Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[whodathunkit]

Many think there is a place for tokens of exchange, but don't like structures and mechanisms that tend to systematically concentrate money (and associated power) in a few hands.

Cronyism is what "systematically concentrate money (and associated power) in a few hands." A truly free market doesn't. A free market puts the money into the hands of businesses offering goods and services a majority of consumers want, in the way consumers want the goods and services delivered. In a free market, when that good or service fails to meet expectations, consumers move on. Therefore, in a free market, there is incentive for businesses to keep quality high, or consumers stop buying the product and the business runs out of money.

Cronyism, that execrable liaison between bureaucrats/politicians and business, is what keeps the market sewn up so that only a privileged few deliver mediocre goods and services to the majority, often in a way the majority doesn't like but simply puts up with because there's nothing better to be had. Cronyism ensures a status quo, such that viable alternatives to the status quo don't get a proper airing so that consumers have a chance to adopt the alternative.

Cronyism is a by-product of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is much more rampant in all other economic systems than in free market capitalism. Socialist and Marxist systems are feculent, festering cesspits of bureaucracy. Some bureaucracy is inevitable, but today's level of bureaucratic intrusion into all aspects of the market, private business, and life, is unprecedented, esp. in the U.S.

I am not naive enough to believe that Trump isn't a cronyist at all. Everyone is, to a certain extent...little people like us simply call it "networking". But Trump is a lot less of an insider than Hillary. He's actually run a big business and not just after a spouse's coattails. He's not a Carpetbagger moving into an influential political district solely for the purpose of getting getting elected in order to keep his snout buried in the public trough. He's big enough that he actually has a chance. Since I can't stay home, I feel my only choice is to hold my nose and vote for him.

Sometimes, if traffic is stalled on your bridge, jumping off it is the only way to get moving again.

I'll close out by saying that the biggest problem with all of this is probably just human nature and therefore the problems are insolvable. This media-manipulated punchbowl we're living in seems to allow the very worst of us to rise like turds to the top, since it's rare that any besides tone-deaf narcissists and sociopaths can stand the constant hyena-like scrutiny. Not to mention having to face the monumental challenge of trying to change an entrenched unelected bureaucracy once office is gained. Thoughtful people of principles and conscience are too smart to run for elected office in an environment like this.

 

[Kyle M]

"tokens of exchange" lol. Money is an important spontaneous invention, like the container. Trivializing it shows vast ignorance.

 

[jaguar43]

Cronyism is what "systematically concentrate money (and associated power) in a few hands." A truly free market doesn't. A free market puts the money into the hands of businesses offering goods and services a majority of consumers want, in the way consumers want the goods and services delivered. In a free market, when that good or service fails to meet expectations, consumers move on. Therefore, in a free market, there is incentive for businesses to keep quality high, or consumers stop buying the product and the business runs out of money.

The idea that in a "free market" the best goods and services would succeed because the consumers would demand the "best", forgets to mention that consumers can be mislead. Advertising, marketing and public relations works extremely well. Advertising is a billion dollar industry and for good reasons. Would a "free market" still be 'free" with advertising, marketing, and public relations ?

Cronyism, that execrable liaison between bureaucrats/politicians and business, is what keeps the market sewn up so that only a privileged few deliver mediocre goods and services to the majority, often in a way the majority doesn't like but simply puts up with because there's nothing better to be had. Cronyism ensures a status quo, such that viable alternatives to the status quo don't get a proper airing so that consumers have a chance to adopt the alternative.

Cronyism is a by-product of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is much more rampant in all other economic systems than in free market capitalism. Socialist and Marxist systems are feculent, festering cesspits of bureaucracy. Some bureaucracy is inevitable, but today's level of bureaucratic intrusion into all aspects of the market, private business, and life, is unprecedented, esp. in the U.S.

Corporations capture regulatory agencies and put industry representatives in editorial boards and government agencies. Removing government won't remove the cronyism because it lies within the profit-making system. One has to remove the profit making system to remove the cronyism.

