amerifats and the rest of the west all waste an incredible amount of money instead of investing in their people and infrastructure, this is well known
Legitimately, Iran is far more developed, civillised and has a healthier society than anywhere in the west, based on this video
Idk too much about this event, but it is saying government artificially lowering barriers of entry and changing incentives leads to disastrous consequences. Idk if this is the case here, but this does happen in other areas of the economy like it did with the banking industry. The government incentivized banks to give loans to people who wouldn’t be able to pay them back in order to try to increase house ownership., thus lowering the barriers to entry artificially for home ownership. This is often cited as one of the primary catalysts of the 2008 market crash. I’m not saying these events are similar but I understand why government regulations to artificially lower barriers to entry can fail.
What do you mean hell no? The data they get does come from other organizations that are non-libertarian.
I looked at their child labour stuff, and there is nuance in what they say.
It shows that such regulations don’t actually end up stopping child labour and just make the situation worse with unintended consequences. This is in line with general libertarian view of the situation, that child labour in the Western world is mostly non-existent because we became prosperous enough to not have to have it anymore for families to survive, and the anti-child labour laws came in when the phenomenon was mostly on its way out anyways. Although I remember when I was a kid I also had to work in summers when my dad was injured for a while. We used to go to farms to pick berries like illegals. But I know that I could afford to do a lesser paying job then because our family situation wasn’t as dire back then and my job was pretty safe and easy.
Their methodology is pretty public, hence how some ancaps and socialists try to say it isn’t valid.
Kek my favorite cope from Westerners whenever their adversary is shown in positive light
and thats why the country is still ass no matter how much they greenscreen
true i kinda like the fact u can head to the mosque and ask for a gf (temporary marriage)
It’s not that there is no competition, it’s that there is artificially increased amounts of competition due to government intervention. Who do you think is more likely to take make more risky investments? Someone who has to use their own money to make decisions or someone being funded by the government to make a certain investment? This is a classic example of how government programs can change incentive structures (which the government wanted in this case), but may not have been the most rational decision if you had to put your money on the line.
Using state intervention to try to “increase market competition” is actually a point Libertarians say is something that almost never works. They even criticize many classic economics examples of government intervention to increase free market competition.As a matter of fact, "reducing competition" and "increasing barriers to entry" is the go-to argument for any libertarian when complaining about state intervention. The Cato Institute flipped the switch this time since they couldn't find anything else to blame the government for
A famous example libertarians use is this: if a large corporation makes you pay more than another company they say you will be accused of monopolistic pricing. If you charge less than the local shop you will be accused of predatory pricing and trying to run the other company out of business. If you charge the same, they will accuse you of colluding with that other company.
So what libertarians do support is everyone going about their business and no one getting special privileges and funding from the government.
It is the same in one sense because the government is funding people who would otherwise not be able to afford to get their foot in the door, just like paying corporations who would not be able to make such a financial decision as investing into the telecom stuff as they did otherwise. Both of these were meant by the government to have a positive benefit to society, but they both had unintended consequences.
Also, most people get mad when the government spends our tax money to give corporations and make them even richer. However, this the funding was probably actually a from the Keynesian idea of supporting certain industries to stimulate growth rather than increasing market competition. But most people just see the situation similar to how many Libertarians do, as just blatant corruption.
The idea was that the cost of getting a mortgage prevents many people from getting housing because it won’t be paid off by people who don’t make enough. This is a barrier to entry into the housing market.
They are respected among many economists, and there are many economic schools that do support free-market capitalist solutions to most things.
Even according to mediabiasfactcheck, they report its factual rating at high. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/. Although the site says it is slightly right wing bised because the site weighs economic policies more than social policies when making their rating.
They are not anarcho-capitalists. But libertarians don’t think everything in a free market is perfect, hence why they believe a government should exist. I don’t know whether they are right on this issue and it just feels wrong because it emotionally impacts me, but I have no actual knowledge on the subject so can’t comment. Is what they’re saying actually wrong?
Did you not read the article I sent? They already addressed this point, that if the amount of money without the children can’t sustain the lives of the family, then the kids will end up working illegally and often in even more dangerous jobs. As I said, I’m not sure if they’re right and unless you have done a lot of research into this subject, neither are you. I just don’t have the knowledge to be able to argue one way or another.
