• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

"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.
 
P.S. - I see you ignored several points I made. An obvious indication that you cannot rebut them.

Look, alms, it's not that I can't rebut your arguments, I've done it several times over the course of the thread. But when you keep responding with the same arguments I've just rebutted, you can see how it might get tiresome. I'm not going round and round with you on the same subject again. Have a nice day.
 
The point is, if I understood Ryrinea correctly, is similar to the point I was trying to make with the original links I posted. You're living in a fantasyland, NYC, if you think all countries are going to trade freely and sing kumbaya.

Where have I said anything resembling this?

China and other economies are implementing protectionist policies regardless of whether we think it is a good idea.

Which is why it's a good idea to work with other countries bilaterally and multilaterally to break down trade barriers in as many ways as possible. Which we do.

There are good ways to implement protective policies, and there are bad ways, as Ryrinea's the third link illustrates. But you asked who thinks protectionism is a good idea, and the answer is every country except the USA, apparently.

Do you really not see the difference between:

1) Country X implementing some protectionist policies in some situations, and
2) Protectionism in general being of economic benefit to our country as a whole?

The fact that China has some protectionist policies is not proof that all of economics is wrong.

Funny, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere... Oh yeah, it's what I've been saying this entire time.

Again, I don't think you're really understanding what Krugman said. He said that you could make the argument that those particular protectionist policies helped in a particular situation, but then concluded that in the end, that argument was flawed.

Also, I'm still waiting for this list of converted economists.

And I gave you the evidence. China is doing it, India is doing it, Europe is doing it, everybody is except the USA. Time to get with it here, buddy. Frankly, I don't want to play the quote game, because we can match each other quote for quote all day and get nowhere. Just use a little horse sense. It's better to keep money in our economy than give it to China. QED

****, I was gonna point out the flaws in your logic but then you added a QED, so I guess you win.
 
Then start a white owned shop that sells hispanic goods and stop whining.

Being hispanic has nothing to do with it has to do with hiring illegal aliens rather than citizens. You can tell as soon as you walk into these places that their employees are illegals, you have the owner or manager who speaks English and then every single employee there doesn't speak English, it's not hard to figure out what's going on.

Most mexicans are legal. Also, knowing spanish helps one get hired there.

lol, ya a shop with one English speaking Mexican (the owner) and 15 non-English speaking Mexicans, ya I'm sure they're legal. :roll:

Ive heard thats likely false, also I dont know of any businesses that are not taxed.

How the **** do illegals who are not on the books pay income taxes?
 
The added cost of American labor would be passed onto consumers. I doubt you or anyone else is willing to pay a big premium for American-made merchandise.

$1,000 PS3 or $50 T-shirts anyone?

Well, do you want a product that is good and lasts for life, or do you want something that's designed to last at least as long as the warranty?

I don't have a big problem with immigrants that work and mind their own business, but I don't have a problem with profitable companies delivering a product or service at a good price either.

Well, you have to examine the quality of the work area for these individuals. You should look up the conditions of the iPad's... after a series of 16 suicides from the people that worked somewhere around 16 hrs a day for 6-7 days a week, they now have a 'suicide clause' in the employment contract, where if they cause grief they are treated as though the might commit suicide.

Oh, and, also recently, the workers in China have started fighting to unionize (essentially, from my understanding).... ;)

Populism and protectionism are surefire ways to kill an economy. They've never once worked for anyone, ever, yet you still advocate them and refer to free-market economics as "irrelevant dogma". I don't know how anyone could take you seriously.

I only disagree in the sense that we no longer live in a 'free-market'... we live in a 'crony capitalist' state, which is teetering on the fascist (not as in hitlers germany, that was sold as socialism, I'm talking about the mix of government and corporate entities.)

If I am not mistaken the fire department is a forum of socialism, since it is government owned aka owned by the area which you live. This person is in his full right to talk about his beliefs about the democrats thought I do agree with Reddress that the people who torched the sign are not in their right to burn it, since it would be arson which is against the law, and they should be punished fully according to the laws of that state regarding arson's.

Is it a form of socialsim? Yes, but cities have votes and agree that they will pay the necessary taxes to accomodate the service. I'm pretty sure that we can agree that the fire department is hardly the type of socialist product that's 'bad'... the only problem with socialist / fascist countries is that more often then not, they wind up having 'ethnic cleanses' of sorts or just allow whole sections of their populations to die. Not as a 'conspiracy' but as a general historical fact.

