A bad week for PK

Political correctness gone too far: the lead info bit is about women erased from a photo by ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel, NOT ISRAEL ITSELF. This is instead of leading with the more serious and worrisome stories of Muslim governments flogging women and make their rapes legal. Pandering!
buy r4 card

There are no purely libertarian societies; there are no purely socialist societies; there are only more or less so. The more so provide greater prosperity for the common man because he is least politically powerful.

Could you cite some of the 'more so'?

The USA versus Canada, say. Or Hong Kong versus the US. Or Taiwan versus China, or West Germany versus East Germany or North Korea versus South Korea. Or Haiti versus the Dominican Republic. Or the market for food versus the market for education. Or the market for wifi versus the market for cell data. Or ... oh my god, I can't believe you're so stupid as to actually require evidence. It's everywhere you look! The trouble is that you're not looking because you don't want to see. You don't want to see because you don't want to change your mind. You don't want to change your mind because all of your friends believe the same crap you do, and you're afraid that they won't like you once you despise their politics.

Well, guess what? You can be a libertarian and still have leftist friends. You just have to grin and bear it, and every once in a while point out how their ends are better served by peaceful cooperation through free markets than by aggression by the state in an attempt to live at everybody else's expense.

Hong Kong vs the US? Tell me about the Triads(mafia), the mainland(declared communist, increasingly fascist), the unique territorial status(imagine an only 1 indian casino for a billion people)?

What the hell? Just because you're simple doesn't make the world simple.

Here's one of the "more so," although they've been pulling away from that over the past 10 years: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...

You went to a lot of work just to say "USA". You probably don't know the background. I've actually looked for successful libertarian societies, and about the closest I can get is some viking settlements in Greenland or the Hollywood version of what the Old West was like. Or that earthly paradise, Somalia.

I don't mind anyone following libertarian principles but I take exception when they try to impose their fantasies on the rest of US, like the G. Norquists of the world who want to destroy the government.

P.S. Russ, you interrupt your guests too much in your podcast.

You went to a lot of work just to say "USA". You probably don't know the background. I've actually looked for successful libertarian societies, and about the closest I can get is some viking settlements in Greenland or the Hollywood version of what the Old West was like. Or that earthly paradise, Somalia.

Obviously, a failed commie state must be the perfect example of libertarian paradise. LOL. Dear Mr. Reader, your comments have an uncanny similarity to the inanities littered all over this blog by muirbot - not just for a few days or weeks but going on for 5 years. If you are asking these questions to find answers, then you must read. These too basic, that they have been addressed a gazillion times in articles, books. Internet is great, google is great, just do a search and you will find them.

As for Hollywood version of Old West, why wouldn't you prefer the actual version? Why this affinity for the colorful fictions created on celluloid?

I don't mind anyone following libertarian principles but I take exception when they try to impose their fantasies on the rest of US, like the G. Norquists of the world who want to destroy the government.

Nobody forces you to read this blog Mr. Reader. Nobody forces you to comment. This much is true, there is forcing going on and it is going in the opposite direction to what you allege.

P.S. Russ, you interrupt your guests too much in your podcast.

You are not forced to listen to it. You can watch sound bytes on MSNBC instead. I'm sure Keith Olberman brings a lot of guests who disagree with him.

Actually Russ claimed he was going to address this at Cafe Hayek in his econlog comments. I just checked and he's deleted them all (go over and look, all the Dec 14 comments and older are gone). Very telling.


I think it's time for IRS Form 13909.

I have not deleted anything.

I've just been busy and haven't gotten to your point.

I will. I've written on it many times here.

And why don't you identify yourself, please.

Yes, they were, I just checked again. Go to this link
http://www.econtalk.org/
And all of your podcasts have something like 'comments (11) at the bottom until you get to Dec 14, then that link just disappears.

Apparently the podcast has a different url from econlog http://econlog.econlib.org/ but the sites look the same and frankly I'm not in the business of keeping track of how my tax burden subsidizes your 501(c)3. Though I'm thinking of starting.

Why don't I identify myself? Death threats. I used to run a blog called Media Whores Online* until I let slip enough personal info to start getting phone calls to my home. And assholes of the moral character of say, this sandre fellow you have here would say all kinds of shit to my wife I won't repeat here.

RussR, if you have to research it you've already admitted there isn't one. This is a question an economist should be able to answer off the top of his head. Libertarianism is a fantasy just as much utopianism is. It.Just.Doesn't.Exist.In.The.Wild. which puts it along unicorns and bigfoot in the taxonomy. (taxonomy is a big word that means a catalog of different types of things, sandre).

