OFFICIAL Elizabeth Warren is awesome thread
- Thread starter TownieDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Ever wonder why the posters with the least to contribute are always insulting the intelligence of those with whom they disagree? Likely it is a lack in the confidence of their own intelligence that necessitates the insults. If you are really more than a worthless bag of hot air, then stop with the insults and use you "superior" intellect to counter the arguments. That, of course, will be difficult if you are not even aware that Warren came out with the "you didn't build it" speech (done much better than Obama by the way). Try and grow up and leave the 3rd grade insults behind if you are capable of doing so or just go outside and play with your 3rd grade friends.
Only if you consider a person property. Most people and most cultures no longer take that view so no, free markets would not allow the trade of people without their consent. The whole point about free markets is two or more people engaging in commerce without coercion or interference. Slavery would necessarily involve coercion.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
No coercion between buyer and seller.
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
I try not to argue with idiots, so I'll pass on your invitation.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,136
- Reaction score
- 22,150
Yet 1789 was the height of free markets in the US.
tjcmd
Retired
The quality of the discourse has really gone to pot here, with the inanities of both knowell and dv7. I wish you guys would keep it at the scholarly level and avoid going down into the gutter like this.
HowardDeanSux
Active member
Not a direct answer at all, but let us look at the US economy when Democrats are in the White House vs. when Republicans are in the WH.
Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
In the spirit of Sig's causal analysis, the grand middle class expansion has occurred during the World Series drought of the Chicago Cubs. Go Cards!
And the destruction of the middle class nearly perfectly coincides with the tearing down of Glass-Steagall. This is an historical fact.
dv7, do you know if these graphs are based upon GDP income approach or the more common expenditure method? If it is based upon the latter, then the graphs could, at least partially, be explained by increased government spending. I do not have a background in economics/finance and am desiring to have a deeper understanding of these graphs. Any intelligent comments would be welcome.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/010915/who-thinks-fiscal-deficits-are-good-idea.asp
Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
In the spirit of Sig's causal analysis, the grand middle class expansion has occurred during the World Series drought of the Chicago Cubs. Go Cards!
And the destruction of the middle class nearly perfectly coincides with the tearing down of Glass-Steagall. This is an historical fact.
dv7, do you know if these graphs are based upon GDP income approach or the more common expenditure method? If it is based upon the latter, then the graphs could, at least partially, be explained by increased government spending. I do not have a background in economics/finance and am desiring to have a deeper understanding of these graphs. Any intelligent comments would be welcome.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/010915/who-thinks-fiscal-deficits-are-good-idea.asp
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Was the question restricted to the US? The height of free markets has to be, literally could not be anything but, Robert Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, which began the era of British unilateral free trade and has the bonus of the empire having outlawed slavery. On the other hand, their free market had no problem buying slave cotton, which is a downer.
The quality of our right-wingers is p disappointing. I think I'm a better right-winger than most of them.
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
If it is based on the income method it should be labeled as GDI not GDP since that's how the BLS does that series.
HowardDeanSux
Active member
How is the "height" of the free markets in the US defined?
HowardDeanSux
Active member
Thank you!
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Also government spending will show up in either series, although only indirectly in GDI. All that spending is someone's income; just think about expenditure framework showing you spending on schools while GDI shows you test company profits, teacher salaries, etc.
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
jhmd answered a question about the height of the free market and gave 1789 as the date and got butthurt when folks pointed out that human beings were bought and sold on the free markets of that day.
HowardDeanSux
Active member
If 1789 is the correct answer, did this occur due to the conceiving and executing of the first true government deficit plan? Do you agree with the premise of this article? The article explains fiscal deficit plans are useful during recessions, but budget shortfalls should be corrected once the economy has recovered. Seems many people purporting the Keynesian model of economics have conveniently ignored this part. Am I wrong in believing there is no theory which supports huge government deficits into perpetuity?
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/010915/who-thinks-fiscal-deficits-are-good-idea.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/010915/who-thinks-fiscal-deficits-are-good-idea.asp
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
There are Post-Keynesians who think there should be government deficits in perpetuity, though I'm not sure what exactly counts as "huge" deficits. Bernie Sanders just appointed one of those people to be the minority's chief economist with the Senate budget committee. Don't have much to say on the matter as it's largely outside what I've studied and what I'm interested in today.
HowardDeanSux
Active member
Thanks so much for your answers.
It stuns me that people with a Wake education fail to appreciate a sarcastic response to a stilted question. Well. it used to stun me.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Idk how it's a stilted question to ask what the high point of the free market was since arguably you would want to use that as evidence that it is the best system. You
Know, results and all that of your ideology.
Know, results and all that of your ideology.
Well, here goes. I tried to explain that we've never actually "tried" my ideology, since everything we've ever done has been a hybrid (the reference to 1789---an important historical marker---was that was the moment of the least amount of American government possible, as it was in its infancy when everyone remembered that we just fought a war to liberate us from unresponsive, distant oppressive government. If there was any possible answer to that question, that was it as a matter of fact. To you guys, this apparently meant another weary venture down the path of historical self-flagellation).
Since the question is impossible to answer, any answer would be ripe for dissent. One could argue 1789, one could argue 2015 (how much freer a market can we have when I can go online and buy Chinese goods wholesaled in Washington State and delivered by North Carolinians in brown and white trucks? One could argue any cross section market in between).
If we take the question with all of its defects, I would be glad to put the "results" of the free market against the results of collectivism. But again, it was always a silly question.