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’"*

This could also explain the Spanish economic miracle, as Spain was basically just a catch-up economy

Ahah, a "roast" you clearly couldn't backup

If you think the party you highlighted was referring to Spain, I think you have your timeline mixed up.

And I never said that Spain had a planned economy. I said they had an issue with government control. Which they did.

@VoVoDoCo
In 1923, epic. You blame that on Spain's failing economy, when I demonstrated that they had such issues far before?

Even under their Liberal government, the economy had issues developing. There's a variety of issues for this, one of them is low quality coal and coal production. *"Another frequent explanation for the slow transformation of industry is the high cost of energy. Spain’s coal was of poor quality, and mining and transport costs were high. As a result, per caput consumption was around 300 kilos in 1900, against over 3 tonnes in Belgium or Germany, or 4 tonnes in the UK."*

And other things, such as low exports. *"The success of Spanish industry in increasing output and productivity
for the domestic market was not matched in exporting. Whereas over the
period 1830-90 the economy became increasingly open, with exports
growing from the equivalent of 2.9 per cent of national income to 13.4
per cent, they then declined to just 7.7 per cent in 1930, a significantly
lower figure than that recorded by most other European countries."*

We also see the suspension of gold standard, though controversial, as a reason given: *"The most controversial feature of monetary policy was the suspension of the convertibility of gold in 1883. According to Martı´n-Acen˜ a, Spain became isolated from the growing international financial markets and the quantity of foreign capital entering the country declined sharply after 1883, leading to ‘one of the lowest rates of industrialization in Western Europe’ prior to 1914."*

They had low populations, shity soil, bad geography, there are many reasons

Hell, economists even blame the governments lack of spending in the private economy.- *"Of perhaps greater importance was the failure of government to increase
domestic capital formation. Although government spending as a share of
GDP rose from 6 per cent in 1850 to 10 per cent in 1929, a large part
of the budget was devoted to administration, defence, and the public
debt.5"*

Should be noted that most innovation today come from government funded private industries, so this makes sense

Government spending can be a good impact on the economy

GPS and Apple phones being to examples

Yea, It can

Remember when I said that Hitler's accomplishments were based on increased aggregate spending?

I already know this shit

Well, I assumed that a libertarian would be against that

Fair enough

I'm a moderate

Also, in regards to protectionism, I'm neither in favor of complete protectionism nor am I in favor of a complete free-trade economy. I favor selective tariffs.

Meaning, I only favor protectionist policies in the agricultural sector (Natural minerals and Farming) due to the nature of this sector as a unmoving and established deposit.

I mean I guess

@Deleted User Tariffs are just monopolies created by the state to favor selective businesses over others, lol

Very possible

Opinions On Cooperate welfare?

It's terrible

corporate welfare will exist as long as the state exists

@Leiro レイロ
At least it's a democratized monopoly

Can't say the same about big business.

Food stamps got america out of the great recession. Providing resources to the lower class is the biggest way to stimulate the economy. We need to stop the stigma that economic government aid is bad. Why does everybody hate the idea of welfare unless it aids the rich?