Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "God Damn I Hate Leftist Economics So Much lol" video.

  1.  @kalilg2242  Yeah, right-wing statists, too.
    2
  2.  @Irishtradchannel  But people don't care to differentiate. Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society funded the juntas in Chile. PS: Rothbard is a proponent of communalist economics.
    2
  3. If a leftist understood economics, that person wouldn't be a leftist to begin with Social ends aren't why people do things...people do things because corporations make money on top of money. That's why leftists are stoopid, yo.
    1
  4. Not really, but there is not "communist" economic system: it is just resources, that's that...you want self-management...but you're allowing crony capitalism to succeed in swaying you. Simply as a pimple.
    1
  5. Communist.
    1
  6.  @arachnipope  Do something about the LTV then.
    1
  7. And you love it, don't you? you don't want self-management...you like state capitalism, bro. Just face the truth.
    1
  8. If you opt for helping the lower classes, you are a Marxist. Good for you.
    1
  9. So basically you're a minarchist...you fucking commie.
    1
  10. Communist ^
    1
  11. >I hate leftist economics so goddamn much You are just an idiot, though, so why should anyone listen to you? You are basically just blurting out [idiotically, by the by] that "any sort of high taxes, and any sort of burdensome government is all leftism" -- Whoa, how far you have fallen from being truthful. All government is leftistm, practically, to you. But that's just not what these terms actually mean...well...they mean whatever you want them to mean, I guess...but you're a liar...right-wing politicians have proposed outlandish taxes, and have proposed systems of governance that you can't support [look at the Earn-It bill, remember?]. You are simply spreading malarky, Styx.
    1
  12.  @killboi207  Mortgage-backed securities for your tax dollars hard at work....
    1
  13. LOL, independent country, each state. "United States". LOLOL
    1
  14.  nitedaze1000  Social ends. People do not just work for money on money unless you are a capitalist. Do you exploit workers for a profit? or do you do free voluntary exchange, not exploit your workers, and have them work for you willingly and happily [no strikes, no complaints], and then use your business for social ends, to satisfy groups demands for things? Or do you just do demand-side economics, for the sake of profit, which goes into corporate donations to political parties? I mean, which is it...this all depends on what you do.
    1
  15.  nitedaze1000  You are a person who wants self-management because you are a person who, like everyone else, does things to achieve social ends, like feeding your family, or making a family, or getting laid, or feeding yourself. I'm not gonn a waste my time trying to get you to understand your lack of comprehension, so I'll just tell you the facts: and I'll tell you what you want, and I won't be wrong. See?
    1
  16.  nitedaze1000  No, you are just a moron. But I'll keep posting things that my brain can comprehend, things your's is too dumb to do. I know...mean...but it's too early for this shit: In the Lebenswelt of mankind there are social ends and then corporate ends. Self-management entails social ends. State-management entails corproate [municipal] ends. You want self-management. I hope you realize that, moron. That is all.
    1
  17. But hey, Capitalism is Great! and Globalism is stoopid, damn commies and their...cc-c-capitalis.........*runs away* &&&&&&&
    1
  18. Uhhh, narrow-view. He's doing well financially by writing books...leftism's sina non qua of existence...making you buy their books, and watch their propaganda. You just happen to like the lessons you're being sold. It's another case of 'the blind leading the blind'. You're a fool, who will oversimplify pretty much anything, but it's ok, because you're heaping praises on another confused person. Hooray!
    1
  19. Thanks Capitalist Crony Synarchy.
    1
  20. drools implicitly for communication
    1
  21. LOL, Hayek, thru Pont Pelerin Society, helped to fund the juntas in Chile.
    1
  22.  @therealcirclea762  You are an idiot. You haven't done anything but confirm what I said. It's a dictatorial liberal government, it's self-managed [insofar as race is concerned], it's called socialism by Americans, on the right, and you are...not saying nay anything: but thanks for fetching that I suppose? I was right. So,...go away? I suppose?
    1
  23. PS: For anyone [with a brain, mind you!] that is reading: Chile is well on the way to becoming that liberal government: good for them. But they had to have self-management first. Good for them, there too, also. People should fund self-management.
