tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post7873652447932639224..comments2024-03-12T08:15:56.379-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman's Keynesian Cash ConWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64375017216283537702011-07-08T22:12:53.575-04:002011-07-08T22:12:53.575-04:00Lord Kash-Bottles says:
"And how do you measu...Lord Kash-Bottles says:<br />"And how do you measure "growth in the standard of living" accept by real GDP per capita, idiot?"<br /><br />Improvements in the following areas from 1800 to 1900:<br />Infant mortality, average life expectancy, leisure time, number of homes with time saving appliances, homes with indoor plumbing, number of homes with telephones, miles of telegraph line, railroad traffic at lower costs, number of steam-powered vessels, sanitation, medicine and dentistry (despite Fishbein and his ilk later crippling both industries), access to books, food, and music, use of electric power (Edison's DC until Tesla's AC)...<br /><br />To Lord Dig-a-Ditch, a billion frn's worth of battleships is no different than a billion frn's worth of agricultural station. He must have been vaccinated with a copy of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-52894625741902393792011-07-08T21:55:18.934-04:002011-07-08T21:55:18.934-04:00Patriot,
Where do you hang out? I want to come o...Patriot, <br /><br />Where do you hang out? I want to come over and smoke some methamphetamines with your kids. Maybe let them listen to some degrading rap music. Maybe a few tracks from "White man is the devil vol2: citizen caine" by slaine.ekeyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413110869433997820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44916981299128618962011-07-08T18:29:52.970-04:002011-07-08T18:29:52.970-04:00"I've got news for you. Trafficking of dr..."I've got news for you. Trafficking of drugs started all this, not the war against an imaginary evil. Wake up."<br /><br />And I've got news for you; looks like you're having a chicken/egg/first moment and a little confused.<br /><br />If the buying and selling of recreational drugs wasn't first considered illegal, then there wouldn't be "trafficking" in which to wage a drug war against. <br /><br />Wake up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-78553163170693554492011-07-08T14:27:48.186-04:002011-07-08T14:27:48.186-04:00PROCEDURALLY, private property and contractual pro...PROCEDURALLY, private property and contractual prohibitions are more UTILITARIAN than government prohibitions regarding drug users and the problems they cause. Therefore, the anti-Rothbardian must be in favor of the gang-bangers and their culture which would not exist in a Rothbardian system. So who's immoral now?<br /><br />Further, Iran and most of these muslim countries perhaps would not have failed to progress socially if the British and the US hadn't taken them over as colonies (Iraq being a creation of Churchill and his mustard gas) or CIA satraps (the evil Shah to save the ass of BP etc...).<br /><br />Thus, it is the interventionists and the drug warriors who are promoting immorality and the Rothbardians who promote peace, freedom, prosperity and virtuous living.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-17851627996278521802011-07-08T13:50:34.825-04:002011-07-08T13:50:34.825-04:00Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists....<i>Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists...</i><br /><br />Well, considering that "serious economists" have been doing lots of crap and getting away with it...<br /><br /><i>= idiocy. They were deregulatory bills significantly decreasing the power of government agencies and giving private financial institutions a great deal of freedom to make reckless loans</i><br /><br />This is just you trying to create your own parallel universe. You see, financial institutions that would have to deal with their own money wouldn't have freedom to make reckless loans. Reckless loans are possible because there is a Keynesian pipe-dreamer like you pulling the strings and giving banks the opportunity to get free money and anti-bankrupcy magic powder when things go wrong.João Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08679910497915175200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-59712295988481969362011-07-08T13:34:08.220-04:002011-07-08T13:34:08.220-04:00American Patriot,
