 | | Re: What happened?
|
| On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:05:48 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote: You know, up til now, what you said made at least a modicum of sense. (...) Business cycles have _nothing_ to do with government interventions. There have been documented (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) That's one of us, anyway. <zing> Just kidding. (...) Sorry, I forgot. There wasn't government back in 1503, and it didn't meddle in the economy either. How silly of me. (...) Trust me, government intervention wasn't done for god's sake, it was (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) So you are arguing that if you remove all Government intervention, then there won't be any business cycles? You are also apparently arguing that there has always been Government intervention? You appear to have argued yourself into a corner, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) No empirical evidence that's definitive, but theoretical proofs exist, (and not based on invisible heat sorting demons or market information communicators). Further, the less intervention there is, the longer the booms last and the less severe (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) Well if you believe you can point us to a theoretical proof I'd be interested to see it (seriously). I'd have to say however that I'd be extremely sceptical of any proofs, because. (1) The theory of the free market relies on a number of (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
