 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
On both sides are people who speak for their opponents so as to create a weak opponent.
Hi, I'm here to show you why that guy is so stupid. According to me he said this, and see, see, see how stupid that guy is?
Keynesian economic policies help stabilize the economy because peoples’ lack of purchasing power can be cured by government investments, which in turn creates employment and income.
What does the writer mean when the writer chooses the word government?
Who can know?
If asked, would the person confess the truth, or would the person dodge the questions asked?
I've tried.
I do know that both sides, Austrian, and Keynesian, have things they prefer not to confess, or acknowledge.
Austrians won't answer questions such as:
What would the Free Market produce as the highest quality and lowest cost money, if the Free Market allowed anyone to produce and offer money; where the consumers pick the highest quality over the lowest quality money, and the consumers pick the lowest cost over the highest cost money being produced in that Free Market.
That goes right to the Austrians Special Interest in using the power of law to make money scarce, so as to hike up the price of money, so they won't touch that question with a ten foot pole.
Keynesian economists, as far as I can tell, are Straw Men, there are none, all there are are people who point to these men of straw. Where is one?
I see none.
If I find one I'll ask:
Is it a necessity that a few people make a lot of people pay taxes, or else everyone is doomed to suffer anarchy; so taking those taxes must happen, even if the people who pay the taxes decide that they must not pay those taxes since they know that paying those taxes amount to the tax payers providing the means by which the tax payers suffer, and the tax collectors, like you, maintain this false belief in the absolute necessity to keep collecting those taxes, that, just so happens, to make your kind very, very, very powerful?
That is the loaded question.
The unloaded question looks more like this:
Do you support, in any way, materially, or psychologically, involuntary associations?
I remind readers, assuming that there are any, that a Democratic Federated Republican form of competitive government experiment, by trial and error, and while accessing the force of competition is, as far as lawful governments go, a voluntary association, and as another reminder, an involuntary association is crime by another name, smells just as bad to the victims, and just as sweat to the criminals.