How is austerity doing in Europe

[westwall]

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.

The problem with your theory of course, is that government itself rarely acts in an impartial way. And that problem is getting worse, not better.

 

[PredFan]

How screwed up left wing reasoning works:

Socialism destroys the economy,
The people elect politicians to fix the problem,
They try Austerity to fix it,
The economy doesn't get better,
Lefties blame austerity.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Poor little Tommy! You get caught telling a rather obvious lie which you then try desperately to walk back, all the while declaring that because you gave an answer (albeit one that was totally unbelievable...) that the matter was closed because I'd made some non-existent "deal" with you. Integrity? You actually have the stones to accuse me of a lack of integrity simply because I point out that you've portrayed yourself as something that it's quite apparent that you are not? If you actually HAD any integrity...you'd apologize for talking out of your ass but instead you remain here whining about attacks on your "integrity"...like somehow doing so is going to change the fact that you were dishonest.

 

[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.


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:

To which I posted: "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.

Poor little Tommy! You get caught telling a rather obvious lie which you then try desperately to walk back, all the while declaring that because you gave an answer (albeit one that was totally unbelievable...) that the matter was closed because I'd made some non-existent "deal" with you. Integrity? You actually have the stones to accuse me of a lack of integrity simply because I point out that you've portrayed yourself as something that it's quite apparent that you are not? If you actually HAD any integrity...you'd apologize for talking out of your ass but instead you remain here whining about attacks on your "integrity"...like somehow doing so is going to change the fact that you were dishonest.

So, Oldstyle, attacking again. So, you do not call this a deal. You posted:


"You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...
To which I posted: 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 ...."
Again,August of last year. And you will still be posting this next year, because you can not find a place where I lie.
So, oldstyle, you set the terms. You named what you wanted to know. I provided everything you asked for. You said you would "eat your words". You even admited it would "prove you are not a liar", where the you is me.
So there you go, Oldstyle. Your terms, your deal, you did not keep your end of the deal. As I suggested you would not.

So, where is that integrity, Oldstyle. You know I did not lie. Because I never, ever do.

Sure, oldstyle. Eat my words, you say. Funny how you interpret eat my words. If I said that, or anyone else who said what you did, and had any integrity, they would not nave made the same unsubstantiated and ignorant attack at least 40 times. And you can not stop doing so. Funny. Suggesting that I would try to lie about something so unimportant does, however, does show that you are insignificant.
I am sure that everyone is really enjoying reading your attacks. Most would have some concern about others. You do not. You simply attack. Because that is what you always do.

 

[Kimura]

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 suggest you read some Rothbard and Nozick. I just gave you a summation of the drivel these people spoon feed their cult members.

Let me as you this: If libertarians are correct in their belief that they somehow know best how to organize a society, why isn't there a single country in the world in the 21st century organized along libertarian, anarcho-capitalist lines?

 

[Kimura]

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.

The problem with your theory of course, is that government itself rarely acts in an impartial way. And that problem is getting worse, not better.

So you think the protection of rights should be based on people’s ability to pay? Individual rights don't function the same way as property rights. Our rights are fundamental, meaning they can't be traded against non-rights. I'm sure you would agree they're also inalienable. For example, I can't give up my rights or contractually send them away.

When libertarians talk about "rights," they're talking about treating basic rights as property rights. In such a scenario, our basic rights receive no more protection than property rights. You can rescind or bargain them away in such a system, and property rights can never be regulated and are fundamental.

 

[Kimura]

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).

I'm just here to debate. I really don't understand the need for personal attacks unless they're warranted.

Ironically, I actually have a background in Economics, which sort of makes me cringe when I read some of these posts. This by no means makes me an expert, but there's so many misconceptions on here, I feel compelled to post whenever I have some downtime.

LOL @ CATO and the Koch Brothers.

 

[Oldstyle]

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 suggest you read some Rothbard and Nozick. I just gave you a summation of the drivel these people spoon feed their cult members.

Let me as you this: If libertarians are correct in their belief that they somehow know best how to organize a society, why isn't there a single country in the world in the 21st century organized along libertarian, anarcho-capitalist lines?

"Anarcho-capitalist"? Seriously? You continue to amuse, Kimura. The main premise behind libertarianism is the preservation of individual rights. You make THAT out to be anarchy...which is totally absurd. That isn't something that you organize a country around...it's simply a philosophy.

Now did you want to take a stab at explaining why feudalism and libertarianism are similar...or did you want to admit that you spouted a lot of nonsense?

 

[Oldstyle]

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).

