Does the Austrian school of economics have solutions?

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2016, 06:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-30-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote: Thank you. I will check him out tomorrow after work. Off to bed after a double shift. I agree with him already. I will seek many sources. Not just what science only currently knows.

Just remember that psychology, in particular, has trouble with replicating results.  The field of economics has the same problems which is why the Austrian economists choose the methods of Mises and Rothbard.  They get better results that everyone else but they still are doing research, which is the main reason why the Mises Institute exists.

The Austrian school leaves its "self-evident truths" about economics beyond analysis or criticism. In that they are as flawed as Marxists.

[Galen]

(05-30-2016, 08:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-30-2016, 06:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-30-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote: Thank you. I will check him out tomorrow after work. Off to bed after a double shift. I agree with him already. I will seek many sources. Not just what science only currently knows.

Just remember that psychology, in particular, has trouble with replicating results.  The field of economics has the same problems which is why the Austrian economists choose the methods of Mises and Rothbard.  They get better results that everyone else but they still are doing research, which is the main reason why the Mises Institute exists.

The Austrian school leaves its "self-evident truths" about economics beyond analysis or criticism. In that they are as flawed as Marxists.

No they don't.  It is a matter of deduction from what is known of human nature and a study of history.  You just don't like the answers that they come up with.  If you actually read Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth and perhaps some computer science texts then you might know that Mises was on to something.  Given how poorly economic intervention has worked historically then it seems clear that the Austrian economists know more about what is going on then mainstream economists.

[Eric the Green]

I guess the topic has morphed into something like, is there life after laissez faire?

I would say that extremes of state control, and extremes of laissez faire, suck the life out of the people. There's another word for laissez faire, and that is neglect. Just what the authors of T4T described as the problem with third turnings, and which leads into the crisis. Just what we experienced the last 35 years. No, it never works; the verdict of history is clear. Neither extreme works.

Interesting tidbit about Mises on his wikipedia article:
"Economist Milton Friedman considered Mises inflexible in his thinking"

Uh, kinda reminds me of Mises' follower here on T4T...

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2016, 08:31 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-30-2016, 08:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-30-2016, 06:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-30-2016, 05:09 AM)taramarie Wrote: Thank you. I will check him out tomorrow after work. Off to bed after a double shift. I agree with him already. I will seek many sources. Not just what science only currently knows.

Just remember that psychology, in particular, has trouble with replicating results.  The field of economics has the same problems which is why the Austrian economists choose the methods of Mises and Rothbard.  They get better results that everyone else but they still are doing research, which is the main reason why the Mises Institute exists.

The Austrian school leaves its "self-evident truths" about economics beyond analysis or criticism. In that they are as flawed as Marxists.

No they don't.  It is a matter of deduction from what is known of human nature and a study of history.  You just don't like the answers that they come up with.  If you actually read Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth and perhaps some computer science texts then you might know that Mises was on to something.  Given how poorly economic intervention has worked historically then it seems clear that the Austrian economists know more about what is going on then mainstream economists.

When one gets wrong results with a theoretical model, then most likely something is wrong with the theoretical model. Maybe the self-evident truths aren't so true. Maybe there is a logical gap in the thought.

Hayek is right about the boom-and-bust cycle to some extent: that the speculative boom usually gets the aid of low interest rates, and that as the speculative boom gets an advantage over all other parts of the economy it quickly goes to diminishing returns on investment and finally oversaturation of investment that wastes the investment. The panic at the end of the boom is not the disaster; it is simply the realization that investment in the speculative boom had become waste. I can use it to explain the real estate bubbles of the 1920s and the Double-Zero decade.

As with most pragmatists I pick and choose between Keynesian economics and the Chicago school. Keynes works as well as anything not a planned economy (the horror! Soviet economics may have been good for getting rapid growth in basic industry but inept at anything else) in a depression, and Friedman gives some idea of how to constrain the money supply without a gold standard. Prosperity is not gold reserves; it is the result of making or doing stuff that the rest of the world wants. The gold supply is not overshooting population growth or technological innovation. Steel, aluminum, copper, and zinc matter far more than do gold.

Say what you want about the consumer society; people remain gullible and often debased, which explains "collectibles" and strip clubs. But can anyone think of a viable alternative? A command society? A plantation order? Kleptocracy? Fascism or National Socialism? A nation as one giant monastery/convent?

[Galen]

(05-31-2016, 08:59 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [quote pid='1936' dateline='1464658261']
No they don't.  It is a matter of deduction from what is known of human nature and a study of history.  You just don't like the answers that they come up with.  If you actually read Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth and perhaps some computer science texts then you might know that Mises was on to something.  Given how poorly economic intervention has worked historically then it seems clear that the Austrian economists know more about what is going on then mainstream economists.

