neo classical economics- looked good on paper

[HelenaHandbag]

Looks like it is national arrogant jackass night, here at USMB.

 

[Rshermr]

Looks like it is national arrogant jackass night, here at USMB.

Which indicates you hate people posting facts and backing them up with impartial sources. We understand. Not nearly as cool as where you normally reside, which is, of course, among the bat shit crazy con web sites. Where you get backing for what you WANT to believe.

 

[The Rabbi]

Looks like it is national arrogant jackass night, here at USMB.

Which indicates you hate people posting facts and backing them up with impartial sources. We understand. Not nearly as cool as where you normally reside, which is, of course, among the bat shit crazy con web sites. Where you get backing for what you WANT to believe.

When have you ever posted anything resembling facts, much less backed them up?
You are an arrogant ninny. You dont know anything about economics, history, or logic. What you don't know would fill the internet.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are arguing against yourself. America has never been a successful libertarian economy. Ever. So, as I said, consistently, there never has been a successful libertarian based economy.

Was America successful in 1914 or not?

That is a matter of opinion. But America was not a libertarian economy in 1914. And was just 15 years from the great republican depression. Nice try, dipshit. But you are truly showing your ignorance again, which is, by the way, epic. .

So the American economy c.1914 was successful. And that was without about 95% of the regulation we have today.
Still waiting for examples of monopoly power in business.
Still waiting for examples of successful socialst economies.
Somehow I dont think I'll hold my breath.

 

[Dot Com]

it would be a good start to end the corporate welfare/subsidies/tax breaks to the petroleum & financial *cough* "service" sectors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it would be a good start to end the corporate welfare/subsidies/tax breaks to the petroleum & financial *cough* "service" sectors.

Corporate welfare should be ended.

What special welfare/subsidies/tax breaks do you feel the oil indutry gets?
Any specifics?

 

[dblack]

it would be a good start to end the corporate welfare/subsidies/tax breaks to the petroleum & financial *cough* "service" sectors.

If any of our esteemed leaders could grow a pair and pursue this across-the-board, rather than just as an ad hoc punishment for 'interests' that forgot to donate, we might get somewhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

it would be a good start to end the corporate welfare/subsidies/tax breaks to the petroleum & financial *cough* "service" sectors.

There are no tax breaks to the petroleum industry. How about ending "green subsidies", which cost billions and deliver nothing? How about getting government out of business planning altogether?

 

[Rshermr]

Looks like it is national arrogant jackass night, here at USMB.

Which indicates you hate people posting facts and backing them up with impartial sources. We understand. Not nearly as cool as where you normally reside, which is, of course, among the bat shit crazy con web sites. Where you get backing for what you WANT to believe.

When have you ever posted anything resembling facts, much less backed them up?
You are an arrogant ninny. You dont know anything about economics, history, or logic. What you don't know would fill the internet.

Now, now, rabbi. We all understand your opinions. You are, after all, a libertarian. And still looking for an economy that your heroes, libertarian economists, believe is sufficiently directed by libertarian principles to call it LIBERTARIAN. And though there are none, and though Libertarians are building a libertarian island, you still believe. And then you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[dblack]

Which indicates you hate people posting facts and backing them up with impartial sources. We understand. Not nearly as cool as where you normally reside, which is, of course, among the bat shit crazy con web sites. Where you get backing for what you WANT to believe.

When have you ever posted anything resembling facts, much less backed them up?
You are an arrogant ninny. You dont know anything about economics, history, or logic. What you don't know would fill the internet.

Now, now, rabbi. We all understand your opinions. You are, after all, a libertarian.

Pay some attention already. Rabbi is not a libertarian.

 

[bedowin62]

Which indicates you hate people posting facts and backing them up with impartial sources. We understand. Not nearly as cool as where you normally reside, which is, of course, among the bat shit crazy con web sites. Where you get backing for what you WANT to believe.

When have you ever posted anything resembling facts, much less backed them up?
You are an arrogant ninny. You dont know anything about economics, history, or logic. What you don't know would fill the internet.