I'm just here to debate. I really don't understand the need for personal attacks unless they're warranted.

Ironically, I actually have a background in Economics, which sort of makes me cringe when I read some of these posts. This by no means makes me an expert, but there's so many misconceptions on here, I feel compelled to post whenever I have some downtime.

LOL @ CATO and the Koch Brothers.

So let me ask you a simple question, Kimura (because to be quite honest with you...I'm growing tired of dealing with a certain idiot)...with your background in Economics would you or would you not know what someone was talking about when they asked you what school of economics you were basing an economic argument on?

And if someone told you that they taught economics at the college level yet didn't know what you meant by that question...what would be your reaction?

 

[Kimura]

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 suggest you read some Rothbard and Nozick. I just gave you a summation of the drivel these people spoon feed their cult members.

Let me as you this: If libertarians are correct in their belief that they somehow know best how to organize a society, why isn't there a single country in the world in the 21st century organized along libertarian, anarcho-capitalist lines?

"Anarcho-capitalist"? Seriously? You continue to amuse, Kimura. The main premise behind libertarianism is the preservation of individual rights. You make THAT out to be anarchy...which is totally absurd. That isn't something that you organize a country around...it's simply a philosophy.

Now did you want to take a stab at explaining why feudalism and libertarianism are similar...or did you want to admit that you spouted a lot of nonsense?

Yes, anarcho-capitalism:

Here's a Wiki overview

I'm talking about libertarianism along Rothbard/Nozick lines.

They want to dismantle the state, thus commoditizing individual rights based along the same lines they view private property. So yeah, it's feudalism at the end of the day because your rights become based on contractual obligations and are ostensibly owed to various people. There aren't any political institutions in the mix whatsoever.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How screwed up left wing reasoning works:

Socialism destroys the economy,
The people elect politicians to fix the problem,
They try Austerity to fix it,
The economy doesn't get better,
Lefties blame austerity.

You can't cut
High paid tech jobs, Infrastructure jobs and education jobs and have a economy get better. These three area's are the back bone of the economy.

The government won't fire the people that need to be fired, but will fire the above without thought as the government won't fire members of the idiocy. Giving billions to bailing out failure also really hurts.

 

[Kimura]

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).

I'm just here to debate. I really don't understand the need for personal attacks unless they're warranted.

Ironically, I actually have a background in Economics, which sort of makes me cringe when I read some of these posts. This by no means makes me an expert, but there's so many misconceptions on here, I feel compelled to post whenever I have some downtime.

LOL @ CATO and the Koch Brothers.

So let me ask you a simple question, Kimura (because to be quite honest with you...I'm growing tired of dealing with a certain idiot)...with your background in Economics would you or would you not know what someone was talking about when they asked you what school of economics you were basing an economic argument on?

And if someone told you that they taught economics at the college level yet didn't know what you meant by that question...what would be your reaction?

I work in finance just to be clear. I'm not an academic, nor do I play one on television.

Yeah, I could tell if someone had a background in economics through casual conversation. Obviously, if someone claimed to teach at the junior college level or college level, and couldn't answer questions regarding basic concepts, I might call bullshit. Sure.

 

[Oldstyle]

I suggest you read some Rothbard and Nozick. I just gave you a summation of the drivel these people spoon feed their cult members.

Let me as you this: If libertarians are correct in their belief that they somehow know best how to organize a society, why isn't there a single country in the world in the 21st century organized along libertarian, anarcho-capitalist lines?

"Anarcho-capitalist"? Seriously? You continue to amuse, Kimura. The main premise behind libertarianism is the preservation of individual rights. You make THAT out to be anarchy...which is totally absurd. That isn't something that you organize a country around...it's simply a philosophy.

Now did you want to take a stab at explaining why feudalism and libertarianism are similar...or did you want to admit that you spouted a lot of nonsense?

Yes, anarcho-capitalism:

Here's a Wiki overview

I'm talking about libertarianism along Rothbard/Nozick lines.

They want to dismantle the state, thus commoditizing individual rights based along the same lines they view private property. So yeah, it's feudalism at the end of the day because your rights become based on contractual obligations and are ostensibly owed to various people. There aren't any political institutions in the mix whatsoever.

Come on, Kimura...you know as well as I do that "Ancarcho-capitalists" as defined by that Wiki piece are the EXTREME of the libertarian movement and that what the majority of libertarians are seeking is a more limited role for government. To maintain that libertarians want to "dismantle" the State simply because they (rightly) view government as becoming more and more intrusive in our everyday lives is a viewpoint that ignores reality.

