jzk

What is pathetic about this post is that you don't even know why you wouldn't want Japan as your poster child economy. Just pathetic.

Did you read your link?

I finally watched the clip. She asked a general question about illegal immigrants in her jails. Trump responded making no mention of "animals." Then she followed up very specifically about MS13 gang members. That is when he referred to some of them being animals. This would not be controversial if it were not Trump. how is this subject to interpretation? The quote in the original post is a pure lie. It was never said.

Yeah, the centrally planed "miracle" of the Japanese economy. Interesting that you brought that up. How is that central planning working out?

Was it right about the time that the economically free US surpassed China being centrally planned? Wow, you really made your case there. China has the largest economy now. But that doesn't mean that its people are wealthier than the people of the US. China is just much bigger. And it was back then too, when it was previously the largest economy in the world. Dirt poor by our economically free standards.

Your only case that central planning produces wealth and prosperity is that in ancient times, China was the wealthiest country in the world? That is about as weak as it gets. That China is advancing faster than the US is evidence of nothing. The US is virtually at the top. China is coming from the bottom of the bottom. How could it not advance faster than us? It is evidence of nothing. If I you have $1 to your name, is it easier for you to double your wealth, or Bill Gates?

Yeah, when China was 100% centrally planned, it was dirt poor and experienced the great famine in modern times. Then when it began implementing some economic freedom, it started to become wealthy. Not a very good case to prove central planning creates wealth and prosperity. The people in China that are getting rich are doing it by starting and owning a business and trading in the global marketplace. Still, China is no where near as wealthy per capita as Hong Kong, the US, or any of the top ten economic free countries. In fact, can you name any countries with centrally planned economies in the top 30 wealthiest countries?

I have given you examples of how increasing economic freedom increases wealth and prosperity for the common man. Where has central planning increased wealth and prosperity for the common man? In case you forgot, or you just want to make up a bunch of shit, or lie about what I said, here are the examples of how economic freedom creates wealth and prosperity for the common man: Hong Kong (part of China since 1997) - continues to be the most economic free area in the world and is richer than the US in terms of GDP per capita. China - Was 100% centrally planned right through the end of the great famine where tens of millions died. Then in the 1970s, China began instituting capitalistic market forms including privately owned corporations that produced goods and traded them in the global marketplace. This has caused China to bring more people out of grinding poverty faster than any nation in the history of the world. However, GDP per capita is still less than 1/3 of that of Hong Kong or the US. US - The period between 1800 and 1920 was arguably the greatest advance of human civilization in history. A similar thing happened in Sweden between 1850 and 1950. Both economic systems leaned very close to capitalism. During this time in the US of what you would call "unbridled capitalism," lifespans increase for the common man, and people flocked to the US. When they found out what was going on here, they sent for their families and friends. Ok, now your turn. List the countries that have made the poor rich through central planning. And if you get a chance, don't forget how you were going to quote me saying something about proving that there are private banks in China. Still waiting on that one.

The New York Bar Association is just a voluntary association. Membership is not required to practice law in NY. http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=yGDOfacCooKZ5FRsXjMnJw%3D%3D

No they don't. Hong Kong had hardly any central planning. It became richer than the US per capita. China was all centrally planned. It experienced famine, and millions died. Then China implemented a small amount of economic freedom, and now it too is getting rich. You stated: "You attempted to prove that there are private banks in China..." Quote where I attempted to prove that.

The idea that increasing economic freedom creates wealth and prosperity is not very controversial. Even Krugman would agree. Both China and Hong Kong serve to illustrate this concept, but in different ways. Again, nothing too controversial about that. But that has little to do with your repeatedly making false claims about what I said, such as the private bank thing. Still waiting for that quote.

Just admit your error about the banks and move on. That the government spent a bunch of money and developed a few things is no case for the idea that those things wouldn't exist without government. Does Somalia have the government that I cited above as necessary? I don't think so.

What a nothingpost. We need a government to regulate the environment, to provide a court system and to defend the citizens from physical harm. Maybe a few other things. Maybe not. We don't need it to do research. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 Were you able to find that quote about the private banks in China?

If the government is oppressing the people through its police force, that police force should be restrained immediately. Meanwhile, do you let that stop you from succeeding in life? That would be kind of like letting the chance of a lightning strike keep you from going to your job.

Why a "lesser firm?" Maybe a more savvy firm. And then they get the chance to prove themselves. If they are excellent, then the new firm will have to decide whether it wants to pay a fair wage or end up training this person for its competitor.