@OaklandLYM Okay, you're a fucking idiot. La Rouche is widely renowned for being a fascist, nazi-supporting, anti-semite. Fredrich Von Hayek was a jew who escaped from fascism.
To just nod when he is called a fascist is so beyond ridiculous it could only come from the La Rouche labor morons.
If Hayek was anything, he was the opposite.
The idea that what they are measuring is wrong is a little bit laughable, that's not the problem is not even understanding value, which is internal.
@Visfen Studying for the economic priesthood I see. Its been my experience that those dupes who accept the Chicago/Austrian school mythology tend to be the worst assholes and the biggest warmongers.
@OaklandLYM Biggest warmongers? Like who? I don't know any Austrians that support war and as far as the Chicago school, Friedman was a staunch opponent of war. Anti-war is the libertarian position.
Since you call it mythology, let's hear why it is so false. Why should we listen to the conspiracy theories of the LaRouche fascists? His methodology isn't even different from the neoclassical, it just measures other things. Let's hear why axioms and logic is the wrong way to go.
@Visfen Its OK. I understand that as an accolyte in the priesthood requires you to present only the whitewashed version for the sheeple as part of your initiation.
@OaklandLYM I think the description of the LaRouch youth as conspiracy theorists is sounding fairly true. Not only did you not respond to my question about methodology, you called me a heretic and part of the conspiracy.
Good luck with that.
I'm happy to say that your movement is pretty much dead, while mine is more alive than ever. In a way I can take your kin for this, as you've been demonstrably bad at actually having any legitimate criticisms of our philosophy. Happy new year.
@Visfen Friedrich Schiller described those of your kind as "Bread-Fed Scholars". I would suggest you read his lecture on Universal History before you become totally brain dead. Personally, being married to a dead system is rather distasteful, but, if necrophilia rocks your boat, so be it. Good day.
@OaklandLYM Seeing as Mises bases his ideas on Kant, which Schiller agreed with, I have a hard time following the essence of your comment as nothing but a use of a poetic expression.
As far as the discussion on economics goes, he's functionally irrelevant. But seeing as you're so much more enlightened, which you think for some reason god knows why, then why wont you respond or tell me why I'm wrong?
You're the old socialist, there's no deader system.
@Visfen Anyone who would repeat the lie that Schiller agreed with Kant just proves how worthless a university degree is. "I just repeat what my teacher said, who repeated what his teacher said, etc. etc." If you want me to respond to you, why don't you offer an apology for for your disgusting language, or do you greet everyone you know with "you fucking idiot".
I don't want you to respond at all, I think the fact that you make such ridiculous and ignorant comments kinda makes my side win by default.
You are an idiot if you call Hayek a fascist, then you don't even know what the word means. LaRouche however self-described as a fascist for quite some time, that's a bit different.
I think you should apologize for the world for your stupidity.
And I great all LaRouch fascists as "you fucking idiot", because they are. How about that?
Friedrich Hayek had a lot of ties to people who pushed questionable agendas like the Mont Pelerin Society, the Fabian society and the conservative revolution. Hayek believed that socialism was the road to serfdom, while stating that liberty and power comes from owning property. Well what regimes gave land to the have nots and thus gave them power in society? Progressive and left wing regimes. In his 1952 book Hayek attacked the greatest achievments of the Renaissance.
@Zamolxx The Mont Pelerin Society is fascist how? It's the opposite and more than that, it has been tremendously successful. He thought at the Fabian society, but LaRouche is much closer in sharing the sentiments of that organization.
The Conservative revolution was hardly fascist.
Socialism is the road to serfdom. Liberty does come from owning property. If you centralize power to the state all you get is corruption and poverty.
@Zamolxx How is it that a good thing that governments have extensive and absurd property rights for a millenia, then under immense pressure and decentralization are forced to give it up so not to lose their tax base?
Further, calling these regimes progressive is absurd, they were classical liberals. Something very different from classical socialists and old socialists.
Hayek attacked correctly what was also what hindered progress for a long, long, long time.