Yes, the people who torched the sign could have chewed out the guy... but I suppose it's easier to burn something down then to actually voice your opinions... Or simply CHANGED the sign...

Facism is exactly what you're talking about. Corporations that are privately owned and government run. You sure as hell aren't talking about Capitalism.

Ya, that's the definition of fascism... people keep calling it socialism, that's not what it is.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I am talking about is a government that regulates privately owned corporations with the protection of its own citizens in mind.

You mean a 'benevolant fascism'... oh ok. Let's say Obama is the 'benevolant fascist' the one and only in the world. He's got an 8 year term max.... what about the next guy?

And neither are you. At least, neither of us is talking about "pure" capitalism, and it is a gross misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics to assume that any such system of anarchocapitalism can exist outside a vacuum. What you're talking about are artificial market restrictions that favor multinational corporations and an elite few robber-barons. What I'm talking about is an artificial market that favors the people of the United States.

I do agree, we do NOT live in a 'free-market capitalism'... what we see is 'crony capitalism' you make money because you know people that have money. You can only ever make as much money as the people you know. Sad but true.

However, you are litterally saying that we need fascism to save america... I'm not buying it... and if we allow that to happen... it won't be good, fascisms have NEVER turned out well for the people. Sure they start out fine and dandy.

He should have just painted the first question: "Are you a producer or a parasite?" Everyone needs to look inside themselves to see how to answer this question. Are you in middle management, used car salesman, work in the financial district, or own a Pawn shop? Guess what? You don't produce anything tangible. You simply position yourself to make money from people by shuffling papers. You may provide a service. That's why you get paid, yet you don't produce anything. When I heard a few years back that America was going to become a nation of service providers I had a bad gut reaction. You can't shift the economic standing of a nation that far away from production and expect to get away with it.

Agreed... EXACTLY what the people who were speaking at anti-NAFTA, GATT, etc meetings were warning us about. But they were all a bunch of stupid hippies, what would they know. Right??


Who said anything about lower prices without jobs? I'm saying we can have both.

You have to work to have a healthy economy, where the first 1000 books you might print will cost you 5000$, but if you print 10000 books it will cost you 8000$ (as an arbitrary illustration).

What we have to do before that can happen is to break up the monopolies, duopolies and oligolopolies in the economy, and rewrite the legistlation with teeth to prevent them from simply forming newer and more intricate crony systems, end the federal reserve, bring the US currency back to something in line with a hard currency, work to produce that hard currency, etc...

In other words, we need a hollistic fix for the economy... not a 'green jobs' that costs more jobs then it creates, and are short term jobs (as greece offers the cautionary tale).

Do you know how much more expensive a car would be if there was no outsourcing? Why do you think you can just ignore the massive premium that would come attached to purely American-made products?

DO YOU know just how much of a premium is put on chinese made goods??? You're Ipod / Ipad actually gets produced for about 20-30$ a piece + shipping overseas, storage expenses + markups. (If I remember they are several hundred dollars each).

So, I think I'd feel safe paying for a 75000$ car that'll snap those cheap arse foreign models like a twig if there's an accident... that'll run for 15 years if it's taken care of, and has balls so big they drage on the ground and make sparks.

regardless though, that's besides the point, there needs to be COMPETITION with these other producers... and at the very least start reducing our trade deficit.

As long as you're willing to pay much more for virtually everything you buy this shouldn't be a problem. And what gives you the right to restrict my economic choices?

Ultimately if the trend was for protectionist BUYING habits, then american made products would eventually become cheaper as the REAL economy would be properly stimulated by internal production.


The way things are going now, if you were to use a baseball analogy , you would say that we are in 'inning 2' of a 9 inning collapse. Soon will be inning 3.
 
You mean a 'benevolant fascism'... oh ok. Let's say Obama is the 'benevolant fascist' the one and only in the world. He's got an 8 year term max.... what about the next guy?

:doh

So far in this thread people have called both myself and Obama "fascists" and "Marxists," apparently without recognizing the irony that neither of these terms are accurate for either of us. While I don't agree with Obama about everything, I do admit that I am very closely aligned with him on a lot of issues. Let me repeat, neither I nor Obama are fascists, that is patently absurd, and I really can't let such an insult pass (against me at least, say whatever you like about Obama, Lord knows I've called George W. Bush a fascist in my time). I wonder if you guys even know what fascism and marxism are? And what are you talking about when you say "benevolent fascism?" There is no such thing. These slurs have gotten to the point where they have no meaning at all, and people call any belief you oppose "fascism" or "marxism." In reality, the sort of thing alms and NYC are advocating are much closer to fascism (though not identical to fascism) than anything I have said. "What you're talking about are artificial market restrictions that favor multinational corporations and an elite few robber-barons. What I'm talking about is an artificial market that favors the people of the United States." And when I say that I'm talking about the poor people of the United States. I'm talking about breaking the backs of the robber-barons to give the working people a fair chance. I'm talking about equality for all people, which is precisely the opposite of fascism. What I'm talking about is egalitarianism.
 
