alms
Banned
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 51
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"Basic" supply and demand isn't the issue. It's much more complicated than that.
Of course, because you say so, right? You get to dictate which concepts are at issue and which economists are legitimate. Boy, I wish I had the ability to assert things without having to actually justify them with evidence and logic.
Your short-sightedness is truly alarming, if for no other reason that you're dressing up ignorance and masquerading it around as good sense.
Your insults are growing tiresome. Try debating for a change.
You can either pay more for that car up front, but the premium you pay will go into your own economy and come back to help you in a multitude of ways, or you can pay less up front and wave good-bye to that money, as China and India have the good sense to enforce those economic protectionist policies you have so much contempt for. Those other countries don't care about your free market dogmas and they have the long-term good sense to keep the dollars we shell out to them.
Money goes to China, yes, but more money stays in the US in the form of increased savings, a point you continually ignore. The money consumers save on products aggregates and offsets the loss of jobs.
It's just like Tucker has been saying more eloquently than I am able, the only way for the USA to remain competitive in the long term is to sacrifice a little short term pseudo-savings to keep money circulating in the economy. In the end it's actually costing us less to pay more for that car up front.
But, unlike you, Tucker isn't advocating authoritarian, protectionist policies as the solution. Instead, he's advocating for personal choice and individual liberty. A very unsubtle difference, I'm afraid.
Yeah right :roll: Somehow I'm betting you're the type of guy who calls Obama a Marxist too. Neither of us are. You should probably read a little more about Marxism before you go making these kind of accusations. But hey, it's like I always say, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
The point went right over your head. Allow me to explain the obvious: If you can label me a conservative based upon some nebulous "walks like a duck" criteria, then I can do the same thing to you. If you don't like being erroneously labeled a Marxist then don't erroneously label me a conservative. It's called a "double-standard".
Spare me the libertarian balderdash, please.
So, you have no rebuttal. Hardly surprising given your repeated lack of substance.
Maybe the reason you "hear it all the time" is because it's true.
Then explain it to me.
What specific deregulatory policies are to blame for the collapse of the housing and financial sectors, and how did they cause the collapse?
Even Alan Greenspan has abrogated his flawed ideology that deregulation helps the US economy.
Alan Greenspan's monetary policy is partially to blame for the collapse, so I'm not surprised he's trying to cover his own tracks.
What you're saying about economic protectionism being a failed policy was sound dogma about five years ago, my friend, but everybody with eyes to see have given up on your foolishness.
Actually, it's settled economics that protectionism is a failure. The only people trying to claim otherwise are random people on the internet (re: you).
True believers in Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (read: koolaid drinkers ) will probably never give up, even when reality smacks them in the face, but people with sense give up on failed ideologies after they, you know, fail on such a massive scale.
Light on substance and heavy on the insults. Let me know when you actually provide some evidence to support all the wacky assertions you've made.
P.S. - I see you ignored several points I made. An obvious indication that you cannot rebut them.