Now, now, rabbi. We all understand your opinions. You are, after all, a libertarian. And still looking for an economy that your heroes, libertarian economists, believe is sufficiently directed by libertarian principles to call it LIBERTARIAN. And though there are none, and though Libertarians are building a libertarian island, you still believe. And then you expect to be taken seriously.

good one stupid.
while you're attacking people's affiliations and/or motives; can you find me some of that "change" we were promised?

or are record corporate profits for the richest; and record welfare and food stamps for others the change left-wingers had in mind?

 

[oldfart]

There are no tax breaks to the petroleum industry.

If so, then why does the CBO identify $20 billion a year of specific "tax expenditures" for the oil and gas industry?

Also please explain to me what IDC are and why no other industry is allowed this kind of tax treatment. And why oil and gas get 15% depletion where other minerals generally get only 5%.

Don't forget to throw in an ad hominem that I don't know what I am talking about. I've had Texas oilmen in the family since 1932. I'm named after field accountant for Texaco. And my area of practice is tax law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which indicates you hate people posting facts and backing them up with impartial sources. We understand. Not nearly as cool as where you normally reside, which is, of course, among the bat shit crazy con web sites. Where you get backing for what you WANT to believe.

When have you ever posted anything resembling facts, much less backed them up?
You are an arrogant ninny. You dont know anything about economics, history, or logic. What you don't know would fill the internet.

Now, now, rabbi. We all understand your opinions. You are, after all, a libertarian. And still looking for an economy that your heroes, libertarian economists, believe is sufficiently directed by libertarian principles to call it LIBERTARIAN. And though there are none, and though Libertarians are building a libertarian island, you still believe. And then you expect to be taken seriously.

As pointed out, I am not a libertarian. You are a jackass and an ignoramus.
Show me socialist economies that have worked.
Show me monopoly power in private business not due to gov't regs.
Third time I've asked you to back up your claims. SO far crickets.

Economies do better with less regulation and lower taxation. I realize that is a revelation for you you cannot accept. But it is the truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are no tax breaks to the petroleum industry.

If so, then why does the CBO identify $20 billion a year of specific "tax expenditures" for the oil and gas industry?

Also please explain to me what IDC are and why no other industry is allowed this kind of tax treatment. And why oil and gas get 15% depletion where other minerals generally get only 5%.

Don't forget to throw in an ad hominem that I don't know what I am talking about. I've had Texas oilmen in the family since 1932. I'm named after field accountant for Texaco. And my area of practice is tax law.

The oil industry has specific needs in regards to accounting. Surely you know this.

 

[Rshermr]

So rabbi, being incapable of reading, states:

So the American economy c.1914 was successful. And that was without about 95% of the regulation we have today.

Here. Try again me poor ignorant con tool:
That is a matter of opinion. But America was not a libertarian economy in 1914. And was just 15 years from the great republican depression. Nice try, dipshit. But you are truly showing your ignorance again, which is, by the way, epic. The economic boom from 1914 to 1918 is explained herein (I know you can not read, but perhaps you know someone who can read and explain it to you):
Quote:
When the war began, the U.S. economy was in recession. But a 44-month economic boom ensued from 1914 to 1918, first as Europeans began purchasing U.S. goods for the war and later as the United States itself joined the battle. "The long period of U.S. neutrality made the ultimate conversion of the economy to a wartime basis easier than it otherwise would have been," writes Rockoff. "Real plant and equipment were added, and because they were added in response to demands from other countries already at war, they were added precisely in those sectors where they would be needed once the U.S. entered the war."

Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young men from the civilian labor force.
The Economics of World War I
A boom financed by war and government spending. Yup, sounds like a libertarian utopia. Jesus.

Still waiting for examples of monopoly power in business.