@Zamolxx Since Marx and socialism was nothing more than a creation of the British Empire in the first place (as Fascism was), I would warn you about playing by Mr. Neo-con's absurd fantasy rules. If he wants to live in a paranoid Hobsian dog-eat-dog universe of each against all, monetarism über alles, fine. You can just quote Hayek's call for a dictatorship in order to impose "equalibrium" in the 40's or cite the number of deaths caused by the MPS economists destroying Russia in the 90s
Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism. Hayek attacked the concept of sovereign nation states governed by principles of natural law and the achievments of modern science. Remove sovereign nation-states from a role in economic development and all you have is the oligarchy's cartels. It is not market forces, but generational development which brings about material and spiritual progress, not esoteric principles but scientific principles.
@Zamolxx Good points. However, don't take the Neo-Con nutjob too seriously. Any time LaRouche fights the British Empire (what with the war drive ongoing and the push for fascist austerity) this crap happens.
@OaklandLYM So you have no idea what the word neo-con mean....
Nothing I've said is slander and nothing is a lie, this is documented fact. LaRouche is famously known for his connections to the nazi movement, something you would know if you were anything but a cult member.
I find happiness in that your ilk are already dead, you're basically the only ones left and it will die with you as you will convince none. Your conspiracy nonsense will die with the Flynn Effect.
@Visfen Yes, everything you've repeated is nothing more than a slander paid for by the likes of Henry Kissinger and Richard Mellon Scaife Mr. Congenital Liar. Typical libtard, resorts to bullying and slander when their virtual reality world is messed with.
@Zamolxx Which is an accurate description. Corporatism is what you get when you have extensive government involvement in the market. The problem with progressives is their unwillingness to also analyze their model of the government, usually they prescribe godlike motives and structures, something that never happens.
Governments are governed by self-interested men that play a contest of popularity. Not by science or reason, that would actually be absurd to think.
Friedrick Hayek, who had written in the 1930's that the control of an economy by a government is the "road to serfdom," as he titled his treatise. Asserting that human rights sprang from property rights, he claimed that a society could be no more free than its economy. The two principal failures of his analysis, were of course, first, the premise that human rights are a function of property rights, and that a society that planned its economy was doomed to serfdom.
@Zamolxx Written on behalf of a fascist corporate empire that had kept most of the planet in a condition of near serfdom for centuries, repeating an argument that had been used since the days of the Roman Empire. How hypocritical.
What Hayek never considered is that the obverse of such a policy is obviously that someone who has no property, has no rights, which means that person is, quite obviously, vulnerable to the very serfdom that Hayek claimed to fear. Witness the millions in debt-slavery in India and much of the rest of the world - the very serfdom that Hayek claimed to be repulsed by.
@Zamolxx India didn't follow Hayeks model, they followed socialism and welfarism of the amartya sen model. It clearly didn't work, which is why they are abandoning it now.
@Visfen I've read the actual writings and lectures of most economists, from the American System, the Cameralists, Austrian School, the "Classic" (i.e. East India Co. Hailybury) school, Behavioralists, etc. Fuck your degree, and fuck your snotty academic attitude you pompous ivory tower twit. Samuelson and Hayek are rightfully denounced in this video.
The second major error was the assumption that corporations were entitled to the same property rights as individuals, and yet somehow deserved an exemption from liability that individuals do not enjoy - a basic inequality of rights. But nevertheless, his ideas had a great deal of resonance among social libertarians, who were highly enamored of an economic theory that corresponded to their social theories.
It also found additional resonance in the writings of the Russian philosopher and popular novelist, Ayn Rand, and became the basis of her philosophical celebration of what can only charitably be described as selfishness.
No you don't, you only get cartalization from state given privileges. Without government interference you get what you for instance see on the Internet, lots of competition and an impossibility for competitors to work together AGAINST the consumers wants.
General development is just an empty word and your explanation is just factually wrong. We know for a fact that free markets bring with them growth. The only honest debate is about volatility. Anything else is just ignorance.
Tell that to the chileans under Pinochet and the Chicago boys and compare the economic and social reality of the so called free market with the reforms carried out by Allende. Corporation are instrisincally self-serviant, when government starts getting bribes it ceases to preserve the rule of law for all. You need a strong government even just to observe neutrallity. You're example of the internet in the defense of the esoterism of market economics shows how little physical economy you know.
@Zamolxx Are you serious? By no measure did Chile do bad from those policies, it's the richest country in all of South America, while under Allende they were moving up against triple-digit inflation and complete collapse of the entire country. Whatever advice Friedman gave pinochet it worked.
You've never ever in the history of man seen a strong neutral government. The only way to have real law is to have common law.
