2 ms·

You'd go with the latter because it still has the word "free market" in it, though the U.S. economy is not a free market. Again, this would be doublespeak, and

You'd go with the latter because it still has the word "free market" in it, though the U.S. economy is not a free market. Again, this would be doublespeak, and you would be a liar. I'm just trying to maintain a grip on the real world here and it's pretty tough when you are so committed to gaslighting yourself and others. Honestly I'm only getting hung up on this right now because I think it's for your own good. You clearly have a loose grasp on reality if you're so eager to ignore government intervention, and you're going to get got sooner or later if you keep on with this irrational belief in free markets.

ineedasername 6y ago
You are lowering a conversation into a name-calling flame war. It isn't necessary. I'm fine with not calling "the later" a free market. It is not, strictly speaking, a free market. But that term is also not used uniformly. Some use it strictly to refer to a hands-off market, others use it more generically to refer to something like "market forces". If you don't like that loose usage, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "Hey, that's not really a free market, that term means something else." Or do you take issue with me saying there is a concept of a "free market" and another concept of a "(not pure) free market"? Honestly I don't know because you haven't taken the time explain your point of view before resorting to personal attacks, and calling someone a liar or irrational because they use a term more loosely than you'd prefer is an excellent way to shut down productive conversation. You have taken that path, so I won't bother to converse further unless you're willing to back off the flame-war rhetoric and explain your point of view without insults. If don't want to take the time for that, that's fine, I'm not entitled to your detailed explanations, in which case I wish you well, and ask you simply not to respond if that response will consist of insults.

ineedasername 6y ago

You are lowering a conversation into a name-calling flame war. It isn't necessary. I'm fine with not calling "the later" a free market. It is not, strictly speaking, a free market. But that term is also not used uniformly. Some use it strictly to refer to a hands-off market, others use it more generically to refer to something like "market forces". If you don't like that loose usage, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "Hey, that's not really a free market, that term means something else." Or do you take issue with me saying there is a concept of a "free market" and another concept of a "(not pure) free market"? Honestly I don't know because you haven't taken the time explain your point of view before resorting to personal attacks, and calling someone a liar or irrational because they use a term more loosely than you'd prefer is an excellent way to shut down productive conversation. You have taken that path, so I won't bother to converse further unless you're willing to back off the flame-war rhetoric and explain your point of view without insults. If don't want to take the time for that, that's fine, I'm not entitled to your detailed explanations, in which case I wish you well, and ask you simply not to respond if that response will consist of insults.