Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The reason legal immigrants will turn from progessives is that they did not come the America to live under progressivism. If they wanted that, they could have stayed where they were.

That level of ignorance would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The GINI coefficient in Mexico is 50+, making that country less progressive than this one -- and that's saying something.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It is only a code in your head.

No, it's also a code in Hispanics' heads, which is why they don't vote Republican, or part of the reason.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That level of ignorance would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The GINI coefficient in Mexico is 50+, making that country less progressive than this one -- and that's saying something.

Leftist polices are great at creating poverty. And genocide.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I don't bugger tied up little boys.

Then you have your answer. You're quite right to refuse to answer a trick question. So am I.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, it's also a code in Hispanics' heads, which is why they don't vote Republican, or part of the reason.

Well, if it's in their heads, it's in their heads. They need to wake up and stop buying the leftists propoganda.

Blacks too, now that I think of it.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Leftist polices are great at creating poverty.

Historically innacurate and a sign of yet more ignorance.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Then you have your answer. You're quite right to refuse to answer a trick question. So am I.

How is "what do you intend to do with a businessman who does not want to socialize his business a trick question"?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Well, if it's in their heads, it's in their heads. They need to wake up and stop buying the leftists propoganda.

Blacks too, now that I think of it.

I'd suggest not holding your breath while you wait.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Historically innacurate and a sign of yet more ignorance.

Ever here of the USSR? North Korea? Venezuela? Hell, Mexico for the past 90 years.

Or do we get another humpty dumpty definition of Leftist?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

How is "what do you intend to do with a businessman who does not want to socialize his business a trick question"?

Because it presumes something non-factual, just like my question of why you bugger little boys.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Because it presumes something non-factual, just like my question of why you bugger little boys.

I assume that you want to make socialism mandatory. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Ever here of the USSR? North Korea?

Ever here of the USA 1946-1980? Or Europe post-WWII? After all, your entire point in citing the examples of the USSR or North Korea is to try to brand OUR sort of "leftist" politics with an inappropriate association, so it's worth taking a direct look at whether OUR sort of "leftist" politics produces poverty or not.

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ever here of the USA 1946-1980? Or Europe post-WWII? After all, your entire point in citing the examples of the USSR or North Korea is to try to brand OUR sort of "leftist" politics with an inappropriate association, so it's worth taking a direct look at whether OUR sort of "leftist" politics produces poverty or not.

It doesn't.

There was enough of the free market in Europe and the USA to keep the ball rolling, but in the end, reality caught up. Look at Europe now. France should be an intersting lesson. California too.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I assume that you want to make socialism mandatory. Am I wrong?

Instead of assuming anything, download and read this: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/218878

It's not that long, and assuming you can read it for comprehension you will then not be talking out your ass. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Instead of assuming anything, download and read this: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/218878

It's not that long, and assuinge you can read it for comprehension you will then not be talking out your ass. Thanks in advance.

It talks about how they don;'t like capitalism and they want to replace it with humpty dumpty definitions of socialism.

What they do not say is HOW they will replace it.

So, answer an easy question. Do you intend to socialize businesses by law? What will be the penalty to those who resist?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

There was enough of the free market in Europe and the USA to keep the ball rolling

You said "leftist." You are now implying "non-free market." Make up your mind.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

[bullshit snipped]

Read the book. Then talk about it. Reversing that order is not legitimate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You said "leftist." You are now implying "non-free market." Make up your mind.

Show me a leftist who is pro free market.

How do you intend to put businesses in the hands of "workers"?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Read the book. Then talk about it. Reversing that order is not legitimate.

It is a simple question you can answer yourself right here. How do you intend to socialize businesses?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I guess you are missing out on the counter-productivity of creating debt. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

First, are you talking about the debt of the currency issuer (i.e. the federal govt) or the many currency users (households, businesses, foreign entities)? The two are not comparable in any way. The latter has to pay its debt back one way or another; the former ALWAYS rolls over its entire debt because paying it off results in something called DEPRESSION. Big difference.

However, what exactly do you mean by "counter-productivity of creating debt?" As a self-profess business student, you are aware that most businesses borrow funds for their capital improvements and many do so for even their daily expenses such as meeting payroll. Meeting payroll and capital improvements sure sound productive to me, but maybe they're teaching something different in your business school these days???

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Oer put another way, as long as people take the dollar seriously, which they won't under MMT.

That's pretty silly when one considers that MMT says it's all about inflation (or, the lack of).

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Show me a leftist who is pro free market.

Adam Smith.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It is a simple question you can answer yourself right here. How do you intend to socialize businesses?

By changing the laws that assign ownership of the product of business on the basis of capital rather than labor.

You would know that if you'd read the book.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You assume that Hispanics will keep voting democrat.

The Right has given no reason to question that assumption.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Other than the interest on the debt you rack up (or the diminish purchasing power of the currency if you directly print the money). For a sufficiently depressed economy the cost may be less than the gain, but this cannot be universally so, otherwise Revolutionary France (which tried this strategy) would have conquered all of Europe.

The interest on the debt is just another federal government expenditure that puts money in the hands of people/institutions to spend and create demand. Again, the real question circles back to whether the created demand is too much/little for the economy to supply resulting in either in/de- flation.

Diminish purchasing power is one outcome (inflation); the other is increased purchasing power that doesn't get spent (deflation). Nearly any economist, or policy maker who has faced both, will tell you they'd rather deal with inflation than deflation. One of the reasons you want inflation in a healthy economy is that it is the best sign you are not unknowingly, until too late, falling into the more scarier deflation.

I have not looked into Revolutionary France per se, but if you are referring to another case of hyperinflation, I can guarantee that it is just another example (as with Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic, US Confederacy and the other usual suspects), of a non-monetary sovereign getting into problem that is not possible with the US, Japan, China or any other monetary sovereign entity.