Double entry accounting pre-dates the theory capitalism by Smith.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Double entry accounting pre-dates the theory capitalism by Smith. [/quote]
Absolutely but no need for all the fancy tax code , simple bean counting will do 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The bottom line is:
Skilled labor typically demands higher wages.
Unskilled labor = low pay (with some exceptions like union labor).
[/quote]
I agree , but if you did away with all Government programs , it would cut alot of jobs , Lawyers and Accountants .
[/quote]
No.
The resources would still be there, they would just be used by someone else, just not funneled through a nighmare of government bureaucracy first.
When I saw Hayek, I thought we had another Selma thread.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The bottom line is:
Skilled labor typically demands higher wages.
Unskilled labor = low pay (with some exceptions like union labor).
[/quote]
I agree , but if you did away with all Government programs , it would cut alot of jobs , Lawyers and Accountants .
[/quote]
No.
The resources would still be there, they would just be used by someone else, just not funneled through a nighmare of government bureaucracy first.
[/quote]
I am not sure what resources you are speaking of ???
I was talking about Social Programs , Welfare and Social Security
Government Jobs , Fireman , Police and Military
Government Contractors , Road Construction , Prisons and Military contractors
Liaisons , Lawyers , Accountants and the likes for Courts and Revenue services .
All these would be gone and with out Keynes principals why would we not just be another Feudalistic Society ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The bottom line is:
Skilled labor typically demands higher wages.
Unskilled labor = low pay (with some exceptions like union labor).
[/quote]
I agree , but if you did away with all Government programs , it would cut alot of jobs , Lawyers and Accountants .
[/quote]
No.
The resources would still be there, they would just be used by someone else, just not funneled through a nighmare of government bureaucracy first.
[/quote]
I am not sure what resources you are speaking of ???
I was talking about Social Programs , Welfare and Social Security
Government Jobs , Fireman , Police and Military
Government Contractors , Road Construction , Prisons and Military contractors
Liaisons , Lawyers , Accountants and the likes for Courts and Revenue services .
All these would be gone and with out Keynes principals why would we not just be another Feudalistic Society ?[/quote]
First, Feudalism was based on arbitrary land ownership and I dont see how a leads to b.
Second, lets separate infrastructure, military and a justice system from the rest.
Yes, governments spend a shitton on all kinds of things but it can only do so because the resources to provide them already do exist.
Government spending does not poof them into existence, au contraire, it removes them from the private market.
Its a misallocation of resources, plain and simple, it removes or lessens the incentive of producers to produce, it wastes resources feeding government drones, it creates red tape just so that some fuckwads can justify their existencem, it is all around a bad idea.
Finally, BUT FEUDALISM is a bad debating style because PATRIARCHY!!!, it presupposes nonsense, trying to shift the burden of proof.
Dont do that.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Double entry accounting pre-dates the theory capitalism by Smith. [/quote]
Capitalism is older than Adam Smith.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This was an Orion post in another thread
I understand at least the basics of Keynes economics and understand why it could not be the lone driver of the economy
But with out Keynes applied principles why would not what we call Capitalism be strictly feudalism .
I probably won’t take every one’s opinion as fact but I am sincere :)[/quote]
I think what you are missing is Hajeks central point, which is mentioned in the video, the “pretense of knowledge”.
Keynesians, among others, pretend to know thing they cannot possibly know.
See Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech for further details, I still think its nice that he got around to collect von Mises price.
[/quote]
I will see if I can find it
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The bottom line is:
Skilled labor typically demands higher wages.
Unskilled labor = low pay (with some exceptions like union labor).
[/quote]
I agree , but if you did away with all Government programs , it would cut alot of jobs , Lawyers and Accountants .
[/quote]
No.
The resources would still be there, they would just be used by someone else, just not funneled through a nighmare of government bureaucracy first.
[/quote]
I am not sure what resources you are speaking of ???
I was talking about Social Programs , Welfare and Social Security
Government Jobs , Fireman , Police and Military
Government Contractors , Road Construction , Prisons and Military contractors
Liaisons , Lawyers , Accountants and the likes for Courts and Revenue services .
All these would be gone and with out Keynes principals why would we not just be another Feudalistic Society ?[/quote]
First, Feudalism was based on arbitrary land ownership and I dont see how a leads to b.
Second, lets separate infrastructure, military and a justice system from the rest.
Yes, governments spend a shitton on all kinds of things but it can only do so because the resources to provide them already do exist.
Government spending does not poof them into existence, au contraire, it removes them from the private market.
Its a misallocation of resources, plain and simple, it removes or lessens the incentive of producers to produce, it wastes resources feeding government drones, it creates red tape just so that some fuckwads can justify their existencem, it is all around a bad idea.
Finally, BUT FEUDALISM is a bad debating style because PATRIARCHY!!!, it presupposes nonsense, trying to shift the burden of proof.
Dont do that.
[/quote]
I did not see what is arbitrary about land ownership in a feudalistic society , it was inherited or it could have come about through good business.
Feudalism would have a free (UNREGULATED) market only if you could defend yourself and business.
Feudalism’s Military and Justice would be from the land owner where you abide at his leisure
Are there Misappropriations (ABSOFUCKINGLUTLY) Are there programs that should be done away with (AFLTY)
Feudalism is not a debating style , it is a form of Governance (Government). I think that feudalism is the default GOV. Meaning in the absence of other Governance . I see no connection to shift burden of proof .
