Comment: Ok, so, I looked around, and

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Ooohooo, insults because of (see in situ)

Ok, so, I looked around, and

Ok, so, I looked around, and shyt's going down EXACTLY like ALL of my economics books said it would. There is a PERFECT match between economic law and the real world. I only read causal-realist economic books, so that makes perfect sense to me. Why do your ideas have no evidence, yet my ideas are backed by the entire historical record of human existence since the beginning of time?

You are patently wrong once again. Economic law applies at all times, in all situations, and for all SCARCE resources. In fact, you, personally, can't think of a SINGLE instance where economic laws do not apply. Notice that I said YOU PERSONALLY. What I'm saying is you can't prove your statement, AND YOU KNOW IT. I'm accusing you of a purposeful lie. Remember, it only takes a single solitary piece of evidence to prove me wrong. *raspberries*

You can stay confused about what the Chinese buy from us if you insist. Of course, you won't be able to answer this question: Why someone accept American dollars as payment, if those dollars have no value? The answer is, of course, that they do value those dollars. So, here's the next question: What does China's oil supplier plan on doing with those dollars, exactly?

You are also wrong about the content of my economics books. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has an extensive analysis of gov't intervention. In fact, one of my books, "economics in one lesson", available fro FREE, consists ENTIRELY of intervention analysis(central planning is simply a large degree of intervention, and is also included in EVERY SINGLE BOOK). Besides, what use would an economics book be, if it didn't explain how the gov't screws everything up? That's the main friggin point of economic law!!!

You damn good and well that no one is going to pay ANY tax, unless they are forced to, and this includes import taxes(don't get smacked down by the dictionary again). No violence = no tax revenue..... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

EVERY instance of making someone do something they don't want to do involves violence as a matter of necessity.... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

The laws of economics are based upon 2 self-evident axioms, and a single empirical observation. The entire body of human action is deduced from these 3 bases. These bases are:

1. Humans purposefully act.(self-evident axiom)
2. Humans make mistakes.(self-evident axiom)
3. Humans enjoy leisure and dislike labor.(empirical observation)

Since economic laws are deduced, rather than induced, they can ONLY be proven wrong by disproving one of those 3 bases. Economic law does NOT suffer from the problem of induction. Google deduction and induction for yourself(or not).

Of course, you have NO FUCKING CLUE what I'm talking about, because you refuse to use a textbook, a dictionary, common sense, Wikipedia, AND empirical evidence.

The undeniable fact is that if I want tropical fruit, or any import, I owe the owner, and no one else on the entire planet. ANYONE else who thinks I owe them for something that is not theirs is, by definition, a thief and an extortionist.

Besides, thinking that a business needs to be protected from it's own customers is stupid as fuck. I'd like to think that ALL competent humans are more intelligent than this. I don't think you are retarded. I think you are prejudice.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."