Socialism: the debate continues
"But this immediately destroys Mises' argument against socialism."
Over at zloj's Motley Fool CAPS blog, the haunting spectre rises once again.
Salamanca Live Blog
LvMI on Facebook
Ludwig von Mises Institute - Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School.
"But this immediately destroys Mises' argument against socialism."
Over at zloj's Motley Fool CAPS blog, the haunting spectre rises once again.
Ludwig von Mises Institute · 518 West Magnolia Avenue · Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@mises.org · webmaster · AOL-IM MainMises · Save to MyMises
Comments (51)
David C
I've found that if the other person can't accept liberty as an ends, then debates like this are useless. They will always put some concept, some entity, some calculation, or some premise first and your liberty secondary or irrelevant. Even if their belief system limits your choices more and more on a downward spiral towards death, that will be irrelevant to them, something for someone else to figure out, some one to pass the buck to. They will not care, because the value of liberty is secondary to some other ends. It's like debating scientific method with someone who believes in voodoo method. You will never convince them till the other person is willing to accept rationality, in this case liberty.
Published: July 14, 2009 10:42 PM
From Mars
Summary of the argument for socialist planned-economics:
Just because it has failed over and over and over doesn't mean it won't succeed THIS time!
Published: July 14, 2009 10:54 PM
From Mars
Summary of the argument for socialist planned-economics:
Just because it has failed over and over and over doesn't mean it won't succeed THIS time!
Published: July 14, 2009 10:58 PM
Misesian
Wow...so prices will be determined based on their costs. Hahahahh....but what is their costs? So, this guy thinks a Rembrandt is worth thousands of dollars because of Rembrandt's labor and materials? Does he think the difference between a Ferrari and Pinto is the cost...forget trying to explain subjective value of prices...poor guy he doesnt' understand that well....simply put in a collective society subjectivity cannot be measured simply because the lack of markets.
Published: July 14, 2009 11:03 PM
Thinker
This guy has found the flaw in Mises' logic! All you need are some specious premises and to leave out a few of his arguments, and you can disprove everything he ever said.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:01 AM
Ohhh Henry
A classic quote from cthomas1017's rebuttal:
"When the underlying assumptions are flawed, the foundation can be built upon, but the first wind will blow down the entire house. Wait! Part of the chimney is left standing. Success!"
As others have pointed out, this is where zloj takes the most spectacular pratfall:
"For if the "correct" price of a tractor is equal to its self-cost plus a few percent profit, then a central planner who assigns prices based on the labor theory of value, will never be very far off the mark."
Self cost? By whose measurement? LOL. The central planner assigns a cost to labor, then bases the price of tractors upon this assigned cost, fires off a memo to underlings to "make it so", and leaves the office at 2 o'clock on Friday and heads for the dacha where he drinks many toasts to the imminent demise of the bourgeois capitalists. The chimney still stands!
Published: July 15, 2009 12:06 AM
End the Fed
Pricing things by "cost" obviously fails, because things can be worth less than the cost of production. Simple example: digging a ditch and immediately filling it back in. The labor alone for that is a cost which is not 0, but the value of the product is 0.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:13 AM
Mac
Let's help zloj:
1) How does zloj's planner(s) figure out the costs of every input in the factory without dictating at some point what the thing is worth? Also note, that the inputs themselves would go up and down in their availability (meaning they're not constant).
2) How do you know when capitalism has run its course? If Marx expected socialism to arise out of a technologically advanced era, I suppose zloj proposes that we're now advanced enough for socialism. Isn't that what socialists a hundred years ago thought before they started their attempts at revolution? I'm sure Lenin would've said, "Wait! 2009 would be the perfect year to start Bolshevism" -- if he knew how far technology would advance.
3) Oh, why bother.... Just read the discussions of "whereaminow" and others.
Cheers
Published: July 15, 2009 1:17 AM
newson
"pure" soviet communism 1918-21:
"The bread ration fell in the towns to about half
what it had been before the war; there were 5 million cases of typhus, railway traffic fell to 12 per cent of the pre-war figure and industrial production to between 10 and 15 per cent. This amounted to a
complete collapse and Lenin was forced to abandon his communist experiments."
p.222 "economic calculation in the soviet society." t.j.b. hoff
Published: July 15, 2009 1:20 AM
End the Fed
"The bread ration fell in the towns to about half
what it had been before the war; there were 5 million cases of typhus, railway traffic fell to 12 per cent of the pre-war figure and industrial production to between 10 and 15 per cent. This amounted to a
complete collapse and Lenin was forced to abandon his communist experiments."
