Oh dear, Peter, you've been drinking again...
You always start bawling when you drink.
Clearly you're too deep for me, as I don't recall your "proving" anything??

I hope you appreciate that due to time constraints I've held back considerably.

Happy Australia Day.

Got that proof yet that the market for money was unregulated before, during and after the GD and GFC?

Your contribution only makes sense if you don't care whether or not what you say is true.

Peter Hume:
<Got that proof yet that the market for money was unregulated before, during and after the GD and GFC?>

I majored in history and took a particular interest in historical theory, enough to know that there is no proof, or truth, or any historical account that can overcome the problem of perspective. The "history wars", or post-modernism generally, whose leader is, appropriately Herodotus, the father of history, bear me out.
I've already made the assertion, via Hobsbawm, that laissez faire reigned for Britain between 1840 and 1930, baring in mind that Britain was "the" industrial and ergo capitalist power for most of that time. You haven't refuted this, though as I've said above, your refutation could only be along the lines that it wasn't free enough. Hence all my comments about laboratory conditions. The capitalism you and the Austrian crowd dream about is not possible in the real world. You're never going to have a pure free market--but on the bright side, it means you can go on asserting that if only...
Laissez brought the Western empire to the brink of either a fascist dictatorship (only prevented by the Soviets and the US, but mainly the former) or communism (a rank outsider).
The free market failed both economically and socially. It was never concerned with the latter of course, yet it can only function among stable societies (can I ask you to please address that: how does the free market create stability, I mean apart from attrition--death and misery?).
Next question: how do you account for the postwar boom if it wasn't thanks to Keynesianism and consumerism?

Apropos your question again. Please recall that I've never claimed Keynesianism is sustainable, or even humane; it merely "farms" humanity and will take us to the brink just the same, probably a lot quicker than a genuine free market would. It is also what has prevented a genuine revolution.
As for "proof", for anything, there ain't no such animal.
One final question:
would you still be in favour of free markets if you were a bottom feeder?

The Article adequately appraises our concerns over schizoid US currency printing and 'UGH-boot-manipulations' undermining free trade platforms while professing to be free trade leaders..

But be carefull!

Hands off immigration Mr Lewis.

Immigrants are grateful to we politicians and NOT the communities in which they live. This gives us and our wealthy corporate citizenry the voting edge we need to overcome those ungrateful voting vacillatiors in key electorates who have proven so damaging to Labor objectives.

We are not amused, for example at suggestions that immigrants pay a $300,000 per person infrastructure levy to return justice to capital city cost of living standards. We don't want existing Australians to get a fair go. They've had their chance and failed us. Now its the turn of NEW Labor obligated and voting immigrants to take over. And if necessary tail-gate weaker Aussy citizens out of the economic and social picture.

Besides we can get better tennis, soccer and cricket players with immigration and that, along with beer and other Oprah style circuses alone makes immigration worthwhile to Aussy pride.

So dumb Aussy citizens get pushed out of work and can't afford a place to live or electricity to enhance their thermodynamic well being! So what? It's a small price for the power and fiscal autonomy we politicians get. It's a small price for building a great Nation of superior human beings whilst offering opportunities to eliminate the dead wood in our communities by humane Labor party attrition.

Hands off immigration! Just watch our new million a year immigration policy and our new 20% GST swan-song and weep. Because Labor is going $places$ as we forge a new Global Australia.

We may even get the bomb! Oh the POWER!

Ghoulia Jillard

Prime Minister.

That is a good and relevant point; so let’s examine the term; “Government” Thoroughly and through proper ratiocination; Using Rational Utilitarian tools and not the used Empirical Utilitarian methodology; and the apodictic truths will take on a whole different dimension of what is Government, much different than the Professed Zeitgeist driven theologies of what it is.
We can use this as a guide; and it will sound very familiar.
Written in 1884 by Herbert Spencer;

“The Great Political Superstition”; a part. http://mises.org/media/4555
All of a sudden , it sounds like a very different entity to what it proclaims to be ; and answers some questions we already have known , but did not know how to put it to words to explain it.
And for the whole book;
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=221

Squeers
You are only confirming my first remarks. You think there is no structure to reality, no such thing as truth, and no such thing as proof. Everything is just a matter of “ideology” and “perspective”.

But that being so, of course you have no basis for claiming your own assertions are true.

BTW what about Pythagoras’s theorem? Is that capable of proof? Or not?

You say you majored in “historical theory”… and concluded that nothing could be proved? Some theory!

What is theory but explanation of cause and effect? But how could we even conceive cause and effect if everything is subject to historical contingency and mere difference of opinion? One person could claim we can get wealthier by rain dances or sacrificing virgins or printing money and there would be NO WAY OF KNOWING whether these propositions are true or not. They could be true in different cultures, or classes, or circumstances WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU ARE REDUCED TO ARGUING.

If what you are saying were true, not only would there be no economic laws, there wouldn’t be any physical laws limiting human action. We also wouldn’t be capable of communicating with each other. The world would be a senseless jumble without logic.

The very fact that you engage in argument necessarily implies that we are capable of knowing, communicating and logically proving or disproving cause and effect.
But if that is not true, then what are you doing talking about it?

Contrary to your anti-reality, anti-truth, anti-logic, anti-scientific tribalism, both physics and logic impose real limitations on human action, and these have knowable consequences. We can’t get rich by printing money AND IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO BELIEVES WE CAN.

You said I have proved nothing. However you said, and Hobsbawm asserted, that the unregulated market caused the GD. I proved that the markets weren’t unregulated by pointing out the simple fact that they were regulated – by the central banks.

THEREFORE I have proved you wrong.

A free market simply means the price in a transaction is determined by the agreement of the parties.