Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[kaz]

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

No what she CLEARLY said was

"Government creates no economic value."

and you said that was 'well said'.

That makes you both ignorant.

Yes, government is an economic generator (consider Halliburton's contracts for the Iraq War as one of thousands of examples in the last decade).

To say it is not reveals a mindset that is philosophical and ignores empirical data and the conclusions therefrom.

I have already explained this to you and yet you ignore it. And what I am telling you is what you would learn in any economics class.

Economic value creation means that you take materials and labor, add value to them, and sell them for more than the cost of what it took to create them. Jake, that IS our economy. When the government takes money out of the economy and spends it, that doesn't create economic value, it destroys it.

In terms of your household, you get wealthier when you earn money. You get poorer when you spend it. If you go to a restaurant and enjoy the dinner, that you enjoyed the dinner does not mean you earned money by going to the restaurant. If you buy insurance, you are protecting what you have, but it didn't make you richer. Only generating income makes you richer, and spending only makes you poorer.

How do you not get this?

 

[Dad2three]

You're asking the wrong questions.

Your questions should be:

What was the extent of the adverse effect republican foot-dragging had on the economic recovery?

Given the fact of republican foot-dragging, can an accurate assessment be made of the Administration's economic policies?

Do conservatives understand that the Administration's economic policies can only be comprehensively implemented with the co-operation of Congress, something Congressional republicans have refused to do?

And can there be an accurate, objective, non-partisan assessment of the president's economic policies well before the end of his time in office.

The last question is rhetorical, as of course its answer is 'no.'

You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value. Legitimate functions of government, such as the military, are like buying insurance. Buying insurance does not make you richer, it makes you poorer. But it protects what you have.

Nothing Obama proposed created value, he simply confiscated money from the economy and proposed spending it. Everything he wanted to spend was taken out of the economy. It's like trying to fill a pool which is half full with a bucket using the water in the pool. You take a bucket of water out of the pool (taxes) then throw it back in (government spending) and wonder why the water level in the pool isn't going up. And of course since government wastes so much money, it's actually worse in that you take a bucket of water out of the pool, dump a bunch of it on the ground and throw the rest back in.

Republican foot dragging helped the economy, it didn't hurt it, for that reason. It stopped Obama from taking buckets of water, dumping some some the ground, and throwing the rest back in. You may now proceed with demonstrating you didn't understand this.

Very well said, Kaz. We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them.

"We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them."



"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

 

[Dad2three]

You libertarian fuktards

So are we libertarians or Republicans? Can you not make up your mind?

I don't care if you call me a Republican, it just makes me think you're stupid. Then you go back to calling us libertarians. Then we are Republicans again. Are you just stupid? Is that all it is?

I'm still waiting for the example of something I think that is Republican and isn't libertarian.

Libertarian/conservatives/GOPers, ALL vote the same way what the fuk is the difference?



CONTEXT

DUMBASS LIBERTARIAN:

"No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster."

ME:


"You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM"

TELL ME WHAT'S INCORRECT IN MY COMMENT? lol

 

[kaz]

"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

Wrong, the word socialism is completely unambiguous.

Socialism - centrally planned economy. Only government can do this because only government can use force and without force no one will follow the control.

Capitalism - distributed economic planning. Consumers, suppliers, employees, employers and all other market players are free to make the best choices for themselves. The role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts for resolving disagreements and criminal courts for addressing fraud.

Your definitions are moronic. Socialism is government using force to fuck some citizens while rewarding others to expand it's own power. Talk about every man for himself.

Capitalism is just a name for economic freedom.

 

[EconChick]

We are talking about economic confidence by the population, not the population’s feelings of popularly about Obama, thus econchick fail.

You attack anyone who disagrees with you. And your continuing ad homs in lieu of any worthwhile commentary is noted.

Yes, you are melting down. We need you to grow up, accept responsibility for what you are writing, stop shifting the goal lines and so forth.

Laugh My Fucking Ass Off, Everybody.

NEWS FLASH. Jakey Fakey thinks economic/consumer confidence has nothing to do with Obama's Unpopularity!!


Holy shit, the more you talk Fakey the more you dig your hole.

First of all, Obama has been popular for 5 years IN SPITE of all the things he's fucked up. Now the masses are finally realizing they backed a loser and that reality is now showing up in the popularity polls.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about popularity polls, I was talking specifically about the polls that rate his performance in each category.