A wheat grower can spend his day digging random ditches or growing wheat, so those ditches must have the same value as wheat. So we should reallocate wheat growing resources into random ditch digging.
A doctor can spend his day treating typhus or breaking windows, so broken windows must have the same value as typhus medicine. So we should reallocate typhus medicine resources into window breaking.
A railroad conductor can spend his day running the train or taking out parts of the track. So we should reallocate railroad resources into producing negative railroads.
Published: July 15, 2009 1:58 AM
ShedPlant
"First, I will fail to understand Mises' argument. Then, I will declare victory!"
Oh well.
Published: July 15, 2009 3:30 AM
Shay
A free market is a huge organism whose intelligence is decentralized. It has sensory organs everywhere, constantly taking local conditions into account. Its "cells" communicate via prices and exchanges of goods/services. It isn't dependent on any small group of humans being vigilant and uncorrupt (except government, which can make it hallucinate by injecting freshly printed money that distorts prices). A central system cannot compete with this.
Published: July 15, 2009 7:10 AM
2nd Amendment
Mars,
How many times does it have to fail before it succeeds ?
How many times does it have to fail before it is recognized as failure and never attempted again ?
Published: July 15, 2009 7:13 AM
2nd Amendment
You guys are missing the point, it's not about the efficiency or not of socialism vs capitalism.
It is about FREEDOM.
Even if socialism was more efficient than capitalism, the fact that it is a command economy, a forced system upon me is enough to make me reject it.
I, as an individual, have dignity and demand respect and I will never accept socialism.
Live free or die !
Published: July 15, 2009 7:25 AM
andy
I thought about centrally planned economy this way:
The planners should plan in order to achive some aim. We would probably agree that the planners should plan in order to achieve what people want (achieving something that people despise is not something to be proud of). But: what "people want" is not determined solely by what people get, but also what they have to give up in order to get it.
If the central planner wants to really achive "what people want", he has to let people exchange things, choose where to work, how long to work. He must repect the decisions of the people - effectively he has to acknowledge property rights. Because if he does not, he will achieve what people do not want.
If the central planner wants to achieve "what people want", he must create some property rights and respect them. But that is not central planning...
Published: July 15, 2009 7:51 AM
matt
looks like the commentors on the site, especially whereaminow do a pretty dang good job exposing the zloj argument as a fraud and fraught with errors.
Published: July 15, 2009 8:12 AM
fundamentalist
The debate is about freedom, but it's about building wealth, too. Mises's and Hayek's central arguments against socialism is that central planners make more mistakes than does the free market, not that any form of socialism is totally impossible. The USSR and China proved that socialism is possible.
The problem with socialism is that it wastes more resources than does the free market. Wealth accumulates via savings and investment in capital goods. Even in a free market there is quite a bit of waste because entrepreneurs aren't all-knowing. But in a centrally planned economy, the waste grows exponentially because the central planners know far less than the millions of participants in a free market. So instead of growing wealthier, as people do in a free market, they grow poorer.
Unfortunately, the rate of increasing poverty is low enough to fool most people into thinking they're doing fine. Look at the US. The average American has just barely maintained his standard of living over the past generation, but few people are concerned.
Published: July 15, 2009 8:14 AM
Justin P
With a Socialist in office, his supporters will keep trying to rationalize Socialism.
They will fail like they always have.
The positives are that because of Obama's overreach in Health and Climate, we will see a paradigm shift.
Published: July 15, 2009 8:23 AM
Matt R.
I was on a radio show yesterday afternoon talking about why government health care is a bad idea. The host, while cordial, seemed to have made up his own mind that the government option is needed. Today, he's having two doctors debate the issue and told me that he would bring up the points I made, even if he doesn't agree with them all. I'll take that as a small victory.
Published: July 15, 2009 9:03 AM
J Cortez
zloj's reasoning is such garbage, I don't know where to start.
