How is austerity doing in Europe

[Kimura]

Ed is a admitted libertarian. *So, I keep asking him for an example of a successful libertarian economy. *Can you believe that ed is incapable of doing so? *Tried the USA once. *But, his heroes (Koch bros, et al) want the economy to move in that direction. *They are smart enough to know that moving in that direction will make them richer and more powerful. *They probably also know that they will NEVER get to an actual libertarian economy. *But poor ed is not smart enough to know all that.

I wouldn't go so far as to insult the entire Libertarian party, Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government, without getting to know them better.

I've learned a couple things from Ed, when he get's specific. *I research it, find out he's completely wrong, then I know something new.

How awesome for econ when we find any periods or nations of reasonably predominate anything. *To bad he doesn't know of any. *I'm quite disappointed. *Never hurts to ask.

I know them well. But all one has to know is that libertarianism does not work. Never has, and never will. There needs to be a balance between gov and bus. Too far either way, it will never work because the people of the nation will never let it.
Just as communism does not work for the long term, after the advantages of central planning have played out, so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov. And the result is a cesspool for the workers. And revolt, and tyranny will always result. If it ever gets that far.

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

 

[bripat9643]

That is your interpretation. Your opinion again. Libertarianism today is supported by very wealthy folks. The Koch brothers founded the largest libertarian think tank in the world. Cato, and another over 80 "think tanks" that espouse libertarian views, are in all cases run by very wealthy far, far right wing political minded operatives who have views about the same as you post here.

ll you proved here is that you're a clueless brainwashed drone. All leftwing think tanks are funded and controlled by wealthy individuals, like Theresa Heinz Kerry. What you find so sinister is exactly what characterizes the source of all your talking points. I wouldn't call them "ideas" because that would imply you are capable of rational thought rather than just parroting left-wing propaganda.

But their reason for their intent is largely believed to be to control politics and back libertarian views in any way they can.

Wow, that is sinister. Imagine libertarians using their money to promote their values. Leftwingers would never do that, would they?

You are a class-A moron.

Including huge amounts of expenditures in political races, payments directly to politicians and economist to express their views, taking over of publications to further their ideas, and efforts to control colleges through grants with strings requiring the hiring of instructors with libertarian views. And those activities, and that concentration of power, is EXACTLY what the founders of this country feared. Not just concentration of power in gov, but concentration of power anywhere. Including the private sector.

What the Founders of the country feared is government using taxpayer funds to promote views that are despised by the taxpayers, and that's what public universities do. So when a libertarian spends his own personal funds to counter this vast flood of government sponsored propaganda, that's something to worry about?

The idea that "concentration of power" in the private sector is something to be more concerned about than government power is too idiotic for words to describe.

I could spend all day ridiculing your idiocies, but I have other things to do.

 

[bripat9643]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

You're another major league idiot. You don't even know what feudalism is. You obviously don't know the slightest thing about economics. In other words, you're a typical left-winger.

 

[Oldstyle]

I wouldn't go so far as to insult the entire Libertarian party, Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government, without getting to know them better.

I've learned a couple things from Ed, when he get's specific. *I research it, find out he's completely wrong, then I know something new.

How awesome for econ when we find any periods or nations of reasonably predominate anything. *To bad he doesn't know of any. *I'm quite disappointed. *Never hurts to ask.

I know them well. But all one has to know is that libertarianism does not work. Never has, and never will. There needs to be a balance between gov and bus. Too far either way, it will never work because the people of the nation will never let it.
Just as communism does not work for the long term, after the advantages of central planning have played out, so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov. And the result is a cesspool for the workers. And revolt, and tyranny will always result. If it ever gets that far.

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

 

[Kimura]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

You're another major league idiot. You don't even know what feudalism is. You obviously don't know the slightest thing about economics. In other words, you're a typical left-winger.

I have an BA and MS in Economics. Try again, cupcake.

If you want to debate, I'm definitely game. You pick: macro, micro, labor theory, monetary operations? Since you're clearly a superior intellect, and I'm clearly an idiot, I'll give it my best.

 

[Kimura]

I know them well. But all one has to know is that libertarianism does not work. Never has, and never will. There needs to be a balance between gov and bus. Too far either way, it will never work because the people of the nation will never let it.
Just as communism does not work for the long term, after the advantages of central planning have played out, so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov. And the result is a cesspool for the workers. And revolt, and tyranny will always result. If it ever gets that far.

