Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course your scenario has been tried and found to be an UTTER FAILURE, which is why we no longer have it.. Duh.

Leftism is the only reason anything fails. It's simple: Cut that cancerous blob out of society, and everything flourishes! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rebound said:

A car and a hamburger are equals. 

You buy used hamburgers?

But when do economists mention Net Domestic Product on television? The economics books don't even point out that Demand Side Depreciation is ignored.  We are all just supposed to presume that economists doing this and not telling is fine?

Are you approving of this? I had one PhD economist quit talking to me. This is one factor contributing to screwing up the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

48 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

As far as macroeconomics goes, governments DO spend money. The perfect Libertarian model is for government to spend ONLY for the legitimate functions of government. And libertarians believe in taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Some may disagree as to what is legitimate, and some who lack an education might suggest spending for something that is not legitimate is socialism.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here. As far as lacking the brains, you might want to find the thread that echoes the state of mind you're in, or create your own thread. This thread is not about algebra, depreciation from wear and tear, or physics. This is about a mor0nic accusation from a blue state liberal who has the brains of a gerbil.

Apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, reason10 said:

You're moving away from the subject of the thread.

Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of all the means of production. The  original idi0t who created this thread tried to accuse conservatives of calling all government spending socialism. I pointed out that he was wrong.

I'm looking more in broad strokes here.

You are claiming that he is wrong.

He said:

[Quote]Any time the government helps the people, conservatives attack it and call it socialism.  [/quote]

Lots of various conservatives have said lots of stupid shit.

The Wall Street Journal called Henry Ford a "traitor to his class" when he introduced the $5 day. And with all of their blather about Adam Smith they don't point out that Smith mentioned 'education' Eighty Times and wrote "read, write and account".

When the OP says that I am off topic I will think about it. You can just STFU! Of course with your delusions of intellectual adequacy I am sure that won't happen, so continue entertaining me. LOL

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time the government helps the people, conservatives attack it and call it socialism.

That is a lie and he is a LIAR for saying that.

The Wall Street Journal called Henry Ford a "traitor to his class" when he introduced the $5 day. And with all of their blather about Adam Smith they don't point out that Smith mentioned 'education' Eighty Times and wrote "read, write and account".

Both Smith and that WSJ writer are DEAD. The times they lived in no longe exist. It doesn't mean necessarily that their theories are wrong. You and other goose steppers continue to push the policies of KKKarl Marx, even as his system has been proven WRONG by history.

When the OP says that I am off topic I will think about it. You can just STFU! Of course with your delusions of intellectual adequacy I am sure that won't happen, so continue entertaining me. LOL

Here's the thing: I'm just offering an opinion here, same as everyone else. I may have a better set of facts than the goose stepping liberals here (mostly because they have NO facts at all) but I proceed on the assumption that we are all debating on the same page, the SAME topic. The stuff you are throwing out there is irrelevant to the topic of this thread (which I'll freely admit is very stupid, not surprising since it was created by a very stupid poster). You may not like that your forays into other topics are irrelevant. You need to know that I sleep wonderfully at night not worrying what entitled, easily triggered, uneducated goose steppers like you feel. In the end, nobody at this forum is losing any money on the deal, assuming this isn't cutting into working hours. (You assume that for the mainstream conservatives here, since the liberals are all on welfare and food stamps and have all the time in the world to shove their bullshit in our faces.) In other words, this place is as important as you are. Which isn't saying much. And your idi0tic temper tantrums reveal a lot about your lack of maturity and education, but they don't make you special.

I sub occasionally for special ed classes in public schools so I know the difference. You aren't special. Just boring.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psikeyhackr said:

You buy used hamburgers?

But when do economists mention Net Domestic Product on television? The economics books don't even point out that Demand Side Depreciation is ignored.  We are all just supposed to presume that economists doing this and not telling is fine?

Are you approving of this? I had one PhD economist quit talking to me. This is one factor contributing to screwing up the planet.

I’m not an economist, so I’m not qualified to answer.  My understanding is that economists distinguish between durable and non-durable goods.  
 

To be honest, for all I know, maybe you’re onto something which could provide the basis of an interesting PhD thesis. I simply don’t know enough about the field to understand how economists account for the depreciation of durable goods. I don’t know your age or your interests, but maybe you’ve hit upon an opportunity to expand the discipline. 
 

There was a guy named Newton who wondered why nobody had ever defined the formula for how apples fell from trees. Another guy named Einstein wondered why nobody ever explained what gravity actually is. Don’t get infuriated that something hasn’t been studied; you can be that force of change in the world.  

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I’m not an economist, so I’m not qualified to answer.  My understanding is that economists distinguish between durable and non-durable goods.  
 

To be honest, for all I know, maybe you’re onto something which could provide the basis of an interesting PhD thesis. I simply don’t know enough about the field to understand how economists account for the depreciation of durable goods. I don’t know your age or your interests, but maybe you’ve hit upon an opportunity to expand the discipline.

In 1976 I read a book: The Screwing of the Average Man by David Hapgood.

