The investors are probably going to crash Patreon, leading to investors going to lick their wounds when their excessive greed has pushed Patreon to a multi-channel network model that is highly unpopular.

Then other companies can take over

Economic power can only be held b voluntary means

Which is a good thing. I'm going to laugh when Patreon crashes. And the venture capitalists would also be at the suffering end.

Actually... maybe the venture capitalists aren't in the suffering end if they aren't basically purchasing a part of the company but just provide high-interest loans. Except of course if they drive Patreon to bankruptcy before they get their money out. And they'd get their money out if the granted extra time to pay it out, but since there's many loan givers, one choosing to extend it would only mean the other vultures would get their money and the ones extending might be left to lick their fingers.

I'm curious what sort of agreements those investors have come up with Patreon. And why did Patreon take so much money when they are just in transaction business, and most of marketing of Patreon has been done memetically by Patreon's customers (because otherwise they wouldn't get pledges). How did they waste so many millions of dollars?

Is it perhaps just lefty California hipsters not being, perhaps, the best people to handle money to begin with?

I dont know

Silicon valley is great though

Silicommie Valley

https://nichegamer.com/2019/02/13/discord-bans-underage-furry-cub-porn/ Also

Venture capitalists are gamblers

Finally

They make investments on a large number of companies and expect one to pay off several times while all others produce a loss.

We did it gaymers

After it took plenty of persuasion from YouTubers with influence to get off their dumb asses

@Blackhawk342 to be fair, is that different than most R&D work?

Nah, R&D is kinda like playing hide and seek while the seeker is blindfolded

Any economists or people in finance here? Wondering if any of you have thoughts on the relatively new "Modern Monetary Theory" and the increasing US government debt relative to the relatively stable worth of the US dollar.

MMT is the economics of agenda 21

can anyone explain to me how it makes sense? I watched a couple videos about it, and it really seems like they're advocating for countries to just print money for their social programs.

It doesn't make sense. It's commie propaganda.

https://youtu.be/Ptu2R-CM6Mo

If you're not listening to Tom Woods regularly, *you're wrong.*

Who's thaaat

some historian dude with a podcast?

he looks like a potato

@Pendell Stefan Molyneux wishes he could be this guy

i'm enjoying it so far

gotta go to sleep though. continuing later.

@Aero I just listened to this one today, and honestly anyone who's to the Right of Tim Pool should listen to this one. Probably the best one for normies I've heard.
Also, Sargon of Akkad as well. It makes his argument about individualism vs collectivism seem autistic lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPLsAc55UaY

Sargon calling himself an individualist is inconsistent with also supporting the social contract.

i'll check out more of his stuff. tbh, i'm currently mainly interested in this "MMT", which appears to have come out from left field. When I hear "print money as you want", I immediately get a bit concerned... and this stuff is being taught in colleges ffs! (i haven't really been paying attention to the development of this brain cancer... only just found it yesterday)

@halfthink If you watched my video link, you would realize you and sargon are both wrong lol

i'm of the opinion that you can be both an individualist and support a social contract, unless we get into 'purity tests'. just like how a capitalist can like *some* social programs.

what do i know though. ill watch your vid tomorrow fitzydog

You can't really be an individualist and not an ancap.

again, this is where we get into purity tests, which I will agree to disagree with people on.

Essentially, the argument is that actuall individuality is having the freedom to choose which communities you are a part of, because a community is a necessary part of being human

No one exists in a vacuum, nor do they want to

this MMT discussion is leading me to believe that proponents of MMT really don't understand accounting... or at least can't distinguish the meaning of numbers on a balance sheet.

@Aero No, most Lefties are economically illiterate

MMT is basically people who think they understand economics because they understand accounting.

@Fitzydog that's probably more true than not. but hey, those on the right are too trusting of people, which leads to giant corporations forming and wealth generation to be a primary target (which negatively impacts things like: social framework, environment, people's lives (in the case of inadequate drug testing), etc.)

@halfthink Sargon is an idiot

they barely understand accounting tbf

it's too late. misspelling things too often. gn guys

I like how people are arguing about a summary of a video I posted, without first just watching the damn thing

I was leftist until I realized pretty much everything the government does is wasted money.

what

@Aero Usually, it's those on the right who trust absolutely no one.

There's just been a systematic brainwashing of society to put trust in the state

@Existence is identity In reference to the average Normie, is he wrong?

There's no value judgement attached to that statement

kek

I take it you're another butthurt IBS nerd with an animus for Sargon?

I really don't get the Sargon hate. Anything he says is either shitposting, or really mundane Centrist stuff that everyone should be in agreement with in the first place.

