|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 01 2014 08:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 08:27 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Not even close. What is your "solution" again? thinking that one is only allowed to point out a problem when one has a solution is a very, very stupid way to think. The fact that Paul Krugman pretends to have the solution to everything, while I cheerfully admit to having no fucking clue how to get out of the horrible situation we are in, is how you know that I am an honest person and he is a shit-eating fraud. If you were anything other than a cheerleader, I would not have to point this out to you. On November 01 2014 08:18 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Technocrats and bankers just defend the interest of the upper class, and everybody knows that. But I don't understand your point against Keynes. Keynes don't give a fuck about GDP growth, the data was not discussed at all at his time. Growth wasn't even a thing. Keynes cared about employment and his basis argument - putting the macro aside - is that it is more productive for a society to put unemployed to work than not. What's so wrong about that ? What does it have to do with growth ? GDP became a thing in 1944 after Bretton Wood, and was proposed by Kuznets in 1934, two years before Keynes' general theory, and growth became a major economic discussion with Solow in 1956. because I think the relationship between the business cycle and unemployment is not an ahistorical truth, but the product of a specific historical conjuncture which no longer obtains. I think that our problems with unemployment are a structural flaw in our socioeconomic system and not a secular problem that can be fixed by restarting economic growth. We can only ever have jobless recoveries from now on, which means that we need to start thinking in terms other than "recession" and "recovery." If you say "it's good to have more people working than not" that begs all sorts of questions - working doing what? under what conditions? why and to what purpose? how long? for whom? These are the questions that nobody is willing to ask and is why mainstream economics is completely intellectually bankrupt. My beef is not with the historical figure Keynes, who basically accomplished the task of sanitizing Marx's most important insights into the functioning of the capitalist system so that they could be used by people who were not willing to accept the full implications of those insights. My beef is with people who think that the basic Keynesian idea of smoothing out the business cycle through government intervention of some variety is still a valid paradigm within which to shape our political economic policy, which it very clearly is not (any longer). The problem is not how to get to full employment, the problem is how to think about what a society which did not have or require full employment would look like. And no, I don't have the answer, nor will I pretend to. That's not an excuse for ignoring the problem. (to his credit, the historical Keynes is pretty much in agreement with the stuff I'm saying here. It's the Keynesians I'm opposed to, not Keynes. Keynes is dead, who gives a fuck) Your core point is that our technology has come to a point where it does not need that much labor then ? It's not a reasonnable to me : why not simply lower labor time like all countries did (aside the US).
yeah, i mean, i think that's a pretty good idea. but that's not really the direction we are headed. work is either becoming more precarious and insecure, or splitting into overworked people and the unemployed. The question is, can you have "the thirty hour work week in one country?"
I mean, I don't really think there are any solutions to anything from large-scale, centralized institutions. the solution is devolution and regionalism. If this makes me a strange Left bedfellow of the "starve the beast" austerity people, so be it. Beats being an idiot Democrat clinging desperately to the myth of the magic power of Keynesian stimulus
we should make a world in which people can create their own jobs, rather than waiting around for people to create jobs for them. this is called "owning the means of production."
On November 01 2014 08:52 oneofthem wrote:
it is very difficult to respond to flippant posts that are developed behind some complicated misunderstandings. trying to figure out what exactly you are thinking is just too much effort and headache to be worthwhile.
and your technocratic hubris, belief that you know everything, and smug condescension make you a useless gadfly
edit: but seriously, the original point was just to say how incredibly and obviously stupid it is for Krugman to say "Hey Guys! Let's be like Japan!" What absurdity. And people actually believe this shit. They nod and say "oh yeah, Paul, thanks for being so smart." The world is an enormous farce. I'm gonna go back in my hole now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
too much wat for one evening.
|
On November 01 2014 07:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 06:30 Sub40APM wrote:On November 01 2014 05:30 bookwyrm wrote:
How many years can you keep saying that and people still believe it? Im still waiting for jesus to come back also
if youre just going to give me keynesianism for dummies you can save your thumbs. I get it. Really. I get it. You must be David Grabner's most prolific fan. David Grabner?
David Graeber. Because some Mesopotamian society collapsed 6000 years ago any information to be learned from the last 30 years is useless but capitalism is 100% doomed.
|
On November 01 2014 07:58 bookwyrm wrote:
At least you're better than sub40, who recommends books he hasn't read and replies with one liners only.