That book convinced me that there was something wrong with what I was taught about economics in college. My major was electrical engineering.  So I decided that I was going to figure out what was wrong if I had to read Samuelson's Economics cover to cover.  So I would come home from work and read 15 or 20 pages each evening.  Eventually I got to NNP, Net National Product. It rated half of a page in a 400 page book.

NNP = GNP - Depreciation

Depreciation: Loss of value of capital goods due to wear and tear or obsolescence.

That wasn't complicated so I just continued reading. It was not until I was about 5 pages beyond that I wondered about consumer goods wearing out.

At the time I was working as repair technician for a hi-fi retailer 6 days a week. So having to work on mostly mediocre to crap equipment, sometimes getting stuff that was Impossible to repair because it was stupidly designed, brought the depreciation of durable consumer goods to mind in 1976. So it has been something I have focused on for a while.

It has been something economists have ignored for a while. I suspect that majority of economists have just thought the way the profession trains them to think. Consumer Depreciation does not cross their minds, but I do not believe that they are all that stupid.

I did not learn about Raymond Goldsmith PhD until 2005. He wrote about consumer wealth in the 1950s and died in 1988.

Sometimes I think Russian economists should have figured this out in the 1950s and used it as propaganda against the West. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Literally no government on earth or in human history has a government ever provided or attempted to provide any person’s “every need,” especially not the so-called “socialist” countries. 

Sure they have.  ACTUAL slavery for example.  That is literally someone providing for someoen else's every need.

And certain period in communist russia attempted that.

And many gov'ts have come close and used the principle to essentialy enslave the population. The USSR for most of it's history. Parts of china.  Some of the modern day 'democratic socialist' countries.  Basically the maritimes and the liberals for many years - the libs would wipe out the fish and then make those provinces dependent on gov't hand outs.

IT's a common enough tactic - used a little or a lot as the case warrants.

Read your history kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

You are claiming that he is wrong.

If you wish to claim it's just a claim - you would have to make some sort of argument refuting it.  Otherwise it could be viewed as common knowledge or an observation.

8 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

He said:

[Quote]Any time the government helps the people, conservatives attack it and call it socialism.  [/quote]

Lots of various conservatives have said lots of stupid shit.

The fact many people say stupid stuff does not in any way support the idea that 'conservatives'  call it 'Socialism' anytime someone gets helped.  And seriously - that is blatantly and observably not true.  The kindest thing you could say is it's a gross exaggeration attempting to make a point (not that it's clear what it is).

8 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

The Wall Street Journal called Henry Ford a "traitor to his class" when he introduced the $5 day. And with all of their blather about Adam Smith they don't point out that Smith mentioned 'education' Eighty Times and wrote "read, write and account".

Not relevant.

8 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

When the OP says that I am off topic I will think about it. You can just STFU! Of course with your delusions of intellectual adequacy I am sure that won't happen, so continue entertaining me. LOL

Ahhh - so you're saying we shouldn't take you seriously?  Well... fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they have.  ACTUAL slavery for example.  That is literally someone providing for someoen else's every need.

So you’re saying the real victims of slavery were tue slave owners who were having their every need provided to them?  And they were being forced into being slave owners?  Or are you suggesting that that the slaves had every need provided for them?  Doesn’t make sense either way. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And certain period in communist russia attempted that.

And many gov'ts have come close and used the principle to essentialy enslave the population. The USSR for most of it's history. Parts of china.

Giving people an allotment of grain or a mouldy shack or whatever is not “providing for every need”.  Get it?  Giving someone a few shitty things and forbidding them from having more and ruling over them wit an iron fist isn’t “providing their every need” its the opposite of that actually . 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Some of the modern day 'democratic socialist' countries.  Basically the maritimes and the liberals for many years - the libs would wipe out the fish and then make those provinces dependent on gov't hand outs.

What nonsense. The Scandinavian people are enslaved now is it?  The liberals somehow “wiped out the fish” as part of a sinister plot to enslave the maritimes?  You’re talking crazy like Reason10 now

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh - so you're saying we shouldn't take you seriously?  Well... fair enough.

Sure, you can be impressed by economists who have not told you that they have been ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods since the end of WWII.

 

But maybe you can say that is just a CLAIM and physics does not apply to durable consumer goods.

Edited by psikeyhackr
more wit was required
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, reason10 said:

So far, you have given ZERO facts. Only opinions.

I have provided reliable sources for my views. You have not. You don't have the brains to do that.

The closest free market capitalism has come to being a daily reality was the Reagan years and the Trump years. During each time, America enjoyed the GREATEST expansion of the economy and the best prosperity for everyone involved. They were the two GREATEST presidents of all time.

Thanks for proving you KNOW NOTHING about HISTORY. Before UNIONS, there was NOTHING but unfettered CAPITALISM.

And GOONS to beat up the union organizers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, reason10 said:

You don't even know what socialism is. You have the education of a Florida third grader.

Socialism is NOT a political term so much as it is a design of government. There is left wing Nazi liberalism in America. We've seen plenty of that with the blue state inner city ghettos. (Modern plantations for the new generation of black SLAVES for the DemoNazi Party).

America is a Republican Democracy with probably the most prevalent free market economy in the world. A Socialist model would be Venezuela, and pretty soon your goose stepping DemoNazis are going to convert this great country into this.

