Iraq and al Qaeda not linked (Pentagon)

Guerilla:

You have a high opinion of yourself not justified by your writings.

Having been alive and matured during Vietnam, I know a lot more about it than any stuff you read about. I have long been aware of the Gulf of Tonkin event, have no idea what you are speaking about in this reference, and think you must have an overdeveloped sense of importance to make this comments.

As to the Gulf of Tonkin, even as most evidence points to the fact that the report of attacks suggests it was faked, and that Johnson used it to raise the level of US involvement, I thought about that, and firmly believe that even if Johnson never used that event to dramatically increase US involvement at that time, other events would have propelled the US into far greater involvement in Vietnam.

The prevailing concerns in the US were over the spread of Communism. The US was actively trying to control and counter that effort around the world. Much of our entire foreign policy in 1964 was focused on that singular strategy. Much of Europe had been taken over by the USSR. Korea had been fought to a standstill with the awareness that the Chinese army was available to attack in Korea and later possibly in Vietnam.

Vietnam had two distinctly different govts. and once the French were defeated in the 1950's we had gradually increased US military presence to preserve South Vietnam from communist takeover.

We still had a relatively small but slowly growing presence in Vietnam by 1964. It was going to increase, one way or the other.

The simple fact was that US citizen dissatisfaction and worldwide unhappiness with US involvement in Vietnam didn't really hit the US population till the latter part of the 1960's and probably didn't take off till after the Tet offensive of early 1968.

The internal US resistance eminated from a value dissatisfaction that weighed on Americans who questioned whether this battle against Communism in SE Asia was worth the bodies, deaths, and costs at such a far off place. It was individual amongst those that changed their opinions, and IMHO was hugely impacted by the draft that directly impacted millions of families that ultimately didn't believe in the individual sacrifice versus the effort to contain communism.

The Gulf of Tonkin event in summer 1964 occurred less than 2 years after the Cuban missile crisis of Autumn 1962. Americans feared Communism.

Even as subsequent reports suggested Johnson fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin situation it is entirely believable that the US govt would have faced a situation and increased its military presence in Vietnam in one way or the other in the early to mid 1960's.

Where you think you educated me must be some kind of egotistical trip you like to take thinking you have all the answers.

In fact, I doubt you really understand economics. Anyone with the hubris to answer every question about economics is a fool. History has shown that.

When you posted this utterly erroneous article that used stupid illogical reasoning to directly tie gdp and money supply you showed that your basic understanding of economics is weak.

The two do not have a direct relationship. Its relatively simple, and for those with advanced economic education they would have spotted that right away.

So it seems you are like a lot of economic commentators that have a political leaning and use their own gibberish understanding of one perspective to sell an extreme political leaning. In your case its libertarianism to the extreme.

If the gold standard was so critical to the US and the world, their would have been lots of disaster specifically tied to a removal of the gold standard since the early 1900's.

That hasn't happened except in the eyes of the gold standard theorists who always tie everything to the gold standard regardless of other causes and impacts.

Radical economic perspective to the extreme based on a philosophy always has holes in it.

For instance, current economics simply doesn't work well with transportation.

It never has. The industry requres incredible levels of investment to make it work. On top of that industries like airlines need large levels of operating expenses to operate, regardless of how well they are doing.

In 2001 the US bailed out airlines. Demand for travel collapsed after 9/11. It wasn't the first or last time airlines have been bailed out.

With so much debt, airlines are amazingly susceptable to devastating financial results when travel demand collapses.

In fact the entire transportation industry faces the same problem.

Again your radical yet weak understanding of economics proposed this utterly stupid nonsensical solution to the problems of roads...and I quote....

With about 15 million businesses in the US most don't have the money to pave the first mile.

Relegating this to the few who could afford roads would result in control by the few over the vast majority.

The market doesn't work when there is a desire to weigh and balance competing interests, for instance factories that either create enormous pollution or factories that abuse their workers at low wages to produce at a profit.

History in the US and elsewhere around the world shows that businesses will not weigh and balance these concerns without outside influences.

There are probably hundreds of examples where the market concern alone has dramatic negative impacts.

