I see you're struggling to keep up here, Peter Hume, so I'll try to keep it short. Shorter than your essays, anyway.

>>The general issue is whether a vote for Ron Paul would be preferable to a vote for Obama<<

Not really. The "general issue" is whether you would prefer the pandemonium and chaos that Ron Paul's policies would necessarily cause - if any of them were ever implemented - to any continuation of the status quo. The realization that they stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming law is the only excuse you have for advocating support for "Ron Paul’s proposals to decrease government and increase freedom".

Pure cant.

>>You assert that any action taken by government must, by definition, be “managing the economy”<<

Which it is. Either by action or default, whatever they do implies a form of management. Of course, if you do away with government entirely, this would not apply. Do you think that is likely? It certainly doesn't form any part of Ron Paul's manifesto. Even "smaller" government still means you have government. And their proposals to effect change are, by definition, policies, and those policies will necessarily manage the direction of the economy.

>>Reducing your line of reasoning to its absurdity...<<

Try applying that to your own position. Just saying.

>>But before I do, can you let us know whether you have read any original works of the Austrian school?<<

Yes, I have studied them a great deal, thanks to the Arjays and Peter Humes on this Forum, and have been greatly intrigued by them. I certainly comprehend the reasoning behind their antipathy to the Fed.

Your turn now: explain to us [in abolishing the Fed] what actual transactions will stop happening, and what the result will be.

Not the hot air. Just a prediction on the likely changes in daily financial activity.

Maybe a couple of what-if examples as well. Let's say, you want a few billion to open a new mine in WA - how would the Austrian School go about it?

Pericles,

Thank you for taking the time to read the economics of the Mises School. I expect that, however intriguing, it's a dark, lonely job.

Seen from the point of view of a biologist, any school of economics is dubious. It's been several centuries of effort to get to the point where we have sufficient detail on an individual organism, at several levels of organisation (molecular, cellular, individual, ecological), and dawning understanding of how processes at these levels interact in the natural world (let alone including the changing physical, chemical and biological impacts of the build and building world).

While some schools of economics may be progressing beyond the point where their members can be fairly compared with the alchemists (as opposed to the chemists) of 300 years ago, I simply don't have the time or the background to separate the wheat from the chaff.

When the bodies politic have definable anatomies, then I might look more seriously at their economic metabolism.

Yep, von Mises is pretty hard going sometimes, Sir Vivor.

"Modern cryptodespotism, which arrogates to itself the name of liberalism, finds fault with the negativity of the concept of freedom. The censure is spurious as it refers merely to the grammatical form of the idea and does not comprehend that all civil rights can be as well defined in affirmative as in negative terms. They are negative as they are designed to obviate an evil, namely omnipotence of the police power, and to prevent the state from becoming totalitarian. They are affirmative as they are designed to preserve the smooth operation of the system of private property, the only social system that has brought about what is called civilization." Ludwig von Mises, "The Theory of Money and Credit"

Fortunately, we are able to tune in to Peter Hume, who channels both the dynamic insights and vibrant character of von Mises, to which the above excerpt bears witness. They both sing from the same songsheet: if you don't agree with our economic theories, you must be against the concept of liberty.

If you have some spare time, have a quick look through Peter Hume's contributions, and count the number of occasions that he does *not* equate taxation with theft, and government policy with enslavement.

Hint: you won't find any.

It's all so very... smug, Peter Hume.

There you are, relaxing with a glass of Macallans and a Montecristo, railing against capitalism, longing for radical anarchism, knowing full well that the chances of an "Austrian" world are somewhere between buckleys and sod all.

We don't have a perfect system. The checks and balances are often out of kilter, and decisions made on our behalf are often timid, even counter-productive. But I'd sooner have our rickety system than the complete dogs breakfast that you, Ron Paul, and the Austrian School have in mind for us.

Those policies, by the way, would serve only to entrench the existing advantages of the rich and the privileged. Which is why I picture you as a single-malt-swigging plutocrat.

Or do I have that wrong, too?

Dear Pericles,

Have you thought of writing an article for olo? Maybe you have, and I don't know about it. Anyway I appreciate both your ideas and your expression of those ideas.

Thank you david f.

I'm not sure that merely being combative and stubborn necessarily translates into an interesting article. But with your vote of confidence, I'll certainly give it some thought.

Sir Vivor
All your political beliefs are intended to achieve economic ends, namely the supply of goods and services to ends preferred by you – otherwise what are you advocating them for? If you openly deny the possibility of economic science, you are admitting that there is no possibility of the rationality of the policies you advocate, no way of distinguishing cause from effect.

The only way there could not be the possibility of economic theory is if the laws of physics and logic did not have necessary consequences for human action and production possibilities. That is essentially what the statists are arguing. For example Pericles ridicules the idea of abolishing government control of the money supply. The necessary implication is that government is actually creating wealth for society out of nothing by printing pieces of paper. It’s a completely irrational belief; a creationist faith reposed in government.

Pericles
Obviously there’s no point my wasting time explaining Austrian theory to you while you
• assume or assert over and over again that freedom must be necessarily be a worse option than its negation in any given case, without showing reason why but your own assumption or assertion
• circularly insist that freedom does not and cannot exist –all social activity is just by definition the product of governmental management – i.e. the state creates society rather than the other way around
• refuse to admit the logical consequences, and deliberately evade answering the questions that prove the error of this back-to-front belief
• define “practical” to rule out the possibility of freedom, thus cementing your mind shut
• insist that government’s self-granted licence of money printing and handouts to big banks creates net benefits for society, rather than unjust political privilege, without ever giving reason or joining issue
• lard your argument with accusations of lunacy for which you provide no reason but your own *circular* argument
• simultaneously accuse me of “cowardice” for writing too little, and snipe at me for writing too much