This shows that you have no knowledge whatsoever about the effects of neoliberal policies, nor history. You have no understanding of causality, you think via the paralogism of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Type in google "free market fundamentalism", then hit the 3rd link and start reading, you might learn something.
@Zamolxx Actually, our young fool should just go read Uppsala Professor Lars Magnusssons books- "Trade and Protectionism in America: The American system " (there he for example gives much credit to Alexander Hamilton as shaper of modern economics,and debunks the Invisible hand bullshit!), and of course he should read Magnussons "An Economic History of Sweden".
@OaklandLYM The infant industry argument is simply absurd, not only are the industries that are protected doing terrible until they are opened up for free trade, the industries that do best are those that are not subsidized. So I find those kind of explanations just laughably wrong.
@Visfen You mean its wrong according to a logic that says that slavery and drug pushing is profitable (according to Nobel winners like Hayek and Friedman). So, why take the side of the degenerate British Empire since you oppose Hamilton, Carey, and List? I take it you hate the principle of our constitution, paradoxically which means that you're actually against real freedom.
@OaklandLYM You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.You lack the basic understanding required to even be able to communicate on this issue.All I can do is call you on what a buffoonish tool you are and hope that on some level you get it and try to rectify it by getting some education.I doubt it do, fascists like generally don't even want to learn, instead you have these conspiracy theories and this revisionist history to turn to and call anyone who don't agree a heretic
@Visfen You've certified Mr. Bread Fed Scholar, that all you can do is defend a small number of facts that you've accumulated with no basis in reality other then you spent an insane amount of money and effort in order to get a piece of paper that certified that you were willing to get mentally raped by academic sodomists and pay for it. So by that definition, you've just called yourself a fascist.
@Zamolxx My explanation is basically a recount of modern economic understanding. If you dismiss it, maybe you should tell me why?
How the hell does that help you? The Chilean miracle is evidence of what I support (which is freedom). The article is just wrong. Saying that Chile failed in terms of economics is pathetic.
Maybe you should study some basic economics, I think you would greatly benefit from it.
Pinochet abandoned a lot of the measures proposed by the chicago guys, when he saw they failed miserably and started reimplementing some of the policies of Allende. Kissinger didn't state for nothing that Allende was more dangerous than Castro. Because Allende had sound economic policies and was actually democratic. Glad to see you are so proud of the US's support of dictatorship, that tells us more about your character and your lack of history, as well as economics.
@Zamolxx Allende's policies working? You haven't read anything about Chile if you think that. Allende was overthrown from power because the Chilean Constitution didn't grant him the extensive power he was abusing, he was spending the country into hyper-inflation. It took a decade of austerity, where we saw tons of spoiled public sector Chileans emigrate to other countries and whine about losing their cosy crummy jobs.
That he was a dictator is irrelevant to the economics of it.
@Visfen It's not much different than the British Empires use of the dumping of cheap slave labor made goods in order to destroy any native manufacturing, kind of a monetarist version of gunboat diplomacy. George Soros is rather famous for his destructive speculation against countries currencies on behalf of his employer Queen Elizabeth. its funny considering all your crackpot conspiracy theories about LaRouche.
You cannot have hundreds of different water companies operated their own pipes in the same city. Don't try to compare the virtual economy with physical development (increasing productivity per capita and km2 and the applied energy flux density per capita and km2). Judging things from the monetary value standpoint gets you no where. But there's no sense in debating with austrians/libertarians and remember that truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible.
@Visfen Everything you've said about LaRouche is nothing more than a lying slander, and the fact that you repeat them (along with the other lies you've propagated) gives me a good case to just block you and erase all your nonsense Mr. Bread-Fed scholar.
Eh, fascist Fredirch Von Hayek? What a quack.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Yes. A total fraud. It's a shame that you're given such bullshit in the universities.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM Okay, you're a fucking idiot. La Rouche is widely renowned for being a fascist, nazi-supporting, anti-semite. Fredrich Von Hayek was a jew who escaped from fascism.
To just nod when he is called a fascist is so beyond ridiculous it could only come from the La Rouche labor morons.
If Hayek was anything, he was the opposite.
