No one has to work 40% of the time anymore. Due to Government regulation.
The states in the west control >40% of GDP. This must be paid for. This means ~40% of people's paychecks are taken, and thus they lose that amount of their life
All investment is in the expectation of sales. If your customers have no money, you will not invest, no matter how much savings you have. That's what the real world does. Right now many businesses and banks have plenty of cash. But are not investing it because of lack of customer.
Yes, but cheap credit encourages long term projects, as they assume that spending will pick up eventually (eg. mining), or the deflation lowers prices until the customers can spend.
State spending does not inherently hurt the economy. In fact, most of it helps the economy. Taxation is not theft. And no one can be expected to be taken seriously if they claim it is.
Taxation is theft. That is a fact, and while not the crux of my argument, it is important to understand that coercion is involved. And spending only helps in the way that I can increase the level of a pool by moving water around it.
Regulations to stop theft and the destruction of life and property are bad?
The thing that is the foundation of capitalist economics is bad?
I oppose the state, and wish common/merchant law to decide these things (which I can safely assume they will). In the context of a state, I wish it to ban violations of person, property and contract and nothing else.
Americans aren't taxed anywhere near 40%.
As I said, >40% of GDP by government must be paid for.
Very badly misunderstood.
Inflation causes higher prices, and is paid for by taking from those who get the new money last. what have i misunderstood?
It can if you employ enough of them at high enough wages.
So mis-allocations of resources can be solved through higher wages... How?
Only the Supply Siders say you can.
Not sure what you mean. Austrians =/= Supply Siders, or are you making an argument about Supply Siders believing in nonsense?
Inflation isn't really relevant to this.
New money makes it appear as though there are more savings than there are, so it pushes down interest rates (temporarily), but entrepreneurs thus make bad decision (I would not have bought this factory at 5%, but did at 2%
Most of what the state does is correct flaws in what the market does in the absence of the state.
First, this encourages a monarchy/oligarchy, and from what I know, you're a democrat. Second, how do they or you know?
Fractional reserve banking is what the free market does to create a foundation for capitalism. Why are "free market" Austrians against free market capitalism?
Free Market =/= Capitalism. Capitalism is Reagan and Thatcher creating laws which benefit the rich (owners of capital) at the expense of the working class (hey, I sound like a Marxist). FRB is fraud by nature, just like a valet running a taxicab service is fraud.
I don't follow what you mean by this.
Gold is good, but not for any religious/ideological reason (just it is good practically, just like candy bars are tasty, rather than bark). I was asking what is wrong with gold.
I don't follow what you mean by this either.
Basically, why do you disagree with the Austrians? Is it the methodology or what?
See how half of this is ideology? Taxation is theft, FRB is fraud, regulation is wrong, state action is bad action (anyone who has ever said "I'll only do it if you do it" knows what nonsense this is)...
Austrian economics had a noble purpose and a sinister one. The noble purpose was continued by mainstream economists who incorporated what value the Austrians brought to the economics table (in the late 19th century it was a lot, particularly their theories of value as separate from labor-time expended). The sinister one plays out today when Mises University functions as a far-right think-tank using only Austrian economics, and none of the economics that came later unless it not only used the same underpinnings, but supported the same ideological conclusion.
Taxation is theft, just like the draft is slavery. FRB is fraud (valet/taxicab as above). The other two are the conclusions from the Austrian methodology. Austrian economics has advanced, but I fail to see anything being sinister. If you have a point you think they should incorporate, pray tell, but maybe they just thought it was wrong (like Muslims reject Scientology).
I agree that modelling is an issue, though, especially in Economics. People's goals appear fundamentally unpredictable, to me.
what's sinister is that the "Austrian methodology" is built on a foundation of favoring the rich and powerful. Their starting premises are inherently going to succeed in coming to those conclusions and rejecting the conclusions that more social-accounting political economists, simply because they picked the underlying principles to engender those conclusions! They are then able to sell this political economy by dressing it up in visceral words like "freedom" and and write books like "The road to serfdom", a book that is 8 inches from my left hand.
