niggers gonna nig basically

>>911908
This is the only response to a thread that actually intelligently describes why immigration to the first world is bad?

never change /pol/

>>911895
>northern European countries
>France, Germany
>Germany protestant too
wtf am I reading?

>>911973
Germany has catholics in the south, everyone else is protestant. Protestant reformation did start there you know.

>In the Chaco, a desert in Paraguay, South America, there are a few German communities that have set up towns.

Mennonites. Do you know what the word means? Basically, Amish with electricity.

>These people enjoy first world standards of living, reliable power lines, clean and reliable water supply, all that.

Which explains why so many of them are immigrating to Canada.

>So, given that people of different cultures have differential access to capital and legal status.

ftfy

>Protestant work ethic (it is true that the countries with the highest standards of living today are the northern European countries ie France, Germany, Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia)

>Protestant work ethic
>France, Ireland

Think hard about that one, OP.

>could the amalgamation of cultures, multiculturalism, and immigration have an effect on the standards of living, the productivity, and the prosperity of first world nations?

Of course, but it could as easily be positive as negative. Singapore is multicultural too. Germany is not only very multicultural, but Germany's internal cultural differences are he source of lots of friction. America even more so than Germany.

>>911895
>Ireland
>Protestant
>HAHAHA
>Subhumans gonna catholic

>>911944
nobody's responding because it's a dumb thread and we get a hundred of these every day

if i disagree, you won't change your position, you'll just repeat yourself until i get bored and leave

if i agree, then it's not much of a discussion

>>911999
Substitute protestant with northern european then

>>912052

>Substitute protestant with northern european then

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

Average annual hours actually worked per worker:

Non-northern Europe:

Greece: 2109
Hungary: 1961
Czech: 1947
Poland: 1939
Italy: 1778
Portugal: 1714
Spain: 1663

Northern Europe:

Ireland: 1664
UK: 1647
Sweden: 1624
France: 1554
Germany: 1419

So much for the work ethic.

How about an alternative hypothesis: Rich countries find it easier to stay rich than poor countries find it to get rich?

>>912083
Get productivity figures then, because there's no question that northern Europe has a higher standard of living than south

>>912083
Maybe officially, but Greece? LOL They'd go to work and sit around doing fuck all all day.

>>912089

>Get productivity figures then, because there's no question that northern Europe has a higher standard of living than south

Yes, *but not because people work harder*!

The countries with the highest standards of living are the ones that have the largest *existing* investments in productive infrastructure. This means more efficient factories and machinery, in part, but also services like good roads, good schools, good health services, efficient governments - the things you buy by having been rich in the past!

What best predicts wealth today is a few *historical* factors:

1. Having been rich in 1939.
2. Having not been a British, French or American colony, protectorate, implicit colony, or destination for direct investment in the period from 1870 to 1945.
3. Having never had a communist revolution.

Every country for which those things are true, regardless of race, is rich today. The only rich countries that have any of that are rich today are:

1. Some Eastern European states that benefited from Soviet subsidies and later joined the EU.
2. Singapore, by virtue of its incredible geographic luck.
3. British white settler colonies that were effectively autonomous before 1900.

This is more than enough to make culture a doubtful causal factor.

>>912133
>that have the largest *existing* investments in productive infrastructure

>the things you buy by having been rich in the past!

I agree with you here. This is part of the reason why I disagree with food aid, it doesn't help just giving poor people food and letting them breed, thereby exacerbating the problem without building up any infrastructure for them to provide for themselves.

>>912096

The only OECD member that works longer hours than Greece is South Korea. It's been pretty consistent over the last decade too - Greece is either #2 or #3, about on par with Chili.

Greek unemployment is high and its worker productivity is crap, but those are structural problems, not cultural or moral ones. Greeks work their asses off.

>>912133
Why did Europe develop quicker than the rest of the world with the possible exception of China?

>>912148

I disagree with food aid for a different reason, one outlined by Amartya Sen years ago: It's cheaper, more efficient, and better for everyone involved if you put *money* in the hands of starving people and let them *buy* food. Let the vendors invest in infrastructure with their profits.

It's immoral to just let people starve. It's also economically unproductive. Bitching about how the poor breed, however, is just bigotry.

>>912162
>Bitching about how the poor breed, however, is just bigotry.

