Ludwig Von Mises
- Thread starter RCG Trader
- Start date
Not according to the tests you took and posted on this website nor you explanations of them. Or your defense of obama's economically damaging policies.. no we don't or at least didn't agree on fiscal issues.
Anyway Mitt is a liberal Rep, which is why I'm not a fan, however last night and on his 60 min interview he did state some ideas which I think can work. And he DOES have a stellar business career despite what the media says, and he was the gov of a super liberal state. So while I'm not with him ideally, I now believe he has a chance, a decent chance, of being able to turn things around because he does have experience working with a 'hostile' legislature, and he does have experience running successful organizations. He did save the Olympics. let's just be real here, he has FAR more experience and success than obama. In fact even if he doesn't become Pres, Romney has led a seriously impressive life in terms of achievement.
Romney has ALWAYS been in the 'middle'. cut the BS, you have posted many times that reps don't even like him. reality is for him to be effective, assuming he's elected, he WILL have to push a very fiscally conservative agenda, and he will likely have to get some dems on board. IMO it's possible. Obama fixing the mess = IMPOSSIBLE.
Mate, part of monetary economics is fiscal policy in relation to macroeconomic stability. The only fiscal policy practiced in the US for a long, long time, follows the worst parts of Keynesian theory. Only nitpicking trolls would try to draw the distinction here, when the topic is so general.
Mate, all macro economic theories are concerned with the relationship between fiscal policy, monetary policy, and macro economic stability. Every single school, including Hayek, including von Mises (though I hesitate to call it a school of thought).
The difference is how they fit together: who drives who.
Failure to draw distinction and grouping under the vague notion of generality is intellectually lazy.
The difference is how they fit together: who drives who.
Failure to draw distinction and grouping under the vague notion of generality is intellectually lazy.
Not lazy - irrelevant. To this discussion.
But if you'd like to open a second thread and go into the details behind the works of Milton Friedman to explain how he embraced Keynesian theory and then went off to criticize it, please feel free to start your lecture in another thread. I will promise to be on time, Professor.
This here is a high school level of economics discussion. You're simply going to make people's head hurt and not respond, which brings me back to that trolling aspect again.