Favorite Economic System

[Scam of God]

That said, while we do need intellectual property reform, we definitely don't need to discard the whole system.

I don't see what use there is in keeping it at all. The Internet is quickly rendering the very concept of intellectual property irrelevant.

Medical patents are the only ones that matter - no one really cares about silly nonsense like music or writings.

Industrial patents?

[opebo]

Industrial patents?

Yeah, those too.  But how does the internet have anything to do with those?  It just makes stealing from Britanny spears easier.

[Scam of God]

Industrial patents?

Yeah, those too.  But how does the internet have anything to do with those?  It just makes stealing from Britanny spears easier.

As I've said before, and will shriek to the top of my lungs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_printing

You want a socialist society? Invest in these.

[Beet]

The Fed is better described as advanced capitalism than reformed capitalism. The goal of central banking is to advance, not reform, capitalism. Just ask Alexander Hamilton.

Also, keep in mind that under true conditions of government abstinence, the government is not the one issuing currency. Private banks may issue their own currency, as they often did in the 19th century. Under these conditions, the largest banks would create a Clearing House and issue scrip backed by the Clearing House. So the money supply would still be elastic and controlled by a centralized, Fed-like entity.

[A18]

While it is admittedly not impossible, I doubt whether fiat money would take hold in a free economy. The threat of bank runs would severely limit the elasticity of the money supply.

[opebo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_printing

You want a socialist society? Invest in these.

A printing machine makes not a socialist society.  Elimination of privilege makes a socialist society or at any rate moves us in that direction.  The only machine which might help with that is a gun.

[phk]

My favorite is the Blue Lagoon economy.

[opebo]

My favorite is the Blue Lagoon economy.

Political thought as masturbatory fantasy. 

[phk]

My favorite is the Blue Lagoon economy.

Political thought as masturbatory fantasy.  

Why not? Its pretty simple to be in steady-state in a Blue Lagoon Economy.

α - n - C(t)/M(t) = 0

No politics on this island! Just Robinson Crusoe, some of his progeny and a mushroom garden.

[opebo]

My favorite is the Blue Lagoon economy.

Political thought as masturbatory fantasy.  

Why not? Its pretty simple to be in steady-state in a Blue Lagoon Economy.

α - n - C(t)/M(t) = 0

No politics on this island! Just Robinson Crusoe, some of his progeny and a mushroom garden.

Oh I thought you were talking about the movie Blue Lagoon.



But Robinson Crusoe had his Man Friday.

[k-onmmunist]

I think I trust phknrocket with the economy more than anyone else.

[phk]

My favorite is the Blue Lagoon economy.

Political thought as masturbatory fantasy.  

Why not? Its pretty simple to be in steady-state in a Blue Lagoon Economy.

α - n - C(t)/M(t) = 0

No politics on this island! Just Robinson Crusoe, some of his progeny and a mushroom garden.

Oh I thought you were talking about the movie Blue Lagoon.



But Robinson Crusoe had his Man Friday.

Haha! Got my movies mixed up.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Tell that to all those people paying for downloads at iTunes and similar sites, and for e-books to put on their Kindle to read.  While file sharing has affected copyright holders, it isn't going to kill off copyright.  What it has done is severely weaken the role of publishers as the gatekeepers for what is heard, viewed, and read.  Hence, people are less willing to pay the a premium for performing that gatekeeper role, possibly to the point that the concept of a publisher will become irrelevant.  However, publishers are not a necessary component of intellectual property.

And as I've said before, the rise of three-dimensional printing is going to kill all of that. When you can produce, in your own home, virtually every invention that has yet been invented, and the only thing stopping you is the State - the Federal government, to which you, Federalist, are nominally opposed - then you will change your tune in rapid succession.

A pipe dream for the foreseeable future except in those situations where products cannot take advantage of the lower costs of mass production of identical items.  The problem with your IP-free utopia is that it kills economic incentives to distribute new ideas.  (Yes there are other incentives besides money, but IP doesn't prevent them from incenting, so no IP means fewer incentives to distribute new ideas.) Patents and copyright, provided that their terms are not excessive, spur innovation.

[Bo]

Sure are a lot of socialists here. Who voted for Mercantilism? I'd like to hear their reasoning behind it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A mix between Capitalism and Socialism.

[Bo]

A mix between Capitalism and Socialism.

So Reformed Capitalism?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A mix between Capitalism and Socialism.

So Reformed Capitalism?

Probably, or perhaps a little further Left.

[Mint]

Somewhere between 2 and 3.

[Bo]

Somewhere between 2 and 3.

I thought you'd easily pick Option 2, considering how much you admire Grover Cleveland and William Howard Taft.

[ARescan]

Option 3

[k-onmmunist]

Somewhere between 2 and 3.

I thought you'd easily pick Option 2, considering how much you admire Grover Cleveland and William Howard Taft.

Taft was an interventionist.

[Bo]

Somewhere between 2 and 3.

I thought you'd easily pick Option 2, considering how much you admire Grover Cleveland and William Howard Taft.

Taft was an interventionist.

In what way (other than trust-busting)?

[k-onmmunist]

Somewhere between 2 and 3.

I thought you'd easily pick Option 2, considering how much you admire Grover Cleveland and William Howard Taft.

Taft was an interventionist.

In what way (other than trust-busting)?

You just named it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The first thing one learns in Economic History is that the question of What works? and What is Moral? are two very different things. And I'm not just talking from a 'government/big institution' policy POV (which is what mainstream economics is all about).

[opebo]

The first thing one learns in Economic History is that the question of What works? and What is Moral? are two very different things. And I'm not just talking from a 'government/big institution' policy POV (which is what mainstream economics is all about).

That false dichotomy generally comes from a total misunderstanding of both 'morality' and actual circumstances.  Of course I say this as one who doesn't care for 'morality', but the point is the idea that making people suffer makes the economy better is really ridiculously spurious.  There seems to be some sort of desire in humans to think that choices must be 'hard' or that  'sacrifices must be made'.