Yeah it sounds nasty but honestly, it's true. Overpopulation is a problem in many areas of the world.

>>912177
Overpopulation is a problem because of resource consumption, not space. A Westerner uses way, way, way way more resources and energy in its lifetime than someone from a developing country. We here are the worst offenders when it comes to resource waste.

>>912186
So it's OK to have 20 million people living in an area with a carrying capacity of 2 million?

>>912162
>It's immoral to just let people starve.
No it's not. It's immoral to have kids you can't feed. It's immoral to expect others to care for the kids you can't feed. It's immoral for YOU to demand people to care for them.

>It's also economically unproductive.
wrong again. After all those people die the survivors will be much better off.

>Bitching about how the poor breed is just bigotry.
Overpopulation is a huge problem. people having 10 kids they can't feed drives down the standard of living for everyone. It's time to forcefully sterilize Africa and Latin America.

>>912159

There are dozens of books on that subject, and they all disagree with each other. Basically, fuck if I know. If I did, I'd write a bestseller all about it.

Jared Diamond points to environmental factors. Neo-Weberian views are fashionable right now too. Kenneth Pommeranz says it happened because of the UK's discovery that dealing drugs is profitable. Others point to the reorganization of European government in the aftermath of the Great Death. Still others see Columbus accidental trip to America as the determining factor. Or the side-effects of the anti-Islamic intellectual developments of the Crusades era. Or the influx of Byzantine thinkers into northern Italy in the 15th century.

I don't know. So many causes have been described that I don't see any sure way to know.

>>912162
>Bitching about how the poor breed, however, is just bigotry

That kind of depends on the poor though. If they're being financed by others and they "breed" more then it can put more of a burden on those financing them, who will then have to keep shelling out because "it's immoral to let them starve".

>>912191
Which are are you talking about?

>>912159
It might have to do something with race and environment

>>912202
Somalia

>>912186
>Overpopulation is a problem because of resource consumption

Wrong. Overpopulation cheapens the value of human life. In slums full of millions, the value of a single person is worth about a handful of mud. The people in the slums know it, their parents know it. Their rulers know it.

Fuck India, fuck Africa and fuck you.

>>912211
There are only 9 million people in Somalia.

>>912177

>Overpopulation is a problem in many areas of the world.

No. A million times no. Underproductivity is a problem in many areas of the world. Overpopulation is a problem only when the *global food market* becomes unable to support the population, something that we are not really close to. As long as there is a starving person in the world, it is not because they can't be fed, it's because they haven't got the money to buy the food available on the global market.

>>912191

>So it's OK to have 20 million people living in an area with a carrying capacity of 2 million?

Yes. For example, Greater New York.

>>912193

>No it's not. It's immoral to have kids you can't feed.

You don't raise enough food yourself to feed even one person. You demand that others produce food for you to consume every day. The only difference is that you believe you are productive enough to *merit* being fed, and you believe others do not.

>>912221
And the infrastructure and arable lands enough to support about 2 million.

>>912217
Empty rhetoric.

>>912228
So it's a matter of resources, as I said.

>>912221
The east African region that had the famine and drought

>>912083
>Rich countries find it easier to stay rich than poor countries find it to get rich?

more liek actual productivity only has a loose relationship to hours worked?

More like wealth comes from SAVING TODAY for the future.

>>912226
>Yes. For example, Greater New York.

So how do you propose to feed these 20 million people in the drought region of Africa then?

Is it a good idea to drop food from planes for them so they can continue to have 10 children each? Is this going to make things better?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>912243

>More like wealth comes from SAVING TODAY for the future.

What do you think saving is? The bank doesn't put your savings in a vault somewhere. It lends it out to build things - to private investors to build businesses, or to individuals to build homes, or buy cars; or it lends the money to the government - that's what a treasury bond is - to build schools and hospitals and airports.

There are no savings other than productive investments. To say wealth is saving for the future is *identical* to saying wealth is owning productive infrastructure that the past paid for.

>>912248

>So how do you propose to feed these 20 million people in the drought region of Africa then?

If the people of New York lived in the middle of the Sahara desert, but were as productive as they are where they are now, the free market would *fall all over itself* to transport food to it. Trains and trucks and aircraft would come and go 24/7 to feed them. Food would arrive by the kiloton from France, Argentina, Canada, Nebraska... wherever they grow.