 

[whodathunkit]

@jag2594, almost every post you've made in this thread lets me know that, generally speaking, you think people are too stupid to think for themselves and need somebody else to do it for them. They need the government or somebody smart (maybe really smart like yourself!) to protect them from their own stupidity and bad judgment, and to take care of them. This statement

The idea that in a "free market" the best goods and services would succeed because of the demand from consumers, forgets to mention that consumers can be mislead. Advertising, marketing and public relations works extremely well. Advertising is a billion dollar industry and for good reasons.

Sums up my point pretty well.

BTW, it's "misled" not "mislead".

Anyway, yes, consumers can be mislead [sic]. Sadly, I've been misled, a time or two, myself. But...if a product is crap, consumers won't use it again. Same with an idea, although it is astounding to me how many crappy ideas there are out there that people keep resurrecting ad nauseam because "it's never been implemented in the *right* way before!"

Anyway, misleading advertisement for a crap product = people stop buying the product. That's how it works. It's like a hot stove. You put your hand on it once, get burned, you don't do it again. It doesn't matter how many happy smiley-face adverts you see telling you that touching a hot stove is a good thing. It's called "learning". Happens all the time. All the advertisement in the world won't make the Yugo a good car (just for one example). A free market really does take care of crap products.

Although sometimes there is a demand for crap. The Pet Rock craze back in the '70's comes readily to mind. People paying $10 and more for plain or very crudely painted rocks they could pick up almost anywhere and paint themselves. In cases like that, if people actually *want* to pay for crap, and they have the money to pay for crap, and there's a market for that high-demand crap, who on earth are you or am I to tell them they shouldn't and can't do that?

Removing government won't remove the cronyism because it lies within the profit-making system. One has to remove the profit making system to remove the cronyism.

Really? And how do you propose to "remove the profit making system" from transactions relating to goods and services?

 

[kyle]

My understanding of a "heuristic" is that
it is system of questioning.

Not exactly. That is an example of a heuristic but in the broader psychological concept it is the mechanism where people employ quick, short-cuts in thought. It is the way we quickly identify things as good/bad. Jonathan Haidt's model says that rational mind is actually employed to justify our initial emotional responses after the fact. Meaning, we experience a fast heuristic response, and then engage our rational mind to justify our POV to others.

This is just a rough model of the mind but I think it is somewhat accurate way of describing the way we engage in the political process. We tend to argue from our initial bias, not from a lofty and rational indifference. It's a good first step toward magnanimity to not become overly attached to one pole or the other.

On the contrary. There are some reasonable limits to free speech - defamation, 'fire' in wrong place, hate speech, perjury, etc. Complaints about 'political correctness' often come from people who want to be free to engage in hate speech, or at least general abusive slagging against marginalised groups of people.

And who are the marginalized groups of people? It is the people not aligned with the vision of Hollywood/Wallstreet/K Street (AKA Hillary's backers).

And I'll say this point once again because I think it is absolutely essential: why should I care what politicians who take money from big pharma, big med and big ag to poison our health have to say about Trump? By virtue of this being an alternative health forum, at least we all share some common ground in this respect.

 

[jaguar43]

@jag2594, almost every post you've made in this thread lets me know that, generally speaking, you think people are too stupid to think for themselves and need somebody else to do it for them. They need the government or somebody smart (maybe really smart like yourself!) to protect them from their own stupidity and bad judgment, and to take care of them. This statement


Sums up my point pretty well.

BTW, it's "misled" not "mislead".

Anyway, yes, consumers can be mislead [sic]. Sadly, I've been misled, a time or two, myself. But...if a product is crap, consumers won't use it again. Same with an idea, although it is astounding to me how many crappy ideas there are out there that people keep resurrecting ad nauseam because "it's never been implemented in the *right* way before!"

