Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Hey, you know what causes a woman to stop lactating? An inability to have the privacy for breastfeeding, the requirement to leave the baby with caretakers.

For instance, if you are working multiple part time jobs recently after giving birth.

It isn't a case of Staceys buying baby formula and then leaving them alone while they're off partying with Chads.

[Bacchus]

I hope you can access this where you are.

I can access it, but I can't see you position shared in that article. On page 148 the author explicitly acknowledges Ashur's political involvement in some businesses, but raises the question of proportion and administrative control. Page 150 inevitably admits that dam-gars were agents of the state, which we know for a fact from state records. It also suggests that dam-gars probably did not constrain themselves to official activities and conducted lots of private business. I don't disagree with that, that would indeed be the norm for pre-modern governance -- the only way to really control your agents is by making their positions lucrative and worth holding onto. 'Rigidly controlled fixed exchange' is of course an administrative impossibility all the way up to 18th century or so. Abuse of privileges was not just rampant before that, it was very much part of the system.

They were not representatives of Assyrian political dominance over the area, nor did they operate on behalf of the Assyrian government overseeing a Gift Exchange style of trade.

Why are these somehow the only two options? Cities did indeed trade, not in a gift exchange style, but in hey, we've got something valuable, they got something we need to equip our armies, let's make sure we get it. That trade was done by the state, because it was the only institution capable of providing the goods being exported. And it of course used agents, because goods had to be actually moved and sold. It also really did require the agents' commercial skill. And the way agents were reimbursed, completely typical of premodern rule, is through a tacit grant of discretion to use their official and protected position however they want to enrich themselves, as long as they fulfill their core duties. Neither of those two amounts to 'free trading' as we know it.

Corruption and graft can absolutely be an argument for market against government, as government fundamentally relies on integrity. Buyer beware market transaction can't be abused by corruption because there is nothing to corrupt -- no trust, no delegation, no representation.

[AdrienIer]

Hey, you know what causes a woman to stop lactating? An inability to have the privacy for breastfeeding, the requirement to leave the baby with caretakers.

For instance, if you are working multiple part time jobs recently after giving birth.

It isn't a case of Staceys buying baby formula and then leaving them alone while they're off partying with Chads.

Also some women just don't produce milk, period. Without any particular reason. It was the case for my mother, and is probably the case for a lot of women

[Bacchus]

Ah, I think I see the problem. You probably think that I'm advocating for some Polanyiesque position that denies the profit motive and profit-seeking exchange as behaviours of a premodern society. That's not at all what I mean. People have been greedy, and profit-seeking forever. What I mean by a free market is a market that's freely accessible, a market on which anyone can raise funds and transact without seeking special permission or privilege. So, the Ottoman empire had plenty of for-profit trading, but none of it was free -- it was all split into parochial monopolies and turned into a source of rents. There was no separation between political and economical, and you could only be an economic actor as a result of special political favour. As for your definition of market activities -- even Soviet Union participated in those, because it sold oil and metals, and bought grain and machines, and tried to get the best price for both. So a world consisting entirely of countries like Soviet Union trading with each other for you would be a free market world, and that's quite right in a sense, but it's not what I'm talking about.

[Mr. Cairo]

I hope you can access this where you are.

I can access it, but I can't see you position shared in that article. On page 148 the author explicitly acknowledges Ashur's political involvement in some businesses, but raises the question of proportion and administrative control. Page 150 inevitably admits that dam-gars were agents of the state, which we know for a fact from state records. It also suggests that dam-gars probably did not constrain themselves to official activities and conducted lots of private business. I don't disagree with that, that would indeed be the norm for pre-modern governance -- the only way to really control your agents is by making their positions lucrative and worth holding onto. 'Rigidly controlled fixed exchange' is of course an administrative impossibility all the way up to 18th century or so. Abuse of privileges was not just rampant before that, it was very much part of the system.

page 148 explicitly refutes the position that there was no market economy, which was your original statement.
Page 149 and 150 states the dam-gars were state agents who gradually became private entrepreneurs, as you say (i don't see how that opposes my suggestion that a market economy existed at the time). It also states that beyond the dam-gars, the ruling families of these city-states supplemented their official duties with private enterprise. Page 149 also references hammurabi having to borrow money from powerful merchants to pay his soldiers shortly after the colony period, which is hardly a sign that economies were strictly controlled by palaces/temples.

They were not representatives of Assyrian political dominance over the area, nor did they operate on behalf of the Assyrian government overseeing a Gift Exchange style of trade.