That's why I said the problem is *underproductivity*, not overpopulation.

>>912083
Lol qualtiy>quantity, stupid peoples be stupid (niggers gonna nig)... The only treason you have to work a disportionate ammount of hours compared to us is that you are simply not competitive and in order to afford something must work for several times that which we work for...

Ayway economics is fucking simple stuff, even austrian painters can figure that out.

>>912226

I am an efficient cog in a machine that works. The slum rats whose breeding you promote do little but live a short worthless life while shitting out dozens more denizens of the dirt.

Nobody in their right mind would support locking rats in a small cage and supplying infinite food and water while they breed to the point of an orgy of violence and death (yes that is really what happens in that situation). Why would you act shocked when the same thing happens when you do that to humans?

Your "charity" is reprehensible promotion of human misery and war. The compassionate thing to do is sterilize, the same thing you do to help stray cats.

>>912271
But there aren't enough resources to provide for these peoplein such large numbers, this is the point!

>>912283
Or, y'know, let them live on whatever food they can produce or buy. I've said it before, if we just stop intervening in Africa, you'd see a remarkable cultural and genetic evolution within a few hundred years.

No doubt. Look at Sweden (now a multicultural country) here for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_Human_Development_Index_projections_of_the_
United_Nations

Literacy rates and median IQ and similar metrics are also dropping all over Northern Europe

>>912281
I wouldn't say culture has no effect on productivity, but anyone who worked in different countries can see that people are the same everywhere, there are lazy people and there are very hard-working people.

The problem is that even a lazy guy can earn more in a richer country than a hard working guy in a poor country.

So after one day they compare their wealth and the rich guy will say: "Hey you must be very lazy, I earned 5 times more than you". And he will continue to think that he was just more "productive" and thats why he earned more.

So I think anon was right saying rich countries have it easier to stay rich than for a poor country to get rich.

>>912283

>The slum rats whose breeding you promote do little but live a short worthless life while shitting out dozens more denizens of the dirt.

So you're reasons are basically racist? *They* are like rats that breed to the limit of their food supply while *you* are "an efficient cog in a machine that works"?

Your ancestors bred like rats. The reason you don't is, well, most likely because no woman will have you. (You are on 4chan, after all.) But the reason other people in your situation don't is because they have something to lose by having a lot of children - time, money, vacations - and because their women have autonomy and educations and jobs of their own and know how to use birth control. All the things that make your society productive and theirs not.

So we are back to the same thing. The problem isn't their population but their productivity.

>>912271
There are hundreds of such urban areas throughout africa and asia that are able to feed themselves. They are called slums. They're not something to aspire to. For that matter neither is new york.

Your beliefs cheapen human life and dignity. Stop trying to breed more people. It's either stop it now, or things will reach a boiling point when your black charity babies continue to reproduce exponentially.

Not even trolling, the shit you're promoting is reprehensible. You're like a crazy cat lady with a house full of a thousand cats, and see no issue with 10,000 more. After all, durr we can feed them so its okay.

>>912290

Yes there are! Dammit, do you not know how productive modern agriculture is? Even non-modern agriculture is incredibly efficient, just terribly susceptible to disruption. Most countries in the underdeveloped world raise enough food to feed their populations even in drought years! But there isn't the infrastructure to transport it, or the money to buy it in the areas that are starving.

Give them money and someone will find a way to bring them food to buy.

>>912306
>So you're reasons are basically racist?

No. I'm promoting human dignity. You're promoting poverty and misery.

>>912260
Our saving rate is negative now.

We are not saving anything.

>>912311

>Your beliefs cheapen human life and dignity. Stop trying to breed more people. It's either stop it now, or things will reach a boiling point when your black charity babies continue to reproduce exponentially.

facepalm.jpg

You are one of those people who will never be happy until the "mud races" are sterilized, are you?

How about instead investing in girl's colleges? That seems to work better and produces hot slutty coeds. Most people prefer that option and it works awfully well.

Productivity counts. The rest is pretty much racist bullshit masquerading as realism.

>>912306

Is this for real? The guy indirectly creates his own food because he keeps the system that creates the food going by being one of many that contributes to it. It's called the fuckin economy.

