"If Catholics Adhere to Their Traditions, They Will Vote for Ron Paul"

[Crusading Philologist]

I sometimes feel sorry for libertarians and mainstream conservatives. They still haven't recovered from the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of socialism. Let's hope one day they find a new bogeyman with some actual relevance. 

Anyway, it's important to note that the Austrian approach to economics is methodologically flawed. The Austrians, especially the hardcore Misesians, will try to tell you that economics is an a priori science. According to them, real-world economic history and economic data are completely irrelevant because economics is supposed to be done through pure reason without any recourse to facts. Needless to say, this means that the Austrians end up talking about a man and a world that never has existed and never will exist. Homo Economicus doesn't exist, and the patterns of actually existing economies are often counterintuitive.

[Adelbrecht]

For the sake of university students?  What are these universities good for if they teach socialist economics?

Your country, due to the socialist entitlement mentality, is wasting resources on professional students rather than developing practical infrastructure.

Easy to speak for an American who has cities built according to strict plans. Our cities are ancient, restructuring them would mean the end of many historical buildings, including churches.

I do not care about wasting money. Pieces of metal and worthless paper. I'd rather have higher taxes than having lower taxes without trains, without social security, without health care.

In our country, the poorest people can go to the best universities and the best hospitals. Our health care is said to be one of the best of the world. People from other countries go to our hospitals. If that's socialism, well, I'm very glad that I live in "socialist country".

[rbjmartin]

They say they do, but in reality they are advocating for government intervention in the markets which is socialist policy. 

Oh come on. Almost every economic theory has government intervention in the market, save for libertarian capitalism and anarchism. You're not an anarchist, are you?

Third party interference that distorts the equilibrium price always produces shortages.

Au contraire. I can give a good example: Belgian railroads. Without the government, they'd go bankrupt immediately because the costs are too high.

That's a fact proven in economic science.  Yet they are willing to sacrifice the common good in the name of equality.

No, that is part of a theory. I have studies economic science. I have seen all that stuff, and it lacks one crucial thing: HUMANS. Cheaper workers in poorer countries? => company moves. Poorer countries allows the factories to screw up the environment? => factories move.

That's all logical in theory, but the people are forgotten. The economy should not be based on profit or production, but on the people.

You need to read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson."

[rbjmartin]

True laissez faire capitalism, as the article points out, is not crony capitalism. That means no fractional reserve banking or fiat currency (i.e. no preferential treatment for large banks), no special favors for big corporations, strong property rights (i.e. the little guy can assert his rights against large, impersonal corporations), and no social engineering via tax codes.

And also absolutely no regulation.

Laws against fraud and theft are not regulation?

All of these things work in favor of the poor and the working class.

Until their jobs are outsourced to other countries.

It only makes economic sense to outsource certain types of jobs. However, we have an economic environment that is unfriendly to business in this country. If productivity is cheaper overseas, that can lead to freed up capital in this country via the money saved by consumers when those products return. In a business-friendly environment, that, in turn, would create jobs HERE.  But if there are restrictions to starting businesses here (via wage/insurance laws and various fees/taxes), then you stifle the possibility of that capital staying in-country in the first place.

It makes it easier for individuals to start businesses (it is currently easier to start a business in China than it is in the United States), providing more opportunities for productivity for the poor.

Other economical systems can also allow that.

Which ones?

The lack of government intervention in agriculture would drive the price of food down (farmers are currnetly paid to under-produce), which is another help to the poor.

And more Monstanto-nonsense: genetic modification, ....

Wrong again. A true free market doesn't allow for the intellectual property restrictions that we currently have. Without IP law, Monsanto would have no racket.

The lack of easy, artificial credit (created by central banks) would avoid bubbles in real estate, driving the price of housing down.

That's not laissez faire capitalism, but libertarianism. Laissez faire et laissez passer les banques.

Define the distinctions between libertarian economics and laissez faire capitalism.

The essentials of life (food, shelter, clothing) would be much more readily available to the poor and working class under a true laissez faire system.

I doubt that.

Your doubts are hitherto unsubstantiated.

Not only that, but more productive members of society would have more of their own money to give for charitable purposes in the absence of an income tax.

Relying on the charity of the rich won't get us anywhere in this society, and even if the rich were willing to, doesn't make it right.

What did Christian societies do prior to the rise of socialism?

"A certain exploiter of . . . others says to me, 'I am not like that rich man. I give love feasts, I send food to the prisoners in jail, I clothe the naked, I take in strangers'. Do you really think that you are giving? . . . You fool . . . If he shall go into eternal fire to whom Christ will say, 'When naked you did not clothe me,' what place in eternal fire is reserved for him to whom Christ shall say, 'I was clothed and you stripped me bare?'
~St. Augustine of Hippo (4th Century):

How does this prove that private charity should not be the primary means by which the poor are helped?

[Adelbrecht]

You need to read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson."

I do not.

There is one book on economics that I hope to find translated sometime, and that is Lehrbuch Der Nationalökonomie by Heinrich Pesch, a Jesuit priest who died in the 20's, who ideas were confirmed in Quadragesimo Anno (and probably were the inspiration for that encyclical.) I do not intend to ever waste money on books on capitalism.

[rbjmartin]

Anyway, it's important to note that the Austrian approach to economics is methodologically flawed. The Austrians, especially the hardcore Misesians, will try to tell you that economics is an a priori science. According to them, real-world economic history and economic data are completely irrelevant because economics is supposed to be done through pure reason without any recourse to facts. Needless to say, this means that the Austrians end up talking about a man and a world that never has existed and never will exist. Homo Economicus doesn't exist, and the patterns of actually existing economies are often counterintuitive.

