Is our economy better regulated by liberty or by government?

[bripat9643]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.

A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.

The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.

If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.

 

[bripat9643]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong

stupid stupid stupid liberal looks at minor imperfections of liberty and ignores 120 million who were slowly starved to death by liberal govt

I did not do that.

Your argument is illogical.

HTH

too stupid you said "when looking at market economies lots of things can go wrong"
implying market economies need to be regulated by the soviet and Chinese bureaucrats who slowly starved 120 million souls to death.

Your comments are hilariously crazy.

 

[Darkwind]

The Constitution was written so the government might get involved in the economy, and as soon as the ink dried on that document the government started passing laws regarding the nation's economics.

What?

 

[Bombur]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.

A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.

The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.

If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.

Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics. Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.

Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.

The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong

stupid stupid stupid liberal looks at minor imperfections of liberty and ignores 120 million who were slowly starved to death by liberal govt

I did not do that.

Your argument is illogical.

HTH

too stupid you said "when looking at market economies lots of things can go wrong"
implying market economies need to be regulated by the soviet and Chinese bureaucrats who slowly starved 120 million souls to death.

Your comments are hilariously crazy.

too stupid you said "when looking at market economies lots of things can go wrong"
implying market economies need to be regulated by the soviet and Chinese bureaucrats who slowly starved 120 million souls to death.

 

[Bombur]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong

stupid stupid stupid liberal looks at minor imperfections of liberty and ignores 120 million who were slowly starved to death by liberal govt

I did not do that.

Your argument is illogical.

HTH

too stupid you said "when looking at market economies lots of things can go wrong"
implying market economies need to be regulated by the soviet and Chinese bureaucrats who slowly starved 120 million souls to death.

Your comments are hilariously crazy.

too stupid you said "when looking at market economies lots of things can go wrong"
implying market economies need to be regulated by the soviet and Chinese bureaucrats who slowly starved 120 million souls to death.

It is like you broke.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems.

dear, do communists markets create problems such as 120 million slowly starving to death??

why not name the most predictable problem or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is like you broke.

translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ for a substantive response

 

[Bombur]

. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems.

dear, do communists markets create problems such as 120 million slowly starving to death??

why not name the most predictable problem or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here?

lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government interference has helped every single modern economy.

yes and the more the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems.

dear, do communists markets create problems such as 120 million slowly starving to death??

why not name the most predictable problem or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here?

lol

translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ to respond substantively

 

[Bombur]

Government interference has helped every single modern economy.

yes and the more the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

OK now I am a little worried. Did you have a stroke or something?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government interference has helped every single modern economy.

yes and the more the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

OK now I am a little worried. Did you have a stroke or something?

Government interference has helped every single modern economy.[/QUOTE]

yes and the more lib govt interference the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!

 

[Bombur]

At least you agreed with what I said before going crazy again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government interference has helped every single modern economy.

yes and the more the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

OK now I am a little worried. Did you have a stroke or something?

Government interference has helped every single modern economy.

yes and the more lib govt interference the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!![/QUOTE]

Bombur: Government interference has helped every single modern economy.

yes and the more lib govt interference the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!

 

[Bombur]

Are you a bot?

 

[bripat9643]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.

A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.

The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.

If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.

Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.

No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.

Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.

Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.

Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.

The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.

What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.

 

[Bombur]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.

A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.

The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.

If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.

Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.

No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.

Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.

Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.

Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.

The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.

What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.

It was developed well before the war.

It is the basis of laissez faire economics.

laissez faire economics was not practiced when you think it was. Governments of the past practiced various forms of mercantilism.

Economic growth rates vary over time for a lot of reasons, for example industrialization increases productivity a lot. Your entire argument is hopelessly simplistic even if you had your facts straight, which you don't.

The government has helped economies grow significantly by investing in infrastructure and education. Both have been a huge factor in economic progress.

Economies depend on a lot of things but if you looked around the world you would notice that countries do a lot of different things to help their economies grow and the involvement of government can vary greatly even across productive economies. Some economies can do really well without too much government involvement if they are positioned well. Hong Kong for example. Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.

and sometimes a lot of govt can result in the slow starvation of 120 million souls

 

[bripat9643]

When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.

A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.

The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.

If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.

Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.

No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.

Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.

Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.

Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.

The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.

What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.

It was developed well before the war.

No it wasn't.

It is the basis of laissez faire economics.

ROFL! It most certainly isn't. It's the basis of government intervention.

laissez faire economics was not practiced when you think it was. Governments of the past practiced various forms of mercantilism.

It was practiced in the United States. I never claimed every government followed it.

Economic growth rates vary over time for a lot of reasons, for example industrialization increases productivity a lot. Your entire argument is hopelessly simplistic even if you had your facts straight, which you don't.

Industrialization is a measure of how close a country comes to practicing laissez faire economics. The two countries that adopted it first were the first to industrialize.

The government has helped economies grow significantly by investing in infrastructure and education. Both have been a huge factor in economic progress.

You keep saying that but so far you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support it.

Economies depend on a lot of things but if you looked around the world you would notice that countries do a lot of different things to help their economies grow and the involvement of government can vary greatly even across productive economies. Some economies can do really well without too much government involvement if they are positioned well. Hong Kong for example. Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.

Countries that limit government meddling the most have the fastest growing economies. The only thing "well positioned" about Hong Kong is the fact that the government doesn't meddle in its economy. Norway is the Scandinavian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It's sitting over an ocean of oil. It also has some fairly free market policies. Otherwise there would be nothing remarkable about it's economic growth. It would be no better off than any other European welfare state.

The bottom line is that government meddling retards economic growth. Our current anemic growth rate should be sufficient proof of that.