neo classical economics- looked good on paper

[Dot Com]

Which is, of course, another way of Rabbi saying he has no argument. As usual.
Jesus, Rabbi, you are incompetent. All this time I have given you, months by now, and you still have no successful libertarian economy. And now you can name no nation without a major government position in the economy of that nation.

No, it says your argument is invalid. Which it is.
DOn't go calling people idiots when you post crap like that and think it's brilliant, me boy.

Again, you can find no successful libertarian economy. Failed again, me boy. Here, this may help:

"History is littered with failed libertarian utopias, but PayPal cofounder and billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel believes an artificial floating nation-state 200 miles off the coast of San Francisco could change that..."
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

Funny. Most give up on libertarianism before they reach puberty. But if you can not name a libertarian economy, you can at least be a laughing stock.

true. MOST people leave Randianism behind in college as well once they mature & leave EXCEPT people like Greenspan & Ryan We see what their fairy tales brought us Riches for the already wealthy & long-term recession for the other 95%.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not particularly fixated on capitalism. But I do want to preserve individual liberty and private property.

They are inseparable. Free market capitalism depends on those factors. When you are free to own, earn and own more those with the ability and dedication will prosper. Collectivist cry foul, one man has more so he unfairly benefited somehow and big government's primary function is to distribute fairness. You cut the pie and we pick the piece.

If you were capable of thought, and if you tried to define the term free market capitalism, you would define a libertarian ideal that does not exist. You exist in a fantasy. So, is ignorance bliss???

apparently so and it sounds like you've specialized in it!

Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.

 

[dblack]

You Progressives are such uneducated tools. Your failure to understand basic economics is eclipsed by your fundamental ignorance of history. Every Progressive dictatorship out with the same sob story, "They (Kulaks, Jews, Capitalists, 1%) are responsible for your misery! Help us get rid of them!" And you dumb fuckers go along. Then the leaders take all the stuff the (Kulaks, Jews, Capitalists, 1%) and you're either fertilizer or slave labor.

Thanks, me boy, for proving my point!!!! As long as you are an idiot, may as well be a major idiot. And you prove you are pretty much every time you post. Never an impartial source. Ever.

Thats his trademark around here sadly Whats even sadder is: he isn't alone. Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.

You are still at bat, me boy. Still waiting for your successful libertarian economy. Which you can not name. Because it does not exist. Must be pitiful to be the water boy for a bunch of rich tools that make you believe in something that is fiction. So, me boy, tell us again how well your libertarian society and the resultant economy has worked so well somewhere. Because, dipshit, you can not and you know it. Failed in every case it was started. Abject failure. And you keep proposing the principles. Which makes you IRRELEVANT. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, ME BOY. KEEP IT UP. I LOVE IT WHEN YOU DO ALL THE WORK OF PROVING YOURSELF A FOOL.

I'm not particularly fixated on capitalism. But I do want to preserve individual liberty and private property.

thats the point of the OP. READ IT!!!

There is > one form of capitalism. The current sham model, which COINCIDENTALLY favors the owners of Washington D.C, is neo classical

I didn't get that our of the OP. What I read was justification for abandoning economic freedom. To put it bluntly, if we, as a society, want to give most of our wealth to a few people, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

 

[Iceweasel]

Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.

Correction. Getting a com to see answers they don't share is impossible around here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is, of course, another way of Rabbi saying he has no argument. As usual.
Jesus, Rabbi, you are incompetent. All this time I have given you, months by now, and you still have no successful libertarian economy. And now you can name no nation without a major government position in the economy of that nation.

No, it says your argument is invalid. Which it is.
DOn't go calling people idiots when you post crap like that and think it's brilliant, me boy.

Again, you can find no successful libertarian economy. Failed again, me boy. Here, this may help:

"History is littered with failed libertarian utopias, but PayPal cofounder and billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel believes an artificial floating nation-state 200 miles off the coast of San Francisco could change that..."
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

Funny. Most give up on libertarianism before they reach puberty. But if you can not name a libertarian economy, you can at least be a laughing stock.

