Some Advice From Me To All You Liberals

philly rabbit said:
1. Your party is too far left. It isn't a Democratic party any longer, it's a socialist party.

2. Your party is being runned and controlled by old hippies from the sixties. Get rid of the old blister Pelosi. She's killing you. Her ideas are all obsolete. That goes for Shumer and Elizabeth Warren also. Bernie Sanders meanwhile, is a full blown socialist who sold his soul to Hillary Clinton after he was pushed aside by Hillary in the primaries.

3. Stop concentrating on stupid issues like nick names for football teams and rock bands and trans gender bathrooms and concentrate on real issues Americans care about like the economy.

4. Stop trying to get rid of Trump. Trump just won two more special elections and he's now five and 0 in them.

5. You need to become much more moderate and much less socialist because you have lost middle america and it wont get any better for you as long as you keep moving further and further left.
Click to expand...
Not all liberals are Democrats, philly.
 
philly rabbit said:
Because you talk like you got a dick and balls .. you yearn to be a man.

That's why you make up fake women's rights .. because you hate men and want to drive a permanent wedge between the sexes.
Click to expand...

ummm





chicks are not ONLY what you can decide they are idiot



girlies can cus too


they dont follow your rules for who they should be


this is why your party has to cheat in elections


you hate everyone
 
prove it pudlapper




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School



The Austrian School is a school of economic thought that is based on methodological individualism – the concept that social phenomena result from the motivations and actions of individuals.[1][2][3] It originated in late-19th and early-20th century Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others.[4] It was methodologically opposed to the Prussian Historical School (in a dispute known as Methodenstreit). Current-day economists working in this tradition are located in many different countries, but their work is still referred to as Austrian economics.
Among the theoretical contributions of the early years of the Austrian School are the subjective theory of value, marginalism in price theory, and the formulation of the economic calculation problem, each of which has become an accepted part of mainstream economics.[5]
Since the mid-20th century, many economists have been critical of the modern day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox".[6][7][8][9] Austrians are likewise critical of mainstream economics.[10] Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the late 1930s, it began to attract renewed interest in the 1970s, after Friedrich Hayek shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.[11]
 
Split among contemporary Austrians[edit]
According to economist Bryan Caplan, by the late twentieth century, a split had developed among those who self-identify with the Austrian School. One group, building on the work of Hayek, follows the broad framework of mainstream neoclassical economics, including its use of mathematical models and general equilibrium, and brings a critical perspective to mainstream methodology merely influenced by the Austrian notions such as the economic calculation problem and the independent role of logical reasoning in developing economic theory.[31]


Murray Rothbard
A second group, following Mises and Rothbard, rejects the neoclassical theories of consumer and welfare economics, dismisses empirical methods and mathematical and statistical models as inapplicable to economic science, and asserts that economic theory went entirely astray in the twentieth century; they offer the Misesian view as a radical alternative paradigm to mainstream theory. Caplan wrote that if "Mises and Rothbard are right, then [mainstream] economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus."[31]
Economist Leland Yeager discussed the late twentieth century rift and referred to a discussion written by Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Joseph Salerno, and others in which they attack and disparage Hayek. "To try to drive a wedge between Mises and Hayek on [the role of knowledge in economic calculation], especially to the disparagement of Hayek, is unfair to these two great men, unfaithful to the history of economic thought" and went on to call the rift subversive to economic analysis and the historical understanding of the fall of Eastern European communism.[32]
In a 1999 book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Mises Institute),[33] Hans-Hermann Hoppe asserted that Murray Rothbard was the leader of the "mainstream within Austrian Economics" and contrasted Rothbard with Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, whom he identified as a British empiricist and an opponent of the thought of Mises and Rothbard. Hoppe acknowledged that Hayek was the most prominent Austrian economist within academia, but stated that Hayek was an opponent of the Austrian tradition which led from Carl Menger and Böhm-Bawerk through Mises to Rothbard. Austrian economist Walter Block says that the "Austrian school" can be distinguished from other schools of economic thought through two categories – economic theory and political theory. According to Block, while Hayek can be considered an "Austrian economist", his views on political theory clash with the libertarian political theory which Block sees as an integral part of the Austrian school.[34]
However, both criticisms from Hoppe and Block to Hayek seem to apply to the founder of the Austrian School, Carl Menger, too. Hoppe emphasizes that Hayek, which for him is from the English empirical tradition, is an opponent of the supposed rationalist tradition of the Austrian School. However, Carl Menger made strong critiques to rationalism in his works, in similar vein as Hayek's.[35] He emphasized the idea that there are several institutions which were not deliberately created, have a kind of 'superior wisdom' and serves important functions to society.[36][35][37] He also talked about Burke and the English tradition to sustain these positions.[35]
Block, when saying that the libertarian political theory is an integral part of the Austrian School, and supposing Hayek isn't a libertarian, excludes Menger from the Austrian School too, once Menger seems to defend broader state activity than Hayek. As examples, progressive taxation and extensive labour legislation.[38]
Economists of the Hayekian view are affiliated with the Cato Institute, George Mason University (GMU), and New York University, among other institutions. They include Peter Boettke, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, Peter Leeson and George Reisman. Economists of the Mises-Rothbard view include Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto and Robert P. Murphy, each of whom is associated with the Mises Institute[39] and some of them also with academic institutions.[39] According to Murphy, a "truce between (for lack of better terms) the GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians" was signed around 2011.[40][41]
 
Desh, you are completely clueless to various schools of economics and what they entail. All you can do is copy and paste from wikipedia. As I said, you have absolutely no clue what you are speaking about here.
 
evince said:
prove it pudlapper




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School



The Austrian School is a school of economic thought that is based on methodological individualism – the concept that social phenomena result from the motivations and actions of individuals.[1][2][3] It originated in late-19th and early-20th century Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others.[4] It was methodologically opposed to the Prussian Historical School (in a dispute known as Methodenstreit). Current-day economists working in this tradition are located in many different countries, but their work is still referred to as Austrian economics.
Among the theoretical contributions of the early years of the Austrian School are the subjective theory of value, marginalism in price theory, and the formulation of the economic calculation problem, each of which has become an accepted part of mainstream economics.[5]
Since the mid-20th century, many economists have been critical of the modern day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox".[6][7][8][9] Austrians are likewise critical of mainstream economics.[10] Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the late 1930s, it began to attract renewed interest in the 1970s, after Friedrich Hayek shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.[11]
Click to expand...

Then again you can stubbornly continue with your unsuccessful endeavors.
 
Amadeus said:
Lets take your argument to its logical conclusion. Should women be forced to have a child if they become pregnant? Should they be charged for murder if they have an abortion? Should women be enslaved for 9 months while fetus is gestating?

There is no religious argument against abortion (since the Bible clearly says that unborn and newborns are worth 5 shekels of silver), so we can safely dispense with their moral outrage and come up with a practical solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies that doesn't reduce women to being slaves.
Click to expand...

How about answering the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top