• The one thing you are agreed on is that government should have control of the means of production: you are totalitarian national socialists.
• You have not explained how government using its coercive powers to take over or direct what would otherwise be private property transactions is *not* “turning to socialism”
• You have not explained why you resile from full socialism if government has some presumptive superiority at economising.
• You obviously resile from full socialism because you know that what you are advocating, carried to its logical conclusion, would entail the destruction of the economy, the environment, society and the State – mass starvation and enormous abuse of power.
• You have not identified or understood why full socialism does that; you apparently think it was just some strange coincidence.
• You have not shown why the defects of socialism you admit, would not inhere in the socialism you advocate.
• You have not taken account of prior government interventions in causing the problems that you blame on free markets: a classic example is the constant left-wing complaint against “corporations” whose predominance is largely the result of their own policies
• You have not begun to understand, or to identify, the original economic problem that you are trying to solve by socialist policies, because it is caused by natural scarcity not capitalism and cannot be solved by forcibly re-arranging property titles.
• You have not explained why liberty and socialism are a false dichotomy; and how any alternative to “rein in” markets (by threatening to shoot people) is not socialism.
• Although you claim to stand for a mixed economy, in fact the only thing that’s keeping the economy mixed is the private property and individual liberty that you stand against, in favour of an open-ended creed of government control of anything and everything.
• This means that the mixed economy is only mixed because of the libertarian ideas and institutions protecting people’s property from arbitrary confiscation and override by government, which you are arguing are bad in principle; thus you're contradicting yourselves.

• You use double standards, for example justifying interventions for “collusion” and “monopoly” although these apply no less, and usually moreso, to government.
• At no stage has Geoff made any defence whatsoever of his absurd claim that government has a presumptive superiority at economising, except by appeal to the absent authority of … wait for it … himself!
• You have no theory of government to justify your absurd assumption that it’s more representative of society than society is of itself.
• You have not given any reason why it’s *not* mere special pleading for government to prop up a failing business with OPM.
• You have not demonstrated the economic benefit of any policy you advocate, because you simply ignore the costs to alternative possible use of the same resources: mere economic incoherence.
• You have based your criticism of free markets on neo-classical theories that you yourself adopt in your criticisms of free market, for example the dogma about monopolies and collusion.
• You have not given any rationale for the depletion of depletable resources to justify your assumption – given without any reason whatsoever - that you know what the correct rate of depletion should be.
• You have not attempted to come to terms with the problem of how to deal with balancing future against present utility.
• When shown that your belief are self-contradictory you persist in them, merely going around in circles as Foyle has done.
• You have *not* read or understood the arguments that make mincemeat of your socialist drivel in short order, consistently satisfying yourself with glib misrepresentations and evasions.

Geoff
please show, for any benefit of government intervention that you allege, how you have accounted for the cost in resources withdrawn from alternative possible employments, in terms of the possible satisfaction of human wants foregone, in units of a lowest common denominator; or admit you can't.

For explaining power about economics that doesn't instantly crumble on cursory examination, try:
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

It's a shame some of you people react before you comprehend what I'm really saying. It's not so far from some of these "libetarian" views. It's an argument so resist big business as well as big government, both of which curtail individual liberty. It's an argument for legitimate productive business rather than parasitic exploitation. It's an argument that producers should pay full costs, so markets can function properly.

As for the implicit accusations of Stalinism or whatever, I advocate nothing more than the democratic process, imperfect as it is.

That's hardly a convincing defence, Geoff Davies.

>>It's a shame some of you people react before you comprehend what I'm really saying.<<

I have read your treatise "Sack the Economists" from cover to cover. If I still lack comprehension, it says a great deal about your writing skills, and your inability to get a message across.

Or it is equally possible that you what are writing is actually the result of looking in the wrong place. After all, despite making a big thing about the failure of economists, you still see fit to allow a selection of them to provide supportive blurb for your booklet. How does that work?

I have already picked out two excerpts of nonsense from it. If you can defend your position on those, let me know. But there are many more to choose from, if you would like me to post them here.

As a commentator on economics, you make a great geophysicist.

Pericles - "If I still lack comprehension, it says a great deal about your writing skills, and your inability to get a message across." Well there are two possibilities there Pericles. Clearly you just don't get the main messages, though plenty of others do.

"despite making a big thing about the failure of economists, you still see fit to allow a selection of them to provide supportive blurb "
As a measure of your comprehension, you don't even get the clearly and repeatedly stated distinction I make between "mainstream economists" (mainly neoclassical) and some others who have a much better grasp of how economies function. So of course it's some of the latter who have offered endorsements.

There is no point debating your nitpicking.

Business Insider Australia

Bitcoin Proves The Libertarian Idea Of Paradise Would Be Hell On Earth
Houston Chronicle &#8206;-

14 Years Ago JP Morgan Patented Bitcoin-Like Payment System
http://12160.info/photo/927-people-own-half-of-all-bitcoins?context=user

Just 47 individuals own nearly one-third of all Bitcoins. About 927 people control half the entire currency. There are just over 1 million Bitcoin

http://12160.info/main/mobilepage/desktopMode?target=%2Fxn%2Fdetail%2F2649739%3ABlogPost%3A1375607

http://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Bitcoin-Proves-The-Libertarian-Idea-Of-Paradise-5053528.php

not..only financial..ARMOGEDDON

Israeli To Officially Take Over as Vice Chairman of U.S. Federal Reserve Bank
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/11/israel-federal-reserve/

We all know the Zionist banksters control the world money supply. This is NOT news. What is news is that they used to try to hide their occupation of the U.S. American money system by pretending to be Americans.

Now? Screw it! This time they are just blurting it out!

The Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve is going to be an Israeli bankster who ran the Bank of Israel Bank; Stanley Fischer. Plain and Simple! Screw You America!

Now what will Americans do when they ALL realize that their banking system is run by Zionists as stated so on the main street marquee? Well, if they remember Andrew Jackson, they will throw this occupiers out on their bankster assess, arrest them, and thrown them all in prison. Or maybe Americans will just again just take up the wazoo and bow to their masters? Hard to say…
http://rinf.com/alt-news/business-news/blackrock-biggest-investor-world-dominance-problem/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/how-wall-street-bankrupted-detroit-interview-with-richard-wolff/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-john-boehner-and-paul-ryan-should-immediately-resign/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/ken-okeefe-time-to-arrest-traitors-in-white-housecongress-end-the-fed/

http://12160.info/page/ag-holder-more-mortgage-fraud-cases-against-banks