Economics 101

[Hum Dinger]

The purpose of government is very well stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It's by far the most important part of the Constitution. The entire rest of the Constitution is only to fulfill the requirements of the preamble.

Focus on the phrases 'establish Justice' and 'promote the general Welfare' - and keep in mind that 'Liberty' meant 'freedom from your employer' more than anything else at the time the Constitution was written:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

'Liberty' meant 'freedom from your employer'

100% wrong!!!! Any evidence at all or really just a lie??

 

[Shikica]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

 

[Rshermr]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

 

[Rshermr]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

 

[Shikica]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Why do you ask.

Because you claim one occurred because of the other. So show me how.

 

[Rshermr]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

 

[Rshermr]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

 

[Shikica]

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Everything you said was reasonable but it doesn't make much of an attempt to attack common free market doctrine.

 

[Rshermr]

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Everything you said was reasonable but it doesn't make much of an attempt to attack common free market doctrine.

I think we all have an understanding of what common free market doctrine is. Problem is, we all have a different understanding.
If I go as far back as far as Adam Smith, the biggest problem he seemed to wrestle with was what would happen with corporations as they continued to gain in size and, and more importantly, monopoly power. And he had a simple answer to monopoly, which was basically to use the gov to regulate it. And over the years, we developed antitrust legislation. Clayton, Sherman, etc. Problem is, the power of corporations always overtakes those laws as they gain control of the politics. And, I think everyone would agree that antitrust legislation may be in the books, but is no longer used to stop monopoly power. And does NOTHING to address money in politics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism. Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts. So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven. Until Reagan's presidency. And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable. The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century. So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good. Very Keynesian policies. Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves. However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy. And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized with millions of dollars from the far right. And hundreds of millions of money in politics.
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set. We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world. But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

 

[Rshermr]

The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

What you did was play your little and normal game. I fish. You are fishing in another way. Tossing your little bait out, and waiting to see what you catch. Just a game.
What I did was make a statement of fact. Not even controversial. If you think it interesting, or controversial, or have some other interest, try conversation.
You see, I gave you respect. I assumed that you knew, and still assume that you know, why the ue rate went where it went. That is very, very, very simple economic history. So, if you want to keep playing games, play with someone who wants to play games. I am too old for that kind of a waste of time. Gave it up before I hit puberty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you ask. I have no doubt that you know. So, your turn. Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease. It is, as you well know, very, very simple.

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

What you did was play your little

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

 

[Rshermr]

Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

What you did was play your little

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

I did not say that dropping tax rates caused anything. Bad assumption on your part.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree completely. We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism. Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad. They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe. And in many areas it is not working well. So, where are the problems? Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have. And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics. So those are my hot buttons. And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues. Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

What you did was play your little

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

I did not say that dropping tax rates caused anything. Bad assumption on your part.

Do cuts in tax rates cause higher unemployment or not?

 

[Rshermr]

Nah. I think not. Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games. And I choose not to play. If you have a point, make it.

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

What you did was play your little

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

I did not say that dropping tax rates caused anything. Bad assumption on your part.

Do cuts in tax rates cause higher unemployment or not?

No

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you are playing games. And I choose not to play.

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.

What you did was play your little

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

I did not say that dropping tax rates caused anything. Bad assumption on your part.

Do cuts in tax rates cause higher unemployment or not?

No

Excellent!

 

[Rshermr]

What you did was play your little

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

I did not say that dropping tax rates caused anything. Bad assumption on your part.

Do cuts in tax rates cause higher unemployment or not?

No

Excellent!

No, not yet. You have not learned anything yet. Next question? What does cutting taxes cause?