“No, I am applying acid to a troll. You.
Be a gentleman and go first.”

“Still doesn’t undo all the other regulations and distortions in place, now does it? Neither does your link. You are just throwing in “deregulations” to make it seem as if it, magically, caused a crisis when central banks and a host of other gov’t enacted regulations and protections regulate and control the financial system.”

The act removed regulation that went all the way back to the 30′s and effectively turned the banking system to where it was right before the depression hit, yes it did.

“Which don’t really back up your position because 1) they reveal nothing about how these statistics are accounted for 2) are aggregates that ignore the actual state of various markets (e.g. GDP counts gov’t spending, wasteful though it may be, as economic activity) 3) half the numbers you cited are missing and/or incorrect and 4) reveal nothing about the underlying health of individual EU states which have hugely disparate economies in some cases. Throwing “facts” at people without analysing what they mean or how they came to be or what they tell you is puerile, at best.”

Oh dear christ

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/02/data/dbaoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2006&R1=1&R2
=1&CS=5&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=998&S=NGDP_RPCH-NGDPD-NID_NGDP-NGSD_NGDP-
PPPWGT-PCPIPCH-GGB_NGDP-BCA_NGDPD-BCA&CMP=0&x=30&y=16

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

You’re already resorting to the “HURRR ALL FACTS ARE BIASED” defense by conservatives? Nevermind arguing with you is pointless.

“The act removed regulation that went all the way back to the 30′s and effectively turned the banking system to where it was right before the depression hit, yes it did.”

Even if I were to assent to your post hoc reasoning, it’d leave a huge gap – what caused the Great Depression. Austrians have a solid business cycle theory, and the conditions under which it obtains have been fulfilled. You, and most leftists, have the “deregulation” mantra offering no real causal argument as to why this may spark a boom and subsequent bust. It still does not address the matter of whether a) there was still remaining regulation impacting the market severely b) whether the deregulation that took place allowed for conditions that would obtain on a free(d) market and c) why one should expect deregulation to cause such things (aside from magical thinking.)

“You’re already resorting to the “HURRR ALL FACTS ARE BIASED” defense by conservatives? Nevermind arguing with you is pointless.”

Incorrect. I am resorting to the “you haven’t the faintest idea what the facts you are pointing to concern” ‘defence’ (I am not on the defensive here qua proponent of non-aggression, rather you are, little statist.) And you’re right, it is pointless; hence I alluded to the futility of it all. I reiterate every single point I made minus the one concerning the accuracy of your transcription.

The best sign of an ignorant troll in Mises Blog comments is the use of the word “conservative” as Mr. Pssh has used it. How are we to take someone seriously who doesn’t even know whom he is talking to?

Like, dude, there are no transitional fossils because, like dude, you haven’t given me a complete unbroken lineage between you and monkeys.

Tim: “Vainly did I try to educate him about the existence of transitional fossils….”

Transitional fossils are extremely rare. See “Bones of Contention” by Roger Lewin, who is an evolutionist. Also, pick up any high school text on evolution and you’ll find all kinds of excuses for the lack of transitional fossils.

fundamentalist
‘PS, the sole reason for the invention of the theory of puntuated equilibrium was the lack of transitional fossils.’

No, this is a lie put about by dishonest creationist polemicists.

Punk ec. is in fact the explicit recognition of a dynamic relationship between the rate of environmental change, and the rate of change among the organisms which survive those changes. Stable environment with little change means variations tend to be disadvantageous and die out as soon as they arise. Catastrophic change leaves few organisms as survivors and a new landscape abounding with unexploited niches, so the variation among those few will more frequently be advantageous and seed divergent offspring. Hence the single-species survivor diversifies into different niches much more quickly.

still, bit off-topic, what?

Truth is never off topic. The relationship of Austrian econ to mainstream econ is much more like that of creation science to mainstream science. Austrian econ and creationism both claim to be sciences and both are ignored by the mainstream paradigms, not because their science is bad, but because they aren’t part of the club. Prejudice has more to do with their rejection than anything. And the major debating technique used against both by the establishment is ridicule.

There are bigger issues with scarcity that aren’t taken into account in just about any monetary system, even the Austrian’s ideal one. There is no substitute for ecological wisdom. For example, the inability to count all the externalized costs because some of them can’t even be quantified at all and others can’t be recognized until far into the future.

Mushindo: “To whoever it is trying to attribute such inanities to me, I don’t know what your game is, but it is certainly unethical if not downright dishonest.”

That was me. I don’t know how that happened. Sorry.

If you work with a market/economic system, you are working with a chaotic system that is effectively unpredictable and can’t be predicted with current computing approaches. You may as well go play at the casino. Strangely, the share market is little more than a global casino

There is no substitute for ecological wisdom. For example, the inability to count all the externalized costs because some of them can’t even be quantified at all and others can’t be recognized until far into the future.
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that some costs cannot be internalized, that still doesn’t hold that economically ignorant politicians and bureaucrats can do a better job of identifying them and coming up with an appropriate corrective policy. If these costs are recognized by people, even just a few people, then the market can adjust accordingly, because the market is nothing more than everybody deciding what they want to purchase or not purchase. If these costs are not recognized by anybody, then I don’t see any solution whatsoever, market, government, or other. You can’t deal with something that has never been recognized. So, Lee, are you talking about recognizable costs or mythical costs?

@Peter – Thanks for the catch!