You can't find a failed libertarian economy either.
Again, you engage in fallacies and think it's brilliance. You are one ignorant craptard.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

On the other hand, there is NO economy in the world without significant gov involvement. That would be a libertarian economy, except more to the right.

Lovely straw man argument.

And, me boy, if you check, there are NO libertarian economies out there. None. Nada. Zip.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not economic theory.

And you have the brass to go around arrogantly calling others ignorant?

 

[dblack]

I'm not particularly fixated on capitalism. But I do want to preserve individual liberty and private property.

They are inseparable. Free market capitalism depends on those factors. When you are free to own, earn and own more those with the ability and dedication will prosper. Collectivist cry foul, one man has more so he unfairly benefited somehow and big government's primary function is to distribute fairness. You cut the pie and we pick the piece.

If you were capable of thought, and if you tried to define the term free market capitalism, you would define a libertarian ideal that does not exist. You exist in a fantasy. So, is ignorance bliss???

Are you saying that there's no such thing as a libertarian ideal? Or simply pointing out that the ideal is never perfectly achieved in reality? If the latter, it seems an odd argument. Ideals aren't ever achieved, they define what we aim for. That argument would deny virtually any attempt to improve our circumstances.

 

[Iceweasel]

On the other hand, there is NO economy in the world without significant gov involvement. That would be a libertarian economy, except more to the right.

Lovely straw man argument.

And, me boy, if you check, there are NO libertarian economies out there. None. Nada. Zip.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not economic theory.

And you have the brass to go around arrogantly calling others ignorant?

I've never even heard that term before so didn't know what he was getting at. I guess an economy that wants to sit home and smoke pot?

 

[Rshermr]

They are inseparable. Free market capitalism depends on those factors. When you are free to own, earn and own more those with the ability and dedication will prosper. Collectivist cry foul, one man has more so he unfairly benefited somehow and big government's primary function is to distribute fairness. You cut the pie and we pick the piece.

If you were capable of thought, and if you tried to define the term free market capitalism, you would define a libertarian ideal that does not exist. You exist in a fantasy. So, is ignorance bliss???

apparently so and it sounds like you've specialized in it!

Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.

So, your statement apparently suported in your little mind by a quote from another of your favorite bat shit crazy con web sites by a libertarian economist looked on by most as a joke:

"Murray Newton Rothbard was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a revisionist historian, and a political theorist whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism."
Murray Rothbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you can not show where free market capitalism exists??? Of course not.

 

[Rshermr]

Thanks, me boy, for proving my point!!!! As long as you are an idiot, may as well be a major idiot. And you prove you are pretty much every time you post. Never an impartial source. Ever.

Thats his trademark around here sadly Whats even sadder is: he isn't alone. Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.

I'm not particularly fixated on capitalism. But I do want to preserve individual liberty and private property.

thats the point of the OP. READ IT!!!

There is > one form of capitalism. The current sham model, which COINCIDENTALLY favors the owners of Washington D.C, is neo classical

I didn't get that our of the OP. What I read was justification for abandoning economic freedom. To put it bluntly, if we, as a society, want to give most of our wealth to a few people, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen. That is, of course, the difference between education and propoganda.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you were capable of thought, and if you tried to define the term free market capitalism, you would define a libertarian ideal that does not exist. You exist in a fantasy. So, is ignorance bliss???

apparently so and it sounds like you've specialized in it!

Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.

So, your statement apparently suported in your little mind by a quote from another of your favorite bat shit crazy con web sites by a libertarian economist looked on by most as a joke:

"Murray Newton Rothbard was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a revisionist historian, and a political theorist whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism."
Murray Rothbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you can not show where free market capitalism exists??? Of course not.

LOL, I quoted the definition portion and you used Wikipedia to try to discredit it. The word has meaning, you don't like it but it's tough shit. It exists without your permission. No economy is a perfect ideal of the theory, reality doesn't work that way. You are just playing with yourself trying to sound smart.