He is WAY DOWN when they're asked about the economy.

Good Lord you're inept.

It must be tough trying to support a loser. I do feel for you.

Given that we've proven to you that consumer confidence is UP from where it was when Bush left,

you're not making much of an argument for putting the Republicans back in power.

And here is where my attempt to explain non-linear math keeps preventing peeps' understanding of why your assessments are wrong.

1) The Financial crash was caused by both parties and many actors, going back for numerous years. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that.

2) Bush's econ numbers were great before the impact of this crash hit them. The tremendous negative numbers coming from THIS event completely skewed his overall numbers. Any objective person knows they don't deserve to all be given to Bush. But that's what you libs keep doing. He certainly should get partial blame but not full blame.

Now if you're a dishonest slug like Daddy2three who only spurts propaganda, you will claim the crash was 100% Bush's fault.

But we all know he's nothing but a discredited hack.

3) For those of us who know ALL President's numbers are calculated objectively by algorithms and not simple, linear math.... we know that simple minded hacks like D23 are as ignorant as they come.

In other words, you have to honestly go through each presidency giving some positives here and some negatives there for the many variables. We economists (of all political colors) fight over how this WEIGHTING gets done, but sophisticated analysts do the WEIGHTING.

So when you see someone who talks in 2+2=4 terms, you should stop wasting your time even listening to them.

 

[Dad2three]

[You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value.

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

WHAT DUMBASS LIBERTARIAN FUKTARD KAZ SAID

"Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world."

"...No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster."


YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT *SHAKING HEAD*

 

[EconChick]

You fundamentally don't understand economics. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government creates no economic value. Legitimate functions of government, such as the military, are like buying insurance. Buying insurance does not make you richer, it makes you poorer. But it protects what you have.

Nothing Obama proposed created value, he simply confiscated money from the economy and proposed spending it. Everything he wanted to spend was taken out of the economy. It's like trying to fill a pool which is half full with a bucket using the water in the pool. You take a bucket of water out of the pool (taxes) then throw it back in (government spending) and wonder why the water level in the pool isn't going up. And of course since government wastes so much money, it's actually worse in that you take a bucket of water out of the pool, dump a bunch of it on the ground and throw the rest back in.

Republican foot dragging helped the economy, it didn't hurt it, for that reason. It stopped Obama from taking buckets of water, dumping some some the ground, and throwing the rest back in. You may now proceed with demonstrating you didn't understand this.

Very well said, Kaz. We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them.

"We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them."



"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

I'm not surprised the words Socialist LEANING went completely over your rigid brain.

I used the word leaning for a reason.

The Capitalism - Communism comparison is a continuum. 1-100

I'm saying people can fall anywhere in this continuum, but if they want policies that LEAN in that direction, it's Socialist leaning.

Is that too hard for you to understand rigid man???????????

 

[kaz]

You libertarian fuktards

So are we libertarians or Republicans? Can you not make up your mind?

I don't care if you call me a Republican, it just makes me think you're stupid. Then you go back to calling us libertarians. Then we are Republicans again. Are you just stupid? Is that all it is?

I'm still waiting for the example of something I think that is Republican and isn't libertarian.

Libertarian/conservatives/GOPers, ALL vote the same way what the fuk is the difference?

As a libertarian, I am pro-choice, think drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sodomy and all other victimless morality laws should be repealed. I support slashing the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and making our military defensively focused. I would close all overseas bases as I don't think our military belongs permanently in any country but our own. I oppose the Iraq war and nation building in Afghanistan and think we should leave the middle east entirely. Another difference is that I'm a fiscal conservative. I really have nothing in agreement with the GOP.

Conservative BTW is too broad a term to say what is the difference. There are fiscal conservatives, socons, neocons and they are all completely different animals.

Now, what about answering my question where I think something that is Republican and is not libertarian and stop deflecting and evading.

 

[Dad2three]

"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

Wrong, the word socialism is completely unambiguous.

Socialism - centrally planned economy. Only government can do this because only government can use force and without force no one will follow the control.

Capitalism - distributed economic planning. Consumers, suppliers, employees, employers and all other market players are free to make the best choices for themselves. The role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts for resolving disagreements and criminal courts for addressing fraud.