When one gets wrong results with a theoretical model, then most likely something is wrong with the theoretical model. Maybe the self-evident truths aren't so true. Maybe there is a logical gap in the thought.
[/quote]

The problem is that Keynesian economics never has worked.  It has simply created an endless set of bubbles.  By the standard you have just stated Keynesian economics should be in the dustbin of history.  I suspect that it will take the same sort of crisis that demonstrated the failure of communism before that happens.

[Galen]

(06-01-2016, 03:31 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 03:28 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 01:49 AM)taramarie Wrote: Hahaha how did this morph from a talk about life after death to the economy? Oh you guys crack me up. Keeps me ever interested!

What I described is common to all of what is called the soft sciences.  You have to understand that the progressive and modern liberal viewpoint is very mechanistic.  This works in the modern realm of physics and engineering but fails in psychology and economics.  Consider what it means if Mises and Rothbard are in fact correct as I believe they are.  It means that the world of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is build on a false foundation.

So what is the false foundation that they point to?

 
Read Mises yourself and decide.  I will admit that his Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth can be a bit difficult for someone educated nearly a century after it was written but it is clear.  Perhaps Robert Heinlein can be of some help consider the following quotes:

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again too. Who decides?


Is the answer to either question correct?  Perhaps they are both wrong?  You will have to decide.  This much I can tell you:  Only through uncertainty can understanding come.  Eric the Obtuse, Playdud and pbrower are certain that they know what is best for everyone.  Are you that certain?

I once asked Eric the Obtuse if he was willing to kill in order to make me do what he wants? He has always avoided answering that question because he knows the answer and can't admit the truth.

[Galen]

(06-01-2016, 04:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: Ok so I take it he is talking about the collective mindset? I was always taught to value teamwork. To trust in the team and that we can help each other. However, if we look through history that mind set without thinking outside the team mind set can be very dangerous. So, it can be valuable in time of need to get things done, but we do need independent thinkers to correct for errors we make as nothing can be perfect. It really depends on the situation. Both very necessary, but both clash when things need to be sorted in 4T's. Sometimes it is wiser to band with a million to fix issues BUT we need to do our own research to be sure it is the right thing to do. To have an educated opinion and a wise path to a solution for that million to sort out together.

Working as a team is not excluded by the economics of Mises or Rothbard. Rather the members of the team choose their teammates rather than have them chosen for them.

(06-01-2016, 04:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: As to Eric, he seems to be a pacifist due to his hatred of guns but then again he would not be the one to do the killing or be killed....we know which generation/s would be the ones to die for an ideal.

Eric the Obtuse would never do the deed himself. Rather, the state is the proxy that will do the job for him. He would rather see me dead rather than let me keep what I earned. He will never admit that.

[pbrower2a]

(06-01-2016, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 04:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: Ok so I take it he is talking about the collective mindset? I was always taught to value teamwork. To trust in the team and that we can help each other. However, if we look through history that mind set without thinking outside the team mind set can be very dangerous. So, it can be valuable in time of need to get things done, but we do need independent thinkers to correct for errors we make as nothing can be perfect. It really depends on the situation. Both very necessary, but both clash when things need to be sorted in 4T's. Sometimes it is wiser to band with a million to fix issues BUT we need to do our own research to be sure it is the right thing to do. To have an educated opinion and a wise path to a solution for that million to sort out together.

Working as a team is not excluded by the economics of Mises or Rothbard.  Rather the members of the team choose their teammates rather than have them chosen for them.

[/quote]

Employers typically choose teammates for their employees.

Quote:

(06-01-2016, 04:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: As to Eric, he seems to be a pacifist due to his hatred of guns but then again he would not be the one to do the killing or be killed....we know which generation/s would be the ones to die for an ideal.

Eric the (Green) would never do the deed himself.  Rather, the state is the proxy that will do the job for him.  He would rather see me dead rather than let me keep what I earned.  He will never admit that.

Maybe he would never admit that -- because he would never do any killing, including murder by proxy!

[Galen]

(06-01-2016, 08:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 04:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: Ok so I take it he is talking about the collective mindset? I was always taught to value teamwork. To trust in the team and that we can help each other. However, if we look through history that mind set without thinking outside the team mind set can be very dangerous. So, it can be valuable in time of need to get things done, but we do need independent thinkers to correct for errors we make as nothing can be perfect. It really depends on the situation. Both very necessary, but both clash when things need to be sorted in 4T's. Sometimes it is wiser to band with a million to fix issues BUT we need to do our own research to be sure it is the right thing to do. To have an educated opinion and a wise path to a solution for that million to sort out together.

