Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.
A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.
No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.
Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.
Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.
Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.
The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.
What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.
It was developed well before the war.
No it wasn't.
It is the basis of laissez faire economics.
ROFL! It most certainly isn't. It's the basis of government intervention.
laissez faire economics was not practiced when you think it was. Governments of the past practiced various forms of mercantilism.
It was practiced in the United States. I never claimed every government followed it.
Economic growth rates vary over time for a lot of reasons, for example industrialization increases productivity a lot. Your entire argument is hopelessly simplistic even if you had your facts straight, which you don't.
Industrialization is a measure of how close a country comes to practicing laissez faire economics. The two countries that adopted it first were the first to industrialize.
The government has helped economies grow significantly by investing in infrastructure and education. Both have been a huge factor in economic progress.
You keep saying that but so far you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support it.
Economies depend on a lot of things but if you looked around the world you would notice that countries do a lot of different things to help their economies grow and the involvement of government can vary greatly even across productive economies. Some economies can do really well without too much government involvement if they are positioned well. Hong Kong for example. Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.
Countries that limit government meddling the most have the fastest growing economies. The only thing "well positioned" about Hong Kong is the fact that the government doesn't meddle in its economy. Norway is the Scandinavian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It's sitting over an ocean of oil. It also has some fairly free market policies. Otherwise there would be nothing remarkable about it's economic growth. It would be no better off than any other European welfare state.
The bottom line is that government meddling retards economic growth. Our current anemic growth rate should be sufficient proof of that.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.
No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.
Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.
Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.
Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.
The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.
What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.
It was developed well before the war.
No it wasn't.
It is the basis of laissez faire economics.
ROFL! It most certainly isn't. It's the basis of government intervention.
laissez faire economics was not practiced when you think it was. Governments of the past practiced various forms of mercantilism.
It was practiced in the United States. I never claimed every government followed it.
Economic growth rates vary over time for a lot of reasons, for example industrialization increases productivity a lot. Your entire argument is hopelessly simplistic even if you had your facts straight, which you don't.
Industrialization is a measure of how close a country comes to practicing laissez faire economics. The two countries that adopted it first were the first to industrialize.
The government has helped economies grow significantly by investing in infrastructure and education. Both have been a huge factor in economic progress.
You keep saying that but so far you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support it.
Economies depend on a lot of things but if you looked around the world you would notice that countries do a lot of different things to help their economies grow and the involvement of government can vary greatly even across productive economies. Some economies can do really well without too much government involvement if they are positioned well. Hong Kong for example. Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.
Countries that limit government meddling the most have the fastest growing economies. The only thing "well positioned" about Hong Kong is the fact that the government doesn't meddle in its economy. Norway is the Scandinavian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It's sitting over an ocean of oil. It also has some fairly free market policies. Otherwise there would be nothing remarkable about it's economic growth. It would be no better off than any other European welfare state.
The bottom line is that government meddling retards economic growth. Our current anemic growth rate should be sufficient proof of that.
All your facts are wrong.
You have even complained about how the north manipulated the economy when complaining about the civil war and now you think they practiced laissez faire economics.
You even seem to think Imperialist Industrializing Britain practiced laissez faire economics.
I couldn't make up anything crazier.
translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ for a substantive responseWhile I couldn't come up with anything crazier Edward here certainly seems more than capable of constantly one upping the level of crazy.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.
No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.
Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.
Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.
Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.
The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.
What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.
It was developed well before the war.
No it wasn't.
It is the basis of laissez faire economics.
ROFL! It most certainly isn't. It's the basis of government intervention.
laissez faire economics was not practiced when you think it was. Governments of the past practiced various forms of mercantilism.
It was practiced in the United States. I never claimed every government followed it.
Economic growth rates vary over time for a lot of reasons, for example industrialization increases productivity a lot. Your entire argument is hopelessly simplistic even if you had your facts straight, which you don't.
Industrialization is a measure of how close a country comes to practicing laissez faire economics. The two countries that adopted it first were the first to industrialize.
The government has helped economies grow significantly by investing in infrastructure and education. Both have been a huge factor in economic progress.
You keep saying that but so far you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support it.
Economies depend on a lot of things but if you looked around the world you would notice that countries do a lot of different things to help their economies grow and the involvement of government can vary greatly even across productive economies. Some economies can do really well without too much government involvement if they are positioned well. Hong Kong for example. Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.
