Shal
I don’t know why you are so hostile to Austrian theory when you obviously don’t understand it.

No-one is suggesting, given the prior fact of governmental manipulation of the supply and the price of money, that the resulting economic phenomena will be restricted to public offices and will not manifest in private firms.

The Austrian argument is against the original monetary manipulation, of which all the facts you mention are subsidiary consequences which are entirely predictable, and which were in fact predicted by the Austrian school years in advance, unlike the Marxian, neo-classical, Keynesian and monetarist schools who didn’t see it coming and remain clueless about how to fix it.

The name ‘derivative’ itself should tell that you are looking in the wrong place for the *origin* of something. A derivative is a derivative *of * the underlying contract. The function of derivatives is to hedge risk, so the greater the risk in the underlying monetary bubble, the greater will be the derivative bubble - a mystery to you obviously, but not to sound economic theory.

Your hypothesis would only make sense if the economic phenomena in issue - the supply of and demand for money; the underlying contracts and the derivatives - were unrelated to each other. Yours is a kind of uneconomic, or anti-economic theory.

Your facile misrepresentation that the status quo leading into the crisis satisfied the precepts of Austrian theory is laughable. The links I posted above show a small summary of the vast panoply of extensive and intensive governmental controls of money and banking which explode the fallacy that the crisis was a result of laisser-faire.

You should have the minimum intellectual honesty either to refute or accept Austrian theory, but so far you have only demonstrated that your intellectual standards are satisfied by snivelling ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Which is it?

But thanks for the love, by the way.

Wing Ah Ling,
Huh?