Anyway, misleading advertisement for a crap product = people stop buying the product. That's how it works. It's like a hot stove. You put your hand on it once, get burned, you don't do it again. It doesn't matter how many happy smiley-face adverts you see telling you that touching a hot stove is a good thing. It's called "learning". Happens all the time. All the advertisement in the world won't make the Yugo a good car (just for one example). A free market really does take care of crap products.

Although sometimes there is a demand for crap. The Pet Rock craze back in the '70's comes readily to mind. People paying $10 and more for plain or very crudely painted rocks they could pick up almost anywhere and paint themselves. In cases like that, if people actually *want* to pay for crap, and they have the money to pay for crap, and there's a market for that high-demand crap, who on earth are you or am I to tell them they shouldn't and can't do that?

So you are equating crooked advertising to burning your hand on the stove ? I think thats a straw man argument. You don't seem to think that advertising can sometimes interpenetrate culture. Just like the way saturated fats are seen in a "negative" light or that fish oil is seen as something "good" for people's health. Things are deliberately falsified to gain an edge. To not see this is to live in an alternative universe.

It's also important to understand how Language can be use to manipulate people. Ray Peat has written about how the estrogen industry rewrote the meaning of different hormones and chemicals to support their argument that estrogen was the "female" hormone. Try telling someone that estrogen is as much a male hormone as female, or that vitamin A and thyroid antagonize estrogen.

I don't think it's as abstract as you make it seem.

Really? And how do you propose to "remove the profit making system" from transactions relating to goods and services?

The transactions between goods and services has very little to do with the profit making system. Macy's doesn't make most of their money selling shoes or clothes. They make most of their money with credit cards, interest, fees, penalties. These things are the opposite of productivity. They make markets smaller.

 

[mt_dreams]

There are third and fourth and more parties; most people just won't vote for them because they assume no one else will vote for them, so they end up taking 1-2% combined polls. We have a system that seems specifically designed for learned helplessness.

Yeah I caught that on your post right before mine. I was referring to the parties, as that is what currently runs the elections. Other than 2 or 3 cases over the last 100 years, no independent has even comes close to 10% of the vote.

There needs to be a major overhaul of the party landscape in the US. In Canada, we've got a left, middle & right. In the US the only options are right & mid right/center (depending on who you ask), as the war on the left from 1860-1980 pretty much killed off any left leadership in the country. Hopefully all the work bernie did during the campaign can create a movement towards a third power party in future elections, as I don't think the democrat party wants carry the flame for left ideologies.

 

[whodathunkit]

@jag2594, I understand everything you're saying. And to an extent, I agree.

I agree that data is often manipulated and falsified to support a preferred outcome. This is deplorable.

I agree language can be used to manipulate people. Sometimes deplorable, sometimes not. Regardless, we've all done it.

I agree that credit can make the economy and the individual's buying power weaker. I struggle with student loans that will impact me for most if not the entire of the rest of my life (depending on how long I live or if I manage to win the Lotto ). They've already curtailed my ability to take a job I wanted and move to another town, because I couldn't afford to take a pay cut. Other impacts will be seen in the future, I'm sure. But I freely took out those loans and (unwillingly) listened to every entrance and exit interview put before me, so I knew exactly what I was getting into. I'm not going to rail about the cupidity of the banks and government that made them possible for me, or blame them for when my fingers signed the promissory notes because I wanted an education and some money to live on.

What I notice most about your posts is that you essentially seem to be railing against human nature. Nobody does anything right and everyone is manipulative, base, and venal: Danny Roddy, the government, corporations, etc. You seem to want to somehow rig life so that human nature is different. What's more disturbing, you somehow seem to think it's possible to close all the loopholes human nature can find in any given set of rules without turning society into a freedomless, joyless exercise in conformity. I worked in a adult education for 10 years in a new school that had to create some rules from experience. And my experience is that no matter what rule you make, someone is going to come along and figure out how to exploit the loophole. You can only nail things down so far until you start pissing off the honest majority of people who don't exploit. Come to think of it, that's a fact most of our political class doesn't seem to get.