Your definitions are moronic. Socialism is government using force to fuck some citizens while rewarding others to expand it's own power. Talk about every man for himself.

Capitalism is just a name for economic freedom.

LOL

"Socialism - centrally planned economy"


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#Origins

 

[EconChick]

Really?

So there is no economic value to education? To infrastructure? To the health of the people? To safety? To law enforcement?

What does the economy of a country with absolutely no government look like?

Show us where the economy improves in a country where government ends.

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

WHAT DUMBASS LIBERTARIAN FUKTARD KAZ SAID

"Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world."

"...No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster."


YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT *SHAKING HEAD*

IT's a generalization, genius!

Look, you're obviously a rigid brain that thinks in BINARY CODE only. Black or white. Up or Down. No weighting in your world.

No gradations.

No wonder your analysis is SOOO fucking off.

I'd rather talk to a liberal who doesn't think in your rigid terms....that's when debates are fruitful.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz is a glibertarian loon, yes, but is so far ahead of econchick's paranoid delusions as is the anteater to the ant.

kazy has a philosophy, econchick has emotions only.

 

[kaz]

"You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM"

TELL ME WHAT'S INCORRECT IN MY COMMENT? lol

What's incorrect in your statement is that libertarians opposed Iraq and invading Afghanistan. So you are lecturing us about something we don't support.

I did support hitting the Taliban with serious destruction for abetting the 9/11 attack. But I would not have invaded and tried to nation build there, which is where most of the costs were. And I was against Iraq entirely.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One of the more ridiculous aspects of calls for 'limited government' is we currently have limited government.

Constitutional jurisprudence establishes the legal framework as to what government may do and what it may not do. The Constitution affords citizens the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts to challenge acts of government perceived to be un-Constitutional.

Government is now limited, restricted, and compelled to function in accordance with Constitutional case law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

WHAT DUMBASS LIBERTARIAN FUKTARD KAZ SAID

"Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world."

"...No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster."


YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT *SHAKING HEAD*

IT's a generalization, genius!

Look, you're obviously a rigid brain that thinks in BINARY CODE only. Black or white. Up or Down. No weighting in your world.

No gradations.

No wonder your analysis is SOOO fucking off.

I'd rather talk to a liberal who doesn't think in your rigid terms....that's when debates are fruitful.

Your generalizations don't hold water.

Fact: the American voter does not believe in an economic malaise as do you.

Fact: the consumer confidence through this week is at a seven year high.

Fact: your opinions are not facts.

Fact: you ad hom instead of debate, a critical far right and far left fault.

Hint: you have a weak emotional skin, so if you are going to last here, toughen up. You have to take a punch if you are going to throw one.

 

[kaz]

"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

Wrong, the word socialism is completely unambiguous.

Socialism - centrally planned economy. Only government can do this because only government can use force and without force no one will follow the control.

Capitalism - distributed economic planning. Consumers, suppliers, employees, employers and all other market players are free to make the best choices for themselves. The role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts for resolving disagreements and criminal courts for addressing fraud.

Your definitions are moronic. Socialism is government using force to fuck some citizens while rewarding others to expand it's own power. Talk about every man for himself.

Capitalism is just a name for economic freedom.

LOL

"Socialism - centrally planned economy"


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics



American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Building infrastructure is not centrally planning an economy. Again with the idiotic argument that if I support any government I support authoritarian government. My choices are socialism and anarchy.

I would have been less protectionist, the damage was limited by our incredible growth. Now that we are shrinking as a percent of the world economy, we benefit more and more by opening our borders. But again, protectionism is not centrally planning an economy and my choices are not socialism or anarchy.

 

[Dad2three]

Laugh My Fucking Ass Off, Everybody.

NEWS FLASH. Jakey Fakey thinks economic/consumer confidence has nothing to do with Obama's Unpopularity!!


Holy shit, the more you talk Fakey the more you dig your hole.

First of all, Obama has been popular for 5 years IN SPITE of all the things he's fucked up. Now the masses are finally realizing they backed a loser and that reality is now showing up in the popularity polls.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about popularity polls, I was talking specifically about the polls that rate his performance in each category.

He is WAY DOWN when they're asked about the economy.

Good Lord you're inept.

It must be tough trying to support a loser. I do feel for you.

