Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

of course that's 100% backwards!!! after China switched to capitalism wealth was widely distributed to the point that 40% of the planets poverty was eliminated. Under libsocialism there was little or nothing to distribute let alone redistribute so 60 million slowly starved to death. Shiva must somehow like the thought of 60 million slowly starving to death under lib socialism???

 

To paraphrase William Hutt, profits are proof of social service.

 

So you're comparing different economies none of which were ever upon the Natural Right of Property and expect that to rationalize opposition to the Natural Right of Property?

In reality all you're comparing is two different economies both of which are based upon "Title" established under the ancient doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and saying that one was superior to the other but neither produced a superior economy for the people when compared to the arguments for commerce based upon the economic philosophy of the Natural Rights of the Person.

The problem remains that you've never taken the opportunity to read John Locke's arguments for "commerce" which is a Statutory Right, not a Natural Right, if commerce is properly regulated by law based upon the Natural Right of Property. If you took the time to become informed then perhaps you could provide a rational statement on comparison of the two different economies.

 

Your argument isn't with me. Your argument is with Adam Smith that's generally recognized as the Father of Free Market Capitalism (i.e. an extreme economic conservative) that expressly establishes that in his book The Wealth of Nations.

Of course under capitalism we can recall the sales of "patent medicines" that did literally nothing for those that purchased these fake medicines and people became quite wealthy in the patent medicine business and they knew they were selling nothing of value to society.

We continue to see the same "patent medicine" type sales continuing today. Worthless products where the profit is made based upon "deceptive" advertising with the truth hidden in the very fine print at the bottom that's next to impossible to read. You know, that statement "Results vary and we can't guarantee this product works for anyone" LOL. There are so many scams taking people's money that it's hard to believe a legitimate business has any chance to succeed.

 

Or the idiotic claim that large personal wealth proves superior management skills (when the wealthy person, as self-appointed CEO, repeatedly drove the corporations he managed into bankruptcy). People can become more wealthy in spite of gross incompetence in management positions and we have a prominent example in the Republican Presidential Candidate that would never be put in any corporate management position by any group of stockholders in the United State. You don't put four-time losers in managerial control of a corporation regardless of how much money they have if you want the enterprise to succeed.

 

he earned $10 billion and he's incompetent?? if capitalism rewarded incompetence we'd be talking with two tin cans connected by a string rather than with smart phone computers. 1+1=2

 

of course that's 100% and totally liberal stupid. If people fell for scams we'd all spend our money on pet rocks rather than much needed basics like food, clothing, and shelter. 1+1=2

 

The scam artist only needs to convince a few people to spend a few dollars to make a fortune. Sell a $10 worthless item to 10 million people and that's a lot of damn money.

$10 x 10,000,000 = $100,000,000

They're doing it all of the time and you see the advertisements on TV hundreds of times a day. Hell, they can get rich on the shipping and handling charges alone for junk crap.

 

Accurate estimates of Donald Trump's wealth fall more into the $2 billion to $4 billion range and he would have had that much money if he'd done nothing more than invest his inheritance in the top 100 stock on the S&P 500. We can also note that in accumulating his "wealth" he's also cost investors well over $1 billion because he a completely incompetent executive that would never be placed in an executive position by the stockholders of any company he didn't control.

When he took over the construction of the Taj Mahal casino the banks wouldn't even lend him any money because they knew he couldn't repay the loans. He had to issue junk bonds at a 14% interest rate and then screwed those investors by declaring bankruptcy because there was never any way he was going to be able to afford that interest rate. Many believe, based upon comments he's since made, that he intended to default on the bonds and declare bankruptcy before he issued them and if that could be proven then Donald Trump would have gone to prison for fraud. There are construction contractors that haven't ever been paid by Trump and some were forced out of business by Trump. Anyone that deals with Donald Trump better get cash in advance because he's a flake that has never had any integrity in his business affairs.

If you want to see an example of a highly competent corporate executive then check out Alan Mulally and if you want an example of an incompetent corporate execution then you already have Donald Trump.

 

Donald Trump did not take the easy way and sell out the middle class by investing in the stock market, where the majority of corporations got richer sending middle class jobs away to mexico and china. Donald Trump built things here in America, he has buildings in America and employs people at his hotels that make living wages.

the laborers of contractors are paid below minimum wage, the rich contractor deserved being out negotiated by Trump.

ask a bell boy at any of Donald Trumps hotels, he or she of all races and religions will say they earn more than what most corporations are paying their employees today as 'gainful employment'.

this executive Alan Mulally is only competent at outsourcing jobs of the American middle class to get richer.

 

Very, very few investment dollars in the stock market go to the corporations. While I don't have a number for just stock market investments when it comes to overall SEC tracked investments less than 0.00005% of all investments are primary investments in corporate stocks issuances. All other stock transactions are "secondary" where it's just one person purchasing them from another person and the corporation doesn't see a dime of this money.

What percentage of the materials used in Trump's construction projects are imported? You know, like the steel that comes from China or many of the fixtures that are also imported.

I have no idea what Trump pays as wages but I seriously doubt that the janitor at one of his properties is earning a living wage.

Construction jobs are very high paying jobs and the contractors weren't negotiated out of anything. Trump simply didn't pay them.

The bell boy might but it would be coming from tips and not from wages. BTW Are you aware of the fact that when Trump was younger and working with his father they were busted for racial discrimination by refusing to rent to blacks in 39 of their apartment complexes? The federal government filed a lawsuit against the Trumps which was settle out of court. Racism in the Trump family was passed down from father to son.