The counter problem becomes one when the govt steps in and tries to always be the answer. Then the counter issue occurs where govt is the mighty overbearing force and private business and private interests are subjugated to that of the govt.

Of interest in the US business has been so dramatically freed of extensive govt controls from the 1960's and 1970's. It started with Reagon and Bush has dramatically increased this trend. The two have incredibly reduced govt impact on business. Currently in an evaluation of economic freedom of various nations by the Heritage Foundation here the US is ranked 5th overall, behind far smaller nations and populations including Hong Kong (not even a nation) Singapore, Ireland, and Australia; whose combined population is about 12% of the US.

Even with relatively high individual and corporate tax rates (as defined by the Heritage Foundation) the package of economic freedoms within the US is dramatically greater than that of most of the world.

Yet you would destroy it all under some radical series of libertarian concepts taken to the extreme.

You should spend some time, studying economics before offering an answer on everything to everyone based on some extremist philosophy.

You should probably get a job and stop living off your parents allowance.

 

Whatever Earl. Let's talk turkey ok? You know, debate issues?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5394862&postcount=70

By your comments today, looks like you have been a busy beaver researching the 'Nam period. My overdeveloped sense of importance seems to be inspiring you!

This is all fine and dandy Earl, but why won't you debate economics with me?

The article I posted is not erroneous. "Stupid illogical reasoning" is the sort of rhetoric you resort to in many of our conversations. By somehow name calling something, you can remove any credibility from it.

"Hey look guys, there is Earl the doody-head! He stinks!"
Is this some sort of bizarre playground debate tactic? What next? Pull my hair? Break my toys?

You seem to eschew the concept of monetary policy, or that money has any role in economic analysis. Which is fine I suppose. It's like discussing astronomy but excluding the stars. Your choice. Of course, it's probably why we never have a meat and potatoes debate. Because once I bring up money, you want no part of the discussion. How ludicrous that someone should discuss money in conjunction with the economy!

As far as "an advanced economic education" would you be referring to a Monetarist like Nobel Prize Winner Milton Friedman, or an Austrian School Economist like Nobel Prize Winner Friedrich Hayek?

I think both of them would have found the article on GDP vs. Money Supply very interesting. In fact, I really can't understand why you continue to avoid discussing money with me, every time I bring it up, you leave the discussion. Same thing with ReadyToGo. What's there to be afraid about when discussing money?

Or Classic Liberalism. Or Old Right Conservatism. Or Constitutionalism. You can call it whatever you want. Still, you refuse to debate me on the merit of my positions, resorting to name calling or exaggeration.

I view decades of non-stop inflation, which historically has culminated in economic collapse, as a disaster. Again, the Gold Standard persisted in one shape or form (there is no single interpretation of a gold standard) until 1971.

Returning to an earlier point, that continually comes up, is that no one (to my recollection) in this forum has been willing to explain the necessity or morality of fiat money. There is a moral, economic and philosophical rationale for gold. I can make that case. But rather than constantly being on defense, I'll issue the challenge. Explain to me why fiat currency is superior and justified over gold. Let's have the debate.

Then why are you afraid to debate it? What is holding you back? if you're qualified to say I am unqualified, then surely you are qualified to prove it?

Who paid to bail out the airlines? The taxpayer? So what difference would it have made if the taxpayer supported the airlines by paying a higher cost to travel, or through a government sponsored bailout?

I'll give you a hint.

The people who actually use the service would pay the additional cost to maintain the service, instead of taxing everyone equally, regardless of their use of airlines, in order to prop up a private, for profit industry.

A belief in the marketplace, necessitates allowing the market to bear the costs. Right now, we could technologically facilitate some sort of manned mission to Mars. Does that mean that because it's a possibility, it should be funded? In a free market scenario, the mission to Mars would be funded based upon demand for that accomplishment, rather than a mandate to accomplish it, regardless if there is enough demand for it.

Because that seems to be a similar rationale to your point about transportation. It should be bailed out, because, well... "We need transportation!".

Which refuses to recognize that if there is a market for air travel, the market demand will be filled by entrepreneurs, provided there are low or no barriers to entry.

