Peter, You appear upset that I am not coming around to your view. Well, you have not convinced me, although you have sound points.

Also, you need to convince the vast majority why they are all wrong.
I don't think you have.

Yes, printing money is hardly a real solution, but what is your solution for Western societies. Is it communist China, as Wolfgang Kasper states.

f there is any change, it will be gradual in a pragmatic way.

"Also, you need to convince the vast majority why they are all wrong."

No I don't. They will continue to get the inevitable results of interventionist policies, whether or not they believe that they will get fairness and affluence from them.

And like you, seeing the inevitable corruption and social injustice that results from them, they will externalise the blame.

My solution for western societies is a lot more freedom, on the ground that:
1. it makes society both fairer and more affluent
2. the criticisms of personal and economic freedom cannot sustain critical analysis and derive, like yours and Squeers, from irrational beliefs
3. no-one has been able to show how the dole or inflation, or any other coerced interventions, make society fairer or more affluent.

The very fact that you know your beliefs are false, or at least cannot defend them from rational criticism, and persist in them anyway, just says all that needs to be said about the welfare/warfare state. Belef in the godlike magicality of the state is just a modern version of the old mediaeval belief in the divine provenance and supernatural mediation of the Catholic church.

Peter Hume is the one that is wrong. On an ideological bender that no amount of reasoning can dissuade.

As Hobsbawm says: "THE GREAT SLUMP HAD BEEN DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE UNRESTRICTED FREE MARKET"
But PH doesn't let a little thing like facts get in the way!

Even were free market capitalism economically sound, and it has proven it is not, its policies amount to political and social anarchy.
That's why I'm in favour of it!
Social welfare on the other hand preserves the benighted masses in a consumerist dream that they actually take for reality---at least except in their quieter moments when they must fend off dark thoughts and panic attacks.
Capitalism of any stamp is irredeemable.

As Hobsbawm says: "THE GREAT SLUMP HAD BEEN DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE UNRESTRICTED FREE MARKET"
But PH doesn't let a little thing like facts get in the way!

The fact that Hobsbawm says something doesn't make it a fact.

The central banks of all relevant countries at all relevant times controlled the price and supply of money, thus disproving Hobsbawm's claim that the great slump was due to the failure of the unrestricted free market.

I have already pointed this out and you, completely unable to advance one word in refutation of it, just go back to your old tired circular incantation.

You haven't been able to prove any of your claims, and seem to think that economic understanding progresses by quoting wrong historians.

You still haven't done anything to prove that capitalism is exploitative as you keep alleging.

The claim of "ideology" is a mere back-bite. Since you have shown only that your own intellectual consists of invincible cirularity, you apparently assume that everyone else proceeds by the same method.

The difference is, I can show how my arguments can be falsified, whereas you and Chris Lewis can't.

That's why you pop back up again re-running the same arguments that have just been disproved. You would rather cling to your opinion knowing it has been disproved, than re-think your original claims.

PH:
<The fact that Hobsbawm says something doesn't make it a fact>

Agreed.

It is a FACT, however, that the great slump followed decades of free market ideology put into practice.

You accuse me of being "unable" to refute your propositions, but the FACT is, I cannot spare the time, especially when I know it will be futile.
BTW, how can I "have an unshakeable commitment to Keynesian and Marxian fallacies"?

In fact, my real objection to capitalism is not to a system of economics per se, but to its human and material impacts. And that's another topic.

Chris,
I look forward to reading your next article.

Squeers,

I have struggled with these sort of issues (government intervention v market, national v international) for a long time.

I hope my next piece reflects this struggle and much of what I have learned, although it will be from my own liberal democratic perspective.