jhmd is not nearly as smart as he believes himself to be.
i mean, he is smarter than that knowell clown, but so is my dog, so whatever.
jhmd is not nearly as smart as he believes himself to be.
i mean, he is smarter than that knowell clown, but so is my dog, so whatever.
jhmd is not nearly as smart as he believes himself to be.
i mean, he is smarter than that knowell clown, but so is my dog, so whatever.
In a free market is slavery not permissible? I mean if there are no regulations and the high point was 1789 then obviously the fact that it had slavery as part of the market would be pertinent right? Or are we just ignoring that portion?
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.
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.
I try not to argue with idiots, so I'll pass on your invitation.
Yet 1789 was the height of free markets in the US.
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
Yet 1789 was the height of free markets in the US.
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.
Thank you!
How is the "height" of the free markets in the US defined?
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.
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.