Then who or what exactly caused the world crisis that we’re still in?
It's a collection of things, from over-regulating to excessive spending on foreign involvement -- but each of these things couldn't be obtained without fiat printing...which leads to massive inflation. But while inflation had been taking place, govt. didn't step back to address it. Rather, they allowed Bernanke to continue printing. They believed the economy needed to be stimulated, so they more printing would lead to more spending which would save the economy. But that doesn't work. It's what is known as the "Broken Window Fallacy." The example is that if a window gets broken, people believe this helps the economy because it means a window company be hired, a hauling company will be used to hall that window, gas will be needed to pay for that hauling, etc. etc. But capital wasn't created--rather, it was used toward something else. The money could have been used for a different item instead of for a new window.
The excessive regulations, programs, and intervention (especially war which is the most expensive) were made possible by borrowing and printing, and these all the crisis.
And would you agree that it’s worse than Great Depression? For example to the degree of the end of capitalism - as even capitalist predators such as George Soros openly claim?
That's a loaded question. The resources, value of living, and employment isn't as bad as it was during the Depression, but the activity, public spending, and inflation is worse--that's for sure.
Sorry but I find that wrong - especially since the years 1980s, with those Reaganian deregulations, raised to an unprecedented degree in the 1990s, and with a continued trend in the 2000s.
What people are forgetting about the Reagan presidency is that while he may have been against govt. regulation of "free" enterprise, he high favored the shoring up/bailout out of major corporations. This wasn't even his grossest spending habit--he managed to expanded warfare and CIA/FBI activity more than his predecessors. This trend continued.
As for your Hoover comments, I think you have the wrong comparison: you should compare results of Hoover’s policies to the moments just prior to implementing those policies - not to other peace-time periods.
So, even if I myself don’t like it, Hoover did provide jobs, therefore raising consumption, therefore raising production, therefore both stabilizing and propelling the entire economy. Not to mention building or re-building the infrastructure, itself contributor to a sane, working, economy.
I'm making my comparison directly to the results of Hoover's policies. To suggest the policies had good results merely because, for a moment, some were able to produce, it neglects the long-term problems. This is Keynesianism in a nutshell--don't worry about the long-term, only worry about the right-now. Keynes himself said "In the long, we're all dead."
Well, it may appear that way, but it’s certainly not that way. Think about their currency if nothing else.
Keep in mind, I'm only addressing their free market system. This doesn't excuse their big government involvement.
I don’t know what OSHA is (I’m not an American), however I challenge you to name a single airline company that implemented safety procedures BEFORE required so by FAA or whoever.
And isn’t it interesting that even FAA intervention came as result of mishaps?
I don't know enough about the FAA, but I do know where some of their regulating has potentially caused more harm. One of the biggest ones, for instance, is the ban of firearms in the cockpit. Whether 9/11 would have happened or not without this law is a million-dollar question, but the cause would be in case of a situation of hijackers--there would have been a much greater chance that the towers wouldn't have been destroyed. There are still mishaps post FAA. It's not entirely due to not enough regulations--sometimes, it's precisely due to these regulations.
1. You still haven’t given any solution to the 2008 moment.
And do you state that the world economy wouldn’t have fell if no government intervention? And your arguments, please.
2. Do you agree with institutions such as WB and IMF? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Sorry, I thought I did give a solution. The short answer would be to End The Fed. No more printing of fiat money. No more of it funding unnecessary foreign interventionism/war. No more funding of excessive, unnecessary programs. It undermines capital growth, innovation, employment, incentives, and prosperity.
I certainly don't think it would have fallen to the degree it already has, but only if I'm going by history. Economies have picked themselves back up again after govt. stepped back from involvement. Each time they've stepped forward and we've seen improvement, it was only for a short time. It's like covering a large wound with a small band-aid.
No, I do not agree with those institutions. They make "loans" that no rational bank would even consider. The IMF has pretty much no incentive to operate profitably like a private bank since its funding comes from the US Congress that demands very little accountability. These organizations have channeled tax-dollars to politically connected companies--so they also often operate as a tool for cronyism. The taxpayer is also not supposed to be obligated to send money abroad by force, yet this is what the IMF's biggest cause is.
This would be funny if it wouldn’t be so tragic. Now you tell me: where exactly does the ‘voluntary’ part fit in in countries where almost nobody has something to eat?
I'm not following your question. Is this in regards to, let's say, kids who work in third-world countries because it's either that or starving to death? If so, I'm happy to address that, but you'd be changing the subject if that's what you're asking.
Strangely, that sounds like communism. Where is your laissez faire?
Promoting the concept that everyone should be treated as equals is not communism. If Mr. Smith has a million dollars and Mr. Doe has a hundred dollars, then they should both be treated as equals to be able to use, invest, and spend their money as they see fit. However, it would be UNEQUAL to tell Mr. Smith to give money to Mr. Doe simply because Mr. Doe has less. This would be treating one as something different than the other. Both should have equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal choice, but this doesn't mean one is entitled to something at the cost of another. Communism is funded by force, and I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle.
This is the problem. People tend to think Communism means looking out for the common good. Looking out for the common good is something that could be done outside of big government. For instance, I oppose minimal wage laws. It's not because I'm some villain that wants to see people starve. It's because minimal wage devalues jobs and employees. 14-year-old Jake won't be able to work at Mom n' Pop's Shop because Mom n' Pop can only afford to hire someone with experience. This is why the teenage unemployment rate is at an all-time high. This is only one example, but I hope this at least lends some rationale to my argument of why I advocate for laissez-faire markets.
If a country is mostly Christian, would you respect the atheists’ right to put ads like “There is no God!” on buses or in newspapers?
Yes, I'd respect their right to do this...and they'd have to respect my right for when I place an ad on the front page that reads "God loves YOU." The beauty of freedom of speech and the market is that someone can always respond and give lend their voice.
And I don’t think you can find “valid justice” anywhere on Earth. But feel free to show me wrong.
"Valid Justice" might be a stretch, but I certainly wouldn't stand for injustice...and I believe that's what we are often getting.
Fed is the reason money is no longer money almost in the entire world, not only U.S.
And they’re not only financing “unjust wars”, they’re also financing national deficit, private losses, etcetera.
EXACTLY!
