Republidertarianazi shows off his thinking skills

[reverendjeremiah]

you are allowed to say "Oh, but Obama isn't a true progressive",

If you want to think Obama is a progressive, then have at it. Go ahead and say he is one..Im not going to get mad and stamp my feet like you do over things like this. He might actually be one for all I know, but doesnt have the balls to stand by it. Either that or he lied just so Progressives would vote for him....I might be wrong about Obama for all I know...I might be wrong about everything I say about politics...so no, there is no double standard in that situation because I admit I dont have all the info in front of me.

I never said that Libertarians hold economic policies which cannot fail. The success and failure of policies doesn't negate one's Libertarianism. I'm fine with admitting that Libertarianism is an experimental political ideology at best; it hasn't been tried and tested yet. Thus it may be that Libertarianism in practice is the wrong thing to do.

That isnt what Void said..Void said Austrian economics were used in 1920 to avoid a depression.

..frankly I think he's full of shit, but Im not in the mood of having to sift through an extra 3 pages of posts of him stamping his feet over me saying that.

And if he isnt full of shit, if he actually IS correct, then Austrian school Economics became a leading factor to the great depression not just 8 years later. Economics are not instantaneous over here in the states. They usually take several years to take noticable effect...sort of like how America is still feeling the effects of Bush's economic choices almost 4 years later... and it didnt help that the democrats jumped on his bandwagon as well. Everyone is greedy..hey...its a perfect chance for Libertarians to come into power now.

And of COURSE it isnt you moving the goal posts back..its me FAILING everytime I try to point out a fault in a "faultless political ideology" such as Libertarianism.

---

I agree, they ARE bullshit equations, sadly for you those bullshit equations are the very backbone of the theory and reason behind the stimulus spending (the attempt to increase economic output) that YOU support. You do support stimulus spending, don't you?

Really? I said I supported Keynesian economic policies? Even when I told you in the same post that I didnt? Or to be specific I do not COMPLETELY support it. Some things are necesary to give monetary help to, but most others who received the stimulus merely shoved the cash into their pockets.

I support the stimulus going to government programs, creating new jobs and social systems...not giving billions of our tax dollars to fat cats at the top for private use.


And YES..almost all economic equations are bullshit...sure, some of them work better than others, but there are so many variables that there is no way anyone could calculate them all. Of corse, you are just going to laugh at me and then claim wrongly again that I support 100% keynesian economics.

Let me give you a hint..scroll down into my signature and click on the link that says "mixed economy" so you will stop beating down a strawman and start beating me down instead.

By the way, mixed economy is not perfect, nor is it something that is set in stone.

I don't, you'd have to ask Paul Krugman or Ben Bernanke how they factor it in. (greed)

Yup, I agree..they are greedy sons of bitches as well. What? You thought I agreed with them assholes? You really dont know what economic stance I have, and that is okay, because mixed economics is not something exactly written in stone. About the only thing consistantly held by those who subscribe to mixed economics is Labor standards, environmental protection, welfare, and MAINTENANCE of competition. Thats it. Everything else is up for grabs. If Stalin had a good idea for an economic section, I would include it into my views. If I founf out later it didnt work I would dump it. If Void had some good economic ideas, I would embrace them with the rest. If I found out they didnt work then I would dump them.

Do you know how useless a term like "mixed economist" is to describe an economic philosophy? Mixed economics is everything between Communism (all state) to anarchism (no-state). All liberals, libertarians, progressives, conservatives, fascists, monetarists etc are to one extent or another "mixed economists".

I only assume you are a keynesian (knowingly or not) because every single piece of economic rhetoric you produce is exactly what I would find written by the likes of Keynes, Krugman and the like. I'm not aware of a single thing you've said that would be contrary to ideas espoused by those of the keynesian school, though if I'm mistaken please do correct me and provide examples.

Nope..it isnt useless terminology. It is merely a simple name for a complex and very custom made economy that changes with the times. And I agree to a point..everyone is a mixed economist is some shade of gray...but how does that make it less relevant? Shouldnt that make it more relevant? That at some level all humans are willing to compromise on economics because of this?

Call me wishy washy..of COURSE I am wishy washy when it comes to economics. I hold mixed views on it. That means I am capable of bending with the flow. I may think an economic idea is fine, but a few months later, after thinking about it very hard, decide I need to dump it.

You may think it is a weakness..I consider it a strength.


Let me give you an example: Can you think of ANY time were I said my economic views were more superior than yours? Nope. I cant say it even if I wanted to. My economic views slightly change here and there as time goes by. Our economic debates have been about me finding many parts of Libertarian economic views to be vile, like this "free market" lie that keeps going around, or the idea that slavery is fine "as long as it is voluntary" (yeah, like that will be enforced).