Austrian Economics

[DeistPaladin]

You've never heard of a joke?

It was clearly a joke to illustrate the point that the GOP has moved to the left, which is patently false. Ronald Reagan would have been drummed out of the party. GWB now seems like a centrist. The GOP has actively been purging moderates from the party.

Are you unaware that Bush went Big Government? He massively increased government, as has every republican for the last 30 year - That was the point of the joke. To say your GOP move more to the right is absurd,

In fact, I've made that very point to you. Libertarians vote for the GOP only to be thrown under the bus, just as Democrats use and throw under the bus the Progressives. Maybe we're working with different definitions of "right" and "left". Are you defining "left" as "authoritarian"?

Bush expanded medicaid/medicare,

Only in a big giveaway to big Pharma. This is not a policy embraced by liberals.

doubled the Department of Education and Department of Energy,

NCLB has been a disaster for our schools and is a stepping stone to privatizing all education. The Department of Energy was reworked to benefit the energy corporations. These are not left wing.

set up more regulations, got more involved in the markets,

? Republicans pushed for deregulation. That's why we had the meltdown.

set up the department of homeland security

Are you saying this was liberalism at work?

and engaged in stimulus spending

??? Did I miss it? I thought his "stimulus" was the tax cuts he gave to the wealthy.

You know there are more libertarian leaning representatives than ever?

I've never heard of them. They're being really quiet. Maybe they're waiting for the right time to strike?

That Ron Paul is one of the GOP frontrunners?

That WAS a joke, right? Please tell me you were kidding.

Much better than your "Change we can believe in", where the "change" is making clanging noises in the pockets of the multinational banks.

Did I mention that Democrats throw US under the bus much the same way that the GOP does to libertarians?

[reverendjeremiah]

Did I mention that Democrats throw US under the bus much the same way that the GOP does to libertarians?

Democrats laugh at us Progressives. Last time we got pissed at Obama his spokesman said that we should get drug tested for expecting Obama to act like a social liberal and not a moderate right winger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B46pfVrpLv8

[theVOID]

What predictive power? I cant help but sense a mode of anger in your post. I listened to that mans ENTIRE video loop. I hope that I get some credit for putting such effort into this discussion from you

Yeah absolutely, big Kudos

When I refer to the predictive power of the Austrian model I refer to the effectiveness of the model to predict the boom/bust cycles, such as the NASDAQ and Housing bubbles, predictions the likes of which were balked at by the Keynesian economists - You can see this in dozens of 'debates' on shows like CNBC or Faux Business where the likes of Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods and Marc Farber are literally laughed at by the Keynesian economists when they present their predictions of the coming busts.

Amongst other plainly superior predictions are the ones of the dollar index, commodities, inflation etc, for instance the Austrian economists predicted the current petrol price situation long before the "Middle East uprising" that the Keynesians like to blame (at least as a substantial factor) for the higher prices, that is because in the Austrian model Inflation is defined as an expansion of the money supply and the price of goods is relative to the supply of money, so when you have more money the currency looses value and the prices of goods and services rises - As soon as the Fed announced their 'Quantitative Easing' policies the Austrians were predicting raising stock and commodity prices as well as the decline of the dollar index to the peak levels in the recession (and even beyond it).

So I think a very clear cut case can be made for the Austrian models being better predictors of economic activity.

No thankyou. I try to stay away from people like that as a waste of time and as an extremist. I will have nothing to do with extremists. I dont agree with the Libertarians, nor will I vote for them.

Extremists? His opinions are based on the efficacy of a particular model of economics and his radio show is about economics, it does sometimes touch on Politics and Libertarianism but that is tail of the dog so to speak, a tiny part of the purpose of the show.

And I don't see how you can possibly consider it a "waste of time" when the Austrian school has been able to predict economic activity far better than the Keynesian school, to the extent where people following the Austrian models have undoubtedly secured more of their wealth from losses, and in some cases even profited, from the economic turmoil - That is in dire contrast to the alternative.

Quote from Schiff

This stems from the line of thinking that recessions (contractions in the economy) are necessary to restore the imbalances in activity that accumulate over time, especially after stimulus efforts. When the economy contracts all prices should go down (ie Deflation) and one component of that is falling wages, that sounds bad and it is, it's part of correcting the flaws in the economy, but the falling wages should be in line with falling prices, the purchasing power (how much they can buy with their dollars) should stay the same roughly - The way your government is trying to remedy this short term pain is by appropriating from social security, quantitative easing and borrowing money - You may think that the Austrian solution sees people worse of, and that may be true in the short term (though by no means necessarily so because of falling prices) but in the long term a recession and some deflation is going to be much better for all people than the debt fueled stimulus effort (Deflation is actually very good for consumers).

