How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

To be fair you and Random do come across as rather similar fellows.

You're the one comparing the US with the likes of 'Old Europe'. That comparison is of course nonsensical. Consider, for example, the period of colonisation. That was characterised by mercantilism, where military power was used to destroy opportunities of free trade. We don't have that today (indeed, the US has been vital for encouraging trade liberalisation)

Its quite silly to suggest that we can appreciate the impact of the military sector without reference to economics. Its only then that we can appreciate the economic costs (clue is in the name!). As already remarked, there are numerous spillover effects from the military sector. By ignoring them you're coming out with a sub-accountancy approach. Next to useless!

 

There are valid comparisons not only to "Old Europe" but also to Rome. I gave you a number of specific examples in earlier threads to which you mumbled incoherent nonsense that had nothing to do with the point.

I can list numerous Economic Historians and Economists that make claims of all kinds of valid comparisons between economic issues today and the past. (Niall Ferguson, Soros, Moog, Rogers, Prechter, and so on)

The fact that you are not aware of this is testiment to your ignorance.

Do you think supply and demand fundimentals did not apply in the past ?
Do you not think there were stock market bubbles .. housing bubbles.. speculative market instruments ?
Did countries not print paper money in the past ... did they not go into debt ?

It is utter nonsense to claim that there are not comparable features of todays issues with similar issues in the past.

 

There isn't as the US is not following the imperialist practices of those associated empires. Neither can we compare military burdens. The nature of spin-off technologies, together with modern capitalism and its innate instability, ensures that. You're making comment devoid of the required economic analysis needed to understand the impact of the military sector.

Can you refer to one empirical study of the impact of the US military sector that makes comparison with Old Europe or Rome? So far you've given naff all

You won't find the political economy of military expenditures referring to "supply and demand fundamentals". You'd know that if you were typing with knowledge

 

ROFL .. you just keep digging yourself deeper into a hole. There are hundreds of comparisions between economic conditions in the past which detail the impact on the military sector.

War has always cost money. There are times when this expenditure brought a good return on investment, and times when it did not.

Try reading some history .

Are you that ignorant of acadamia that you do not know that this has been studied to death ? There are entire books devoted to the topic.

Here is one "Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present" You can even read it online and I suggest you do so. http://books.google.ca/books?id=5kK...=British empire US military spending&f=false

Any google search will come up with reams of studies using "empirical evidence" in comparing the US military sector and its impacts on economic issues to that of the British Empire.

Now what are you blubbering about ? You are such a pretender it is painfull to even read what you post.

Political economy - originally was the term for studying production, buying, and selling, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth, including through the budget process

Perhaps the relationship between supply and demand fundamentals and "studying production, bying and selling" as this relates to the military economy is unclear.

No proper discussion of the political economy of military expenditures can even take place without consideration of supply demand fundamentals.

Each of the three points you have made are utter nonsense. You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[FONT=&amp]I’m sure you’ll pluck out some mundane political piece that rambles on about “what is an empire?”, using that to make weak linkages between the US and the likes of Britain. You won’t, however, find [/FONT]one paper that successes compares military burdens. That requires an understanding of political economy and a quantitative analysis into the impact of the military sector on key objectives such as economic growth.

[FONT=&amp]
You’re still coming across like a grey suited accountant. This is about the economic impact. Once cannot refer to the expenditure in isolation. One has to compare it with the direct economic consequences. The US, for example, was forced away from the conservatism of the New Deal and towards embracing Keynesianism by world war.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

This made me laugh. I predicted an offering just like this one!

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Provide one that undertakes an empirical study of the various military effects! I look forward to it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
Let’s see you try and put some meat on this so far vacuous comment. Refer to some of the political economic approaches used in defence economics and link it to “supply demand fundamentals”

Given you’ve replied with naff all (again!), I’m not sure you understood them![/FONT]

 

LOL .. you asked for a study of the political economy as it relates to military and I gave you one. There are hundreds of studies that compare the British Empire to the US Empire and go into detailed discussions of military expenditures and cite empirical evidence and discuss the political economy and the impact of the military.

What an ignorant pretender.

 

No you didn't. You gave a political piece focused on sociology. Clearly you've googled blindly. Shame on you for that!

But you've been given a task: [FONT=&amp] [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Provide one that undertakes an empirical study of the various military effects! This time make sure it provides the required quantitative analysis that measure the various direct and indirect effects[/FONT]

 

You can't defeat a liberal in a debate.
Here's why --> [video=youtube;uGwtG8nVpUU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU&list=FL1_-AEM-r7-AygiinNdaUxA&index=16&feature=plpp_video[/video]

 

My mistake Malkin did.
[video=youtube;__hA-b_qfb4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__hA-b_qfb4&feature=related[/video]

 

• Seminar on Debt: The First 5000 Years – Reply
• Because: Imperialism!

 

You can't manage it. Let's hope the other fellow can

 

Do they bury them or do they buy them out? How much did Yahoo offer to buy Google for? Do you know how many entrepreneurs start businesses with "exit" strategies already planned out?

Your response is the 74th response that I've added to this page...Unglamorous but Important Things.

Partial Knowledge For the Win!

 

I can't manage what?

 

Relevancy. I'll wait to see if the other one can

 

What evidence do you have that these two references are not relevant?

• Seminar on Debt: The First 5000 Years – Reply
• Because: Imperialism!

 

I referred to empirical studies, not to crap sources on a par with a fellow desperate to advertise their non-economic blog

 

So you're not interested in what academic liberal experts on both sides of the debate have to say about the subject of American imperialism?

• Seminar on Debt: The First 5000 Years – Reply
• Because: Imperialism!

 

I'm interested in what I've asked for. Stop wasting my time

 

Oh...I am wasting your time? So NOW you want to talk about economics! This is a first for you!!! So clearly you understand that some uses of your limited time are more productive than other uses. And obviously you are saying that you are better than I am at determining the most productive use of your limited time. Is congress better than you are at determining the most productive use of your limited time? Did they decide it was the best use of your limited time to spend countless hours producing 20,000 posts in this forum?

 

It isn't a question. I asked for an empirical study and you gave something just a little better than your blog.

 

Whether or not I am wasting your time is not a matter of debate. Any real economist would know that. You know why? Because you're the only one that can truly know whether something is a waste of your time. You know why? Because all our utility functions are different.

What IS a matter of debate is whether you believe that congress is better than you are at determining the best use of your limited time. That's the question that you have strenuously avoided answering. Did congress decide it was the best use of your limited time to spend countless hours producing 20,000 posts in this forum?

 

A reference to the original requirement that sourced real economist would be great. I find your non-economic approach most disagreeable

 

Oh man! Look at you STRAIN to avoid the question. Did you, or did you not, ask congress whether it was the best use of your limited time to spend countless hours producing 20,000 posts in this forum?

 

I'm not interested in the humph. See my original request and try and achieve it