The idea that what they are measuring is wrong is a little bit laughable, that's not the problem is not even understanding value, which is internal.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Studying for the economic priesthood I see. Its been my experience that those dupes who accept the Chicago/Austrian school mythology tend to be the worst assholes and the biggest warmongers.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM Biggest warmongers? Like who? I don't know any Austrians that support war and as far as the Chicago school, Friedman was a staunch opponent of war. Anti-war is the libertarian position.
Since you call it mythology, let's hear why it is so false. Why should we listen to the conspiracy theories of the LaRouche fascists? His methodology isn't even different from the neoclassical, it just measures other things. Let's hear why axioms and logic is the wrong way to go.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Its OK. I understand that as an accolyte in the priesthood requires you to present only the whitewashed version for the sheeple as part of your initiation.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM I think the description of the LaRouch youth as conspiracy theorists is sounding fairly true. Not only did you not respond to my question about methodology, you called me a heretic and part of the conspiracy.
Good luck with that.
I'm happy to say that your movement is pretty much dead, while mine is more alive than ever. In a way I can take your kin for this, as you've been demonstrably bad at actually having any legitimate criticisms of our philosophy. Happy new year.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Friedrich Schiller described those of your kind as "Bread-Fed Scholars". I would suggest you read his lecture on Universal History before you become totally brain dead. Personally, being married to a dead system is rather distasteful, but, if necrophilia rocks your boat, so be it. Good day.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM Seeing as Mises bases his ideas on Kant, which Schiller agreed with, I have a hard time following the essence of your comment as nothing but a use of a poetic expression.
As far as the discussion on economics goes, he's functionally irrelevant. But seeing as you're so much more enlightened, which you think for some reason god knows why, then why wont you respond or tell me why I'm wrong?
You're the old socialist, there's no deader system.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Anyone who would repeat the lie that Schiller agreed with Kant just proves how worthless a university degree is. "I just repeat what my teacher said, who repeated what his teacher said, etc. etc." If you want me to respond to you, why don't you offer an apology for for your disgusting language, or do you greet everyone you know with "you fucking idiot".
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
I don't want you to respond at all, I think the fact that you make such ridiculous and ignorant comments kinda makes my side win by default.
You are an idiot if you call Hayek a fascist, then you don't even know what the word means. LaRouche however self-described as a fascist for quite some time, that's a bit different.
I think you should apologize for the world for your stupidity.
And I great all LaRouch fascists as "you fucking idiot", because they are. How about that?
Visfen 1 month ago
Friedrich Hayek had a lot of ties to people who pushed questionable agendas like the Mont Pelerin Society, the Fabian society and the conservative revolution. Hayek believed that socialism was the road to serfdom, while stating that liberty and power comes from owning property. Well what regimes gave land to the have nots and thus gave them power in society? Progressive and left wing regimes. In his 1952 book Hayek attacked the greatest achievments of the Renaissance.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx The Mont Pelerin Society is fascist how? It's the opposite and more than that, it has been tremendously successful. He thought at the Fabian society, but LaRouche is much closer in sharing the sentiments of that organization.
The Conservative revolution was hardly fascist.
Socialism is the road to serfdom. Liberty does come from owning property. If you centralize power to the state all you get is corruption and poverty.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Zamolxx How is it that a good thing that governments have extensive and absurd property rights for a millenia, then under immense pressure and decentralization are forced to give it up so not to lose their tax base?
Further, calling these regimes progressive is absurd, they were classical liberals. Something very different from classical socialists and old socialists.
Hayek attacked correctly what was also what hindered progress for a long, long, long time.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Since Marx and socialism was nothing more than a creation of the British Empire in the first place (as Fascism was), I would warn you about playing by Mr. Neo-con's absurd fantasy rules. If he wants to live in a paranoid Hobsian dog-eat-dog universe of each against all, monetarism über alles, fine. You can just quote Hayek's call for a dictatorship in order to impose "equalibrium" in the 40's or cite the number of deaths caused by the MPS economists destroying Russia in the 90s
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism. Hayek attacked the concept of sovereign nation states governed by principles of natural law and the achievments of modern science. Remove sovereign nation-states from a role in economic development and all you have is the oligarchy's cartels. It is not market forces, but generational development which brings about material and spiritual progress, not esoteric principles but scientific principles.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Good points. However, don't take the Neo-Con nutjob too seriously. Any time LaRouche fights the British Empire (what with the war drive ongoing and the push for fascist austerity) this crap happens.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM So you have no idea what the word neo-con mean....