Either you are lying about having read the books I recommend or you havent understood them. Either way, your contribution to this thread on economics have been so far this: "I read a book about some iron age civilization by an anthropologist that says debt will collapses us all THEREFORE DEBT WILL COLLAPSES US ALL" and when you are pressed on some kind of
functional detail of how that is going to happen you (a) insult everyone who has an economics degree (b) fabricate imaginary evidence -- inflation is real guys, look at the oil prices they are up! oh wait they are down, look at some other index that went up recent though! (c) insult people some more.
Every post you make on this topic just reminds me of this: ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/impostor.png)
|
ugh okay. what do you think is the point of the book Princes of the Yen? What do you take to be the take-home message from that story.
let's note that I have read books which you said to read, but you have certainly never read a book which I have recommend. I'm up on you 4-0
|
On November 01 2014 09:03 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 08:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 08:27 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Not even close. What is your "solution" again? thinking that one is only allowed to point out a problem when one has a solution is a very, very stupid way to think. The fact that Paul Krugman pretends to have the solution to everything, while I cheerfully admit to having no fucking clue how to get out of the horrible situation we are in, is how you know that I am an honest person and he is a shit-eating fraud. If you were anything other than a cheerleader, I would not have to point this out to you. On November 01 2014 08:18 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Technocrats and bankers just defend the interest of the upper class, and everybody knows that. But I don't understand your point against Keynes. Keynes don't give a fuck about GDP growth, the data was not discussed at all at his time. Growth wasn't even a thing. Keynes cared about employment and his basis argument - putting the macro aside - is that it is more productive for a society to put unemployed to work than not. What's so wrong about that ? What does it have to do with growth ? GDP became a thing in 1944 after Bretton Wood, and was proposed by Kuznets in 1934, two years before Keynes' general theory, and growth became a major economic discussion with Solow in 1956. because I think the relationship between the business cycle and unemployment is not an ahistorical truth, but the product of a specific historical conjuncture which no longer obtains. I think that our problems with unemployment are a structural flaw in our socioeconomic system and not a secular problem that can be fixed by restarting economic growth. We can only ever have jobless recoveries from now on, which means that we need to start thinking in terms other than "recession" and "recovery." If you say "it's good to have more people working than not" that begs all sorts of questions - working doing what? under what conditions? why and to what purpose? how long? for whom? These are the questions that nobody is willing to ask and is why mainstream economics is completely intellectually bankrupt. My beef is not with the historical figure Keynes, who basically accomplished the task of sanitizing Marx's most important insights into the functioning of the capitalist system so that they could be used by people who were not willing to accept the full implications of those insights. My beef is with people who think that the basic Keynesian idea of smoothing out the business cycle through government intervention of some variety is still a valid paradigm within which to shape our political economic policy, which it very clearly is not (any longer). The problem is not how to get to full employment, the problem is how to think about what a society which did not have or require full employment would look like. And no, I don't have the answer, nor will I pretend to. That's not an excuse for ignoring the problem. (to his credit, the historical Keynes is pretty much in agreement with the stuff I'm saying here. It's the Keynesians I'm opposed to, not Keynes. Keynes is dead, who gives a fuck) Your core point is that our technology has come to a point where it does not need that much labor then ? It's not a reasonnable to me : why not simply lower labor time like all countries did (aside the US). yeah, i mean, i think that's a pretty good idea. but that's not really the direction we are headed. work is either becoming more precarious and insecure, or splitting into overworked people and the unemployed. The question is, can you have "the thirty hour work week in one country?" I mean, I don't really think there are any solutions to anything from large-scale, centralized institutions. the solution is devolution and regionalism. If this makes me a strange Left bedfellow of the "starve the beast" austerity people, so be it. Beats being an idiot Democrat clinging desperately to the myth of the magic power of Keynesian stimulus we should make a world in which people can create their own jobs, rather than waiting around for people to create jobs for them. this is called "owning the means of production."Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 08:52 oneofthem wrote:
it is very difficult to respond to flippant posts that are developed behind some complicated misunderstandings. trying to figure out what exactly you are thinking is just too much effort and headache to be worthwhile. and your technocratic hubris, belief that you know everything, and smug condescension make you a useless gadfly edit: but seriously, the original point was just to say how incredibly and obviously stupid it is for Krugman to say "Hey Guys! Let's be like Japan!" What absurdity. And people actually believe this shit. They nod and say "oh yeah, Paul, thanks for being so smart." The world is an enormous farce. I'm gonna go back in my hole now.
