Funny Quote 2131

Please define, very specifically, what you're talking about.

Please give specific examples of "economic brutalization" that has occurred. Please give specific examples of "the THEFT of public funds in privatization."

Hehe! Guess you haven't been paying attention in recent years, Spinnie. You don't recall the airline scandals, where maintenance was being 'checked off' on the official forms, but wasn't actually being performed? And those repair facilities that were using sub- standard foreign knock-off parts?

Where were the IATA and the FAA?

Fact is, bureaucratic governmental enbreasties quickly become bloated, sluggush, and ultimately impotent -- while wasting untold billions of dollars annually from the 'public' treasury (which isn't really 'public' at all; that money has been exacted from the productive citizenry).

Of course.

Keynes, yes. Hayek, no.

No. Keynes -theorized- and -extrapolated- this conclusion, to fit his own socio-political agenda. Keynes was a socialist zealot. Promotion of socialism was the overriding goal of all his writings. And he didn't hesitate to stretch, bend, fold, or mutilate the facts -- and even lie -- when it suited him.

Define "...BRUTALIZED the public sector." If, by that, you mean "stemmed the increase in outflow of money for 'government goodie give-aways,'" then yes; that happened.

And that's a GOOD thing.

It appears from your NNTP posting host, Spinnie, that you're posting from Hong Kong. Clearly, you have little to no compre- hension of the U.S. Consbreastution, or the founding principles of the United States.

In the U.S.A., it is NOT the responsibility of a federal Guvver- mint to 'take care of' the citizenry, and-or to 'give' them things.

The foundational philosophy which undergirds the U.S. is that individuals may live in freedom, unhindered by governmental intervention in their lives. The corollary to this is that individuals are to provide for their OWN selves and families; not to look to Duh Guvvermint for hand-outs and freebies.

This is one of the things that makes the United States unique in all the world. It's also a concept that's very difficult to understand for Europeans, UK-ers and others who were raised under a socialist form of Guvvermint.

Again, Keynes didn't "show" anything; he theorized and extrapo- lated this conclusion.

As the breastle of his tome tells you quite clearly, this is all THEORY. And, what's worse, it's disingenuous -- because it's tainted by Keynes' rabid promotion of socialism.

That's a sweeping generalization -- and, like most sweeping gene- ralizations, it's simply not true.

The U.S. economy has, with only a few exceptions, continued to expand every year.

The main problem with your implied argument is that socialism and communism have very little understanding of real-world economics. Socialists generally tend to view the supply of money as static; that "in order for someone to make money, someone else has to LOSE money."

This is ridiculous. The U.S. economic model refutes this nutty notion. In a free economy, there's a concept known as 'wealth CREATION.' The creation of 'new' wealth has nothing to do with the supply of physical money.

Some investment capital has gone to China and India, sure -- and to Venezuela, Taiwan, Hungary, Turkey, you-name-it -- but this has always been the case.

To claim that investment capital is NOT coming into the U.S. is either extremely naive, or deliberately misstating the facts.

For example, it was announced this week that yet another 'foreign' car manufacturer will be opening a new buttembly plant in the U.S.

Toyota, Honda, and other far-eastern auto companies already manu- facture the bulk of their cars designed for North American consump- tion in the United States.

A clbuttic example of deliberately negative-izing and 'spinning' the scenario, Spinnie. Guess we know which side of the socialist fence YOU'RE on, eh?

You're out of the closet, Spin-meister. Hehehe!

More socialist hooey. Even during the 'Great Depression' of the 1930s (a true Keynesian-style "Dark Age" of investment), private entrepreneurs were regularly creating new wealth and succeeding economically every single year.

Besides, in a populous, wealthy and free country like the U.S., exogenous "forces" (if you want to call them that) are less of an influence. Internal "forces" can be sufficient to drive a prosperous economy. And those "forces" can be changed, altered, and even created (for instance, by advertising).

I'd want to know the definition of "equitable taxation" (that's usually a socialist code-term for "confiscate the wealth of the 'rich'").

I'd also want to know WHO was administering this "equitable ta- xation," and what legal mechanisms were in place to oversee the 'administering.' One man's "equity" is another man's "thievery."

The "market boundary" theory is unsubstatiated. Plus, the "boun- dary," if it exists, will constantly morph and change.

Besides, such a "predominant force" (if it exists) can be altered... a possibility that Keynes doesn't address, because it would put a serious crimp in his "theories."

It may or may not exist, but it's hardly adequate justification for anyone to relinquish their freedoms to a socialist-communist Central Authority.

Personal freedoms coupled with personal responsibility, son: that's the underlying principle of the United States.

Socialism abridges or banishes both of these things for its own nefarious ends. ((( `Well, it ain't gonna happen on MY ` ) watch. So keep close tabs on your (^ ) ) arse, Spinnie. That's me you hear ~-( ) behind you, waiting to kick your '((,,,))) tail if you try to grab what's mine. ,-' `Hehe! ( , `-.-'`-.-'- And now, I'm done with ya, Spin- ster. Clearly, you're already lost =()=: ,' aa to 'The Revolution'...which, by the way, WILL be televised. It'll be on CNN. Hehehe!