Your purchasing power is really what matters, not the wage values themselves, and purchasing power is falling regardless, just as fast if not faster than a deflation taking down wage prices, but instead of seeing it in dollars paid you are seeing it in rising prices now and you'll see it in interest payments in the future - The difference being (and where unions come into it) is that by going for the later "solution" the government can appease unions in the short term, as well as pass blame for rising prices onto the producers rather than the inflation that they are causing. Also, when people hear "falling wages" they react negatively to it much more so than "rising prices" even in cases when the purchasing power remains the same - This can certainly product political motivations for the former option.

There is a bit more to it, but I'll wait for your response to make sure we're clear on that part first.

Here we go again with you suggesting I am stupid when it comes to economics. Not once have I suggested you are stupid or needed to be schooled on economics no matter how much I disagreed with you.

No, I just think you have some fundamental misunderstandings, which I have attempted to point out.

He obviously doesnt know squat about the construction or Industrial trades, considering his description between the shovel vs. bulldozer analogy.

How so? To say that a person who can operate a bulldozer is worth a higher wage than a person with a shovel (which I believe was the point he was trying to make) is perfectly legitimate.

I wonder how many union busters this man hired during his "consultant job" at Shearson Lehman Brothers brokerage when they were doing "aggresive management buyouts" (otherwise known as hostile corporate takeovers). I wonder how many families he ruined? I wonder how many good jobs he destroyed in the name of turning a quick profit? I wonder how many government programs this man "consulted" his clients into taking advantage of behind closed doors while in public he talks down about them?

To blame the Lehman's activities on him is nothing but a cheap shot, firstly he started his career there as a small time consultant and commodities trader, nobody of significant importance and he left in the mid 90's, secondly, he has said on numerous occasions how much disdain he has for their financial practices and ethical violations and he was happy to see their demise.

Wrong. In fact I participated in rallies that opposed the Republican majority plans to deregulate the utilities industry. Bush did not regulate the housing market. Regulations are restrictive to protect from greed, abuse, and squandering.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-2-166

*Repeats himself rather than responding as a block, somewhat insulting...

Some regulations, the ones for consumer protection, they are the sorts of regulations that I have no real problem with, however, manipulating the direction and momentum of the market is also classified as a "regulation", they are not exclusively (or even mostly) protective, regulations made in the name of political agendas are the ones that do serious harm.

The term "regulation" is not as intuitive as you might like it to be, ideally I suppose the term would be reserved for consumer protection and in terms of those "regulations" at best they prevent consumer exploitation and at worst they create needless expenses and bureaucracies, the latter being more common than you would suspect - Unfortunately, they are but a small portion of the total of economic actions classified as regulations.

I propose we make a distinction for the remainder of the discussion, between the types of regulations; "protection" and "manipulation", sure there is some overlap but perhaps that distinction will help all the same.

Fannie and Freddie,

Was NOT regulated, in fact it was deregulated for interest group profits.

They were state owned initially and later publicly traded, classified as a "state owned asset" or "government sponsored entity", designed and established in the name of manipulation and political economic goals, namely as a secondary market to purchase loans from Brokers and other investment firms, they were widely used in derivative tradings because of their government backed assets - That latter point, the government backing of an inherently greedy industry, was the root cause of the problem.

Regulation was not the concern so much as it was the governments involvement in widespread manipulation to begin with, when you say to a gambler, "Go hard and play games, I've got your back" it doesn't so much matter to what extent you regulate their actions between slots, poker and horse racing, the fact that you have given them a guarantee in the first place is the root cause of the problem.

Dont get me started on the problems of tax breaks regardless of the political party giving them - and besides, I am not sure if that even belongs in your list. Thats a WHOLE other can of worms that I dont want to open right now.

Yeah that's a point we agree on, but they are relevant in the sense that government gives tax breaks to the industries it believes will fulfill it's economic agenda, when the administration decided to shove the financials markets towards housing it did so in part by giving tax breaks to contractors, suppliers and manufacturers so they can produce more houses than are in demand and at lower prices, the lower prices increase the demand for houses which leads to people being given government backed sub-prime loans. It wouldn't have done Bush any good if he had just made houses cheaper to build if the people couldn't get a mortgage because they were sub prime - No lender would give it to them because the chances of getting their money back are so slim, so they guarantee the loans and take on the risk for the lenders.

