Question for supporters of Limited Government: Was the current economic “situation” caused by government intervention?
Please, do not start a debate about limited government vs. anarcho-capitalism, I already know what the interventionists think about that.
My question can be answered by the interventionists simply with a “yes” or “no”, or with an expansion on why they believe this. With this thread, though, I am simply trying to understand what they believe, not necessarily why they believe it.
I like your list of 5 basic reasons why people believe things. It’s simple, but I think it contains enough truth to be useful.
Am I to understand that you support limited government, but at the same time believe that Limited Government caused the economic mess? You support limited government, but you agree with Peter Schiff and understand Hazlitt’s basic explanations? I am not criticizing, I’m simply trying to clarify what you saying.
Am I to understand that you support limited government, but at the same time believe that Limited Government caused the economic mess? You support limited government, but you agree with Peter Schiff and understand Hazlitt’s basic explanations? I am not criticizing, I’m simply trying to clarify what you saying.
I thought you meant Limited meaning as little as possible, the less the better. Thats what I support. If you mean little as opposed to none at all, I am ignorant abut that. I have no idea what the rock bottom amount of gov should be.
Interventionists who?
Well, you have to consider that while government intervention did cause the economic crisis, " government intervention" is quite a broad term. If government only existed to provide police enforcement then a crisis would not have occured as a result of government intervention. Economic crises are only the product of money expansion, and so only central banking and fractional-reserve banking can cause malinvestment. So, while government intervention did cause the crisis in the broadest sense, it was intervention in monetary policy that did so specifically.
A lot more interventions could have caused the crisis. CRA, Fannie, Freddie and so forth.
Those were interventions which made the crises worse than it would have otherwise been, but the underlying factor was an increase in the supply of money.
That is debatable. It is in fact heavily debated.
Well, perhaps, but being on the Ludwig von Mises Institute I thought that use of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is frequent enough as to allow easy recognition. If this is to become a debate on whether or not the Austrian Busyess Cycle Theory is correct or not, I’m not sure it should be done in this thread or at all even.
To avoid future misinterpretations, my point works the same whether we consider inflation any increase in the supply of money or an increase in the supply of money greater than the demand for money. Ultimately, cyclical fluctuations are only the product of inflation (in either a Misesian, Rothbardian or Hayekian approach).
To my knowledge no one here, or if so practically none, of the minarchists here support the kind of government involvement that caused the crises
Thanks for these replies. I should start a new thread, and write a more clear question as to what I’m getting at. My concept of “limited government” is causing understandable, and unintended, confusion.
Let’s stop the thread right here before things get out of hand! Thanks.
Yes, I believe it was.
It’s “heavily debated” but it’s not much of a debate.
95% of economists completely lack any form of Capital Theory. One side has the tools, while the other doesn’t.
It’s a boring debate. Sort of like a debating with a socialist.