Haha so you're a marxist... or a neoclassic I don't know ?
Keynes' stimulus do work, but under certain conditions. The problem is not today, not one country alone in a completly open economy, high inequalities (they are linked to leak in the economic circuit that lessen the multiplicator), and no state power strong and democratic enough to change the course of things.
|
On November 01 2014 09:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 09:03 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 08:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 08:27 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 08:17 aksfjh wrote:On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Not even close. What is your "solution" again? thinking that one is only allowed to point out a problem when one has a solution is a very, very stupid way to think. The fact that Paul Krugman pretends to have the solution to everything, while I cheerfully admit to having no fucking clue how to get out of the horrible situation we are in, is how you know that I am an honest person and he is a shit-eating fraud. If you were anything other than a cheerleader, I would not have to point this out to you. On November 01 2014 08:18 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2014 08:12 bookwyrm wrote:On November 01 2014 06:00 aksfjh wrote:Everything is marketed at this point and it gives ample data of what to do and when to do it. All we need to do is pay attention to it from a macro standpoint and not try to beat/preempt it. translation: we should trust the technocrats and banksters who got us into this problem in the first place and let them run everything. they're the experts. they understand how the economy works because they have math. We should not try to actually reform any of the deep structural problems of our society. Everything is under control. Technocrats and bankers just defend the interest of the upper class, and everybody knows that. But I don't understand your point against Keynes. Keynes don't give a fuck about GDP growth, the data was not discussed at all at his time. Growth wasn't even a thing. Keynes cared about employment and his basis argument - putting the macro aside - is that it is more productive for a society to put unemployed to work than not. What's so wrong about that ? What does it have to do with growth ? GDP became a thing in 1944 after Bretton Wood, and was proposed by Kuznets in 1934, two years before Keynes' general theory, and growth became a major economic discussion with Solow in 1956. because I think the relationship between the business cycle and unemployment is not an ahistorical truth, but the product of a specific historical conjuncture which no longer obtains. I think that our problems with unemployment are a structural flaw in our socioeconomic system and not a secular problem that can be fixed by restarting economic growth. We can only ever have jobless recoveries from now on, which means that we need to start thinking in terms other than "recession" and "recovery." If you say "it's good to have more people working than not" that begs all sorts of questions - working doing what? under what conditions? why and to what purpose? how long? for whom? These are the questions that nobody is willing to ask and is why mainstream economics is completely intellectually bankrupt. My beef is not with the historical figure Keynes, who basically accomplished the task of sanitizing Marx's most important insights into the functioning of the capitalist system so that they could be used by people who were not willing to accept the full implications of those insights. My beef is with people who think that the basic Keynesian idea of smoothing out the business cycle through government intervention of some variety is still a valid paradigm within which to shape our political economic policy, which it very clearly is not (any longer). The problem is not how to get to full employment, the problem is how to think about what a society which did not have or require full employment would look like. And no, I don't have the answer, nor will I pretend to. That's not an excuse for ignoring the problem. (to his credit, the historical Keynes is pretty much in agreement with the stuff I'm saying here. It's the Keynesians I'm opposed to, not Keynes. Keynes is dead, who gives a fuck) Your core point is that our technology has come to a point where it does not need that much labor then ? It's not a reasonnable to me : why not simply lower labor time like all countries did (aside the US). yeah, i mean, i think that's a pretty good idea. but that's not really the direction we are headed. work is either becoming more precarious and insecure, or splitting into overworked people and the unemployed. The question is, can you have "the thirty hour work week in one country?" I mean, I don't really think there are any solutions to anything from large-scale, centralized institutions. the solution is devolution and regionalism. If this makes me a strange Left bedfellow of the "starve the beast" austerity people, so be it. Beats being an idiot Democrat clinging desperately to the myth of the magic power of Keynesian stimulus we should make a world in which people can create their own jobs, rather than waiting around for people to create jobs for them. this is called "owning the means of production."On November 01 2014 08:52 oneofthem wrote:
it is very difficult to respond to flippant posts that are developed behind some complicated misunderstandings. trying to figure out what exactly you are thinking is just too much effort and headache to be worthwhile. and your technocratic hubris, belief that you know everything, and smug condescension make you a useless gadfly edit: but seriously, the original point was just to say how incredibly and obviously stupid it is for Krugman to say "Hey Guys! Let's be like Japan!" What absurdity. And people actually believe this shit. They nod and say "oh yeah, Paul, thanks for being so smart." The world is an enormous farce. I'm gonna go back in my hole now. Haha so you're a marxist... or a neoclassic I don't know ? Keynes' stimulus do work, but under certain conditions. The problem is not today, not one country alone in a completly open economy, high inequalities (they are linked to leak in the economic circuit that lessen the multiplicator), and no state power strong and democratic enough to change the course of things.
