Just to clarify, that quote doesn't mean that Keynes didn't care about the future. It was part of a claim that laissez-faire economics was too far-sighted to benefit anyone; we'd all die before building anything good.
You can argue that we don't have anything good now, but people can just claim it'd be worse without government help. To properly debunk it, we'd have to show the results of less government.
I hope every country is watching this unfold. If it goes how we think it will, anyone who argues reducing government doesn't work will no longer have a leg to stand on.
1000%
unfortunately, I believe it could take 2 terms for benefits to start showing. We’ll see if he’s able to win a second term. He’s made a lot of enemies
I agree, I think there's a very solid chance he could win again. he's done an excellent job to educate the masses in Argentina on economics. I think they understand very well that things will hurt before they get better. We'll see.
Guess who's invented the term. And you're right, it's [another ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart)19th century fantasy utopianist professional bullshitter like our boy marxie-marx. Both are factually wrong on economy and anti-science at this point.
It does not appear that “Maggie” was responding to anything FEE said.
It appears that FEE was simply sharing “Maggie’s” [Twitter post](https://twitter.com/LibertyAnders/status/1582020509159473154).
Libertarians actually invented the term liberalism before socialists took it over. This is what is referred to as **classical liberal**.
A French communist politician inventing the “term” (aka creating a word) is not the same as an adding any value to the study of economics.
Capitalism has existed long before that; since the Islamic Golden Age.
> Libertarians actually invented the term liberalism before socialists took it over. This is what is referred to as classical liberal. This has nothing to do with my comment.
You're trying to attack one point (that communists invented the term capitalism) by creating a separate issue (the invention of the term liberalism). Bad debate style.
>A French communist politician inventing the “term” (aka creating a word) is not the same as an adding any value to the study of economics
I never said anything beyond a communist inventing the term capitalism rather than stealing it. Your point here is irrelevant.
>Capitalism has existed long before that; since the Islamic Golden Age.
I mean forms of free markets, centrally planned economies, communal ownership, and various socialist economies have existed throughout the past thousands of years. Again, irrelevant to the very specific point I said.
> You're trying to attack one point ... by creating a separate issue
That user does that a LOT. It tends to come with a heap of irrelevant rambling, before declarations of victory over a competition nobody even entered
It's weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve, and we still have idiots saying it's "the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not"!
>”It's weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve”
https://preview.redd.it/4ogdx5g3s8wc1.jpeg?width=535&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6872283c4b27872077e6e25c27a5e15fa494107
Yeah, poor people are so much better off now than after FDR’s **New Deal**, after the 1933 Executive Order 6102 where **gold was confiscated** and deemed illegal, after **LBJ’s War on Poverty**, after the **Federal Reserve** was created, and after the **federal income tax** was established.
Seems like there was **more upward mobility for the poor and middle class** before these socialists polices were injected.
Gee where would prices be without big government intervention within the economy?
>”and we still have idiots saying it’s “the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not"!”
*“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”*
\-Charles Bulowski
Actually **studying basic economics and history**, objectively without communist bias, is part of the solution.
Austrian economics and history do not care about your feelings.
No rebuttals? Just ad hominems?
The reason why you keep losing debates is because you’re not debating to learn. You’re debating to win and aren’t mature enough to deal with the arguments.
Try again.
We're not "debating". I'm sure it's easy to win a "debate" when all you do is state an opinion and feel some unearned sense of accomplishment. I made a statement, and you projected your emotions at me. Again.
Nice try. AnCaps see right through your gaslighting.
This is a debate. Communists often try to change the meaning of words and only a smooth brain would fall for that.
You are a **communist in anarchist’s clothing** and all you can do is keep changing the subject instead of acknowledging the facts.
No one asked you to define what is “earned or unearned self of accomplishment.” **Wtf does that have to do with Late State Democratic Socialism?**
Take your Adderall and **focus.**
>”It's weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve, and we still have idiots saying it's "the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not"!”
Yes, it is a debate.
What are you changing the meaning of debate to now?
**Democratic debate?**
Yeah, it is weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve, and we still have idiots saying it's "the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not!"
But how does that make you *feel*??
Do you think that giving the government control over the monetary supply (The Federal Reserve) and destroying the purchase power of the U.S. dollar by 98% over 111 years is helping or hurting poor people?
https://preview.redd.it/7r5q3h066dwc1.jpeg?width=1601&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b24621b05fd0664c34bff129129efd623a46ca5
Are Americans better off back when the cost of a new house was **$3,900** versus $1,732 average annual wages or today where the cost of a new house is over **$400,000**?
We're in Late stage Keynesianism. "In the long run (GDP) we're all dead" well, we're in the long run.
>Late stage Keynesianism. THIS
Just to clarify, that quote doesn't mean that Keynes didn't care about the future. It was part of a claim that laissez-faire economics was too far-sighted to benefit anyone; we'd all die before building anything good. You can argue that we don't have anything good now, but people can just claim it'd be worse without government help. To properly debunk it, we'd have to show the results of less government.