 

[Rshermr]

No, it says your argument is invalid. Which it is.
DOn't go calling people idiots when you post crap like that and think it's brilliant, me boy.

Again, you can find no successful libertarian economy. Failed again, me boy. Here, this may help:

"History is littered with failed libertarian utopias, but PayPal cofounder and billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel believes an artificial floating nation-state 200 miles off the coast of San Francisco could change that..."
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

Funny. Most give up on libertarianism before they reach puberty. But if you can not name a libertarian economy, you can at least be a laughing stock.

You can't find a failed libertarian economy either.
Again, you engage in fallacies and think it's brilliance. You are one ignorant craptard.

Kind of like a failed idea. Once it is gone, there is no trace. Again, thanks for proving my point. Libertarian economies do not exist.

 

[dblack]

Thats his trademark around here sadly Whats even sadder is: he isn't alone. Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.




thats the point of the OP. READ IT!!!

There is > one form of capitalism. The current sham model, which COINCIDENTALLY favors the owners of Washington D.C, is neo classical

I didn't get that our of the OP. What I read was justification for abandoning economic freedom. To put it bluntly, if we, as a society, want to give most of our wealth to a few people, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen. That is, of course, the difference between education and propoganda.

If you're suggesting that some people are acquiring wealth by means other than voluntary transactions, then I'd agree with you that they are. That is wrong and should be stopped.

But solutions like an 80 income tax don't address that problem at all.

 

[Iceweasel]

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen.

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

 

[Rshermr]

On the other hand, there is NO economy in the world without significant gov involvement. That would be a libertarian economy, except more to the right.

Lovely straw man argument.

And, me boy, if you check, there are NO libertarian economies out there. None. Nada. Zip.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not economic theory.

And you have the brass to go around arrogantly calling others ignorant?

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

 

[dblack]

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen.

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

I think there are lots of ways you can back up that statement. We can cite many examples of profit derived from collusion with government as well as outright fraud and theft. And we should strive to eliminate them. The problem with the point of view expressed by the OP is that it assumes all income inequality above a certain level is unjustly earned, which strikes me as ridiculous.

 

[Dot Com]

Thanks, me boy, for proving my point!!!! As long as you are an idiot, may as well be a major idiot. And you prove you are pretty much every time you post. Never an impartial source. Ever.

Thats his trademark around here sadly Whats even sadder is: he isn't alone. Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.

I'm not particularly fixated on capitalism. But I do want to preserve individual liberty and private property.

thats the point of the OP. READ IT!!!

There is > one form of capitalism. The current sham model, which COINCIDENTALLY favors the owners of Washington D.C, is neo classical

I didn't get that our of the OP. What I read was justification for abandoning economic freedom. To put it bluntly, if we, as a society, want to give most of our wealth to a few people, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

did you watch the documentary or are you like The Rabbi & Iceweasel talking out of ignorance of the OP? The documentary specifically outlines neo classical econs obvious fallacy\ies.

 

[dblack]

Thats his trademark around here sadly Whats even sadder is: he isn't alone. Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.




thats the point of the OP. READ IT!!!

There is > one form of capitalism. The current sham model, which COINCIDENTALLY favors the owners of Washington D.C, is neo classical

I didn't get that our of the OP. What I read was justification for abandoning economic freedom. To put it bluntly, if we, as a society, want to give most of our wealth to a few people, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

did you watch the documentary or are you like The Rabbi & Iceweasel talking out of ignorance of the OP? The documentary specifically outlines neo classical econs obvious fallacy\ies.

No. I can't get videos here. I was going by the article in your second post. Is the video's POV substantially different?

 

[Dot Com]

the documentary specifically addresses neo liberal economics major flaw. Its on youtube for free. full length documentary.

 

[Rshermr]

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen.

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

Back what up??? You stated that people may want to give their wealth to a few. That, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. It requires YOU to show that they do want to do so. You made the statement, you prove it. Jesus.