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

 

[itfitzme]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

I'd be interested in reading the details. Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail. Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.

 

[Kimura]

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

I'd be interested in reading the details. Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail. Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.

I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts.

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form.

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.

 

[Rshermr]

I know them well. But all one has to know is that libertarianism does not work. Never has, and never will. There needs to be a balance between gov and bus. Too far either way, it will never work because the people of the nation will never let it.
Just as communism does not work for the long term, after the advantages of central planning have played out, so libertarianism leads to the absolute power of a few extremely wealthy cats who control everything, including the gov. And the result is a cesspool for the workers. And revolt, and tyranny will always result. If it ever gets that far.

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

And another attack. Jesus, Oldstyle. Is that all you have.
Let me try to help you. You are in way over your head trying to argue economics. Good time to exit right.
but I predict that you will simply do what you always have done, which is attack and insult, cause you are toast economically.

 

[Oldstyle]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

And another attack. Jesus, Oldstyle. Is that all you have.
Let me try to help you. You are in way over your head trying to argue economics. Good time to exit right.
but I predict that you will simply do what you always have done, which is attack and insult, cause you are toast economically.

You know what's really sad, Tommy? You supposedly majored in economics while I only took two classes in the subject and yet I know so much more about it than you do that it's not even funny! Oh, that's right...the reason you didn't know what a school of economics was...was because you weren't "paying attention"...it had nothing to do with your obvious ignorance about the topic! I can argue economics with YOU all day.

You might want to ask yourself if that's something you want to get into...since it's obvious that you've embellished your academic background. To be blunt...you couldn't hold up your end of a discussion about economics with a sixth grader.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is something;

United States:- Global economy is improving but Europe lags behind, says OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

 

[Oldstyle]

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

I'd be interested in reading the details. Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail. Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.

I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts.

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form.

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.

C'mon, Kimura! Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks if they present something so unintelligible that nobody can decipher it that they're going to come across as scholarly? That answer you just gave didn't even come CLOSE to defending your premise that feudalism and libertarianism are alike. It WAS wordy and obtuse...was that what you were shooting for?

 

[Oldstyle]

We tried libertarianism once in the past. It was called feudalism.

Now that's one of the dumber statements made on here in quite some time (no wonder Tommy thought it deserved a thanks! You got the idiot's seal of approval!). Feudalism is NOTHING like libertarianism. Feudalism is based upon a contract between a lord and a vassal...the lord pledging to protect the vassal from outside forces and the vassal pledging to provide service to the lord in exchange for that protection. How THAT translates into libertarianism is something you'll have to try and explain!

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

I don't find it "obvious" at all, Kimura. Feel free to describe how liberalism and feudalism resemble each other.

 

[Rshermr]

Good for you, Oldstyle. Lets see it. So far, I have never seen you win an economic argument. So I look forward to seeing it.
But I do know you are really good at lying, and at personal attacks. Economics??? You have no clue.

 

[Oldstyle]

Good for you, Oldstyle. Lets see it. So far, I have never seen you win an economic argument. So I look forward to seeing it.
But I do know you are really good at lying, and at personal attacks. Economics??? You have no clue.

How soon they forget!

You seem to have forgotten that it was during a "discussion" about economics when I asked you what school of economics you based a contention you were making...and your response was that unless you knew what economic classes were being taught at various schools there was no way for you to answer my question.

THAT was when I knew without a bit of doubt that your claim to have taught economics at the college level was complete and utter GRADE A BULLSHIT! The same thing is going to happen if we go down that road AGAIN, Tommy...because you know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture.

 

[Rshermr]

It should be glaringly obvious the "libertarianism" of the variety espoused by the Murray Rothbard/Robert Nozick/Ayn Rand axis most definitely resembles feudalism. I can get into detail if need be.

I'd be interested in reading the details. Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail. Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.

I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts.

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form.

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.

And oldstyle, true to form, starts attacking as soon as he is unable to discuss the subject.
Never asks for clarification, just attacks.
Remember, you are discussing economics with a dishwasher. He actually THINKS he understands economics, but all he is capable of is posting drivel from bat shit crazy con web sites, where he gets his stuff.

