Economics courses do not teach how the economy works.

Really? Then it should be simple to provide a definition. Could you please do so, so we can have a conversation about it?

 

Traps? I'm not sure what you mean by "trap". Are you referring to when your arguments are destroyed? Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by "trap".

 

The dictionary obsession is key for right wingers who do not engage in pluralist political economy...

 

She is absolutely a radical. Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros’ ‘radical’ vision of open-border world. Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financier George Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.

When you export as many jobs to China as you can and on top of that you want to bring tens of millions of immigrants who won't be capable to find jobs, that means you want to spend lots and lots of money. Economically speaking, that's quite radical.

 

Trump will fix it, Trump University was the greatest school ever... just ask Trump

 

This made me laugh at least. Clinton makes Tony Blair look revolutionary!

This is nonsense. Hillary didn't export jobs. Now you can moan about the US's oversupply of low skilled labour, but those problems reflect conservatism and the belief that market principles will suddenly find a solution.

 

- Capitalism is only useful as long as it serves all the people in the country.
- And that happens only when it keeps providing the best prices for the goods and services.
- And that happens only when there is real competition. The government has to do it's job and to make sure the economic agents are competing. That's why the FTC exists in the first place.

The definition of capitalism is usually vague. The desire to make more than the average income is completely against competition and against providing best prices. You must increase the price of the goods you are selling if you want to make more than the average income - and that means no capitalism. Or useless capitalism.
This is the main contradiction in the definition of capitalism.
But it can be fixed very easy, by making it clear that income inequality makes the capitalism useless.
After fixing it, it can be applied in the physical world.

But this guy pretends he doesn't understand such a basic fact, because he wants to promote his ideology and his vision and/or because he wants to teach the public that the increasing poverty is hard or even impossible to prevent.
And that's exactly what the super-rich people want: they want the public to think that the increased poverty is almost natural.

 

Neither Marx or Schumpeter would agree. Its vibrancy in capitalism that ensures 'more than the average' (e.g. Schumpeterian creative destruction). The issue is whether it can be maintained or whether there is a natural tendency towards socialism.

 

What? 100% wrong! increasing prices does not mean, no capitalism. It means you have higher costs, you want to pay yourself more, your workers more, or your stock holders more. Make sense now?

The pure beauty of Republican capitalism is that if you increase your price more than competition you go bankrupt. So the incentive is to keep price low and survive. Now I'll bet you understand?

 

Speaking of vague, do you maintain your depiction of capitalism above to be accurate?

 

if a guy wants to be the most inequally wealthy guy on the planet by finding a cure for cancer we should encourage him. I'm sure a child would agree with this -right?

 

There isn't any such beast as 'Republican capitalism', unless you want to suggest we can restrict our understanding to moral hazard and influence costs...

 

sure there is. Republicans support capitalism while Democrats support Sanders who supports USSR, single payer, and said its silly to have 23 brands of deodorant while people are going hungry. Do you think health and deodorant are only two industries he wants to control? You have learned this 18 times now. Shall we go for 19?

 

There isn't. Your point of view has nothing to do with valid application of political economy

As I said, you have political rant. You have no valid reference to economics.

I've learnt nothing from you. You don't refer to economics.

 

sure there is because Republicans support capitalism and Democrats don't.

 

Quote me from any economic source that refers to 'republican capitalism'. Knock yourself out!

 

why would I quote you an economic source when those sources try to stay non partisan??? Do you understand?

 

Post-truth rot.

 

even Friedman did not call himself a Republican. He wanted to stay above the daily battle as if he were teaching everyone equally. Now do you understand?

 

Friedman, unlike you, understood economics. Unfortunately his output was still low powered. He moaned about the Phillips Curve and failed on the negative income tax. Ooooo!

 

so you agree he understood that liberalism and communism are both examples of kinds of statism that our founders made illegal?

 

Unfortunately his output was still low powered. He moaned about the Phillips Curve and failed on the negative income tax. Ooooo!

 

why try to change the subject to Phillips Curve? What are you afraid of?? Are you fooling yourself?


for 4th time: so you agree Milton Friedman understood that liberalism and communism are both examples of kinds of statism that our genius Founders made illegal?

 

I've merely referred to his failure. One of the most important right wing economists actually achieved very little. However, I respect him still (particularly when having to reply to right wing Americans who have no understanding of economics)

 

wrong of course. Friedman is most important economist in human history having turned back the massive tide toward communism that had been growing daily. Before him everyone learned from Samuelson, another open communist, who had thoroughly infiltrated the academy and beyond.


Samuelson is most famous for:
In the seven editions of his textbook published from 1961 to 1980, Samuelson kept including a chart indicating that Soviet output was growing faster that U.S. output, and predicting a catch-up in about twenty-five years. He repeatedly had to move the predicted catch-up date forward from the previous edition because the gap had never actually begun to close. In several editions he blamed low realized Soviet growth on bad weather. When the USSR collapsed it had about 20% of US GDP

Samuelson was as good at economics as Stalin and Mao!! Stands to reason layfayette would compare him the Friedman who was always right






Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it, warns that the sequester’s budgetary nicks, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product, will derail the economy. A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.”

Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.