just as I said, it is too bad t...American Patriot,<br /><br /><i>just as I said, it is too bad that our troops have to endanger themselves for likes of you.</i><br /><br />Funny. I don't recall asking them to endager their lives for me. Am I supposed to be grateful that they bomb brown people in far away lands? I couldn't care less.<br /><br />If I were to murder someone, then tell you that I killed him for you, should you be grateful? Even if you didn't ask for my help?<br /><br />I didn't ask for their protection and I don't want it. So the troops can kiss my backside.<br /><br />It is obvious to all that the American military serves the interests of the power elite. I've already explained to you the term "national interests" is a socialist construct. See Ludwig Von Mises' "Omnipotent Government" to fully understand socialist foreign policy and how eerily similar it is to yours.<br /><br /><i>In your book, there are no monsters.</i><br /><br />Wrong. There are plenty of monsters, but many of them serve in the American government. Empowering one group of parasites to take out another is not a solution. It merely creates a more powerful monster at home.<br /><br /><i>I'd love to see the 'scared shitless' look on your face when Ahmedinajad detonates a nuke over your city. Think it is impossible? </i><br /><br />LMFAO, are you serious, fear monger? America has about 10,000 nuclear weapons. Who should be scared here? The Iranians should be scared of America. Who has actually used nukes? Hmmm? Who has pre-emptively invaded the other country's neighbors? Did Iran invade Mexico? No? Did America invade Iraq? Hmmmmm...<br /><br />Which nation is more war like, America or Iran? How many countries has Iran attacked this century? How many has America attacked?<br /><br />ROFL, yeah I'm really scared of the big bad Iranians. <br /><br /><i>Just as I thought...</i><br /><br />You haven't thought for yourself once. You've said nothing I couldn't get from Michael Savage or Sean Hannity. You're a fear monger and probably racist against brown people. You obviously think they are subhuman, not worthy of a court of law or a trial. How many Arab and South Asian babies would you like to see killed? Is 10,000 enough? How about 1,000,000?<br /><br />But that Ahmadinejad.... watch out... he's gonna get ya!<br /><br />(Note that his rise to power occured because of America's overthrow of a democratically elected ruler in Iran and the imposition of the Shah in the 1953. Any student of history already knows this.)<br /><br /><b>Repeat: how is it moral to impose your morality on us at the point of a gun?</b>David Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-31879586380708721852011-07-08T13:32:27.714-04:002011-07-08T13:32:27.714-04:00Anon and Bob,
hopefully this is my last post on t...Anon and Bob,<br /><br />hopefully this is my last post on this.<br /><br />I agree with the basis of most of your statement, HOWEVER, just because we cannot eliminate drug use or stop Ahmedinejad's of this world does not mean we need to give up all together.<br /><br />I personally agree 100% with the tenth amendment. Nowhere, however, it states that morals are relative. Usually moral relativitism is reserved for progressives, but on some of these issues libertarians take the cake.<br /><br />I agree that states should decided whether certain things should be legal, but not those that, through interstate commerce, would impact other states that may have different views.<br /><br />Here is my solution, and I am serious about this:<br /><br />USA has outlived its usefulness as one nation. Progressivism and liberalism/constitutional conservatism cannot co-exist peacefully, without imposing on each other. <br />As such, all 50 states should go their own way (or can join other like minded states). This way, if you are a progressive, you can move to New York, California, or another such country. A libertarian would probably feel at home in Vermont and a constitutional conservative in Utah, Texas, or another country like them.<br /><br />Each country can also re-write the constitution to their liking and no one has to be subjected to wholesale policies they disagree with.<br /><br />It is not nirvana but sounds good?American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-79785389856640999922011-07-08T13:15:53.449-04:002011-07-08T13:15:53.449-04:00David b:
just as I said, it is too bad that our t...David b:<br /><br />just as I said, it is too bad that our troops have to endanger themselves for likes of you.<br /><br />In your book, there are no monsters. I'd love to see the 'scared shitless' look on your face when Ahmedinajad detonates a nuke over your city. Think it is impossible? Think again...(and read the news)<br /><br />Just as I thought, your words show that you are the 'crazy' type libertarian to whom all should be legal and people can duke it out on the streets if the consequences of your philosophy ends up harming them.<br /><br />Some civilization. Not even the Romans, two millenia ago, had such nonsense.American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62118872003163201782011-07-08T13:09:13.588-04:002011-07-08T13:09:13.588-04:00Bob,