Working as a team is not excluded by the economics of Mises or Rothbard.  Rather the members of the team choose their teammates rather than have them chosen for them.

Employers typically choose teammates for their employees.

I don't have to work for any particular employer.  As usual you miss the point.

(06-01-2016, 08:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 04:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: As to Eric, he seems to be a pacifist due to his hatred of guns but then again he would not be the one to do the killing or be killed....we know which generation/s would be the ones to die for an ideal.

(06-01-2016, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote: Eric the Obtuse would never do the deed himself.  Rather, the state is the proxy that will do the job for him.  He would rather see me dead rather than let me keep what I earned.  He will never admit that.

Maybe he would never admit that -- because he would never do any killing, including murder by proxy!

Yes he would because, like you, he refuses to accept the fundamental reality of the state and this is the use of force to take what it wants.  Resist hard enough and you end up dead.

[Eric the Green]

(06-01-2016, 03:28 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 01:49 AM)taramarie Wrote: Hahaha how did this morph from a talk about life after death to the economy? Oh you guys crack me up. Keeps me ever interested!

What I described is common to all of what is called the soft sciences.  You have to understand that the progressive and modern liberal viewpoint is very mechanistic.  This works in the modern realm of physics and engineering but fails in psychology and economics.  Consider what it means if Mises and Rothbard are in fact correct as I believe they are.  It means that the world of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is build on a false foundation.

You know as well as I do that I do not support or agree with mechanistic views.

If anything, libertarian conservatives (besides the religious right) are more beholden to these than liberals. Ayn Rand is an example.

Your classical liberal views are based on those of writers like Adam Smith, Bentham, Ricardo, etc, who were quite empiricist and mechanistic.

Libertarian economics depends on the utopian view that we are each individuals who are sovereign and need little supervision by the state, and that all state action is theft and murder. Today's liberals are wise enough to discard this nonsense.

[Eric the Green]

(06-01-2016, 01:12 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2016, 12:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would say that extremes of state control, and extremes of laissez faire, suck the life out of the people. There's another word for laissez faire, and that is neglect. Just what the authors of T4T described as the problem with third turnings, and which leads into the crisis. Just what we experienced the last 35 years. No, it never works; the verdict of history is clear. Neither extreme works

For someone who most likely believes in evolution it is strange that you have such trouble with the concept of self organizing systems.  Economies are not machines but rather more like an ecosystem in this respect.

You know as well as I do that I have shared Sheldrake's concept of "self-organizing systems" on this forum many times. I have no trouble with the concept at all. I agree with it.

Your trouble is that you think "free enterprise" exists and that it is not coercive, while the state is a machine that is. Those are quite false equivalencies.

[Galen]

(06-01-2016, 02:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: I am sure that was not the point. I have not read their work but it sounds like what is being hinted at is the people having more power. He also did mention the foundation of society is built on lies. So mentioning what goes on in the workplace would not apply to this as it sounds like they are trying to open minds to the errors of society. But Galen would know more about this of course. I am merely just learning about it from him. But that is what I am getting from it anyway.

The state claims a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce its edicts and to fund itself. If an individual without the proper costume did this then everyone here would recognize that person as a criminal. This is the the fundamental truth that almost everyone ignores.

(06-01-2016, 02:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: I think for Eric he would never intentionally kill anyone. He is anti-gun. But we do not need to do that to set history in motion to kill anyone. We can do it through a vote. No, not saying this applies to Eric. This can apply to either side. It just depends on what a party's policies are, who gets the short end of the stick and who they piss off internationally or nationally in some cases through history.

Eric the Obtuse sees the state as a convenient way to steal for him. He gets to avoid the nasty violent bits and claim that he did not commit any violence himself. Sadly, this attitude is very common among people regardless of political party. At least a real thief, or freelance socialist helping themselves to a share of the wealth, has enough spine to the deed themselves.

[pbrower2a]

(06-02-2016, 12:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 01:12 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2016, 12:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would say that extremes of state control, and extremes of laissez faire, suck the life out of the people. There's another word for laissez faire, and that is neglect. Just what the authors of T4T described as the problem with third turnings, and which leads into the crisis. Just what we experienced the last 35 years. No, it never works; the verdict of history is clear. Neither extreme works

For someone who most likely believes in evolution it is strange that you have such trouble with the concept of self organizing systems.  Economies are not machines but rather more like an ecosystem in this respect.

You know as well as I do that I have shared Sheldrake's concept of "self-organizing systems" on this forum many times. I have no trouble with the concept at all. I agree with it.