No, I dont mind sargon most of the time

Except I forgot what it was id have to dig it up but he said something really dumb

He even has read Locke

lol

The only thing I can really remember right now is how he calls himself an individualist then proceeds to want government intervention

https://youtu.be/6p-cPOTf7-c

The social contract argument is fucking stupid as shit

Holocaust wasn't murder, it was suicide, because social contract.

lol\

@Fitzydog I already watched the video when it was posted. Top comment on it was mine.

Nigger.

@halfthink What video?

@halfthink ur a nigger

Ur mom's a nigger.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK

Doesnt jd ban people for racial slurs?

@Existence is identity lol wut? no

Who is jd?

jdm

The board owner

Who?

@ JDM_WAAAT#6969

I've said nigger in this server plenty of times.

I'm in another board of his, and I've never been banned

Negar

lol

https://youtu.be/EO68Kvb9fD4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoW9YXhPdGM

https://youtu.be/-giRURQTH98

Going back the the social contract and lack of consent video "Taxation Isn't Theft, Because of the Social Contract", do we ask murderers for consent to jail them? Call it a strawman or whatever, but in this frame of mind, let's make a hypothetical situation with some assumptions:
Assumptions:
A government's bare minimum objective is to govern over the people who consented to be governed and defend those people. This requires a police force and a military. Secondary objective in this day in age would probably be to deal with foreign governments as representatives of those people it governs.
Because of this assumption, the government in effect lays claim to the land which it presides over - not in terms of ownership, but in terms of protection from both internal (via Police) and external (via Army) forces. The details of this sort of non-ownership claim would have to be ironed out a bit more, sure, but in effect it means eminent domain can't really be applied.

The Hypothetical:
Let's say there was a society in which we have the above mentioned government policy. Babies are born and therefor cannot give consent to be governed (shoutout to the anti-natalists out there i guess...). Let's add another assumption stating that children under the age of 18 fall under the rule of their parents for the sheer fact that children cannot give informed consent. Due to this, the parents of the child would get in trouble if the child did anything that is worthy of calling the police over.
Once the child turns 18, he or she can either give consent to be governed, or not. If they give consent, then great, things are easy from there. If they do not give consent, if this individual does not own property, they do not have to pay taxes (a 'membership fee' in this hypothetical). If this individual is attacked on the streets by another person who did not consent, police are encouraged to ignore the occurrence and not investigate if it resulted in murder. This person can leave the country with no issue, but as this person wouldn't have any government-approved records, another government would most likely be unwilling to accept them (as they don't know if this individual is a criminal).

Congratulations, you essentially made me create a mafia. How would governments work otherwise in a completely libertarian society?

They wouldn't exist

If you think about the government as an insurance agency that protects your rights, then the difference between a libertarian society and a state would be that the libertarian society would not have a compulsory monopoly provider that uses violence to prevent competition.

But the nap agreement tho

I was gonna say that, @halfthink , that a government, if any, were to exist, it wouldn't be compulsory but rather voluntary

the nap is not an agreement, thougjh

NAP is a legal theory.

Yeah, ethics and so forth

So, would a libertarian society have any way of defending against foreign nations?

And even as a legal framework, in a lot of adjudication processes, jurisprudence would be conditioned by culture and local customs

Unironically recreational nukes

Libertarianism is a ridiculous fantasy. The stupidity of ancapistan violates my nap.

Even Hoppeans are just proxy monarchists who are scared of being called nazis.

Now that's a strawman if I've ever seen one

to be clear, i'm not advocating for anything. i'm just wondering how it would work in the real world

Of course

Well I can show you using modern economic theory why capitalism always results in plutocracy

regardless whether you start with no state or with

What "modern economic theory" are you referring to?

please no MMT

i cringe

pareto principle applies to all systems of trade without necessary constraints, so basically within any system of trade within a pareto optimization game there will be consistent winners who hoard capital, and through this capital can actually determine supply and demand in an oligopolistic or monopolistic sense

in so doing, the "freedom" of the market is ultimately undermined by its lack of constraints within the get go

pareto principle = 80/20 distribution of any thing trade in "free" system of competition

the idea behind it though, is that those with money are the ones that would have the most to lose if anything went wrong, no?

(thinking from the human wealth angle)

convergence to this proportion ensures plutocracy in long run, as winners bribe or create govts to then enforce their oligopolistic (close to monopoly) control

no, because risk diminishes with higher capital

whereas risk is highest with startups, who then just get bought out by consistent winners

risk never fully goes away even if you diversify properly, but just because you have a lot, doesn't mean you're safe (look at venezuela, lol)

The solution to the pareto principle destroying social cohesion via plutocracy is creating strict constraints and limits on wealth and trade initially, regulated by a powerful authoritarian state with a volkish principle at its leading goal.

venezuela is literally in shambles due to plutocrats using the cia like a mercenary group by couping them from within and causing chaos

It wasn't a random market thing

alright, so cia conspiracy theory is where you fall... sorry, agree to disagree with that one.

