Irn-Bru wrote:crazyhorse wrote:It was the government's failure to manage the economy that caused the depression, not the government's mismanagement of it. The depression happened when and because the market was "free."
I agree with what Kazoo wrote. A little
economic history will help.
Again, how was the market "free"? I've pointed out that
U.S. currency was under government control and manipulation. In what way could the government make itself more intimately involved in every transaction in the nation?
crazyhorse wrote:Hoover's belief that the market was self adjusting led to his doing nothing. No government regulation and a lack of union strength means that workers' pay goes down, which eventually destroys even the employer when there's no money to buy goods that are manufactured.
Oh, Hoover did plenty. The myth of a
laissez faire Hoover is perpetuated in 11th grade history books but is easy to debunk. (See above where I linked to Murray Rothbard's book on the the Great Depression. He discusses Hoover at length.)
crazyhorse wrote:The depression had nothing to do with the government handling money; it showed that capitalism doesn't work and the market is not self correcting. The government or some other third party has to do the regulating if we are to stay economically intact. Hence, we became a socialist country under FDR and have been so ever since.
OK, so I laid out an argument that went something like this in the post above:
(1) A free market is a system of property rights and liberty absent of coercive regulation
(2) Money (which is a means of indirect exchange) is used in most agreements and contracts
(3) The government coercively siezed control of the money supply and manipulated it prior to the boom of the 1920's (and subsequent depression)
(4) Therefore, the government was managing the economy in an intimate way prior to a depression that was caused by monetary policy.
And you come back with: No, the Great Depression showed that capitalism failed and that the government needed to manage the economy?
What? Why not take on one of my points (1-4) listed above.
crazyhorse wrote:The great economists of our era have soundly trounced Adam Smith, which is natural-- a discipline doesn't begin and end with its founder (if Smith can be called a "founder."
Smith can't be called a "founder." Spanish Jesuits and Dominicans living in Salamanca wrote (better!) free-market economic theory than did Smith. . .and they did it 200 years before him.
Neither is Smith the best voice for free-market economics. Knocking Smith down in certain points really isn't hard to do, but Adam Smith and Free Market economics aren't identical.
crazyhorse wrote:You're completely wrong about private contractors costing less in relation to providing services than does the government. It costs zip to go to the typical High School or community college but about 35 K a year to go to typical private colleges;
"What is seen and what is unseen. . ."
You can't seriously have just claimed that schools cost nothing.
There's more, but there doesn't seem to be much point in moving onward. I do hope that you check out Rothbard's history of the great depression; it's fantastic.