Countries that limit government meddling the most have the fastest growing economies. The only thing "well positioned" about Hong Kong is the fact that the government doesn't meddle in its economy. Norway is the Scandinavian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It's sitting over an ocean of oil. It also has some fairly free market policies. Otherwise there would be nothing remarkable about it's economic growth. It would be no better off than any other European welfare state.
The bottom line is that government meddling retards economic growth. Our current anemic growth rate should be sufficient proof of that.
All your facts are wrong.
You have even complained about how the north manipulated the economy when complaining about the civil war and now you think they practiced laissez faire economics.
You even seem to think Imperialist Industrializing Britain practiced laissez faire economics.
I couldn't make up anything crazier.
translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ for a substantive responseWhile I couldn't come up with anything crazier Edward here certainly seems more than capable of constantly one upping the level of crazy.
every see a conservative or libertarian without the IQ to respond? What does that teach you dear?
If that was all the framers wanted why did the framers include so many other economic powers as the power to create money, create patents, to tax, to borrow, create a bank, bankruptcy laws and on and on?The Constitution was written so the government might get involved in the economy, and as soon as the ink dried on that document the government started passing laws regarding the nation's economics.
Wrong. that is absolutely not why the Constitution was written. The states wanted a national government to do only those things they couldn't do themselves, like provide a national defense and prevent states from imposing tariffs on each other. That's all they wanted.
If that was all the framers wanted why did the framers include so many other economic powers as the power to create money, create patents, to tax, to borrow, create a bank, bankruptcy laws and on and on?The Constitution was written so the government might get involved in the economy, and as soon as the ink dried on that document the government started passing laws regarding the nation's economics.
Wrong. that is absolutely not why the Constitution was written. The states wanted a national government to do only those things they couldn't do themselves, like provide a national defense and prevent states from imposing tariffs on each other. That's all they wanted.
If that was all the framers wanted why did the framers include so many other economic powers as the power to create money, create patents, to tax, to borrow, create a bank, bankruptcy laws and on and on?The Constitution was written so the government might get involved in the economy, and as soon as the ink dried on that document the government started passing laws regarding the nation's economics.
Wrong. that is absolutely not why the Constitution was written. The states wanted a national government to do only those things they couldn't do themselves, like provide a national defense and prevent states from imposing tariffs on each other. That's all they wanted.
Every nation has its own skeletons in their closet. How many regulations helped native Americans?Government interference has helped every single modern economy.
yes and the more the better like in the USSR and Red China where 120 million slowly starved to death!!
See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?
Perfect markets are the basis of laissez faire economics.
No they aren't. The theory of "perfect markets" was conceived of by some government subsidized economist after the war. Up until the time of FDR, laissez faire was the dominant paradigm in the economics profession. "Perfect market" theory is propaganda invented by government tools and designed to justify government intervention in the economy.
Laissez faire economics sounds really good until you apply it to reality, just like the problem with perfect markets. People who understand markets know that they can create great results and can also create some fairly predictable problems. One of the major goals of any government should be to help foster healthy markets.
Laissez faire worked spectacularly until Roosevelt abolished it. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds. There were some hiccups caused be government meddling.
Government interference has helped every single modern economy significantly in both their capacity to fix broken markets and to address problems that come from market economics. Every nation has also made mistakes and hurt their own economies and markets.
The key to progress is not blind adherence to an ideology but thoughtful study of the issues and making good decisions.
What is the evidence that government meddling helps? Is the economy growing faster? Nope. Is unemployment lower? Nope. Has government solved any problem that wouldn't have been solved faster if it had not interfered? Nope. the only "broken market" is one where government interferes. If you look around the world and you'll see that all economies that are failing have the heavy hand of government controlling everything.
It was developed well before the war.
No it wasn't.
It is the basis of laissez faire economics.
ROFL! It most certainly isn't. It's the basis of government intervention.
laissez faire economics was not practiced when you think it was. Governments of the past practiced various forms of mercantilism.
It was practiced in the United States. I never claimed every government followed it.
Economic growth rates vary over time for a lot of reasons, for example industrialization increases productivity a lot. Your entire argument is hopelessly simplistic even if you had your facts straight, which you don't.