the former. we agree
|
Not being so familiar with the American system, what happens if the Republicans manage to win over the majority in the Senate? How does that actually affect the lawmaking and what the president can/can't do?
|
Well then they would control both law making branches, so that comes with all the normal politics- and now the Republicans will be able to block judge appointments, for instance. But it won't stop Obama from issuing any executive orders, etc. It basically become the Democrats turn to fillibuster.
How will it turn out poltically? I'm not entirely sure, but in terms of the governmental system, it's just moving one part of a branch to the control of another party. It doesn't grant or remove any powers that normally belong to either branch.
|
It's a matter of offense vs defense. Republicans won't be able to force through their agenda because of Democratic filibusters and possibly Obama's veto. But now it will be the Democrats obstructing bills that have majority support in both houses, while Republicans regain the ability to block Obama's nominees which they lost after the filibuster changes. In contrast to a Democratic win, I think a Republican win also puts the nail in the coffin for policies that were just barely held up by the filibuster like comprehensive immigration reform. I've read a few articles that seem to think Republicans with majority control of both houses will now have to govern, and will be looking for compromise. That seems incredibly silly to me. The day after the 2014 elections is the unofficial kick off to the 2016 presidential primaries. The pull to the right will be magnetic.
|
On November 01 2014 11:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:
It's a matter of offense vs defense. Republicans won't be able to force through their agenda because of Democratic filibusters and possibly Obama's veto. But now it will be the Democrats obstructing bills that have majority support in both houses, while Republicans regain the ability to block Obama's nominees which they lost after the filibuster changes. In contrast to a Democratic win, I think a Republican win also puts the nail in the coffin for policies that were just barely held up by the filibuster like comprehensive immigration reform. I've read a few articles that seem to think Republicans with majority control of both houses will now have to govern, and will be looking for compromise. That seems incredibly silly to me. The day after the 2014 elections is the unofficial kick off to the 2016 presidential primaries. The pull to the right will be magnetic.
Eh, have you seen some of the moderate, establishment Republicans and what they've been saying? Many of them will be eager to make deals and prove they can "govern." Just IMO.
|
On November 01 2014 09:18 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 07:58 IgnE wrote:On November 01 2014 06:30 Sub40APM wrote:On November 01 2014 05:30 bookwyrm wrote:
How many years can you keep saying that and people still believe it? Im still waiting for jesus to come back also
if youre just going to give me keynesianism for dummies you can save your thumbs. I get it. Really. I get it. You must be David Grabner's most prolific fan. David Grabner? David Graeber. Because some Mesopotamian society collapsed 6000 years ago any information to be learned from the last 30 years is useless but capitalism is 100% doomed.
I see youve read him and are familiar with his works.
|
On November 01 2014 11:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 11:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:
It's a matter of offense vs defense. Republicans won't be able to force through their agenda because of Democratic filibusters and possibly Obama's veto. But now it will be the Democrats obstructing bills that have majority support in both houses, while Republicans regain the ability to block Obama's nominees which they lost after the filibuster changes. In contrast to a Democratic win, I think a Republican win also puts the nail in the coffin for policies that were just barely held up by the filibuster like comprehensive immigration reform. I've read a few articles that seem to think Republicans with majority control of both houses will now have to govern, and will be looking for compromise. That seems incredibly silly to me. The day after the 2014 elections is the unofficial kick off to the 2016 presidential primaries. The pull to the right will be magnetic. Eh, have you seen some of the moderate, establishment Republicans and what they've been saying? Many of them will be eager to make deals and prove they can "govern." Just IMO. I'm so looking forward to the enlightened compromises from this current crop of loosely titled leaders should they win back the senate. Reid only shows fervor if he's attacking conservatives. He'd be the biggest source of ire if Boehner didn't make him look vibrant by comparison. I don't give a lot of hope for the conservative agenda with the current crop that might win control of the senate. I have however been wrong before.