A libertarian is someone who could be lying unconscious on the sidewalk and think that is a good time to summon 3 doctors to haggle over the price of medical care.

The only reason economists like you exist at all is because you're subsidized by corporations, of which you are part of an ongoing advertising campaign. You aren't good for the country, you aren't good for the people and down in your core you know you have whored yourself out. If you gotta provide for your family, OK, that comes first. But people like you are ruining my country, which makes it my business.

*name of blog changed

EconTalk and EconLog are both part of the Library of Economics and Liberty.

Comments at EconTalk get closed after a while to prevent spam.

Sorry to be busy so for now I'll give you my one sentence answer.

The fact that something doesn't exist in the wild has nothing to do with
whether it's a good idea.

Sorry the logic of that perplexes. Will try to write longer another time.

You're not sorry, it's not logic, and it doesn't perplex me. You won't try, you lie about comments getting closed at Econtalk, and we both know what you are.

And by the way, all the comments at EconTalk are still there. They're
not deleted. Just click on the "Permanent Link" at the bottom of the entry.

You could have just said, "There isn't one" 4 weeks ago and we wouldn't be here now.

Please save the amateur rhetoric for sandre and stop changing my words. It's literally the oldest trick in the book, as in what the serpent said to Eve. I didn't say "free societies" I said "libertarian".

The con is that you're selling this as "freedom for individuals" when you're really selling "freedom for giant corporations". Freedom for giant corporations it a terrible thing. We both know this, it's just that you're paid by the giant corporations to corrupt the discourse. I don't know how much you get, but I think it's around 30 pieces of silver.

I'm closing this discussion, I won't be back. learned what I set out to, and some extra about RussR. Sorry to disappoint you sandre, I'll have to live without your insights.

I found the permalinks, couldn't find my posts. meh.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis of my character and ideas. It's been
a pleasure having you here.

Well, there you go. I guess he answered my speculation above about whether he was tongue-in-cheek or serious.

At least if he is as good as his word below, he won't be hanging around like muirduck. One of those is enough.

Yasafi once said he was leaving and never coming back.

Leftists and lies just seem to go hand-in-hand, so I'm sure you're not holding your breath, any more than I am, that Reader is as good as his word.

:-p

Here's the last time I wrote about it why the absence of free societies
in history (or in the wild) tells you nothing about their desirability:

http://cafehayek.com/2008/11/muirgeo.html

But I've written about it many times.

For a long time it was Muirgeo's constant comment. And I got sick of his
refrain.

I think you'll find that, if you attempt to complain to GMU about cafehayek.com, they have no idea who should respond to the complaint because they have in reality no relationship to cafehayek. Yes, GMU's name is on the whois entry, but *I* can put their name on any old whois entry and ain't nobody ever going to check or know.

Why would Russ comment about his podcast on econlog? As for econtalk, for the latest podcast, comments are all there, including Jan 14. What is so telling Mr. Reading, I didn't hear it. Help me out.

Here's one that's "more so," although they've been pulling away from that over the past 10 years: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...

Seems Russ forgot about finding a successful libertarian society anywhere, anytime, in the history of the Earth.

A Reader:

Your comment is most profound and is one that almost always stops libertarians dead in their tracks. It's a successful comment because it is true! And this is something that has always bothered me. Why is it true? What is it about libertarianism that makes people shy away?

After all libertarianism is nothing more than a political philosophy which elevates the freedom and sovereignty of the individual to the highest priority. Properly understood a libertarian society allows each of us to live as we choose, so long as what we choose is peaceful. I choose to be an individualist, you choose to be a collectivist; a libertarian society has room for us both.

So why do people reject that notion? That is something that has baffled me for many a year. I have asked "why" several times on this board. Most responses have been along the lines of "it's human nature," and I find that answer to be dissatisfying and simplistic.

But today I found the answer! In his masterpiece *Memoirs of a Superfluous Man*, Albert Jay Nock explains it in great detail. Early in the book, while speaking on education, he argues that most of us are uneducable. Oh, we can be taught to read the words, but the vast majority of us are not capable of ruminating their greater meaning.
We are not truly human, not in the deepest sense of the word.

Later in the book he lays it out: evolutionarily speaking there is a significant difference between homo sapiens and human beings. And there is some question as to whether many of us belong in the "homo sapiens" category!