Industrialization is a measure of how close a country comes to practicing laissez faire economics. The two countries that adopted it first were the first to industrialize.
The government has helped economies grow significantly by investing in infrastructure and education. Both have been a huge factor in economic progress.
You keep saying that but so far you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support it.
Economies depend on a lot of things but if you looked around the world you would notice that countries do a lot of different things to help their economies grow and the involvement of government can vary greatly even across productive economies. Some economies can do really well without too much government involvement if they are positioned well. Hong Kong for example. Some economies can do really well with a lot of government involvement, like Norway.
Countries that limit government meddling the most have the fastest growing economies. The only thing "well positioned" about Hong Kong is the fact that the government doesn't meddle in its economy. Norway is the Scandinavian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It's sitting over an ocean of oil. It also has some fairly free market policies. Otherwise there would be nothing remarkable about it's economic growth. It would be no better off than any other European welfare state.
The bottom line is that government meddling retards economic growth. Our current anemic growth rate should be sufficient proof of that.
All your facts are wrong.
You have even complained about how the north manipulated the economy when complaining about the civil war and now you think they practiced laissez faire economics.
You even seem to think Imperialist Industrializing Britain practiced laissez faire economics.
I couldn't make up anything crazier.
I love the way lefties cite one minor example of government interference before the FDR fascist police state and pretend that's the equivalent of the modern regulator state with 180,000 pages of government regulations on the books and an IRS code that is almost as long.
Was there absolutely zero government interference in 1860? Obviously not, but the amount the government interferes now is 10,000 times greater. The government spent about 3% of GDP in those days. Now it spends 50%. None of the hundreds of government agencies that now exist were even dreamed of in those days.
Failure to acknowledge these irrefutable facts shows that you're dishonest hosebag propagandist. You have to know that what you are saying is wrong, yet you spew it anyway.
If that was all the framers wanted why did the framers include so many other economic powers as the power to create money, create patents, to tax, to borrow, create a bank, bankruptcy laws and on and on?The Constitution was written so the government might get involved in the economy, and as soon as the ink dried on that document the government started passing laws regarding the nation's economics.
Wrong. that is absolutely not why the Constitution was written. The states wanted a national government to do only those things they couldn't do themselves, like provide a national defense and prevent states from imposing tariffs on each other. That's all they wanted.
The Constitution grants the federal government the power to "coin" money. That means it can create coins. It doesn't give it the authority to "create money." If it did, Wilson wouldn't have bothered with the charade of claiming the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.
The only taxing power it gave to the government was the power to levy indirect taxes like tariffs. It didn't include an income tax. It does not grant the federal government the power to create a bank, and it says nothing about bankruptcy. Those powers were reserved to the states. The powers it granted were extremely limited - nothing like the vast regulatory apparatus we know today. Such a thing would have been considered a nightmare in those days.
It's not an either or thing... the problem is that our government refuses to do it's market regulating tasks, such as breaking up monopolies and protecting American assets and jobs, and instead changed itself into an income redistribution center, offshoring center, job wage killing center, and defender of monopolies which is not supposed to be it's job. There is good regulation and bad regulation. Liberty can't work without good regulation. Nothing can work with bad regulation.Common sense says liberty since liberty works through millions of shoppers each day while govt works through a handful of distant bureaucrats each day.
Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.
A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
No it doesn't.Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.
A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
All market theory starts with perfect competition and then builds off of that to demonstrate how a market can be impacted by different things.No it doesn't.Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.
A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.
A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.No it doesn't.Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.When looking at market economics there are a lot of ways things can go wrong where a perfect market is not created and there can be all sorts of outcomes that can come from market economics that are not preferable. There is also the reality of the government having certain roles in modern economies, which includes relationships between the states and between nations.
A strong respect and understanding of market economics is critical to understanding the issues our nation faces today. Ideological devotion to laissez faire economics tends to blind people more than it helps them as does a blind devotion to fairness.
The idea of "perfect markets" was created by statist interventionist "economists" to justify government intervention. It's propaganda, not science. I put the term "economists" in quotes because these clowns aren't really economists. They're quacks.
If there is one thing clowns like you don't understand, it's markets. People who do understand markets endorse laissez faire. Government interference never solves any problem. It only makes the worse.
Common sense says liberty since liberty works through millions of shoppers each day while govt works through a handful of distant bureaucrats each day.