Last edited:
More like corporations outsourcing manufacturing jobs to India and China, which helps their bottom line at the expense of the American economy. So yes, it's sort of like sending money to Mexico, only on an exponentially greater scale. Not to mention those undocumented immigrants you speak so contemptuously of are contributing more to our economy than they are taking away.

Yes, I often wonder why a corporation would want to give up paying exorbinant union wages so those with retirement / investment portfolios may receive dividends.
 
Yes, I often wonder why a corporation would want to give up paying exorbinant union wages so those with retirement / investment portfolios may receive dividends.

Sarcasm is the last refuge of a failed argument. The issue is not why corporations would do this. It's obvious why they would do it, for the money, of course! This is precisely why we need to regulate them, because they follow a predictable pattern of using whatever means possible to increase their profits at the expense of ravaging the American economy.
 
:doh

So far in this thread people have called both myself and Obama "fascists" and "Marxists," apparently without recognizing the irony that neither of these terms are accurate for either of us.
No, those calling Obama a 'marxist' are confused... by strict definition of your statement that you described as good is the DEFINITION of fascism...
Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

The only notes I add to this definition is that Obama is NOT a dictator per se, he hasn't overly acted like a dictator in the same way that Bush was acting like a dictator. Also, the way that Obama's team is suprressing opposition is by labelling it as racism.

While I don't agree with Obama about everything, I do admit that I am very closely aligned with him on a lot of issues. Let me repeat, neither I nor Obama are fascists, that is patently absurd, and I really can't let such an insult pass

I'm not being insulting... I'm saying by strict definition Obama is turning america into a fascist state.

(against me at least, say whatever you like about Obama, Lord knows I've called George W. Bush a fascist in my time). I wonder if you guys even know what fascism and marxism are?

I was also vehemently anti-bush... Bush at least did manage to keep within the gray area of constitutionality (through legaleze 'justifications'), in spite of his attempting to act as a dictator.

And what are you talking about when you say "benevolent fascism?" There is no such thing.

By strict definition you were saying what was needed was a benevolent fascism. Mixing corporate and government controls IS FASCISM. America became fascist when Obama took over GM, by the definition of the term.

I do agree there is no such thing is benevolant fascism, at least not in any long term.

These slurs have gotten to the point where they have no meaning at all, and people call any belief you oppose "fascism" or "marxism."

I'm not 'slurring' I'm not insulting, I'm simply informing the definition of fascism... I do however agree that calling obama marxist is flawed.

In reality, the sort of thing alms and NYC are advocating are much closer to fascism (though not identical to fascism) than anything I have said. "What you're talking about are artificial market restrictions that favor multinational corporations and an elite few robber-barons. What I'm talking about is an artificial market that favors the people of the United States." And when I say that I'm talking about the poor people of the United States. I'm talking about breaking the backs of the robber-barons to give the working people a fair chance.

No, they are two different types of tyranny... it's like asking me, do you want a boot to the left or the right side of your face.

I'm talking about equality for all people, which is precisely the opposite of fascism. What I'm talking about is egalitarianism.

I don't doubt your good intentions... you want equality for the people you should be fighting for the constitution and bill of rights. You didn't REALIZE you were calling for fascism, because your thoughts are in the best interest of the people... however, what you're PROPOSING 100% of the time in history turns out to be in the WORST interests of the people.

What do you think the 'change' Obama was offering REALLY is???

I honestly am NOT looking to insult anyone here, just pointing out that what is proposed is fascism... what we need is a republic where the land is ruled by the rule of law. Not this merger between corporate and government interests... it's bad enough that there's a private corporation responsible for printing themoney.
 
:doh

So far in this thread people have called both myself and Obama "fascists" and "Marxists," apparently without recognizing the irony that neither of these terms are accurate for either of us. While I don't agree with Obama about everything, I do admit that I am very closely aligned with him on a lot of issues. Let me repeat, neither I nor Obama are fascists, that is patently absurd, and I really can't let such an insult pass (against me at least, say whatever you like about Obama, Lord knows I've called George W. Bush a fascist in my time).

