Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Did you watch that fucking video? He wouldn't shut up about how it's "bloody" and despicable and so on. He literally came down harder on central planning than he did on free markets
You also don't understand Lenin or even China's position on central planning if you think the statement "it's overrated" is compatible with their views. Their positions can be summarized as that central planning requires a degree of development of the MoP that their respective states did not have at the time, but that the ultimate trend of socialist production is in the direction of centralization over time. UE's position is market "socialism" in the proper sense, in which markets are to be kept as the primary organizing force of production into perpetuity. (That's contrasting the other way people use the term "market socialism" where markets are used as an intermediary stage in the development of the MoP, which I only have a limited problem with)
But the bulk of my comment represented the bulk of my concern, specifically that he is explicitly anti-democratic on nonsensical liberal grounds. That is fundamentally incompatible with anything that can reasonably called socialism.
Did you watch that fucking video? He wouldn't shut up about how it's "bloody" and despicable and so on. He literally came down harder on central planning than he did on free markets
I think you're mixing it up with a different person/video.
You're talking about some video where someone won't shut up about "bloody" or "despicable"; I am talking about a video where neither of those words isn't used once. I'm talking about this one: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vZjSXS2NdS0
He mentions central planning briefly around 88min in, but it's mostly about dunking on free markets.
Please don't make me rewatch that stupid video when once was too much. I know for a fact he mentions it multiple times over the course of the video, and though obviously the total volume of words is much more devoted to attacking Sowell's politics, but what he actually says about central planning when he mentions it is significantly harsher, basically accusing it of being not just ineffective but depraved (I don't just mean the analogy about the absentee manager, that's just whatever). If you really insist, I will waste my time to dig up the full quotes from this bloated, rambling video of social chauvinism masked by attacking a worse chauvinist (also known as the Destiny Special), but I will first ask that you indicate that you really have such contempt for my time that you can't take my word on it when I've been pretty careful with how I've characterized his claims.
Also, again, I think it's much more damning that he's so explicitly anti-democratic, as he says in the same video, claiming that markets are like democracies that don't suffer from the same "tyranny of the majority" that actual voting does because, we can only conclude from what he says, some people are rich and can independently or collectively override the popular will wrt production. Literally anyone who appeals to the idea of a "tyranny of the majority" as a boogeyman is a reactionary with no further information being required.
You are so eager to stan reactionary liberals and use flimsy rhetoric to paper over their being aggressively anti-democratic. "Tiny flaws" my ass, this guy is a ghoul.
I don't see any special value in listening to a reactionary liberal say "clean air good" when they advocate for an ordering of society that is fundamentally opposed to human benefit and has historically failed to make gains in even the highly solvable issue in question.
I have a very cynical view on China at this point, but even they are not the level of anti-marxist that would make them consistent with his "vote with your wallet" liberal ideology. China has a much greater capacity for dictating production as it sees fit, which is much more conducive to solving the clean air problem than market solutions and welfare capitalism.
If anyone else is still reading this thread, they probably have a much more positive view of China and the comparison will look many fold more ridiculous to them. I wish I had their optimism.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220222125732/https://epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/China-Report_FEB2022.pdf – page 9 is interesting
China has made gains in seven years that the USA made in forty...
"In Beijing, there is half as much pollution compared to both 2008 and 2013 levels." [writing in 2022]
"Can China meet and sustain these further pollution reductions? To this point, the country has relied on command-and-control measures to swiftly reduce pollution. While the measures have worked, they have come with significant economic and social costs. As China now enters the next phase of its “war against pollution,” the long-run durability of its actions will be enhanced by minimizing the costs. Relying on market-based approaches are one solution that can effectively and inexpensively reduce pollution" – lol, in other words "abandon what has just proven itself to work because it won't work because Milton Friedman wouldn't do it"
Did you watch that fucking video? He wouldn't shut up about how it's "bloody" and despicable and so on. He literally came down harder on central planning than he did on free markets
You also don't understand Lenin or even China's position on central planning if you think the statement "it's overrated" is compatible with their views. Their positions can be summarized as that central planning requires a degree of development of the MoP that their respective states did not have at the time, but that the ultimate trend of socialist production is in the direction of centralization over time. UE's position is market "socialism" in the proper sense, in which markets are to be kept as the primary organizing force of production into perpetuity. (That's contrasting the other way people use the term "market socialism" where markets are used as an intermediary stage in the development of the MoP, which I only have a limited problem with)
But the bulk of my comment represented the bulk of my concern, specifically that he is explicitly anti-democratic on nonsensical liberal grounds. That is fundamentally incompatible with anything that can reasonably called socialism.
I think you're mixing it up with a different person/video.
You're talking about some video where someone won't shut up about "bloody" or "despicable"; I am talking about a video where neither of those words isn't used once. I'm talking about this one: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vZjSXS2NdS0
He mentions central planning briefly around 88min in, but it's mostly about dunking on free markets.
Please don't make me rewatch that stupid video when once was too much. I know for a fact he mentions it multiple times over the course of the video, and though obviously the total volume of words is much more devoted to attacking Sowell's politics, but what he actually says about central planning when he mentions it is significantly harsher, basically accusing it of being not just ineffective but depraved (I don't just mean the analogy about the absentee manager, that's just whatever). If you really insist, I will waste my time to dig up the full quotes from this bloated, rambling video of social chauvinism masked by attacking a worse chauvinist (also known as the Destiny Special), but I will first ask that you indicate that you really have such contempt for my time that you can't take my word on it when I've been pretty careful with how I've characterized his claims.
Also, again, I think it's much more damning that he's so explicitly anti-democratic, as he says in the same video, claiming that markets are like democracies that don't suffer from the same "tyranny of the majority" that actual voting does because, we can only conclude from what he says, some people are rich and can independently or collectively override the popular will wrt production. Literally anyone who appeals to the idea of a "tyranny of the majority" as a boogeyman is a reactionary with no further information being required.
you are so eager to find tiny flaws and cancel people
even if what you are saying is true, why would you dismiss clean air advocacy based on that?
You are so eager to stan reactionary liberals and use flimsy rhetoric to paper over their being aggressively anti-democratic. "Tiny flaws" my ass, this guy is a ghoul.
I don't see any special value in listening to a reactionary liberal say "clean air good" when they advocate for an ordering of society that is fundamentally opposed to human benefit and has historically failed to make gains in even the highly solvable issue in question.
Not even true. Evidence presented in the video we're discussing shows China has indeed made quick gains in solving it.
I have a very cynical view on China at this point, but even they are not the level of anti-marxist that would make them consistent with his "vote with your wallet" liberal ideology. China has a much greater capacity for dictating production as it sees fit, which is much more conducive to solving the clean air problem than market solutions and welfare capitalism.
If anyone else is still reading this thread, they probably have a much more positive view of China and the comparison will look many fold more ridiculous to them. I wish I had their optimism.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220222125732/https://epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/China-Report_FEB2022.pdf – page 9 is interesting
China has made gains in seven years that the USA made in forty...
"In Beijing, there is half as much pollution compared to both 2008 and 2013 levels." [writing in 2022]
"Can China meet and sustain these further pollution reductions? To this point, the country has relied on command-and-control measures to swiftly reduce pollution. While the measures have worked, they have come with significant economic and social costs. As China now enters the next phase of its “war against pollution,” the long-run durability of its actions will be enhanced by minimizing the costs. Relying on market-based approaches are one solution that can effectively and inexpensively reduce pollution" – lol, in other words "abandon what has just proven itself to work because it won't work because Milton Friedman wouldn't do it"