In theory, people could own private property and consume all they produce – no growth. Therefore it is not true that growth is fundamental to capitalism. Rather, growth is fundamental to *life*, *reproduction* and to *man’s endless desire to satisfy his wants*. Capitalism merely serves man's want to satisfy these drives of life, more than any other system.

Everything else you have laid against capitalism is Keynesian or Marxian. You depend on the assumption that unrestrained capitalism produced the Great Depression. As I have shown, this is factually false.

Thus you haven’t begun to join issue with the Austrian critique. You haven’t accounted for:
• the role of government in inflating the money supply
• how that, or its predicted economic consequences, can be attributed to a ‘free market’.

You haven’t shown why we should conclude that freedom, rather than ham-fisted interventionism, is unsustainable and anti-social.

Your allegation that capitalism is "force"-based is completely unsubstantiated.

And the idea that without government economic intervention, people would starve, is simply nonsense. The living standards of the masses have never been higher than under capitalism – and not because of inflation or the dole! The great famines were always caused not by nature but by government.

The difference between your approach and mine is, I actively seek out refutations. You actively ignore them.

If you can refute Austrian theory, by all means let’s hear it. But all you’ve given so far doesn’t even understand what the issues are.

And quite apart from all that, even if all the evils you allege against private ownership and individual freedom were conceded, which they’re not, you still haven’t begun to give any reason to think that government can do any better, all things considered.

Since all government revenue is confiscated from prior private production, it is mere backbiting to allege a “religious” belief in the efficacy of private production; on which all the parasitic and irrational dreams of the interventionists depend.

To identify "affluence" with inflation, and "fairness" with the dole, is all the interventionists' arguments amount to.

Peter,

You rave on with such certainty. Everyone else is a fool, and your beloved Austrian school is full of answers.

Well, I think the Austrian school is just another concept reflecting a certain bias.

At least Wolfgang Kasper, defending the Austrian school, praises the 'can do' mentality of China as an example upholding Schumpeter; you just tell everyone how poor we are with our responses although we are all waiting for policy examples from you.

To you, we are all marxist or keynesisans. What an insult your beloved Austrian school offers to the efforts from both sides of politics over many years to try and get the balance right in terms of upholding national and international considerations.

I mean do you run your own life perfectly with no hiccups?, but you suspect Western leadership to easily accommodate democratic demands and international considerations easily.

And remember this. The Austrian school has been around for decades, but I don't know of any Western society that has ever considered living by its rules. Even the US has continued to expand social welfare in recent decades.

Yes, we need to change our ways, but I suspect it will not be in accordance to the ideas of the Austrian school, as put forward by neo-Austrians like Peter Schiff.

It will be pragmatic politics as usual, at best, rather than a commitment to another imperfect concept, as offered by the Austrian school.

PH:
<I was only saying what you yourself had told me in an earlier post – that you hadn’t read Marx, although obviously channelling his and Keynesian theory>
I’ve read Marx “deeply” I said; who, btw, could have known nothing about Keynes. Had Keynes even been born, his compromise policies would not have satisfied Marx.

I have not argued in favour of protectionism, but that it like laissez faire is unsustainable. Capitalism is unsustainable. That is my point. I think outside the paradigm you put absolute faith in.

<You do know, don’t you, that the Federal Reserve has existed since 1913>?

When I mentioned the 90 year reign of free trade, I was referring primarily to Britain (not the US) which only halted its liberal policies in 1931, mainly because of political unrest, but also because Keynsian policies promised capitalism a life-extension. The US, btw, passed its social security act in 1935 (right after the slump!), mainly as a bulwark against social/political unrest. Thus began the welfare revolution and human husbandry.
The free market most certainly precipitated fascism, socialism and Keynsianism.

PH:
<In theory, people could own private property and consume all they produce – no growth. Therefore it is not true that growth is fundamental to capitalism. Rather, growth is fundamental to *life*, *reproduction* and to *man’s endless desire to satisfy his wants*. Capitalism merely serves man's want to satisfy these drives of life, more than any other system.>

Pure sophistry!
Capitalism is based on endless growth and not on man's endless appetite! How is that the great religions are based more on renunciation and asceticism?
<You depend on the assumption that unrestrained capitalism produced the Great Depression. As I have shown, this is factually false>
I've made no such claim. "Capitalism" is productive of all recessions, I made no distinction as to modalities.
Economic fundamentalism is politically/socially unsustainable and economically reprehensible. It certainly isn't productive of "freedom", but entrapment! Your kind of "freedom" is what continues to keep the US (deep south) backwards. But it's frontier freedom (the freedom to refuse healthcare) is both vicious and delusionary. While their pride might be respected, would they be free in any qualitative sense? And who would want to live in the wild that they cherish? Hobbes and Locke’s state of brutish nature!

<Your allegation that capitalism is "force"-based is completely unsubstantiated>
Not what I said, but does anyone have a choice? Is there a landmass available to me gratis where I can set-up my utopia?

I am not defending protectionism, it was a band-aid measure that is coming off. But the free-market is also unsustainable--politically, socially, ethically, environmentally and economically.

Even were it tenable, how do you stop the natural tendency to monopolies that even Smith foresaw?

Both of your arguments consist only of
a) personal argument, and
b) assuming what is in issue,
as I have pointed out before.

For example I have shown why capitalism does not necessarily involve growth. Squeers replies that that is "pure sophistry". But he doesn't say *why*, what reason? He just reverts to ing his original bald assertion, which I have just disproved, without offering any proof, reason or explanation.

It's like being an evolutionist arguing with a creationist.

To be rational, you need to say:
a) *why* any other system will not be faced with exactly the same problems of growth arising from human life, reproduction and want-satisfaction, and
b) if it doesn't provide for them, *how* are you to decide which human wants must go unsatisfied, and why, and how you're going to stop them?

Similarly, I have shown why government's economic interventions cannot and do not make society fairer or more affluent, and why they actively make matters worse. Neither Chris or Squeers have said a word to refute this. All we get is wild hyperbole from Squeers about starvation that rests on assumptions that are not factually correct, and assertions from Keynesianism that he makes no attempt to prove.

Chris has not been able to prove his argument or refute mine, or even demonstrate that he understands the issues. All he has done is shoot the messenger - treat all issues as personal to me!

Thus your arguments do not even reach the threshold of being logically valid. The problem is not that reasonable people can differ in their opinions of the same thing. It is not that you guys have a valid alternative theory of the politics, economics, or ethics. It's that you argumentation is at the level of schoolyard taunts and magic pudding fables, and you need to prior basic learning in logical thought that is so far lacking.

Peter, you state

"Similarly, I have shown why government's economic interventions cannot and do not make society fairer or more affluent, and why they actively make matters worse".

Please remind me, I have not noticed anything of substance yet that I can respond to.

Again, I ask you to give me an example from history.