You still are struggling to make a coherent argument that feudalism equates to libertarianism. Libertarians are all about maintaining personal freedoms and preventing their being usurped by "higher powers".. Feudalism was all about giving up personal freedom in return for safety. Quite frankly, they are almost polar opposites in how they function.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm just here to debate. I really don't understand the need for personal attacks unless they're warranted.

Ironically, I actually have a background in Economics, which sort of makes me cringe when I read some of these posts. This by no means makes me an expert, but there's so many misconceptions on here, I feel compelled to post whenever I have some downtime.

LOL @ CATO and the Koch Brothers.

So let me ask you a simple question, Kimura (because to be quite honest with you...I'm growing tired of dealing with a certain idiot)...with your background in Economics would you or would you not know what someone was talking about when they asked you what school of economics you were basing an economic argument on?

And if someone told you that they taught economics at the college level yet didn't know what you meant by that question...what would be your reaction?

I work in finance just to be clear. I'm not an academic, nor do I play one on television.

Yeah, I could tell if someone had a background in economics through casual conversation. Obviously, if someone claimed to teach at the junior college level or college level, and couldn't answer questions regarding basic concepts, I might call bullshit. Sure.

And if someone who claimed to teach at the college level didn't know what you were talking about when you asked them what school of economics their claim was based on...would you call "bullshit" on that?

 

[Rshermr]

So let me ask you a simple question, Kimura (because to be quite honest with you...I'm growing tired of dealing with a certain idiot)...with your background in Economics would you or would you not know what someone was talking about when they asked you what school of economics you were basing an economic argument on?

And if someone told you that they taught economics at the college level yet didn't know what you meant by that question...what would be your reaction?

I work in finance just to be clear. I'm not an academic, nor do I play one on television.

Yeah, I could tell if someone had a background in economics through casual conversation. Obviously, if someone claimed to teach at the junior college level or college level, and couldn't answer questions regarding basic concepts, I might call bullshit. Sure.

And if someone who claimed to teach at the college level didn't know what you were talking about when you asked them what school of economics their claim was based on...would you call "bullshit" on that?

Four problems your post, me boy:
1. Teaching at a college level implies that I was authorized, and paid, to teach college courses or at least, A college course. I was neither paid not authorized by the school to do so. That was Clair Lillard's job. He determined, on his own, to let me and other students teach parts of the class, according to his class plan, and under his control, 4 days per week. One class, Introduction to economics for non majors. Econ 100. As you know, as you have been told several times.
2. I would indeed have know what you were talking about had you writen "school of Economics". You did not. You said economic school out of context.
3. I have answered this same question from you, me boy, at least 40 times. You have no proof that I lie. You have tried multiple times. You have said that I lied about having a degree in econ, about having an MBA, and you even said I claimed to have been a British Petroleum executive. All are untrue. All were either proven untrue (I showed you the post relative to bp after you maid the claim several times, and exposed that lie on your part), or you had the option to see the proof. You chose not to.
4. You asked that same question, relative to schools of economics, several times. Since I understood it each time before, why would you assume I did not know what a school of economics is???
5. No one cares but you, me boy. You are simply pushing an agenda, and it is wasting good people's time.
I never, ever lie on this post. Doing so would be trivial. And it would totally lack integrity.

Had there been an Economics graduate program at Central Washington in the late 60's, Lillard would have chosen members of that program to teach the partial class. There was not. So, I and a few other undergrads with good performance, IE grades, were chosen by Clair.
I guess suggesting you be honest in what you say is asking too much.

 

[Oldstyle]

"I would indeed have know what you were talking about had you writen "school of Economics". You did not. You said economic school out of context."

My question to you, Tommy...was what economic school you were basing your contentions on. Now how is THAT out of context? The fact that you thought I was talking about an actual college illustrated to me that you know so little about the study of economics as to be laughable.

As for your fairy tale about teaching an economics class? You can always tell when someone's story starts to come apart because their explanation always turns out to be something that can't be verified. I point out that undergrads don't teach college courses to other undergrads and you scramble to come up with a plausible explanation...which is that you didn't really teach the class.

What I find most amusing is that you now claim that exceptional students were chosen by Professor Lillard to teach his class for him and that YOU were one of those exceptional students. Funny how such a bright bulb back then doesn't know basic Keynesian economics now nor what schools of economics is in reference to.

You're an internet poseur, Rshermr...the kind of person who's so insecure about themselves that they have to embellish their "resume".

 

[Rshermr]

This will be the last time I will address this issue, me boy. You know that I never lie. And I know that it irritates you that I do not.