Published: July 15, 2009 9:12 AM
Casey Boone
He admits the subjective value of goods that Mises identifies, and then goes on to point out two possible objective values of goods and builds his case off of that. Using Mises' subjective value of goods, we can understand why trade occurs. If two goods are of exactly equal value, it's extremely unlikely that a trade would occur. If one good was of higher value than the other, the trade would not occur because one person would be on the losing end of the deal. Indeed, goods must have subjective value because trade occurs - which indicates that to one person, a good has a higher value whilst to another, it has a lower value (and vice versa for the other good). Given that there is a subject value of goods, there cannot be an "objective" value of goods that the market will reach, otherwise trade would not occur.
Published: July 15, 2009 9:19 AM
Casey Boone
He admits the subjective value of goods that Mises identifies, and then goes on to point out two possible objective values of goods and builds his case off of that. Using Mises' subjective value of goods, we can understand why trade occurs. If two goods are of exactly equal value, it's extremely unlikely that a trade would occur. If one good was of higher value than the other, the trade would not occur because one person would be on the losing end of the deal. Indeed, goods must have subjective value because trade occurs - which indicates that to one person, a good has a higher value whilst to another, it has a lower value (and vice versa for the other good). Given that there is a subject value of goods, there cannot be an "objective" value of goods that the market will reach, otherwise trade would not occur.
Published: July 15, 2009 9:19 AM
Anonyguy
we don't have to choose between if the argument is for freedom or efficiency- we can handle both quite well. because its no myth that free-markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and for a society to grow.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:17 AM
newson
to fundamentalist:
but socialism, in its idealized form (ussr from 1918-21) is impossible, if the desire is to remain a nation-state! mass starvation would have dissolved all order and endangered the state itself, had lenin not pulled back from the brink.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:39 AM
newson
to fundamentalist:
but socialism, in its idealized form (ussr from 1918-21) is impossible, if the desire is to remain a nation-state! mass starvation would have dissolved all order and endangered the state itself, had lenin not pulled back from the brink.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:46 AM
newson
to fundamentalist:
but socialism, in its idealized form (ussr from 1918-21) is impossible, if the desire is to remain a nation-state! mass starvation would have dissolved all order and endangered the state itself, had lenin not pulled back from the brink.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:47 AM
newson
to fundamentalist:
but socialism, in its idealized form (ussr from 1918-21) is impossible, if the desire is to remain a nation-state! mass starvation would have dissolved all order and endangered the state itself, had lenin not pulled back from the brink.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:48 AM
newson
something wrong with the software. "submission failure" was patently wrong.
Published: July 15, 2009 10:51 AM
End the Fed
"The USSR and China proved that socialism is possible."
Of course it's "possible", just like slavery is "possible" and feudalism is "possible".
Published: July 15, 2009 11:03 AM
End the Fed
"The USSR and China proved that socialism is possible."
Of course it's "possible", just like slavery is "possible" and feudalism is "possible".
Published: July 15, 2009 11:05 AM
Toby
I think that, whereas Mises made a pretty good point in explaining why there is a calculation problem in centrally planned economies he missed the most important reason why socialism cannot rival capitalism: entrepreneurial creativity.
Where are the Soviet, Cuban or North Korean equivalents of Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, J.D. Rockefeller, Jeff Bezos, Howard Schultz, Sam Walton...?
Published: July 15, 2009 11:15 AM
Toby
I think that, whereas Mises made a pretty good point in explaining why there is a calculation problem in centrally planned economies he missed the most important reason why socialism cannot rival capitalism: entrepreneurial creativity.
Where are the Soviet, Cuban or North Korean equivalents of Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, J.D. Rockefeller, Jeff Bezos, Howard Schultz, Sam Walton...?
Even if there wasn't any calculation problem, centrally planned economies wouldn't show the "creative destruction" Schumpter touted.
Published: July 15, 2009 11:17 AM
End the Fed
There is nothing a government can "produce" that can't be produced by people on their own. If you want a government option, how about pooling all your money together on your own instead without forcing anyone.
Published: July 15, 2009 11:24 AM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
This just strengthens my belief that the first priority for every economist (Austrian or not) should be demolishing the labor theory of value. If you just take that away from zloj, his argument for being able to come up with reasonable producer prices vanishes.