1-1.jpg

 

 

THAT'S socialism. It is a form of government that equalizes the misery everywhere.

There are pockets of that kind of HELL in America, (all in blue states.)

I ONLY COMMENTED on YOUR DEFINITION. Duh.

Never said it was correct. That means it is YOU who does not know the meaning. LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So you’re saying the real victims of slavery were tue slave owners who were having their every need provided to them?  

No, that's just your poor comprehension skills talking again.

And here's a hint in life -  if you have to use phrases like "so what you're saying is" and then rewrite what they're saying... you're probably on the wrong side of the argument.    :)

45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Giving people an allotment of grain or a mouldy shack or whatever is not “providing for every need”.  

It is  if that's all they have to eat. And it's coupled with 'assiging' housing. And controlling their medical services.  etc etc

Get it?  ROFLMAO!

Sorry kid - you're obviously too stupid for this particular conversation. Try again when we're talking about lego or comics or something :)


It's a simple fact - when you provide for a man's every need you enslave them.  Has that ever happened? yes.  But more to the point the degree to which you attempt to do so is the degree you're trying to control people

You'll understand when you grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

So you mean cars purchased by consumers to drive to work and use the same cars for 3 years or more, those cars are not implements of production?

I am saying that we are playing word games. It does not matter whether a machine is used for production or not. A window air conditioner is added to GDP when purchased. It wears out over 12 years of use. It has to be replaced eventually. The replacement is added to GDP.  The process of wearing out should have been subtracted.

Whether this is under capitalism or socialism is irrelevant. But if planned obsolescence is part of this process then it is very significant. That creates unnecessary work, waste and pollution. I would think that socialists would make a big deal about it.

"Planned obsolescence" is merely a calculation based on the relative profitability of increased quality (higher cost to produce, longer life) vs increased sales due to a lower product cost for lower quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Deluge said:

Leftism is the only reason anything fails. It's simple: Cut that cancerous blob out of society, and everything flourishes! ;)

YOU'RE WRONG. It was the UTTER FAILURES of capitalism which OPENED the door to leftist SOLUTIONS.

YOU seem to have a problem identifying which came FIRST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

All YOU'VE proven IS that YOU know HOW to USE the CAPS key!!!!!!

And IF you WERE pAYinG AttENtioN you'd HAVE SEEN that I did IN Fact PROVE my CLAIM :) 

FAR from it. ALL you posted was specious CLAIMS with NO PROOF whatsoever. LMAO

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they have.  ACTUAL slavery for example.  That is literally someone providing for someoen else's every need.

And certain period in communist russia attempted that.

And many gov'ts have come close and used the principle to essentialy enslave the population. The USSR for most of it's history. Parts of china.  Some of the modern day 'democratic socialist' countries.  Basically the maritimes and the liberals for many years - the libs would wipe out the fish and then make those provinces dependent on gov't hand outs.

IT's a common enough tactic - used a little or a lot as the case warrants.

Read your history kid.

QUOTE YOUR SOURCES, KID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"Planned obsolescence" is merely a calculation based on the relative profitability of increased quality (higher cost to produce, longer life) vs increased sales due to a lower product cost for lower quality. 

How many years have YOU spent repairing what kind of technology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I repair all kinds of products I own when they break. But mostly I like to make DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS.

All kinds of products. That is a very specific description.

I repaired hi-hi stereo equipment before I switched to computers at IBM. I found it really annoying that working on the System 32 and 34 and Series One were less fun than Tandberg and Pioneer reel to reels and cassette decks.

IBM produced this piece of shit called a Datamaster 23. It replaced the 5100. I had to write my own benchmarks since I never saw the word on any IBM documentation.  I wrote a Bubble Sort and a Prime Numbers program in BASIC.  The old computer was almost twice as fast as the new one on both benchmarks.

I did LAN installations after leaving IBM.

Who uses tape recorders anymore? Optical disks are no fun at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psikeyhackr said:

Sure, you can be impressed by economists who have not told you that they have been ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods since the end of WWII

I could indeed!!  If any had actually told me that.

1 hour ago, psikeyhackr said:

But maybe you can say that is just a CLAIM and physics does not apply to durable consumer goods.

That doesn't really sound like something i'd say.

This whole "sanity" thing...  not to your liking i take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

FAR from it. ALL you posted was specious CLAIMS with NO PROOF whatsoever. LMA

I posted ALL the proof. You just can't read.  And what is LMA?  "Licking My Ass?"

Look - i can't stop you from doing that but you don't need to be telling us about it.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

QUOTE YOUR SOURCES, KID.

Already done - now you quote yours. :)   I bet you can't.  You're about to be exposed as  a  liar yet again :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for proving you KNOW NOTHING about HISTORY. Before UNIONS, there was NOTHING but unfettered CAPITALISM.

And GOONS to beat up the union organizers.

You are a LIAR and a STUPID LIAR at that.

There has NEVER been (in the entire history of human action) a pure Laisse Faire Free Market Capitalism. America has come close, but NAZI SYMPATHIZERS like you made it impossible.

Edited by reason10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...