Then, when he is unable to argue a subject, or does not understand it, he immediately starts the personal attacks. Soon he will be lying like a rug.
At first I thought he was delusional. Over time, I have come to understand him as a sociopath. No conscience, no integrity. Just an attack animal.
From a posting standpoint, trying to have a discussion with him is very much like entering home for the insane. You can win the argument, easily enough. But it is a waste of time. Because he just can not, in any situation, admit you are correct, and he may be wrong. That, of course, requires integrity, which he does not have.

Discussion with oldstyle soon degenerates to the point that it is like stepping on a dog turd in the yard. Hard to kick it off. No interest, after a bit, in anything but personal attacks and insults. Beyond that, he simply wants to post conservative dogma. No interest in actually discussing a subject.

His economic hero is Thomas Sowell, an avowed libertarian. Has very close ties to the CATO institute and the Koch brothers(no surprise there, obviously).

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, I'm a restaurant manager. It's been my career for over 30 years. Unlike YOU, I don't feel the need to embellish who I am. I haven't pretended to have taught subjects in college. I haven't claimed to have degrees that I obviously don't have. That's YOUR gig, little buddy.

You simply hate me for being the person who exposed you as the internet poser that you are!

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says:

How soon they forget!

You seem to have forgotten that it was during a "discussion" about economics when I asked you what school of economics you based a contention you were making...and your response was that unless you knew what economic classes were being taught at various schools there was no way for you to answer my question.

That, of course, is a complete lie. You had asked what school of economics taught the theory of raising taxes in times of high unemployment. You asked that question at least 40 times, and I answered it the same way each time. My answer was; raising taxes was not the issue. Raising taxes simply provided revenue for stimulus spending.
But, being the game player that you were, you continued asking that same question over and over.
I know you have a little lying problem. Actually, I fully believe that you are a sociopath.

THAT was when I knew without a bit of doubt that your claim to have taught economics at the college level was complete and utter GRADE A BULLSHIT!

But, of course, that is a lie again. You know what I said was not that I taught economics at the college level. Because that would indicate that I was in charge of an economics class. What I said was this:
"Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not provable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premise, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As were your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about."
Thread: Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166

Yes, August of 2012. And the beat goes on. You know you believe what I said. You know you made the deal that I provide the info and you would stop the accusations. But then, you broke the deal, again proving you have no integrity.

The same thing is going to happen if we go down that road AGAIN, Tommy...because you know about as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture.

Another attack. Just as I predicted. Childish, at that. And your opinion only. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

But as W said, bring it on, Oldstyle. Lets see your great economic ability to argue economics. I have yet to see it. But you should just crush me, since you are so knowledgeable of economics and I am so clueless. My bet is what we will see is simply more insults and lies.

 

[Rshermr]

I'd be interested in reading the details. Just an overview with a few significant points supported by a supporting detail. Nothing too long, but a classical essay style would be a welcome relief from all the "I told you.."s and sweeping overgeneralizations.

I'd like to preface this by stating Robert Nozick differs in many ways from Murray Rothbard, and Murray Rothbard represents more of the contemporary libertarian movement in the US.

Most of them want to dismantle the modern nation-state. What is the government for the Libertarian? It's essentially privatized, consisting of private contracts, and the ultimate goal being the privatization of arbitration and protection services, whereby political power also becomes exclusively privatized. The protection of your rights are then commoditized: protection of said rights are based on one's ability to pay, based on private authority in the form of contracts.

What's the problem with this arrangement? There's no type of public power which can act in an impartial capacity. There also isn't any type of legislative scaffolding which is answerable to the public in any type of non-market form. We'd have zero equal rights in such as system. We're talking about feudal, private governance in such a system. In such a system, political power is acted on for private ends, not toward the public good in any way, shape, or form.

We can get into their market delusions later on at some point.

C'mon, Kimura! Don't tell me you're one of those people that thinks if they present something so unintelligible that nobody can decipher it that they're going to come across as scholarly? That answer you just gave didn't even come CLOSE to defending your premise that feudalism and libertarianism are alike. It WAS wordy and obtuse...was that what you were shooting for?

I just reread kimura's response you call obtuse. And wordy, It was, me boy, extremely clear. And arguably correct. Your problem is that you can make no argument. Again, you are in way over your head.

 

[ScienceRocks]

As long as you spend money on Infrastructure, Science and technology=success.

Paying off the banks or idiocy isn't doing it.