Libertarian economics.

[coadie]

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

16 trillion dollar flaw.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

The Libertarians are crazy. They hammer on no taxes.
The tax to be a member is 25 bucks. I guess if you are phony to the core, you won't notice they contradict themselves.

Feel free to point out, for discussion, these contradictions, Oh Enlightened One.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

"It" doesn't come up in economics classes. Try history or philosophy.

You trying to do bait posts because you are hiding from posting something about non fiction economics for the Libertarian party?

You entertain me. Living in a fantasy world driven by an author of fiction.

No wonder you struggle between reality and utopia.

So yeah, that means you haven't read the book.

Baiting the post? You are the master at bating *edited* (see the original post on this thread!). Fact is, you have a STRONG opinion about an author and book you've never read. You can't seem to realize the relationship between the philosophy and science of an ideological system. They go together like Communism and Socialism.



I do struggle between reality and utopia - you got me there. It certainly is not a fantasy world, it's fleshing out an ideal into a more pragmatic way, in a world that is running away from that ideal. Some have used the analogy of steering the Titanic -- that is, trying to turn it around.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

You don't know anything about Greenspan. Remember, you haven't posted 2 sentences on economics pertaining to Libertarians.

But where is the free market ideology science book? Your lips are flappin' and you never seem to show any 'science"..

Bill Clinton also had friends standing next to his swearing events. And that proves what?

You seem to have no logic either.

you haven't posted 2 sentences on economics pertaining to Libertarians.

Do you always lie like this? Is this a common coadie occurrence? Keep repeating it... you're only convincing yourself.

You are trying to steer the discussion exclusively to science and then throwing a tantrum that we aren't playing by your silly rules... all the while pretending to keep up a bogus claim that the libertarian philosophy is independent of its economic ideas.

If you are saying Rand standing next to Greenspan is meaningless... you definitely need to keep drinking up on that juice

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

Sure a lot of unsupported assertions.

Once again, no "for example." Talk about flapping lips.

Bunch of Hot Google Air.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

So what exactly was her economic platform? Can we read it somewhere other than her writings of fiction?

We know her economic philosophy!

Read her book, and you'd know it too. Wait... you haven't read it!

Yeah.. keep forming strong opinions about things you are ignorant about.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

Good topic for a new thread. Under oath, Greenspan admits it was kinda dumb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...anel.html?_r=1

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Greenspan concedes to a flaw in his free market ideology
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ah5qh9Up4rIg

(hardly means "it was kinda dumb" and hardly means it was an indictment against Rand-- once again you just make ........ up)

Years after the hearing....

However, when asked about free markets and the ideas of Ayn Rand in an interview on April 4, 2010, Greenspan clarified his stance on laissez faire capitalism and asserted that in a democratic society there could be no better alternative. He stated that the errors that were made stemmed not from the principle, but the application of competitive markets in "assuming what the nature of risks would be."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video...nspan-10281612

Once again coadie, you get your facts wrong. Yeah, let's go back to that "dishonest" mumbo jumbo.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

16 trillion dollar flaw.

So... if you're not of a free market ideology, maybe once again you can do us all the pleasure of getting to sit and listen to your economic science and philosophy. (4th request by the time)

All ears... let's hear it!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Socialite

So... if you're not of a free market ideology, maybe once again you can do us all the pleasure of getting to sit and listen to your economic science and philosophy. (4th request by the time)

All ears... let's hear it!

Ahem. Request #5.

[Baron1710]

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

Wonder who could have said the above....hmmmmm.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ectivism_intro