Nobel Prize Winning Economists Are QUACKS!

Dennis Small of Executive Intelligence Review compares Lyndon LaRouches science of physical economy to the deluded fantasy ridden bubble heads in the economic departments of universities who tend to win Nobel Peace Prizes for coming up with insane theories and then imposing those theories on hapless people.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dennis
• Small
• Executive
• Intelligence
• Review
• magazine
• Lyndon
• LaRouche
• economy
• economist
• Nobel
• Peace
• Prize
• Mexico
• Souh
• america
• Brazil
• Argentina

[OaklandLYM]

@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]

@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.

[Visfen]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[Zamolxx]

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.

[OaklandLYM]

@Visfen Well, the fact that he's just another quack monetarist, like all the others mentioned in the presentation.

[OaklandLYM]

@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]

@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.

[Visfen]

@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.