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.
[
No, you imbecile....there was no market until Europeans taught the Indians what capitalism was.
[
No, you imbecile....there was no market until Europeans taught the Indians what capitalism was.
Eventually you learn how comprehensive PoliticalChic's ignorance really is:
Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World examines the structure, scale, and complexity of economic systems in the pre-Hispanic Americas, with a focus on the central highlands of Mexico, the Maya Lowlands, and the central Andes.
Civilization in each region was characterized by complex political and religious institutions, highly skilled craft production, and the long-distance movement of finished goods. Scholars have long focused on the differences in economic organization between these civilizations.
Societies in the Mexican highlands are recognized as having a highly commercial economy centered around one of the world’s most complex market systems; those of the Maya region are characterized as having reciprocal exchange networks and periodic marketplaces that supplemented the dominant role of the palace; and those of the central Andes are recognized as having multiple forms of resource distribution, including household-to-household reciprocity, barter, environmental complementarity, and limited market exchange.
Essays in this volume examine various dimensions of these ancient economies, including the presence of marketplaces, the operation of merchants (and other individuals) who exchanged and moved goods across space, the role of artisans who produced goods as part of their livelihood, and the trade and distribution networks through which goods were bought, sold, and exchanged.
Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World — Kenneth G. Hirth, Joanne Pillsbury | Harvard University Press
Read a book once in awhile, airhead.
There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.
Whew! O.K., that's all very nice. Would you care to also reply to the error you made about 'no markets'?There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.
And, to continue your education....so you might actually approach zero knowledge, as opposed to the falsity that you now claim as knowledge....
".... a close relationship existed, both historically and geographically, between the development of private rights in land and the development of the commercial fur trade.
...the role played by property right adjustments in taking account of what economists have often cited as an example of an externality-the overhunting of game.
Before the fur trade became established, hunting was carried on primarily for purposes of food and the relatively few furs that were required for the hunter's family. The externality was clearly present.
Hunting could be practiced freely and was carried on without assessing its impact on other hunters. ...it did not pay for anyone to take them into account. There did not exist anything resembling private ownership in land accounts indicate a socioeconomic organization in which private rights to land are not well developed.
.... the advent of the fur trade had two immediate consequences. First, the value of furs to the Indians was increased considerably. Second, and as a result, the scale of hunting activity rose sharply.
The property right system began to change, and it changed specifically in the direction required to take account of the economic effects made important by the fur trade.
....the higher commercial value of fur-bearing forest animals, made it productive to establish private hunting lands. ...family proprietorship among the Indians of the Peninsula included retaliation against trespass. Animal resources were husbanded. Sometimes conservation practices were carried on extensively. Family hunting territories were divided into quarters. Each year the family hunted in a different quarter in rotation, leaving a tract in the center as a sort of bank, not to be hunted over unless forced to do so by a shortage in the regular tract.
...highly developed private family rights to hunting lands had also developed which went so far as to include inheritance."
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/Demsetz_Property_Rights.pdf
Hopefully, based on this, you will find yourself less embarrassed in intellectual discussions.
Hopefully.
History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.The fatal flaw of liberalism is most, like the OP, are too stupid to understand it.
They were never taught to respect it, to defend it, or why it is the basis of the nation, which they would happily destroy trying to undo what holds it together, liberalism.
I'd certainly have to agree that you have some expertise on 'stupid,' having practiced it for a life time.....
But, let's prove that.
"...why it is the basis of the nation.."
Hardly.
It is the very antithesis (better look that up).
This nation was designed by the Founders to to advance individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Obamunist, Liberalism, Progressivism stands for collectivism, undue regulation, and overarching big government, ignoring the Constitution.
And that's what you vote for. You didn't know that, did you, you fool.
That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.
The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.
Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?
Right....none of them.
Put you in your place, huh?
Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
Try to deny this.
[
No, you imbecile....there was no market until Europeans taught the Indians what capitalism was.
Eventually you learn how comprehensive PoliticalChic's ignorance really is:
Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World examines the structure, scale, and complexity of economic systems in the pre-Hispanic Americas, with a focus on the central highlands of Mexico, the Maya Lowlands, and the central Andes.
Civilization in each region was characterized by complex political and religious institutions, highly skilled craft production, and the long-distance movement of finished goods. Scholars have long focused on the differences in economic organization between these civilizations.
Societies in the Mexican highlands are recognized as having a highly commercial economy centered around one of the world’s most complex market systems; those of the Maya region are characterized as having reciprocal exchange networks and periodic marketplaces that supplemented the dominant role of the palace; and those of the central Andes are recognized as having multiple forms of resource distribution, including household-to-household reciprocity, barter, environmental complementarity, and limited market exchange.
