Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Zngland

Interesting " Liberterian"take On Unemployment

Recommended Posts

Stumbled on GEI

Not as brave as this chap to envisage a completely non state society, but he's closer to my

ideal than the unaffordable welfare burdened, tax trapped economy we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that you Injin?

First few minutes were spot on after that he lost the plot.

Exactly as Jimmy Goldmith predicted would happen.

Caused by free movement of capital and global wage/social arbitrage hunting down the cheapest source of labour to be exploited whilst impoverishing the western society until it collapses.

Of course once the private sector employees have been turned into workhouse slaves the public sector look overpaid by comparison. That doesn't mean the public sector are the problem, they're just the symptom.

Slavery only enriches the slave owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people confuse 'libertarian' with 'anarchist'

ie a lot seem to think its libertarian not to have an immigration policy, whereas i would have thought a capitalist libertarian govt would adopt some kind of market based immigration policy, ie where the amount of immigration vs. the amount they each pay for entry would produce the highest revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that you Injin?

First few minutes were spot on after that he lost the plot.

Exactly as Jimmy Goldmith predicted would happen.

Caused by free movement of capital and global wage/social arbitrage hunting down the cheapest source of labour to be exploited whilst impoverishing the western society until it collapses.

Of course once the private sector employees have been turned into workhouse slaves the public sector look overpaid by comparison. That doesn't mean the public sector are the problem, they're just the symptom.

Slavery only enriches the slave owners.

What you are talking about is global competition. Unless you plan on pulling up the draw bridge, by putting up barriers/taxes on imports, pushing up the cost of our imports from the developing world, you can't 'fix' this problem.

If you want to pay £2,000 for an 38" TV, £100 for a pair of jeans, kids toys at several times the price, laptops for £2,000 or so, just to make sure jobs can originate here, then fine. However, don't think that preventing a degree of global trade is going to solve all the problems. There is a trade off.

While globalisation may have fat cats creaming off big profits, without it, you wouldn't have half of the mod cons. Would it not be better to focus on reducing the cost of living (housing), while concentrating on skilled jobs, than trying to pull up the draw bridge because the foreigners are happy to do the same jobs more cheaply?

In addition, we should look at whether the cheap credit, allowing us to bury our heads in the sand for the last few decades, was a constructive or destructive force.

TBH, I think the chap in the OP is a bit of a legend. He is clearly a free and deep thinking and has a lot of interesting things to say.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few more parts to these unemployment videos along with more anarcho-capitalist japes on his website.

Freedomain Radio

I quite like Stefan's stuff but when he starts getting fervent and his eyes start popping out of his head he looks a little manic which i dont think helps his cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are talking about is global competition. Unless you plan on pulling up the draw bridge, by putting up barriers/taxes on imports, pushing up the cost of our imports from the developing world, you can't 'fix' this problem.

If you want to pay £2,000 for an 38" TV, £100 for a pair of jeans, kids toys at several times the price, laptops for £2,000 or so, just to make sure jobs can originate here, then fine. However, don't think that preventing a degree of global trade is going to solve all the problems. There is a trade off.

While globalisation may have fat cats creaming off big profits, without it, you wouldn't have half of the mod cons. Would it not be better to focus on reducing the cost of living (housing), while concentrating on skilled jobs, than trying to pull up the draw bridge because the foreigners are happy to do the same jobs more cheaply?

In addition, we should look at whether the cheap credit, allowing us to bury our heads in the sand for the last few decades, was a constructive or destructive force.

TBH, I think the chap in the OP is a bit of a legend. He is clearly a free and deep thinking and has a lot of interesting things to say.

Sadly those same foreigners are also willing to do skilled jobs much more cheaply. Thus, are IT, accountacy, R&D, law jobs are all going abroad. Please name me those skilled jobs that foreigners aren't willing to do for at least 50% less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly those same foreigners are also willing to do skilled jobs much more cheaply. Thus, are IT, accountacy, R&D, law jobs are all going abroad. Please name me those skilled jobs that foreigners aren't willing to do for at least 50% less.