Given that we've proven to you that consumer confidence is UP from where it was when Bush left,

you're not making much of an argument for putting the Republicans back in power.

And here is where my attempt to explain non-linear math keeps preventing peeps' understanding of why your assessments are wrong.

1) The Financial crash was caused by both parties and many actors, going back for numerous years. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that.

2) Bush's econ numbers were great before the impact of this crash hit them. The tremendous negative numbers coming from THIS event completely skewed his overall numbers. Any objective person knows they don't deserve to all be given to Bush. But that's what you libs keep doing. He certainly should get partial blame but not full blame.

Now if you're a dishonest slug like Daddy2three who only spurts propaganda, you will claim the crash was 100% Bush's fault.

But we all know he's nothing but a discredited hack.

3) For those of us who know ALL President's numbers are calculated objectively by algorithms and not simple, linear math.... we know that simple minded hacks like D23 are as ignorant as they come.

In other words, you have to honestly go through each presidency giving some positives here and some negatives there for the many variables. We economists (of all political colors) fight over how this WEIGHTING gets done, but sophisticated analysts do the WEIGHTING.

So when you see someone who talks in 2+2=4 terms, you should stop wasting your time even listening to them.

"1) The Financial crash was caused by both parties and many actors, going back for numerous years. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that."


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.

To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud.


William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html



"2) Bush's econ numbers were great before the impact of this crash hit them."

LOL


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

Wrong, the word socialism is completely unambiguous.

Socialism - centrally planned economy. Only government can do this because only government can use force and without force no one will follow the control.

Capitalism - distributed economic planning. Consumers, suppliers, employees, employers and all other market players are free to make the best choices for themselves. The role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts for resolving disagreements and criminal courts for addressing fraud.

Your definitions are moronic. Socialism is government using force to fuck some citizens while rewarding others to expand it's own power. Talk about every man for himself.

Capitalism is just a name for economic freedom.

LOL

"Socialism - centrally planned economy"


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics



American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Building infrastructure is not centrally planning an economy. Again with the idiotic argument that if I support any government I support authoritarian government. My choices are socialism and anarchy.

I would have been less protectionist, the damage was limited by our incredible growth. Now that we are shrinking as a percent of the world economy, we benefit more and more by opening our borders. But again, protectionism is not centrally planning an economy and my choices are not socialism or anarchy.

"protecting industry through selective high tariffs

...a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation"



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

 

[Dad2three]

"You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM"

TELL ME WHAT'S INCORRECT IN MY COMMENT? lol

What's incorrect in your statement is that libertarians opposed Iraq and invading Afghanistan. So you are lecturing us about something we don't support.

I did support hitting the Taliban with serious destruction for abetting the 9/11 attack. But I would not have invaded and tried to nation build there, which is where most of the costs were. And I was against Iraq entirely.

K, So you'll ignore REVENUES PLUMMETING TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS AND IN YOUR WORLD VIEW, THAT SHOULD'VE DRIVEN THE ECONOMY BETTER RIGHT? And though 60% of Dems in Congress voted against the war of choice Dubya had, didn't the spending he have drive the US economy? lol

 

[Dad2three]

She's not talking about ZERO government. She clearly said government is needed for some things the way a business needs insurance.

I can't think of one person, no matter how far out to the right one goes, that says ZERO government. They may exist, but most people are talking about limited government.

It's just that we don't want to have to write a War and Peace manuscript just to get to the caveats.

WHAT DUMBASS LIBERTARIAN FUKTARD KAZ SAID

"Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world."

"...No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster."


YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT *SHAKING HEAD*

IT's a generalization, genius!

Look, you're obviously a rigid brain that thinks in BINARY CODE only. Black or white. Up or Down. No weighting in your world.

No gradations.

No wonder your analysis is SOOO fucking off.

I'd rather talk to a liberal who doesn't think in your rigid terms....that's when debates are fruitful.

Sorry YOU can NEVER be honest Bubbette

IN kAZ'S PREMISE, TAKING US TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS OF REVENUES SHOULD'VE BOOMED THE US ECONOMY. WHEN YOU TAKE 20%-25% OF CLINTON REVENUES AWAY UNDER DUBYA, WHY DIDN'T THE US ECONOMY BOOM? lol

 

[kaz]

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

Again, you recognize only anarchy and socialism, nothing in between. You have made that clear.