Listen to this passage from Chapter 13, while discussing the socio-political run up to WW2:

"All that I saw during the later 'twenties and the 'thirties pointed straight to the rather sombre conclusion the *Homo sapiens* has, and as I believe, can have, - no sense whatever of history's continuity...
If ever there was a clear demonstration that anthropologists have drawn the line between *Pithecanthropus erectus* and *Homo sapiens* at the wrong level the period 1920-1942 has furnished it."

Later in the same chapter he concludes as follows:

"Mankind has been striving after forms of organization, both political and social, too large for their capacities; believing that because they could organize a small unit like a family, the village, even the township, with fair-to-middling success, they could likewise successfully carry on with a state, a province, a nation...Season after season, they make these attempts, unable to learn that the thing is impracticable. Likewise, age after age, mankind have made the attempt to construct a stable and satisfactory nationalist civil system, unable to learn that nothing like that can, in the nature of things, be done."

There's the answer to my question! Most of us are homo sapiens - and barely that! - and it may take many thousands of years before we evolve into fully-formed human beings which demand our individual autonomy while understanding we are each responsible for our own being. We simply have not evolved to the point where a libertarian society will be accepted by the "masses." We'll just have to be "superfluous" until that day comes, and watch with fascination as the muirgeos and Daniels hold forth on the glories collectivism.

A Reader,

Can you produce an example of a successful demotist society? That is, a society in which "the people" rule? I mean, let's face it, if "the people" were actually capable of ruling themselves there would be no need for government.

Sir,

As I do not remember ever seeing a post by you before, I do not know if you're tongue-in-cheek or sincere. Either way I'll take the opportunity address this one little oft repeated bit of muirpidity.

His challenge is one that is easily seen by all of us for the disingenuous crap it is by simply exercising some thought about history.

First Libertarianism as a distinct political and economic philosophy can be traced not much beyond the 19th century, if even that far back. Bastiat can not be called a libertarian though his works are often cited by Libertarians.

Libertarianism then is less than 200 years old at the most generous. Is it surprising that there are no societies that are founded on pure libertarian philosophy? Libertarianism has to compete against well entrenched competing theories that have their roots beyond recorded history.

But, what is the future? Who knows? We do have a philosophy/theology of individual political and economic freedom with which to compare its performance and possibilities and that is Christianity.

Where was Christianity as a percentage of the world's population and/or leadership in it's 2nd century from its founding? It was known and it was spreading, but where was the pure Christian society? Could a latter day "shit-for-brains" like muirduck have made the same challenge in the 150 years removed from Christ? Certainly and probably did.

Now here is what is obvious to anyone who has studied history to any degree what-so-ever. As I pointed out above, there has never been a society on the face of this Earth, in history, that began as a socialist society and survived any length of time as such; nor, has any existing wealthy productive society had socialism imposed, or had socialism sold to them, on them and survived beyond the consumption of the past stored wealth. In other words until it ran out of other people's money. Now that is the hard verifiable truth.

Now let's look at the Pilgrims. They hit the shores running in the socialist mode and ran themselves right into death and poverty using that model. Enough of the skinny starving survivors woke up to the truth soon enough to reorganize along conservative free market lines and in one year reversed the devastating effects of their own stupidity. That is the hard verifiable truth. That same set of circumstances was experienced in Jamestown farther to the south.

Here is what I offer for understanding. Libertarianism has enough conservative/capitalist principles contained in its philosophy for me (and arch old-style early American conservative/capitalist) to feel much more comfortable with them than with any other theory today except maybe Kritarchy.

Libertarians believe in natural law, self reliance, self responsibility, private charity, ownership of property and property rights, standards, on and on, the conservative/capitalist part of Libertarianism is there to be seen when intelligent people look.

So, compare the performance of societies that had those same traits as the predominant ones in their political and economic philosophies, and you see wealth creation, individual happiness, and a cohesive society that had/has minimal poverty. They remain that way until a demagogue remembers, or discovers, he can use the victimizing thumbsucking principles of socialism to gather political power by telling all the losers and unwilling in that society that it is always the fault of someone else that they don't "share" in the wealth, and of course it always the creators of the wealth that the demagogue blames and against whom he attempts to direct the hatred. The more he preaches, the more the weak and lazy flock to his banner, until finally democracy ensures the eventual death of the conservative/capitalist society and the consumption of the wealth they established.

