[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Sure, it's a conspiracy! I wonder why Hayek never received a little medal by some obscure Swedish institution and why he never get's quoted by economists...

Do your homework better. Hayek was given the medal not before after all previous economic Nobels had been given to Keynesians and opponents of free market economy (different to what sometimes is claimed, Mises never got it) , and not without giving Hayek a final kick in the butt nevertheless: he had to share the prize with Gunnar Myrdal, an economist who in parts had directly opposing views , though also having some things on which he agreed with Hayek.

Today Hayek gets quoted in the mainstream communication only as an example by which to demonize market economy and liberal (=liobertzaraian) political concepts. The respect he is is being given, comes from minority factions of dedicated Hayek-school supporters (like the local representations of the Hayek-Gesellschaft in various regions in Germany, one of which I do know myself since two years), and libertarians and Austrians and their according minority platforms, of course. They all play practically no role in mainstream economics and ordinary politics, and get completely ignored more or less.

A better comparision to Braunschweig might be Wilhelm Hankel, as he comes from a similar train of thought. Just check out Google scholar about both men - the latter being cited in hundreds of serious works. So much for keeping the man down for ideological reasons. Also check out both their websites. Like any serious academic, Hankel stated when, where and in which discipline he received his titles - Braunschweig omits those infos. This is extremely strange for anybody in academia.

Hear-say. You made claims about almost criminal activities, and I demanded you to add substance to your claims, and you only have this ^ to discredit the competence of a man about whom you only know that he does not fit in your ideological view of the world? I know from first hand that Braunschweig's academical books have been in high demand at universities and I know that not from that years-old forum site I linked to (because you did not care to post any evidence for your dubious claims and accusations that you had posted before), but from businessmen and university-professionals that I have met at the Hayek Club summer last year (I am kind of an alien there...) . The quality of the three books he wrote for a wider public (which nullifies your complaint they are not up to the standard and format of an academic paper, because they are not meant to adress the academic audience but the common public) I can assess, since I know them very well (a fourth will be published soon, btw.) And I say they are doing very well what the aim at to do.

That's what a Scientologist would also say to me for not having read Senor Hubbard.

That ^ says not really the optimal candidate qualified for this kind of reply. Shooting in one'S own foot hurts, doesn't it.

Sure, there are some very simple questions: what is his Professor title for and is it honorary or real? What happened to his Doctor title? What happened to his private learning institution in Cologne which went by his name?

Will you finally add some substancer to your claims and implications, or will you just continue with your underhanded tactic of trying to get away with Rufmord only? If you have sources that I do not know of, I asked you before to reveal them, and if you have not such substance to add, then simply just shut up in shame. I am willing to learn if there is some dark matter in the man'S biography, but your underhanded dubious claims and attempts to merely discredit him on the basis of just hear-say, is cheap and in no way worth to be given second thought. So - can you add substance to your implications/claims, or can you not? If all you have is that forum that I linked (what would have been your job if that is all what you have, btw, since you raised the accusations), I counter the hear-say in that forum that you seem to refer to with some other hear-say, that is posted by others in the same forum, if I may refresh your memory:

And the most important one: will she found a new party for the conspiracy nutters?

She has not founded the pdv, I told her it was a bad idea to accept the chairman's seat for it, and she realised the truth faster than I expected, and quit. Of a new party she seems to have enough at least for the moment, even more so when seeing what is happening to AfD, Pegida, and the likes. As I always say: political parties are no answer, and never solve anything. I would even prohibit party factions in parliaments. Because a voted representative cannot serve his party's interests and his conscience at the same time, and the Grundgesetz prioritizes the individual conscience, but not factions' interests. Hell, I would even prohibit national and federal parliaments alltogether and tell people to take care of things themselves in their local regions where they live, instead of surrendering their responsibilities and freedoms to this ananchronistic caste of selfish, anti-social parasites that the political caste is.

His articles in the serious press are about microeconomics. On the political or macroeconomic level his contributions are found either in the marketliberal echo chamber, in half-brown papers like JF or on tinfoil sites like DWN.

If you are left enough, it all seems to be like that. But your attributed assessments mean little. Interesting is only whether the man is right in what he says, or not. And I can see clearly that his arguments and projections based on the state of things have the grim reality on his side,m while the Keynesian money policy is constantly growing disaster ruining all that our forefathers have fought and suffer for to achieve in wealth, liberties, rights and freedoms. But socialism always is just a big destroyer, never a builder or creator.

However we're on a tangent, I threw this in, because you gave the man credit because of his professional work. I think his political writings look like pure ideological bs from a point of view based on ideology rather than reality - just as North's.

I have no illusions about the value of a professor title, it means little today, it only means that you spend some time with working for an expertise knowledge in one very small special branch of a knowledge tree, which effectively makes many professors "Fachidioten" (and I knew two such Fachidioten with titles who absolutely said the same). But when you dismiss his books for the public due to your ideological reasons and do not know his academic books, then you have a bias regarding the first and lacking competence regarding the latter.

Now please put butter to the fishes

Says the man who repeatedly commits character assassination and does not care to provide evidence for his attempts of discrediting an unwanted voice's author.

and explain how the welfare state creates more poverty and how to get rich as a single mom. I'm also still interested how folks on welfare become somehow fans of the government in another way as for example patients become fans of hospitals.

