The Great Depression was the inevitable outcome of the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve during the 1920s. It regulated the amount of credit private banks could issue by providing overnight loans and strict reserve requirements. The government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult. Just look at the depression of 20/21. You don't here about this because it was a total non issue and the market corrected itself quickly...why? Because the government didn't intervene. Why, again? Because they didn't know what to do and by the time they actually sat up and took notice, it was over. If they had of acted, it would have prolonged the depression.
Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in the 1970's, the US debt has skyrocketed.
I've recently just finished a book on the U.S's history of bimetalism and monometalism. Here, you can find out what exactly happened in 1893 and it wasn't because of sound money. It was because of a stupid decisions government made in signing into law the obtainment of gold for pence. There was a run and the US gold ended up all over the world.
Anti-trust law is good for small business and consumers. Failure to enforce anti-trust law is one of the main reasons why the banks are now considered too big to fail - and given that credit is the lifeblood of a market economy, the complete failure of the banking system would strangle the economy.
You don't seem to be curious about anything that contradicts your rigid ideological position you've taken.
The Founders envisioned a world which would benefit them: independent, wealthy landowners. Let's not pretend that this was about human freedom on a general scale: it was about freedom for wealthy white men. It is no coincidence that as access to the franchise was expanded across the Western world to include the working class, the landless, women, and ethnic minorities that the interpretation of what a freedom-ensuring government looked like changed significantly.
As for Ron Paul, I think returning to the gold standard, given its history at the turn of the 19th century, would be the height of social and political lunacy.
Non-regulation of securities + non-enforcement of anti-trust laws = total system meltdown (without massive government intervention).
US welfare programs are small relative to most Western democracies. Social security could be self-funded if Congress stopped raiding the pot and made all Americans pay 7.5% of their income into the system (rather than the first $80,000 of income). I would agree that military spending is problematic.
When did I say I was against the market system? I am against the radical anti-regulation, anti-state nonsense agenda that you (and many others) constantly post on boards.
So what you're saying is that you're happy to spout the same old same old as you're happy being a product of your time? The State has only existed a short while, being happy with it is quite narrow minded. Next up is your banking palaver...they're "too big to fail" because we have no free market in the banking industry and given your ignorance about the gold standard in the US, I assume you've quite a bit of research, analyzing and study to do.
Actually I've done a great deal of research on the history of the gold standard in Europe, and its relationship to political instability. But funny, any mention of politics in these conversations generally gets ignored - perhaps because in an era of universal voting rights, this vision of a market-driven society is unpalatable to the majority of voters.
The nation - state is only the most recent form of governance: tribalism, feudalism, and a variety of other isms have shaped human interactions - both social and economic - since the dawn of time.
Finally, you can talk all you want about a stateless world, but to be a weak state in a world of strong political and economic interests - both internal and external - is to be an architect of your own demise. As Hobbes noted centuries ago, a world without a Leviathan - whether a feudal lord or duly elected Parliament - is nasty, brutish, and short.
And what you're saying is that a fantasy land of benevolent halo-wearing capitalists will make the world a better place for all?
Grand, might take a look, what about these:
Click on prior to the 19th century.
So your basic premise is to quote one philosopher and cement that as your argument? I can do just the same thing. Here, I'll give it a go...
"Government promote inefficiency in production and efficiency in coercion and subservience, while penalizing efficiency in production and inefficiency in predation. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives... libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy." - Murray Rothbard.
Instead of constantly deflecting, how about you address my multiple points about the political distaste for the policies you are proposing, and their inability to be adopted in any democratic society with universal voting rights?
Well, firstly you labeled me as wanting a stateless world - here, you're deviating from the topic of the thread which is about capitalism. Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere. As a mod, you'd be all over someone else if they did that, now wouldn't you?!
Regardless, if you knew about statelessness, you'd also know that democracy is incompatible with it. I'm more than willing to have a conversation with you but I can only accept that debate with someone with a slight knowledge of the subject at hand.
I'm not a mod in this forum.
I'm also done here. There is no point in mud wrestling with a hog - the hog enjoys it, and you just end up covered in shit.
That's the definition of political debates.
One side thinks they've found something new, unique, original and never tried before, a new way of dealing with things, the other yawns because they've seen it before.
Reverse and that's political debate.
For all the rise in Libertarianism, especially on the net, it still hasn't succeeded anyway politically. Same old arguments across many debates, the consistent theme is its never the markets fault, never considering what's the common denominator to market crashes. The clue is in the name.
Because those kids have done no hard work to deserve that privileged life. Why do they deserve that?
You can wrestle me anytime.
Well, thats the thing...I've already read your economists arguments. Now it's your time to read mine.