Your trouble is that you think "free enterprise" exists and that it is not coercive, while the state is a machine that is. Those are quite false equivalencies.

One of the more cynical descriptions of "free enterprise" is that those who own the enterprise are free to treat the rest of humanity badly with no recourse from those for whom they dictate terms of survival.

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2016, 12:59 AM)Galen Wrote: Eric the Obtuse sees the state as a convenient way to steal for him. He gets to avoid the nasty violent bits and claim that he did not commit any violence himself. Sadly, this attitude is very common among people regardless of political party. At least a real thief, or freelance socialist helping themselves to a share of the wealth, has enough spine to the deed themselves.

And which you guys never miss any opportunity to remind us, as you pounce on us all over the internet over and over again. What amazes me about you clueless libertarians who overpopulate the internet is you think we have not heard this mindless trickle-down economics slogan over and over and over again ad nauseum!

No, the state steals for YOU guys, not us. The state creates private property and money and enforces it through force of law, prison and murder. And you also think that .1% billionaire CEOs "earn" their money and are entitled to keep it all. Nonsense. CEOs speculate, gamble, buyout, push pencils, buy the government, talk on the phone and steal money from the hard-working employees who rightfully earned it so they can stuff their own wallets at a rate 500x higher than they provide their employees. They get their money because they CAN, NOT because they EARNED it. But you libbies want them to keep all their money in hopes prosperity will "trickle-down." But trickle-down doesn't trickle. It tinkles down on us and the country. Which is the entire reason we are in decline. The ENTIRE reason is YOU GUYS!

[Galen]

(06-02-2016, 11:26 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 12:59 AM)Galen Wrote: Eric the Obtuse sees the state as a convenient way to steal for him.  He gets to avoid the nasty violent bits and claim that he did not commit any violence himself.  Sadly, this attitude is very common among people regardless of political party.  At least a real thief, or freelance socialist helping themselves to a share of the wealth, has enough spine to the deed themselves.

And which you guys never miss any opportunity to remind us, as you pounce on us all over the internet over and over again. What amazes me about you clueless libertarians who overpopulate the internet is you think we have not heard this mindless trickle-down economics slogan over and over and over again ad nauseum!

It is not my problem that you can't handle the fact that your god or magic wand is the moral equivalent of the mafia.

(06-02-2016, 11:26 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: No, the state steals for YOU guys, not us. The state creates private property and money and enforces it through force of law, prison and murder. And you also think that .1% billionaire CEOs "earn" their money and are entitled to keep it all. Nonsense. CEOs speculate, gamble, buyout, push pencils, buy the government, talk on the phone and steal money from the hard-working employees who rightfully earned it so they can stuff their own wallets at a rate 500x higher than they provide their employees. They get their money because they CAN, NOT because they EARNED it. But you libbies want them to keep all their money in hopes prosperity will "trickle-down." But trickle-down doesn't trickle. It tinkles down on us and the country. Which is the entire reason we are in decline. The ENTIRE reason is YOU GUYS!

It most certainly does not steal for me but it takes a shitload from me and wastes it.  As for the CEO it is up to the board of directors and the shareholders, who are the owners, to decide whether or not executives are worth their pay.  You seem to think that you know what everyone should be paid.  Truth is, no one does which is why prices must be discovered on the market.

As for buying the government I will give you the following from P.J. O'Rourke: When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.  The shortest and clearest statement of regulatory capture I have ever seen.  Say what you like about The Donald but he understands perfectly well that staying business means paying off the mafia he the only way he or anyone else can stay in business.  It is also a good way to get the politicians to shut down competitors which is why business owners tend to contribute to everyone.  Increasing the power of government is not going to fix this.  No one can be trusted with the ring.

Anyone who has actually paid any attention to reality knows that we do not have a libertarian government and haven't remotely had one since the nineteenth century.  This means that categorically the libertarians have had nothing to do with the decline of the US.  From the various economic freedom indexes a valid argument can be made that moving away from a free market has in fact caused the long term decline in the economy of the US.

[Galen]

(06-03-2016, 12:49 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 12:59 AM)Galen Wrote: Eric the Obtuse sees the state as a convenient way to steal for him.  He gets to avoid the nasty violent bits and claim that he did not commit any violence himself.  Sadly, this attitude is very common among people regardless of political party.  At least a real thief, or freelance socialist helping themselves to a share of the wealth, has enough spine to the deed themselves.

