TEA

"Suppose someone ofrefs a controversial claim that you reject and instead of offering any sort of justification just lists the names of several authors, each of whom has written dozens of lengthy books. Is that persuasive for you? Do you feel obligated to delve into all these sources?"No, but someone is doing just that on this thread. They are making controversial claims that I reject without offering support of any kind, not even recommended reading. It's not really as complicated as you seem to think.I am more likely to get something I want or need - my judgment of need - in a free market system that doesn't involve government interference. I'm more likely to produce something others need in that system. This is mutually beneficial to everyone, and means that resources are being allocated most efficiently to provide for everyone's wants and needs.The more I provide what others want, the richer I will get. the more government interferes with this process the less efficient it gets at allocating resources correctly. "Here's my belief. I don't think you know what Socialism is."OK, I'm tired of that repetitive claim, so why don't you explain it, briefly, as best you can so I will have your definition,. and it won't any longer be an issue."I don't think you have any clue how to justify a claim to efficiency. "I did previously, and I just did it again in this comment. What don't you understand? "Referring vaguely to the writings of various authors is nothing more than punting."Those are Jon Murphy's recommendations, but I think they are good ones, except for Krugman, who is no longer a respected economist, but a political hack and ill informed newspaper opinion writer.I mentioned his name because he is on that list, and also someone you have referred to in your comments."You can't justify your claims. So you say "Read Krugman." Read what from Krugman? That's a non answer. "I didn't recommend reading Krugman, and I never would, for the reasons I gave above. I just mentioned him as a reference you are already familiar with. He hasn't always written nonsense, his early scholarly work on international trade is quite good."You don't want to have to justify your assertions. That's not unusual."I don't need to justify anything, Jon, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, as I don't think that's possible. You might, however, want to do a better job than you have been doing, of supporting your trollish comments on what is basically a libertarian and conservative econ blog.Me: "Although a free market system isn't perfect, it tends to be more "efficient" than anything else we know of, which means more overall well being.""In your world the assertion that free market Capitalism is better than an alternative is good enough for justification. Not in my world. Do you even know what it is? If not, why do you say it is best?"I've explained that, Jon, it's your turn. Explain What capitalism and socialism are, Provide references if necessary - except for Chomsky and your own fact free blog, and tell us why socialism is the more efficient system. http://bcihrf.com [url=http://vylfeb.com]vylfeb[/url] [link=http://tsmxfwnnigl.com]tsmxfwnnigl[/link]

Not Given