The original "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," "the ruthless confiscation of all war profits," "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," "extensive development of insurance for old-age," and "land reform suitable to our national requirements"),[13] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. (the last part about the loss of support is unsubstantiated.)
So they did away with private business and your trying to tell me that it is a far right country. (the german business owner was in name the owner of the business still, but he didnt control what to produce, where to sell it, how much to sell it for etc.)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nazi+party

nazis were the socialist party of Germany and markets are simply based on supply and demand so it does adjust rationally, it's just so complex and based off of so many different peoples decisions of what to buy and what to sell that it seems random and is impossible to measure, just because you cant understand it doesn't mean its random.

the point is its hard for my professors to force there beliefs on me considering the classes are just math while in a class like poli sci your professors beliefs are directly put on you

becuase my major is computer science and minor economics so my proffesors haven't really tried to indoctrinate me into believing your left wing beliefs.

you notice how Venezuela a socialist country is in there.
also im already in university elliiot so that doesnt really work

I never called said it was currently communist I just listed off socialist and communist nations where you can clearly see the loss of freedom under communist or socialist rule.

Did you read what i said i said if farmers or 'rural' people applied then they can move up, but they cannot move up without the governments approval. My original post didn't say you couldn't get rich or accomplish things in communist or socialist countries it said you didn't have the freedom to choose what you do, if your grandparents hadn't been accepted to move then they wouldn't have gotten to go on to do these things.

from what im reading about china people classified as 'rural' do not have the freedom to choose there position. they're given a area they can work and they can apply to work some in a 'urban' area doing non agricultural work, but thats not really freedom to choose what you want to do if the government decides they want you to stay in the farms you stay. (if you don't work where your designated you can't get a home from your employer, food, or healthcare). So no for these people it's not a matter of there not being infrastructure its them not being able to look for opportunities if the government doesn't approve

im saying he just likes the idea of free college becuase he is a college student

is that hong kong or the rest of china?

would you like to live in communist russia? china, venezula, north korea? nazi germany? to be a socialist or communist nation you directly give up your freedoms, you don't always lose as much as in say nazi germany but you always lose your ability to choose your economic position, you don't get to work really hard and get really rich becuase your smart and talented and what not.

I mean everything we observe with the study of economics points to the fact that a free market is the only system that works and gives the largest number of people the greatest amount of happiness and freedom. I know your a young university student getting a worthless degree and you really like the idea of free education because hey the job your gonna get from it isn't gonna make you too much money. Minimum wage sounds great cuz you might have to work at mcdonalds because nobody's hiring. Despite the fact that minimum wage has been found to hurt low skilled young workers more than anyone else.

Cherry picking pretty hard there my dude, people who criticize hillary are just conservatives (all economists are conservative) who don't like her because. The big difference between the two letters seems to be that trump is disliked because they feel he is misleading the people. The people against hillary's don't like it because they believe the actual polices are bad.

So there is are 300 economists writing a letter saying hillarys bad and 370 saying trump is bad... They are both bad, I simply believe hillary's is worse.