??? Are you using the correct term for this? Forgive me, I am not trying to say you are stupid, I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Do you mean Financial engineering of interest rate derivatives? If so, then how is this a regulation and not a perk for special interests?

Yes and no, essentially real estate loans were packaged in bulk into derivatives and leveraged against government debt in order to mitigate the risks for the people trading the derivatives, such as the 'Collateralized debt obligations', they would lump say 1,000 mortgages into a CDO and then an investor would but a share, expecting to be paid a portion of the interest, they were being sold bullshit essentially because the CDOs were full of the sub prime loans made possible by the government guarantees.

Some people argue that CDOs and other derivatives weren't regulated enough and that was the cause of that set of problems, I and others argue that if the government weren't guaranteeing loans in the first place none of this would have been possible to begin with.

Not a regulation. Regulations are restrictive. That is Interest group transfers - "regulation" that results from efforts by self-interest groups to redistribute wealth in their favor, which may disguise itself as a legitimate regulation. Who benefitted from that? Inside traders on wall street?

Again part of our disagreement on the word "regulate" - it is used to refer to much much more than restrictive measures. Absolutely the inside traders benefited, again largely made possible by government guarantees.

phony credit ratings etc etc etc...

DEFINITELY not a regulation. In fact that is the exact opposite of a regulation.[/quote]

Fair call, more the fault of S&P and the like.

..and yet you claim he regulated the system? We are talking about Bush right? We are still in context of Bush "massively regulated the housing markets!" right? How can you regulate something, but let it all fall apart at the same time. How is ANY of this regulations? Perhaps we have different ideas of the word regulations. Do me, the word regulations is restrictive. If I have to abide by military regulations at the gate, that means I get frisked, dogs sniff my car, my tools get searched, and my car gets searched for guns and bombs. In the context you are using the word "regulation", in my opinion, that same millitary gate would be a chain link fence, with no lock, and a sign that says "Guards on lunch break, back in one hour." Im not being shitty with you, nor am I calling you stupid, but we are OBVIOUSLY not using the same definition of "regulations".

Yep, I became aware of this a while back

They were parts of the "manipulation" errr, 'regulations'. They are called regulations and classified and legislated as such, at least a large portion of them are.

Regulations aren't all that necessary, and the lack of them was not the problem, it was the government manipulation. Saying that "It was because of the lack of regulation" to me seems like a purely reactionary measure when the manipulation caused the problems and if it was done away with, if the NASDAQ recession had just run it's course, these problems wouldn't have been possible.

Anyway, Until we get some agreement on terms perhaps we should pause here, if there is anything specific from your last post you'd like me to answer that I missed just post it.

[reverendjeremiah]

When I refer to the predictive power of the Austrian model I refer to the effectiveness of the model to predict the boom/bust cycles, such as the NASDAQ and Housing bubbles, predictions the likes of which were ....

Oh, I am sure he has made fools of some people, especially that jackass Ben Stein. I read his prediction of the houseing market made Ben look even more the fool. I dont question his intelligence. I dont question that the man is better at economics than I am. I question his ethics.

Amongst other plainly superior predictions are the ones of the dollar index, commodities, inflation etc, for instance the Austrian economists predicted the current petrol price situation long before the "Middle East uprising" that the Keynesians like to blame (at least as a substantial factor) for the higher prices, that is because in the Austrian model Inflation is defined as an expansion of the money supply and the price of goods is relative to the supply of money, so when you have more money the currency looses value and the prices of goods and services rises - As soon as the Fed announced their 'Quantitative Easing' policies the Austrians were predicting raising stock and commodity prices as well as the decline of the dollar index to the peak levels in the recession (and even beyond it).