I have repeatedly explained and touched on this issue, and this topic just links another illustration of the argument. I will not repeat all that once again because I know that you will all competently dismiss it anyway. I shall be a cruel man and give you this torment instead, you will hate it for its context, and for the author who wrote it. And if then you still ask the above question and do not see the link, then its hopeless.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nlycw0to6u...rung.docx?dl=0

I have explained that so often now, I do not do that old dance once again just because you ignored it all the times before, or forgot it again.

The financial crisis in '07 - just as the one in 1929 - has a lot to do with deregulation and less market control - in combination with a faith in the invisible hand. This is exactly what the market liberals always wanted, worked out very well. Again that's also a whole other topic though.

2007 was no crisis, not in that it is not ended, nor that it had began just then. It was only the symptoms breaking out, of a disease that has spread and bred since decades already. The outbreak of symptoms was caused by the American democrats demanding to give credit for houses to people who could not afford neither houses, nor such immense credits. Careless fiscal management was the trigger, and if the symptoms would not have being triggered by this irresponsible, politically made (made by those crazy people you want to regulate the markets and banks!!) decisions, then with some delay something else would have triggered them, for the system is foul and rotten, and ripe for collapse. The deformations of the markets and the banking sector comes again from major political influence:_ the massive lobbyism by the economy that corrupts the political sector and submits it, and by that creates a state allowing and assisting in the worse deformation of healthy capitalism there is: monopolism. what is being directed as criticism against capitalism, comes from a lacking understanding of what capitalism really is, and would be more correctly targetted and monopolism. The other cause for the crisis' symptoms breaking out is the fractional reserve system, and the FIAT money regime: the state'S monopole for "minting", to use the old system-reference, and manipulating the money'S value to his own liking. Money most be a trading commodity just like any other, it must be object to market negotiations, and shall inj no way be manipulated or "regulated" by politics.

You want to regulate all that, you imply. the state, the party knows it all so well, and knows in advance what will be needed, what people will be motivated to do, will wish and will yearn for - or better, we do like in the DDR, we tell people what they should want and what they should say and what they should think! Every socialist state there ever has been sooner or later did like that. That is the way to go! Have you ever wondered why Mises'S basic work "Nationalökonomie" has in wegnlish the far more matching title "Human Action"...? Well, think about that a bit.

Man, you really do not see that you put the fox in charge of the henhouse when demanding politicians to "regulate" something! I agree, the banking sector is hopelessly corrupted and deformed, the whole price-structure is distorted, because if the value of money is not representing market values for it, but political opportunistic daydreams, the no calculation of commodities and services real value can be done (the mathematical basis is corrupted iof the money value is corrupted), and buyer and sellers cannot assess in advance or analyse in reverse the benefits and losses in deals they did or plan to do. The result is that companies not producing anything like FB could gain totally hysterical market "values" and stockmarkets could go crazy over illusions, could form bubbles on and on. And boom and bust and boom and bust, always with friendly participation of the great regulator and interventionist, the money-monopolist, the state. And with every cycle it becomes worse, both frequency and amplitude turn hotter and hotter. And Boom! And Bust! And Boom! And Bust!

You need to get rid of the monopoles. For that you need to get rid of the political caste and the governmental structures, and of paper money and fractional reserve systems. That is so difficult a task that I have no illusions about its probabilities to ever be tried, or being successful. It will not happen. But that does not make dysfunctional plan B's like "more market regulation" any less dysfunctional. A wrong alternative remains to be a wrong alternative, even if the correct solution is impossible to be applied. Thats why I say we are heading for total collapse. We will not avoid it, because we do not want to avoid it. Following a dysfunctional plan B becasue polan A we think is so hard and difficult, only increases the speed at which we travel on what Hayek called the road to serfdom. The loss of liberty, civil rights. Because from one point on debts will become too pressing and people will see the truth , and then the state order and the fiscal regime can only be maintained and the elites can stay in power only by tyrannical means of control: a de facto dictatorship, under the flag of socialism, of course.

I also recommend to you these two books by Thomas Rietzschel: "Geplünderte Demokratie", and "Die Stunde der Dilettanten". Verbally even you may enjoy them, the language is a piece of art, almost. But the content you will hate. But that is not the question. The question is if you can counter the author'S line of thoughts and his arugments by own solid arguments - or if you only once again fall back to discreditting the author and character assassinating him, like you try and leave it to with Braunschweig.

Some people think they can influence events by going to elections. For these well-meaning naive minds, just this: LINKWhen you vote, you legitimise criminals and parasites, unscrupulous egoists and sun-royal narcissists, and you can and should know in advance that they will betray you and lie. You therefore have no right to complain, for you have been an accomplice and are as guilty as they are: you legitimised them. You had it coming to you by accepting to have the game run by their self-designed rules and therefore you have lost your right to criticise. Only when you boycot their demand to legitimise them in there criminal doing, when you resist their bribery and refuse to accept the poisoned gifts they offer you (and have stolen before or will steal by devaluing your money and raising your debts) your voice attacking them has credibility. If you voted for them and afterwards criticise what you got, you are a hypocrite.