Why are these somehow the only two options? Cities did indeed trade, not in a gift exchange style, but in hey, we've got something valuable, they got something we need to equip our armies, let's make sure we get it. That trade was done by the state, because it was the only institution capable of providing the goods being exported. And it of course used agents, because goods had to be actually moved and sold. It also really did require the agents' commercial skill. And the way agents were reimbursed, completely typical of premodern rule, is through a tacit grant of discretion to use their official and protected position however they want to enrich themselves, as long as they fulfill their core duties. Neither of those two amounts to 'free trading' as we know it.

Because in your original statement you were saying that throughout most of human history there was no market:

The bottomline is that the world as it is broadly works. It works exactly because of, not in spite, the market. We know that because for the longest time in human history there were no markets, and we know exactly the effects of that.

I was offering evidence to the contrary, that's all. And to be honest, what you've said since doesn't actually seem to agree with that earlier blanket statement.
edit: saw your latest post after posting this

Corruption and graft can absolutely be an argument for market against government, as government fundamentally relies on integrity. Buyer beware market transaction can't be abused by corruption because there is nothing to corrupt -- no trust, no delegation, no representation.

Completely free markets trend towards monopoly, that's why we have anti-trust laws.
Businesses will, and do, lie to and cheat their customers. Which is why we have laws that ensure advertisements can't be blatant lies and laws that ensure that food packaging tells us everything that is in the food, and laws that ensure food is safe to eat and clothes safe to wear and products safe to use. It wasn't market forces that got lead out of petrol and paint (in fact, a Canadian company is the largest manufacturer of leaded paint in the world, which it exports to countries with less stringent regulations).

If allowing businesses to lie, cheat, poison, and just generally screw over their customers is the "free market" then is it really any wonder so many are rejecting it?

As you say, in pure a market transaction there is no trust or representation, no requirement for integrity, and yet often there is no choice, especially when you have very little money.
If I'm going to be dictated to about what I can eat or wear or where I can live, I'd rather be dictated to by a democratic government I have at least some influence over, than a private enterprise that I have no power over at all.

[TheHumanHydra]

Bacchus, you're a brilliant fellow, but at the end of the day, I, unemployed and with no savings, will take my free Canadian healthcare and be glad to pay my taxes when the time comes!

[ipecac]

This. In fact, in an ideal world that would be the solution to this children crisis on the border: separate these children from their parents permanently and let Americans adopt them. Last time I checked, America had more people willing to adopt a child than orphans.

That's not actually a real crisis. The real crisis is 5 times the number of children, 10000, who were unaccompanied by parents when they were caught crossing the border.

What is to be done with these children? Who knows where their parents are, and they don't have relatives in the US. These minor cannot be released, unaccompanied, into Mexico or the US.

Hence the government has to build large orphanage-style facilities to take care of thousands of children. Naturally the loonies call these 'child concentration camps'.

[ipecac]

Removing them won't suffice. There will be jobs available whatever you do because many employers want cheap manual labor and don't care if they're illegal.

I agree on this. It is illegal to hire illegals, but this essentially hasn't been enforced. So we find our way towards a real solution.

Economic aid. Cooperation (including the possibility of sending auxiliary police troops to help the local police) against gangs. The drugs eventually get to the USA so it would even make sense if you want the US government to only do selfish things. As I said central america is part of the US's sphere of influence. They're pretty much your vassals in every way. Maybe the US could make something good come out of it ?

Regarding the drugs, the best way to cut off funding to the gangs is to secure the border so that drugs can't flow in like they have been doing, i.e. wall plus additional security measures.

I am not sure if police will be sufficient to restore law and order. If their own governments can't maintain it, the situation could be so severe that it requires an armed intervention.

[ipecac]

 From what I've read, the California exodus is more conservatives fleeing the liberal madness.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/...opulation/

Or it's a thing that doesn't exist.

If anything, that site provides support some form of fleeing:

The counties that saw the biggest declines are located along the eastern border, with Lassen County seeing a decrease in population by 10.03%. Trailing behind are Plumas County, Modoc County, and Sierra County. Trinity County, located in northwestern California, also saw one of the highest declines with 5.05%.

[ipecac]

The lower-classes, traditionally forming the staunch base for the Left in the US and UK, are moving to support what is considered 'rightwing': nationalism. Trump though 'right-wing' is eschewing free trade, a mainstay of the right, for protectionism and free movement of labour for economic nationalism (or protectionism)

In such a time of flux, it makes sense that some right-wingers are starting to explore traditionally 'left' policies, socialism (of the non-Marxist variety). Clearly free markets can't support the nationalism they want, so they need to come up with something different.

The US left could easily have supported protectionism. In fact, it would make a lot of sense for them to protect their own voting base. Bernie Sanders, for instance, could easily have expanded on his stance against the TPP into protectionism.

Instead, on the national level the left have abandoned their old voters and given Trump a monopoly on telling workers that 'you were in bad shape with a worse outlook, but I'll help and protect you.'