So all of the Boeing Commercial Airplane jobs and all of the Ford Motor Company jobs that Alan Mulally presided over as a CEO over didn't matter to the US economy? Guess what, Boeing airplanes and Ford motorcars are still being produced in the United States and not overseas.

 

the S&P grew over the past 30 years due to globalization, Donald Trump could have been richer if he participated in sending American jobs to other countries but he didn't. he invested his money in America at a loss because he's a patriot, all of the other rich invested in foreign countries.

the contractor that Donald Trump ripped off hired illegal immigrants for cheap labor, and deserved it for not hiring Americans.

blacks are poor and oppressed due to the rich sending their jobs to other countries to get richer, they couldn't afford Donald Trumps rents so it wasn't 'racist'

 

And Donald Trump, as a self-appointed CEO, drove four corporations into bankruptcy costing investors hundreds of millions of dollars because he's an incompetent corporate executive. Why do you think he was selected for the reality series The Apprentice? It was because he was a joke as a executive. People aren't amused by professional executives because they don't pull the kind of incompetent crap that Trump pulled on that reality TV show. There was only one person on the Apprentice that should have been fired and that was Donald Trump.

As a final point you should be aware of the fact that Donald Trump would never be placed in any executive position by an independent Board of Directors. The man is a four-time loser as a corporate executive and would not be tolerated by any stockholder in any corporation I'm aware of. You never turn the reins of a corporation over to someone that's repeatedly driven corporations into bankruptcy. You'd have to be a complete idiot to do that.

 

jobs went to other countries thanks to liberal policies:
1) highest taxes in world= 10 million lost jobs
2) liberal unions= 5 million lost jobs
3) liberal deficits= 3 million lost jobs

Do you understand?

 

You do realize Hitler was a socialist right? There's Marxian "international socialism" and hitter "national socialism" sure he allowed private property and business but it was still controlled de facto by government. The nazi government had seized control over means of production, which literally translates to a form of socialism because if business A produces product B but Hitler wanted C they would be forced to produce C. Collective ownership of the means of production via the state apparatus is socialism... Don't be so politically blind that you can't accept facts that your teacher is proving because you have some abstract thought of what is right wing and what is left wing and it boils your blood to prove Hitler was right wing. Mussolini was a anarcho Syndicist it's literally the foundation fascism.

 

a loser in the modern day rich corporate world is a winner to everyone else who isn't rich, as President Donald Trump will bankrupt the bad rich people and lower taxes on the good rich people who create living wage jobs in America.

the investors who lost hundreds of millions of dollars were all rich directly or indirectly from selling out the American middle class by sending their jobs to other countries, and deserved bankruptcy.

 

rich globalist democrats are more merciful than rich globalist republicans who send jobs to other countries to get richer, because these 'liberals' impose higher taxes and deficits for their welfare plantation.

the rich globalist republicans who send jobs to other countries to get richer will either let the people starve, or join the military to fight wars for money as seen under george W bush.

we need tariffs by Donald Trump to bring good living wage jobs back to America and end the welfare plantation by rich globalist democrats, and end the starvation or forced military recruitment by rich globalist republicans.

 

A very bazaar opinion. Trump's tax proposal increases the after-tax income of the Top 1% of income earners by over 20% according to the conservative Tax Foundation and it doesn't segregate between good investors and bad investors.

We can also note that investors typically have nothing to do with the corporate operations. If they own a significant percentage of stock they can be influential on who represents them on the Board of Directors but the Board of Directors is very rarely involved in any capacity when it comes to business operations or "make/buy" (produce domestically or import items) decisions of the corporation. Most of the super-wealthy aren't even invested in corporations because hedge funds are their preferred investment choice.

The investors that Donald Trump has screwed out of hundreds of millions of dollars by bankrupting his corporations were all invested in Trump's real estate development projects and they were all located in the United States. It had nothing to do with foreign trade as all of the work was done in the United States.

 

have you taken econ 101 yet? they don't get richer. Why do you think they do??????????? Any idea??????????

- - - Updated - - -

actually tariffs cause trade wars. Smoot Hawley caused the Great Depression and WW2. do you understand?

 

Smoot Hawley came after Great Depression started, definitely prolonged it but didn't cause it. Treaty of Versailles and ethnic redistribution of land in WW1 caused ww2 it's why hitter invaded Czech and Poland, and why Stalin invaded Poland. along with the attempted forced disarmament of Japan as well as other policies helped escalate the tensions.

 

Smoot Hawley was coming for a long time, collapsed world trade, and started Depression. Liberals are stupid. They imagine we can tariff Chinese goods and the Chinese will say thank you.

 

actually Hitler invaded many many countries. The excuses for it were only in the beginning when he was not so sure of his own power.

 

By the time Hitler invaded Poland the rest of Europe declared war on Germany, and hitler thought his new vision was one of omnipotence. This is where the left fails, they don't understand total statism and authoritarianism is by its very nature a truly leftist idea. The right fail because they attribute conservativism and introduce doctrines of nationalism to promote some certain way of life, yet they forget the inefficiency and distraught state power causes when it attempts to do so. Hitlers regime was "right wing" in this aspect but his methods and influence were entirely left in origin. As Mises suggests, the quest for autarky causes war not the quest for war causes autarky, and this remains true in Nazi Germany's because they wanted a homogonous German empire in Europe, with the grounds of the total state. This is a leftist reactionary ideology,

 

Free markets ignore human impact? I assume you talking about externalities? If this is evidence of right wing bias how do you explain the study of externality in mainstream economic curriculum?

 

yes, often they ignore that when China switched to Republican free markets they instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty.