[samgheb]

Thanks I hadn’t seen that. Apologies to Prof. Woods But you’re right that it isn’t that obvious to find.

[samgheb]

So what are the differences between the so called crude keynesianism of pre-70’s and what ruled until 2008?

[samgheb]

Anybody wondering should watch the video that the always helpful Porphyrogenitus posted. It is a recent presentation by Gary North that adresses exactly this issue. He is guided by Deirdre McCloskey is the authority on this topic. She has demolished all prominent theories so far in her book Bourgeois Dignity which can be partly read on Google Books

Hans Hermann Hoppe essentially agrees with IQ hypothesis and has built on it in his new book The Great Fiction. The book can be found on google books and I believe the chapter can be read there online.

McCloskey has answered the IQ argument as made by George Clark. Here that part is:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21326/

[samgheb]

I have tried writing Joseph Salerno but he doesn’t really respond. Does Prof. Woods or any of the other scholars here know how war was viewed in relation to prosperity before WWII?

Through the ages different figures have argued the positives of war. “War is the father of all things” by Heraclitus comes to mind as a particularly vile example of how some intellectuals have viewed war.

[samgheb]

I might come back to this thread as I do more research on the topic for my term paper.

Thank you very much. You have been very helpful.

[samgheb]

Have there been any non-austrian economists who have challenged war=prosperity?

Chicago school economists deny that stimulus works in general right? So it would seem logical that they would deny war=prosperity as well. Yet I have not come across such materiale. It seems like an uniquely Austrian insight. Is that right?

[samgheb]

Thank you very much. The Asian crisis pops up again and again as evidence that capital has been too liberalized.

[samgheb]

Thank you very much for your answers. Just one last question. In my International Development class The Asian Crisis is often used to bash the free market and neoliberalism. Can I assume that what you said of Thailand was true of those countries as well in that crisis, namely that they over-inflated their currency?

[samgheb]

But in International Development class we keep hearing how during the 70’s/80’s the free flow of capital was let loose. This is constantly presented as a damaging era where the market came to help control governments which we have since suffered from. Is this just hype did something occur in this period that tipped the balance in favor of the financial sector that restrained the government?

[samgheb]

Prof. Gutzman,

Given Tibet’s location compared to America’s I don’t think that is a fair comparison. But I certainly think you’re right in that the USSR was a threat to the countries surrounding it but the question is if they would have been capable of doing much besides funding revolutionaries in in third world countries outside of the USSR sphere.

While it is true that the economic system in America is poor it is nothing like communism. Without the threat of direct confrontation with America would the USSR have been able to motivate their people to work for their cause?

[samgheb]

I’m planning to write Joseph Salerno to ask about the historiograpy of this topic. What was the consensus before WWII? I assume that Keynes+WWII changed the perception of war but perhaps there was already seeds of it before.

I’m sure I will get the countered with reference to Hitler’s economy. Is there any work that refutes the so called economic miracle under Hitler?

[samgheb]

Why shouldn’t there be money in politics?

If you accept that government has power over people to the extent it does then you should expect that people will demand a share or influence. Any laws to prevent money coming into politics will be useless as long as politics continues to exert power in financial affairs.

The best that can be hoped for is retaining power at the most local level. The closer it is to home and the more diffuse it is the harder it will be to corrupt. That means always being in favor of localizing power no matter the outcome. For example at a local level they might ban certain things which would otherwise be allowed with more central power but this is a price that has to be paid.

[samgheb]

I agree with what you guys are saying. Increasingly the debate is being waged via video. The point of a documentary however is to give a general view and provide the full literature for those whose interest has been piqued. It is not one or the other but all. For me it is the Gary North Strategy of Intellectual Marketing. Start with short video’s which leads to a longer video(documentary) which leads to writings either articles or books.

I think they should do one on foreign policy and history to show the folly of interventionism.

[samgheb]

Hans Hoppe has argued that free immigration isn’t a liberal/libertarian policy so we shouldn’t hold it up as a goal to be reached. I believe Tom agrees with this point of view or at least he did back in the early 00’s after Hoppe’s book came out. Rothbard changed his mind from the standard libertarian open borders to the Hoppe view as well after the Berlin Wall fell. Here is the issue of the Journal of Libertarian studies where different views were presented:
http://mises.org/periodical.aspx?Id=3&volume=Vol.%2013%20Num.%202

Personally I have come to the conclusion which Hoppe holds and which most libertarians reject. Economically and socially I think it is problematic as well with open borders.

I’m from Denmark and the problems with immigrants from the third world have been huge. Mind you I’m a son of immigrants from a third world country but I can still recognize the flaws with this policy. Thankfully Denmark has more sense then Sweden which is completely under the politically correct spell and refuse to talk about this which is why the party you referenced the Sweden Democrats have gotten popular despite the right wing government refusing to allow them in their coalition and basically every part of the establishment refusing to have anything to do with them. In Denmark we have a similar party who managed to become mainstream and now that the leftists have come to power they don’t dare reverse the restrictionists policies that our anti-immigration party put in place while in government.

Europe is much more threatened than America because while latinos have been problematic it is not a question of a clash of differen’t civilizations in the stark way it is in Europe. Muslim immigration into a Christian society(even if it is post-christian) has been very troublesome and this will only get worse when you have a welfare state and multiculturalism as the standard policy teaching people that any preference for the historic majority of Danes is racist and no culture should be superior.

[samgheb]

?

[Author]

Posts