Nothing I've said is slander and nothing is a lie, this is documented fact. LaRouche is famously known for his connections to the nazi movement, something you would know if you were anything but a cult member.
I find happiness in that your ilk are already dead, you're basically the only ones left and it will die with you as you will convince none. Your conspiracy nonsense will die with the Flynn Effect.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Yes, everything you've repeated is nothing more than a slander paid for by the likes of Henry Kissinger and Richard Mellon Scaife Mr. Congenital Liar. Typical libtard, resorts to bullying and slander when their virtual reality world is messed with.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM So wikipedia is part of the conspiracy. Interesting.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Yes, when they ban anyone from challenging lies written by paid hacks.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM And we always win. Which is awesome.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Which is an accurate description. Corporatism is what you get when you have extensive government involvement in the market. The problem with progressives is their unwillingness to also analyze their model of the government, usually they prescribe godlike motives and structures, something that never happens.
Governments are governed by self-interested men that play a contest of popularity. Not by science or reason, that would actually be absurd to think.
Visfen 1 month ago
Friedrick Hayek, who had written in the 1930's that the control of an economy by a government is the "road to serfdom," as he titled his treatise. Asserting that human rights sprang from property rights, he claimed that a society could be no more free than its economy. The two principal failures of his analysis, were of course, first, the premise that human rights are a function of property rights, and that a society that planned its economy was doomed to serfdom.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Written on behalf of a fascist corporate empire that had kept most of the planet in a condition of near serfdom for centuries, repeating an argument that had been used since the days of the Roman Empire. How hypocritical.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
What Hayek never considered is that the obverse of such a policy is obviously that someone who has no property, has no rights, which means that person is, quite obviously, vulnerable to the very serfdom that Hayek claimed to fear. Witness the millions in debt-slavery in India and much of the rest of the world - the very serfdom that Hayek claimed to be repulsed by.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Childish. Not even worthwhile answering.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Zamolxx India didn't follow Hayeks model, they followed socialism and welfarism of the amartya sen model. It clearly didn't work, which is why they are abandoning it now.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen India was a fucking colony you retard. At the time Hayek was writing his bullshit, the British were murdering 10 to 30 million Indians.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM Which has what to do with Hayek?
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Well, the fact that he's just another quack monetarist, like all the others mentioned in the presentation.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM All others? Samuelson and Hayek are not monetarists. What are you even talking about you damn moron?
You're functionally illiterate on the subject. It's clear you've got no training or even self-thought experience in the field of economics.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen I've read the actual writings and lectures of most economists, from the American System, the Cameralists, Austrian School, the "Classic" (i.e. East India Co. Hailybury) school, Behavioralists, etc. Fuck your degree, and fuck your snotty academic attitude you pompous ivory tower twit. Samuelson and Hayek are rightfully denounced in this video.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
The second major error was the assumption that corporations were entitled to the same property rights as individuals, and yet somehow deserved an exemption from liability that individuals do not enjoy - a basic inequality of rights. But nevertheless, his ideas had a great deal of resonance among social libertarians, who were highly enamored of an economic theory that corresponded to their social theories.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Hayek hasn't said that. And you want corporations to be liable, they have assets and money the private people don't have.
Visfen 1 month ago
It also found additional resonance in the writings of the Russian philosopher and popular novelist, Ayn Rand, and became the basis of her philosophical celebration of what can only charitably be described as selfishness.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
No you don't, you only get cartalization from state given privileges. Without government interference you get what you for instance see on the Internet, lots of competition and an impossibility for competitors to work together AGAINST the consumers wants.
General development is just an empty word and your explanation is just factually wrong. We know for a fact that free markets bring with them growth. The only honest debate is about volatility. Anything else is just ignorance.
Visfen 1 month ago
Tell that to the chileans under Pinochet and the Chicago boys and compare the economic and social reality of the so called free market with the reforms carried out by Allende. Corporation are instrisincally self-serviant, when government starts getting bribes it ceases to preserve the rule of law for all. You need a strong government even just to observe neutrallity. You're example of the internet in the defense of the esoterism of market economics shows how little physical economy you know.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Are you serious? By no measure did Chile do bad from those policies, it's the richest country in all of South America, while under Allende they were moving up against triple-digit inflation and complete collapse of the entire country. Whatever advice Friedman gave pinochet it worked.
