The Trouncing of Louiethegreater

[Travis Retriever]

...the wealth of the middle class is being redistributed away are delusions for another day.

Well actually, yes, but not in the way louie thinks.
Inflation has the effect of taking wealth from the poor, the middle class, the small and medium businesses and gives it to the big banks, the government and politically connected corporations.

[Travis Retriever]

He believes that corporate profits should be capped at what he determines to be a "reasonable" level and that "[e]verything is commercialized [and] that is what destroys human rights. He has defended North Korea and Cuba (not to mention the Soviets and east Germany), arguing that their economic failures were not the result of their economic system but "because they resisted globalization". And he has argued "Hugo Chavez, has it right nationalize [Venezuela's] resources", "Chavez did the nessary (sic) thing to protect Venezuelas (sic) economy" and that "Norway should conficate (sic) 90% of the [ o ] il [ c ] ompanys (sic) profits [ because the ] countries (sic) oil belong [ s ] to the Noreign (sic) [ p ]eople, not the [ o ] il [ c ] ompanys (sic)." This is an explicit and unvarnished advocacy of socialism by literally every standard that exists. So sayeth louie: "I just don't agree with profits off the backs of labor."

Clearly, this guy hasn't a capitalist bone in his body.

Christ!  Not only that, but louie is also a nationalist too! Gross!

[Travis Retriever]

More specifically, the problem is that I, and others like me, have been discussing economics, history, finance and political science while louie has been discussing theology and, like the most devout religious fanatic, louie hasn't the slightest compunction against telling outright lies (as has been demonstrated conclusively) in order to defend his faith.

There's a reason why Rothbard called it "The Cult of the Omnipotent State".

Moreover, he is so devout in his delusions, that all other views must be denounced as heresies. This is why he repeatedly makes the (obviously) ridiculous assertion that "economics is just a theory".

Yeah, he pulled that crap on Shane's video response to Thunderf00t regarding slavery and famine.
Gotta love how all you have to do is change one or two words to change a statist diatribe into a creationist diatribe.

[Travis Retriever]

Of course, as everyone -- except, apparently, louie -- knows, economics is a science and, like every other science, it contains not only theories but laws buttressed by experience and/or experimentation

Not only that, but a theory, as it is used in science is the HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROOF you can have, as I'm sure the biology buffs here (past and present) have explained to creationists countless times.

[Travis Retriever]

Our protectionist friend has convinced himself that his views are shared by others but, as I have pointed out to him, a poll conducted about a year ago revealed that only 4% of adults believed that "raising taxes on imports/buy American" was a solution to the current economic crisis and even "keeping manufacturing jobs in the US" hit only 18% behind lowering taxes/regulation (which he is convinced no one believes) at 21%. His power to convince himself of anything permits him to say such absurd things as "Protectionist policies were always prcticed (sic) in the U.S. until (sic) the late 60s or early 70s" and follow it up immediately with "Please don't attempt to tell me any different, because I was there." It's sad really.

OK, bonus points to anyone who can name all of louie's logical fallacies in that bit alone.
I see:

1) Appeal to popularity
2) Unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence
3) assertions without evidence
4) Appeal to tradition

[Travis Retriever]

I just finished reading that huge PM and ALL of Fletch's comments on his own channel.
And yes, that was definitely a TL;DR nightmare. X_X

[Travis Retriever]

After reading many of FletchforFreedom's comments on YouTube, and his PM posted on this thread, here are four things I noticed that really hurt him.

1.  He keeps using the word "corporation" like it means free market business.  It's not.  It's when a person, group, or business makes a deal with the government in exchange for various special privileges that wouldn't exist on a free market.  Examples of these government granted goodies include:  an unlimited debt shield, immunity and tax breaks.  His constant confusion on this issue makes him look more like a corporatist, than a capitalist.

2.  He keeps propping up the increase in total compensation over time of the USA's workers.  This might be true, but it really comes off as defending the current statist quo. Regardless of that, as I've already said, it's a moot point given how fast wages increase under a 100% free market.

3.  He goes on about how the USA is capitalist, but has only become socialist in the past few years.  Not so.  We've had Plank 10 (public schools) at least as far back as the 1870s, and Plank 5 (central bank--our Federal Reserve) at least since 1914.  Last time I checked, we had all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto enacted to varying degrees in the USA and HAVE had them for decades now. We also have (according to Shane) all 28 Planks of the 1928 US Socialist party platform enacted.  It's been that way for years, I would imagine as well.

4.  He talks of Europe as if it is socialist.  Well, no.  It's more mixed economy, just like the USA is.  Last time I checked, Europe is composed of different countries while the USA is one country (despite the bitching of the EU wankers).  As such, it must be compared to individual countries in Europe.  According to the latest version of the Economic Freedom Index (2010 as of this posting), The USA (8th) ranks below Canada (7th) (I know it's not European, but it's still a country he uses to compare to the USA a lot, so it's still relevant).  It also ranks below Ireland (5) and Switzerland (6).  The USA is also only 0.1 points above Denmark (9).
It's above many of the other European countries though; the Eastern ones in particular.

[FletchforFreedom]

First off, thanks Virgil for preserving my words for posterity (maybe I should include you in the other encyclopedic discussions goin on with the left).  And thanks very much for the critiques on my commentary from any and all who have expressed the desire.  At this juncture, I'd like to respond to the list of points that might hurt me:

1.  Point conceded (when I say that to socialists they get all confused but it happens rarely enough that it is not problematic).  I accept the distinction and have specifically argued against the concept of corporate personhood in various forums over the years.  I will keep that valuable warning in mind in the future.