My question to you, Tommy...was what economic school you were basing your contentions on. Now how is THAT out of context? The fact that you thought I was talking about an actual college illustrated to me that you know so little about the study of economics as to be laughable.

Well, at least your story has changed part way. You admit you said economic school. Which is correct. You did not say school of economics, as you said above. But, you are still not telling the truth. You asked what economics school teaches raising taxes in bad unemployment times. Now, we all know that schools of economic thought do not teach. Economic schools, however, such as U of Chicago, do teach. Or at least their instructors do.
If you are asking a question about an economic theory, or an economic school of thought, you need to say so. It clears up your question.
If you google economic school, about 80% of the hits are of physical economic schools. From Russia, to U of Chicago. The others are economic school of thought. You need to be at least a bit clear.

As for your fairy tale about teaching an economics class? You can always tell when someone's story starts to come apart because their explanation always turns out to be something that can't be verified. I point out that undergrads don't teach college courses to other undergrads and you scramble to come up with a plausible explanation...which is that you didn't really teach the class.

First, the class was made up of over 100 students every quarter. I taught between 25 and 45. If that means "teaching the class", believe what you want. Second, as I said, the class was that of Clair Lillard. His class plan. His tests, His control. You know, me boy, what you are trying to say when you say that I claimed to have taught the class.

What I find most amusing is that you now claim that exceptional students were chosen by Professor Lillard to teach his class for him and that YOU were one of those exceptional students. Funny how such a bright bulb back then doesn't know basic Keynesian economics now nor what schools of economics is in reference to.

I never said, me boy, that I was an exceptional student. But I did have good grades. As did the others teaching other parts of Lillard's class. And, I do know Keynesian economics. Which version would you like to discuss. What I disagreed with was your contention that any pres must have a SINGLE economic theory that he follows. And that if he varies from any specific economic theory, then that is an inconsistent thing and made no rational sense to you.

You're an internet poseur, Rshermr...the kind of person who's so insecure about themselves that they have to embellish their "resume".

Sorry, me boy. I do not pose. I do not lie. And at my age, believe me, I need not embellish my resue. Just another personal attack by you, me boy. Your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

 

[Kimura]

"Anarcho-capitalist"? Seriously? You continue to amuse, Kimura. The main premise behind libertarianism is the preservation of individual rights. You make THAT out to be anarchy...which is totally absurd. That isn't something that you organize a country around...it's simply a philosophy.

Now did you want to take a stab at explaining why feudalism and libertarianism are similar...or did you want to admit that you spouted a lot of nonsense?

Yes, anarcho-capitalism:

Here's a Wiki overview

I'm talking about libertarianism along Rothbard/Nozick lines.

They want to dismantle the state, thus commoditizing individual rights based along the same lines they view private property. So yeah, it's feudalism at the end of the day because your rights become based on contractual obligations and are ostensibly owed to various people. There aren't any political institutions in the mix whatsoever.

Come on, Kimura...you know as well as I do that "Ancarcho-capitalists" as defined by that Wiki piece are the EXTREME of the libertarian movement and that what the majority of libertarians are seeking is a more limited role for government. To maintain that libertarians want to "dismantle" the State simply because they (rightly) view government as becoming more and more intrusive in our everyday lives is a viewpoint that ignores reality.

You still are struggling to make a coherent argument that feudalism equates to libertarianism. Libertarians are all about maintaining personal freedoms and preventing their being usurped by "higher powers".. Feudalism was all about giving up personal freedom in return for safety. Quite frankly, they are almost polar opposites in how they function.

I'm not taking it to it the extreme in the least. This is what they say in the literature. In point of fact, they are quite empathic about it. We're not talking about legalizing pussy or pot. With these guys, you know what I'm talking about, it's about dismantling the nation-state. This simply cannot work, bro. Yes, I was taking their goals to the ultimate philosophical end so to speak. Obviously, ultimately, I was trying to make a point if that makes sense.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, anarcho-capitalism:

Here's a Wiki overview

I'm talking about libertarianism along Rothbard/Nozick lines.

They want to dismantle the state, thus commoditizing individual rights based along the same lines they view private property. So yeah, it's feudalism at the end of the day because your rights become based on contractual obligations and are ostensibly owed to various people. There aren't any political institutions in the mix whatsoever.

Come on, Kimura...you know as well as I do that "Ancarcho-capitalists" as defined by that Wiki piece are the EXTREME of the libertarian movement and that what the majority of libertarians are seeking is a more limited role for government. To maintain that libertarians want to "dismantle" the State simply because they (rightly) view government as becoming more and more intrusive in our everyday lives is a viewpoint that ignores reality.