Name me those jobs that foreigners can do as well. Picking fruit, digging holes, driving taxis, corner shops ermmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people confuse 'libertarian' with 'anarchist'

ie a lot seem to think its libertarian not to have an immigration policy, whereas i would have thought a capitalist libertarian govt would adopt some kind of market based immigration policy, ie where the amount of immigration vs. the amount they each pay for entry would produce the highest revenues.

libertarian socialist = anarchist. Libertarian socialism makes a great deal of sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly those same foreigners are also willing to do skilled jobs much more cheaply. Thus, are IT, accountacy, R&D, law jobs are all going abroad. Please name me those skilled jobs that foreigners aren't willing to do for at least 50% less.

I can't name them, but that's the point - it's like trying to hold back the tides.

The best thing we can do, is reduce living costs and ensure our infrastructure and education systems are good. We are competing with them, whether we like it or not.

It's easier to half the cost of living, than it is to double our wages (which are in a global market).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name me those jobs that foreigners can do as well. Picking fruit, digging holes, driving taxis, corner shops ermmmmm

So you believe us westerners are like an aryan super-race while the asians are subhumans who are incapable of learning new things?

And as an example microsoft, halliburton, bell labs, Astrazeneca, unilever, have all been building up R&D in india. Largerly while cutting their western R&D workforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people confuse 'libertarian' with 'anarchist'

ie a lot seem to think its libertarian not to have an immigration policy, whereas i would have thought a capitalist libertarian govt would adopt some kind of market based immigration policy, ie where the amount of immigration vs. the amount they each pay for entry would produce the highest revenues.

Libertarianism tends to involve having a small government, where it is absolutely needed (ie. a necessary evil).

Anarchism tends to refute the need for any government, as it validates the use of violence.

That said, there tends to be many flavours in between. I have a lot of time for the Geolibertarian (Georgism and Libertarianism), but any sort of left libertarian, classical liberal type government would be a step in the right direction, IMO. The step after can come in good time, if people wish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe us westerners are like an aryan super-race while the asians are subhumans who are incapable of learning new things?

You tell me, are we superior to a nation that cannot feed its own people? That has raw sewage in the streets, or corpses floating in the river? I personally, am a member of a super-race in comparison to that. Your experience may differ.

And as an example microsoft, halliburton, bell labs, Astrazeneca, unilever, have all been building up R&D in india. Largerly while cutting their western R&D workforce.

Have you used any Microsoft products lately? Windows Vista, Office 2007? Lots of people have failed experiments moving operations to India. Lots move them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are talking about is global competition. Unless you plan on pulling up the draw bridge, by putting up barriers/taxes on imports, pushing up the cost of our imports from the developing world, you can't 'fix' this problem.

If you want to pay £2,000 for an 38" TV, £100 for a pair of jeans, kids toys at several times the price, laptops for £2,000 or so, just to make sure jobs can originate here, then fine. However, don't think that preventing a degree of global trade is going to solve all the problems. There is a trade off.

While globalisation may have fat cats creaming off big profits, without it, you wouldn't have half of the mod cons. Would it not be better to focus on reducing the cost of living (housing), while concentrating on skilled jobs, than trying to pull up the draw bridge because the foreigners are happy to do the same jobs more cheaply?

In addition, we should look at whether the cheap credit, allowing us to bury our heads in the sand for the last few decades, was a constructive or destructive force.

TBH, I think the chap in the OP is a bit of a legend. He is clearly a free and deep thinking and has a lot of interesting things to say.

No, that isn't global competition. There is no basis for competition, it is mere arbitrage (ie. the pain test) without comparative advantage. This is the economics of the City trader, not the person who works for a living or the entrepreneur. The political economists were all pretty clear on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that isn't global competition. There is no basis for competition, it is mere arbitrage (ie. the pain test) without comparative advantage. This is the economics of the City trader, not the person who works for a living or the entrepreneur. The political economists were all pretty clear on this point.