To which you might reply, "But the capital costs are enormous". To which I would agree, but obviously private firms have been able to bear the capital costs before. It's not as though the government bought all of the planes and handed them over to the airlines. There is no requirement that a new airline has to fly to every destination, constantly 24/7/365. Perhaps that is what makes airlines risky business now. That they try to offer too many flights, to too many destinations.

But you might again say "but if an airline goes out of business, we won't be able to fly!", again to which I will reply, "The free market, will utilize the existing infrastructure, including planes and airports, to provide air travel, if demand makes it profitable to do so."

After all, why would we subsidize a business that is unprofitable? Maybe people shouldn't fly if (1) they cannot afford it, or (2) there is not enough demand for it.

Surely that's a more logical conclusion than we must be able to fly, as though it was a right or entitlement. Because surely it is not as the latter would mean everyone could fly regardless of means or distance, and the former, that nature would have equipped us with wings.

Again with the personal attacks. Earl, you can't win an argument by demeaning or insulting me. You're gunna need to do it with facts and reason.

You're taking the road quote out of context. But I'll play along. First of all, each business doesn't have to pave one mile. You can fit a lot of businesses on both sides of the road along a mile, yes? How many small businesses would you say would fit?

Second, where did the government get the money to pave the roads? I would assume it got that money from taxes. Corporate taxes (on businesses) and personal income taxes (on wages and investment profit). And wouldn't the employees earnings and wages be factored into business operation as cost+?

So between the workers and the businesses, they have paid for the roads already. Correct?

Third, you do realize that many roads were built in the US by private enterprise? For you to suggest that roads are only possible under government is being a little unfair to history, wouldn't you say?

Not that I necessarily agree, but this is different from what we have under state ownership how?

The whole concept of the majority is foreign to me Earl. It's worthy of at least a whole new thread. If you'd like to debate it, please reply back. I'd love to do so.

First of all, pollution is a violation of personal property rights. No one has a right to pollute the air or water. That businesses get away with it isn't an indictment of the market, but a failure of the legal system to investigate, prosecute and punish.

As far as wages go, if they are too low, workers have to seek better paying work. A competitor can steal my workforce by paying them a marginal amount more. And to get them back, I would have to compete and bid for labor. At one point, we would reach the zenith of what we can charge for our product, earn in profit and pay out in wages. Remember, labor is also susceptible to supply and demand.

You're defining the market as supplier-producers exclusively, and not including consumers. Consumer demand, choices, means etc all push back on supplier-producer forces. They are the check and balance on the capitalism you have mentioned many times as some sort of threat.

You are the market. I am the market. DP is the market. If you want to see a low barrier of entry, free market, unregulated paradigm, the internet is it. We needed a way to search? Someone built a SE. Eventually someone built Google, when they had no real commercial model to support and grow it. We needed free email, at one time, it was basically just hotmail, yahoo, excite etc. Now we literally have hundreds of thousands of services, competing for our attention.

Weather and news. Books. Communities. Activism. Games. Education. Art.

The intellectual pursuits of man, wrapped up in entertainment and commerce. This is your free market. And we all know that consumers vote with their feet online, marching from Yahoo to Google, and Hotmail to Gmail.

Perhaps now you understand why I am not so narrowly motivated as by low taxes, so as to seek refuge in Dubai or Qatar.

But, there was a time when we would have likely been #1 on this list. Not that I fully agree with their methodology, although I did find it ironic that with the exception of "public goods", the methodology is pretty close to what I espouse and you continue to reprimand me for.

How so? I'd much rather encourage it. You really need to look at that methodology and then hold my posts up next to it. We're very, very close.

It's a philosophy not dissimilar from that of Jefferson, Jackson, Madison and Franklin. You can call them extremists if you want. I find that kinda funny in a sad sorta way.

Who was your favorite Founding Father?

Do I need to dignify this with a response? Please come with facts. Facts, reason and data. I can insult just as well as you, but it won't promote a worthwhile discussion.

 

That's already been proven by people like ReadyToGo who seems to have a tremendous grasp on real economics and doesn't simply spew radical talking points from a partisan website. Some people know what they are talking about, others simply stay at a Holiday Inn and pretend.

