Obama Clueless On Economy...

Clearly not, as shown by the lack of quality in your replies. You'd have to accept the neutrality of work to support the basic labour supply model. You'd have to assume risk neutrality to predict no positive spill-overs in entrepreneurial activity.

Given your right wing wing non-economic approach, I can forgive you for coming out with the standard cliche. The Austrians cannot even explain the most basic aspects of economics, such as explaining horizontal and vertical integration. They therefore have no means to understand economic result.

I bother with content. I'm also not blinded by low brow sites designed to hide from the economic debate. I feel sorry for the Austrian wannabes, nothing more

 

So, you admit then that you deliberately attempted to divert the subject of the post, that you were not here to discuss whether Owebama is a moron.

In future, please stick to the topic.

 

I admit that you responded to my comment with nonsense. I'm happy for you to try again. I won't assume that you will

 

I gather then, we are all agreed that Owebama is a moron when it comes to economics since no one has presented one shred of an iota of evidence to the contrary.

So long as his records remain sealed we can only assume that he is hiding something since he is such a boastful egotist he would not be hiding a "good" record.

For the record "socialist economics" is an oxymoron. There has not been one citation on this thread of a anyone, let alone anyone with something more than blather supporting left wing ideology.

In the final analysis, socialism has brought the world such great success stories as the USSR, North Korean, Cuba, Greece, Italy and several disastrous attempts at it at the provincial level in Canada. There was the near bankruptcy of the largest province, Ontario in the 90's.

In the boom times of the 1990's Canada had a left leaning Liberal government and had to devalue its dollar to $.57 US in order to stay alive, all the while cutting services and gutting the country's national medicare system to the point people were dying while waiting for treatment.

In 2008 the world economy collapsed but Canada emerged as one of the strongest economies in the world....under a Conservative government.

Cite all the freakin' theoretical bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you like, the truth is the results and with socialism they ain't good.

Oh, have you heard? China abandoned it socialist system a few years back and is now the world's economic engine....

 

But we can go further. Right wingers will typically not be capable of making any such assessment. Economics is unfortunately often beyond them. They therefore are forced to make idiotic statement, such as the accusation that he is somehow a Marxist.

Socialism is a political economy that is vibrant, but can only be understood if you bother with economic analysis. For example, a right winger would typically be incapable of appreciating how socialism can be embedded- without difficulty- within the Austrian school of thought. They'd typically be confined to making silly remark over Stalinism and confusing liberalism with socialism. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of doing that!

 

No content so far and you have been given several chances.

Can you help me find the ignore list....? It's OK, I've found it.

 

I'm not surprised you responded with this "run away" prance. Economics aint for right wingers

 

You reject my observation, and insist I accept your undefined (but for the string of random buzz words) ramblings as fact. You have demonstrated no insight worth considering. The two times I looked up the terms you used, your application had nothing to do with the terms meaning.

You give a completely wrong definition of Austrian school, reject the correct one, and then call my approach non-economic. ROTFL

Content, not really. More like an air of contempt, supported with nothing substantial.

I wonder if you can even put a few coherent sentences together to demonstrate knowledge of economics.

 

I've been very naughty and referred directly to the economic theory required to understand welfare effects. Why don't you know the theory?

You can't deny any of my comment. Is it a marginal school? Certainly! Anyone being taught economics will confirm that. I was even good enough to refer to when the Austrians are mentioned, as a side issue when analysing significant contributions such as the grandfather of New Institutionalism (Coase)

Economics will, by definition, be incoherent to most right wingers. That's the point!

 

Economics is often a lot of bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

Frankly I don't want a welfare state society where people live a high quality of life regardless of skill or employment. That goes against the American principle of the Protestant Work Ethic and basic traditional American Professional Morality.

I expect class structures to develop that "ape the limeys" because I see a moral principle where all you see is the pure math.

As far as I'm concerned it is morally repugnant for a non-working or even low skilled entity to live a high quality of life. I believe in a class structure based roughly on meritocracy regardless of economic result or inequality. I expect and welcome inequality as the natural result of some persons achieving through merit that others may not possess.

Welfare States put no premium on merit or skill, merely on existence. I find "economic egalitarianism" morally repugnant.

If the "have nots" dare lift their fingers to violent revolution as a solution to their plight, the "haves" were provided by the Founding Fathers with the private means of the use of deadly force to protect their property.

