How is austerity doing in Europe

[Ha3mme8tt]

Here is an article out of the UK that is very representative of what is being said:

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Dude, you know as well as I do that most libertarians do not want to "dismantle" the nation-state. That's such an exaggeration of most libertarian's real goals that it's not even funny but as usual...every time someone suggests that the government should be smaller and less intrusive in our lives...progressives immediately react by saying that it's a call to get rid of every social program out there. That is NOT what the average libertarian is looking to accomplish. They simply want some sanity returned to the country.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

So it's fine with you when liberals "peddle" nonsense like profits are bad and corporations are evil...but it disturbs you that college students are exposed to just a DOLLOP of another viewpoint? Really? I would be willing to bet that the average libertarian "parrot" coming out of college is actually so much more savvy about how our economy works than their progressive counterparts it's not even funny. Did you listen to what the Occupy Wall Street people were demanding? THOSE are the people that are clueless about how an economy works.

 

[Rshermr]

From Oldstyle:

So it's fine with you when liberals "peddle" nonsense like profits are bad and corporations are evil..

That would be straight out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. Perhaps you can show me where liberals are saying that corporations are evil, or profits are bad. I would be classified by you as a liberal. I think profits are good and necessary. And I think corporations are necessary.

.but it disturbs you that college students are exposed to just a DOLLOP of another viewpoint?

Most do not think that hundreds of web sites, thousands of paid writers, and hundreds of million spent on pushing those viewpoints is a dollop.

Really? I would be willing to bet that the average libertarian "parrot" coming out of college is actually so much more savvy about how our economy works than their progressive counterparts it's not even funny. Did you listen to what the Occupy Wall Street people were demanding? THOSE are the people that are clueless about how an economy works.

All opinion. No proof. Just lines up perfectly with the dogma coming from the bat shit crazy con web sites. Must be a coincidence.

 

[Rshermr]

Here is something;

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

Yes. It was an interesting example of what those studying economic conditions think, and of what they suggest is needed.

This quote, from the article that you link, is typical of what those who are paid to suggest what is needed are saying:
“The employment situation continues to deteriorate in many countries, making it all the more urgent to implement the labour and product market reforms that can stimulate growth and create jobs,” Mr Padoan said.

You do not stimulate growth and create jobs with austerity. You simply do the opposite.

Thanks for the link.

 

[itfitzme]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

To abstract and generalized.

What ibertarian economies?

 

[itfitzme]

Here is something;

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

Yes. *It was an interesting example of what those studying economic conditions think, and of what they suggest is needed. *

This quote, from the article that you link, is typical of what those who are paid to suggest what is needed are saying:
“The employment situation continues to deteriorate in many countries, making it all the more urgent to implement the labour and product market reforms that can stimulate growth and create jobs,” Mr Padoan said.

You do not stimulate growth and create jobs with austerity. *You simply do the opposite.

Thanks for the link.

Oh, don't thank me. *Thank PC for bringing up the topic. I learn new things everytime using her post as the null hypothesis. Failure to prove with an alpha of .05 is good enough for me.

 

[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.

Dude, you know as well as I do that most libertarians do not want to "dismantle" the nation-state. That's such an exaggeration of most libertarian's real goals that it's not even funny but as usual...every time someone suggests that the government should be smaller and less intrusive in our lives...progressives immediately react by saying that it's a call to get rid of every social program out there. That is NOT what the average libertarian is looking to accomplish. They simply want some sanity returned to the country.

I consider libertarianism - or the contemporary strains of libertarianism - the descendants of Rothbard and Nozick. You should go on over to Mises.org and Lewrockwell for shits and giggles. There's whole groups of these people writing ahistorical nonsense. And yeah, they really want to dismantle the nation-state.

I haven't even mentioned social programs or what size the government should be (whatever the means).

 

[Kimura]

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.