Do you think maybe it has to do with the 1930's signing of the oil concession between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Standard Oil of California. If you want to follow what makes or breaks an economy, and can even bring countries as great as America to its knees, then you follow the oil. What is the biggest oil company in the world? Saudi Arabian oil co. (Saudi Aramco). What company produces the most oil in the world? Saudi Aramco. What is the most profitable company in the world? Saudi Aramco. What is the most valuable company in the world? Saudi Aramco. What oil company is sitting on the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world? Saudi Aramco. What company has the worlds largest hydrocarbon network? Saudi Aramco.
What does "Aramco" mean? Well that was its name back in the day it was formed as a joint venture between "Arabia" and "America". The American dollar is very much connected to Saudi Arabia. If you watch what this company does, then you will see a world wide reaction. Currently the company is planning on expanding to meet demand. This means gas prices will go up. Once demand is met, price will settle. Middle east uprisings do add to the specualtion, but not nearly enough as the CEO's decisions of this company. One need not be an Austrian economist to figure this out.

Extremists? His opinions are based on the efficacy of a particular model of economics and his radio show is about economics, it does sometimes touch on Politics and Libertarianism but that is tail of the dog so to speak, a tiny part of the purpose of the show.

Yes, he is an extremist from my veiw point. He is way to economically far to the right for my taste. I personally do not think a Government should have a permanently fixed economy, wether it be strictly protectionist, strictly socialist, or strictly Laissez-faire. I feel that a governments economy should be liquid of a sorts. That it should be able to shift with the zeitgeist. That is should NOT be written in stone and left to decide by the changing generations. This is what I mean by "Mixed Economy". You can blame it on my base philosophy and world view of Absurdism. As far as my opinion goes, there is no inherent economic system that will make everyone happy, but that doesnt mean we should "commit economic suicide" and quit trying. Maybe we will find an economic utopia, but I greatly doubt that will ever happen. Until then I say we should embrace the absurdity, try to be civil about it, and allow things to bend and shift. I see good things and bad things in strick Austrian schools the same as I see good and bad in Keynesian. I have no problem picking the good from every economic model on the table and tossing it into a "mixed economy" and letting some of the cards fall as they may.

And I don't see how you can possibly consider it a "waste of time" when the Austrian school has been able to predict economic activity far better than the Keynesian school, to the extent where people following the Austrian models have undoubtedly secured more of their wealth from losses, and in some cases even profited, from the economic turmoil - That is in dire contrast to the alternative.

Well, if he follows that "superior predictive power" school of thought, then he didnt use it for his clients:

Schiff's current investment advice is the same as it has been for years: Get your money out of the U.S. dollar and into more fundamentally sound currencies like the Swiss franc or the Singapore dollar; buy some precious metals; and buy foreign, dividend-paying stocks, with an emphasis on natural-resources companies.
Ironically, though, the year that Schiff became a star prognosticator on TV was also one of the worst periods ever for his clients. In most cases the foreign markets he likes got hit even harder than the U.S. in 2008 (Australia's ASX 200, for instance, fell 41.3%, vs. 38.5% for the S&P 500), and even more surprising to Schiff, the U.S. dollar rallied strongly as investors rushed to the perceived safety of Treasuries.
It would be wrong to think that Schiff is doubting himself or his advice, however. "None of this shocks me," he (Schiff) says. "Oftentimes in the short run markets are irrational. And my problem has always been that I see things too clearly and too far in advance. Other people don't understand what I do, so the markets might not validate what I'm saying right away. But they will eventually. In the end the fundamentals are going to prevail, just as they did in the housing market." Spoken like a true prophet of doom.

So apparently his advice is good for long term markets, but short term markets are "irrational" to him. Thats a bit anticlimactic for a superior school of thought, wouldnt you agree?
To a mixed economist such as myself, I would flat out agree "of course short term markets can be irrational." Long term markets can be irrational as well. People who have economic views written in stone , in my opinion fail to grasp this basic reality of human wants and needs. I sometimes think people like Schiff and other "prognosticators of the almighty hidden hand" of ALL political/economic leanings actually do more harm than good to the publics trust in themselves and those they do business with. How much capital was lost because people were shored up with a false sense of security in this man and "bet it all" (or bet large sums) because he got most (and Im being generous here) of his predictions right? How many jobs and businesses went belly up because of his poor advice? Thats why I consider people like Schiff to be a waste of time.

This stems from the line of thinking that recessions (contractions in the economy) are necessary to restore the imbalances in activity that accumulate over time, especially after stimulus efforts. When the economy contracts all prices should go down (ie Deflation) and one component of that is falling wages, that sounds bad and it is, it's part of correcting the flaws in the economy, but the falling wages should be in line with falling prices, the purchasing power (how much they can buy with their dollars) should stay the same roughly - The way your government is trying to remedy this short term pain is by appropriating from social security, quantitative easing and borrowing money - You may think that the Austrian solution sees people worse of, and that may be true in the short term (though by no means necessarily so because of falling prices) but in the long term a recession and some deflation is going to be much better for all people than the debt fueled stimulus effort (Deflation is actually very good for consumers).