If they win the Senate just to negotiate and pass amnesty open borders comprehensive immigration reform, courtesy of the unholy alliance between business interests and La Raza allies, Republicans are finished. It had better not consist of interparty factionalism, sometimes witnessed amongst people like McCain during the Bush years. I can't see the future of big events and how the US interests are affected, particularly with the state of the middle east, and our current president and secretary of state. Anything major in that area would throw everything onto a new track.
|
I honesty think it would be better for the dems to let the reps take the senate, nothing was going to get done no matter who controlled the senate. Congress is so broken with its haper-partisan dysfunction it does not matter what color is in control.
That and dems are going with almost 100% certainty going to win it back in 2016 anyway. They would of had a shot a filibuster proof majority if they hold this year but i dont think they are.
|
On November 01 2014 09:35 bookwyrm wrote:
ugh okay. what do you think is the point of the book Princes of the Yen? What do you take to be the take-home message from that story.
Dude the first time you posted re Princes of Yen I actually went back to my notes on it to make sure I wasnt being unreasonably hostile to your interpretation of it.
It has multiple points. East Asian catch up growth was possible with illiberal, anti-Washington consensus methods. In the 80s, BoJ window guidence led to speculative growth to compensate for the slowdown of the export-focused system.The Bank of Japan repeatedly sabotaged the Japanese government's attempt to stimulate the economy by cutting money supply rates in the face of expansionary fiscal policy . That the bank became incredibly insular and wanted to push through reforms of the illiberal economy instead of using monetary policy in concurrence with fiscal policy to get through the deflation-depression.
let's note that I have read books which you said to read, but you have certainly never read a book which I have recommend. I'm up on you 4-0
Alright. Recommend me 4 books.
|
On November 01 2014 13:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 09:18 Sub40APM wrote:On November 01 2014 07:58 IgnE wrote:On November 01 2014 06:30 Sub40APM wrote:On November 01 2014 05:30 bookwyrm wrote:
How many years can you keep saying that and people still believe it? Im still waiting for jesus to come back also
if youre just going to give me keynesianism for dummies you can save your thumbs. I get it. Really. I get it. You must be David Grabner's most prolific fan. David Grabner? David Graeber. Because some Mesopotamian society collapsed 6000 years ago any information to be learned from the last 30 years is useless but capitalism is 100% doomed. I see youve read him and are familiar with his works.
I have read his book, and the blogs I read occasionally have him give opinions on things that seem staggeringly wrong (Latest one, just like book and you, he believes that capitalism will be finished in 50 years.) The anthropology was interest. The modern economic history was childish and error ridden, the post 1970s stuff was a mixture of marxism and conspiracy theories. ,
|
Only the politics thread could turn reading books into a pissing contest.
|
On November 01 2014 16:09 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 09:35 bookwyrm wrote:
let's note that I have read books which you said to read, but you have certainly never read a book which I have recommend. I'm up on you 4-0 Alright. Recommend me 4 books.
Let's play that game.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the prince of yen book is interesting but a bit dramatic for beginners, because some of the stuff portrayed as new are in fact already known. window guidance is nothing new, and the institutional independence is a basic fact about any institution, not merely central banks.
based on their current policies, it would be hard to argue that they are a neoliberal conspiracy. it's something straight out of MMT if anything.
and let's not be manichean about 'neoliberalism.' call a situation what it is. sometimes you really do need more competitive markets and less entrenched corporations with no foreign competition.
|
On November 01 2014 23:29 oneofthem wrote:
the prince of yen book is interesting but a bit dramatic for beginners, because some of the stuff portrayed as new are in fact already known. window guidance is nothing new, and the institutional independence is a basic fact about any institution, not merely central banks.
based on their current policies, it would be hard to argue that they are a neoliberal conspiracy. it's something straight out of MMT if anything.
and let's not be manichean about 'neoliberalism.' call a situation what it is. sometimes you really do need more competitive markets and less entrenched corporations with no foreign competition.
It's not about conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy are lazy.
But the fact is that neoliberalism is in control, and that most policy today follow that ideology is pretty easy to support.
More competitive market doesn't mean a thing. What is a market ? How do you define it ? What's competition ? At which point can we consider a market to be competitive ? The problem is that behind all those definitions there are assumption (on ressources allocation mainly) that are not only false empirically but also based on a certain ideology / view of the world.
Personally I don't need a policy that seeks pure and perfect markets and I'll respond that the "we" you use in your assertion does not exist - a more "competitive market" and "foreign competition" does not lead to a better world for "we", but for some people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
