[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cafechan / choroy / dempart / doomer / firechan / marx / mde / vichan ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Ya'll need Mises.

File: 69c1ff63679ead9⋯.jpg (63.73 KB, 220x316, 55:79, Intimefairuse.jpg)


This movie (In time, 2011) supposedly should be anti-capitalism, but it ends up being a pro-capitalism movie when read using economics as a framework.

The premises are that people are engineered to never get old, but they have a timer and when the timer expires they die. So, they use time as money since they can exchange it with other people. From the movie it's implied that there is an unlimited amount of time available, in theory, and the scarcity is artificial and probably created by the government. Yet, this is an anti-capitalism movie. You see where this is going?

But even if time was a scarce resource, why the hell would someone use time as currency? It doesn't make sense because when you have to pay your last two hours for a bus fare, the price is automatically too high and not worth it. We know that the currency isn't necessarely valuable because of its possible applications, but it's mostly a system to represent value and exchange it with other people. So, stability in currency is something seeked and time is certainly not stable as currency since its value change greatly base on how much you have of it. Nobody would really use time as currency, certainly not to the point of risking their life. Other things would be used as money, unless of course it wasn't the government to force people to use time as a currency, which is something that is happening in the society depicted. Forcing people to use a certain thing as currency is not capitalism.

Then we have the prices for goods that soar and the rich girl telling the protagonist something along the lines of "we do up the price so that people die". It seems that we have a central planning board choosing prices, which is absolutely not capitalism and not free market. I won't even discuss it firther here since this is literally chapter fucking one of basic economics of Sowell.

Then there is the problem of "if everyone had infinite time we would die of overpopulation". No, we wouldn't. If property rights were used, people would just not create new humans because it would be too expensive to mantain them. Also, there would be privatized incentives to get sterilized or at least have your fertility put on hold. Truth is, we already live in a situation where nothing is stopping us from reproducing. Yes, people die eventually, but the same happens in the movie since accidents and other events can happen. There is no reason from stopping people from getting infinite time (also good luck stopping time pirates giving everyone time on the black market in exchange for resources of actual value, like bullets and guns to fight the communist but self-proclaimed capitalist government portraited in the movie).

Then towards the end there is a dialogue that goes like "for someone have a lot of time, many should have none". I mean, you see the shitty metaphor, right? That's not how it works in a free market economy. Everybody is better off because we exchange things we need with each other. I buy the milk from you, you buy the glasses for your kid, the optician buys something else, and that's it. We rearrange resources and we exchange what we create, in order to improve each other life. That's capitalism. There is nothing in it about taking from other people, forcing them to use an arbitrary resource as currency (time), and things like that.

In the end, the movie is fun, but I can't belive people can spend such huge resources accumulated thanks to a quasi-capitalism system, to create a world that is not capitalism, call it capitalism, and then shit of it. The only good thing is that it shows how shitty life is when the government interferes with the economy. Too bad people will get the opposite message.

As always, what can I say? Fuck the hollywood commie jews, I wish they would stop being such slanderous faggots.



Nice take on the movie. Shit like this makes we want a free market more so companies can't milk their trade marked superhero franchise for the 20th time. Also why the hell do film makers hate capitalism? Without patents or copyright camera equipment would be cheaper, computer software costs down, and computers cheaper.



go away



I can't spend all day watching lectures about liberty and history. I could, but it would be weird.



read book then


File: 1cb31bde293ee08⋯.png (5.24 KB, 116x116, 1:1, download (4).png)


In time does not represent a Capitalist dystopia but rather the Keynesian Dystopia of Central Banking in todays society.

If you relate time earned with money printing, inflation, and rising intrest rates then its quite easy to see what the movie was really all about.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


They stole this idea from David Firth



Those who already made it big don't want things to become cheaper, since that would enable competition. They can already afford it and don't want anyone else to be able to.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cafechan / choroy / dempart / doomer / firechan / marx / mde / vichan ]