They make most of their money with credit cards, interest, fees, penalties.

False. Proof, please, besides heresay? Besides, your specific example (Macy's) is hardly the only transactor of goods & services in the U.S. or the world.

The transactions between goods and services has very little to do with the profit making system. Macy's doesn't make most of their money selling shoes or clothes. They make most of their money with credit cards, interest, fees, penalties. These things are the opposite of productivity. They make markets smaller.

This whole statement is a dodge of my question. In fact, politicians use this kind of manipulative rhetorical tactic all the time: dodge a question for which they have no answer with a seeming answer that really isn't an answer at all.

You're critical of the current system, and you loftily want to "remove the profit making system to remove the cronyism". I'm just curious as to what kind of alternative system you would put in its place?

 

[mt_dreams]

If you will go that far, mt,
you should be able to take the next step:
whom does Bernie Sanders strongly endorse and support?
There is a tremendous difference between Clinton and Trump.
I really don't think you can miss that, if you're honest about it and are halfway informed.



Gonna have to strongly disagree here.
Trump seems to advocate scrapping non-proliferation too.
Extraordinarily bad idea.

We can whine about the U.S.'s track record on nukes if we want.
Put Don Trump into office and you'll soon
be crapping the bed and begging for a return to that stability.

Bernie has been fighting against the right his entire life. I'm certain he would be endorsing the democrat candidate no matter who it is, and against whomever they are running against. The same can be said about the rep who are against trump. are they against trump b/c he wont do a good job, or b/c he is not a real party affiliate. you can't trust what any politician says, so it doesn't matter who any given politician is supporting, I don't believe anything these puppets say. If you choose dem, you are essentially agreeing to the same of what has taken place over the last 16 years of dem controlled office. It's a tough spot to be in for a lot of disgruntled democrats who more than likely want the dem to go left, or for the socialist party to make a comeback. it's anyone guess if voting or not voting dem will make either of these come to fruition.

My nuke opinion was more about david than goliath. I'm all for the US implementing the no nuke on offense strategy. regarding smaller countries having nukes ... There's a reason why the only country that the US has been unable to penetrate, is also the only small country with a nuke. They will never use the nukes as it will spell the end of their country, it's more of a fear tactic. This will only apply to countries not wanting to jump on board the US way of life. It's unfortunate that this measure is the only one that works, but that's the reality of today's political landscape. If you want to put fear to nukes, look no further than the ongoing potential war b/w the us/nato & russia whom control almost 95% of the worlds nukes. small country nukes will amount to the same damage as a strong hurricane, whereas the former may result in the end of civilization.

 

[jaguar43]

@jag2594, I understand everything you're saying. And to an extent, I agree.

I agree that data is often manipulated and falsified to support a preferred outcome. This is deplorable.

I agree language can be used to manipulate people. Sometimes deplorable, sometimes not. Regardless, we've all done it.

I agree that credit can make the economy and the individual's buying power weaker. I struggle with student loans that will impact me for most if not the entire of the rest of my life (depending on how long I live or if I manage to win the Lotto ). They've already curtailed my ability to take a job I wanted and move to another town, because I couldn't afford to take a pay cut. Other impacts will be seen in the future, I'm sure.

But what I notice most about your posts is that you essentially seem to be railing against human nature. Nobody does anything right and everyone is manipulative: Danny Roddy, the government, corporations, etc. You seem to want to somehow rig life so that human nature is different. What's more disturbing, is you somehow think it's possible to close all the loopholes human nature can find in any given set of rules without turning society into a freedomless, joyless exercise in conformity. I worked in a adult education for 10 years in a new school that had to create some rules from experience. And my experience is that no matter what rule you make, someone is going to come along and figure out how to exploit the loophole. You can only nail things down so far until you start pissing off the honest majority of people who don't exploit.

Since you agree with what I am saying, then you whole argument on the "free market" is faceless and that removing governments won't remove the dangerous products because of "consumer demand" ?

