I never have asked that, actually. It's a smike screen for your evasion of the challenege I don't think you know squat about economics, chief, only the philosophy of Ayn Rand. All I have done is challenege your foolish statement that price controls have NEVER worked.
again, this is like asking me if forced killing works, and then when i say no you tell me how the people favor the draft during world wars. you cant do accurate economic analysis when people motivations and incentives are widly different because their sons are in germany being killed by nazis. so yes, people will say they dont mind price controls when they are worried about their fathers and brothers and sons being murdered by nazis. great point. you are moving the goalposts. if i say people cant breather underwater, you wouldnt disagree and say they definitely can because they can use scuba gear. thats not the point. its a stupid thing to say. again, if basically all bets are off and we are in the midst of the greatest war in history, we can revisit my points abot economics. its just not what we are discussing. not only that, but you didnt prove that price controls worked, only that people didnt mind them. not the same thing. plus during war everyone pitches in for the war effort and gladly sacrifices. if they can barely get enough to eat they actually feel proud because they think that is more food for the troops. the whole incentive system is different. again, its a stupid stupid point. price controls do not work. they never have and never will because they run counter to the most basic principles of economics. pick up a textbook once in a while.
if you knew the most basic facts about logic you wouldnt ask me to prove a negative. i also cannot prove i am not god. also i am not a fan of rand. yu think that because you dont read much.
you cant possibly be alleging that we won the war and people didnt starve because of price controls. do you also allege that because new yorkers are not starving that rent control must be working? you might as well claim the war was won because of the japanese internment camps. what possible correlation do you think those things have to do with price controls? seriously are you dinking with your buddies in baton rouge, having a contest to see who can make the most specious point?
No, ideal being people being left the fuck alone.. As I cited economist OVERWHELMINGLY disagreement with your statements... But to your point: Valuable -- No other option b/c of the war efforts Popular -- No other option b/c of the war efforts Effective -- No other option b/c of the war efforts
More repeating the same point that I have already countered with an example of price controls working. All you know are textbook responses. Pick up a history book some time.
in what way did they work? people didnt mind them? thats not the same thing. we won the war? that doesnt mean they worked. just saying they worked doesnt mean they worked. how specifically did they work? what did they accomplish? assuiming they did work (they didnt), do you understand that everything is different in wartime, when people take all their economic motivations and throw them out the window and live in fear of the death of their families? during wartime the government could have gone around to peoples houses and confiscated metals and food for the war effor and people would have liked it. again, when you are in the biggest war in the history of humankind, it tends to distart normal human motivations a bit. and assuming you continue to be obtuse and use this absurd war example, can you also think of an example, just one time in history when price controls worked. i can give you endless examples of times when they dont work, including right now in new york. have you ever read a textbook or anything or tried to learn anything at all about economics? why am i discussing this with a person who is willfully ignorant about the simplest economic concepts? you are not a politician, there is no excuse for you to have opinions this stupid. you dont need to pander to stupid people for votes.
Actually, I know quite a bit about logic and I'll show you. People who are searching for excuses to believe silly things frequently make the statement "You can't prove a negative". You made an assertion, and then declined to provide a basis for it. The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. You believe this yourself and demonstrate it in all of you anti-religious tirades. And now you have been caught by your own logic. A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. The notion that one can't prove a negative is simply false. Take this negative statement . . . "five is not equal to four" or this one "Ancient Egyptians did not watch I Love Lucy". Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. Wrong on both counts.
What I stated was an instance in which price controls worked and I already stated exactly what was intended and how it was successful. It only takes one instance to prove that your statement "price controls have never worked" is false. If you had said "price controls rarely work", I would not have challenged it. If you had said that "price controls never work according to many economic theories", I could not have challenged it. But you let yourself run away with rhetoric rather than logic and used the word "never" which allowed your statement to be successfully challenged as false.
You asked and I answered. You don't get to answer for me. You did not. You cited economists overwhemingly supporting their own theories. They did not disagree with the fact that wartime price controls actually worked as advertised.
