FDR isn't my hero, he was an important leader through a crucial period. It is also free trade people who didn't want to address the problem of Nazism.

You continually insult and fail to address or even read arguments put forth.
Yes thats intellectual laziness, whereas I am generally willing to look at and respond to ideas and claims put forth on their merit rather than just insulting them to dismiss it and calling it a day.
So yes, the accusation has merit.

Here you are in another shitfest instead of entertaining the idea that the claim might be right or at least have some merit.
lmk when you are ready to actually address points I put forth and have a mature discussion on the merit of what was said rather than shitposting based on your negative opinion of the source, myself, and/or the ideas.


Yes many important lessons can be learned about his tyranny, the ineptitude of various big government policies/central planning and the ability to mislead people into thinking someone was a great president through secrecy, ignorance and propaganda.

Free traders were all over the place on the merits of getting into various wars, and there was a wide array of people that opposed direct US intervention in WW2.
This is another bizarre translation you've made. An adult equivalent of 'oh yeah? well you guys smell bad' in the face of damning criticism.
I'm playing red fish blue fish over here. (red herring)

But yes it was some of the free trade people and the majority of the American population that rightly didn't want to force their fellow countrymen to get killed in an incredibly bloody war that had nothing to do with national security. (prior to pearl harbor and US interference)
Meanwhile you are implying that enslaving people to fight in wars you like alongside genocidal totalitarian maniacs is some sort of moral high-ground. (provided they are communist genocidal maniacs. They are 'for the people' after all..)

Its amazing how you worked to spin so far away from 'excessive government is bad for growth' with a strange unrelated claim about the OECD.

I'll read the points when you post from a reliable source. Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time on a paper that has bias in its funding and its mission statement.

Isn't nearly every country in the <25% camp? And isn't 7.5% growth completely ridiculous and unsustainable?

Nah bro, if it wasn't for the socialist communist nazis even in America we could have consistent 7.5% growth into infinity if we just shrank the government to zero. There's totally no confounding factors, and especially not the fact that low government spending as a percentage of GDP tend to be backwater shit holes that can support high growth because they have a small economy to grow in high percentages using mediocre flat numbers.

'sup Adorno


Hegel's and Schelling's projects can be looked at as critiques of Kant's conception of the world/nature/noumena as merely something that is to be constituted by our rational agencies. to Hegel nature/the world is what provides us with the grounds of our beings as knowing subjects in the first place. in a way it could be said that he grounds the German idealists in history. this means that treating the world merely as an object to us is not tenable, as our rational capabilities are grounded in the world itself. Hegel's ground for "objective knowledge", as he puts it, is that the subject is already wholly and totally a part of this world and its' functions.

Kant reasons that reason by itself is "devoid of content", as to him reason isn't able to arrive to meaningful knowledge about the world by itself. in Hegel's view reason, being the reason of the natural subject is merely another form of the sort of stuff going on in the world itself and not mere idle thought-play as Kant would've claimed.
and whatnot.. that guy really wrote about everything.

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 12 2015 07:13pm

No.


The point is that there would be more growth with less government, and that most places are way past a reasonable or optimal level, not that everyone would necessarily have a sustained 7.5+% growth every year.
Yes its significantly higher than the lower growth we are accustomed to these days. (however it was a reality for much of our past)


I see you've moved on from ad hom and cower to strawman.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 12 2015 08:03pm

Thats because recessions happen after an expansion..