Why increase populations who don't have the economy to support themselves and why invest infrastrucurally in populations that have no indications of being productive?

The only thing they need is education and the knowledge we have. That's all our ancestors used to build what they built, aside from slave labour, which was just unskilled mule work anyway.

>>912345

If it was whites starving in fields with bloated bellies, and whites in slums and shitting in gutters, and white warlords taking over a famine ravaged countryside and meanwhile deluded people in other countries were airdropping millions of tons of grain and praying for even more white dirt babies I'd be saying the EXACT FUCKING SAME THING.

Also, you're a fucking idiot.

Well well well looks like someone has concedded defeat and withdrawn from the "argument" by using the "r" word... Tssk tskk tskk... :/

>>912306
>>912345

>>912345
Shut the fuck up about productivity. If there was a worker that was 10000% times more productive than the average worker, you'd just have one guy working and a whole lot of unemployed people.

>>912379

Germany, 1947. White people starving because Germany's ability to raise food on its own is about enough to feed a third of its population.

You'd have let them starve because they were useless people who had outbred their capacity to feed themselves? Because that's what human dignity calls for? Because they could never raise their productivity enough to buy food?

I doubt it. I think you're full of shit. But if you are true to the beliefs you proclaim here, you'd have starved to death one of the most economically productive nations in the world today. The world would be a poorer and vastly more miserable place, *without any reason to be that way*, if you got what you claim to want.

You, Anon, are a total shithead.

>>912411
Isn't that what we have now?

>>912428
lol you mean because their is a war that took the whole world to defeat that country, and in the last days of that war, when millions of people where put in fields by the allieds and forceably starved to death, after years of bombing they where unable to feed some of there people... Also I will at this point add that this was done in violation of international treaties and national laws on the treatment of prisoners of war.

>>912428
>>912428
>Germany, 1947. White people starving because Germany's ability to raise food on its own is about enough to feed a third of its population.

LOOOOOOOOOOOL, are you serious? they didn't stave be cause they outbred themselves.

>>912428
You mad? I bet you are mad "Chosen one" lol...

>>912428
>Germans
>people who had outbred their capacity to feed themselves?

is this what revleft retards actually believe?

Oh look at this, germany vs africa? Ha not even close.

>>912437

No.

Losing meant Germany lost a lot of its industries, which were shut down, and its export markets, because it didn't have the industries any more. Germans were allowed - even encouraged under the Morganthau Plan - to farm. But *German agriculture is not enough to feed Germany*. Not without large inputs of fertilizer and fuel, and even then not really enough.

The Germans had outbred their ability to feed themselves without contact with the global market. Should they have been left to die for it?

If your answer is anything other than "no", I expect an explanation for how a smaller and poorer Germany would be a good thing today.

>>912428

That was two years after we finished bombing them to the stone age. The airlifts there helped them get back on their feet. The ones in Africa never were on their feet in the first place.

And if while they were starving, the average German had 10 kids, then fuck yes I'd advocate sterilization.

>>912464
>>912450

You're not using your brains. Let try to say this in small words you can understand:

If poor countries had lots of money, they would have fertilizer and tractors and could buy extra food on the international market. They starve because they don't have money.

Germany was starving in 1947 because they could not buy fertilizers and fuel and extra food on the world market.

If you think poor countries today should starve because they can't raise enough food, why don't you think Germany in 1947 should have been left to starve?

Is that simple enough for you? Or do I need smaller words?

itt: Malthusian cultists who want to kill everyone but themselves.

get teh fuck out

>>912485
>The Germans had outbred their ability to feed themselves without contact with the global market. Should they have been left to die for it?

That is absolutely false. And the time period under discussion makes your comment transcend stupidity and enter the realm of farce.

>>912496

Total fertility rate in Germany in 1955: 2.45
Total fertility rate in India in 2009: 2.66

Try again, Anon.

Anyone have the copy paste on how it doesn't work?

>>912520

>That is absolutely false. And the time period under discussion makes your comment transcend stupidity and enter the realm of farce.

That was the assessment at the time of Anthony Eden, Henry Stimson, the Red Cross, and eventually everyone in the region. Without trade and industry, Germany could not help but starve because *Germany's population was too large to feed with what Germans could pull out of the ground on their own.*

History, Anon: Research isn't that hard.