You still are struggling to make a coherent argument that feudalism equates to libertarianism. Libertarians are all about maintaining personal freedoms and preventing their being usurped by "higher powers".. Feudalism was all about giving up personal freedom in return for safety. Quite frankly, they are almost polar opposites in how they function.

I'm not taking it to it the extreme in the least. This is what they say in the literature. In point of fact, they are quite empathic about it. We're not talking about legalizing pussy or pot. With these guys, you know what I'm talking about, it's about dismantling the nation-state. This simply cannot work, bro. Yes, I was taking their goals to the ultimate philosophical end so to speak. Obviously, ultimately, I was trying to make a point if that makes sense.

In addition, it is my humble but correct opinion that the folks pushing libertarianism do so not so much with the hope of getting to that goal {though they would be ecstatic iif they could, as they intend to run the country if they could actually get there). I think it is the journey that is their more possible goal. Because on this journey, they can make lots of money. Lowering taxes, killing unions and lowering workers wages, and so on. All of the things that help them line their pockets.
Just kidding about the humble but correct thing. Hell, you have to have a little fun.
If a person is at all rational, they know that the fact that no Libertarian economy has ever worked pretty much tells them that libertarianism is not going to happen.
So, they push Ayn Rand books and movies, get the irrational all fired up, all so that they can vote in far right nut cases. Not a great long term plan for them. But it makes some headway for their intent to see the income and wealth continue to increase for the wealthy segment.
Hell, 50 years ago, I was briefly enamored with Objective. But then I hit puberty, and rationality won out. But I did come to the conclusion that Libertarians were simlpy republicans that wanted to smoke pot and get laid. So, it had some good points. But then, most libertarians do drop the theory by the time they hit puberty.

 

[Kimura]

Come on, Kimura...you know as well as I do that "Ancarcho-capitalists" as defined by that Wiki piece are the EXTREME of the libertarian movement and that what the majority of libertarians are seeking is a more limited role for government. To maintain that libertarians want to "dismantle" the State simply because they (rightly) view government as becoming more and more intrusive in our everyday lives is a viewpoint that ignores reality.

You still are struggling to make a coherent argument that feudalism equates to libertarianism. Libertarians are all about maintaining personal freedoms and preventing their being usurped by "higher powers".. Feudalism was all about giving up personal freedom in return for safety. Quite frankly, they are almost polar opposites in how they function.

I'm not taking it to it the extreme in the least. This is what they say in the literature. In point of fact, they are quite empathic about it. We're not talking about legalizing pussy or pot. With these guys, you know what I'm talking about, it's about dismantling the nation-state. This simply cannot work, bro. Yes, I was taking their goals to the ultimate philosophical end so to speak. Obviously, ultimately, I was trying to make a point if that makes sense.

In addition, it is my humble but correct opinion that the folks pushing libertarianism do so not so much with the hope of getting to that goal {though they would be ecstatic iif they could, as they intend to run the country if they could actually get there). I think it is the journey that is their more possible goal. Because on this journey, they can make lots of money. Lowering taxes, killing unions and lowering workers wages, and so on. All of the things that help them line their pockets.
Just kidding about the humble but correct thing. Hell, you have to have a little fun.
If a person is at all rational, they know that the fact that no Libertarian economy has ever worked pretty much tells them that libertarianism is not going to happen.
So, they push Ayn Rand books and movies, get the irrational all fired up, all so that they can vote in far right nut cases. Not a great long term plan for them. But it makes some headway for their intent to see the income and wealth continue to increase for the wealthy segment.
Hell, 50 years ago, I was briefly enamored with Objective. But then I hit puberty, and rationality won out. But I did come to the conclusion that Libertarians were simlpy republicans that wanted to smoke pot and get laid. So, it had some good points. But then, most libertarians do drop the theory by the time they hit puberty.

Right. Here's what disturbs me: thanks to retards like Rand and Ron Paul this shit gets peddled on campuses all over the US. You really aren't doing these kids any favors in point of fact. You're creating a nation of parrots so to speak. I run into these kids all the time since we hire interns and shit. Dude, it's so bad, the brainwashing, these kids don't even understand monetary operations. I'm a bond trader. Once I explain to them how reality works, I simultaneously kill their dreams and enlighten them. Basic shit. For example, I have interns that don't understand that the FED sets interest rates all along the term structure. The don't understand we have a central bank that literally determines interest rates. It like a fucking epiphany for these people.