I'd like to start this post with a quote. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams
Fallacies are simply the widely held beliefs of the people and tend to fail when put to the test, including some that collapse like a house of cards and others where the truth turns out to be the direct opposite of what has been so often asserted. Many economic policies involve the fallacy of composition, as politicians come to the aid of some particular group, industry, state or other special interest, representing the benefits to them as if they were net benefits to society, rather than essentially robbing "Peter to pay Paul". Many local governments, for example, follow policies designed to attract either new businesses or higher-income people, both of which are expected to provide more local tax revenues. Whole neighborhoods have been demolished and "redeveloped" with upscale housing and shopping malls as a means of "revitalizing" the community. Since policies imposed by government are not voluntary transactions, like those of the marketplace, zero-sum and negative-sum operations can continue indefinitely. Here is another example: One of the ****ing claims against the insecticide DDT, during the successful campaign to get it banned in many parts of the world, was that it caused cancer. In places where DDT had been widely used, cancer rates had in fact gone up. Many of these were countries subject to devastating ravages of malaria, which killed off vast numbers of people. In the wake of using DDT, which killed mosquitoes that transmitted malaria, that disease was drastically reduced, almost to the vanishing point in some places. Now millions of people, who would have otherwise died young, lived long enough to get cancer in their later years, but the DDT did not cause the cancer, and its banning led to a resurgence of malaria that took millions of lives around the world.
Now this is just a basic summary of what I personally think about the fallacies of the United States and/or the world. What do you guys think about it?
Capitalism basically means that the government does not control production. Basically, not much regulation.
Libertarian is not at the same level as capitalism or socialism. Capitalism and socialism are broad terms and libertarian, as well as liberal, conservative, green, and so on, are more specific terms that fall under capitalism, communism, and socialism.
Just saying, but free market has Marxism. Trading stuff without getting any real benefit. The value of something must be the price, therefor every object is equal to it's price.
Just saying, but free market has Marxism. Trading stuff without getting any real benefit. The value of something must be the price, therefor every object is equal to it's price.
Not sure if I'm following you, but you can trade so that both people gain.
If I have 10 dollars and a pizza and I need 20 dollar shoes, I can trade someone who has 10 dollars and is hungry my pizza for their 10 dollars. We both gained, I now have money for shoes, he now has a pizza. Sure, he lost 10 dollars, but to him, the pizza was more valuable.
But you lost the pizza, so now you only have 20$ and the other guy has the pizza, maybe both of you are happy, but no one gained anything. Well only if the pizza is worth less then 10$, but in a free market system, it's not the competition that is missing, the guy could of always bought from someone else, if he noticed that your pizza is not worth the 10$.
But you lost the pizza, so now you only have 20$ and the other guy has the pizza, maybe both of you are happy, but no one gained anything. Well only if the pizza is worth less then 10$, but in a free market system, it's not the competition that is missing, the guy could of always bought from someone else, if he noticed that your pizza is not worth the 10$.
The guy who lost the pizza gained 10 dollars so that he could buy shoes.
Money is nothing but an idea of value. The only reason it is effective is because the majority has been schooled and brainwashed into thinking that our current system is the only true system. In reality the worth of money lies in the majority. If we woke up tomorrow and the vast majority of people refused to use the current system, then the system would lose it's meaning. If we then had that majority use rocks for currency then rocks would be our monetary system.
Money is nothing but an idea of value. The only reason it is effective is because the majority has been schooled and brainwashed into thinking that our current system is the only true system. In reality the worth of money lies in the majority. If we woke up tomorrow and the vast majority of people refused to use the current system, then the system would lose it's meaning. If we then had that majority use rocks for currency then rocks would be our monetary system.
Is money a bad thing then? Why do we have money, what is it's purpose?
Is money a bad thing then? Why do we have money, what is it's purpose?
Is it bad? Hard to say. Before we bartered with goods, a goat for 6 chickens. That was useful, now...I don't know it seems to have corrupted our morals in certain ways, but like I said, I can't really take a side if it's bad or not. It does have its purpose.
Is it bad? Hard to say. Before we bartered with goods, a goat for 6 chickens. That was useful, now...I don't know it seems to have corrupted our morals in certain ways, but like I said, I can't really take a side if it's bad or not. It does have its purpose.
Before money, people did have to barter for goods. However, bartering often became very complex. Money is used so that you don't have to barter if you don't want to.