>>912519
Ah, another person that doesn't understand exponential growth.

>>911895

The western world started off wealthy when colonizing new territory did the westerners say ok here is $1000 of our currency? no they just pillaged and raped villages. It is a continuation from first contact. Just because the Europeans are more technological advanced doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. The Earth is 6 million years old and humans are how old? beats me but now we have technology that can wipe out the entire earth. Today we might see the third world as having less technology but they also went without technology for 1000s of years...

>Germany - huge industries, modern economy, modern society destroyed by war
>Africa - no history of big industry, no modern economy, breeds too much, tribalism, tears itself up in useless wars
>analogies

>>912568
>they also went without technology for 1000s of years...

we all did dumbass

>>912539

World war 1 and 2

Europe totally destroyed.

What happened? They rebuilt.

Africa: has nothing, like Europe after both world wars.

What happens? They don't build shit.

I suppose the Marshall plan was a big help (to NON COMMUNIST ONLY countries, point here communist countries still managed to rebuild somewhat).

But why is investment aid not helping in Africa?

>>912567
No, people just understand that humans have always used technology to overcome these problems and we will again.

Malthus was fucking wrong.

>>912539
>>912587

Just in case clicking is hard for you, that's 6.36 birthrate for Somalia.

Also the childhood mortality in Germany in 1947 was such that not many of those children survived. Unlike Somalia, thanks to you fuckers and your food donations.

>>912598
>durrr Malthusssssssssssssssssssss

Exponential growth. Sure we'll have the resources. So do crazy cat ladies.

>>912591

>But why is investment aid not helping in Africa?

It is. The last decade has seen sub-Saharan African GDP per capita grow at some 5% annually. Some countries - Angola, Ethiopia, Botswana - have managed to hold growth rates of over 10%.

Of course, that's mostly Chinese direct investment in productive industries with the intent to profit from them rather than the World Bank telling countries to give engineering contracts to western firms to build dams that no one in Africa wants.

>>912591

>What happens? They don't build shit.

That's because evil white Europeans exploit their countries for cheap labor and resources. it couldn't possibly be because of Africans' own mistakes and stupidity. you dirty white evil racist!!@!!@!

>>912632
Oh well that's good then. This is much better than giving food to starving people with 10 kids.

>>912641
That picture always makes me laugh. That would only have merit if a superpower near Hong Kong had heavy sanctions on it for 60 years that prevented it from trading and growing. You people truly are retarded

>>912540

Guess, I'll type it quickly:

Here's why multiculturalism doesn't work. Immigrants come. They segregate themselves to be with their own people. They employ their own people. They protect their own people. They stand up for racism against their own kind. They let certain things "go" for their own people, usually in building/health related cases. They vote with their own people. Politicians then aim to appeal to ethnic groups. They speak their own language with preference over the national ones (some refusing to even learn the national languages). Everything, becomes divided. Eventually ethnic groups gain control of an area. National languages start to be spoken less there. Signs start to change language. Laws or rules/bylaws start to reflect the homeland of the ethnicity. It then becomes a powerful voting block so more attention to ethnicity again. Crime often finds its way into new immigrants due to lack of stability/highly lucrative. Ethnicity starts to be a main concern.

What do you have now? Bunch of little satellite states of their homelands.

The problem with multicullturalism, is that immigrants do not want to assimilate/integrate. They want to live in better conditions, with the same laws/rules from their homeland in areas that are to their taste/benefit.

>>912643

My point from the outset: The problem is not overpopulation, it's underproductivity. China has invested in productive industries and in the infrastructure to support productive industries. They treat African nations as equals interested in making deals that profit them all.

The west invested in worthless mega-projects and export-oriented development that built up no real increase in productivity and could not effectively compete with higher productivity activities elsewhere. They treat Africans as stupid children and colonial subjects, who will just fuck like bunnies and do nothing of value.

See the difference?

>>912564
You're referencing historic arguments about whether or not to dismantle German industry. Industry that was quite capable of feeding the germans when it wasn't bombed to tatters. The resource they needed to trade for was petroleum, not food.

>>912641
Lol not even a good argument, socialism has been hijacked by hippies and commies. Not true socialism.