So you criticize those who call Obama a Marxist while acknowledging that you made remarks that were equally foolish when Bush was in office?

I wonder if you guys even know what fascism and marxism are? And what are you talking about when you say "benevolent fascism?" There is no such thing. These slurs have gotten to the point where they have no meaning at all, and people call any belief you oppose "fascism" or "marxism."

And you're guilty of the exact same thing.

In reality, the sort of thing alms and NYC are advocating are much closer to fascism (though not identical to fascism) than anything I have said.

:rofl

Please explain how pointing out that the vast majority of economists support free trade is "close to fascism." Weren't you just complaining about people who misuse words they don't understand?
 
Sarcasm is the last refuge of a failed argument. The issue is not why corporations would do this. It's obvious why they would do it, for the money, of course! This is precisely why we need to regulate them, because they follow a predictable pattern of using whatever means possible to increase their profits at the expense of ravaging the American economy.

Are you suggesting union demands have no bearing on the profitability / continuing viability of a corporation?
 
Are you suggesting union demands have no bearing on the profitability / continuing viability of a corporation?

What I'm suggesting is that the continuing viability of the American economy outweighs the continuing viability of multinational corporate robber-barons.
 
Please explain how pointing out that the vast majority of economists support free trade is "close to fascism." Weren't you just complaining about people who misuse words they don't understand?

It's not a 'free market' in the US... it's crony / monopoly capitalism, or like 'coke-pepsi' situations where 1-5 companies control 90+% of the market share. Yes, you COULD argue that this was due to free-market policies, and yes you do still have the RIGHT to open a business, etc... but you're competing against entrenched companies that control almost all the business. The links between these companies can all be proven.
 
:rofl

Please explain how pointing out that the vast majority of economists support free trade is "close to fascism." Weren't you just complaining about people who misuse words they don't understand?

To repeat, I said your beliefs are closer to fascism than mine. Not that your ideas are identical to fascism, just near to it. My own beliefs are farther left along the spectrum, yours are decidedly toward the right, which is by definition nearer to fascism. Nothing personal, that's just how it shakes out. If you find your proximity to fascism distasteful, perhaps your ought to reexamine your political beliefs instead of levying insult against me for telling the truth.
 
What I'm suggesting is that the continuing viability of the American economy outweighs the continuing viability of multinational corporate robber-barons.

I agree with your intention I disagree with your suggested means to that end.

All we need to do is NOT bail these companies out/.... if they collapse under their own weight, no ammount of cash injections can save it. Especially when it's companies dealing in the 100's of trillions of dollars of derivatives that are not worth the paper they're not printed on.

Also, shame on organizations like the SEC who should all be investigated at this point, for NOT enforcing the laws properly or equally... they should be criminally charged for negligence. The evidence to be gathered while investigation the big robber-barons / monopoly men crooks.
 
Last edited:
What I'm suggesting is that the continuing viability of the American economy outweighs the continuing viability of multinational corporate robber-barons.


And when these "robber barrons" simply shrug, or move all aspects of production off shore, will the American economy remain viable?
 
I agree with your intention I disagree with your suggested means to that end.

All we need to do is NOT bail these companies out/.... if they collapse under their own weight, no ammount of cash injections can save it. Especially when it's companies dealing in the 100's of trillions of dollars of derivatives that are not worth the paper they're not printed on.

Also, shame on organizations like the SEC who should all be investigated at this point, for NOT enforcing the laws properly or equally... they should be criminally charged for negligence. The evidence to be gathered while investigation the big robber-barons / monopoly men crooks.

I totally agree with your their. The bail-outs were a disgrace and it's precisely that sort of thing that precludes the existence of a truly free market. You nailed it when your called it crony capitalism.

But I still must vehemently disagree with your asserting that either Obama and I am somehow advocating fascism. Fascism is an evil ideology of racism, eugenics and ultranationalism, which neither Obama nor myself have ever advocated. I am certainly espousing a statist ideology, but I do not subscribe to the notion that statism and fascism are one and the same. Moreover, my own ideas regarding multinational corporations are decidedly left-wing, whereas fascist economic ideologies are decidedly right-wing. My ideas are certainly statist, and you might even consider them tyrannical, but this is not fascism, nor is it marxism for that matter. It is a left-wing economic pragmatism.
 
Last edited:
And when these "robber barrons" simply shrug, or move all aspects of production off shore, will the American economy remain viable?

