most open market economies. Also the US is highest in the "connectivity index"

https://www.statista.com/chart/15821/who-has-the-best-roads/

[Anonymous No.27600747]

>>27600256
Murican roads are shit because they build endless suburbia. Suburbia does not bring in enough tax money to maintain those roads but there are various subsidies that reward building new roads.

[Anonymous No.27600762]

>>27600256
>Why do you think this shit works in Germany, France
Those countries have shittier roads than the US. Overall we in the europe always use America in comparison to our shitty roads, and it is a general consensus that the roads are better there. The statistics also prove that.

[Anonymous No.27600930]

>>27599679
>87 posts by this ID
have sex

[Anonymous No.27601245]

>>27600762
Americans roads are riddled with potholes and they just randomly destruct themselves when the fracking industry is working their magic.
Youre not even european and probably never were there. Stop lying.

[Anonymous No.27601319]

>>27600256
>The fact that your roads are shit is exactly and 100% related to deregulation and corporate infiltration of politics.
WHAT? The government OWNS THE ROADS
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SHIT you fucking retard

>But keep deflecting libtard
I'm not deflecting anything you bootlicking communist

>>27600426
Landlords are based and manage housing so we don't have to. If they didn't exist, we would still have to pay for housing. Learn economics brainlet. Stop desiring statist landlords over private ones.

[Anonymous No.27601432]

>>27599871
>You'd wagecuck 10x harder in a lolbert society because there would be no welfare or protection for workers.
What protection? Firms pay the marginal productivity of labor. They can't pay any less than that.
Government is not what increases wages, economic production is.
You people have the most childish dumb arguments we have refuted 150 years ago unironically.

[Anonymous No.27601576]

>>27601319
>landlords are based
Holy shit everyone abandon the discussion, this is beyond trolling

[Anonymous No.27601702]

>>27601432
>Government is not what increases wages, economic production is.

[Anonymous No.27601842]

>>27601576
>Holy shit everyone abandon the discussion, this is beyond trolling
Seethe hard you economic illiterate lmao
You people are like flat earthers. You have no idea what you're talking about and get mad when people try to point out reality to you. Kill yourself.

>>27601702
OH MY GOD HE POSTED THE MEME GRAPH DEBUNKED A MILLION TIMES
LIBERTARIANS FUCKING DESTROYED!!!!!!!1111

[Anonymous No.27602039]

>>27601576

[Anonymous No.27602107]

>>27601245
I am from Finland and it sounds very similar here, I doubt it's just a lot worse.

https://www.statista.com/chart/15821/who-has-the-best-roads/
check this you dumbass and stop thinking socialism is good when you have not even probably visited europe nor know anything about life here.