>conspiracy theories

back to the issue at hand

read the books of prominent ex council on foreign relations people, they openly talk about this shit, they don't deny it

preventing a plutocracy without hard redistribution and essentially punishing high earners is what i'm interested in

Jack Attalie (prob spelled it wrong) but he works with royal society and cfr in the US, and has intelligence ties. He wrote a book highlighting the power block of many nations competing in game theoretic scenario and fighting via proxy warfare in the 70's

and lo and behold we see middle east proxy dictator conflicts just a few years later

@Aero fair enough

well wealth constraints are a thing, also we can employ the Federist economic model to lower money demand

I believe money demand can be minimized to make the power of wealth nearly nothing, while keeping production and living standards high

form a currency based on aggregate marginal output of production function, implement systems of eugenics to draw people out of manufacturing sector into higher IQ jobs in homogeneous nation, and afterwards implement high production to create massive deflation while keeping consumption high via propaganda

in NS Germany for example in a massive deflationary period consumption still rose 6.9% from 33-42

so it's possible to counteract saving demand theory with propaganda and has been proven

All the while holding to an authoritarian dictatorship power structure in order to avoid coups of the market by plutocrats from abroad.

Why would this authoritarian government be any more trustworthy than any other?

(for brainlets deflation causes prices of goods to be lower, which increases living standard for consumer but decreases consumption of goods for firms in typical fiat economies)

https://youtu.be/WL9BHDEf0dI

Well it depends on the type of authoritarian govt. I believe if the initial binding laws (similar to 25 tenets of ndsap) hold to the volkish principle of equating state with race and vice versa, you effectively "deal in" the citizenry to be a part of the greater governmental body.

Thus you break the dialectical tension between state - citizen

Isn’t that begging the question of why we would need a government.
They’re all over the place.

yes, fiat economy fags will call deflation a bad thing especially if done quickly, this is because their worthless system is based on interest rate expectations from central banks

@Rusty we need a govt because without it plutocrats grab power via market forces without regulation

in order to have strong laws you need the sword if you will to cut heads when people defy the order

so, i have something else to say, but on the note above, i think this would be interesting to look into:

https://pro.paradigmletters.org/p/awn_sdrblockchainv2_0418/LAWNV213/?rm=1&h=true

It's essentially an ad, but the conspiracy theory behind it makes sense to me at least.

How would a piece of paper bind the government to anything if you give it the power to do what you want it to do?

Because if you define the state as race, everyone becomes the govt. Thus the state doesn't react with hostility to the subject.

Everyone effectively becomes some aspect of the govt. A quasi nationalization while retaining property rights.

That is fucking retarded.

why

It's a legal definition dude, it doesn't mean literally everyone is a govt worker

ultimately, creating 'races' in the first place was a mistake.

if your society is built upon volkish principle and the ascendancy principle of race, you can't get away with tyranny

If you define the state as a race, is it anarchist, or is there a state?

in the long run, we'd be a better species if we just got rid of the classification

also I would retain second amendment type rights, as one would need the measn to kill any tyrant

@Aero nonsense, focusing and specialization is how you get ahead in the world, amassing the world's genetic garbage into one nation creates a shithole like Brazil

Also I find the speciation of races as "humanity" tenuous at best given genetic variation

You can't do what you want to do if you let the people keep their guns.

indeed, which is another failsafe

>implying brazil is garbage because of its genetic makeup instead of the travesty that was the toppling of the monarchy

toppling of monarchy was part of it, allowing millions of low tier people to live there contributed more

States can't implement eugenics, only dysgenics.

incorrect, eugenics can be implemented, and in relatively non invasive ways

you don't need to gas the defectives, that doesn't even work due to gene drift in mean reversion

capitalism and liberal ideals are dysgenic though

Capitalism is peak eugenics.

wrong

while i admit, i LOLed at that... i still don't think we really have enough research to prove that eugenics is really a thing.

i'm all for children all growing up in a loving environment which encourages education and hard work. If we study multiple 'races' with these same environments, we'd have better data.

It encourages genetic defectives who are immoral to gain more money. People who are evil who break or bend laws and cut corners manage to grab more wealth.

