Liberalism's Fatal Flaw

[there4eyeM]

There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.

 

[there4eyeM]

With the vast majority of the population working on small, family owned farms, it is a stretch to say 'free markets' were a popular concern.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


No, you imbecile....there was no market until Europeans taught the Indians what capitalism was.

Eventually you learn how comprehensive PoliticalChic's ignorance really is:

Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World examines the structure, scale, and complexity of economic systems in the pre-Hispanic Americas, with a focus on the central highlands of Mexico, the Maya Lowlands, and the central Andes.

Civilization in each region was characterized by complex political and religious institutions, highly skilled craft production, and the long-distance movement of finished goods. Scholars have long focused on the differences in economic organization between these civilizations.

Societies in the Mexican highlands are recognized as having a highly commercial economy centered around one of the world’s most complex market systems; those of the Maya region are characterized as having reciprocal exchange networks and periodic marketplaces that supplemented the dominant role of the palace; and those of the central Andes are recognized as having multiple forms of resource distribution, including household-to-household reciprocity, barter, environmental complementarity, and limited market exchange.

Essays in this volume examine various dimensions of these ancient economies, including the presence of marketplaces, the operation of merchants (and other individuals) who exchanged and moved goods across space, the role of artisans who produced goods as part of their livelihood, and the trade and distribution networks through which goods were bought, sold, and exchanged.

Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World — Kenneth G. Hirth, Joanne Pillsbury | Harvard University Press

Read a book once in awhile, airhead.

 

[there4eyeM]

[


No, you imbecile....there was no market until Europeans taught the Indians what capitalism was.

Eventually you learn how comprehensive PoliticalChic's ignorance really is:

Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World examines the structure, scale, and complexity of economic systems in the pre-Hispanic Americas, with a focus on the central highlands of Mexico, the Maya Lowlands, and the central Andes.

Civilization in each region was characterized by complex political and religious institutions, highly skilled craft production, and the long-distance movement of finished goods. Scholars have long focused on the differences in economic organization between these civilizations.

Societies in the Mexican highlands are recognized as having a highly commercial economy centered around one of the world’s most complex market systems; those of the Maya region are characterized as having reciprocal exchange networks and periodic marketplaces that supplemented the dominant role of the palace; and those of the central Andes are recognized as having multiple forms of resource distribution, including household-to-household reciprocity, barter, environmental complementarity, and limited market exchange.

Essays in this volume examine various dimensions of these ancient economies, including the presence of marketplaces, the operation of merchants (and other individuals) who exchanged and moved goods across space, the role of artisans who produced goods as part of their livelihood, and the trade and distribution networks through which goods were bought, sold, and exchanged.

Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World — Kenneth G. Hirth, Joanne Pillsbury | Harvard University Press

Read a book once in awhile, airhead.

Notice that the poster does not call 'Poli' a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.

And, to continue your education....so you might actually approach zero knowledge, as opposed to the falsity that you now claim as knowledge....



".... a close relationship existed, both historically and geographically, between the development of private rights in land and the development of the commercial fur trade.

...the role played by property right adjustments in taking account of what economists have often cited as an example of an externality-the overhunting of game.

Before the fur trade became established, hunting was carried on primarily for purposes of food and the relatively few furs that were required for the hunter's family. The externality was clearly present.

Hunting could be practiced freely and was carried on without assessing its impact on other hunters. ...it did not pay for anyone to take them into account. There did not exist anything resembling private ownership in land accounts indicate a socioeconomic organization in which private rights to land are not well developed.

.... the advent of the fur trade had two immediate consequences. First, the value of furs to the Indians was increased considerably. Second, and as a result, the scale of hunting activity rose sharply.

The property right system began to change, and it changed specifically in the direction required to take account of the economic effects made important by the fur trade.


....the higher commercial value of fur-bearing forest animals, made it productive to establish private hunting lands. ...family proprietorship among the Indians of the Peninsula included retaliation against trespass. Animal resources were husbanded. Sometimes conservation practices were carried on extensively. Family hunting territories were divided into quarters. Each year the family hunted in a different quarter in rotation, leaving a tract in the center as a sort of bank, not to be hunted over unless forced to do so by a shortage in the regular tract.

...highly developed private family rights to hunting lands had also developed which went so far as to include inheritance."
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/Demsetz_Property_Rights.pdf




Hopefully, based on this, you will find yourself less embarrassed in intellectual discussions.

Hopefully.

 

[there4eyeM]

There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.