So your idea of human nature is that everyone is greedy and looking for the easy way ? I disagree, humans are the product of the society, not the other way around. If people are greedy or looking for an edge it's because of the system creates those conditions. Your argument is similar to the idea that one can't help themselves regarding health because genes control everything. It's a fragmented idea of human nature.

Science requires that we account for consciousness in biological terms as far as is possible, but consciousness also includes historical and cultural influences, and our biological conceptions must be adequate to account for the existence of all those things which are simply historical--so many of which are arbitrary, and therefore temporary, and to be grown out of The "biologizers" often speak of "genes" for aggression and militarism, because they strongly wish to deny the reality of social-historical processes, but Pavlov argued that moral ideas can change history, and historically determined behavior. - Ray Peat mind and tissue page 69

I would categorize you along with the biologizers as Peat mentions.

False. Proof, please, besides heresay? Besides, your specific example (Macy's) is hardly the only transactor of goods & services in the U.S. or the world.

An economist said it once, but I can't get the source. The national income and labor statistics doesn't differentiate between profits from goods and services and rent-extraction or interests fees.

This whole statement is a dodge of my question. In fact, politicians use this kind of manipulative rhetorical tactic all the time: dodge a question for which they have no answer with a seeming answer that really isn't an answer at all.

You're critical of the current system, and you loftily want to "remove the profit making system to remove the cronyism". I'm just curious as to what kind of alternative system you would put in its place?

Georgism, John Stewart Mill, Richardianism. Marxism, socialism anything would be better than what we have now.

 

[whodathunkit]

An economist said it once, but I can't get the source.

Well, there you go. jag2594 asserts that an economist said it once so we should all take it as fact!

Georgism, John Stewart Mill, Richardianism. Marxism, socialism anything would be better than what we have now.

You just proved my point. You HAVE no better solution. You just like complaining about the demon "profit".

All those systems you mention are by their very nature cronyist and bureaucratic. Further, they're more unfair than free market capitalism because at least in the free market your product or service has a chance to survive on its own merit. In communistic/socialistic economies, it's not the actual value of a product or service to a majority of consumers that counts; instead, what counts is whether or not someone in the bureaucracy likes that good or service, or whether or not the producer of the good or service knows someone in the bureaucracy. If no bureaucrat likes it or the creator doesn't know anyone in the chain, that's pretty much it. The good or service gets squelched before consumers ever see it. In any other economic system besides capitalism there are always got be a bunch of unelected someones in charge of distributing what's in that community pot, and those someones are always going to be profiting themselves, their families, and their friends at the expense of the integrity of the system. You think capitalism makes human nature bad? Just because they call it communism or socialism and not capitalism doesn't make human nature any better.

So your idea of human nature is that everyone is greedy and looking for the easy way ? I disagree, humans are the product of the society, not the other way around. If people are greedy or looking for an edge it's because of the system creates those conditions. Your argument is similar to the idea that one can't help themselves regarding health because genes control everything. It's a fragmented idea of human nature.

Science requires that we account for consciousness in biological terms as far as is possible, but consciousness also includes historical and cultural influences, and our biological conceptions must be adequate to account for the existence of all those things which are simply historical--so many of which are arbitrary, and therefore temporary, and to be grown out of The "biologizers" often speak of "genes" for aggression and militarism, because they strongly wish to deny the reality of social-historical processes, but Pavlov argued that moral ideas can change history, and historically determined behavior. - Ray Peat mind and tissue page 69

I would categorize you along with the biologizers as Peat mentions.

No sweetie, it's not my idea of human nature. Or at least, not my entire idea. But I get the distinct impression it predominates your idea of human nature. The only reason to fear a largely self-determining mechanism like capitalism is if you fear human nature to be so entirely venal that no one can be trusted.

But putting another name like communism or socialism on the administration of regulation around the commerce of goods and services in no way changes human nature. Putting a thief in charge of distribution in a communist economy begets the same results as putting a thief at the head of a corporation. And there are just as many thieves as honest men in both systems.