2.  In my defense, the response to louie was massive enough.  The point is valid but is a further refutation of louie's position.  A detailed analysis of why governmental intervention has retarded wages, reduced prosperity and given us all lower living standards than we might otherwise enjoy is certainly valuable but beyond the scope (for simple space I kept out the minimum wage, child labor, etc. points and offered them separately as supplements).  I thought louie looked bad enough with a simple point that could be easily referenced.

3 & 4.  In this case I plead contextual justification.  In a discussion with like minds I would go into particular detail.  In discussions with laymen (and socialists with the usual dime store level of understanding of these issues), it is generally accepted to refer to countries as capitalist or socialist with the implication of predomination.  The US is arguably a predominantly capitalist country (and most European countries are predominantly socialist - long before the governmental portion of GDP is more than half, but that threshold at least should end debate) but is, of course, as indicated a HYBRID containing elements of both capitalism and socialism (with examples going back to the 1790s at least and the implications Rothbard pointed out of the activities that precipitated the panic of 1819.  Again, in that context, the distinction is not the the US was ever perfectly capitalist (or even close) but a bemoaning of the fact that the charge to the statist position has, in my view, accelerated.  That different countries should be treated on their own merits or lack thereof is certainly true and I usually do so on a case by case basis (Norway and the countries of Scandinavia get brought up most frequently).  Here again, I can only plead scope and space concerns.  It was never my intention to argue that Europe is homogeneous.

Please don't think that any of my justifications are criticisms of you.  In each case, as I hope I've made clear, they are all valid and I will keep them in mind.  Hopefully, more poor justifications will at least give you the reassurance that I do not, as a rule, fall into all of the traps you mention.

Fletch

[Travis Retriever]

3 & 4.  In this case I plead contextual justification.  In a discussion with like minds I would go into particular detail.  In discussions with laymen (and socialists with the usual dime store level of understanding of these issues), it is generally accepted to refer to countries as capitalist or socialist with the implication of predomination.  The US is arguably a predominantly capitalist country (and most European countries are predominantly socialist - long before the governmental portion of GDP is more than half, but that threshold at least should end debate) but is, of course, as indicated a HYBRID containing elements of both capitalism and socialism (with examples going back to the 1790s at least and the implications Rothbard pointed out of the activities that precipitated the panic of 1819.  Again, in that context, the distinction is not the the US was ever perfectly capitalist (or even close) but a bemoaning of the fact that the charge to the statist position has, in my view, accelerated.  That different countries should be treated on their own merits or lack thereof is certainly true and I usually do so on a case by case basis (Norway and the countries of Scandinavia get brought up most frequently).  Here again, I can only plead scope and space concerns.  It was never my intention to argue that Europe is homogeneous.

OK.
Speaking of the % of GDP that is government spending for the USA:  http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/index.php?content=cogd-teas  I've been told by Shane (the guy who originally posted this here), that the 61.34% figure doesn't include inflation or broken window effects.  I'm not sure what you mean by predominately in this context.  Granted, it sounds like you're using "capitalist" and "socialist" as relative terms between both the USA and the other countries in question, not as a pure distinction.  However, could you please define what you mean by that, as I see you (in the comment section of the persuasion vs coercion video with Milton Friedman) calling China (ranked 140th with an economic freedom score of only 51.0 out of 100) a predominately capitalist country.
The biggest thing I know about China is that they were mostly Communist/Socialist for a while, then allowed some capitalism (though hardly enough to be called 'predominately capitalist') and have been growing like gangbusters ever since.  That increase of economic freedom and the fact that they started, and still are, behind the rest of the world in terms of standard of living are the mean reasons they grow so fast economically.  So basically, this was a case of before and after comparison.  The increase in economic freedom made them better off, as it always does.

To be fair though, something I do like is how you point out that even the small differences in economic freedom between the USA and various other countries (e.g. Scandinavia) can and does lead to relativity big differences is economic well being.  Another was the highlighting of problems (at least economically in various European countries).  Most of the Europeans (especially from Denmark and the UK) act as if their country is heaven on Earth. Glad to see someone else (another being ShaneDK) debunking that bogus claim.

Please don't think that any of my justifications are criticisms of you.  In each case, as I hope I've made clear, they are all valid and I will keep them in mind.  Hopefully, more poor justifications will at least give you the reassurance that I do not, as a rule, fall into all of the traps you mention.

Fletch

It's cool.

By the way, you mentioned both in the PM and in the comments the cost of unions on the USA's economy being $50 trillion.  If memory serves, it was over 50 years.  That's still quite a drag.  So much for the claim of "Unions created the middle class", huh?

[MrBogosity]

I've been told by Shane (the guy who originally posted this here), that the 61.34% figure doesn't include inflation or broken window effects.

It's also, if I remember correctly, a percentage of National Income, not GDP.

[Travis Retriever]

It's also, if I remember correctly, a percentage of National Income, not GDP.

Right, my bad.

Also, here's the cost of government percentages for 2010:  http://www.costofgovernmentday.org/
They calculate it to be 63.41% of national income for 2010.  Again, not including inflation or "broken window" effects.

[Travis Retriever]

Also, I would also like to share this article from the Mises Institute:
The Trouble with Economic Statistics by Robert Higgs

Moral of the story:  Praxeology = epic win.