Really? And what would change if your realized your impressions were wrong?
I get that data from the Index of Economic Freedom: Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation
Wow, you’re a moron.
am I wrong? I am happy to be corrected.
And which ones qualify for your post #50?
Do you concede that unemployment was basically zero during the 20s and that it was much higher during the 30s?
Just a reminder for you:
Would you say that Hong Kong or Singapore qualify?
Yes, you are wrong. That shouldn’t surprise you, because every single factual statement you have made has been wrong.
Let me just say, I love the way your opinion never changes, no matter how your understanding of the facts does. You’re impervious to knowledge. I mean, you could probably learn to parrot facts, but it will never affect your behavior. Basically, you’re not much smarter than a tape recorder.
The index makes clear that countries with high amounts of economic freedom (that would be those countries with a score closer to 1) are better at human rights, more prosperous, enviro friendly, etc. than countries with little economic freedom.
Take Africa. What is the most prosperous country in Africa? Most people say Botswana. Now ask yourself…what country has the greatest amount of economic freedom? Also Botswana. Take South America. Chile is generally considered to be the most prosperous country in SA. No surprise that it is also the freest. Anyone seeing the correlation between liberty and prosperity? 
You have been asked repeatedly which countries you mean, yet you refuse to answer that very simple question. Are you talking about Liechtenstein (pop 35,000) and Monaco (pop 36,000)? Because while being a money laundry, a tax haven for companies operating in other countries but having only a post box locally, and a producer of collectible postage stamps can work for a couple miniscule countries, it doesn’t scale up.
You really don’t understand why this is a stupid question, do you? I really am starting to feel sorry for you.
Let me ask you a question; did American history begin in 1890?
I am not yet aware of you proving incorrect any of the facts which I have asserted. ?
No. but it does appear that accurate data about unemployment doesn’t exist from the earlier times.
Maybe he was home-schooled.
You mean like the “fact” you asserted that unemployment was zero in the 1920s? Followed buy your acknowledgement that there was a recession in 1921 with a 17% unemployment rate (that lasted into 1922). Followed by your re-assertion that unemployment was zero in the 1920s?
Did you ever star in Memento?
I referenced Botswana and Chile in previous posts.
You really do need me to give you some terms to Google, don’t you? I can if you think it will help.
Do you think learning that the great depression wasn’t the longest American depression alter your worldview at all? For some reason I’m guessing not.
my assertion was that in the 20s, unemployment was virtually zero. by the way, do you know what “zero unemployment” means (hint: it doesn’t mean the rate is 0)? Full employment - Wikipedia
Ok either this chart is inaccurate or it is correct. If it is correct, then it does appear that the Great Depression was the highest unemployment in US history. File:US Unemployment 1890-2009.gif - Wikipedia
but I am still not sure I get your argument here. Assuming that the Great Depression was not the highest unemployment, what does that prove? Give me the conclusion of your argument for which this fact is the premise.
First, I am much more educated in economics than you are. Probably everything else as well.
Second you have provided a link to “full employment” which, you will probably not note, is not the same phrase as “zero unemployment”. I know, that’s just another pesky fact.
Third, explain to me how 17% is practically zero, please.