/liberty/ - Liberty

>>78535

>reading a book by Soros

I hope you didn't plan visiting Hungary because you won't let you in.

>>78535

It was trash. The title alone should have been a giveaway.

>>78542

Almost sure he didn't write it. There's nothing applicable in it. It's all just fodder he couldn't be bothered to come up with himself so gullible people who think he'd ever reveal any secrets (as if he had any) would make him an extra buck. He has no economic theory behind him. He gambled and won more times than he lost. He was not winning "consistently" and he does play it safe now. Made sure to stock up on gold.

What I mean by the title giving it away is that he really does think of trade as some sort of alchemy, a made up pseudoscience.

Being successful in the stock market and not knowing exactly why doesn't make you anything more than lucky. Rolling dice and winning enough times on a few rolls doesn't mean you've learned anything.

>>78545

>Almost sure he didn't write it

Any particular reason besides what you said?

>It's all just fodder he couldn't be bothered to come up with himself so gullible people who think he'd ever reveal any secrets (as if he had any) would make him an extra buck

He seems pretty sincere, he has been consistent so far in his writings and he was honest enough to make a new edition to answer critics.

>There's nothing applicable in it

I'm still in the first 50 pages, so what do you mean?

>a made up pseudoscience.

That's not what he thinks. He says that it should not be measured or treated as a science because it doesn't reproduce results, and, because unlike natural sciences, in economics, according to him, your views and decisions influence the outcome as it develops. Which edition did you read? He does elucidate in the second one.

>Being successful in the stock market and not knowing exactly why doesn't make you anything more than lucky. Rolling dice and winning enough times on a few rolls doesn't mean you've learned anything.

Billions by pure luck, definitely.

>>78547

>That's not what he thinks. He says that it should not be measured or treated as a science because it doesn't reproduce results, and, because unlike natural sciences, in economics, according to him, your views and decisions influence the outcome as it develops. Which edition did you read? He does elucidate in the second one.

this is by the way a very condensed explanation of what he actually proposes. So don't take what I wrote at fave value. Point is, you misunderstood him if you think he treats economics like "magic."

>>78547

>Billions by pure luck, definitely.

The number doesn't change the basis. You can say you'll throw 6 and do it 200 times in a row. That would not be proof of anything until you can explain what made you think you could do it and why it could not be otherwise, besides feeling like it.

>because it doesn't reproduce results

That's not what science is. I wouldn't stop him from making his own definitions if they were applicable. As long as it provides objective knowledge about the world it is science. Same goes for all other sciences. What you think you observe repeatedly does not mean you have gained knowledge about it because it happens whether you like it or not. Observing is not knowing. So is repeating observations. Desiring results doesn't validate or invalidate anything.

>>78527

Aristotles Metaphysics, Platos Republic, and Rothbards Man, Economy and State, among other things. But no book that I'm close to finishing yet.

>>78542

What you posted sounds extremely whack, that's for sure. I'd say it might be more reasonable in context, but I'm not giving Soros the benefit of doubt, same as with any other leftist author.

>>78555

<a billionaire who worked against the USSR is leftist

Are you seriously >implying that Soros isn't a leftist?

>>78558

Are you seriously implying he is? He denounced communism and worked against it, just because he believes in regulations doesn't make him a leftist. But I keep forgetting that some people here call Friedman leftist, so there's really no hope arguing with you.

>>78558

>>78553

>Soros

>leftist

The state of American political illiteracy is astounding. It's like you guys live in an alternative universe.

>>78560

Nigger, I'm German. Why do so many people get that wrong? Think twice before you jump on the "dumb murricunt" meme.

And I call him a leftist because he supported BLM, Planned Parenthood, and Antifa, among others. Economically, he could be a centrist for all I know, but socially, he is squarely in the left. What do you call someone on the left, if not a leftist?

>>78559

>He denounced communism and worked against it

What this guy >>78561 said. The man sponsored the Democracy Spring protests, just because he's not a full-blown commie doesn't mean he isn't on the left.

>>78561

"Socially" libertarians are on the left, too.

>>78561

> Why do so many people get that wrong?

Because you talk, act and "think" like an American. By ethnicity you might be German, but culturally you have been completely brainwashed by the Americans.

>>78563

>>78561

That's genuinely dishonest, it's like judging Stalin a right winger because he was conservative and brought back traditions. You switch between economic and "social" whenever it helps you alienate someone you don't like.

>>78567

p.s. his philosophy is inspired by Popper and the idea of a liberal, open society.

>>78555

I am going to follow the backache theory of divestment for now on.

>>78560

>>78565

<generalisations

Why do we keep getting you dumbfucks?

>>78567

>>78568

"economic" and "social" property rights are one and the same, there's no distinction, and I'm certainly making no attempt to switch between the two. By what measure is Soros "economically" conservative, then? That he's a billionaire? Are you saying he's right wing just because he's pro-regulation instead of wanting money abolished? By that logic, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and John Maynard Keynes must all be "conservative" too.

George Soros is

>pro BLM

>pro "free immigration" Yes, I know there are a few 'libertarians' that support open borders as well, but it's still very much a left-wing idea without the idea of private-property borders, which Soros has never really advocated for.

>supports Antifa

>supports Planned Parenthood

>funded Democracy Spring

>wants to ban Google and Facebook because they're a "menace to society"

Whereas the right-wing aspects of him are:

>he manages hedge funds

>he doesn't want to abolish all money everywhere.

Also,

>it's like judging Stalin a right winger because he was conservative and brought back traditions

What a surprise, even your analogies are shitty. Stalin and the commies destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia, he only brought it back as a pragmatic move after his cult of personality started to crumble.

>>78574

>"social" property rights

I wasn't talking about property rights, I was talking about values.