So funny you say you think I'm a "biologizer". I get the feeling that's like one cut above "bottom feeding amoeba" in your taxonomy.

To say that human beings are nothing more than creations of society is to neglect the role that humans have had in creating our various societies...societies being an outgrowth of our evolution, instead of the other way around.

To say that human beings are nothing more than a "market" neglects the fact that humans created and can break the market. Markets are the byproduct of our tangible and intellectual capacities. They don't run us. We run them.

IMO it can be objectively argued that both Marxism and Socialism (and their Democratic outgrowth, "Progressivism") are actually economic systems that promote the notion of learned helplessness. In both systems it is assumed that the majority of people need to have the government or some system of bureaucracy assign benefit to them or for them or on their production, because they are unable to assign, procure or produce benefit for themselves.

Is that the direction we want to go in? Learned helplessness via government? We're almost there anyway, so we might as well start saying what it really is. Cultural and societal serotonin brain.

In point of fact, I was surprised and somewhat dismayed when I figured out what a huge influence Marxism had had on Ray Peat's philosophy. But because I always try really, really hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I simply ignored that which I did not agree with, and took the wisdom of what I did.

I don't think you care, but in case you do, if you wonder what I really think about human nature and the influence of society, or at least the ideal I aspire to if never reach, read "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl. This doesn't seem to directly have any relevance to the current discussion, but since economic systems and various systems of government have to do with nothing so much as human nature, I guess it does.

 

[narouz]

@tara - the economy and life in general has never been more regulated than now by government, yet wealth disparity has grown compared to our less regulated past.

Thomas Piketty's exhaustive new-ish study, Capital in the 21st Century,
finds that this presentation of economic history is not true.
Looking at wealth concentration over decades and centuries,
he shows that wealth tends concentrate more and more.
The "golden age" for America, post WW2 and into the '70's and maybe '80's,
when there was a better distribution of wealth down to the middle and lower classes,
resulted largely from intense regulation of the The New Deal sort, the G.I. Bill, etc.

Then in the '80's or thereabout, both parties--but mostly Reagan Repubs--
starting undoing those wealth-spreading policies and regulation.

Listen to Trump's speech today?
Pure Reagan trickle down/supply side....

 

[narouz]

Even if Peat were an all out Trump supporter, it would be inaccurate to label him as a right-winger.

I don't have any problem agreeing with this.
I've said my use of the term is only meant to be an approximate label.

He (like most people) has simply evolved his views over time...

I surely saw him on such a trajectory, doornob.
I'm a huge Peat fan and very much do not want to believe what seems likely to be the case now.
Unfortunately, there is no historical guarantee that people,
smart people,
even geniuses,
can be depended upon to always evolve toward the light.

Most people on this forum seem to accept that, you on the other hand seem to need to mull it over at length, trying to dissect Peat's fatal flaw, as you seem to view it.

Once the Kool-Aid has been drunk
it cannot be un-drunk?
Have you ever looked at it like this:
most people on this forum are likely to be at least somewhat uncritical of Peat--
because they love him so much.
Does Peat teach that being uncritical of leaders is a desirable quality?
I doubt that this is a "fatal flaw."
I don't know how this will shake out.
I am simply trying to look skeptically beneath the surface,
checking for submerged ideological subtexts.
Could that be what you mean by "dissecting Peat"...?

If one then extends this further, considering the corporate-govt ties of the media and how they have manipulated the public for decades, one concludes that Trump is not wanted by the current authorities, which makes him a very interesting candidate to an anti-authoritarian voter...

It surely does "make him a very interesting candidate to an anti-authoritarian voter."
It surely does.
I do understand the attraction of the outsider.
Sanders is somewhat of an outsider.

Some folks are easily dazzled by the novel.
They don't mull and dissect.
They just accept.
What price novelty?

