>>Hobsbawm and you believe that capitalism caused the great depression and mass unemployment, and that government policies – by preventing depression – make society as a whole richer>

>“I made no such dogmatic assertion”

Yes you did. You said

"Capitalism" is productive of all recessions…”
and
“…but the weight of evidence is against you: AGW, GFC...”

You have explicitly attributed the Great Depression and the GFC to capitalism so don’t try and squirm out of it.

“Hobsbawm, btw, says “unregulated” capitalism caused the Great Depression."

Right. And Hobsbawn was WRONG because:
• the supply and price of money *was* regulated at all relevant times
• the price of money is the nerve centre of financial markets, and
• both the GD and the GFC originated in the financial markets, which *monetary policy* controlled.

“I am a sceptic in all things.”

No you’re not. You are inflexibly committed to the belief that capitalism causes economic recessions, despite the evidence showing it was government.

“Have I not merely deferred to Hobsbawm (a renowned historian) on this contentious issue…?”

Yes you have, which proves that you’re not a skeptic in all things. And as we have established that he was wrong, and you’re deferring to his authority, it follows that you’re wrong.

Far from being a skeptic, you have an unshakeable commitment to Keynesian and Marxian fallacies that are demonstrably wrong and that you are completely unable to defend.

You have been completely unable to refute, or even to accurately represent, the Austrian theory showing you and Hobsbawm are wrong;.

You have been completely unable to prove what you keep reasserting: that
1. capitalism caused the GD and GFC
2. that printing money makes society richer – else how did it supposedly remedy the depression?
3. that capitalism is exploitative.

Go ahead: prove it

Chris, may I suggest you try a new approach to the same issues. Ask how society could be made better by reducing government.

The problem with asking the question as an issue of policy is that it implies the solution is policy - more governmental controls.

There are two main problems with presuming pragmatism requires rejecting smaller government.

Firstly it means you would be at risk of prejudging all issues in favour of big, and bigger government, even if it is demonstrably worse, as with monetary policy.

Secondly the truth is not just a matter of opinion.

It is true that this fact raises vexed questions of epistemology - how we are to know that propositions of social science are true such as the ones agitated above.

But that still doesn't mean the truth is a matter of opinion, and it doesn't mean we can create benefits by passing laws, as the ‘policy’ approach wrongly assumes.

As obvious as these truths may sound, they are exactly what the intelligentsia deny en masse under the influence of Keynesian theory which teaches that we can reverse recessions - in other words become rich - by printing money; and of Marxian theory, which teaches there is no such thing as economic science - it is all ideology.

But when we chase all the rabbits down all the burrows, these two belief systems cannot be logically defending. They both end up with their protagonists either self-contradicting, or defending factually or logically false propositions, as Squeers has ended up.

Thus as complex as the socio-economic issues may be, nevertheless, there is still such a thing as truth, and logic still applies to human action, and can and does refute the claims of the interventionists.

This following radical claim at least deserves unbiased consideration, not to be flatly ignored. We don't have economic interventions because they make society fairer or richer, or because government is representative of the greater social good. We have them because once we have compulsory confiscation and arbitrary redistribution of property, we have an essentially predatory institution which it is difficult to stop from channelling funds to benefit those who control it and their favourites. They are able to profit at others’ expense while the whole system tends downhill both ethically and economically, making society less, not more fair and affluent.

The question we should ask is, how could we make society fairer and more affluent by reducing government by ten or twenty percent? There are lots of ways, there are probably many constructive suggestions people would make, and considering the many social and economic problems actively exacerbated by government, this would be a more fruitful discussion than figuring out how to expand or add to existing bureaucracies.

Peter,

I am surprised you have not picked my theme over time that argues that western government will have to get smaller, at least in the social welfare sector, and how this may help battlers if a number of policy domains are linked.

I have suggested this because Western societies have budgetary difficulties and need to become more competitive.

My only plea is that social welfare remains targeted to the most needy and so on as we make the necessary reform.

It is just that the detail of solutions is hard to offer. Henc,e that is why you do not hear many real solutions capable of winning across the board political support.

Nevertheless, at this atage of my learning in my life, I still think there will have to be some careful balance between govt intervention and market forces given the pragmatic nature of western politics.

What would satisfy you that these interventions cannot achieve their intended purpose, of taking from those who have too much and giving to those have too little, but must necessarily cause socio-economic problems worse than those they were intended to solve?

Peter,

There are clear differences between national approaches. Take the social welfare responses of Aust v the US. One is clearly superior to the other for a variety of reasons.

Also, the US is more market-oriented than the US in many ways, although its govt debt is much greater.

I will always be for a decent social welfare system, although any system can be improved and tightened in the fairest way. The latter is none point I am hardly likely to back down on, at least until someone advises me of relevant evidence.