Oh I am well aware that those with the most power (those with authority and money) get away with practically anything. The little guy would not however. Surprised that you say that most ignore this. Even I know that. As to Eric I do not pay enough attention to what policies he stands for to have a say on the matter. I merely keep an open mind and analyze for what would work best. I listen to both sides. Which is why I have decided to go center (NZ First). Our left wing has heart but irrational letting refugees in and having us pay for their shelter, car etc (things we work our arses off and still cannot afford...us younger folk anyway) and our right wing is selling off nz to foreign buyers (our land, our water, our sheep etc) and making things harder on the poorest of the poor what with prices for houses going up which is apparently connected to National being pro immigration which means poor kiwis cannot even think of leaving their parents to buy a home of their own....and our National (right wing prime minister denies it!) despite the fact so many are living in their car! Both are damaging to us in the long run so far as i can see. I am all for helping people to stand on their own feet, not crushing them and for building a stable economy. So it puts me in-between. I know Eric is a "green" lefty whatever American lefties stand for. I hear bits and pieces. I also know he is anti gun. Something I am also an in-between on also.

The left is pretty much out to lunch everywhere.  The question you should ask is what happens when the government spends more.  Robert Murphy makes a living as a consultant on economic matters.  Keep in mind that no on would pay him for his services in the private sector if his advice wasn't good.  Which Eric the Obtuse, Playdud and pbrower tend to overlook.

[Galen]

(06-03-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Being not business minded that link goes right over my head. I just imagine a country as if it is a business. The more you spend if you want to make a profit has to depend on several things like demand, what buyers are willing to pay, quality (and ultimately reputation). So what you will get back from what you spend which hopefully will be more than what you paid. So I can understand these matters i shrink it down to personalize it. A company that is paying for folks who do nothing is not making a profit from that. But the layabouts are. Those who can work, should. But my point is if a govt spends more it should calculate that kind of move to see if they will profit from it. If not, don't. As we know, the govt spends tax dollars on bs. I also thought tax was supposed to go on things that benefit the people like, healthcare and public services. Well, it does in my country anyway.

A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

[Galen]

(06-03-2016, 01:41 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-03-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Being not business minded that link goes right over my head. I just imagine a country as if it is a business. The more you spend if you want to make a profit has to depend on several things like demand, what buyers are willing to pay, quality (and ultimately reputation). So what you will get back from what you spend which hopefully will be more than what you paid. So I can understand these matters i shrink it down to personalize it. A company that is paying for folks who do nothing is not making a profit from that. But the layabouts are. Those who can work, should. But my point is if a govt spends more it should calculate that kind of move to see if they will profit from it. If not, don't. As we know, the govt spends tax dollars on bs. I also thought tax was supposed to go on things that benefit the people like, healthcare and public services. Well, it does in my country anyway.

A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

it is however supposed to create an environment that is business friendly. Not sell it off completely which is what National is doing here and labour giving stuff to refugees.

I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

[Galen]

(06-03-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.

I want you to understand the failure of the attempts to cartelize under lassiz-faire because this process has occurred in all nations at various times in history.  I don't have much material on NZ so this is the best that I can do.  Most Western countries these days are walking down similar paths so many lessons of US history do apply to NZ and the reverse is also true.

I do know that NZ had a much more extensive welfare state in the seventies than they do now and it nearly bankrupted them and so it was scaled back.  The only reason the US has gotten away with it this long is due to world reserve status of the dollar which will probably not last too much longer.  Then the US will have the same sort of problems NZ had only much larger.

[Galen]

(06-03-2016, 03:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-03-2016, 02:53 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-03-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.

I want you to understand the failure of the attempts to cartelize under lassiz-faire because this process has occurred in all nations at various times in history.  I don't have much material on NZ so this is the best that I can do.  Most Western countries these days are walking down similar paths so many lessons of US history do apply to NZ and the reverse is also true.

I do know that NZ had a much more extensive welfare state in the seventies than they do now and it nearly bankrupted them and so it was scaled back.  The only reason the US has gotten away with it this long is due to world reserve status of the dollar which will probably not last too much longer.  Then the US will have the same sort of problems NZ had only much larger.

Should that not be under a different thread though? What connection does it have to my original topic? That i cannot understand. That is true regarding lessons being learned from other countries failings. Yeah our welfare system changed after national got in in 2008. I am not sure about before that. But it definitely changed after they got in. In some ways it is good as it pushes people to get a job BUT they even force people who have things such as lung cancer to even get a job. Just today i heard about a case like that. It should be for people like him. Someone who is legitimately ill. Or the elderly. But, this topic really needs its own thread. I do not see how it applies to my original topic.

The event I am referring to occurred in the early eighties which is probably before you were born.  I was trying to point out that the methods that work for physics and engineering do not work for soft sciences.  In medicine you can perform double blind experiments but in any realm that covers the human psyche this is not possible in the general case.