So it's fine with you when liberals "peddle" nonsense like profits are bad and corporations are evil...but it disturbs you that college students are exposed to just a DOLLOP of another viewpoint? Really? I would be willing to bet that the average libertarian "parrot" coming out of college is actually so much more savvy about how our economy works than their progressive counterparts it's not even funny. Did you listen to what the Occupy Wall Street people were demanding? THOSE are the people that are clueless about how an economy works.

Yeah, it's annoying. Obviously, all corporations aren't evil, nor are profits. However, with that being said, there's been massive, massive control fraud on Wall Street over the last twenty years or so. You could make a case that CEOs of the five or six large investment banks should be charged under RICO. A good portion of the demands of OWS were foolish, but they raise some valid points, such as the culture of criminality that permeates Wall Street. I see it everyday, day in and day out.

Trust me, libertarian parrots don't even understand monetary operations, let alone anything resembling basic macroeconomics. There's more to economics than the parable of the broken window.

 

[Kimura]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

How is money being siphoned away from the economy? The government is simply a sector of the economy, just like the foreign sector or domestic private sector.

Oh, and another thing, these cuts you talk about are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. From a fiscal point of view, a spending cut is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. They both remove income from economy, but they affect different income groups.

 

[Rshermr]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

How is money being siphoned away from the economy? The government is simply a sector of the economy, just like the foreign sector or domestic private sector.

Oh, and another thing, these cuts you talk about are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. From a fiscal point of view, a spending cut is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. They both remove income from economy, but they affect different income groups.

Where does the government get it's capital from, Kimura? They are either creating it by printing money...which devalues the money that is out in the Private Sector...or they are seizing it from the Private Sector in the form of taxes. Too much of either is bad for an economy.

As for your second comment? A spending cut is indeed the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. But when the government is bloated and inefficient...which I think any reasonable person would admit our is...spending cuts combined with tax cuts have been shown historically to stimulate economic growth. Why would anyone argue against spending cuts when our public sector spending is so incredibly wasteful...and why in the world would anyone argue for increased spending coupled with tax increases in a slow economy as the Obama Administration repeatedly has done?

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

 

[Kimura]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

How is money being siphoned away from the economy? The government is simply a sector of the economy, just like the foreign sector or domestic private sector.

Oh, and another thing, these cuts you talk about are the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. From a fiscal point of view, a spending cut is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. They both remove income from economy, but they affect different income groups.

Where does the government get it's capital from, Kimura? They are either creating it by printing money...which devalues the money that is out in the Private Sector...or they are seizing it from the Private Sector in the form of taxes. Too much of either is bad for an economy.

As for your second comment? A spending cut is indeed the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase. But when the government is bloated and inefficient...which I think any reasonable person would admit our is...spending cuts combined with tax cuts have been shown historically to stimulate economic growth. Why would anyone argue against spending cuts when our public sector spending is so incredibly wasteful...and why in the world would anyone argue for increased spending coupled with tax increases in a slow economy as the Obama Administration repeatedly has done?

All money creation is "printing money" under our fiat system. In point of fact, money creation is ex-nihilo under our system. The government basically spends by crediting private bank accounts. We're no longer on a fixed exchange rate as of 1971.

Secondly, money creation isn't inflationary. As long as there is a tandem increase in the supply of real goods and services, there will not be any inflation. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then I'd be worried about inflation. Given all this excess capacity and our output gap, that should be the last thing on our minds.

The government doesn't need our tax dollars to fund expenditures. Under our fiat system, spending precedes taxation or any "borrowing" that occurs. Any tax payments occur with money that is already spent so to speak. All our taxes do is regulate aggregate demand and drive money.

No, spending cuts don't stimulate growth, since a deficit reduction removes income from the economy. Deficit spending adds net financial assets to the economy. If you cut the government sector, then the domestic private sector will go into deficit, it's basic double-entry bookkeeping. One sector's deficit is another sector's surplus. Deficits can indeed be too big or too small, depending on various factors. The goal of the federal government should be run deficits that are sufficiently maintained to utilize all our productive capacity.

