- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I saw this article though and just couldn't pass it up.
We have Obama morphing daily into our Chavez.
Can our Maduro be too far behind?
I think not.
I guess I could set up some cigars.
Who would want them?
There is a lot of variation: one man's steak...
right now he's enjoying Santa Claras II from Vera Cruz Mexico. They come in a pretty box I am eyeing for my own
Somebody should put out a line of those electric cigarettes with a $ logo on them, and/or a line of pipes with the $ logo on them...
As to Cigars... if you can come up with the product, I know someone who would not only appreciate them, but appreciate the message of them as well!
"I agree they should go for the big fish, the real speculators, but they risk hurting us all."
Oh, so as long as it's somebody else they're going after then it's okay... wtf.
But anyway, that really sucks for Venezuela. And geez, a $35 toaster costing the equivalent of $175? And they say Socialism helps the poor... Please, how does making everything unaffordable help poor people at all? -_-
Our current "president" is an emergent Chavez.
He and Hugo shook hands as a matter of fact.
Our Maduro can't be far behind.
I would argue that the nationalization of Auto Industries and Health Care is far more Marxist than Keynesian.
Either Clinton or Warren could easily morph into Maduro.
It seems that our political correctness has progressed to the s##ialist word as well.
KYFHO
Or maybe you were asleep the day they taught history in school.
As Dr Floyd Ferret said, times change. There was a time before Keynesian economics, there will be a time after it; hopefully that time won't be Marxist, but before the Marxists took over, wherever they took over, they were "reasonable", too.
When the Viet Cong was formed, only a small minority was communist. But, they played faction against faction, until, by the end, the communists were left in charge. (That only ended thanks to the United States military and the insane foolishness of the Tet offensive.)
TODAY it operates on Keynesian economics. Yesterday it operated on free-market capitalism. Tomorrow it may well fail-to-operate on Marxism.
Which seems darned likely, since you can't get much more Marxist than Obamacare.
Or Keating to Roark?
Phillip actively worked against Hank so yes on that one
Now if we want to make an argument against Keynesianism, we can certainly do that, but we should do it from the perspective that Keynesianism is merely counter-productive and inhibits progress, rather than painting it an equivalent to Marxism, which destroys nations.
My father was fond of saying, "You can't get a man to eat a whole can of peas all at once. But you can get him to eat a whole can of peas, one pea at a time."
The left has used that tactic to reshape the minds and character of the U.S. for nearly a century now. The war on tobacco is a fine example of it at work in microcosm, if anyone would freaking PAY ATTENTION.
"Keynesian economics" is just a roadsign on the superhighway to Marxism.