Sometimes prices go down in a recession. Sometimes they go up..especially if monopolies are in place. This man is advocating that we push the reset button. No. Worse. This man is advocating that the whole mess should be left alone so it will work itself out. Well what does that mean exactly? Does he really want it to works itself out? If so then the citizens will be right back to where they left off. Lets be realistic here. If he was given the controls, and he wiped out everything he wanted to wipe out, do you REALLY think that these corporations would allow their meal tickets to fade away? No, let me be more specific. Do you think Peter Schiff would allow the "invisible hand of the market" take his business and lively hood away if he could control it? Let me answer that with a resounding "FUCK NO HE WOULDNT!". This man instructed firms in hostile takeovers. You think this man gives a shit about the "Austrian school" when it comes to his bread and butter? If he got everything he wanted economically, and that isnt going to happen anytime soon, then he would be in a superb and socially popular platform to move up the market ladder. What do you think he will do with the gobs of money he gets from so much love, attention and power? He will ensure the "invisible hand" doesnt affect him through back door legislations, earmarks, no bid contracts, etc..etc... some of his followers would be like "He is such a hypocrite. He told us he was for a free market and now he is paying off politicians." and they will sulk, they will fret, and they will find someone else who will tell them what they want to hear. Peter, on the other hand, is set for life.

Your purchasing power is really what matters, not the wage values themselves, and purchasing power is falling regardless, just as fast if not faster than a deflation taking down wage prices, but instead of seeing it in dollars paid you are seeing it in rising prices now and you'll see it in interest payments in the future - The difference being (and where unions come into it) is that by going for the later "solution" the government can appease unions in the short term, as well as pass blame for rising prices onto the producers rather than the inflation that they are causing. Also, when people hear "falling wages" they react negatively to it much more so than "rising prices" even in cases when the purchasing power remains the same - This can certainly product political motivations for the former option.

What really matters is food on the table, a roof over your head, and healthy survival...and it is absurd to say otherwise. It isnt purchasing power, or wage values. It isnt about gold, or printed money. Austrian schools advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of coercive forces. Peter had no problem with booting the unions out like that without mentioning that GM and the unions went into a binding contract with each other. And NO, when people hear falling wages they do not always react negatively to it. In fact I personally opposed our latest pay raise negotiation. Also, I have yet to see you say one bad thing about companies and corporations in this discussion. I have seen you blaming government. Why so quiet about the companies? Last I checked they have TREMENDOUS spending power to influence the economy and the government. Union workers are 10% of the American workforce. What do you think will happen if a CEO hears the words "falling profits"? Well, I guess if the Austrian school method was in effect then they wouldnt be able to buy off politicians. Wait. Its a free market system. So companies can do with their money what they want, right? Very little government oversight. Austrian school sound like a nightmare hiding in wait. Does the Austrian school allow the electorate to vote themselves protection from hostile and very rich corporate team ups, or are their hands tied?

What I am trying to ask is since Austrian school SPECIFICALLY intends to have very little regulation on businesses, then how does it seek to ensure that? I predict more laws forbidding the freedoms of the electorate to vote what it wants economically, than laws regulating the business from influencing the government if Austrian school was FORCED onto the population. You would have a fascist, corporate controlled state within decades if not less.

Do you support forcing the Austrian school of economics onto the population of America, or do you want it to go through the proper channel of the electorate? I would VERY MUCH like for you to give me an answer on this one.

How so? To say that a person who can operate a bulldozer is worth a higher wage than a person with a shovel (which I believe was the point he was trying to make) is perfectly legitimate.

You know if somebody is digging a ditch, if somebody has a bulldozer, they are a lot more productive than somebody with a shovel. And so you can pay the person in the bulldozer a lot more money, but only becuase he's got the bulldozer. Thats what makes him more productive, its not the labor, its the capitol. But where does capital come from? It comes from savings, we dont have that in this country. We need to rebuild that.

