neo classical economics- looked good on paper

[Dot Com]

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.

He is one of the most partisan rw'ers on this board. I applaud you for your valiant effort to try to get him to see logic but I fear you're most likely, wasting your time given the aforementioned.

 

[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.


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:

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.

He is one of the most partisan rw'ers on this board. I applaud you for your valiant effort to try to get him to see logic but I fear you're most likely, wasting your time given the aforementioned.

You are among the most brainless. Every time you offer a "fact" it is wrong. You run from arguments after the first post. You have no business posting anywhere here.

 

[Dot Com]

have ANY of the rw'ers viewed the OP documentary yet?

If you haven't watched the documentary - THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD- then.....

 

[The Rabbi]

have ANY of the rw'ers viewed the OP documentary yet?

If you haven't watched the documentary - THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD- then.....

No one is going to spend an hour--even a minute--to read what gets slapped across this board every day. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

have ANY of the rw'ers viewed the OP documentary yet?

If you haven't watched the documentary - THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD- then.....

I watched as much as I could stand.

Having Chomsky comment showed where these idiots were coming from

Anything that joker Max Keiser has to say is nothing more than comic relief.

Finally the derivatives guy, at 18:00, said that banks create money from nothing and lend it to you at interest.

Watched a bit after that, and the silliness level did not decrease, so I had to stop.

 

[Dot Com]

wondering if I should start a separate thread on this guy:

Hey, Big Thinker

Thomas Piketty, the Economist Behind ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’ Is the Latest Overnight Intellectual Sensation

And what of Mr. Piketty? The ingredients of superstardom are all there. His big argument, made in surprisingly digestible prose, that “the rich get richer” is no mere throwaway line in the have-nots’ lyric of resentment but an iron law of the free-market system. His warning of calamitous “drift toward oligarchy” comes at a time when income inequality has begun to dominate public discussion and when the “war on poverty,” now 50 years old, has brought back memories of an activist government unafraid to address grave social ills.

If Mr. Piketty’s forthrightness suits the moment, so does his appetite for data. In the age of the cool-geek statistical wizardry of Ezra Klein and Nate Silver, Mr. Piketty has outdone them all, with his 15 years of research covering 30 countries (and counting). At the same time, his decision to spare readers the details of mathematical “modeling” (he directs readers to a website) shows a savvy awareness of 21st-century attention spans.

 

[bedowin62]

obamunnism


doesnt look good on paper; in theory (what IS your theor?) but especially ugly in reality


idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

the obamaconomy sucks

own your failure leftardz!

 

[Dot Com]

neo-classical capitalism was the scourge of the latter half of the 20th cen. and must be stamped out. The Classical model is more grounded in reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

neo-classical capitalism was the scourge of the latter half of the 20th cen. and must be stamped out. The Classical model is more grounded in reality.

Obamanomcs has produced the worst economy since WW2. There cannot be a a more disgraced system than this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama failed policies have pulled his Kenyan Keynesian economic idea down to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss

 

[oldfart]

wondering if I should start a separate thread on this guy:

Hey, Big Thinker

Thomas Piketty, the Economist Behind ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’ Is the Latest Overnight Intellectual Sensation

And what of Mr. Piketty? The ingredients of superstardom are all there. His big argument, made in surprisingly digestible prose, that “the rich get richer” is no mere throwaway line in the have-nots’ lyric of resentment but an iron law of the free-market system. His warning of calamitous “drift toward oligarchy” comes at a time when income inequality has begun to dominate public discussion and when the “war on poverty,” now 50 years old, has brought back memories of an activist government unafraid to address grave social ills.

If Mr. Piketty’s forthrightness suits the moment, so does his appetite for data. In the age of the cool-geek statistical wizardry of Ezra Klein and Nate Silver, Mr. Piketty has outdone them all, with his 15 years of research covering 30 countries (and counting). At the same time, his decision to spare readers the details of mathematical “modeling” (he directs readers to a website) shows a savvy awareness of 21st-century attention spans.

We already have six plus threads on Picketty's book and reviews of it. I don't see how adding another thread starting over again serves much purpose, especially as the discussion does not seem to be advancing on any of them.

 

[Iceweasel]

We already have six plus threads on Picketty's book and reviews of it. I don't see how adding another thread starting over again serves much purpose, especially as the discussion does not seem to be advancing on any of them.

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.