it does not have to be all or nothing. How ...Bob,<br /><br />it does not have to be all or nothing. How about this as a rule of thumb:<br /><br />If an action results in a commercial transaction, thus spreading consequences throughout the society, that action must not harm the well being or the moral fiber of the society.<br /><br />True, eating too many Big Macs or drinking too much Whisky can cause harm, but in the case of Big Mac it is strictly personal harm and in the case of whiskey, there are DUI laws (or are you against DUI laws also?)<br />There is a HUGE difference between the type of harm Big Macs and hard drugs can bring about.<br /><br />As for foreign policy, your veiws are rightly cynical because, like everything else, foreign policy can be corrupted for different purposes. But, my point is that the main purpose should be the safeguarding of U.S. national interests as they pertain to our liberties. I am not for securing M.E. oil because I think that we should be drilling ourselves. We are potentially self sufficient as far as fossil fuel reserves go.<br /><br />The ridiculousness of patriots lining up against liberty is beyond words. It just shows your misunderstanding of what our founding documents collectively say. You do not have to have anarcho libertarianism to safeguard individual liberties.<br />To think otherwise is way too simplistic.American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-91927322364943917972011-07-08T13:05:09.032-04:002011-07-08T13:05:09.032-04:00AP,
Once again:
“In the interest of peace” is ho...AP,<br /><br />Once again:<br /><br />“In the interest of peace” is how a liar wages war<br />then clamors for more.<br />I wish we had elections every day,<br />wave the ballot in the air like a sign when I say<br />that democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun<br />is terror elsewhere on the world I’m from!<br /><br />How is the United States foreign policy done anything to protect us? How has the United States having troops in 146 countries done anything but created more hate for the United States? <br /><br />I have lived in the Middle East for about 9 years now and I can tell you for a fact, our actions in the Middle East has not done anything but make more and more people hates us. This oppressive régimes that “Breed our enemies” have us as a target because of our presence in the Middle East. You add that with our blind support of all of Israel’s actions and you just put a bulls eye on our heads. You should probably read “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” and you would have a better understanding of how our current foreign policy has failed.<br /><br />As for you comments on the “War on Drugs”, please I urge you to read “Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition”.<br /><br />Anon OutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2685035419673075532011-07-08T12:50:58.226-04:002011-07-08T12:50:58.226-04:00Beyond both the substantive and procedural nature ...Beyond both the substantive and procedural nature of the essential requirement of private property and the non-initiation of force, the major differences between the Rothbardian system and the democratic systems are procedural.<br /> <br />For example, for all the alleged horror stories that allegedly might occur under the Rothbardian system, there is nothing to stop a constitutional government from amending its constitution with the proper super-majority and (after properly jumping through all the hoops) electing to disembowel and barbeque the losing 20%, for example. <br /><br />And I will repeat for the 4,000th time, the problems of drug use by others are easily solvable by the market and private property. It is the government's drug prohibition, public schools and laws against discrimination that have caused the horrific problems that we all must endure because of what is an otherwise fairly minor problem of life.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6705609023572185682011-07-08T12:50:50.048-04:002011-07-08T12:50:50.048-04:00AmericanNationalist,
The War on Drugs may not be ...AmericanNationalist,<br /><br />The War on Drugs may not be an "Excuse" for bigger governemnt, but it certainly, undoubtedly has led to bigger government.<br /><br />It's only natural that people prosecuting the war on drugs have a vested interest in keeping the war going. I don't speak here of the boots-on-the-ground, who are always eager to end the fight. I'm talking about the bureaucrats in the DOJ and its tentacle agencies.<br /><br />An end to threats leads to an end to occupation for those who are responsible for fighting those threats.<br /><br />This is obvious and uncontestable.