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.
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.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."No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?
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?
Good point I'll just put him on ignore.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."No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.No it doesn't.
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.
Should we enjoin our elected representatives from asking others to work harder than they themselves.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.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."No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.
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?
Even if that were possible under socialism, what makes you think politicians would ever be wiling to do an honest day's work? The reason people go into government is so they don't have to work hard. Furthermore, government provides no incentives for working hard.
Should we enjoin our elected representatives from asking others to work harder than they themselves.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.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?
Even if that were possible under socialism, what makes you think politicians would ever be wiling to do an honest day's work? The reason people go into government is so they don't have to work hard. Furthermore, government provides no incentives for working hard.
Sure, why not.Should we enjoin our elected representatives from asking others to work harder than they themselves.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.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?
Even if that were possible under socialism, what makes you think politicians would ever be wiling to do an honest day's work? The reason people go into government is so they don't have to work hard. Furthermore, government provides no incentives for working hard.
Yeah, right after we convince them to quit lying.
Are you serious?
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 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.
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.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 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.
lol, Abraham Lincoln was a dictator and modern economics is jackshit.
This is hilarious.
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."No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?Yes, it does; simply Because I say so.
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?
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 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.
lol, Abraham Lincoln was a dictator and modern economics is jackshit.
This is hilarious.
Not even historians who worship Lincoln deny that he was a dictator.
As always you prove you don't know jack shit about anything you pretend to be an expert on.
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."No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.Then you mean your theory of supply and demand. Have you published yet?
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?
Is the economy better regulated by "liberty" or government? It is in the title of the thread and can help you remember what a thread is about.
In this case your ignorance of the history of economics is fairly irrelevant to the fact that you are totally ignorant concerning economics period. You don't know what happened in the past and you have less then no understanding of economics. You are also super convinced you are right and will even ignore it when you contradict yourself from thread to thread.
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.
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.
lol, Abraham Lincoln was a dictator and modern economics is jackshit.
This is hilarious.
Not even historians who worship Lincoln deny that he was a dictator.
As always you prove you don't know jack shit about anything you pretend to be an expert on.
lol, tell us more about how the South started a war because of as you put it, "minor" government involvement with the economy.
You are a clown bub.
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."No, I mean the opposite of your ignorance.
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?
Is the economy better regulated by "liberty" or government? It is in the title of the thread and can help you remember what a thread is about.
In this case your ignorance of the history of economics is fairly irrelevant to the fact that you are totally ignorant concerning economics period. You don't know what happened in the past and you have less then no understanding of economics. You are also super convinced you are right and will even ignore it when you contradict yourself from thread to thread.
The guy who claims all market economics is founded on the theory of "perfect competition" says I am totally ignorant concerning economics?
You're a fucking moron. What's worse, you're arrogant about your ignorance. You' are especially ignorant about anything that occurred before WW II. I've never seen anyone spew so much idiocy in my life.
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.
lol, Abraham Lincoln was a dictator and modern economics is jackshit.
This is hilarious.
Not even historians who worship Lincoln deny that he was a dictator.
As always you prove you don't know jack shit about anything you pretend to be an expert on.
lol, tell us more about how the South started a war because of as you put it, "minor" government involvement with the economy.
You are a clown bub.
You're a fucking moron, What was considered major back then would be considered minor now. That just goes to show how much government has grown since then, Only a complete numskull would call a single tariff "massive government intervention in the economy." Government has thousands of tariffs and quotas on products too numerous to count.
The bottom line is that you're an intellectual jackass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#cite_note-104Hitler followed an autarky economic policy, creating a network of client states and economic allies in central Europe and Latin America. By cutting wages and taking control of labor unions, plus public works spending, unemployment fell significantly by 1935. Large scale military spending played a major role in the recovery.[104]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Germany
Common sense says liberty since liberty works through millions of shoppers each day while govt works through a handful of distant bureaucrats each day.
Well if we let the private corporations regulate,
1) the working class suffers
2) wages go down
3) safety of workers is an afterthought
4) depression here we come
"Is our economy better regulated by liberty or by government?"
This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.
why not explain why; or do two fallacies make sound reasoning for the right."Is our economy better regulated by liberty or by government?"
This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.
Well, you actually got the logical fallacy correct. The problem is, as always, that you are just plain wrong.
