Economics courses do not teach how the economy works.

I'd love to see an argument otherwise! Have you seen one?

 

Glass Steagal act reforms. Clinton regime. "Public/private" spending.

It became a legal requirement of all banks operating in the US to make sub prime mortgages. (Social aid program for the poor).
Which ended as widely predicted.

Every bubble bursts.

 

Republicans are in the pocket of corporate interests. The only amusing aspect is that the libertarian sites that might refer to that are also in the same pocket!

 

Try again. Bush let the situation get out of hand. House prices were starting to rise too fact and get ahead of incomes toward the end of the Clinton Administration. Ol' Slick Willie should have done something, but he didn't and Bush was handed a hot potato which he made worse by letting the crooks run amok.

At one time, more than half of house price estimators in the United States said in a survey they had been pressured by mortage brokers to increase the estimated value of a home.

 

insane and perfectly liberal of course given that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Note the quality of liberal thinking.

 

exactly; in fact there were 132 programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. Do you see the benefit of capitalism?

 

of course if true the liberal would not be so afraid to present ------------------------his best example of this. In fact a recession or depression is the time it takes the free market to self correct for liberal interference. Do you understand?

 

a monopoly is a private company with no competition in a capitalist economy. In a socialist economy there are no private companies so no monopolies possible.

 

libcommie Marx said capitalism naturally leads to monopoly. When that proved to be totally idiotic some libcommies started talking about monopolistic competition. Apparently the concept holds that if people are manipulated into preferring a particular brand they are helpless victims of a corporate monopoly who get high prices and low quality goods thus reducing their standard of living. The solution is apparently to make brands illegal and switch to communism wherein 120 million were slowly starved to death.

 

credited to him perhaps by a few fool liberals. Clinton opposed balanced budget amendments as Democrats always have. The only thing different then was that Republicans under Newt took over for first time in 45 years and appeared to have huge and growing popular support

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/10/2/616708/-

During depressions or recessions, it is government intervention and spending that pulls us out.

 

No, by everyone who didn't fail 6th grade civics. Civics, appears, is another thing on the long list of things conservatives are ignorant about.

 

In fact, Clinton opposed balanced budget amendments as Democrats always have. The only thing different then was that Republicans under Newt took over for first time in 45 years and appeared to have huge and growing popular support

 

if true why so afraid to give your best example?? The more FDR and Obama did the longer the depression and recession lasted creating the 2 worst economies in American history. USSR was always spending to boost economy too and yet 120 million slowly starved to death?

 

Presidents either approve, or veto legislation, unless there is a veto proof majority, which gingrich didn't have. This is the Clinton surplus

 

I've given you the examples.

 

they must do what polls say if they want to get reelected so enough Democrstas were compelled to do what NEwt said. Clintons were and are standard big govt libcommies who oppose balanced budgets because they would restrict their life blood ie more welfare to spend to buy more votes. Do you understand?

 

The more FDR and Obama did to spend the longer the depression and recession lasted creating the 2 worst economies in American history. USSR was always spending to boost economy too and yet 120 million slowly starved to death?

 

one of the 2 things I stated. they either approve or veto legislation.

 

we have already established your economic ignorance. there really is no need to keep demonstrating it for us.

 

Actually Schumpeter made much more about capitalism and monopoly power. Of course neither him or Marx confused in with monopolistic competition...

 

total BS of course Marx thought monopoly was natural under capitalism and would destroy it. Schump did not

 

so?? do you have any idea at all what your point it or what subject you are on??

 

if so why so afraid to show it? What do you learn from your fear?

 

I have repeatedly shown it. I fear nothing, least of all you.