Published: July 15, 2009 11:25 AM
End the Fed
"The problem with socialism is that it wastes more resources than does the free market. Wealth accumulates via savings and investment in capital goods. Even in a free market there is quite a bit of waste because entrepreneurs aren't all-knowing. But in a centrally planned economy, the waste grows exponentially because the central planners know far less than the millions of participants in a free market."
Socialism wastes more resources because it has no way of distinguishing between waste and wealth. Especially if it uses the labor theory of value. Clearly not *any* labor produces wealth. You can dig ditches all over your farm or you can harvest your wheat. According to socialism, a day's worth of ditches is worth a day's harvest. And what is "labor"? You're always doing something, or maybe you're doing nothing. But then that nothing has to be as valuable as that something, according to socialism.
Published: July 15, 2009 11:31 AM
fundamentalist
Newson, you're right. Pure socialism is impossible. It had to adapt to reality in order to survive.
Schumpeter tried to show that Mises was wrong about calculation in a socialist economy, but he had essentially a centrally planned economy with money, even though he called it something besides money.
It's not hard to set prices for goods. You don't even have to use the labor theory of value. Just do it arbitrarily. Pick some dumb bureaucrat and tell him to assign a price to things based on what he thinks they're worth.
Once of Mises's points was that only prices in a free market have information value that can guide the use of products in such a way that as little wealth is wasted as possible. In a quasi-socialist economy like the USSR, setting prices arbitrarily, by using something stupid like the labor theory of value, destroys the informative aspect of prices. They no longer carry any information whatsoever. So the central planner is flying blind and without instruments. As a result, all of the savings of the workers is wasted so that there are no savings to replace worn-out equipment. Eventually, everything grinds to a halt.
The USSR survived as long as it did because 1) Lenin modified the system from pure socialism to quasi-socialism by re-introducing money and markets, 2) by stealing enormous amounts of capital from Eastern Europe after WWII, and 3) getting a windfall from the high price of oil in the 1970's. After the price of oil collapsed in 1986, the US had to feed the Soviets with billions of dollars of free grain (we claimed that we loaned them the funds) or they would have literally starved to death.
Published: July 15, 2009 11:39 AM
Mark
How does the bureaucrat know the self-cost of the tractor? Or the steel that produced it? Or the ore that produced that? I see a never-ending compounding of errors.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:09 PM
Fallon
Yet Mises stated that socialism is an irrational and unworkable program, period. To the extent that economic systems function outside of (tribal) bartering or autarkic localism they are not socialist. The USSR had market prices from Hong Kong to reference; the state engaged in (grain) exports; and, by some estimates, at times, as much as 30% of the economy was black market. By Mises’s logic, he would reason that complete political control necessarily means the destruction of the division of labor, chaos in production/allocation, and the inevitable downward trajectory towards localistic autarky- and ultimately, extinction.
Is it safe to reason that deprivation, mass death by starvation and de-civilization are implied in political control?
Published: July 15, 2009 12:18 PM
2nd Amendment
Fundamentalist,
"Even in a free market there is quite a bit of waste because entrepreneurs aren't all-knowing."
Most waste being seen in "free" markets are caused by government taxes and regulations which prevents entreprenors and consumers from investing and spending in the most efficient way.
Under socialism and communism, there is no incentive to produce therefore everything must be compelled by the threat of deadly force.
Therefore, from the point of view of the government, since they own all the means of the production, land, ressources and population, they can count everything in labor force.
They can calculate that 150 Million people means so many man-hours and therefore to produce this product it will take that many man-hours.
There is no price signals because demand is outlawed under socialism and communism. People are not allowed to wish products or services and must content themselves with what rations and housing the state grants them.
Since the state plunders everybody with the threat of deadly force, the state bares no costs in exchange of that extorted production.
Life under communism and socialism is very sad and sinister. The life is being sucked out of everybody at the benefit of the ruling elite only.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:33 PM
2nd Amendment
Mark,
"How does the bureaucrat know the self-cost of the tractor? Or the steel that produced it? Or the ore that produced that?"
Very simple, they simply count how many men died extracting the ore, then how many died producing the steel and how many died building the tractor.
They can then estimate how many lives it will take to build a tractor and then count how many men are available to die do the work.