>By what measure is Soros "economically" conservative, then? That he's a billionaire?

He certainly doesn't want any left wing policies to grub at his cash or hinder his sons.

>John Maynard Keynes

He's right wing.

>George Soros is

A liberal, and a consistent one at that. All those organizations he supports is par the course for his Open Society project.

>antifa

lol

>Stalin and the commies destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia

Religion isn't the only thing that amounts to traditions, and I wasn't referring to that anyway. Even if you had a point it would still be irrelevant because I could point at literally any other Eastern block leader or in the Communist periphery.

>>78575

>He certainly doesn't want any left wing policies to grub at his cash or hinder his sons.

Yeah, and the way the biggest billionaires achieve that goal is to support left-wing policies that regulate their competition out of business, while hurting them only marginally. Again, are you calling Bill Gates a staunch conservative just because he has money? How about Elon Musk? Jeff Bezos? Not wanting "left wing policies to grub at his cash" makes him more likely to call for regulations, not less. You've also rather conveniently ignored the most glaring point on that list: he wants to abolish Google and Facebook because of his personal sensibilities. Doesn't sound very pro-market to me.

<John Maynard Keynes

>He's right wing.

lol

>>78577

Pro-market or not-completely-pro-market, he's pro-property rights and pro-getting rich.

>lol

Ah yes, I forgot again that people here call even Friedman a socialist.

>>78578

>pro-property rights

Like calling for companies (which last time I checked were property) to be dismantled because he doesn't like them? Or expanding welfare programs, socializing healthcare, and extensive taxes? Or calling for the UN to regulate firearms? Those kinds of property rights? So far, the closest thing to a coherent argument you've given is "LOL all rich people are conservative."

>pro-getting rich

Most lefties think everyone would be rich and live in luxury if it wasn't for those damn evil Bourgeoisie keeping them down, this hardly makes him right-wing. As I said before, many billionaires adopt left-wing stances for a variety of purposes, be they virtue-signalling or regulating competition out of business.

>Ah yes, I forgot again that people here call even Friedman a socialist.

>calling Keynes left is the same as calling Friedman socialist

You're retarded.

>>78580

>Those kinds of property rights?

No the kind of property rights that enrich him. It doesn't matter how much gibs you support, as long as private property is upheld you're on the right, regardless if he wants to regulate your guns or toothbrushes.

>You're retarded.

Was Keynes a socialist? A communist? No? Then stop grasping at straws.

>>78581

>No the kind of property rights that enrich him

That's textbook leftism, dearie. Rights for me but not for thee.

>It doesn't matter how much gibs you support, as long as private property is upheld you're on the right

Private property isn't being upheld if gibs of any sort are being implemented, you fucking mongoloid. Where do you think the gibs money is coming form, voluntary donations?

>Was Keynes a socialist? A communist? No? Then stop grasping at straws.

Are you mentally ill? Most Democrats won't call themselves socialist either, that doesn't meant they aren't leftists. Keynes was in favor of increasing the size and scope of the government. Keynes was in favor of the government controlling the money supply. Keynes was in favor of the government intervening to "fix" the business cycle and "save capitalism from itself." Keynes was in favor of welfare policies because he claimed that they would stimulate consumer spending. ALL of these are lefty policies. No, they're not completely communist, but that just means they're less leftist than they could be.

Seriously, under what farcical condition are you determining all these people to be right wing? That they don't want their own property violated? That describes just about fucking everyone, moron. Absolutely no one will advocate for a policy that robs them personally, that doesn't make them right-wing champions of property and freedom. What's motivating you to use such a broad and abjectly retarded definition of "right-wing?" Do you think by casting an indiscriminately wide net you'll somehow increase support for the cause of liberty to include all those people?

>>78578

>as long as private property is upheld you're on the right

That would put most people on the right.

>>78585

Most people are on the right. It's the default position.

>>78565

And you know this after reading three of my posts? I mean, you even seem to know the exact cause, so either you're a brilliant psychologist, or you're just talking out of your ass.

>>78565

>>78600

My mistake, you were more vague on the cause than I first thought. So you're just talking half as much out of your ass as I thought. Penetrating my thinking within three comments, though, that's still pretty hard to believe for me.

>>78574

>Religion isn't the only thing that amounts to traditions, and I wasn't referring to that anyway.

It's a major aspect of it. Throw away religion and spirituality, and you have made most of your traditions and customs empty shells and most of your history a series of arbitrary events.

>>78595

>Dirty Gommie

Everyone is right wing, democrats are center right!

>Dirty fascist

everyone is left wing, republicans are center left wing.

>>78527

>reading

into trash it goes

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution

>>78567

>it's like judging Stalin a right winger because he was conservative and brought back traditions

While I would gladly do this, I judge Stalin a right-winger because he thought everyone was on his private property.

>>78644

>but it was not real communism

>>78645

"We must spare no effort in copying the capitalism of the Germans, and to use dictatorial methods in implementing capitalism if necessary."

- V. Lenin

>>78650

Did he say that during his later years? If so that I could see why.

>>78652

Somewhere between 1916 and 1918, as I recall.

Keep in mind, he was a Succdem by party affiliation, a school of capitalism, and attacked the Feburary Revolution to implement, according to him, capitalism…

…and then attacked leftists worldwide rather than staying in the borders of his private property. The quote's from before the policy implementation, though.

The Federalist Papers

Anti-Federalists get fucked

>>78856

He was also a civil servant for a long time; his job was to report on financial markets. He noticed that the cost-of-production and labor theories of value didn't properly explain the price changes he saw in his reporting. He studied up on the available literature and eventually produced his "Grundsätze".

>>78583

P U R E I D E O L O G Y

lolbergs are retarded, eugenics can correct their birth