From what I know, libertarians only agree with neoliberals on the idea of free markets generally lead to increased efficiency and prosperity, but on most other things they diverge in many ways (especially social issues and other economic issues).
Is poverty bad? Why don’t we just give money to poor people and solve it? Because it doesn’t work like that, and the same goes here, as it leads to unintended consequences.
In this case the barrier to entry was high costs and high risk, as it was speculating the future growth of a technology. If you decide making a high risk high reward investment like this is not worth the risk, then you wouldn’t invest in it. But now if someone is giving you money to specifically invest in this technology, you are probably going to take the money since the risk to you has vastly decreased. This higher amount of investing into this technology (that is heavily pushed by the government) will artificially push the stock prices of this industry much higher than what the actual speculation would have been if they their incentive to invest was based on their own money. So it’s no wonder the market would crash and revery to what it’s true value would be.
Saying “removing barriers to entry are always good” removes all context from the actual situation and what actually happened. That is not true here because the removal of the barriers were done to incentivize making high risk investments.
So nothing they say is inaccurate, as it is factual. If they were making shit up, then they would not be called factual. The organization is respected enough to be funded by corporations like Google. Yeah, they get funded by many corporations, although most their donations come from individuals. If the organizations existed to try to influence laws to make more money for large corporations then that would be one thing. But that’s just not true, as the organization was started by Murray Rothbard (an economist), Ed Crane (a ex-libertarian party member), and one of the Koch brothers for funding (since he ideologically agreed with them), who originally fought about the goal of the organization to become either purely scholastic or try to push public policy in specific ways because it matches with what they believe. Yeah it has the typical skepticisms that all privately funded scientific research does, but it does seem to have a good reputation and be highly factual.
You should know large corporations are usually some of the strongest supporters of government regulations because they can use it to crush their competition (actual barrier of entry difficulties). I think it’s pretty much a myth that libertarians are corporate shills as they want to see corporations that can’t compete fairly being wiped out, in a process like natural selection.
It’s not leave it to the markets, it’s leave to it individual families to decide whether they need kids to have to work to survive. That’s the arguments of the libertarians, as just like drug laws that don’t do anything to stop the spread of drug use, banning of child labour legally isn’t going to stop child labour from actually occurring. Whether this is true or not historically or whatever, idk but sure I want to hear your ideas.My dude
Why do you say that?
keep triggering that sand nigger shitskin
copes way to hard
btw plenty of middle eastern toilets especially afghan/iraqi go for chadpreet here
Yeah, I have seen refugee afghan women going out with chadpreets.
keep triggering that sand nigger shitskin
copes way to hard
btw plenty of middle eastern toilets especially afghan/iraqi go for chadpreet here
More and more Iranian and Afghan women are marrying supirior Indian men.
Look how Afghan men are selling street food on Indian streets while Afghan women are enjoying and exulting with chadpreets
View: https://youtu.be/eieEsqirlwk
View: https://youtu.be/M74gWKh0sLE
Nonsense. She wants Indian men just like how BTS lovers want korean men.
Stop seething nigger!!
She's Iranic
Pashtun or Iranic women in general like Dark choclatey skin not ugly pig skin that's why more and more Iranic women are eloping with superior Indian men while afghan men are dying alone in terrorist attacks.
Pashtun women want smart, rich and choclatey Indo-Aryan men not effeminate poor afghan faggots.
View attachment 654637View attachment 654638View attachment 654639View attachment 654640View attachment 654641View attachment 654642View attachment 654643
You better ask this to their women why they want choclatey Indian men
Men is Indian you fool
It took him only 11 rupees to marry that white Iranic girl
Only 2-3 of them are Punjabis, retard!
Also jfl at thinking paki is different race.
This is Paki cricket team
View attachment 654644
This is Indian cricket team
View attachment 654645
I don't think they look different race.
Stop posting Iranians marrying Iranian rapebabies. all of these people are the same race consisting of iranians marrying iranian leftovers in north india.
unironically, all normies say that when they watch any video recorded from DPRK's Pyongyang.
Welp this post aged like milk.
Similar threads
bladeepilled
Users who are viewing this thread