So we have a 16 trillion dollar debt? So what? All that debt represents is the total savings of the US economy. It's private wealth and all interest income is effectively private interest payments. All it really means is that the US government spent 16 trillion more than it collected in taxes. US Treasuries are nothing more than glorified savings' accounts where the private sector can park its wealth for some interest.

Obama bailed out Wall Street, and Congress made a decision to sacrifice Main Street for Wall Street. We should be spending money on infrastructure, R&D, nuclear power, transportation, health care, education, etc.

 

[Rshermr]

And the Class Idiot's repeated assertions that no "libertarian economy" has ever succeeded is pure hogwash. Smaller government means that less money is being siphoned away from the economy and more money is being invested IN the parts of the economy that actually creates jobs...not "faux" jobs created with government money that cost obscene amounts of money but REAL jobs, created in the private sector with private sector capital. Libertarian economies succeed all the time. You don't want to admit that a lean, well run government sector that doesn't burden it's citizens with well intentioned but badly conceived legislation creates economic booms.

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

Now, lets see. You said " Libertarian economies succeed all the time."
So, I was SO excited. Finally, a list of successful Libertarian economies. But, instead, just a statement that it was the United States. Now, problem with that is, the US was never libertarian, except in the minds of a few who spend their time in the bat shit crazy con web sites. But had it been, it simply proved my point. Because it went from more Laissez Fare to less so, over time. It never existed as a libertarian state. Ever. So you have failed again to support a hypotheses. By the way the sentence stated libertarian economies succeed ALL THE TIME which generally suggests that there are a lot of them. So, you misspoke. We are all waiting with baited breath for your admission of having misspoke.
What I said, by the way, is that libertarian economies start and fail. And that none become successful ongoing economies. Libertarian economies fail, and either turn into economic cesspools, or become more and more regulated. Always. Some have gone back to more libertarian forms, and failed.
Which is why, me boy, you have failed to support your hypotheses. You see, people do not like the result. Ever.

 

[Kimura]

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

Now, lets see. You said " Libertarian economies succeed all the time."
So, I was SO excited. Finally, a list of successful Libertarian economies. But, instead, just a statement that it was the United States. Now, problem with that is, the US was never libertarian, except in the minds of a few who spend their time in the bat shit crazy con web sites. But had it been, it simply proved my point. Because it went from more Laissez Fare to less so, over time. It never existed as a libertarian state. Ever. So you have failed again to support a hypotheses. By the way the sentence stated libertarian economies succeed ALL THE TIME which generally suggests that there are a lot of them. So, you misspoke. We are all waiting with baited breath for your admission of having misspoke.
What I said, by the way, is that libertarian economies start and fail. And that none become successful ongoing economies. Libertarian economies fail, and either turn into economic cesspools, or become more and more regulated. Always. Some have gone back to more libertarian forms, and failed.
Which is why, me boy, you have failed to support your hypotheses. You see, people do not like the result. Ever.

The US became an economic powerhouse through mercantilism. It has never been a libertarian paradise during any point in its history. Quite the contrary....

 

[Rshermr]

Now that is a surprise. Oldstyle starts out with a personal attack.
Great, Oldstyle This will be new information to a whole lot of libertarians who have been looking for a successful Libertarian economy. My bet, after having gone on your little con tool tirade is that you can not name and justify the assertion that there are successful libertarian economies. Put up, or .....

You say libertarian economies succeed all the time, but have neglected to name even one. There is, of course, a difference between never and all the time, Oldstyle.
But then, since libertarian millionaires and billionaires themselves (Unlike you, Oldstyle) can not find a successful libertarian economy, a number have decided to make their own. That is REAL desperation. Must be because they did not like the successful libertarian economies of your fantasies, Oldstyle. But then Libertarian islands ARE funny.