Well they've already moved all aspects of production overseas, haven't they? What I'm saying is that when they do that they should be denied access to the American market. Make production in America was a requirement for access to the American market, and watch how fast those corporations move they production-- and the jobs they create-- back to this economy.
 
So you criticize those who call Obama a Marxist while acknowledging that you made remarks that were equally foolish when Bush was in office?
Did you miss the part where I said, "Say whatever you like about Obama?" The only thing I'm criticizing is an inadequate understanding of the terms "marxism" and "fascism" that betray an ignorance (or in the case of BmanMcFly a very unusual interpretation) of political theory. I don't care what people say about Obama, even if they are wrong. I do care what they say about me, because I am neither a fascist nor a marxist and those terms have highly offensive implications. Sure, you're within your rights to call me a "marxist" or a "fascist," [and though I may not agree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it] just don't get your panties all in a wad when I call you out on your ignorance.
 
Last edited:
To repeat, I said your beliefs are closer to fascism than mine. Not that your ideas are identical to fascism, just near to it.

Would it be fair for me to say that your views are "much closer to Marxism"? Or would you consider that to be baseless namecalling?

Did you miss the part where I said, "Say whatever you like about Obama?" The only thing I'm criticizing in an inadequate understanding of the terms "marxism" and "fascism" that betray an ignorance (or in the case of BmanMcFly a very unusual interpretation) of political theory.

And you demonstrated that same level of ignorance when you said Bush was a fascist.
 
Last edited:
Would it be fair for me to say that your views are "much closer to Marxism"? Or would you consider that to be baseless namecalling?

No, that's a fair characterization.

But I feel I must point out that, while I am "closer to Marxism" than fascism, I am still much closer to the center than anything else.

And you demonstrated that same level of ignorance when you said Bush was a fascist.

I certainly did, but this is an American citizen's prerogative when speaking about presidents, particularly since I was in college for the early Bush years. Ah, the folly of youth.
 
Last edited:
But I still must vehemently disagree with your asserting that either Obama and I am somehow advocating fascism. Fascism is an evil ideology of racism, eugenics and ultranationalism, which neither Obama nor myself have ever advocated. I am certainly espousing a statist ideology, but I do not subscribe to the notion that statism and fascism are one and the same. Moreover, my own ideas regarding multinational corporations are decidedly left-wing, whereas fascist economic ideologies are decidedly right-wing. My ideas are certainly statist, and you might even consider them tyrannical, but this is not fascism, nor is it marxism for that matter. It is a left-wing economic pragmatism.

Whatever the word is, when you start mixing government with corporate the result is fascism.

I don't think Obama would EVER admit to being a fascist, but his actions are defining this for him at the moment. You better recognize it for what it is.... republican / democrat is a lie... they are both the left and right wing of the 'big government' party. Through the system of free-market capitalism, a system of cronyism has taken place that's gone unchecked for so long, that now the 'solution' is to have government take control over corporate interests. This takeover IS fascism.

Bottom line is that I will heartily oppose all measures that conflict with the bill of rights and constitution. However, if there is an end to those protections, then the people will quickly learn WHY those measures were put in place to start.
 
Whatever the word is, when you start mixing government with corporate the result is fascism.

I don't think Obama would EVER admit to being a fascist, but his actions are defining this for him at the moment.

I will grant you that Obama's bailouts and his nationalization of car companies contains elements of fascism, but this is where Obama and I diverge in our beliefs. I'm with you on this McFly, and I feel that those companies should have just been allowed to fail.
 
Well they've already moved all aspects of production overseas, haven't they? What I'm saying is that when they do that they should be denied access to the American market. Make production in America was a requirement for access to the American market, and watch how fast those corporations move they production-- and the jobs they create-- back to this economy.

They won't come back if Americans can't afford their product. If noone can afford their product, no jobs will be created, tax revenue will steeply decline, and scads of investment capital will go overseas. Look, the globalism geanie is out of the bottle...isolationism can only work if HUGE tarrifs are placed on everything we import.....with the amount of money we've borrowed from China and Japan to keep this little American experiment afloat, wouldn't you think punitive tarrifs might result in a margin call at best, global calamity and war at worst?
 
Look, alms, it's not that I can't rebut your arguments, I've done it several times over the course of the thread. But when you keep responding with the same arguments I've just rebutted, you can see how it might get tiresome. I'm not going round and round with you on the same subject again. Have a nice day.

Keep telling yourself that you've rebutted me. Maybe one day it will come true...
 
Back
Top Bottom