Personally, I believe earlpearl has owned you with such overwhelming veracity, that I can't recall anyone in recent history putting you in your place so well.

You sit in ceaseless criticism of America, Israel, Christians, Jews, Soldiers and anything "western," while praising whatever is left (and it's not much). When people call you on it, you whine and cry about personal attacks. All the while not seeing in yourself what you believe you see in others. Every day, without fail, personal attacks are all you offer on America and Israel while consistently praising terrorist organizations and offering untold justifications for their actions.

It's about time people start treating you with the same contempt that you treat "our" (not your) country. I have no idea what makes you believe you are more important than "our" (not your) country, that you can sit in dishonest judgment and ceaselessly offer personal attacks on it, on a daily basis, yet start crying foul when others call you on it. Baseball players are not the only ones with foul balls.

America is very near and dear to many of us. When you ceaselessly attack "our" (not your) country, you are attacking "us." We are part of this great country and your ceaseless and dishonest attacks on it are attacks on "us" personally.

While some hide behind the very Constitution that gives them the freedom to sit in dishonest judgment of the country they occupy, others have actually served "our" (not your) country and defended that Constitution. We don't hide behind it anonymously on an internet forum, we cherish it and it is insulting to watch you berate "our" (not your) country on a daily basis.

Well done, earlpearl. Nice to see others getting fed up with guerilla's anti-American tirades. Not everyone hates America.

 

I find you quite amusing these days GT my good ol' buddy even though I do feel sorry for you because not many members of your Crazy Gang are posting much these days.

It is like the good ol' Dubya saying eh?
"You're either with us or with the terrorists" BS that he used in 2001."

The way I see it is that guerilla sees the desperate state that your once wonderful country is heading with all these scumbags in charge of it and makes some very good posts to that effect.

None of these scumbags running the USA care about you GT or any other average American person so why defend them with such vigour??

I despair with you sometimes.

 

I appreciate the kind hearted sentiment. You can imagine the overwhelming sense of grandiose and magnanimous accomplishment I feel at this moment, reading such an awe-inspiring and uplifting confession, from someone as noble, admired and respected as you.

Truly, I have experienced all the world has to offer, now that I have earned your respect

May I offer you a fruit rollup?

 

On the example of roads:

Let's say A,B, and C want to work at company X. A lives north of X, B lives east of X and C lives west of X. X has to build three roads to get those people to work. If X can't afford to build three roads then it either has to get by with fewer employees or mandate that the employees move to a place that is most financially sound for road construction by the company.

Now company Y comes along and sees that there is an existing road to a residential area. They build next to the road. So does company X get to charge company Y for the road usage or force company Y to build somewhere where they have to build their own road? Or does company X have to wait for company Y to build the road in the first place?

The government is logically responsible for all of it because they can collect money from everyone who benefits. Because all taxes go to a single pool to benefit everyone even if you don't use a road you benefit from the taxes collected from the people who do use the road. So you benefit from every road whether you personally use it or not.

As such, you should help pay for all of them.

 

No thanks. My parents always told me never to accept sweets from strange men.

 

Anyway, if anyone sees ReadyToGo, I'm still waiting for him to finish our last debate. He left rather hastily from the thread when confronted on a silly argument about inelastic demand and aggregate pricing.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=608518

I'm much more ready to deal with his assertion that the FED exacerbated the Depression with deflationary policy in post #21.

No disrespect to R2G who is pretty smart, and excellent to debate with but he is another one of these positivists who refused to see the problems coming in the economy, and what would cause them.

Meanwhile, the Dow is down 10% this year, Commodities are setting record highs, the dollar is plunging to record lows, and the FED is making drastic policy, not seen since the Great Depression.

And we're just getting started.

Oh positivists! Hopefully bright smiles can light up your value depressed homes. Energy costs are on the rise too!

 

But the US economy is OK guerilla, GWB told GTech on the Noooz today.

 

Earl should have sourced my original posts. It was in a thread stOx started and had closed.