If someone wants to work for £1 ph, doing the same job we would do for £10 ph, it is competition no matter how you phrase it.

The fact that £1 goes much further in developing countries than it does here, likely has a lot to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't name them, but that's the point - it's like trying to hold back the tides.

The best thing we can do, is reduce living costs and ensure our infrastructure and education systems are good. We are competing with them, whether we like it or not.

It's easier to half the cost of living, than it is to double our wages (which are in a global market).

Simply put, what you advocate won't work. While it's possible to lower wages for our workforce, debt levels don't decrease commensurately. Instead you end up servicing the same amount of debt on significantly less incomes, and in a debt based monetary system that's a recipe for disaster. What you advocate will lead to the social and economic collapse of the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, what you advocate won't work. While it's possible to lower wages for our workforce, debt levels don't decrease commensurately. Instead you end up servicing the same amount of debt on significantly less incomes, and in a debt based monetary system that's a recipe for disaster. What you advocate will lead to the social and economic collapse of the west.

No, what I advocate is not allowing such a debt based system to exist in the first place. We have been living in a bubble of denial, suspended by credit. Credit, I might add, which is only possible, in current quantities, with state backed, fractional reserve banking.

Unfortunately, we are where we are and no amount of policy is going to fix this. We have a choice of bringing down our costs to compete better, or we go down the route of protectionism. I doubt centrally planning tariffs will work well, so I can only see hope in the former.

What would you suggest and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a choice of bringing down our costs to compete better

Their costs are lower because their people live in poverty- so you advocate a poverty contest with the winner being the nation that pays it's people the lowest wages.

One problem- at the end of the competition- who buys the all stuff the workers make?

Where is the market for all the goods and services that are now dirt cheap due to low labour costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their costs are lower because their people live in poverty- so you advocate a poverty contest with the winner being the nation that pays it's people the lowest wages.

One problem- at the end of the competition- who buys the all stuff the workers make?

Where is the market for all the goods and services that are now dirt cheap due to low labour costs?

Wembley Sunday Market? - it's really quite large.

http://www.wembleymarket.co.uk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what I advocate is not allowing such a debt based system to exist in the first place. We have been living in a bubble of denial, suspended by credit. Credit, I might add, which is only possible, in current quantities, with state backed, fractional reserve banking.

Unfortunately, we are where we are and no amount of policy is going to fix this. We have a choice of bringing down our costs to compete better, or we go down the route of protectionism. I doubt centrally planning tariffs will work well, so I can only see hope in the former.

What would you suggest and why?

Impose import certificates as suggested by warren buffet. It returns our system to one of comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage based on wage arbitrage. The vast vast majority of our citizens would benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their costs are lower because their people live in poverty- so you advocate a poverty contest with the winner being the nation that pays it's people the lowest wages.

One problem- at the end of the competition- who buys the all stuff the workers make?

Where is the market for all the goods and services that are now dirt cheap due to low labour costs?

Their people live in poverty because their gov't has artificially manipulated the value of their currency, the surpluses of production have spilled out into the property market causing rampant inflation and because they have an overbearing and corrupt ruling class.

If these hurdles were removed they'd have more than enough to consume the goods they produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their costs are lower because their people live in poverty- so you advocate a poverty contest with the winner being the nation that pays it's people the lowest wages.

One problem- at the end of the competition- who buys the all stuff the workers make?

Where is the market for all the goods and services that are now dirt cheap due to low labour costs?

Your second paragraph contradicts your first, which is exactly why there is a lower bound to the wages.

Automation also lowers costs, not just cheap labour. Automation requires capital investment and infrastructure. These are things which the developed world has, which much of the developing world does not. If you can build a machine which can build more widgets than 20 cheap labourers, you can compete, as well as selling the machine to the developing world.

Also, I don't advocate a poverty contest, but I'm a realist. Competition will result in the lowest bidder, with a viable plan, getting the contract. For poor countries, this is a chance to accumulate capital and pull themselves out of poverty. It may not be good for developed countries to have more competition, but it is a lifeline for the developing countries*.

