If you don't want it to be discussed or used against you, don't write it.

"oh this has a lot of support? Must be bad"

"Stopping murder? A lot of people support that. Must be bad"

@rednaxela

But your way of thinking is absolutely idiotic

What was your argument then @Deleted User

You've yet to demonstrate that.

Just because someone has a lot of support dies not mean they are in the wrong

That people are too ignorant and unknowing to actually draw sound economic and social policies, and that if people were given all the power to do so, a country would gradually enter an era of stagnation.

In other words, if the majority were to choose a country wouldn't be doing well

Okay. That makes sense.

GG @rednaxela, you just advanced to level 9!

But the way you interpreted it into this conversation didn't make sense

@VoVoDoCo
You've yet to prove that it was the planners that drew these plans

The central government of policy makers aren't "planners," a planner is a bureaucrat who're to a minor extent detatched from the party and the leader.

Many of such economic policies were drawn up by Hitler's economist at Hitler's beheast, in other words, no real planners were actually used to create Hitler's economy.

Semantics

Semantics? Not really.

We're not debating semantics, I'm just using the term planner in a correct manner.

Protectionism certainly wasn't a result of consumer choices. It was a result of the government.

Ahah.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, which textbook definition of planner arevyou using?

Source please

Oxford.

I always use oxford

Though, the word "planner" isn't actually existant in the context of the discussion.

Then why are you debating its definition?

We're not, you are.

I didn't even resume this debate. I simply corrected your assumption that I was actually giving an argument revolving around taxes, which I wasn't. Then you ask me to provide evidence that the countries in question actually allowed planners to put a protectionist barriers.

So u started the discussion on planners.

Also pull up the Oxford link

Post it

I started the discussion on planners? You were the first one to mention them, don't blame others for your own misguidance. Secondly, I didn't start a discussion of semantics, that'd mean that I'd question your definition and start discussion the definition of the term. That was you, not me

I said planners first. I wasn't actually making an argument about planners. I was comparing how absurd it was to prohibit talking about protectionism in regards to centralized planning.

Please tell me how the area in yellow is relevant to what I wrote

You were telling me that I couldn't talk about protectionism, because that's wasn't the topic at hand. I said bullshit. My argument was that with that logic, I shouldn't be allowed to talk about taxes and centralized planning. I finished off by saying that taxes are like trade policy, and finished with a roast.

Also ,you completely ignore my major point and blame Spain for having a plan economy; with little evidence to back up either. Fact is, Spain and Italy didn't have as high consumption due to a lack of industrialization, not a plan economy.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29428326.pdf

*"Spanish industrialization was characterized both by the early appearance
of cotton textiles and by the late development of capital goods industries.
In terms of the Hoffmann index, the ratio of consumers’ to producers’
goods failed to change prior to the First World War. Thus whereas Spain
was at the first stage in 1860, together with countries such as Belgium,
France, Germany, Austria, Russia, and Sweden, in 1910 it was
accompanied by Russia only. Spain entered the second stage belatedly in
the 1920s, and the third stage in the late 1950s and early 1960s.28 In
the words of Nadal, ‘the case of Spain is less that of a latecomer than
that of an attempt, largely thwarted, to join the ranks of the first comers’"*