To be honest, I'm not an expert on private roads so I had to freestyle a little bit. A real expert on the subject of road privatization is Prof. Walter Block. He's got a book coming out about it.

I'd be happy to discuss this further, but it probably warrants a new thread. We're way off topic, and I'm sure Earl has more chiding and insult in store for me.

Why couldn't a private corporation not be responsible for it, and collect capital taxes (investment) and tolls (revenue) to pay for it's construction and maintenance?

Again, it's worth a new thread, but by what rationale is government the most efficient mechanism for properly assessing usage fees/charges and maintaining revenue generating properties?

 

I've got GTech on ignore, where he belongs, but I will say this. He's posted one smart thing about the economy several times.

He defers to R2G.

The economy is not one of GTech's strong suits of discussion.

Which is why his endorsement of Earl "owning me" on economics is like George Bush awarding Dick Cheney a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

It's impossible for roads to be maintained by a private company because all companies that use the road would have to pay for the road to be made before the businesses could even start up. And then the businesses would have to pay for the roads to be maintained collectively. Therefore only large established businesses could build new roads. All others would be subjected to the companies that control existing roads. Gee, you might have to get the government involved to avoid problems.

That money would come from customers (higher prices) and employees (lower wages).

So since all the businesses and people are collectively paying for the roads then it makes sense that a central organization be resposible for collecting the money and hiring contractors.

Such a central organization could be called...a government.

I'm not going to waste my time reading a book that tries to present an idea that takes 5 minutes to show to be ludicrous.

The most idiotic part of this discussion is that private companies, customers and employees ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE ROADS. They're called taxes.

Private companies do not have the resources to pay people to manage the issue of building and maintaining roads. Mom and Pop can't afford to hire an engineer to oversee their section of road.

And who is going to ensure that all roads are built to the same safety standards when different groups of companies have varying resources and can't all afford the latest materials?

Mom and Pop can't afford to build 100 miles of paved road to their business. You're looking at just getting employees to work. What about customers? Are you seriously arguing that companies should band together to build the roads to all their collective customers?

I can just imagine the author of such a book spewing out idiocy desperatly hoping to sound intelligent.

On the first point of making private individuals/companies pay for it. Where do you think the government is getting its money?
On the second point of making private companies build the roads. When's the last time a government ran a construction yard?

The whole argument revolves around government waste. People think that if a private company is paying for it directly they'll make sure no dollar is wasted. That works out great for homeowners that hire contractors. I bet no business has ever overspent for construction of a building because of bad contractors.

We pay the government to oversee this stuff because they have the dedicated resources to deal with all the issues. Money gets wasted because private companies take advantage of the government. People act like private companies never try to screw over private individuals or other private businesses.

I'd rather spend some extra money and let the government do it than have to deal with a 100 different business groups just to make sure that I can get from New York to California without having to use dirt roads.

 

And I am flattered that you are not man enough to consume the same prescriptions for which you hold the country you currently occupy in. A true coward will always hide...whether it's from taking a dose of their own medicine or hiding behind a Constitution for which they abuse daily.

I observer R2G. Unlike you, he has a true grasp and calls things the way they really are. Like I said...some people really do know what they are talking about. Apparently you simply stayed at a Holiday Inn and believe you do.

Nor is it one of yours. I'm sure the voices in your head tell you otherwise though. You simply spout off things you read on the web with no understanding of what they mean. As such, you get owned quite often for your true lack of understanding. This is what happens to egotists who spend all their time bashing America.

Earl did a fine job. To be fair to you though, it's not that big of a deal to own you. Dishonesty and lies will never outweigh facts. Some day you might actually figure that out.

You may resume personally attacking America now. Don't let me hold you back from your treason.

 

Apparently he has at least one gullible follower who wants to sound intelligent too

 

It could be, but it doesn't have to be. And that is the point. Why should government compete against private enterprise, or even conduct a monopoly over an industry?

Exactly! Thank you for making this important point.

And they have the money to pay the government to do it? That's not logical.

Well, it would be a private property issue. If I'm injured on your road, you're legally responsible. You will build it to the best safety standards you can to mitigate risk and to lower your insurance premiums. Besides, killing your customers with inferior service is a no-no for something that relies on repeat demand usage like a road.

