Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.
Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.
Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.
Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.
Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change.
The most socialist economic systems of years past have failed and been subject to hyperinflation, as I've stated on other threads - 70s Chile under Allende, 80s Eastern European blocs, Central America under Sandanista influence. They've all been command economy flops where you could wake up any day and watch your money not be worth the paper it's written on.
While some people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler, I talk about going back and killing baby Roosevelt. His New Deal was arguably the most damaging framework this nation has ever seen. Problems arise when people don't realize that you can make a real mess of things when you break out the Keynesian techniques, because they are nothing more than short-term solutions. However, they never use them as such. They want to use short-term solutions on long-term problems, then bitch and wonder why the recipe is flawed beyond recognition.
Today's tax-and-spend crowd need to be lined up and shot.
Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change..
You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.
Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.
You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.
Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.
You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.
Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.
In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.
Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.
Commie Card. Ergo, epic fail.
It's not a fail when the shoe fits. Marxists need to stay in the Philosophy forum and never the Economics forum, since Marx was a philosopher, not an economist.
In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit.
Watching you guys debate economics is like watching fat ladies in a beauty contest.
WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.
I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.
Conservatives often explain economics based upon the way that they think it should work, not the way that it actually does work.
There are differing schools of thought on physics and aspects of physics.
WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.
I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.
In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.
Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.