This is humorous, because you are describing to a T mainstream economics (whether it be supply-side or Keynesian). Have you taken an economics course? It is full of arbitrary formulae to analyze and dissect macro-economic events. This is NOT the Austrian approach. The Austrians begin with human behavior. There is reason why Ludwig von Mises' magnum opus was called "Human Action."

[Adelbrecht]

Laws against fraud and theft are not regulation?

It's like a wax nose, you can bend it the way you want.

It only makes economic sense to outsource certain types of jobs. However, we have an economic environment that is unfriendly to business in this country. If productivity is cheaper overseas, that can lead to freed up capital in this country via the money saved by consumers when those products return. In a business-friendly environment, that, in turn, would create jobs HERE.  But if there are restrictions to starting businesses here (via wage/insurance laws and various fees/taxes), then you stifle the possibility of that capital staying in-country in the first place.

Capitalist sense. Economics is greater than the unchristian dehumanising theories of capitalism. Let everyone lose their jobs (and possibly social security, if it's tied to their job) and they'll all suddenly know how to start their own business after studying something else.

Which ones?

Distributism, solidarism, anarchism, ...

Wrong again. A true free market doesn't allow for the intellectual property restrictions that we currently have. Without IP law, Monsanto would have no racket.

What a "true free market" is, is something everyone is debating. And intellectual property is just one of the problems of Monsanto... Genetic modification, bad pesticides. Stuff that should be regulated.

Define the distinctions between libertarian economics and laissez faire capitalism.

Libertarian economics are all over the chart. Libertarianism stands for limiting the government and a maximal amount of individual liberty. There are libertarian socialists, anarchists, capitalists, ... Classically, libertarians are against fractional reserve banking. True laissez-faire capitalism by definition would allow the banks to create money as they wish: laissez faire les banques.

Your doubts are hitherto unsubstantiated.

You made an unsubstantiated claim...

What did Christian societies do prior to the rise of socialism?

The same as now: succumbing to the greed of the world.

How does this prove that private charity should not be the primary means by which the poor are helped?

"doesn't make it right."

[Adelbrecht]

I sometimes feel sorry for libertarians and mainstream conservatives. They still haven't recovered from the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of socialism. Let's hope one day they find a new bogeyman with some actual relevance. 

If you actually look at it: Marxist socialism IS a form of capitalism, exchanging the rich with the state. In normal capitalism the rich own most means of production, in socialism the state does. Socialism actually uses the term state capitalism.

[rbjmartin]

Laws against fraud and theft are not regulation?

It's like a wax nose, you can bend it the way you want.

Typical rhetorical response, avoiding the truth of my point.

It only makes economic sense to outsource certain types of jobs. However, we have an economic environment that is unfriendly to business in this country. If productivity is cheaper overseas, that can lead to freed up capital in this country via the money saved by consumers when those products return. In a business-friendly environment, that, in turn, would create jobs HERE.  But if there are restrictions to starting businesses here (via wage/insurance laws and various fees/taxes), then you stifle the possibility of that capital staying in-country in the first place.

Capitalist sense. Economics is greater than the unchristian dehumanising theories of capitalism. Let everyone lose their jobs (and possibly social security, if it's tied to their job) and they'll all suddenly know how to start their own business after studying something else.

The alternative is to continue with poor productivity in a competitive market, which leads to bankruptcy. Same result, except MORE people lose their jobs. The US automakers are a case in point.

Which ones?

Distributism, solidarism, anarchism, ...

Distributism and solidarism are too amorphous to actually be applied to policy. Laissez faire capitalism is very much in line with anarchism.

Wrong again. A true free market doesn't allow for the intellectual property restrictions that we currently have. Without IP law, Monsanto would have no racket.

What a "true free market" is, is something everyone is debating. And intellectual property is just one of the problems of Monsanto... Genetic modification, bad pesticides. Stuff that should be regulated.

Yep. Regulated by personal rights and private property rights.

Define the distinctions between libertarian economics and laissez faire capitalism.

Libertarian economics are all over the chart. Libertarianism stands for limiting the government and a maximal amount of individual liberty. There are libertarian socialists, anarchists, capitalists, ... Classically, libertarians are against fractional reserve banking. True laissez-faire capitalism by definition would allow the banks to create money as they wish: laissez faire les banques.

No, because that would be fraud.

What did Christian societies do prior to the rise of socialism?

The same as now: succumbing to the greed of the world.

Ah, so you are advocating some sort of utopianism. Makes sense.

How does this prove that private charity should not be the primary means by which the poor are helped?

"doesn't make it right."

Nice dodge.

[rbjmartin]

I sometimes feel sorry for libertarians and mainstream conservatives. They still haven't recovered from the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of socialism. Let's hope one day they find a new bogeyman with some actual relevance. 

If you actually look at it: Marxist socialism IS a form of capitalism, exchanging the rich with the state. In normal capitalism the rich own most means of production, in socialism the state does. Socialism actually uses the term state capitalism.

That is an incredible bit of mental gymnastics you did there.

You make a false assumption when you say that it is inherent to capitalism for "the rich" to own most of the means of production. This is not necessarily the case. Private property, in itself, is the means of production, and as long as individuals own private property, every property-owning individual possesses the means of production, not just the rich. Especially considering that much of the first world economy is composed of intellectual economies through the predominance of various service sectors, the means of production reside in the minds of programmers, engineers, architects, project managers, doctors, lawyers, etc.