Sixpence: lol, if he had it his way, there would be no laws, a dictator, and total anarchy. You are totally inventing ridiculous meaning and attributing it to my posts. You cannot understand what I am talkng about and you start piling all kinds of wild accuations which not only have no relation to what I said, but actually contradict to each other.
How can there be a dictator and no laws and total anarchy? How could I be for anarchy and socialism and dictator and a proponent of 19 century free-markets at the same time?
Not on manhattan island Oh, yea? Next thing you will climb on top of a mount Everest and complain that you cannot find work there at the salary you deem acceptable.
You stated on an earlier post that the state should provide assistance to families. On one hand you are for state intervention, on the other you are not. Nops. Unless you dug up my post from (quite) a few years back, you must be confusing me with someone.
I recently said that if the state mandates the families to support the children (of which I do not approve), then it must pick up the tab for the support. Is it the one you are referring to?
I guess if I said that it was evil of the nazis to shoot jews in gettoes and then charge the cost of bullets to their families, you would present it as I said it was OK for nazis to shoot jews?
Rude: It's investments, followed by production ending with consumption which drives the economy. Wrong. It's investments
properly directed in viable ventures followed by production ending with consumption which drives the economy. And the error that the Austrian school of economics avoid that every other one makes is treating the economy as some kind of homogenous aggregate. This obviously leads to a fallacy that any investment leads to growth of production and it is necessarily goods.
Austrian economists starting with Bohm-Bawerk recognised the complex physical and temporal structure of capital and the disruptive effects that manipulated interest rates cause. When the resources are misallocated, the jobs are created temporatily and production seems to increase, but the projects will not be able to complete or will not be profitable and will fold, with unemployment rising again and resources wasted.
Rude: Common sense prevails in the marketplace Miko....this economic bubble gum you chew in public, has little or no relevance to making a buck Statement as empty of content as the best of Matrtlet's posts. Do you share Keinsian common sense that hiring people to dig up holes and fil them back in makes all of us prosper? Or that printing more paper money will magically increase the supply of investable resources? Or that preventing pople from accepting a job below certain limit would make them rich?
I'll guess you're age at around 28 and still in school? I am close to 40, have been working for 13 years in financial industry in NYC - equities treding, quantitative analysis, etc., M.S. in Electical engneering and M.S. in Computer Science. Top 1% on income, expecting a second child.
Don't laught on what you do not uinderstand - it only shows you own immaturity.
Would you care to explain with your "common sense" how lower interest rates affect the flow of investments into capital, specifically the temporal re-allocation?
How come all the american firms that were working and employing lost of people on top of the last boom suddenly went out of business and laid people off while the consumers are still buying a lot of products from abroad? How come all those people and resources were misdirected from producing goods that people would actually buy into stuff that is now lays unused as dead weight?
What made all the entrepreneurs to misdirect money into the wrong investments instead of production with guaranteed market? I have an explanation for that. Do you?Ripsnort: ...how damn intelligent you are...the rest of us just want short, sharp answers. 
There is a very short answer. Any government intervention in free-market economy is bad and would necessarily lead to the results less desirable than the original state of affairs even from the vantage of the proponents of the intervention.
If you take my word for it, you do not need to read anything else.
When it comes to proofs, that's another matter entirely - about 3 thousand pages of selected reading would probably cover it.
BTW. There is a practical reason for my posting this stuff here - besides getting a few people interested enough to undertake serious studies. I could obviously find agreable audience on libertarian/free-market forums but I would rather try my skills on regular people to work out a presentable version of those views.
My children will soon grow enough to be exposed to the views of such "common sense" ignorant socialists. I am preparing my defences.
miko