Finally, as often seems to be ignored, if we made everything here it would cost many times more. There is no free lunch. We can decide to restrict imports through tariffs, then go back to the factories, but don't expect the goods to be cheap - they will cost a damn site more than if the developing world manufactured them. Forget cheap iPods, laptops, TVs etc, unless we can heavily automate them... which begs the question why we would restrict imports, if the jobs would be automated anyway!

* As I've said, globalisation with the fat cats creaming off obscene profits helps nobody but themselves. Unfortunately, our governments seem to bend over backwards to please these corporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impose import certificates as suggested by warren buffet. It returns our system to one of comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage based on wage arbitrage. The vast vast majority of our citizens would benefit.

And many things would be much more expensive, if built here. Unless you automate the manufacturing, which would still result in wage arbitrage anyway.

The only form of tariffs I would advocate, would be short term ones. These could lessen the impact, during the transition from a credit funded la la economy, to one which lives within its means and is more competitive in the global market place. I don't see this as a permanent long term solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone wants to work for £1 ph, doing the same job we would do for £10 ph, it is competition no matter how you phrase it.

The fact that £1 goes much further in developing countries than it does here, likely has a lot to do with it.

So the other guy accepts 99p, the next guy 98p.. this is just downward bidding which is why I call it the pain test. This may be, in a certain limited way 'competition' but it doesn't, amongst other things, support free trade. The mistake you may be making is an old one, which is to equate wages with labour efficiencies. The problem with labour arbitrage is that it kicks the legs out from under free trade as it is now people to construct flows of trade that are not mutually beneficial (the cheap TVs would soon become more expensive because their relative cheapness is not the result of relative gearing of opportunity costs as per Ricardo). Another example of a trade flow that is not mutually beneficial would be if, say, I dumped goods in a foreign country at below their cost of production to destroy domestic producers. In one view this is just 'competition' as well but its probably more obvious why people feel justified in erecting barriers to it.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you suggest and why?

Let's set up a new company called "World Rent-a-Currency Plc".

We'll lend our new improved brand of money-numbers to the whole world to conduct all of its business.

W'e'll make damn sure that everyone is forced to use only our numbers and we'll charge them lots of interest.

If you can't beat 'em, and they won't let you join 'em, then put 'em out of business!

That would learn 'em ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the other guy accepts 99p, the next guy 98p.. this is just downward bidding which is why I call it the pain test. This may be, in a certain limited way 'competition' but it doesn't, amongst other things, support free trade. The mistake you may be making is an old one, which is to equate wages with labour efficiencies. The problem with labour arbitrage is that it kicks the legs out from under free trade as it is now people to construct flows of trade that are not mutually beneficial (the cheap TVs would soon become more expensive because their relative cheapness is not the result of relative gearing of opportunity costs as per Ricardo). Another example of a trade flow that is not mutually beneficial would be if, say, I dumped goods in a foreign country at below their cost of production to destroy domestic producers. In one view this is just 'competition' as well but its probably more obvious why people feel justified in erecting barriers to it.

At some point, the fall in wages will stop. There have to buy consumers, as well as producers. In addition currency controls at the the developing end should/will eventually be challenged by the populous they are impoverishing (strikes in China, for instance).

Much of the problem seems to be that we live in relative luxury, consuming far more than our fair share of resources. This imbalance is unwinding and the truth is being revealed: where global trade is so prevalent, capital will try to equalise between the rich and poor nations. The growth in the developing nations reflects this, despite the corporations creaming off more than many would believe was ethical.

We have used (abused?) credit to kid ourselves into thinking that we can continue along this path. Now the credit has run out, we are being forced to confront it... abruptly. Trade barriers may lessen the suddenness of this change, but in the long term, we are going to have to pay more for our share of the pie; hopefully, all our standards of living will increase, rather than ours falling to reach theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.