Yes, thankyou David f, for confirming that which I had already stated. I still find the article interesting, and the comparisons between the 1340's economic meltdown and now to be notable.
All history, no matter how well regarded the author, must be viewed with an eye to the author's prejudices and bias in mind. American historians in general always have a slightly different flavour to English or Australian authors, for instance.
This thread has certainly shown a certain amount of cherrypicking, as both sides have demonstrated some historical evidence for their opposing views.
In truth, it is difficult to say whether one policy was more successful than another would have been, since it is impossible to run 2 timelines; although the more divergent, the easier it becomes. It is easy, for instance, to compare statist policies of Soviet Russia and laissez faire policies of the USA; however we are looking at a far more subtle difference, between the economic rationalism of the last 30 or 40 years, and the more conservative monetary policies of earlier decades.
I for one, have fond memories of the earlier times. I believe the standard of living of working class Aussies was much higher in those times, and I think economic rationalism (first proposed by Gough, by the way) has overseen the egregious expansion of the gap between rich and poor, and continual erosion of living standards of workers.
Allowing banks to vary interest rates during the life of a contract was not only immoral, it was stupid, as was most of the -ideologically driven- deregulation and privatisation.

Dear Grim,

You are correct in writing of the prejudices of the historian. I think the first time I became aware of that was reading a book by a Mexican historian. As a schoolboy in the US I was taught about the heroic effort of the Texans in their revolt against Mexico resulting in their independence in 1835. From the Mexican I learned that Mexico outlawed slavery in 1829, and much of the impetus for the revolt was by settlers from the US who wanted to keep slaves. The dirty dogs did the same bit later in the Civil War. I now forget the Alamo and would like to see Texas returned to Mexico. If this had already been done w would not have had Dubya.

As an oldie, can't see what was the matter with Keynesism, except the world was running short of greedy billionares.

So along came the simple silly greedy phrase - Get Big or Get Out! even bush bank managers caught up in it>

Hence the present result worldwide

Grim

My cousin had a wife whose family once lived next to a guy called Wing Ah Ling, and it is true that sometimes people have inadvertently confused us, owing to the similarity of our accents (I was raised in Shanghai before my now-famous trek by dromedary across the Taklamakan desert.)

However, I maintain the point is at all times whether the particular argument can be refuted; that is all. Personality is irrelevant, and strictly speaking off-topic.

Now. The general issue is that Geoff Davies argues that the current economic crisis shows the failure of 'neo-liberal' economic theory (which he doesn't define), and asserts that government can 'manage' the economy better (but doesn't say how).

This in turn leads to the prior issue whether the current economic crisis is a result of monetary policy, and in particular government manipulating the price of money which then affects the financial and capital markets, thus causing the surpluses and shortages which are the boom and bust; or whether the crisis was the result of 'unfettered markets'.

(Geoff, the problem is not that I 'haven't read' your article, it's that you have not been able to come up with a sensible reply to the criticisms I make that show
(a) that monetary policy, not free market ideology is what caused the economic crisis, see: http://mises.org/story/3128
and
(b) there is no evidence or reason to think that central planning of the economy or any part of it could do any better.)

Grim, I quote from the article you cited:
"Nor was the Papacy, the world leadership of the Church, fighting against the debt-looting of the international banks then as it is today; in fact, at that time it was allied with, aiding, and abetting them."

Thus the article you cite does not support the proposition that these bubbles are caused by the unhampered operations of free markets governed by the contracts of the parties. It shows clearly that the reason for the financial crises was not free markets as the author confusedly argues, but on the contrary, because the state 1. enforced a monopoly, ie illegalised free trade and competition in critical industries, and then 2. hocked up the entire population to pay off debts the state had contracted to the banks, by, in effect, pledging the state's monopolies to the banks.

The facts are staring you in the face. How people can keep giving the state a 'get out of jail free' card is a mystery. Can't you see that the root cause of the racket is the state, because the state is a monopoly to start with, and it then extends the exploitative powers that it originally claims by force, to the banks, in their common interest to screw the little guy?

Thus article you cite is instead authority for the proposition that these bubbles and the consequential busts are caused by the authorities overriding free trade in favour of state monopolies and legal privileges to the banks as against the little guy, because without such interference, open competition would send the state-based monopolist scammers broke?

If such controls over the money supply are so anti-social, exploitative and destructive, why do the authorities do it? Because they have an interest in inflation, because they get a cut of the loot. I don't know what was the Vatican's particular interest in 1340, but certainly the western states are implicated up to their necks in the financial crises of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

Thus the problem is not free markets, it is monetary policy.

The irony is that those motivated to protect the little guy, by their mere unfounded assumption that the problem can't be government, are the main vector of the shafting of the little guy: http://mises.org/story/3335

No-one has addressed, let alone refuted these arguments.

Q.E.D.

Looks like the OP has taken his ball and gone home. I guess he doesn't have the stomach to defend his views even against those arguing in good faith, as I and others have done here.

Geoff, by withdrawing from the field before addressing all the opposing points, you've conceded the battle. Better luck next time.