    1
  24.  @therealcirclea762  You think I can remove comments? In your own comment thread? Nope. But Youtube's AI is fucky like that. <chuckles> -- So I was right, and...?
    1
  25.  @therealcirclea762  I didn't do nothing but state a fact, then you fetched some article [literally, some articulation] with which to chew me out, [for whatever reason, you extrapolated wrongly, or just didn't make a point- evidently- against me, and just ended up reaffirming what I just said plainly.
    1
  26.  @therealcirclea762  You aren't really understanding how a strawman works. But look, l'll explain to you something: I didn't make an argument. You said posted some placard [Keynes vs. Hayek], and so I said some fact, and then you fetched an article from an interview with Hayek, explaining his political views and sort of insinuating why he did help supplant Chile's government for the one people will now call socialist [rightly, they have it half-right, at least; because Chile has a strong racial bond it was easy for them to be, basically, anarcho-capitalists [pure clanship, esprit de corps, weltanshauung in a racial self-hood of selbst, or a volkish self-management]. People call it socialist because of this. Because all social ends are considered at both bottom and top levels of governance, that is public and private. As this liberalism takes, socialism and capitalism blend naturally, as achem "certain people" predicted...I won't name who, but...it's certainly ironic. Nevertheless; Keynes is a poop head. Liberalization in the business sector runs amok into neoliberalist cosmopolitanism [glocalization is the nearest thing to a workable exponent of this globalization: no one will take to that anyway, because it's still too confusing: proving the liberatarian ethic and anarchist ethic to be ever the more hard to accomplish]. Globalization and globalism [civic society, or international, cosmopolitanism] are both extensions not only of this neoliberal [the safety trend not only of progressivist "power blocs" but of, literally, human resources...cf. The Democrats and their voting bloc. It's all there, as you probably well know. And neoconservatism is stuck in the oil gouging wars of the middle eas-y[sreal], viz. the "war in the middle east" [Delta Forces]. This causes a feedforward mechanism of interventionism, "spreading democracy" [ops], and obviating catastrophe for the sake of the war-machine: aka, the oil companies. It's all there. Have you anything to add?
    1
  27. ​ @therealcirclea762  You are adhoming, here. I just said something [not an argument], you got mad, but you thought some clipping [copypaste] would suffice to yawn at me with, and then you got uppity some more and actually started adhoming me [, after I called you an idiot, oops. You are one though: that isn't an argument, but...What argument do you really have...you posted a clipping as if it was an argument, that's a thought-terminating cliche, at the outset]. And I elucidated both Hayek's views and my own in my last response and you didn't even comment on that, actually: in essence, not only evading, but also committing the thought-terminating cliche fallacy: so I know you are mad and all, but at least try and comment on what the actual subject of the response entails, not just "herp derp, I can't fathom you, I'm baffled, but who needs to listen to you, I am automatically right by posting this clipping about Hayek's views! as if he knows them...*yawn*" Well, I do know them. And that is how what I said connects. But you dodged that discourse so you could ad hom me [ironically]. In never ad hom'd you, until you ad hom'd me, already.
    1
  28.  @therealcirclea762  Look, you are an idiot. There is the fallacy fallacy, too. But let that aside.... Not a "thought-terminating cliche" to affirm Hayek's beliefs through references -- No, but it is to sigh and leave a clipping as "a response" assuming that it would cover your ass in an argumentative problematic with actually addressing me: and you still can't address me, which shows that you really don't have an argument, to begin with. I just espoused what Hayek's views are, and espoused my own: no response. You keep getting hung up on this "ad hominem", as if your posting a clipping of some interview is "an argument" [it's not], which makes you an idiot: I made a postulation of my position: no response: you keep deferring to the fact I called you an idiot. You keep allowing yourself to become one.
    1
  29.  @therealcirclea762  Wow, another non-response to anything said. Good job, moron.
    1
  30. AHGAHAHAHAHAHA
    1
  31. LOL, and it should? lolololol right?
    1
  32. ADOIDERDEEDER
    1