...whereas if one doesn't perceive a media bias, they walk away repeating the media pundits shouting rascism. A critical thinker would also be interested by the never-trump movement, where established authoritarian neo-cons openly condemn their own party nominee... this analysis is what goes through a lot of trumper's heads.

You call it analysis.
I call it rationalization and denial.

It seems to me, the reason you are wrestling with this, at length, on this thread, is that your own deep seeded tribalist, red-blue world view cannot accept that a democrat could be worse than a republican...

Oh I can accept that possibility.
Absolutely positively ain't true this time though. :>)

 

[narouz]

Err...

Apparently,

neither do you,

Narouz

?

Looking For Scientific Evidence Of Steel Buildings Pancaking At Free Fall Speed. Anyone?

Do you think Peat is a right-winger, burt?

 

[jaguar43]

Well, there you go. jag2594 asserts that an economist said it once so we should all take it as fact!

I will see If I can find the source.

You just proved my point. You HAVE no better solution. You just like complaining about the demon "profit".

All those systems you mention are by their very nature cronyist and bureaucratic. Further, they're more unfair than free market capitalism because at least in the free market your product or service has a chance to survive on its own merit. In communistic/socialistic economies, it's not the actual value of a product or service to a majority of consumers that counts; instead, what counts is whether or not someone in the bureaucracy likes that good or service, or whether or not the producer of the good or service knows someone in the bureaucracy. If no bureaucrat likes it or the creator doesn't know anyone in the chain, that's pretty much it. The good or service gets squelched before consumers ever see it. In any other economic system besides capitalism there are always got be a bunch of unelected someones in charge of distributing what's in that community pot, and those someones are always going to be profiting themselves, their families, and their friends at the expense of the integrity of the system. You think capitalism makes human nature bad? Just because they call it communism or socialism and not capitalism doesn't make human nature any better.

I think you have a false idea of consumer goods and services under a socialist government. For example, in China, state owned enterprises provide the necessary goods and services at a cost of production. While in the U.S, the cost of production is almost never the price of any good or service. In fact, the american government was scared to allow the USSR into the IMF and world bank because they said that they had an unfair advantage because they can undersell their goods and services . They didn't have to paid stockholders or dividends or high incomes to owners. All transportation, public utilities, housing, were state owned. This is what's happening with China presently. China can undersell american goods and services because of socialism. Thats why they are the factory of the world.

State owned Banks in China lend for businesses, factories, infrastructure purposes. What do U.S banks lend for ? Corporate raiders, stock buybacks, transferring real estate, speculation, CDS's. All these things destroy markets and provide an incentive to destroy employment and industry.

Toyota was going to build a plant in the states, but decided to built it in Canada, Why ? Even though Canada has a higher minimum wage laws , they have single payer healthcare and the employer doesn't have to provide healthcare. The for profit healthcare system in america is really a rent-extraction machine. And it's destroying our industrial sector.

If consumer goods and services are pick in socialist economies over others it's not because of nepotism. It's because the government planners believe that it should be amplified due to economic reasons. Examples would be China giving priority to their SOE's rather than international corporations or demanding technology transfers or invest heavily in infrastructure. Subsidizing specifics businesses may cost the consumers more in the short term, true. But in the long term, they can reap the benefits when the business is transfer to the state and can start subsidizing the consumers and the economy at large and be competitive on the world stage. If this is deem "unfair" or "against freedom" then I think one should reconsider what they mean by freedom or unfair.

No sweetie, it's not my idea of human nature. Or at least, not my entire idea. But I get the distinct impression it predominates your idea of human nature. The only reason to fear a largely self-determining mechanism like capitalism is if you fear human nature to be so entirely venal that no one can be trusted.

You still haven't said your definition of human nature. But ok.

But putting another name like communism or socialism on the administration of regulation around the commerce of goods and services in no way changes human nature. Putting a thief in charge of distribution in a communist economy begets the same results as putting a thief at the head of a corporation. And there are just as many thieves as honest men in both systems.

The thieves aren't in the working class, but the ruling class. Read my post on economic differences between socialism and capitalism above.

