Subject:
|
Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 01:05:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1120 times
|
| |
|
|
> > Business cycles have _nothing_ to do with government interventions.
> > There have been documented cases of cycles gong back to the 16th
> > century,
>
> Sorry, I forgot. There wasn't government back in 1503, and it didn't
> meddle in the economy either. How silly of me.
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, where you cannot
claim any evidence to support your case.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