Essays in this volume examine various dimensions of these ancient economies, including the presence of marketplaces, the operation of merchants (and other individuals) who exchanged and moved goods across space, the role of artisans who produced goods as part of their livelihood, and the trade and distribution networks through which goods were bought, sold, and exchanged.
Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World — Kenneth G. Hirth, Joanne Pillsbury | Harvard University Press
Read a book once in awhile, airhead.
Notice that the poster does not call 'Poli' a liar.
Whew! O.K., that's all very nice. Would you care to also reply to the error you made about 'no markets'?There was most certainly exchange between groups of people in the New World before the arrival of latter day Europeans. There were markets. They were just based on exchange, like Europe before the Renaissance and innumerable other examples. Anyone familiar with economics would know that.
And, to continue your education....so you might actually approach zero knowledge, as opposed to the falsity that you now claim as knowledge....
".... a close relationship existed, both historically and geographically, between the development of private rights in land and the development of the commercial fur trade.
...the role played by property right adjustments in taking account of what economists have often cited as an example of an externality-the overhunting of game.
Before the fur trade became established, hunting was carried on primarily for purposes of food and the relatively few furs that were required for the hunter's family. The externality was clearly present.
Hunting could be practiced freely and was carried on without assessing its impact on other hunters. ...it did not pay for anyone to take them into account. There did not exist anything resembling private ownership in land accounts indicate a socioeconomic organization in which private rights to land are not well developed.
.... the advent of the fur trade had two immediate consequences. First, the value of furs to the Indians was increased considerably. Second, and as a result, the scale of hunting activity rose sharply.
The property right system began to change, and it changed specifically in the direction required to take account of the economic effects made important by the fur trade.
....the higher commercial value of fur-bearing forest animals, made it productive to establish private hunting lands. ...family proprietorship among the Indians of the Peninsula included retaliation against trespass. Animal resources were husbanded. Sometimes conservation practices were carried on extensively. Family hunting territories were divided into quarters. Each year the family hunted in a different quarter in rotation, leaving a tract in the center as a sort of bank, not to be hunted over unless forced to do so by a shortage in the regular tract.
...highly developed private family rights to hunting lands had also developed which went so far as to include inheritance."
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/Demsetz_Property_Rights.pdf
Hopefully, based on this, you will find yourself less embarrassed in intellectual discussions.
Hopefully.
History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.I'd certainly have to agree that you have some expertise on 'stupid,' having practiced it for a life time.....
But, let's prove that.
"...why it is the basis of the nation.."
Hardly.
It is the very antithesis (better look that up).
This nation was designed by the Founders to to advance individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Obamunist, Liberalism, Progressivism stands for collectivism, undue regulation, and overarching big government, ignoring the Constitution.
And that's what you vote for. You didn't know that, did you, you fool.
That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.
The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.
Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?
Right....none of them.
Put you in your place, huh?
Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
Try to deny this.
History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.
That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.
The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.
Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?
Right....none of them.
Put you in your place, huh?
Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
Try to deny this.
Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?
Are you suggesting her favorite auto brand is 'Dodge'?re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?
I think PC's 'contempt for the facts' is a more artful descriptor.
You've obviously never met a liberal. Some jerk just told you they were bad, and you were dumb enough to believe them.History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.You reason like a child, no offense to children. Someone told you liberalism was bad, and you believed them.
That's okay, we've known for a very long time that stupid people are conservative. They didn't fight for this nation when it was founded either.
The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.
Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?
Right....none of them.
Put you in your place, huh?
Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
Try to deny this.
Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
re: post #149 'Liar', after all, is a rather ugly term; best eschew it when possible, donchathink?
Most dynamic "religion"? Religion? Really?
And you fail to see any propaganda value in such a ridiculous statement?
Irony is lost on you.
You've obviously never met a liberal. Some jerk just told you they were bad, and you were dumb enough to believe them.History already denied you and I can see why everything you say here is from someone else, none of which you understand.People who overthrow lawful governments to achieve liberty are conservatives? No.The Founders were classical liberals....what are known as conservatives today.
Proof?
Sure, so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Now....which of these is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government:
Nazism, Modern Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or Progressivism?
Right....none of them.
Put you in your place, huh?
Let's do it again:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
Try to deny this.
Let's make sure that every reader recognizes what a lying fool....Liberal....you are:
....so simple that even a simpleton like you will be able to understand the facts: America was founded based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Only conservatism remains committed to the above.
Fascists, Liberals, etc support collectivism, punitive over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.