You want to know why? Because you dont dig a ditch with a bulldozer. unless you plan on making a BIG fucking ditch that looks more like a river than a ditch. LOL. You use backhoes and ditchwitches for ditches. My wife works construction as well. I asked her if she ever saw a ditch dug with a bulldozer. She gave me the ugliest fucking look and said "Why would you dig a ditch with a bulldozer?"
Small short ditches are best dug by hand, and you save money on gas, "bulldozer" rental, and all...LOL

[reverendjeremiah]

laissez-faire capitalist Paul Ryan intends to remove medicaid and food stamps

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gop_town_halls

The Republican plan to fundamentally restructure Medicare and cut social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid has at times been a raucously tough sell as its supporters head home and meet with their constituents, including Democrats organized against them. Even the architect of the plan, Rep. Paul Ryan, has been booed, though many of those attending four meetings Tuesday in his home state of Wisconsin were supportive.

The GOP plan passed by the House this month envisions cutting government deficits by a total $6.2 trillion over the next decade. One of its most contentious provisions calls for eventually transforming Medicare into a voucher-like system in which private insurance plans, not the government, pay medical bills. The plan has drawn scorn from Democrats, including President Barack Obama, who want wealthier Americans to pay higher taxes to help reduce the deficit.

When Ryan was sixteen his father died of a heart attack at age 55. Ryan began collecting his Social Security survivor's benefits until age eighteen, which he saved for college tuition and expenses.

Ryan is quoted as saying that the political philosophy of novelist Ayn Rand was influential to him, calling Rand “the reason I got involved in public service," and he requires his Congressional staffers to read her book Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand is a staunch laissez-faire capitalist who sometimes glorified the "reverse Robin Hood" who stole from the poor to give to the rich.

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his "Roadmap."[25] It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[26][27] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[27] and privatize MediCare.[26][27] On his blog, Ezra Klein noted that the plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would decrease over time.[

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

One of the failings of the libertarian school of thought on economics that I've been trying to communicate for some time to theVoid (and yes, I still understand that you're not a laissez-faire capitalist) and others involved the laissez-faire capitalist movement is the fact that it does nothing to prevent capitalists and plutocrats from gaming the system and winning.

American history is rife with this very thing (the railroad companies of the 19th and early 20th century) and Standard Oil and their price fixing once they had market dominance.
Pharma and health insurance companies are the modern examples.

There is just no one around to protect the population against big business from ruling the population authoritatively given the libertarian position of minimal influence of the economy. All it does is allow companies to make 'devil deals' where the enforced contracts are vague and always favor the company's bottom line, assuming there are any contracts at all.

[reverendjeremiah]

One of the failings of the libertarian school of thought on economics that I've been trying to communicate for some time to theVoid (and yes, I still understand that you're not a laissez-faire capitalist) and others involved the laissez-faire capitalist movement is the fact that it does nothing to prevent capitalists and plutocrats from gaming the system and winning.

American history is rife with this very thing (the railroad companies of the 19th and early 20th century) and Standard Oil and their price fixing once they had market dominance.
Pharma and health insurance companies are the modern examples.

There is just no one around to protect the population against big business from ruling the population authoritatively given the libertarian position of minimal influence of the economy. All it does is allow companies to make 'devil deals' where the enforced contracts are vague and always favor the company's bottom line, assuming there are any contracts at all.

Agreed, and I thankyou for helping to clarify some positions. I think another problem that I have been personally having with void is that when he says "austrian school" the first thing I think of is "laissez-faire capitalist" or "Market anarchy". Sometimes I can avoid that line of thought, but I cant help having a hard time distinguishing the three because the differences in my point of view between them is slim to none. I am sure void can point out the differences so I can spot them better.

In the end I feel the differences would probably not make much of a change for me. Call me biased. I feel that in the real world, if we were to switch to any of those systems, it would do nothing more than hand ALL of the power to those who already have the money. It would actually HURT people who are trying to climb up the ladder legitimately and would establish a full scale plutocracy. We have a plutocracy of sorts in America right now, and it is difficult to aviod such a thing unless we went full scale communist (whihc I also oppose). The difference in my opinion being that we have laws and regulations that allow people such as I to move up the ladder and not be hindered as much as would if the corporations were unleashed completely.

I know it sounds funny, but I think you cant have a true free market without good regulations. Remove the regulations and you insure that those in power will do everything they can to knock down the competition in favor of unchanging protectionism for the corporation.

[reverendjeremiah]

[reverendjeremiah]

I can hear crickets on the libertarian side.