Well, I would think any good entrepreneur would build the roads to customers and employees at the same time. Without employees, you have no product, and without customers you have no sales, and without both, you have no viable business.

The first rule of being an entrepreneur is knowing how you will conduct sales. If you can't make sales, you don't have a chance in hell of making it.

The book isn't out yet, but I recently heard him give a brief speech on it. PM me for the MP3 link if you're interested.

 

So you're entire point is that everything would be the same but instead of being forced to pay a tax to a government authority that is directly accountable to the citizens you'd rather be forced to pay a "fee" to a private monopoly with no accountability.

That's working out great for health care, car insurance, etc.

Or did you just want to have a middle man private company that is overlooked by a government agency? That's better because then you're paying taxes for oversight and fees for actual work. That's different so it's better than just paying a single tax for everything.

What part of anything I've said would lead you to believe I was interested?

 

Hunh? Uhm, can you spell misunderstanding?

It's absolutely amazing that there are very few free thinkers. Stunning really.

First, why would it have to be a monopoly? Guerilla Co and Earl Ltd could hire Kalvin Construction to build the road. Or Kalvin Capital could offer to build a road in return for toll fee breaks to the landholders who give up property.

This is a business transaction, how else could the company get land rights? My point is, a for profit business will build, maintain and manage a road much cheaper than the government.

If it is possible for you to imagine free market capitalism and limited government...

You don't seem to know very much, so I assumed you would be curious.

 

Oh, this is funny. Honest. You got me smiling.

What? You mean, in common statistical studies, those two elements are not normally juxtaposed. Just because something is not conventional or common, doesn't mean it is invalid. Really Earl, that's a bizarre statement. Anti-creativity? Anti-development?

What do you mean they are not related in that fashion. Real GDP is GDP adjusted for inflation. Austrian theory is that inflation is reflected by changes in the monetary supply. So how is money supply/inflation and GDP not compatible? You'll have to explain exactly how they fail to correlate, because I've already tried to step through monetary inflation with you for months to no avail.

What difference does it make? Either what I have to say is rational and true, or it is not. Credentials make absolutely no difference to our discussion.

I won't bother posting the number of pejorative labels you attached to both me and my ideology. It would be embarrassing to your statement about looking at facts.

Yeah, but most of them would be wrong. Have prices risen or fallen during that time? Low inflation, is not NO Inflation. That's totally messed up. Price stability is consistent prices, not slow creeping prices. Historically, we've had price stability when we've experienced brief inflation, brief deflation, brief inflation, brief deflation and so on and so forth.

Do I need to provide a CPI graph, or can you find one yourself? And please don't post Core CPI, I expect you to be looking at Headline CPI so that the historical comparisons are consistent.

But do you understand what caused the inflation of the 70s? I mean, that's the basis of the disagreement here. I'm interested in understanding cause, prevention, technique. You're always going on with anecdotes. What caused the end of Bretton Woods? What happened, when Nixon closed the Gold Window? Why did Volcker resort to high interest rates and contraction? If you're not interested in answering these questions, then I don't think you're ready to use that as a reference point.

The only reason why there is an inflationary "aspect" now, is that the easy lending has dried up. Inflation is somewhat sustainable when credit is very easy. Inflation is manageable when artificial wealth is created by a boom in housing values, prompting people to turn their new found (sic) wealth into an ATM, to stay current on credit card spending, consumer spending, a second home etc...

The inflationary aspect was there leading up to the bogus tech boom, where people heavily speculated in stocks that didn't generate a profit. But easy credit made everyone a speculator, just as it did during the 20s. M3 has been inflating like crazy, and while you apparently can't see it, monetary inflation does create price inflation. Money is susceptible to supply and demand.

As far as being more widespread than oil, you're missing it again. The entire basket of common commodities is up versus the dollar on similar curves to oil. It's not one commodity. It's a reflection that the dollar is being devalued as the printing presses run out of control. Every rate cut, is actually the production of new credit in the system. The FED doesn't just order a change of rates, it manipulates the monetary supply.