Really, me boy, even you can not be that stupid. You are simply playing the normal con tool word games. Yes, me boy, we all know that pure monopolies are illegal unless regulated. But that is NOT what is required for monopoly power. Now, I really do not have any hope in you learning anything, because you do not want to. You simply post dogma. But all economists know what monopoly power is, know it exists, and do not deny that it exists. Here is an article, given you as though you would like to learn:
Monopoly power
A pure monopoly is defined as a single supplier. While there only a few cases of pure monopoly, monopoly ‘power’ is much more widespread, and can exist even when there is more than one supplier – such in markets with only two firms, called a duopoly, and a few firms, an oligopoly.
https://economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Monopoly_power.html
Now my poor ignorant con tool, that is just one of hundreds of articles that explain what monopoly power is. Should you care. But I am sure that, being a con tool, you will want to go on saying that monopoly power does not exist. And only other con tools will go along with that fantasy.
Examples. Hell, that is way too easy. There are well over 100. Here is another article, which I am sure you will not read. But that's ok. You can stay in the bat shit crazy con web sites, who will lie to you in the way you like, telling you there are no companies with monopoly power. But here is some truth for those who appreciate truth (cover your eyes, rabbi):
Corporate Power Run Amuck | Crooks and Liars
This is just an article about a couple of companies, Boeing and Comcast, who are examples.

Still waiting for examples of successful socialst economies.

Way too easy, my poor ignorant con tool. Way too easy:

Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World
Posted by PeerformAdmin on Dec 6, 2012 in Money Smarts | 88 comments
The term socialist has been thrown around quite a bit in the past few years. Not since the cold war has the term garnered so much attention in the press and from politicians. But when you look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure, you can see some similarities to the United States – but there are some really stark differences.
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog

Somehow I dont think I'll hold my breath.

Jesus, me boy, if you were not such a con tool, if you did not live among the bat shit crazy con web sites, and if you were not paid to post conservative dogma, you could get your answers quickly with a simple google search. Back to your fantasy world, dipshit.

So in a couple minutes I answered your simple questions. Yet in many, many months, you can still not provide a country that has a successful libertarian based economy. Funny, eh, rabbi. Cmon, me boy, you can always use that man made island that libertarians are constructing since they can not find one either.

 

[Rshermr]

There are no tax breaks to the petroleum industry.

If so, then why does the CBO identify $20 billion a year of specific "tax expenditures" for the oil and gas industry?

Also please explain to me what IDC are and why no other industry is allowed this kind of tax treatment. And why oil and gas get 15% depletion where other minerals generally get only 5%.

Don't forget to throw in an ad hominem that I don't know what I am talking about. I've had Texas oilmen in the family since 1932. I'm named after field accountant for Texaco. And my area of practice is tax law.

The oil industry has specific needs in regards to accounting. Surely you know this.

You just can not admit you lied can you, rabbi. So, the oil industry DOES have tax breaks. Now say it, rabbi. Say "Oldfart just proved me wrong." It would be SOOOOOO good for you soul.

 

[bedowin62]

libs are such idiots; of of the only reasons the failure we call president obama has anything positive to show on the economic front is the rejuvenation of the domestic energy markets.

oil companies make about 8 cents on a gallon of gas. the Federal government gets like 18.4 cents on a gallon in the federal gas tax


who's "greedy"?

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

i cant imagine how oil companies can have tax breaks; surely the 4-year Dem Majority of both chambers of congress at least TRIED to end all of them? even the ETHANOL subsidy; which Dem politicians love and i belive is the biggest subsidy?

so did they even TRY? I MEAN THEY MUST HAVE RIGHT? and the mean ol republicans blocked it?

or how about the 40 UNBROKEN Y EARS Democrats were the majoriy of the House?

why didnt all corporate subsidies end in that time frame?

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[The Rabbi]

So rabbi, being incapable of reading, states:

So the American economy c.1914 was successful. And that was without about 95% of the regulation we have today.

Here. Try again me poor ignorant con tool:
That is a matter of opinion. But America was not a libertarian economy in 1914. And was just 15 years from the great republican depression. Nice try, dipshit. But you are truly showing your ignorance again, which is, by the way, epic. The economic boom from 1914 to 1918 is explained herein (I know you can not read, but perhaps you know someone who can read and explain it to you):
Quote:
When the war began, the U.S. economy was in recession. But a 44-month economic boom ensued from 1914 to 1918, first as Europeans began purchasing U.S. goods for the war and later as the United States itself joined the battle. "The long period of U.S. neutrality made the ultimate conversion of the economy to a wartime basis easier than it otherwise would have been," writes Rockoff. "Real plant and equipment were added, and because they were added in response to demands from other countries already at war, they were added precisely in those sectors where they would be needed once the U.S. entered the war."

Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young men from the civilian labor force.
The Economics of World War I
A boom financed by war and government spending. Yup, sounds like a libertarian utopia. Jesus.

Still waiting for examples of monopoly power in business.

Really, me boy, even you can not be that stupid. You are simply playing the normal con tool word games. Yes, me boy, we all know that pure monopolies are illegal unless regulated. But that is NOT what is required for monopoly power. Now, I really do not have any hope in you learning anything, because you do not want to. You simply post dogma. But all economists know what monopoly power is, know it exists, and do not deny that it exists. Here is an article, given you as though you would like to learn:
Monopoly power
A pure monopoly is defined as a single supplier. While there only a few cases of pure monopoly, monopoly ‘power’ is much more widespread, and can exist even when there is more than one supplier – such in markets with only two firms, called a duopoly, and a few firms, an oligopoly.
https://economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Monopoly_power.html
Now my poor ignorant con tool, that is just one of hundreds of articles that explain what monopoly power is. Should you care. But I am sure that, being a con tool, you will want to go on saying that monopoly power does not exist. And only other con tools will go along with that fantasy.
Examples. Hell, that is way too easy. There are well over 100. Here is another article, which I am sure you will not read. But that's ok. You can stay in the bat shit crazy con web sites, who will lie to you in the way you like, telling you there are no companies with monopoly power. But here is some truth for those who appreciate truth (cover your eyes, rabbi):
Corporate Power Run Amuck | Crooks and Liars
This is just an article about a couple of companies, Boeing and Comcast, who are examples.



Way too easy, my poor ignorant con tool. Way too easy:

Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World
Posted by PeerformAdmin on Dec 6, 2012 in Money Smarts | 88 comments
The term socialist has been thrown around quite a bit in the past few years. Not since the cold war has the term garnered so much attention in the press and from politicians. But when you look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure, you can see some similarities to the United States – but there are some really stark differences.
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog

Somehow I dont think I'll hold my breath.

Jesus, me boy, if you were not such a con tool, if you did not live among the bat shit crazy con web sites, and if you were not paid to post conservative dogma, you could get your answers quickly with a simple google search. Back to your fantasy world, dipshit.

So in a couple minutes I answered your simple questions. Yet in many, many months, you can still not provide a country that has a successful libertarian based economy. Funny, eh, rabbi. Cmon, me boy, you can always use that man made island that libertarians are constructing since they can not find one either.

You're such an obnoxious cock-breath.
So you agree the US economy c.1914 was successful. And yes, without about 95% of the regs we have today. Whether we were 15 years from the Great Depression or 93 years from the Great Recession is really immaterial. Like most of your post.
You want to lecture me on monopoly power. All I asked for were examples. You failed to provide any. You fail.
I asked for examples of successful socialist economies. Let's examine some:
China. China became successful by jettisoning most of the socialist restrictions they had. Prior to the reforms in the 1980s/1990s China was a backward undeveloped country, as it had been from the communist takeover.
Scandanavia. All of those countries experienced growth in the 1960s before they instituted full socialism. From that time on they were marked by stagnation, high budget deficits, high structural unemployment. They have scaled down their socialism in recent years, leading to some growth. Ireland was the biggest example of this, getting sanctioned by the EU for having tax rates that were too low.

So it seems I will have to educate you, me boy, because you are hopelessly ignorant, arrogant, and stupid. But there is no educating a tool like you. There is only ignore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are no tax breaks to the petroleum industry.

If so, then why does the CBO identify $20 billion a year of specific "tax expenditures" for the oil and gas industry?

Also please explain to me what IDC are and why no other industry is allowed this kind of tax treatment. And why oil and gas get 15% depletion where other minerals generally get only 5%.

Don't forget to throw in an ad hominem that I don't know what I am talking about. I've had Texas oilmen in the family since 1932. I'm named after field accountant for Texaco. And my area of practice is tax law.

Also please explain to me what IDC are and why no other industry is allowed this kind of tax treatment.

Oil companies shouldn't get to write off their legitimate expenses? Why not?