Over and over again in history we see societies arise and become rich and powerful on the principles of conservatism/capitalism and over and over again in history we see them poisoned by demagogues (who may be outright tyrants, dictators, or aristocrats - think of the socialism of Kaiser Whilhelm and of the Roman Emperors) who use those thumbsucking philosophies of socialism to seize power, control, and placate the losers and unwilling by giving them other people's money.

That is the answer to muirduck's "shit-for-brains" challenge.

Conservatism/capitalism, even that found in Libertarianism, is a tool for building: Socialism is the tool of destruction. Never forget the lessons on display in the early histories of Jamestown and Plymouth.

Thanks for the links.

Paul Krugman has forgotten more economics than I've ever known. Tragically, he's also forgotten more economics than he's ever known.

Your Schadenfreude is unnecessary, Prof. Roberts & Boudreaux.

by now everyone here agrees that GMU economics professors are much more competent and intelligent than Krugman. No need to weekly report why and how much more exactly.

GMU++, MIT-- (I'm holding out hope that MIT will ask for Krugman's sheepskin back.)

Even though PK called the crash while GMU profs were denying it even while it was happening? It's very instructive to go back ands read old post from 2006 up until the crash.

Let's grant you your claim. Does that then mean that PK is never wrong about anything? Is that your claim? If it is, it is a very stupid claim, about as stupid as your claim that Haiti does not have a minimum wage.

No he's likely wrong about a lot.

My point would be that the demand side economist argument makes the most sense AND they were typically the ones most likely to call attention to the problems before the economy crashed. While most supply siders pretty much denied the evidence.

demand side economics makes the most sense to you because you have the least sense of anyone here, although you should invite Krugman here so he can take that title away from you.

What's so complicated about the fact that the middle class is the big engine pushing our economy such that when their wages stagnate and they stop saving and go into debt the economy will stall. Makes perfect sense to me.

If you stash all the money amongst the wealthy elite and starve the middle class the results are a boom and bust economy. The evidence is clear and consistent.

Help me out here muir. Who is the supply-sider at the Cafe Hayek. Is it Russ Roberts or Don Boudreaux? I'm sure they are not big fans of demand side aggregate macros, are they supplyside economists in the modern sense of the term? How so.

Love you, Mmmmwwwwaaahhhh

I know for a fact Russ has claimed to be so in one of his Econtalk discussions.

The main doctrine in supply side economics cutting top marginal tax rates is one I would think most libertarians support.

Libertarians support eliminating taxes. Art Laffer said when he appeared on Bill Maher show that he was a Kennedy democrats and supports income tax to do its job really well. How much taxes will government collect when the effective tax rate is 100%. How much will they collect at effective rate of 0? Do you think taxes collected will follow a bell curve based on rates? Isn't that what Art Laffer said in his theory!

If lower tax rates is going to help the government grow, then I would prefer raising the taxes. I'm saying it tongue in cheek and yet there is a large element of truth in my sentiment.

Can you link to one of PK's posts where he "calls the crash"?

Something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU

(around 1:20)?

I'm curious.

PK on the bubble Oct 2006
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/opinion/30...


Siding with George Will Oct 2006
http://cafehayek.com/2006/10/economic_hypoch.html


Siding with Luskin as late as 9/2008
http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/the-economy-ain.html

Wonderful link muir. I won't tell anyone that Paul Krugman no predictions in that blog entry you posted. He definitely worried about Q3 GDP in 2006. But GDP picked up steam the next quarter to over 3 percent and stayed there for more than a year. Did he say Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would collapse? Did he say subprime would implode like building undergoing demolition? Did he predict that the banks would go out of business? No. But I will not tell anybody. Krugman, as usual, wonderfully vacillated between a bunch of inane thoughts from a lot of people, all other than himself.

Now, come on, tell us 5 arguments you have refined by the immense number of hourse you have spent on this blog every day for the last 5 years. Tell us about the stages of it's progress. I know you can know this one out of the park. Just do it.
Love you, Mmmmwwwwaaaaahhh

The problem is that when you refute his facts, muirturd just ignores your refutation, and presents them as fact again later. It's like talking to a brick turd. Save your breath, Sandre.

Hey Russ, you dumb ass ( since you want to debate at that level) saying you refuted the facts doesn't mean you did. Krugman wrote a book in 2000 called The Return of Depression Economics. So STFU you lying twit.

Here he is in Aug 9 2005 Hardball interview making Larry (Supply Side Dope) Kudlow look like an ass and calling the housing bubble crash while Kudlow (like most free-marketeers shows he is clearly clueless).

"KRUGMAN: And when the housing thing bursts, we are in big trouble."

