Collectivism is Inherently Selfish

Thanks Jay-sus for that!

 

SO you are for the status quo?

 

Does raise a question as to what you're up to on this board, however. I mean, that was rather gratuitous. I hate to say that Mr. Mayo has the right of it, but it sort of seems like your main purpose is to talk down to people.

 

I am for bearing True Witness to a federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws and solving simple poverty, and increasing the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets by ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor by using existing infrastructure.

 

Sounds like your purpose is religious.

 

You talked tosh and I called you on it. I could pat you on the head if you prefer? Perhaps say 'there there' gently in your ear like a Nanny Gertrude? I'm interested in economic comment, fall foul of it and I'll inform you of it.

 

I keep hoping to establish a (moral) point with the Right.

 

You do not have to be arrogant and patronizing. It's a choice, and not the choice of a person I want to deal with. Have a nice life.

 

I will be honest

 

Reiver you generally are as bad as the Austrian internet gang you detest.

I have read numerous posts of yours and seen explicit failures of understanding the fundamentals of economics. You douse your posts with petty insults. It's amusing. If you truly were a man of knowledge and had a background in academia, I would suspect you are capable of making rational arguments with technical posts. But you fail to do so. It's intellectually dishonest.

So lol Reiver.

 

You forgot content dear boy! How another go. Critique one of my comments and let's have some fun. Don't let me down now!

 

Funny. Because I'm kind of saying you can string together words but most of your posts are content deprived. You have left that body of work behind you. You can check your own posts for yourself. I don't come to this forum to quibble with people with bloated egos who seem to rather fire shots across peoples' bows rather than engaging in rational conversations.

tl;dr version: Krugman is way better at polemics than you because he shows actual work. Let the pros do it.

 

You're not very good at this are you? Please refer to one of my comments and demonstrate the flaw in the economic knowledge. I look forward to your effort!

Krugman does a very good at harnessing liberal thought (and upsetting right wingers). In terms of his economics it is arguably rather limited. Consider his input into new trade theory. He essentially uses it to show how intra-industry trade reinforces gains from inter-industry trade. He deliberately underplays how, by referring to aspects such as economies of scale, there is a shift away from the notion of the 'first best' outcome from trade liberalisation.

Try content, rather than whinge and whine!

 

Dude, you need content lol. I don't particularly engaging with people who posture on the internet the way you do.

You say things like it is meaningful when it is none of the such. Merely mentioning topics is not the same as actually delving into the mechanics of the subject. Sorry, but you just come off as a hack with an opinion the same as many Austrians who only read abstracts or watch utoobzzz video.

Anyone who has either been in an academic setting, or is currently in one, should be able to pick up on your sham.

Hell, you just handwaved away supply and demand models in one post in some thread. lol.

 

fwiw: im not complaining. i think it is hilarious how boneheaded you come off and how little you actually present on matters. lol.

 

Again with the whinge and whine. Take this comment and critique it:

Krugman does a very good at harnessing liberal thought (and upsetting right wingers). In terms of his economics it is arguably rather limited. Consider his input into new trade theory. He essentially uses it to show how intra-industry trade reinforces gains from inter-industry trade. He deliberately underplays how, by referring to aspects such as economies of scale, there is a shift away from the notion of the 'first best' outcome from trade liberalisation.

I bet you'll reply with more dodge

 

That is not content. It is an opinion about a man who writes in the NYT, writes books, and professes economics. You do not explain anything. It is just abstract fluff. Not analytical in the least.

 

Struggling to keep up? Its a reference to his main output in economics (summarised under the tag "new trade theory"). I've referred to the weaknesses of the new trade theory approach as it essentially uses the approach (which in general refers to economies of scale and differentiated product) to suggest intra-industry trade merely accentuates the inter-industry gains. He ignores that, by referring to heterogeneity in firms, he opens up accusations of 'static versus dynamic' comparative advantage and how trade liberalisation can actually reduce a country's well-being.

Your whinge'n'whine really is low powered.

 

Are you that vapid that you have zero clue that just because you state something it does not actually make it academic, researched, or informed? Good lord, you fail on so many levels.

Congratulations on being able to play connect the dots with words. But lol no economic models, no empirical evidence, no peer reviewed papers (ones people don't have to play for lol) with anything you actually post....nothing... just huff and fluff word magick.

No one is whining. You got called out prior to me arriving itt and continually play word games instead of producing research.

Double congrats to being the most intellectually dishonest man on this forum section.

 

This is more whinge. You've been given a perfect opportunity to show where my reasoning fails. Here it is again:

I've referred to the weaknesses of the new trade theory approach as it essentially uses the approach (which in general refers to economies of scale and differentiated product) to suggest intra-industry trade merely accentuates the inter-industry gains. He ignores that, by referring to heterogeneity in firms, he opens up accusations of 'static versus dynamic' comparative advantage and how trade liberalisation can actually reduce a country's well-being.

Happy for you to refer to either economic theory or empirical evidence to show that's an inaccurate summary!

 

Lol....

You can spam that all you want. But like all of your posts you do not cite any sources to validate your claim. Is it that freaking hard to understand? It's obvious that you have read economic books or watched lol utoobzzz or even read economic blogs. However, you do nothing to provide a framework to your opinions. What are you not understanding here? For someone who likes to pass themselves as intellectually elite providing citations and your own research shouldn't be so hard. But, no, you would rather cry about other people whining about you instead of manning up.

I can say Milton Friedman or J M Keynes was wrong about XYZ because ABC. But it doesn't mean that is a correct statement or even a relevant opinion unless I show my work as to why they were wrong about XYZ.

I seriously hope that others begin to take you less seriously if this is the entire lump sum of your posting history. It's an intellectually bankrupt style.

 

I had no need to refer to any sources. I referred directly to the deficiency in the new trade theory approach. Could I refer to articles? Of course! I'd refer to the likes of Deraniyagala and Fine's 'New Trade Theory versus Old Trade Theory: A Continuing Enigma'. Look it up! Originally published as a SOAS working paper if my memory serves. In terms of more general analysis into dynamic comparative advantage I'd highlight the likes of Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder. A nice economic history approach to the issue. Of course the concept isn't that difficult to comprehend: in terms of economies of scale, its about how cumulative output- rather than current output- is important in determining average costs.

I'm not sure you've read anything. You haven't offered one critique so far after all.

Bit obvious here! The debate is whether new trade theory is really just a 'add-on' to Heckscher-Ohlin and the Ricardian approach.

Say what Friedman is wrong about! That would be a splendid start. I'm happy to support or critique your comment. I don't hide or whinge. For example, I'd sneer at Friedman's use of the vertical Phillips Curve (given it was a cretinous adaptation of the bastardised Keynesian approach) and also his failure over negative income tax (given, for it to work, progressive marginal rates of tax would be required).

More whinge! Come on, add some content. Stop hiding

 

You can have the last word. I will just laugh at you from afar from now on as you simply refuse to be as scholarly as you try and come off as with your ridiculous approach that is quite similar to the online Austrians who think reading articles on mises.org makes you knowledgeable.

So you keep flapping those arms and puffing that chest of yours. I'm sure mama would be proud of her baby boy.

 

We haven't had any 'words'. You've whinged and I've tried my utmost to get you to critique my comments. You clearly can't. Can you even present an argument for yourself? Take your failure to refer to Friedman. Could you put that right? What did Friedman get right or wrong?

 

I see you continued to miss the mark. Your made up tales are boring.