Government really can solve all problems. The Romans proved it, already. Incremental changes brought by Other Peoples', R&D. The First World, can create markets through R&D.
Was it the high mortality rate or a National Geographic program on straight roads that convinced you of that?
Yep. Yours: But are derisory in most commodity markets. That is a despicable fabrication. Because it was a red herring you used to derail the discussion. You do that a lot. Readers are invited to confirm that fact by reading almost any of your posts. Nope. Wrong again. It's the PRIVILEGE market that is behind civil war, not the production and consumption market. See the difference (right: of course you don't)? Are you now lying that fraud is part of a free market? Calling privilege "trade" just takes you out of bounds again, sorry. Your only "argument" is to blame free markets for the effects of privilege! Astonishing! Repeating your error. Yes, and what is called R&D is correspondingly murky. <yawn> Too bad you have no point. Nope. Wrong again. It is cretinous to claim that competitive industries have no profits to reinvest. You are effectively claiming that farmers who rent land never make any money, that people will take the risk of investing in production goods without a reasonable prospect of a positive return. It's just neoclassical equilibrium nonsense, and shows you haven't got beyond the most elementary fallacies of the neoclassical school. Right back atcha, chump. I.e., understanding of the issue that incomparably surpasses yours. Or it could mean that unlike you and neoclassical economists, I have actual experience in innovation-based business. Nope. More apologies for rent seeking...? Tut, tut. You are making a fool of yourself. Indeed not: "state capitalism" is what socialists call socialism after it has failed spectacularly and killed millions. But private landowners still got the rent, so you are just objectively wrong. I invite all readers to confirm your disingenuous bait and switch: you claim the important point about land in the Third Reich was control, ignoring ownership, then claim the important point about capital in the Third Reich was ownership, and ignore control. Disingenuous, despicable, and disgraceful. I said privilege, not land. You again ignored what I said, and returned to your obsessive hatred of facts about land and anyone who identifies them. LOL! To you, the "varied nature" of class conflict means that offering workers opportunity they would not otherwise have is just as much class oppression as depriving them of opportunity they would otherwise have. Too bad you have no economic comment to offer. Again.
I always know you're on a loser when you go on your one liner routine. Anything more, after all, requires content. Let's summarise your argument. First, you don't care that commodity markets have been characterised by corruption and utimately mass murder. Second, you don't care that economic reality refers to the importance of market power to deliver innovation. You just want to land rant. When are you going to actually say something that makes economic sense? No more rant. No more one liners that mean feck all.
Government really can solve all problems. The Romans proved it, already. It is a matter of historical record. Incremental changes brought by Other Peoples', R&D, is what the Third World does. The First World, can create markets through R&D. Off the shelf light saber kits for AnCappers, is one hypothetical alternative. Lousy public policies, also distort markets.
Without reading further, I know you will now make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written. Because with a few exceptions like gold, they generally haven't. Corruption and mass murder characterize the "markets" for privilege, such as ownership of natural resources, not the commodities extracted therefrom. A commodity is a product with no brand identity. Natural resources are not products, so they are not commodities. Because it's just flat false. In the early years of computers, there was no IP monopoly on software. But there was plenty of innovation because firms had problems they wanted to solve, and paid people to solve them. The USSR beat the USA into space with no market power. Science is full of innovation where there is no hope of market power. So your claim of "economic reality" is just objectively wrong. You just want to call crucial facts that prove you wrong, "rant."
Yep, if people didn't exist then there wouldn't be a problem. Your naivety is extraordinary. You chose markets that, even without price manipulation, is characterised by extreme maket failure (ensuring a lack of economic development) More ignorance! Fixed costs associated with R&D will also be a source of market failure. Even with market concentration and creative destruction, there is a need for interventionism. I've already referred to this so no excuse for continuing to peddle your snakeoil! I'm a pluralist. I respect the numerous schools of thought and how none of them can exclusively call 'truth'. However, rant is rant.
And the roads, and, I believe the Romans could have benefited from, No aqueducts and roads, no taxation.
That was Not a Roman problem. What is Your opinion of the Romans, potentially and in that alternative, solving their "foreign barbarian" problem, with a market friendly visa, and new colonias on the opposite side of the empire?
we got from the stone age to here with growth and we need more of it to cure cancer and take more vacations and to feed more poor folks. Do you understand?
Republican Christian capitalism has saved perhaps 1 billion people's lives in the time liberals have been chattering about AGW. Do you understand?
Disagree. We have enough "civilization" that your goals may be met via applying what we have now. Rapid growth creates uber rich and is destructive to the Middle Class. The exception is the fifties when due to the Eisenhower Tax Code and tariffs, the Middle Middle benefited too. Studying Australia indicates they missed the boat when they had the opportunity to develop an Aussie Economy. They developed an "expand we must", policy and their future generations are as hamstrung economically as in and the West. All a society that shifted from home ownership to renters. Thank You growth. What a deal. Moi
vacations, cancer prevention, food. We have enough? and you somehow want to redistribute at gunpoint?
you are parroting liberal talking point pure gibberish. If Steve Jobs invents and Iphone or cancer cure and the middle class buys it they are far better off not destroyed. 1+1=2 Your argument does not even rise to the level of an argument Its liberal kindergarten gibberish.
Take the last word or not, please. I find your labeling and paraphrasing not about dialog nor reasoning. Should I spot an upload demonstrating either dialog or reasoning, I might reply. Just one thing, as the total wealth of concentrated since 1970 Why Doesn't Anyone Ever Term That As Wealth Redistribution? I mean if a nation's wealth were 100 pennies, more and more of those pennies are concentrated among a few, leaving less pennies for the rest of us. I remember the fifties, do you? More pennies were not concentrated pennies. I am not a liberal, I just remember how good Middle Class life can be. And how it was established and perpetuated. Eisenhower Tax Code and tariffs. Stories from the Way Back Time My uncle founded "Freight Traffic Engineers" that served foreign companies to get their tariffs in order to expedite the distribution of their goods once they come to a port of entry. I remember Japanese companies loved him and sent him gifts. Moi You're a liberal