So you didn't make me look like a turd. You simply showed you don't care about the truth or are a full out liar because that's the only way you can feel you won the debate.

KRUGMAN: Bubbles are fun when they are happening. We were all very happy when the Nasdaq was soaring. David, you should know there`s a little bit of history here. Back in 2000, Larry wrote a number of scathing articles about self-important college professors who thought that the tech stocks were overvalued and urged his readers to go ahead and -- and keep on buying tech stocks. I mean, Larry always thinks the market is right. I sometimes think there is a bubble. I think the numbers are really, really clear here, and the frenzy, the atmosphere as well.

http://www.pkarchive.org/

KRUGMAN: A lot of people are going to find themselves with mortgages they can`t handle. They are going to find themselves -- you know, personal bankruptcy will go up, except, of course, the laws have been tightened on that now, quite brutally. But the main thing, I`m just -- we -- you know, this -- this economic recovery, I`ve been complaining about it, but at least it is a recovery. And it is driven, it is driven mostly by housing.

Got it Low LIfe... Now talk and debate like an adult or don't bother replying and polluting the blog with name calling. Frickin jerk!

Wonderful comment muir. I won't tell anyone that there was no depression in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009. I wont tell anyone that Krugman had no section dedicated to housing market, subprime mortages, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and our Buddies Barney Crank/Crook Dodd in his 2000 book. But he did advice Greenspan to create a housing bubble as a solution to a problem in his imagination. He was of couse trying to save the world, given the dystopian vision he received in his sleep. Other than shouting "sky is falling", Krugman gave no details which is typically clever Krugman - he has the weight of saving the world on his shoulders, you must understand.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010153.asp

http://mises.org/story/3530

Love you, Mmmmwwwwaaaahhhhh

No his argument stems from a Keyensian view and a belief that a big part of the problem was/is falling or stagnant middle class wages. And that is well documented in his writings.

Yves Smith of the Left wing blog "Naked Capitalism" had this to say about your Hero.

"I was completely gobsmacked by Krugman’s evident lack of a moral compass (this is "ends justify the means" in fancy dress), and was glad to see Greenwald do the heavy lifting of taking his argument apart."

Now go light a candle at Crookman's deity.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwa...

Question; Why should wages not stagnate? I mean, if I just keep doing the same old thing day in and day out, why should I expect a raise? Aggregate the principle and the question still applies. By way of example, the returns to manufacturing labor used to be good, but only because not that many people were doing it. Now everybody is doing it. So, again the question, why should wages not stagnate? Just because the politicians don't want them to?

Wages should go up at least in sync with inflation and productivity.

This;

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/fe...

and this;

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n5ROGN0Id8Q/SwqTxQV5A...

Are data driven evidence supporting my claims. It's undeniable that these two periods in history in which policy tilted towards laissez faire economics had a common result.

Wages should go up... in sync with inflation...

Why? The whole point of the government's steady inflation policy is to solve the problem of sticky wages. It allows the employer to gradually decrease the wages of those who aren't producing as much without hurting their feelings.

Wages should go up... in sync with [increased] productivity...

I agree. But they should go up only for those who are more productive. Why assume that the average production line worker is any more productive than 30 or 40 years ago? The increase in productivity is mostly due to those who create and apply new technologies.

Keynes ideas are SO WRONG that even Keynsians call themselves "New Keynesians" to distance their ideas from Keynes' wacko ideas. Just as there are no people left whom socialists from 70 years ago would call socialist, there are no people left whom Keynes would recognize as his followers.

Take, for example, the concept of Aggregate Demand. My demand for a smoke-free environment, and your demand to be able to smoke anywhere you want, BOTH contribute to aggregate demand. My demand for clean water, and your demand to be able to pollute it, BOTH contribute to aggregate demand. My demand for a wide-screen LCD TV, and your demand to steal mine, BOTH contribute to aggregate demand. It's an insane concept, and it's only promulgated by insane people. E.g. Krugman.

Wonderful muir. I'm sure his heart bled as he wrote that blog entry, it was dripping with good demand side intentions. It is irrelevant that it was a call for housing bubble, it is irrelevant that bubble burst. What is relevant is that he said sky is falling.

Love you, mmmwwwaaahhhh

What's the point in refuting you? You have NEVER shown an honest interest in learning (as you first claimed you were here to do). Facts don't convince you, because your mind is made up.

Russ,

I just proved I was right about Krugman. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ME..THIS TIME... I REUTED YOU... CAN YOU ADMIT THAT? You're the one denying the facts. It's a two way street. You guys regularly brush off the facts I provide to support my arguments.