>>912661
Even when they do integrate they drive down the wages and standard of living across the board.

>>912485
>Losing meant Germany lost a lot of its industries, which were shut down, and its export markets, because it didn't have the industries any more. Germans were allowed - even encouraged under the Morganthau Plan - to farm. But *German agriculture is not enough to feed Germany*. Not without large inputs of fertilizer and fuel, and even then not really enough.


that's such an uneducated argument to make, the German economy of time (as well as today) was geared up for heavy industrial production such as machinery, cars, ship building ect. and thus at event of losing those industries Germany wouldn't be able to produce anything in order to exchange it. German agriculture is not enough to feed Germany not because there isn't enough land in Germany to feed it's own population but because the Germany economy wasn't an agrarian economy where half the population works on farms. and it shouldn't be one since Germany had experience the industrial revolution.

>>912641

are you white people this retarded?

>>912692
ACtually they where entirely self sufficent for patrolleum (at least prewar), obviously wartime increased demmand as industry was entering a period of prolonged strain and alot of extra resources where being consumed to funnle supplies much further than to the the cities the soldiers normally live during peacetime as well as there massive andhighly advanced army. What is most shocking though is the high ammounts of aviation fuel consumed, that is trully ridiculous...

>>912682
America is more productive than it's ever been at any point in history. Are we Americans better off now than we were 5 years ago? Productivity is up, so we must be!

>>912718
Germany was self sufficent on food, the only germans to starve during ww2 was those captured or forceably starved out by the allied devils in ww2...

>>912718

Even if they had put every German on a farm, without - at a minimum - fuel and fertilizer from abroad, Germans would have starved. It wasn't the way the economy was "geared" that counted, it was the ability to buy necessities from abroad.

Germany doesn't starve because it has money to buy things. Africa starves because it doesn't have money to buy things. Germany exports to get money because Germany has high productivity. Africa has difficulty exporting things to get money because it has low productivity.

Ergo, Africa starves because it is underproductive, not because it is overpopulated. It is not more overpopulated than Germany. Germany is less able to support itself from its land alone than Africa is.

The solution, therefore, is to raise African productivity. African productivity has been rising dramatically over the last decade, with Botswana reaching levels not far from the poorest parts of the EU.

That tells me that starving people to death, forcing sterilization on them, bitching about how they breed is racism passing for realism, rather than a hard-but-necessary way to deal with global poverty.

>>912707

That partially comes from who attempts to integrate. Generally, its ones without connections etc. that would allow them to be contributing/productive.

also, love how most don't address this post.

>>912782
>without fuel and fertilizer from abroad, Germans would have starved.

Fuel is fertilizer, you ninny. All they needed was petroleum. Go try airdropping fuel on Somalia instead of grain.

>>912782
>Africa starves because it doesn't have money to buy things

How will giving them money to buy food help, when we give them the food directly and they're starving. They'll just buy it from the US using the US money, because US grain is cheaper than African grain.

>>912831

>Go try airdropping fuel on Somalia instead of grain.

They could trade some of the fuel for food and tractors. Given current world gas prices, it might just work.

A more efficient solution would be to airdrop euros on them and let them buy what they need. This would subsidizing productive farmers to buy tractors and fuel, and put profits in the hands of people who can build roads to transport the food. Some of it might even end up in the hands of people who save it to buy housing and educations for their children.

Euros weight a lot less than fuel per unit of tradable value, are a lot easier to produce in quantity without distorting global supply, and the inefficiencies of collecting them together for further trade are a lot smaller.

>>912940

Read the thread, it's addressed earlier. Or, read Amartya Sen.

>>912955
Oh so you don't have a response. Nice.

>>912964

Jesus H. Christ, Anon! I've said it over and over in this thread.

Giving them money means they can buy food. The free market will build infrastructure to bring it to them, because they have money. Their productivity will increase. They will be more able to just buy food in the future rather than starving.

This is the policy that's prevented famine in India for some 70 years. It's worked *everywhere* it's been tried. Sen won a *Nobel fucking Prize* for pointing it out!

God, you 4channers are idiots sometimes. Every now and then I think: "These are mostly smart people, they just like to troll for fun." And then, you end up with a thread of idiots to prove me wrong.

Not. Complex. Stuff. Most of it qualifies as classical liberal economics.