@Aero homogeneity is non negotiable

being 'evil' is subjective and changes with the times.

subjectivity doesn't exist, what exists is a gradation of understanding of truth

? O.o truth changes from person to person. facts do not

to state universally all things are subjective perception is invoking a transcendental in universal truth

You're off your rocker mate.

for example if I say "there is no truth" that is a truth claim

no I am just smarter than you, so you are confused

Value is subjective, bruh.

wrong, value in economics I would say is based on something tangible and real, production as a process

hence why I think currency should be based on production function, it's not so different from Smith's labor as value theory

There are no utils.

i'd like to make this clear on economics: economists are essentially the modern-day alchemists. they "know" nothing for a fact. if they claim to, they are either delusional, or lying. they are fortune tellers who shout out when they are right and gloss over anything they are wrong about.

well, a lot of modern economics is based on theoretical speculation and math autism, but there's certain aspects to it which are real

https://youtu.be/17DkMDvKqw0

production is a tangible real thing

yes, there is a real backbone to economics, but most of that is just the basics.

the basics are more salient as you get to the higher levels ironically

t.econ graduate school student

Value depends on purpose. Purpose depends on the individual. Collective consciousness is a spook.

i'd classify production part of the basics. but keep in mind, humans have a social aspect to them. homogeneity may make things easier, but will almost certainly not make things better.

individualism is a spook propagated by jewish intellectuals

Hitler was a Jew

@Aero I would argue economics is itself a branch of moral philosophy

the problem is capitalists are amoral or immoral

Science is amoral.

yes, which is the problem, there is no ascendancy principle

simply finding shit out is retarded because certain paths diverge into dangerous technologies which can end civilization (ai as example)

btw regulating technologies like nanotech, ai etc will require dictatorship or absolute monarchy

so either way we are necessary to the current structure and tech of society

Honestly can't tell if you're shitposting.

I'd have to get more into moral philosophy myself, but reading some chinese literature makes me think that there is no truly moral way of thinking that will not change in the future.

There is, it's called traditional Christianity in league with an authoritarian state.

Blasphemy.

I'm not shitposting. I reject all modern liberal ideas.

I genuinely think that enlightenment was the worst thing to happen to Europe.

Actually this is a prot American bullshit idea of separation of church and state. In trad Christianity state collaborates with church in symphonia.

They work together, where on upholds theological rules the other extends the sword to prevent degeneracy and keep social order.

so... you're for a Theocracy?

this prevents any king or dictator from going too far

No, it's a synergy of state and church working together.

Neither has dominance over other. A theocracy would be church run.

by virtue of the commandments of christianity, a state cannot hold equal authority to the book.

there is no 'working together'

I believe in the interim we need a transitional period of neo absolutism, or third position dictatorship with a religious focus.

The existence of a state violates the commandments.

@Aero The state upholds moral law, but it has final say on other matters.

In Christianity all rulers are ultimately given authority from heaven. Even the bad ones. So the church must respect the state.

Likewise in a nation of converts the dictator cannot go too far, as the church would protest

Satanist propaganda.

this keeps stability, and we've seen how well it did in antiquity

This isn't satanism, it's orthodox Christianity of the original church.

The state upholds the law of heaven and God, but they also keep borders and manage other functions which the church cannot do.

What did Hitler do wrong?

is the bible literal fact, or stories meant to pass on lessons? @Vril-Gesellschaft

Nothing really, he did what he could with the resources and time he had.

@Aero it depends, hermeneutics isn't as simple as "literal or analogy"

sometimes it's literal, sometimes it's not, we generally defer to the churchfathers on this issue as an authority in canon, but we can also use personal reason of sorts

for example Christ often gives parables which give both literal and analogous lessons to morality

simultaneously

Not share tech with allies

Constantly invest into random superweapons

@Aero @Vril-Gesellschaft The Campbell perspective is that the Bible is a mix of Parable Moral Stories and oral history... For the Absolutely faithful, the oral history is 100% true and accurate.

superweapons was looking for a less disastrous ending to plutocracy than atom bombs

honestly, knowing this is what you think, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I can't really get behind pretty much anything you've said in the last half hour... except maybe what we were talking about in basic economics.

override the opinions of his generals on multiple occasions which directly lead to disaster

which I believe they had, as italian intelligence attests to prior to the Americans

thanks for sharing your prospective though!

That is a myth, most of the dumb decisions were done by the generals. Hitler actually had little operational control over the east planned out. The only thing he did was grab stalingrad, but this was actually strategically about oil/

@Aero Federist economic policy will eventually lead you to agree with the other stuff. It's irrefutably perfect as a system to remove modern plutocracy.

I am open to any better ideas, but tbh there are none so far as I've seen.

Ill admit aen has been fresh air around here

However its like ppl are never happy, they always wanna start shit. Like how the japanese left china.

the general overrides were in the cases of superweapons mostly

nazi gang gang 😎

i'll see what i can do in drumming up something better than oppressing people under the book and state...

Couldnt just build tigers, had to build king tigers