My position is not radical by any means. In fact I'd argue its the overwhelming position of most people on this Earth. Libertarianism is a radical position by comparison. Don't you think the debate ere should include ideas outside of the libertarian point of view. Does it really bother you that most people do not see the world from your point of view?

George, you could prove that the sun rose this morning, and NOBODY HERE WOULD BELIEVE YOU. Your reputation here is completely trashed by the unreasonable positions you have taken and repeatedly assert absent of any facts. I mean, I've taken the time to track down your "facts", have disproven them to my satisfaction, presented them to you, only to have them fall on deaf ears. So .... I don't bother. Now, maybe you really are right from time to time, but nobody is going to believe you because you've been wrong on slim evidence so many times.

No, the debate here should not include ideas outside the libertarian point of view, because THEY ARE WRONG. Yes, you espouse a majority view, a centrist view, a wrong view. Yes, it bothers me that most people in the world are willing to sell their freedom for a song. It ought to bother you, and you ought to be seeking ways to change that ... rather than trying to change us.

his mind is set like concrete. He is here to just reinforce the strength. He is unable to convince anyone here about his ideology. He is not taking away even 1 byte of truth from here. He is just obsessed with Cafe Hayek. He is like a ghost out for revenge. I don't know what Cafe Hayek has done to wrong him. He acts like he is demon possessed.

Not true. Like all libertarians I am all for legalized pot and prostitution.
Plus I'd rather have Ron Paul or Peter Schiff be president than any typical lobby-owned republican or some one like Sarah Palin.

You scared me there for a second. Then I read it again and felt relieved. You will vote against lobby-owned REPUBLICAN, but you would still vote for our lobby owned democrats like Al Gore, Crook Dodd, Rod Blagejovich, Barnie Frank etc. and of course war profiteers like Diane Feinstein.

Love you, mmmmwwwwaaaahhhh

The only democrat you listed that I trust IS Al Gore.

Excellent Muir! You my man! Long Live Blood and Gore Inc. Long Live Cap and Trade. Long live the "rights" emit CO2. On our way to first billion. You still didn't say Democrats bought and paid for the lobby :) You my man again. Love you, Mmmmmmwwwwwaaahhh

Dipshit,

No one makes you look like a turd, or a "shit for brains", every time you touch your keyboard you do it to yourself.

You can stop earning yourself the label at any time you want by just walking away from your computer and not smearing your shit all over good people's conversations.

There is no intelligence or integrity in being a useful tool for a theology that has proven itself a failure in recorded history, and by extension in unrecorded history as well, every single time it has been sold to other idiots like yourself.

That is why in all the history mentioned above no society ever has began as socialist and survived more than the time it takes to spend other people's money, no society has ever had socialism sold to it or imposed on it and survived beyond the time it takes to spend the other's money.

The fact that you continue to proselytize for it just proves the "shit for brains" label you have here.

"That is why in all the history mentioned above no society ever has began as socialist and survived more than the time it takes to spend other people's ..."

MinArcMan...WAGP



Social democracies ( including ours by you goofy definitions) are the most thriving economies ever... EVER!! Communist China is quickly becoming the most powerful economy in the world while the only 2 libertarian countries ( Somalia and Haiti) aren't doing so well. So I'm not sure WTH you're babbling about.

So what does it mean for you if a dipshit like me has such an easy time making an ass of you and your silly post?

Only in your own mind dipshit, everyone here can see how you have just contradicted nearly every post you have made in the last two months if not longer.

Thank you for demonstrating once again how intellectually vacant you truly are.

The argument here is not intelligence, but integrity. It is not obvious has the 1000s of geckonomists out there have recognized the dishonesty that PK spews out on his blog - not at all evident from the adoration he receives in the comment section.

I dunno sandre, I think part of the issue is intelligence as well as consistency.

PK is a typical socialist tool, and that means that in spite of his appearance of intelligence you know he is broken in his brain to some degree, a large enough crack to allow for him to delude himself that somehow he and his kind can indeed make socialism work.

PK is a tool for sure. I don't know if it's a crack or if it's just socialist kool-aid filling up otherwise useful greymatter.

If you want to go back to last November, he's also had an issue with linear thinking, or rather, not being able to break away from it.

Glenn Greenwald rips Krugman's dishonest head off. Krugman reminds me of muirbot - Democrat - Republican bifurcation is more important than actual policies they may represent.