<br /><br />It is also obvious that prohibition never works. It did not work for alcohol and it does not work for any other drugs. Prohibition makes the dealer a hero, not a criminal. He provides a product that consumers demand. <br /><br />We agree that:<br /><br />1. There will always be drugs<br />2. There will always be people addicted to drugs<br />3. There will always be a way to get drugs<br />4. A dealer that finds a way to bring drugs to the market lowers the cost of drugs<br />5. A lower cost of drugs is better for the drug addict than a higher costs, see again point #2 <br />6. When Drug Warriors stop drug shipments, they raise the price of drugs, making it worse for the drug addict, see again point #2<br /><br />Therefore, the Drug Dealer is a hero and the Drug Warrior is evil.<br /><br />I hope you see the light, but I highly doubt it.<br /><br />By some magic fairy dust, you believe that your morality can be imposed on others. This is only different from the Socialist Central Planning vision by an idiosyncratic detail. Socialists want to impose their vision to change all human nature. You want to impose it to change a part of human nature you disagree with. The devil is in the details.David Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-34079676914067405482011-07-08T12:35:11.338-04:002011-07-08T12:35:11.338-04:00AP,
Once again you are making a case that Federal...AP,<br /><br />Once again you are making a case that Federal Government is needed to enforce a moral society, I take issue with this point.<br /><br />First, who determines what is moral and what is not moral? Do your versions of morality reflect my views or LKs view or even David Bs view of morality? <br /><br />Second, why would the Federal Government be in charge of what my local community considers moral? If I live in community that votes to legalize pot, why do we need to have anyone else interfere with that? If my local community votes that it’s OK for homosexuals to marry, whose business is that outside of my local community? Why do we need to have a national moral code? Why can that not be left up to the local communities? If you leave moral decisions up to your local community the members of that community can effect change based on their morals. Please take the time to read the “Politically incorrect History of the United States” and you will see the original colonies did not want their moral decisions affect by anyone outside of their individual communities. This was the basis of the original “Articles of Confederation” and later the “Constitution” you claim to support.<br /><br />Third, I as a parent am responsible for my children, what I allow them to be exposed to and what I teach them is completely up to me and my family? I do not need the governments help in this! Your right I can not control what my children are exposed to. However, I have found as a parent I can teach them a moral code and what I consider acceptable behavior and they tend to make good moral decisions. I do not expect my kids to have the exact set of beliefs that I do, but I believe if you take the time to actual talk to your children and teach them they are perfectly capable of making their own moral decisions.<br /><br />Once again, have you actually read Ron Pauls writings or are you just going off what the talking heads on TV and interwebs say?<br /><br />Anon OutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-23134104106536365212011-07-08T12:34:27.939-04:002011-07-08T12:34:27.939-04:00AmericanChickenHawk,
A few notes, because I want ...AmericanChickenHawk,<br /><br />A few notes, because I want this one to be brief.<br /><br />A chicken hawk is a person that sends other people to fight their wars. I don't advocate sending any troops overseas to fight monsters, real or imaginary. You, on the other hand....<br /><br />I don't care about your military service.<br /><br />Finally,<br /><br /><b>Is it moral to impose your morality on others by force, at the point of a gun?</b><br /><br />If so, how is that moral? How does that improve society?<br /><br />America already has the largest prison population/person in the world. <br /><br />How much more of your imposed-morality can we really take?David Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53368465038479257962011-07-08T12:32:28.022-04:002011-07-08T12:32:28.022-04:00I know the distinction between the US Constitution...I know the distinction between the US Constitution and anarcho-capitalism. <br /><br />However, if the goverment can ban drugs, it can also ban Big Macs and whiskey. It means the end of property rights. Our foreign policy is never about defending us against military enemies. It is always about spreading the "progressive" Clintonista agenda AND subsidizing the military-industrial complex. And perhaps monopolizing some oil and other resource markets. <br /><br />It's not a coincidence that the "patriots" and the "progressives" always line up together against freedom, liberty, property, privacy and prosperity.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-56734720252268834452011-07-08T12:26:48.311-04:002011-07-08T12:26:48.311-04:00I'm sure glad our military is protecting the U...I'm sure glad our military is protecting the U.S. borders from a North Korean invasion.Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74592045003143575622011-07-08T12:23:29.335-04:002011-07-08T12:23:29.335-04:00Bob,
