Is our economy better regulated by liberty or by government?

[RKMBrown]

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.

Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

 

[danielpalos]

Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Yes, because otherwise it would be clueless and Causeless; why do you believe it doesn't?

Which lie is that? I have a clue and a Cause, unlike yourself.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Yes, because otherwise it would be clueless and Causeless; why do you believ it doesn't?

Can anyone translate this gibberish to a human language?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Yes, because otherwise it would be clueless and Causeless; why do you believ it doesn't?

Can anyone translate this gibberish to a human language?

No clue and no Cause; just as I always suspected.

 

[Clementine]

City hall is right down the street from the mall.

Bureaucrats are Americans and they are shoppers.

Seriously? You do know that most shoppers, as in non-political ones, don't make laws that favor some over others. Government interference and foolishly spending tax revenue is the problem, not where they personally shop.

 

[regent]

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 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.

The Constitution gives the national government the powers necessary and proper to carry out, the seventeen powers in Article one Section eight, and that was a vast power and very Constitutional.

 

[regent]

If we had some examples of nations that use liberty to regulate economies we might be able to choose more intelligently. So what nations use liberty to regulate their economies?

 

[RKMBrown]

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Yes, because otherwise it would be clueless and Causeless; why do you believ it doesn't?

Can anyone translate this gibberish to a human language?

No clue and no Cause; just as I always suspected.

My cause is liberty. My clue? Hey dumb ass, you're the one with no fucking clue what you are saying. You don't even speak English.

 

[Bombur]

Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Why are you even having this pointless slap fight over this point?

The argument over "perfect markets" doesn't hinge either way on it and it was only introduced as a red herring to distract away from the real argument.

 

[danielpalos]

If we had some examples of nations that use liberty to regulate economies we might be able to choose more intelligently. So what nations use liberty to regulate their economies?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Yes, because otherwise it would be clueless and Causeless; why do you believ it doesn't?

Can anyone translate this gibberish to a human language?

No clue and no Cause; just as I always suspected.

My cause is liberty. My clue? Hey dumb ass, you're the one with no fucking clue what you are saying. You don't even speak English.

It Only seems that way to you because you are clueless and Causeless. Otherwise, you would know about an assumption of perfect competition for that benchmark Standard.

 

[bripat9643]

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 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.

The Constitution gives the national government the powers necessary and proper to carry out, the seventeen powers in Article one Section eight, and that was a vast power and very Constitutional.

If the federal government acted only according to the powers enumerated in that section, the size of the federal government would be about 1/20th of what it is.

 

[SharpArrowhead]

Like all things a balance between the two but leaning more toward liberty and limited government IMO

 

[bripat9643]

If we had some examples of nations that use liberty to regulate economies we might be able to choose more intelligently. So what nations use liberty to regulate their economies?

All capitalist nations do to some extent. The more they use liberty, the faster their economies grow. The correlation is illustrated nicely by the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. The United States had virtually zero regulation until the Woodrow Wilson ascended the thrown, and by that time we were the richest country on Earth. Wilson's experiment with government creation of money and credit regulation turned out to be a disaster, as well all know.

 

[bripat9643]

Like all things a balance between the two but leaning more toward liberty and limited government IMO

What's the proper balance between food and poison?

 

[BluesLegend]

Free competition regulated for fairness by the gov't. tyvm

The hell with that, I want to destroy my competition and grab it all.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard.

No it doesn't.

All market theory starts with perfect competition and then builds off of that to demonstrate how a market can be impacted by different things.

When market theory is applied it isn't applied assuming a perfect market.

That's utter horseshit. What your saying is that all the economics that came before WW II was founded on a bullshit theory conceived by some government toady after WW II. You don't jack shit about economics except for the propaganda that your government subsidized professors rammed into your thick skull. In other words, you don't know jack shit about economics.

The argument about perfect market theory is a red herring and a stupid distraction created by this clueless clown. The weakness of laissez faire economics has always been a blindness to the imperfections of markets and overly optimistic assumptions concerning the outcomes of markets.

ROFL! The free market has always been an obstacle to the trimmers and con artists who infest the federal government, which is why they have done everything possible to disicredit it since Abraham Lincoln became dictator.

You're just another bootlicking toady doing your masters bidding.

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Why are you even having this pointless slap fight over this point?

The argument over "perfect markets" doesn't hinge either way on it and it was only introduced as a red herring to distract away from the real argument.

What's the "real argument," dumbass?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.

Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?

No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.

The opposite of my ignorance, would be what I know. Perhaps you can explain why you think what I know is what you said, that the "theory of supply and demand assumes perfect competition for a benchmark Standard."

What I actually stated, in contrast to your lie, is that your statement is incorrect. Thus, your lie that what I know is what you said, well that would just be a ludicrous lie of yours. Any other ludicrous lies you want to make up?

Why are you even having this pointless slap fight over this point?

The argument over "perfect markets" doesn't hinge either way on it and it was only introduced as a red herring to distract away from the real argument.

What's the "real argument," dumbass?

Socialism would always be better than Capitalism, if our elected representatives were not so averse to the "hard work" it may require to come up with Pareto Optimum solutions in public policies.