The Forum > Article Comments > Crisis contagion and Australia > Comments
Crisis contagion and Australia : Comments
By Harold Levien, published 12/3/2009There is a great deal a courageous and imaginative government can do to protect Australians from the global economic decline.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by mac, Friday, 13 March 2009 8:46:43 AM
| |
mac
"do you think that, in aggregate, the costs of all the ill-conceived regulation schemes exceed the capital and production lost in the current unfolding catastrophe?" The capital and production lost in the current unfolding catastrophe are *a sub-set* of the costs of all the ill-conceived regulation schemes: see http://mises.org/story/3128 Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 13 March 2009 11:11:18 AM
| |
Siamdave,
The essay you referenced made entertaining reading and is most thought provoking. Very clever and quite obvious most of it, but hard to grasp in full. I repeat the link here for those who missed your post or didn't check out the reference. It does take a bit of reading though. http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greatest-sting-ever.html Posted by kulu, Friday, 13 March 2009 12:25:14 PM
| |
PeterHume,
If I understand correctly, you interpret the current difficulties as a product of inept regulation in the US(or more precisely, regulation) and that it is not due to laissez-faire policies. Also, under perfect laissez-faire conditions the market could not, in effect, "fail",even though enterprises, including banks, might fail, failure is caused by government intervention.If economics were a science,this could be resolved with a minimum of ideological bias,however it isn't. If we were all economists, and the assumptions that economists make about economics were laws, our economies might function "economically",so for the time being I'd prefer regulators to oversee the economy. Posted by mac, Friday, 13 March 2009 4:02:46 PM
| |
Yeah, great concept. But if the regulators are corrupt, and allow these various mass crimes to happen, then "regulation" would really be a bit like setting rules for the coroner's examination of corpses during Pol Pot's time.
The "regulators" are the first that should be arrested and imprisoned, preferably with labor duties to help build the infrastructure they allowed their mates to loot from the people. Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 13 March 2009 4:13:56 PM
| |
Can't understand why u say that mr peterhume. This is a fat cat disaster. Executives get paid molty millions for creating disasters like this. why shouldn't there be checks and balances, in the system.
An economist is no better than a weather forecaster. Posted by slug, Saturday, 14 March 2009 3:01:42 PM
|
I can remember these same arguments 20 years ago when I was studying Asian Development, the roles of MITI and the keiretsus,for example,in development, were contentious,and interpreted according to one's ideological bias. I was referring to the post war period when the Japanese financed industrialisation by "over-lending" well beyond Western prudential limits, certainly they paid the price in the 90s, but after 40 years of growth. In my opinion the Japanese, Koreans and now the Chinese employed a modern version of mercantilism. My comment in regard to the capital and production losses in the unfolding debacle compared with the losses incurred by government attempts "to pick winners" still stands, only time will tell.