Are you seriously suggesting that:
1) sole ...Bob,<br /><br />Are you seriously suggesting that:<br /><br />1) sole purpose of our foreign policy is to spread Clintonista policies?<br /><br />Try spreading liberty to tyrannical regimes so that they hopefully cease to be factories for our enemies. Obviously not very effective in a less than third world country like Afghanistan (which, unlike Obama, I never liked as a war theater) but that should never be the reason we avoid all together intervening in critical situations. Like Chamberlain with Hitler's Germany, you guys would allow a country like Iran to one day start a major war in the M.E. that would spread like a wildfire, wouldn't you?!<br /><br />2) War against drugs is just an excuse for bigger government?<br /><br />I've got news for you. Trafficking of drugs started all this, not the war against an imaginary evil. Wake up.<br /><br />You really don't see the connection between certain behaviors/actions and their ill effects on the moral fiber (and thus eventual well being) of the society, do you?<br /><br />Like progressives, some of you libertarians cannot think more than one step ahead, can you? Critical thinking requires such exercise but hey, if it feels good or sounds good, to hell with the eventual outcome, right?American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50325018729532041222011-07-08T12:12:22.440-04:002011-07-08T12:12:22.440-04:00I'm ex-military, and I think your handle is se...I'm ex-military, and I think your handle is self-serving and moronic. <br /><br />Matt P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57078266965622107562011-07-08T12:07:33.970-04:002011-07-08T12:07:33.970-04:00To David b:
You have no idea of the distinction b...To David b:<br /><br />You have no idea of the distinction between constitutional conservatism and anarcho libertarianism (which Ron Paul is NOT but comes close on some of his stances). Paul's beliefs on the most part DO mimic mine but it is his social and foreign policy stances that rubs us the wrong way (thus the reason he garners no support to speak of whenever he runs for president as opposed to Tea Party candidates like Bachmann) Read my recent two posts and you may learn something for a change.<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, I did serve in the military. Your statement that "only people that have never served in military would have a handle so stupid" only shows what a pathetic pacifist former hippy you must be. There a tons of former military bloggers out there and they use the term Patriot proudly. It is too bad that the active duty personnel have to put their lives on the line to protect likes of you.<br /><br />Chicken hawk, huh.... look who is talking.American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54175921663533176732011-07-08T12:00:09.207-04:002011-07-08T12:00:09.207-04:001. The purpose of US foreign policy is to provide ...1. The purpose of US foreign policy is to provide [inflict] the wonders and joys of US Clintonista domestic policy to/upon the rest of the world and help make the third world more like Detroit. Thanks for everything, you warmongers.<br /><br />2. Unless they are completely insane, one must conclude that the drug warriors love the gang-bangers because they are their enablers. Thanks for everything, you drug warriors.<br /><br /><em>Mexico's drug gangs are increasingly developing ties to mafias around the world, from Japan to India, Russia, and Western Europe.<br /><br />Mexico's drug gangs have exploded into a frenzy of violence in recent years. Less visible, but just as significant, is their increased power in the international drug market, and connections to foreign criminal organizations.</em><br /><br />http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/1112-mexico-gangs-spread-tentacles-abroadBob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89298791342515055782011-07-08T11:57:03.681-04:002011-07-08T11:57:03.681-04:00Lord Keynes,
Let's start with the best part:
...Lord Keynes,<br /><br />Let's start with the best part:<br /><br /><i>"Still angry? Oh sweet Austrian dumb***. Do your nostrils flare when you read my replies, my little libertarian troll?" </i><br /><br />When children mimic their daddies, it always is a special moment. I am flatter that you think of me as your daddy. Now, let's see if you can learn to walk, my child.<br /><br /><i>Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists...</i><br /><br />Another <b>Appeal to Authority</b>. But LK, I am your daddy now, so there is no need for you to continue to appeal to other authorities. Just appeal to me and I'll make it all better.<br /><br />Besides, what makes them serious? Do they not like jokes? Are their dress shirts extra starched?<br /><br />Any person, serious or not, that concluded the 1970s were a time of growth exceeding the 1800s would also conclude that his econometrics are bogus.<br /><br /><i>= idiocy. They were deregulatory bills significantly decreasing the power of government agencies and giving private financial institutions a great deal of freedom to make reckless loans</i><br /><br />Couple things on this. First, you have already admitted that the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power over every loan the banks made, and since none of these laws repealed that authority, you have to fall back on the whimsical, conspiratorial notion that Greenspan skulked away the Effective Regulations in the middle of the night.<br /><br />Besides that, if it were true that we somehow became a free market laissez faire paradise during the last 20 years, it would also be true that the size of the federal government shrank and that many thousands of laws were <b>repealed</b>. <br /><br />Is any of this the case, my son?David Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-14011869775184347982011-07-08T11:48:12.936-04:002011-07-08T11:48:12.936-04:00First of all, I should not refer to Ron Paul as a ...First of all, I should not refer to Ron Paul as a crackpot since that is a highly subjective label.<br /><br />The reason why he is objectionable to me is his foreign policy views as well as some of his positions like legalizing non-recreational drugs. I’ll explain.<br /><br />As I said in a post earlier, certain moral standards must be maintained, not because I object to, say, legalizing drugs, but the society in general can degrade pretty fast when everything becomes "normalized". <br /><br />Case in point: What is the harm in obscene lyrics in rap songs? Or full frontal nudity with soft core sex acts on public airways? Or being able to buy narcotics legally? All are personal choices that we should be able to make freely, right? I'd agree with that sentiment, but look at the cultural degradation we have suffered as the music industry, Hollywood, etc. have made more and more of what used to be considered a taboo "normal" in their handiwork. Commercial transactions are by their very nature public, with an inevitable impact on the larger community. Do you like the cultural landscape of today where rappers, Lady Gaga types, etc. influence your children's outlook? You may say, as a parent you should control what your children watch or do, but that is impossible unless you keep your children in a bubble. Cultural decay, along with public education, have accomplished subverting the youth (who become tomorrow's leaders). <br /><br />That is called Cultural Marxism that Antonio Gramsci and his ilk coined. Some of Ron Paul's views play right in to the hands of these cultural Marxists, like it or not. That in turn leads to the destruction of civil society and threatens/weakens our constitutional republic further.<br /><br />TO BE CONTINUED……American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-43940044145753033112011-07-08T11:47:45.001-04:002011-07-08T11:47:45.001-04:00It seems to me (as predicted) the statists always ...It seems to me (as predicted) the statists always dodge my $6 million question:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/4xa9vz9<br /><br />For what it's worth, I'll bet the standard of living was better in 1974 than in 1874. I recall a gay libertarian friend in 1974 who had a quadrophonic turntable and system and explained it all as one of the joys of the free market. It was.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86086814094221008422011-07-08T11:27:09.414-04:002011-07-08T11:27:09.414-04:00LK,
You are as hilarious as they get. It is many ...LK,<br /><br />You are as hilarious as they get. It is many months since I demolished your precious concept of GDP as a nonsense indicator simple because it measures spending and that spending is not an indicator of prosperity. Further, only idiots will add C and I and take that to be a meaningful economic indicator.<br /><br />I guess that makes you an idiot of the lowest order.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-3160695668020974142011-07-08T10:43:27.071-04:002011-07-08T10:43:27.071-04:00Correction:
Real GDP, which is the measure seriou...Correction:<br /><br />Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists use does NOT show fake growth due to inflation, you complete idiot. <br /><br />And yes: real GDP growth was still higher on average in 1970s, than in the 1800s: deal with it.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com