@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.
The dazzler just votes for authoritarian dems who want to micromanage the private economy. He remembers the horror of our February 2020 economy. Blacks working? Can't have that.
Time for the Dazzler to start the ad hominem attacks . . .
LOL . . . Quotes Hayek and gets it shoved down his throat.
Classic Dazzler!
I love that he really thought he had a "gotcha" moment right there.
It's weird that he won't just come out and say what he's advocating for. I can't imagine why that is. It must be that he's crafting a well thought out and concise piece of well researched economic policy to elucidate all of us with.
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
Socialism’s failure is America’s fault. Good to know. You’d think a system so awesome would succeed on its merits and popularity regardless of the meddling of an evil outside force..
Just imagine how great Germany could have done if. we hadn’t fucked it all up for them in 1944.
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
-Hayek
Good thing our poor get free healthcare, food, and housing.
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
He speaks! Fantastic start. I'm so proud of you. Obviously some truly groundbreaking stuff here and not just pabulum for the economic layman.
I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves.
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily in your own community and give you the virtue of argumental charity that IF everyone else did you would also pay additional taxes(and not drive to another state to avoid them).
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily
@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily
Such as?
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Comments
Take the L and slither away . . .
LOL . . . Quotes Hayek and gets it shoved down his throat.
Classic Dazzler!
It's weird that he won't just come out and say what he's advocating for. I can't imagine why that is. It must be that he's crafting a well thought out and concise piece of well researched economic policy to elucidate all of us with.
I didn't.
Do try to keep up.
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
Just imagine how great Germany could have done if. we hadn’t fucked it all up for them in 1944.
Since you’re so into Hayek, I dare you to watch this.
I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves.
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily in your own community and give you the virtue of argumental charity that IF everyone else did you would also pay additional taxes(and not drive to another state to avoid them).
The democrats aren't working to make America better. Quite the opposite
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.