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

Now, lets see. You said " Libertarian economies succeed all the time."
So, I was SO excited. Finally, a list of successful Libertarian economies. But, instead, just a statement that it was the United States. Now, problem with that is, the US was never libertarian, except in the minds of a few who spend their time in the bat shit crazy con web sites. But had it been, it simply proved my point. Because it went from more Laissez Fare to less so, over time. It never existed as a libertarian state. Ever. So you have failed again to support a hypotheses. By the way the sentence stated libertarian economies succeed ALL THE TIME which generally suggests that there are a lot of them. So, you misspoke. We are all waiting with baited breath for your admission of having misspoke.
What I said, by the way, is that libertarian economies start and fail. And that none become successful ongoing economies. Libertarian economies fail, and either turn into economic cesspools, or become more and more regulated. Always. Some have gone back to more libertarian forms, and failed.
Which is why, me boy, you have failed to support your hypotheses. You see, people do not like the result. Ever.

So here is a good history of corporations in this country through the late 1800's.
"The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power. They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn't buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control."
The Uncooling of America The History of Corporations in the United States

So, that whole libertarian thing is bs. People in this country were not simply worried about big government, but also about big businesses. For obvious reasons.

 

[Rshermr]

The greatest example of a libertarian economy is the United States of America. You can't see the forest for the BIG HUGE TREES! The reason this country boomed was because it was founded on libertarian principles. People flocked to this country because of those principles...something that you progressives can't seem to grasp as you work diligently to toss them into the waste bin of history.

Now, lets see. You said " Libertarian economies succeed all the time."
So, I was SO excited. Finally, a list of successful Libertarian economies. But, instead, just a statement that it was the United States. Now, problem with that is, the US was never libertarian, except in the minds of a few who spend their time in the bat shit crazy con web sites. But had it been, it simply proved my point. Because it went from more Laissez Fare to less so, over time. It never existed as a libertarian state. Ever. So you have failed again to support a hypotheses. By the way the sentence stated libertarian economies succeed ALL THE TIME which generally suggests that there are a lot of them. So, you misspoke. We are all waiting with baited breath for your admission of having misspoke.
What I said, by the way, is that libertarian economies start and fail. And that none become successful ongoing economies. Libertarian economies fail, and either turn into economic cesspools, or become more and more regulated. Always. Some have gone back to more libertarian forms, and failed.
Which is why, me boy, you have failed to support your hypotheses. You see, people do not like the result. Ever.

The US became an economic powerhouse through mercantilism. It has never been a libertarian paradise during any point in its history. Quite the contrary....

Right. Commercialism. Which develops after feudalism. Only way it has ever happened.

 

[Oldstyle]

"The government doesn't need our tax dollars to fund expenditures. Under our fiat system, spending precedes taxation or any "borrowing" that occurs. Any tax payments occur with money that is already spent so to speak. All our taxes do is regulate aggregate demand and drive money.

No, spending cuts don't stimulate growth, since a deficit reduction removes income from the economy. Deficit spending adds net financial assets to the economy. If you cut the government sector, then the domestic private sector will go into deficit, it's basic double-entry bookkeeping. One sector's deficit is another sector's surplus. Deficits can indeed be too big or too small, depending on various factors. The goal of the federal government should be run deficits that are sufficiently maintained to utilize all our productive capacity."

Are you kidding? The government doesn't "need" taxes to fund expenditures? Did you really just say that with a straight face? Yes, the government can print money to fund expenditures under a fiat system but they do so with the understanding that taxes will be coming in to fund those expenditures. When they do what we've been doing for the past five years...printing cash at an unprecedented rate at some point the value of the dollar is effected. Your notion that a 16 trillion dollar debt has no effect on the economy is only valid if our ability to repay that debt remains strong. The Fed has just announced that it will be cutting back it's quantitative easing and I fully expect the stock market to react to that with a sharp decline. Under your voodoo economics I assume you think they should simply continue printing more money and continue adding to the debt?