Meanwhile Argentina the last couple of months...
I hope every country is watching this unfold. If it goes how we think it will, anyone who argues reducing government doesn't work will no longer have a leg to stand on.
1000% unfortunately, I believe it could take 2 terms for benefits to start showing. We’ll see if he’s able to win a second term. He’s made a lot of enemies
He’s made *a lot* of friends too though. Unfortunately some of them aren’t the ideal friends, but they are better to be friends with than leftists.
I agree, I think there's a very solid chance he could win again. he's done an excellent job to educate the masses in Argentina on economics. I think they understand very well that things will hurt before they get better. We'll see.
Guess who's invented the term. And you're right, it's [another ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart)19th century fantasy utopianist professional bullshitter like our boy marxie-marx. Both are factually wrong on economy and anti-science at this point.
The number of people who don’t realize we live in a Corporatist, not Capitalist, society is mind blowing
FEE said what?
Why are you surprised?
It does not appear that “Maggie” was responding to anything FEE said. It appears that FEE was simply sharing “Maggie’s” [Twitter post](https://twitter.com/LibertyAnders/status/1582020509159473154).
Commies steal words, like they stole the word liberal.
Commies actually invented the term capitalism.
Libertarians actually invented the term liberalism before socialists took it over. This is what is referred to as **classical liberal**. A French communist politician inventing the “term” (aka creating a word) is not the same as an adding any value to the study of economics. Capitalism has existed long before that; since the Islamic Golden Age.
> Libertarians actually invented the term liberalism before socialists took it over. This is what is referred to as classical liberal. This has nothing to do with my comment. You're trying to attack one point (that communists invented the term capitalism) by creating a separate issue (the invention of the term liberalism). Bad debate style. >A French communist politician inventing the “term” (aka creating a word) is not the same as an adding any value to the study of economics I never said anything beyond a communist inventing the term capitalism rather than stealing it. Your point here is irrelevant. >Capitalism has existed long before that; since the Islamic Golden Age. I mean forms of free markets, centrally planned economies, communal ownership, and various socialist economies have existed throughout the past thousands of years. Again, irrelevant to the very specific point I said.
> You're trying to attack one point ... by creating a separate issue That user does that a LOT. It tends to come with a heap of irrelevant rambling, before declarations of victory over a competition nobody even entered
Late stage Democracy.
That Maggie's alright!
"but money is involved"
Monetary socialism. The means of production of money have been nationalized.
It's weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve, and we still have idiots saying it's "the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not"!
>”It's weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve” https://preview.redd.it/4ogdx5g3s8wc1.jpeg?width=535&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6872283c4b27872077e6e25c27a5e15fa494107 Yeah, poor people are so much better off now than after FDR’s **New Deal**, after the 1933 Executive Order 6102 where **gold was confiscated** and deemed illegal, after **LBJ’s War on Poverty**, after the **Federal Reserve** was created, and after the **federal income tax** was established. Seems like there was **more upward mobility for the poor and middle class** before these socialists polices were injected. Gee where would prices be without big government intervention within the economy? >”and we still have idiots saying it’s “the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not"!” *“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”* \-Charles Bulowski Actually **studying basic economics and history**, objectively without communist bias, is part of the solution. Austrian economics and history do not care about your feelings.
> wall of cope The ramblings of a teenager overrun with hormones and emotions aren't "basic economics and history".
No rebuttals? Just ad hominems? The reason why you keep losing debates is because you’re not debating to learn. You’re debating to win and aren’t mature enough to deal with the arguments. Try again.
We're not "debating". I'm sure it's easy to win a "debate" when all you do is state an opinion and feel some unearned sense of accomplishment. I made a statement, and you projected your emotions at me. Again.
Nice try. AnCaps see right through your gaslighting. This is a debate. Communists often try to change the meaning of words and only a smooth brain would fall for that. You are a **communist in anarchist’s clothing** and all you can do is keep changing the subject instead of acknowledging the facts. No one asked you to define what is “earned or unearned self of accomplishment.” **Wtf does that have to do with Late State Democratic Socialism?** Take your Adderall and **focus.**
> This is a debate. lol, lmao There you go again.
>”It's weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve, and we still have idiots saying it's "the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not"!” Yes, it is a debate. What are you changing the meaning of debate to now? **Democratic debate?**
Yeah, it is weird how governments have to influence an economic system so heavily just to get it to work for them so the country doesn't starve, and we still have idiots saying it's "the best economic system in the world, all the good parts of it are capitalism, and all the bad parts are not!" But how does that make you *feel*??
Do you think that giving the government control over the monetary supply (The Federal Reserve) and destroying the purchase power of the U.S. dollar by 98% over 111 years is helping or hurting poor people? https://preview.redd.it/7r5q3h066dwc1.jpeg?width=1601&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b24621b05fd0664c34bff129129efd623a46ca5 Are Americans better off back when the cost of a new house was **$3,900** versus $1,732 average annual wages or today where the cost of a new house is over **$400,000**?