Whatever. Hopefully it doesn't become a full blown disaster, but it's possible. And over the last 6 months, I have consistently been right, and you have consistently been wrong. So hope it's my turn to be in error.

So this is the copout? You criticize, then claim you're not educated to know anything worth adding. Do you have a valid critique or not? I don't care how trained you are. What do you THINK? What are your impressions? What conclusions have you come to?

I'd be more than happy to go through my thoughts on gold with you. I've invested (pardon the pun) a fair bit of time into thinking about and studying gold. I still have a ways to go, but that's what good debate provokes. Accelerated learning.

Que?

I'd say it is a combination of both. Although, I didn't find the economics through my political beliefs. My political beliefs found me through my economics. After all, economics is the study of Human Action, right?

You should give credibility to rational arguments, regardless of who is making them. A grandmother, a 10 year old, etc. The truth is credible. Not some piece of paper, or the ability to survive in a corporate/political environment. You know, I've spent hours looking for anything debunking the Austrian school. I can't come up with stuff. I can find articles and papers debunking Marxism, Keynesianism, Monetarism, but nothing debunking the Austrian School. The biggest criticism is that it doesn't use enough math. Kinda reminds me of the criticisms you subject me to.

It's irrelevant. If I thought for one minute, that you wouldn't use it in future posts, I might be willing to discuss it. But you've already shown a tendency to conflate and exaggerate, and I'm not going through that for the rest of our time on this forum. For most anyone else here, it would be information freely given, but it seems like at least 3 months since our relationship was at that point.

Judge me on the merit of my positions, the integrity of my sources and consistency of my predictions.

There are a couple things here I take issue with.

1. Why is it an industry that fails periodically? Do airlines fail in other countries in the same cyclical manner? And why when it fails does it get bailed out, but when it succeeds, it doesn't pay back?

2. If demand drops, why are we paying them to continue running so many flights? That's just stupid. I can run an unsuccessful business as well as the next guy, do I deserve a subsidy? And if not, why?

3. You're assuming that supply has to stay inelastic to match elastic demand. So no matter how many passengers there are, the airlines will run the same number of flights, at the same or higher cost.

And yet if price was the reason for the drop in demand, wouldn't they lower prices until they could reach saturation? And likewise reduce flights to lower costs?

Yeah, but big deal! People don't have a "right" to fly cheap... C'mon. That is an insane contention. Wow. I don't even know what to write anymore.

Again, you assume that the airlines would do nothing to mitigate a crisis, or to adapt. You're also assuming that no competition could survive. Which is without basis (unless you have something to share).

I guess what it boils down to, is that you don't believe in free markets. You seem to think they are immoral. But then I would ask, how can you justify subsidizing private industry (airlines) to the benefit of only those who fly, with the collective wealth of the whole? Doesn't this favor people who fly and aren't wealthy? Doesn't this favor private enterprise that does not have management plans for crisis scenarios?

Watch the presidential debates? The average youth believes that space exploration should be a priority. Not curing cancer. Not curing aids. They want to go to Mars, and they want your tax dollars to do it.

It's not market only. We keep crossing, and you keep repeating the same incorrect statements. Market only has no federal regulation. No bailouts. No tax breaks or special taxes. No unnatural barriers to entry. These markets as you use them in example, are far from "free" or "market only".

If you're going to cry, we'll have to take a timeout.

I'd still like you to answer some simple questions for me. On the topics you specifically challenge me on. Life is filled with these unfulfilled ambitions. Ahhh....

You lost me.

I'm not sure about crazy whims. For sure we can't predict everything, but it's not just "weirdness" or "magic" that brings about various conditions. And there is nothing wrong IMO about new airlines starting with limited schedules. Why should they overextend themselves flying to low demand locations as a startup? Particularly in an industry with partnerships between airlines, and the ability to transfer from a national carrier to a regional one to complete multiple legs of a journey.

I think you are starting to enjoy yourself.

It's not overtaxing my brain, but I do have some other things to do this evening.

Every moment you are away, my heart will be yearning.

 

Just plain common sense. Common sense people knew that since a looong time already...
The others voted W.