Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on "Dad Saves America"
channel.
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@hoptoads The Soviets had a peace pact with the Nazis (Ribbentrop-Molotov) and were dividing Eastern Europe among themselves until good ol' Hitler attacked them (and Stalin was so surprised by the attack that he didn't believe the news of the German invasion for about a week. For that reason he held back orders for too long and when he realized that the rumors were true he thought that they were going to get rid of him because of that delay!).
Moreover, without the lend-lease program from the US the Soviets didn't even have ammunition, supplies, fuel, etc. They got massive help from the Americans in order to repel Hitler's advance in operation Barbarossa and even with the American help (equivalent to something like 300 Billion $s today in airplanes, trucks, jeeps, ammunition, fuel, food, clothing, arms, etc) it was actually the Russian winter that defeated the Germans. Not the Soviets themselves. The Red Army was getting massacred by the Germans AND Stalin at the same time. That Soviet madman had ordered machine guns at the back to take down anyone who retreated from the front! No tactical retreat was available to poor Soviet troops, hence they suffered a high multiple of casualties vs the Germans.
But in the end the Soviets proved to be barbaric animals themselves. Ask German civilian women about the rapes, murders and other atrocities they committed after they captured Eastern Berlin. Everyone wanted to surrender to the Americans not the Soviets. The Soviets lifted and moved entire industrial plants to Russia, stealing it from those who actually built it. Then they starved Eastern Berliners to death to the point that allies, led again by the Americans started dropping food from above!
Without the heavy American casualties in Normandy and the defeat of Japan (you can ask me about how the Japanese let their own people to be killed by shooting anyone that picked up the airdropped American pamphlets that intended to warn the Japanese people about the imminent drop of the atom bomb) WW2 could last a lot more. Same with WW1.
Go read some history for crying out loud! The anti-American lies in your educational system by socialist educators is nothing less than socialist propaganda. Socialism systematized propaganda for the 20th century and beyond. Read Hayek about that. He was a contemporary, a genius and an exquisitely moral man. Watch Yuri Bezmenov as well. An ex-KGB agend who defected in the West and spilled the beans about how the KGB influenced intellectuals to work for them and their dark causes.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Without watching the clip yet: Marx lost most of his children from preventable causes, he totally messed his household economics, owing to everyone under the sun in his vicinity, exploited the working class by not paying it for goods and services, was racist and a bigot (examples: Lassalle & Proudhon), he even fathered an illegitimate child with his housekeeper (which he "passed" to Engels - even though the kid was his spitting image) whom he never paid for her work, had to sell all their furniture, at some point, under the pressure of debts to local merchants like the butcher and the grocery store.
Ans this is the guy that the Left idolizes while never ever hearing about Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Menger, Von Bohm Bawerk, Hazlitt, etc who had sufficiently deconstructed Marx's nonsense.
I have personally added another element of deconstruction to his nonsensical theory. Specifically to his views on labor value (if some other theorist has already pointed this out, I'm unaware of it), by stating that the surplus value from labor is only present when there's a good idea behind it, without which no such surplus value could be created.
Example: Marx advocates that the capitalist steals a part of the surplus value generated by labor by paying a lesser amount to the laborer and the difference becomes his profit. That's shallow, a gross simplification and ultimately utter nonsense!
I could place a million workers digging a hole and another million covering it up without creating no surplus value whatsoever.
It's the business idea and the actual product or service that intrinsically possess the potential for the creation of market-based (individual-voted) surplus value, not so much actual labor going into it which is neither special nor (necessarily) rare (to find).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I do agree with your arguments, fears and slippery slopes, however free speech is not about violently hindering others to have classes, damaging property, occupying campuses and so forth.
The idea of destroying Western civilization is so wrong that a mediocre mind could easily debunk in a debate.
What's perilous in allowing violent protesters to intimidate, disrupt normal operations, physically occupying campuses, destroying private property, etc, etc, is that at the end of the day the other side is going to be reluctant to even unfold the debunking ideas and the debate will never take place.
These are bullies.
Communist revolutions were always about bullying others into submission. Throughout the stages of "revolution" and their history altogether.
Fascism and socialism/ communism are ideological cousins and need to be debated out of society. This should be our focus. Debate and more debate.
More free speech!
3
-
2
-
@Lovin_It "the intersection between economics, Sowell, Austrian school [optional search term] is vastly tiny, try it"
>>Another chunk of nonsense on the scoreboard for you. That statement would be true if you excluded that both parties argue for minimal government intervention, maximized individual choice, the person as the subjective evaluator of intrinsic value in the marketplace, the power of the market to self balance through price-signalling, market distortions as a function of the first point, the obviously (yet invisible to most people) crucial misallocation of capital in the public sector and the benefits of depending on the private sector for best capital allocation without any burden to third parties (only benefits by growing the wealth pie), etc, etc. Yeah, I know, he's no Austrian. Not with that skin complexion.
P.S. English IS a second language to me so no point into trying your all too boring - abundant in this thread - insults.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brian78045 From the top of my head, cost of capital is not some fixed, universal number (the same counts for inflation - I don't have the same inflation vulnerability as a dad vs a bachelor, someone who needs to send a kid to college vs someone who doesn't, etc, because inflation hits differently various products and services and my needs could be much different to yours).
A high risk company, one, for example, with a dubious future and no current positive cash flow will (all things equal) have a much higher cost of capital (higher interest rates to pay) for debt/ borrowing than, say, Apple corp. with quite a predictable and stable cash flow.
The Austrians have very much thought about these. Mises was influenced quite a bit from Wicksell (Knut), a Swedish economist (of the marginalist school) and his work on interest rates, value, capital, rent and political economy.
Wicksell introduced the idea of a different "natural interest rate" (for a hypothetical "no money" - hence no central manipulation - economy) and that of the prevailing interest rate of the market. These are very complex and hard to follow ideas but you necessarily end up there when you are dealing with chaotic-like conditions to which you want to apply universal rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1