To say that human beings are nothing more than a "market" neglects the fact that humans created and can break the market. Markets are the byproduct of our tangible and intellectual capacities. They don't run us. We run them.

Here we go again. You on one hand, agreed with what I said on advertising, marketing, and publics relations. On the other hand you ignore it to support your argument. Like Ray Peat said, when people are treated like the "market" a distorted view of human nature is sold.

IMO it can be objectively argued that both Marxism and Socialism (and their Democratic outgrowth, "Progressivism") are actually economic systems that promote the notion of learned helplessness. In both systems it is assumed that the majority of people need to have the government or some system of bureaucracy assign benefit to them or for them or on their production, because they are unable to assign, procure or produce benefit for themselves.

Not true, socialism does what capitalism can't. In the U.S governments don't intervene in the economy to help the 99 percent, like in the subprime mortgage crisis. But intervene to help to 1 percent. Socialism may be learned helplessness for the ruling class. But it's the opposite for the working class. Distinctions at play.

Is that the direction we want to go in? Learned helplessness via government? We're almost there anyway, so we might as well start saying what it really is. Cultural and societal serotonin brain.

False, Haidut posted a thread saying that people in the soviet union had more dopamine, and people in the U.S have more serotonin.

In point of fact, I was surprised and somewhat dismayed when I figured out what a huge influence Marxism had had on Ray Peat's philosophy. But because I always try really, really hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I simply ignored that which I did not agree with, and took the wisdom of what I did.

Well it's to bad. Because he said his political ideas influenced his nutritional ideas.

 

[Ideonaut]

"Peat just likes Trump
because Trump will blow things up--the juvenile attraction of anarchy."

This claim that Trump will blow things up and cause anarchy has nothing to do with the facts. I find this whole left good/right bad ideological perspective juvenile. Peat is reality oriented, not an ideologue. Neither is Trump, really--he's a pragmatist, like on "free" trade, a "conservative" (neocon) agenda item that Trump rejects. Go Trump and Peat!

 

[narouz]

"Peat just likes Trump
because Trump will blow things up--the juvenile attraction of anarchy."

This claim that Trump will blow things up and cause anarchy has nothing to do with the facts. I find this whole left good/right bad ideological perspective juvenile. Peat is reality oriented, not an ideologue. Neither is Trump, really--he's a pragmatist, like on "free" trade, a "conservative" (neocon) agenda item that Trump rejects. Go Trump and Peat!

Such a grotesquely uncool combo.
I truly hope not.

 

[Kyle M]

Thomas Piketty's exhaustive new-ish study, Capital in the 21st Century,
finds that this presentation of economic history is not true.

Llisten if you dare. Thomas Piketty Refuted | Tom Woods

 

[burtlancast]

Do you think Peat is a right-winger, burt?

 

[narouz]

Llisten if you dare. Thomas Piketty Refuted | Tom Woods

Okay, but I've gotta dig up my protective, anti-Ludwig von Mises, aluminum foil hat first...

from Wiki:

Thomas Ernest "Tom" Woods, Jr. (born August 1, 1972) is an American historian, political analyst, and author.[1] Woods is a New York Times best-selling author and has published twelve books.[2] He has written extensively on the subjects of American historical fiction, contemporary politics, and economics. Woods identifies as a paleolibertarian[citation needed] and a proponent of the Austrian school of economics.

Woods holds an A.B. from Harvard University and a Ph.D. from Columbia University, both in History. He is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama - which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a "neo-Confederate organization"[3] - and a member of the editorial board for the Institute's Libertarian Papers.[4] Woods is also an associate scholar of the Abbeville Institute, in McClellanville, South Carolina. The Abbeville Institute promotes the cultural inheritance of the American Southern tradition as "a valuable intellectual and spiritual resource for exposing and correcting the errors of American modernity," as opposed to "colleges and universities [which] have come to be dominated by the ideologies of multiculturalism and political correctness.[5]