My point at least prior to watching (Hajeks Nobel Price acceptance speech) still remains
If you did away with all of Governments Job creations (GOOD AND BAD) our society would cease and living would be a the sole discretion of some one else (unless we are in the were the some one else)
And I state for the record for Keynes principals to produce a strong society that a strong capitalistic element is CRUCIAL . It is not either or , it is both .
The only way to not live at some one else’s mercy in the absence of government would be insurrection
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Double entry accounting pre-dates the theory capitalism by Smith. [/quote]
Capitalism is older than Adam SMith.[/quote]
Yes it is. The theory however is not.
I’d dispute the idea that it was greatly older.
IM informed O, capitalism per se is the result of liberal economic policies, or rather liberal attitudes towards economic changes, that occured, oh, roughly during the 18th century.
Feudalism and the crude (and often, at the time, illegal) forms of capitalism that flourished during the renaissance are substantially different from modern capitalism.
To be really general, my understanding is that under feudalism, the means of production is in theory the sole property of (in this country) their royal majesties the kings and queens of England. In the renaissance, this falls apart due to a growing mercantile class, but in this cruder capitalism, the means of production is still the purvey of a relatively small group of people.
Under modern capitalism, the means of production is under the control of anybody with the means to obtain it, or so I understand?
Would you like a more personal perspective?
I participate in the practice of feudalism on a very small scale to this day. I rent a small portion of a farmer’s field. Some of the payment is in money, some of it is in kind. I work on his land, and if called upon to protect his house or himself from intruders, I would do so.
I also participate in a form capitalism. I hire myself out for a fixed sum, providing services such as gardening, discussing the arts and music with nice women, mixing concrete and building steps.
I also participate in another. I buy up old machinery, restore it, and sell it on for a price I consider remarkably reasonable. My father occasionally lends me money to support this practice.
Which is better? My personal preference is for a crude form of feudalism, similar to that practised by the anglo saxons. This makes me the world’s only anarcho-feudalist, as far as I am aware. I feel a strong bond of personal attachment to the farmer in question, whom I look upon as a lord to whom I owe service. The form of payments that we exchange is far more flexible, and less taxable, than cash.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
I’d dispute the idea that it was greatly older.
IM informed O, capitalism per se is the result of liberal economic policies, or rather liberal attitudes towards economic changes, that occured, oh, roughly during the 18th century.
Feudalism and the crude (and often, at the time, illegal) forms of capitalism that flourished during the renaissance are substantially different from modern capitalism.
To be really general, my understanding is that under feudalism, the means of production is in theory the sole property of (in this country) their royal majesties the kings and queens of England. In the renaissance, this falls apart due to a growing mercantile class, but in this cruder capitalism, the means of production is still the purvey of a relatively small group of people.
Under modern capitalism, the means of production is under the control of anybody with the means to obtain it, or so I understand?
Would you like a more personal perspective?
I participate in the practice of feudalism on a very small scale to this day. I rent a small portion of a farmer’s field. Some of the payment is in money, some of it is in kind. I work on his land, and if called upon to protect his house or himself from intruders, I would do so.
I also participate in a form capitalism. I hire myself out for a fixed sum, providing services such as gardening, discussing the arts and music with nice women, mixing concrete and building steps.
I also participate in another. I buy up old machinery, restore it, and sell it on for a price I consider remarkably reasonable. My father occasionally lends me money to support this practice.
Which is better? My personal preference is for a crude form of feudalism, similar to that practised by the anglo saxons. This makes me the world’s only anarcho-feudalist, as far as I am aware. I feel a strong bond of personal attachment to the farmer in question, whom I look upon as a lord to whom I owe service. The form of payments that we exchange is far more flexible, and less taxable, than cash.[/quote]
A question off subject , is that a working terrier ?
Not really, he’s a rescue dog and I didn’t get a chance to train him from a pup. The paperwork says he’s a parson’s jack russel crossed with a west highland terrier. I’m suspicious. There’s probably a lurcher in there somewhere as well, but as far as I’m concerned that’s an advantage. Lurchers don’t bark as much.
He has squirrels though. They’re rarely slow enough to catch but he ambushes them. He’s a quick learner.
Rabbits are a closed book to him- he ignores them entirely.
He hates nutcrackers, oddly enough, and eats mail.
Oh, and wierdly enough, he points. God knows how he learned that, because terriers as a rule don’t.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Not really, he’s a rescue dog and I didn’t get a chance to train him from a pup. The paperwork says he’s a parson’s jack russel crossed with a west highland terrier. I’m suspicious. There’s probably a lurcher in there somewhere as well, but as far as I’m concerned that’s an advantage. Lurchers don’t bark as much.
He has squirrels though. They’re rarely slow enough to catch but he ambushes them. He’s a quick learner.
Rabbits are a closed book to him- he ignores them entirely.
He hates nutcrackers, oddly enough, and eats mail.
Oh, and wierdly enough, he points. God knows how he learned that, because terriers as a rule don’t.[/quote]
I have a couple Decker Terriers (Giant Rat terriers ) the male is whippet like , Super fast , the female Bull terrier like super strong , both easy to train and just love to please Both are great hunters also . 10 years ago our neighborhood was invaded by roof rats . They get our citrus and olives . Any how the first year I had my male still a pup got 25 rats . Now they get one occasionally
aw, he’s COOL. He looks a lot like a jack russel.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
aw, he’s COOL. He looks a lot like a jack russel.
[/quote]
great dogs
Oh man, mine does that as well. It’s like the evolution of man, but with more drool.