Yes, the moneyed upper class rule America, as was intended by Alexander Hamilton and other Founding Fathers and I frankly am happy with that system for the upper classes do provide a path to join them through intellectual and professional meritocratic controls.

 

You'll be giving Weber's hypothesis next (even though it isn't really supported). The problem for you is that the welfare state, given risk adversity, strengthens self-employment and therefore individualism. Ultimately your stance is based on supporting class and hindering the individual. Isn't that always the case with right wingers?

 

Still no economic content - what a waste of my time.

 

Can't respond? No problem, but please be more creative in your blag.

Simple question for you: why have you referred to the welfare state when you cannot refer to the economic analysis required to understand the effects of the welfare state?

 

Once again yet ANOTHER post from Reiver where he provides ZERO links to direct proof of what he claims.

And his reputation keeps falling (IMO) accordingly...

 

Claims? It was a question: "why have you referred to the welfare state when you cannot refer to the economic analysis required to understand the effects of the welfare state?". Perhaps you could answer it for him? A proper little tag team!

 

And perhaps you could answer either of the two 'yes or no' questions that I asked you the other day that you make one INCREDIBLY LAME excuse after another as to why you won't.

And your reputation (IMO) drops lower...


And I am not interested in the question above - only your continued failure to back up your claims with links to unbiased facts.

With your reputation as low as it is - do you really think anyone unbiased who is aware of your posts is going to take your word on ANYTHING?

If you do, then you are (IMO) deluding yourself.


Have a nice day.

 

I went further, as I've informed you several times. Your argument is of no additional power as an Icke conspiracy theory. You've shown no understanding of the various unemployment measures available and you cannot refer to any evidence to support the ridiculous inflation measurement claims.

Fair enough. Answering the question would of course involve reference to economics

 

Your reasoning is ridiculous.

And you have so far spent about a hundred times more words trying to weasel out of answering a simple question then if you had just typed the answer of either 'yes' or 'no'.

As I stated in the other thread, your response to those questions has made me seriously lower my belief as to your intellectual capabilities.

You condescend to SO many people and act like you are so superior...and yet rarely back up anything you claim on here with links to facts.

In short...you insult EVERYONE who disagrees with you in the slightest, almost never back up your claims with links and avoid answering the simplest of questions.

You are, IMO, a totally useless poster who gives nothing to the board but bile and a glimpse as to how unhappy you must be in the real world.
And I sincerely believe your extensive vocabulary dresses up what appears to be a man of rather limited capabilities...kind of like several university prof's I once knew - small, unhappy people DESPERATE for attention.

In other words...you appear to be all talk and virtually no action.


Have a nice day.

 

No, its mere reference to the reality. Inflation measures are of course adapted as the typical basket of goods changes. Consumers today, for example, are considerable different to the consumers in the 1980s. The rational reaction to those changes unfortunately gives ammo to the conspiracy theorists. They of course refuse to back up their conspiracy with any credible evidence.

 

Gordon Bennett!

Can you not understand a simple sentence?

I meant your reasoning for not answering my simple 'yes/no' question.

I am sorry to be rude...but you are rude, arrogant, delusional and (imo) hopeless.

And a complete waste of time.


Have a nice day.

 

You still haven't realised that I've answered it countless times? Crikey! When I accuse people of using the inflation measurement myth as part of a conspiracy theory, what do you think I mean? Work it out!

 

We are all still waiting for an explanation as to why if social economic theory is so great there are so many failures in practice: USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Greece, Italy etc.

Suggest you go to User CP, click on edit ignore list and type in the name, click save changes. It's like unplugging a clogged sewer; you get to see only the posts that actually contain real information and informed opinion.

 

State capitalism

Market socialist (but an unsupported one as individual property rights aren't protected)

State capitalism

State capitalism

Liberal democratic capitalism

Crikey, about as right as the "orientation isn't a word' comment!

 

You never answered it 'yes' or 'no'.

You just made excuses why you won't and/or why your non-answer constitutes an answer.

Hopeless!!!

 

Thanks for the great advice.

Sadly, I have had him on my ignore list for months for exactly the reasons you listed.

But I occasionally 'pop up' to take a peak....only to be flooded with more 'Reiverisms'.

This was one of those times...when will I learn?