There are less resources (supply) and more people (demand) than the beginning of the human race, therefore your minecraft conspiracy philosophy isn't reasonable. You don't know history OR economics. It's hilarious and also pathetic.
Now there are more resources available for use, more innovative ways to use the resources available, and more people to split the production process and make exchanges for mutual benefit. If you think there was more wealth in the past with less people, I am afraid you may be the one with a flawed understanding of economics and history. Technological advancement has multiplied productive capability.
The market of price information signals where there is high demand, and offers a reward incentive for supplying that demand. If supply exceeds demand, or demands change over time, prices fall and profits (the reward for satisfying wants) vanish. That is what "supply and demand" means, in a nutshell. It does not mean less people = more supply, as you seem to assert.
It's almost like everywhere but america never enters your mind for these equations. Africa, latin america, the middle east, just don't exist in your mind. Billions and billions of people just absent from all of your minecraft fantasy theories. Truly stunning.
There are more people (demand) with less resources (supply) globally. That is irrefutable.
Except it is totally refutable. Yes, there are more people. But usable resources are increasing. People are better off overall over time. Agriculture is improving. Manufacturing is more efficient. Seasteading is becoming feasible. Famines have become a purely political phenomenon thanks to global markets. Poverty is a consequence of government wars and economic intervention, not a shortage of wealth.
You don't know anything about imperialism or the current state of latin america, africa, or the middle east. Not to mention climate change displacing populations in these regions. You're so ignorant of anything real that it makes me cringe reading these fantasy novels.
On the contrary, I am well aware of imperialism. The USA has been an imperialist power almost from its inception. That is one of the reasons I am anti-State. Latin America was subjected to colonial rule, won its independence in various places and at various times though a series of wars for independence from Spain, and established various governments. These governments were, as is typical with all governments, wholly corrupt. They have, to an extent, been subjected to foreign interventionism from the US and other countries. The US went to war with Mexico, overthrew various governments, and supported coups or dictators according to their whims over the years. However, it is absurd to blame the USA for Venezuela's collapse, for example. The Middle East has been a mess for at least a century, since World War 1. European and then later American powers redrew maps, installed puppet dictators, and so on there as well.
However, I want to know once and for all what you think any of this has to do with disproving my philosophy of free markets, decentralized power, and individual liberty. Instead of addressing my actual positions and evidence, you only create more strawman arguments and spew insults. You call it a "fantasy novel" to say that people by and large get along peacefully through trade and respect property rights. Yet despite global war by governments, that is how society still functions. You seem to think this warfare state can be made kinder and gentler if the right people get in power and impose policies you like from above. You seem to want to use its power to tax and coerce for your own ends, based on your suggestion that I vote for Bernie and your insistence that a nationalized monopoly health care system is a solution. You can't undermine the State by reinforcing it. That is truly a fantasy if that is indeed your position.
You want a solution? Disobedience to political authority. That has always been my first principle. However, we need to show people that the political authority is illegitimate for that to happen on a wide scale. I have repeatedly stated my support for voluntary solutions, including trade unions to handle unemployment and healthcare for workers, religious and secular charity for the poor, mutual aid societies, and the like because they have a track record for success. But this success is only possible through voluntary association and consumer choice, because that is anarchism in action.
Hey, if you don't know
Basic supply and demand
Then that's on you, bud.
- cyberdemon531
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
That is not what the term means. You're just spewing phrases that make no sense in this context.
There are less resources (supply) and more people (demand) than the beginning of the human race, therefore your minecraft conspiracy philosophy isn't reasonable. You don't know history OR economics. It's hilarious and also pathetic.
Now there are more resources available for use, more innovative ways to use the resources available, and more people to split the production process and make exchanges for mutual benefit. If you think there was more wealth in the past with less people, I am afraid you may be the one with a flawed understanding of economics and history. Technological advancement has multiplied productive capability.
The market of price information signals where there is high demand, and offers a reward incentive for supplying that demand. If supply exceeds demand, or demands change over time, prices fall and profits (the reward for satisfying wants) vanish. That is what "supply and demand" means, in a nutshell. It does not mean less people = more supply, as you seem to assert.
It's almost like everywhere but america never enters your mind for these equations. Africa, latin america, the middle east, just don't exist in your mind. Billions and billions of people just absent from all of your minecraft fantasy theories. Truly stunning.
There are more people (demand) with less resources (supply) globally. That is irrefutable.
Except it is totally refutable. Yes, there are more people. But usable resources are increasing. People are better off overall over time. Agriculture is improving. Manufacturing is more efficient. Seasteading is becoming feasible. Famines have become a purely political phenomenon thanks to global markets. Poverty is a consequence of government wars and economic intervention, not a shortage of wealth.
You don't know anything about imperialism or the current state of latin america, africa, or the middle east. Not to mention climate change displacing populations in these regions. You're so ignorant of anything real that it makes me cringe reading these fantasy novels.
On the contrary, I am well aware of imperialism. The USA has been an imperialist power almost from its inception. That is one of the reasons I am anti-State. Latin America was subjected to colonial rule, won its independence in various places and at various times though a series of wars for independence from Spain, and established various governments. These governments were, as is typical with all governments, wholly corrupt. They have, to an extent, been subjected to foreign interventionism from the US and other countries. The US went to war with Mexico, overthrew various governments, and supported coups or dictators according to their whims over the years. However, it is absurd to blame the USA for Venezuela's collapse, for example. The Middle East has been a mess for at least a century, since World War 1. European and then later American powers redrew maps, installed puppet dictators, and so on there as well.
However, I want to know once and for all what you think any of this has to do with disproving my philosophy of free markets, decentralized power, and individual liberty. Instead of addressing my actual positions and evidence, you only create more strawman arguments and spew insults. You call it a "fantasy novel" to say that people by and large get along peacefully through trade and respect property rights. Yet despite global war by governments, that is how society still functions. You seem to think this warfare state can be made kinder and gentler if the right people get in power and impose policies you like from above. You seem to want to use its power to tax and coerce for your own ends, based on your suggestion that I vote for Bernie and your insistence that a nationalized monopoly health care system is a solution. You can't undermine the State by reinforcing it. That is truly a fantasy if that is indeed your position.
You want a solution? Disobedience to political authority. That has always been my first principle. However, we need to show people that the political authority is illegitimate for that to happen on a wide scale. I have repeatedly stated my support for voluntary solutions, including trade unions to handle unemployment and healthcare for workers, religious and secular charity for the poor, mutual aid societies, and the like because they have a track record for success. But this success is only possible through voluntary association and consumer choice, because that is anarchism in action.