They can then estimate how many tractors they need and how many men they can afford to loose.
Then, they need less tractors because so many men died building them, so everything ends up in equilibrium.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:37 PM
2nd Amendment
Fallon,
100,000,000 civilians died of famine and mass murders under communism and socialism in the 20th century.
And you are trying to tell us that communism is orderely and efficient ? Well, in terms of mass murders and killings, communism is very efficient.
Look at the population of Russia in 1939 and look at it's population now !!!
Russia 1939: 170 Million
Russia 2009: 140 Million
Compare the population of the USA in 1939 to now !!!
USA 1939: 115 Million
USA 2009: 305 Million
You will see that Russia's population has severely shrunk in 70 years.
But the population of the USA more than doubled.
Socialist and communist regimes are cannibalistic. Instead of producing wealth they simply extinct themselves on their own by consuming the already produced wealth.
Capitalism is like growing crops to feed yourself and then selling your surplus crops.
Communism is like living off your excess fat until you die.
Published: July 15, 2009 12:47 PM
Barry Loberfeld
In contrast to the free-market order it seeks to succeed, Heilbroner acknowledges, the People's State of Marx
There we have it -- forwarding to the socialist future requires only the STOP-REWIND-EJECT of capitalist history, i.e., the "curtailment" of capitalism's economic and political freedoms. Essentially, socialism will be a resurrection of pre-liberalism and one of its most odious institutions. Recall that socialists have always condemned capitalism for its "wage slavery" -- if you don't work, you don't eat. And under socialism ... what? Everyone will be fed, even if no one chooses to work? What happened to the stupefying insight (known to "every child") that such a society would collapse? But socialism will not allow any individuals "to withhold if they wish ... their own labor," much less feed them if they do. The real socialist alternative to "wage slavery" is, not the introduction of "substantive rights" to basic necessities, but the reinstitution of outright chattel slavery -- with the socialists themselves cracking the whip. There is nothing new ("revolutionary") here, nor anything that, again, makes much sense by its own alleged framework. How is something a "bourgeois freedom" if it can be exercised by -- or denied to -- the working class? And what of the conflict between "workers and owners," which is supposedly directing this entire stage of historical evolution? If now human labor also constitutes "property," who isn't a property owner? Even more to the point, if the human body constitutes a "means of production," who isn't property himself? So what is socialism to any man but the real "thing that commands him as property," property that is now owned by the State? And what is the Manifesto's call for the "[a]bolition of private property" but a call for the abolition of private everything? Yet again, any attempt to negotiate the Marxian maze runs smack into a wall of totalitarianism, i.e., the maximization of pre-liberal despotism. And with all of this, "progressive" rhetoric clothes -- obscures -- reactionary policy.
FULL ARTICLE
Published: July 15, 2009 1:57 PM
newson
to toby:
"All socialist systems, including that of Karl Marx, and his orthodox supporters, proceed from the assumption that in a socialist society a conflict between the interests of the particular and general could not possibly arise. Everybody will act in his own interest in giving of his best because he participates in the product of all economic activity. The obvious objection that the individual is very little concerned whether he himself is diligent and enthusiastic, and that it is of greater moment to him that everybody else should be, is either completely ignored or is insufficiently dealt with by them. They believe they can construct a socialist commonwealth on the basis of the Categorical Imperative alone. How lightly it is their wont to proceed in this way is best shown by Kautsky when he says, “If socialism is a social necessity, then it would be human nature and not socialism which would have to readjust itself, if ever the two clashed.”15 This is nothing but sheer Utopianism.
But even if we for the moment grant that these Utopian expectations can actually be realized, that each individual in a socialist society will exert himself with the same zeal as he does today in a society where he is subjected to the pressure of free competition, there still remains the problem of measuring the result of economic activity in a socialist commonwealth which does not permit of
any economic calculation. We cannot act economically if we are not in a position to understand economizing."
mises, "economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth" p25.
