Why the old economic rules don't add up any more
andyt @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:51 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/peter-a ... -1.3754915
$1:
"To put it bluntly," he says in his bestselling book, "the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences."
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:55 am
To put it bluntly, socialism and communism don't work no matter how much you hate the math involved.
andyt @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:13 am
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
PluggyRug @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:40 am
andyt andyt:
[huh]
Yeah we know.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:48 am
andyt andyt:
[huh]
Andy, what I mean is that it doesn't matter one bit what you FEEL about economics. What matters is does your economy work or not?
And the more socialist an economy becomes the less it works and that is an absolute. Granted, extreme socialist economies like the US has become can sustain socialism only to the extent that they can borrow, steal, or inflate money into existence. But at some point they always come crumbling down and when they do it is always spectacular.
And no, the US is not 'too big to fail'.
No one is.
And anyone who tells you that things are 'murky' is usually not interested in looking for the truth.
andyt @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:50 am
You didn't read the article, did you? I'm not sure what you're replying to, unless you're trying to hijack the thread.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:53 am
I read the article and I've seen this nonsense before.
"We need a new way to look at the economy" always means we need to look at central planning.
Which always fails.
andyt @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:55 am
Yeah, you're just running your own script in your head. Not really worth discussing.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:03 am
andyt andyt:
Yeah, you're just running your own script in your head. Not really worth discussing.
No, I just know how to read the code:
$1:
"There is a growing gap when it comes to income distribution in Canada."
Income distribution issues are social and not economic because when someone utters these words what they're saying is not that they want to help people get jobs but that they want to bankrupt anyone with $1 more than anyone else.
To control income distribution necessarily REQUIRES a controlled economy.
Yep, seen it before. Same shit, different wrapper, but tied with the same red ribbon as always.
andyt @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:05 am
knee jerk.
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:08 am
andyt andyt:
knee jerk.
You're just pissed because I know leftist horseshit when I see it.
BeaverFever @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:49 am
Barts own horseshit doesn't even make sense. US is "extreme socialist"? Can he give an example of a non-extreme socialist country that is doing well? Does he even understand what the article is saying or is he just spitting out the standard "anti-socialist" rhetoric even though it has nothing to do with any of this?
BartSimpson @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:57 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
US is "extreme socialist"?
US$19 trillion in debt says so. We're financing welfare, government pensions, and foreign aid with virtual money that the Fed just keeps ginning up on their computers every day.
BeaverFever @ Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:32 pm
1) That's not the definition of "extreme socialist"
2) If it were, that would mean Reagan and every president since the Great Depression hasn't been "extreme socialist"
3) can you please explain which western country isn't "extreme socialist"? I'd like to know.