You've never ever in the history of man seen a strong neutral government. The only way to have real law is to have common law.
So the Internet isn't free? News to me.
Visfen 1 month ago
This shows that you have no knowledge whatsoever about the effects of neoliberal policies, nor history. You have no understanding of causality, you think via the paralogism of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Type in google "free market fundamentalism", then hit the 3rd link and start reading, you might learn something.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Actually, our young fool should just go read Uppsala Professor Lars Magnusssons books- "Trade and Protectionism in America: The American system " (there he for example gives much credit to Alexander Hamilton as shaper of modern economics,and debunks the Invisible hand bullshit!), and of course he should read Magnussons "An Economic History of Sweden".
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM The infant industry argument is simply absurd, not only are the industries that are protected doing terrible until they are opened up for free trade, the industries that do best are those that are not subsidized. So I find those kind of explanations just laughably wrong.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen You mean its wrong according to a logic that says that slavery and drug pushing is profitable (according to Nobel winners like Hayek and Friedman). So, why take the side of the degenerate British Empire since you oppose Hamilton, Carey, and List? I take it you hate the principle of our constitution, paradoxically which means that you're actually against real freedom.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.You lack the basic understanding required to even be able to communicate on this issue.All I can do is call you on what a buffoonish tool you are and hope that on some level you get it and try to rectify it by getting some education.I doubt it do, fascists like generally don't even want to learn, instead you have these conspiracy theories and this revisionist history to turn to and call anyone who don't agree a heretic
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen You've certified Mr. Bread Fed Scholar, that all you can do is defend a small number of facts that you've accumulated with no basis in reality other then you spent an insane amount of money and effort in order to get a piece of paper that certified that you were willing to get mentally raped by academic sodomists and pay for it. So by that definition, you've just called yourself a fascist.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@Zamolxx My explanation is basically a recount of modern economic understanding. If you dismiss it, maybe you should tell me why?
How the hell does that help you? The Chilean miracle is evidence of what I support (which is freedom). The article is just wrong. Saying that Chile failed in terms of economics is pathetic.
Maybe you should study some basic economics, I think you would greatly benefit from it.
Visfen 1 month ago
Pinochet abandoned a lot of the measures proposed by the chicago guys, when he saw they failed miserably and started reimplementing some of the policies of Allende. Kissinger didn't state for nothing that Allende was more dangerous than Castro. Because Allende had sound economic policies and was actually democratic. Glad to see you are so proud of the US's support of dictatorship, that tells us more about your character and your lack of history, as well as economics.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx Allende's policies working? You haven't read anything about Chile if you think that. Allende was overthrown from power because the Chilean Constitution didn't grant him the extensive power he was abusing, he was spending the country into hyper-inflation. It took a decade of austerity, where we saw tons of spoiled public sector Chileans emigrate to other countries and whine about losing their cosy crummy jobs.
That he was a dictator is irrelevant to the economics of it.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Allende's government collapsed under the economic warfare of the British and Wall St. banks.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
@OaklandLYM Conspiracy theory nonsense
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen It's not much different than the British Empires use of the dumping of cheap slave labor made goods in order to destroy any native manufacturing, kind of a monetarist version of gunboat diplomacy. George Soros is rather famous for his destructive speculation against countries currencies on behalf of his employer Queen Elizabeth. its funny considering all your crackpot conspiracy theories about LaRouche.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
You cannot have hundreds of different water companies operated their own pipes in the same city. Don't try to compare the virtual economy with physical development (increasing productivity per capita and km2 and the applied energy flux density per capita and km2). Judging things from the monetary value standpoint gets you no where. But there's no sense in debating with austrians/libertarians and remember that truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible.
Zamolxx 1 month ago
@Zamolxx That's called natural monopolies. Don't see how it is relevant here, I haven't said I want to force competition.
Visfen 1 month ago
@Visfen Everything you've said about LaRouche is nothing more than a lying slander, and the fact that you repeat them (along with the other lies you've propagated) gives me a good case to just block you and erase all your nonsense Mr. Bread-Fed scholar.
OaklandLYM 1 month ago
brilliant !
tepstolog 1 year ago
@tepstolog Quack quack!
OaklandLYM 1 year ago
excellent.
biozamadotcom 1 year ago
@biozamadotcom Pinch a quackademic today!
OaklandLYM 1 year ago