Published: July 15, 2009 6:01 PM
newson
"We are building socialism without a model. We do not wish to copy anyone; we shall use the experience gained in the course of the liberation struggle. There are no schools, faculties or universities in the traditional sense, although they did exist in our country prior to liberation, because we wish to do away with all vestiges of the past. There is no money, no commerce, as the state takes care of provisioning all its citizens. The cities have been resettled as this is the way things had to be. Some three million town dwellers and peasants were trying to find refuge in the cities from the depredations of war. We evacuated the cities; we resettled the inhabitants in the rural areas where the living conditions could be provided for this segment of the population of new Cambodia. The countryside should be the focus of attention of our revolution, and the people will decide the fate of the cities."
- pol pot, on the khmer rouge's policies in 1978. the regime oversaw the perishing of around twenty percent of the cambodian population in a four year rule. so mises was right. socialism without money and prices is impossible, destined to end in a few bloody, chaotic years.
Published: July 15, 2009 7:08 PM
P.M.Lawrence
David C wrote "I've found that if the other person can't accept liberty as an ends, then debates like this are useless"
But it isn't an end, it has derivative value from whatever a person is freed up to do, just as food has value from what it does (stave off death) not from what it is. However, it is important enough that evolution and experience have given it a drive that connects directly to our consciousness - just as hunger has.
End the Fed wrote 'Pricing things by "cost" obviously fails, because things can be worth less than the cost of production. Simple example: digging a ditch and immediately filling it back in. The labor alone for that is a cost which is not 0, but the value of the product is 0.'
No, actually - or digging over a garden would never be constructive. The aforesaid ditch is actually better agriculturally and has a positive change in value.
Newson wrote '"pure" soviet communism 1918-21: "The bread ration fell in the towns to about half what it had been before the war; there were 5 million cases of typhus, railway traffic fell to 12 per cent of the pre-war figure and industrial production to between 10 and 15 per cent. This amounted to a complete collapse and Lenin was forced to abandon his communist experiments."'
Actually, the decline in urban living standards was due to the rural reforms that had been allowed, ending landlordism etc. The peasants didn't trade enough with the towns to maintain living standards; it was a free market outcome, compared to what had happened before (which recycled rents and taxes through the towns) and to what the communists did next - take supplies from the peasants. It was not "pure" soviet communism in 1918-21 at all.
Newson then wrote "but socialism, in its idealized form (ussr from 1918-21) is impossible, if the desire is to remain a nation-state! mass starvation would have dissolved all order and endangered the state itself, had lenin not pulled back from the brink."
Not only was that a comparatively free system in the country and not "socialism, in its idealized form", but also that is not what would have happened if it had been allowed to continue. People would have left the towns. What Lenin did was relax the grip on the economy in the towns (temporarily) - and tighten it in the country.
2nd Amendment wrote "...Russia's population has severely shrunk in 70 years. But the population of the USA more than doubled. Socialist and communist regimes are cannibalistic. Instead of producing wealth they simply extinct themselves on their own by consuming the already produced wealth."
Er... some of that discrepancy isn't down to the communists but to Hitler.
Published: July 16, 2009 4:56 AM
roy
"Er... some of that discrepancy isn't down to the communists but to Hitler."
ok, shall we split the blame 50/50 between the communist experiment and the national socialist experiment?
Published: July 16, 2009 7:41 AM
End the Fed
"No, actually - or digging over a garden would never be constructive. The aforesaid ditch is actually better agriculturally and has a positive change in value."
And how does a socialist know that if it uses the labor theory of value?
Published: July 16, 2009 1:00 PM
End the Fed
As far as a socialist is concerned, any labor is as good as any other labor. So digging random ditches all day is as good as harvesting crops.
Published: July 16, 2009 1:02 PM
Vanmind
One comment over there said something like: "zloj should have spent more time reading Smith and less time reading Marx."
Didn't Marx get the ridiculous notion of the Labor Theory of Value from Smith -- and didn't Smith adopt it from some dingleberry living during his time because all economists struggled with the definition of value until the Subjective Theory hit the scene?
Published: July 16, 2009 6:06 PM
End the Fed
I suppose it has some meaning if supply and demand are in equilibrium. Useless labor wouldn't be in much demand, so the equilibrium would be to have nobody doing it. But a socialist has no way of measuring supply and demand, because that would imply a free market.
Published: July 16, 2009 9:39 PM
End the Fed
So the only solution for a socialist is to treat all labor equally.
Published: July 16, 2009 10:00 PM