They're my viewpoints, so yes, yes I have.

They've done a good job on you at school.

“using no way as a way, using no limitations as a limitation.”
-Bruce Lee

Remember that.

Knowledge is about a sythesis of information, not forming your opinions based on what "experts" have said; who are they? You don't see Voltarie or Schopenhauer citing sources like some school clone. That of course applies to philosophical topics only. No one's arguing about whether or nor geometry's real (Voltaire said that).

Read the book and then throw it any, that's another Bruce Lee.

or so you say, but you haven't shown any ability to think outside yoru box either. You have shown, repeatedly, to fall back on insults when your theories aren't accepted at vague assertions.
it may seem that way to you, but I assure you I don't think it popped out of a toaster. I do, like Marx himself, think capitalism a revolutionary idea.
Of course, that's your opinion and not some sort of self evident fact. In teh feudal days, a worker rented land from a lord, worked the lord's plots siz days a week, had one day to work their own, and was taxed on what he produced and owned nothing. today, workers can own houses, cars, TV's, and have days off,m including hoidays. their employers are not free to ransack their house and take what they like since they are legally entitled to their own posessions (property taxes notwithstanding). Workers can and do sell their labor in a market and are not obligated to work for any employer by law.
and those dynasties have become more solidified as socialism was introduced in the 1930's. However, that still doesn't fully define America. Let's take JP Morgan as an example. His father, Junius, wanted to build a European style family business in America like the Barings anbd Rothschilds. JP Morgan had other ideas. Instead of hiring family and friends referred to him by his father, he hired those he saw as most competent even if they weren't WASP's. This type of behavior is one of the reasons why the US came to surpass Europe in economic might and importance.
I'm not sure I'm being legalistic, but I think you are referring to word definitions. It's important to have common definitions if any meaningful discussion is to take place.
I've included a basic definition below of the difference between economic and accounting profit. In free market theory, prices tend towards an equilibrium where no economic profit existed. If economic profit existed, that woudl imply someone is knowlingly inefficiently deploying capital. Essentially, knowingly choosing to make less rather than more. there are amny reasons this does occur in reality, not leaast of which is impoerfect information.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicprofit.asp
her is a pretty decent, simple writeup of a free market vs. actual market
http://www.morrischia.com/david/port..._20market.html

no, and you haven't provided me with any information.

Impossible. Neither the Spanish nor the Portguguese were capitalist countries at the time unless you define capitalism with such a wide net it's meaningless except for anit-capitalist propaganda purposes. What is true is that those two countries extracted enormous amount sof gold from Latin America. however, many countries with no gold have still become wealthy.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

I have a difficult time having a discussion with anyone who has such a blantant disregard for the scientific method. I'll give you this - you seem to have the "hypothesis" portion down pat.

Perhaps we should introduce your method to the world - the "source-free" method of writing and journalism. Bring Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass out of the woodwork, and start a revolution in academia. Why bother reading any literature on a topic, when you have the ability to declare yourself an expert? Don't bother testing your theories - it would be awful if we started acting too much like those "experts" that "universities" and "think tanks" and "businesses" are always consulting.

That said, I'll get back to the business of mindlessly regurgitating anything that I've read in a textbook.

Good luck with that "scientific method" and political/philosophical/ethical questions.



Note: since tend to read books a lot it's tough to link sources for my philosophical foundations. Perhaps you should ask?

There are research processes and methods that apply to the social sciences just as much as any other discipline. Since we're talking about political economy, these processes can be applied to a question regarding, say, the impact of import substitution on economic development in Latin American countries. That is why POLITY and CoW databases (among many others) were created.

You can't just say "Communism provides the best cure for human suffering" and expect that the statement go untested. For starters, we have a tremendous amount of historical and anecdotal data on the effects of communism. However, you might be able to design a study measuring, say, the impact of wealth re-distribution on economic growth.

In fact, such studies already exist! Robert Barro - another Harvard guy - has a book called "the Determinants of Economic Growth," where he quantitatively measures the effects of different variables (democracy, government consumption, rule of law) on economic growth.

Again, the statement "Communism provides the best cure for human suffering" may sound philosophical, but it has a number of specific testable implications.

Voltaire said that no one argues about whether or not geometry exists or that water is hydrogen and oxygen. There aren't camps of people fighting about these things because because they're self-evident. All other things are philosophy and in his mind not worth forming factions about, because the questions are unable to be clearly answered, thus they're unending.

In the current era of pseudoscience this has created a never ending amount of trouble for those interested in the liberal arts. It's forced shouldbe philosophers into crackpot scientists. Humans are dynamic creatures who don't repeat any action twice and so they cannot be studied via the scientific method, as repeatability is required. Yesterday's political movement isn't tomorrow's even if it looks just like it.

Also, in order to do liberal arts "science" one has to create operational definitions. Those are going to be based on the beliefs and values of the researcher, there's no way around this. Thus, whatever model that you're working from is self-referential. That doesn't happen in real science, if one wants to test whether fire burns paper, you apply fire and see. It's not about what you want.

All of my comments are proven by the fact that societies still play with and attempt organizational change.

As you get more experience in the liberal arts, you'll see what I mean.

I have to say, it's amusing to see the way you can rationalize everything in the face of compelling arguments. Always on the offensive, never replying directly to points made, and often resorting to the ad-homimen... but I've said before that I'm halfway convinced you're only doing this all for your own amusement. I feel like I'm learning something from the people who reply to you, and in that way, you're filling a role.

Please, what is this post?

Note: I'm amused that you're learning something.

Gotta hand it to you. You are the most successful troll in history. How do you keep it going without really saying anything?

Adlerian's right that it isn't a science but the fact it's not a science isn;t a license to say whatever you feel regardless of actual events.
I thought about your assertion about thousands of years of capitalism. I still think it's pretty offbase; however, I see how you could rightfully view capitalism as evolutionary. An outgrowth of human history much in the same way Republican government is and was. That view to me only highlights the impossibility of utopian communism. the majority of human history shows human's inability to act a certain way, yet a utopian view of communism assumes it is possible for all of humanity to change completely...and that the government that forces that this change will magically disappear (assuming they haven't, like the history of mankind, become corrupted by their power). Most communist countries have shown time and again that the changes necessary to force true communism results in totalitarianism. that's to say nothing of their distributive and productive model. socialism that goes too far results in economic stangation and, consequently, growing unrest. (to say nothing of the inability to absorb growing populations.) Moreover, what is a "successful system" is a subjective thing in and of itself. whether people really want equality or just ameasure of it or don't care at all. whether they want change, want to avoid it, or want a little. etc, etc. in other words, there is no utopia on earth, there is no perfect system. IMO, the best system you can have is one that allows for a balance...of change and conservation, flexibility at the individual level to allow for differing people, freedom for change to come from the bottom as well as the top, freedom for people to find their station in life.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"