>>827
1- Whoops, no - and I had put "state capitalism" in there to make it easy for you to comprehend where you failed, but ahh... Your stupidity knows no boundaries.
2- Again, nice failure - but that part of Keynesian Economics was irrelevant as stated explicitly - but you are too retarded comprehend.
3- Yet again, a point where you expose your ignorance - please read on the subject some before making such retarded claims, that was the Keynesian approach and for example, Adam Smith had declared that gold surplus was virtually irrelevant, while it's opposing school, mercantilisim had claimed that precious metal supply was all that mattered (this particular one was disproved).
4-Ahh... I don't know where to begin, you have summed up so much fail in here.
>libertarianism is wrong
That isn't what I said, let's look
>your dim interpretation of the neo-sheep herding ideology, Libertarianism, is wrong.
see, it's YOUR FUCKING INTERPRETATION - Again, I had explicitly stated that Libertarianism would "work" but, it wouldn't work like you retarded drones think it would. Read on the fallacy of Anarcho-capitalism, libertarian is just a fancy fallacious new name for a lightened version of it, basically.
And I'm just laughing at the second part, it's funny how people who are so blatantly moronic and ignorant can claim to understand what is valid and what isn't, and it's sad that you are still trying to make an argument based on keynesianism - reminds me of "if evolushon is true, den why are there still monkies???". Please, please don't talk about things you don't know anything about, it's really sad from the perspective of people who know a thing or two. It's so fucking obvious that you are just being a dimwit parrot. But hey, I'm hoping that you are getting a thing or two among the things I'm saying, so maybe one day you'll start reading, learning and producing original thought.