And, to continue your education....so you might actually approach zero knowledge, as opposed to the falsity that you now claim as knowledge....



".... a close relationship existed, both historically and geographically, between the development of private rights in land and the development of the commercial fur trade.

...the role played by property right adjustments in taking account of what economists have often cited as an example of an externality-the overhunting of game.

Before the fur trade became established, hunting was carried on primarily for purposes of food and the relatively few furs that were required for the hunter's family. The externality was clearly present.

Hunting could be practiced freely and was carried on without assessing its impact on other hunters. ...it did not pay for anyone to take them into account. There did not exist anything resembling private ownership in land accounts indicate a socioeconomic organization in which private rights to land are not well developed.

.... the advent of the fur trade had two immediate consequences. First, the value of furs to the Indians was increased considerably. Second, and as a result, the scale of hunting activity rose sharply.

The property right system began to change, and it changed specifically in the direction required to take account of the economic effects made important by the fur trade.


....the higher commercial value of fur-bearing forest animals, made it productive to establish private hunting lands. ...family proprietorship among the Indians of the Peninsula included retaliation against trespass. Animal resources were husbanded. Sometimes conservation practices were carried on extensively. Family hunting territories were divided into quarters. Each year the family hunted in a different quarter in rotation, leaving a tract in the center as a sort of bank, not to be hunted over unless forced to do so by a shortage in the regular tract.

...highly developed private family rights to hunting lands had also developed which went so far as to include inheritance."
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/Demsetz_Property_Rights.pdf




Hopefully, based on this, you will find yourself less embarrassed in intellectual discussions.

Hopefully.

Whew! O.K., that's all very nice. Would you care to also reply to the error you made about 'no markets'?

 

[Jack4jill]

The fatal flaw of liberalism is most, like the OP, are too stupid to understand it.

They were never taught to respect it, to defend it, or why it is the basis of the nation, which they would happily destroy trying to undo what holds it together, liberalism.

I'd certainly have to agree that you have some expertise on 'stupid,' having practiced it for a life time.....

But, let's prove that.

"...why it is the basis of the nation.."

Hardly.
It is the very antithesis (better look that up).



This nation was designed by the Founders to to advance individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Obamunist, Liberalism, Progressivism stands for collectivism, undue regulation, and overarching big government, ignoring the Constitution.

And that's what you vote for. You didn't know that, did you, you fool.

You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.

That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.

The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.

Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?


Right....none of them.



Put you in your place, huh?

People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.

Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.


Try to deny this.

History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


No, you imbecile....there was no market until Europeans taught the Indians what capitalism was.

Eventually you learn how comprehensive PoliticalChic's ignorance really is:

Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World examines the structure, scale, and complexity of economic systems in the pre-Hispanic Americas, with a focus on the central highlands of Mexico, the Maya Lowlands, and the central Andes.

Civilization in each region was characterized by complex political and religious institutions, highly skilled craft production, and the long-distance movement of finished goods. Scholars have long focused on the differences in economic organization between these civilizations.

Societies in the Mexican highlands are recognized as having a highly commercial economy centered around one of the world’s most complex market systems; those of the Maya region are characterized as having reciprocal exchange networks and periodic marketplaces that supplemented the dominant role of the palace; and those of the central Andes are recognized as having multiple forms of resource distribution, including household-to-household reciprocity, barter, environmental complementarity, and limited market exchange.

Essays in this volume examine various dimensions of these ancient economies, including the presence of marketplaces, the operation of merchants (and other individuals) who exchanged and moved goods across space, the role of artisans who produced goods as part of their livelihood, and the trade and distribution networks through which goods were bought, sold, and exchanged.

Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World — Kenneth G. Hirth, Joanne Pillsbury | Harvard University Press

Read a book once in awhile, airhead.

Notice that the poster does not call 'Poli' a liar.

Lying is saying something you know to be untrue. We don't know if PC knew that what she said was untrue or not.

Is it reasonable and rational and logical to assume that PC is so ignorant that she had no idea that pre-Columbian American cultures had complex economic systems that had no need of being 'taught' capitalism by Europeans?

You make the call. I'll draw the conclusion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.

And, to continue your education....so you might actually approach zero knowledge, as opposed to the falsity that you now claim as knowledge....



".... a close relationship existed, both historically and geographically, between the development of private rights in land and the development of the commercial fur trade.

...the role played by property right adjustments in taking account of what economists have often cited as an example of an externality-the overhunting of game.

Before the fur trade became established, hunting was carried on primarily for purposes of food and the relatively few furs that were required for the hunter's family. The externality was clearly present.

Hunting could be practiced freely and was carried on without assessing its impact on other hunters. ...it did not pay for anyone to take them into account. There did not exist anything resembling private ownership in land accounts indicate a socioeconomic organization in which private rights to land are not well developed.

.... the advent of the fur trade had two immediate consequences. First, the value of furs to the Indians was increased considerably. Second, and as a result, the scale of hunting activity rose sharply.

The property right system began to change, and it changed specifically in the direction required to take account of the economic effects made important by the fur trade.


....the higher commercial value of fur-bearing forest animals, made it productive to establish private hunting lands. ...family proprietorship among the Indians of the Peninsula included retaliation against trespass. Animal resources were husbanded. Sometimes conservation practices were carried on extensively. Family hunting territories were divided into quarters. Each year the family hunted in a different quarter in rotation, leaving a tract in the center as a sort of bank, not to be hunted over unless forced to do so by a shortage in the regular tract.

...highly developed private family rights to hunting lands had also developed which went so far as to include inheritance."
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/Demsetz_Property_Rights.pdf




Hopefully, based on this, you will find yourself less embarrassed in intellectual discussions.

Hopefully.

Whew! O.K., that's all very nice. Would you care to also reply to the error you made about 'no markets'?

She is so wrong about this, trying to educate her is like trying to restructure a house hit by a tornado.

You can't even figure out where to begin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd certainly have to agree that you have some expertise on 'stupid,' having practiced it for a life time.....

But, let's prove that.

"...why it is the basis of the nation.."

Hardly.
It is the very antithesis (better look that up).



This nation was designed by the Founders to to advance individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Obamunist, Liberalism, Progressivism stands for collectivism, undue regulation, and overarching big government, ignoring the Constitution.

And that's what you vote for. You didn't know that, did you, you fool.

You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.

That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.

The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.

Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?


Right....none of them.



Put you in your place, huh?

People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.

Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.


Try to deny this.

History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.

Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:


....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.

 

[there4eyeM]

re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The kind of 'capitalism' that Europeans brought to America was 'trade firewater for beaver belts until the beaver are gone, or the Indians are dead.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.

That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.

The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.

Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?


Right....none of them.



Put you in your place, huh?

People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.

Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.


Try to deny this.

History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.

Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:


....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.

This is the individualism and non-regulation and lack of central command that PC most supports:

 

[NYcarbineer]

re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?

I think PC's 'contempt for the facts' is a more artful descriptor.

 

[there4eyeM]

re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?

I think PC's 'contempt for the facts' is a more artful descriptor.

Are you suggesting her favorite auto brand is 'Dodge'?

 

[Jack4jill]

You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.

That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.

The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.

Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?


Right....none of them.



Put you in your place, huh?

People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.

Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.


Try to deny this.

History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.

Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:


....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.

You've obviously never met a liberal. Some jerk just told you they were bad, and you were dumb enough to believe them.

 

[Nosmo King]

Most dynamic "religion"? Religion? Really?

And you fail to see any propaganda value in such a ridiculous statement?

Irony is lost on you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?

You might try to provide the quote to which you are ostensibly replying.

A plan?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most dynamic "religion"? Religion? Really?

And you fail to see any propaganda value in such a ridiculous statement?

Irony is lost on you.

Earlier I pointed out that you've been taught...and, largely, accepted lies.


Here are just a few that I provided.


1. The 'Greatest Lie"is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country,convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.'And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.



2. The "Second Greatest Lie" is also designed to benefit Leftists. It is that the political spectrum has communists on the left, and the Nazis on the right.It is a conscious and carefully crafted lie. And it is because the Left controls the schools and the media that it has been allowed to survive.

This is what a careful study of history shows:
When the worldwide recession, known as the Great Depression, caused many to believe that capitalism had failed,big government command and control economies took control,promising solutions.

The economic plans of Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Franklin Rooseveltwere all variations on the same theme.




3. Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.
Yet they do....or claim they do.

Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)

Welcome to the club, Ty Cobb.



As you believe these based on faith, your Liberalism is correctly identified as a religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.

Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?


Right....none of them.



Put you in your place, huh?

People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.

Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.


Try to deny this.

History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.

Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:


....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Only conservatism remains committed to the above.

Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.

You've obviously never met a liberal. Some jerk just told you they were bad, and you were dumb enough to believe them.

Really?

But I'm exceptionally good at recognizing imbeciles....

...so, hi, you imbecile