__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such."

onlyasking I have to say you are the absolute king of quoting people out of context. In fact, I'm sure you will post a quote attributable to me taken from that last sentence claiming that I have called you the absolute king.

Challenge #1: I want to point out that you are still unable to assert your claim that Friedmans disciples have led the world to an economic catastrophe. Please elaborate on this claim. I think this is the fifth time I've had to ask for evidence of your claim in the form of either empirical evidence or a theory.

Here is the point where you make it clear from the posts you've read in this thread that people were spouting "Friedmanite" views. I know you're not a fan of posting links to posts, but here is another challenge:

Challenge #2: Post a link to the post(s) where myself, 20000miles, atlantic or Retrolives in any of our views on the causes of the economic downturn included Friedmanite views. I think that is fair to ask for after you said the following:

I have already explained in previous posts already how Hayek was used to more correctly describe the theories people like myself, 20000miles and atlantic were discussing in this thread. Again, very relevant, and a point which for some reason you are unable to comprehend.

No that wasn't my "approach to your argument" at all. I never said anything resembling that. I was pointing out the differences in theories as to the cause of the economic recession, something very relevant to the conversation.

Seeing as you asked (and because obviously you haven't bothered reading the thread) here are the posts:

Atlantic: Post #9 (1464336)
20000miles: Post #35 (1464463)
Myself: Post #39 (1464677)
MortgageBroker: Post #73 (1465056)
Myself: Post #81 (1465275)
Atlantic: Post #101 (1465606)
Myself: Post #122 (1470562)
Myself: Post #124 (1470630)
20000miles: Post #132 (1471044)
20000miles: Post #136 (1471061)
Myself: Post #194 (1471086)
20000miles: Post #141 (1471100)
20000miles: Post #144 (1471123)
20000miles: Post #147 (1471150)
20000miles: Post #150 (1471166)
20000miles: Post #156 (1471209)
Myself: Post #158 (1471240)


There are more after these posts, but this is the point where I engaged you in this debate, and it is clear from the above log of posts that comments were made on the socialisation of money production and theories as to how this was the cause of the current bust phase of the economic cycle. None of which were Friedmanite viewpoints. These views all coincide with Hayekian works and I'm afraid you cannot for your arguments convenience just choose to ignore that we were not advocating Milton Friedman policies.

Links are posted as a reference when you are making points so that people have a link to the previous point(s) made, and also so people such as yourself cannot take people out of context or misrepresent them.
So:
Challenge #3: Please provide links to your remaining quotes in your post as it is littered with misrepresentations. The following is an example of such a misleading misrepresentation of my comments:

You posted a quote from me in response to an entirely different atlantic quote:

THIS IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE but I'm not surprised at you one bit onlyasking.

Here's the REAL reply and the REAL original quote I was referring to:

This is a disgusting tactic adopted by you to try make yourself look clever and try misrepresent me. Pathetic.

It's clear I didn't say anything of the sorts onlyasking. You submitted a post which tries to link my reply to one post to a completely different one. So we can all just ignore that paragraph and the two posts thereafter.

So you agree that money production is socialised then. Thank you.

Given your tendency to post false links and falsely claim that a comment was in reply to a completely different one, then we won't be taking any lessons from you on the superiority of socialist morality, and I still maintain that you could do with some lessons on reading and understanding previous posts.

"Pretty non-centralised for a "socialist" entity eh?" Hahaha absolutely not !!! I suppose it's called the European De-Centralised Bank in your mind or something is it? Hahahaha. The money production in Ireland is socialised and is the cause of the economic bust and boom as pointed out by me and other posters in this thread. Your foggy notions of what the central bank's purpose is does not help your argument much.

Ok if you disagree with me that's perfectly fine, that's what this discussion forum is for. But I ask you to show us empirical evidence that capitalism is to blame for the bust phase of the economic cycle. For someone who doesn't believe in contemplation over a situation I assume you will be posting empirical evidence to back up your theory. But then again I won't hold my breath.

Is there something wrong with this? Do you not do this when you are deciding where to open a bank account? Do you not shop around for the best possible return on your investment? I see nothing wrong with this so far.

Tell me is this different to any bank within any fractional reserve banking system in the world? If everybody wanted to withdraw the money they have lodged in their banks vaults would the bank not collapse due to not having that money? I think you take a lot for granted. There are many similarities between a pyramid scheme and fractional reserve banking. The main difference being that one is lawful and one is not. I and others in not just this but many other threads have recommended 100% banking-reserve laws to be introduced and fractional laws repealed. Remember that fraud is punished by the judiciary under capitalism as it is in socialism also.

I agree with you that fractional-reserve banking depends on confidence to operate, but again, read my above statement and previous posts, it is the law which allows this. It is the central bank printing money that makes it possible.

Now, I thought we had seen the end of the misrepresentation of my positions in my posts, but I should have known you better!

If you go back and read that post, it was part of a discussion me and Kevin Doyle were having. We both actually AGREED that there was NO SUCH THING AS FREE EDUCATION and I said therefore anybody who favoured it was insane because it just doesn't exist. Do you care to refute that?

Here is ANOTHER false representation you've made (my god your post is full of them!!)

You claim that I said "You had to go ruin it" in reply to a Colada post "I like the term People before Profit".... haha, totally INCORRECT as per usual. Here is the REAL conversation:

My quote was in response to the "solution in a nutshell" point. I also had a wink-smiley face there. If you read the post you would know that. But if you read the post and then still tried to misrepresent me then that says a lot about you and your tactics to try make your posts and points look clever. I let the first two go but neg-rep for you for posting misleading statements with no links.

You then went to point out a comment by 20000miles where he says he is in favour of abolishing state welfare, and you failed to include his reasons behind that (mainly because the means to pay is collected by force). I'm glad he called you up on another in your long list of misrepresentations.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Absolutely RICH coming from the likes of you. You've been proven to be a bullsh1tter who consistently misrepresents others arguments.

With regards to your agenda comments, I made the point in my last post how I have no problem with people with other views, even socialists! What you decided to omit is my statement that usually people like to back up their comments with theories/examples as to WHY they hold such views. I and others here have done just that. You however spout on about evils of capitalism and fail to give reasons why we would be better off under a socialist system.

I did just that in my previous post in an earlier paragraph. I mentioned the names. There is also another list in this post so there you go.
.

__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Dios: I don't agree with you on probably most of your views in other posts , but regarding post 240 I applaud you for engaging in reasoned debate relating to people's views and turning the thread back on topic. One of your better ones imo.

Fair play.
.

__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Dios: I agree with the others on post 240. However The big problem with the welfare state is that it is imposible without a fiat/paper monetary system. That is now collapsing and the welfare state is probably gonna go with it. Japan is a great example of that. Here's a great article I read this morning on it:

"I had no place to stay and I wanted the police to take care of me," said the 79-year-old Japanese woman. She had just slashed two people with a knife so the police would take her to jail.

A "gray" crime wave is sweeping Japan. According to the UK's Independent, people over 65 years old make up 10% of Japan's prison population, the highest rate of incarceration for pensioners in the industrialized world. Another source reported Japanese pensioners were responsible for one in seven arrests last year, up from one in 25 a decade ago.

The surge in "senior crime" is so dramatic, the Japanese government recently earmarked $80 million to build special wards at three prisons to accommodate the elderly. They are fitting these prison wards with metal walkers and support rails.

Japan has the second-lowest birth rate in the industrialized world. The birth rate to sustain a population is 2.1 per woman. In Japan, the birthrate has fallen below 1.2. Japan's population fell for the first year in 2005. By 2050, if trends continue, Japan's population will fall by 20%.

The other problem is life expectancy. It's going up in Japan. So the elderly are becoming the largest segment of Japan's population. Right now, 20% of Japan's population is over 65 years old. By 2050, 40% of Japan's population will be over 65 years old. In the U.S., the "65 and up" population makes up about 12% of society.

"Gray" crime is one bi-product of Japan's demographics. Here's another byproduct in the society that ages and shrinks at the same time: It'll bankrupt the Japanese government.

First, there's a much smaller workforce to pay taxes. The economy shrinks. Businesses pay less tax, too. Second, the elderly consume social security, health care, and pension resources. These are costs to the government. As the senior population rises, these liabilities increase. The elderly don't pay income taxes.

Since its recession began 20 years ago, Japan's government has plowed trillions into its banking system via numerous bailout programs. In the last six months, for example, Japan's government has authorized three stimulus plans totaling around $100 billion. This month, the Japanese government will give every person in Japan a check for 12,000 yen... about $120... to stimulate the economy. This program will cost the government another $20 billion. And this week, the Japanese prime minister suggested the largest bailout plan yet... putting the Japanese taxpayer on the hook for another $200 billion.

As a result of all this spending, the Japanese government has built up the world's most crippling debt load and budget deficit. Right now, the government of Japan owes $7.8 trillion to creditors. That's $157,000 per person. This year, it'll have to borrow another $1.1 trillion to make ends meet.

Government debt to GDP is the ratio economists use to compare the indebtedness of countries. The UK has a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 48%. The U.S. has a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 75%. Japan has a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 187%.

Now Japan's economy is a shambles. For years, the Japanese have relied on exports to support their economy... but exports have dried up. In the last six months, Japan has lost almost a quarter of a trillion dollars from the decline in its exports. In January, Japan's exports plunged 47%... producing a $9 billion trade deficit. This is Japan's first trade deficit in 13 years and its biggest deficit in 25 years.

When you consider the debt, the bad economy, and the coming population problem, it's clear the Japanese government will never pay off the money it owes.

Contrarian Investment Newsletter, Investing Advice, Investment Ideas - link prob only work today as they change articles daily. not sure how to get the permenant one.

My point is simple, it doesnt work. I know Japan is very different to here but thats for now. Government debt is soaring in USA, UK, EU, (€55m a day here) and the entire system is collapsing. Its not real money, the game is up.

"Events dear boy events" - Harold McMillan

The secession thing is interesting as 20 states in the US are attempting to refuse obama's stimulus money on the grounds that they will have to pay tax for it in the future and there is a seccesionist/soverignty movement already gaining pace! seriously this is no joke, check it out:

__________________
"You have to choose between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability and intelligence of the members of the government. And with due respect to these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold."

George Bernard Shaw

I think people even fear the word Socialism because it conjures up images of Stalins Russia for those who have no idea what they are talking about. France is a Socialist Republic. The Socialist Party has been the predominent force in politics there since 1945.

France has the best hospital and childcare facilities in Europe. Arguably the best education system too.

Other similar 'Socialist' nations are too numerous to mention. Suffice to say the individual who started this thread must have went to the 'Joe the Builder School of Politics'. Joe, not his real name, who was a dumb ********************, was immediately made the darling of the US Right Wing establishment after his TV meeting with Obama during the election campaign.

The Right stuck him on TV wherever they could to bolster Conservative voters. When a presenter probed him on his opinions Joe immediately began to contradict himself saying NO he did not want rich people to pay extra taxes so he could get a tax break to support his 'working class family'.

When it was actually explained to him, in the context of social democracy a bemused Joe said 'sure I got no problem with that'. That was his last TV appearance.

Time to get real, Social Democracy means putting the majority's welfare above that of the financial desires of the elite.

Sure didn't big business' best friend Bertie claim he was a Socialist. And didn't he get a house for nothing too.

Political terminology is so easy to take out of context and is used to spread mis truth and fear.

Surely no one could confuse the Scottish National Party with the British National Party. Yet the names are pretty similar.

Time to stop hiding behind ridiculous outdated and irrelevant 19th Century terminologies.

Just say what we want....A country where the old, young and weakest members of society are not treated like ******************** under your shoe. If we can do that the rest of us will keep the nation working.

Unfortunately there is no room for corrupt, uneducated, moneygrabbing, narracistic ********************s who seem to have had all the power thus far. Funny how they will tell you everything they do is in everybodies best interest....very Sociable people!

Thanks, its always a worthy use of time to try to see the other point of view, especially when dealing with well educated and articulate people like 20k there. The difficulty was with reconciling this point of view with the reality of the situation as I understand it (and I'm a big fan of unadorned reality), but I think we've reached a common ground of sorts.

In a short period in the grand scheme of things, a few technological leaps, we'll have more frontier than we know what to do with, ever (and there is still a lot of it left right now) - the trick will be to make sure that those frontier spirits have the leeway they need to do what they do best, since the principles of massively large population government are not optimal in frontier situations at all, and work diligently and persistently towards reaching that goal. Until then a recognition that these principles of freedom literally cannot function in an ultra-massive sedentary society needs to come about.

The underlying idea is solid - pool everyone's money or resources to care for those unable to care for themselves. There is no particular reason that a fiat monetary system is required to make that happen. The rest is just an adequate distribution and management of those pooled resources (and remember we live in the information age now, anyone that can manipulate a keyboard can contribute if they desire). You can beat demographics if you do it right.

Abandonment of the principles of social welfare leads directly to monstrosities like this:
It doesn't underline the failure of the social welfare system, it underlines the failure of the Japanese.

Now, these are two seperate issues. The first Japanese recession was caused by a massive housing bubble, with disastrous effects. This was always going to be a bad idea, the only wonder is that our own governments followed suit.

But for many more years, Japan had one of the most powerful economies on earth, punching far above its weight in terms of population and geographical resources. Again, the underlying idea is sound, massively exporting economies like themselves and Germany and China will always be the powerhouses, and when this recession/depression is over, they'll be right back on top again. Can the same be said for everyone else? Taking the longer term view, there isn't much of an alternative.

Ah there have been seccessionist movement in the US since the US was founded. Ironically most of these have been in the red states, which are largely net recipients of federal tax money. I wouldn't give too much credence to demagogues jumping on the fear and uncertainty of the electorate to make their claims, they are only one group of many trying to gain momentum on the back of the economic crisis. When things settle down, the fringe movements will go back where they came from, and it will be business as usual.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree. So let's try and define socialism. For me it is producing what is needed for people and not what those with money want to consume, at the expense of wasting resources that could be used more fruitfully.

In fact a real socialism would also be environmentally aware.

no we are moving away from a stupid meo-liberalism, an ideology which has afallacy at the heart of its ideology, to a claasical luiberalism whicgh is more rooted in the tradirtions of capitalism.

Hazlitt

Enough of the vituperation, to which I admit I’ve contributed. Let’s move away from the abuse, and re-embrace the debate. BTW, apologies for keeping you waiting. Life often gets in the way of the pleasures of P.ie.

Chapter One: The Disciples.

Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, George Bush (snr and jnr), Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Alan Greenspan, Henry Paulson and hundreds of other movers and shakers lauded both Friedman and Hayek as major inspirations and influences. Seduced by the gospels according to Milton and Friedrich, they worked tirelessly to bring their economic theories to bear on the economies they sought to fundamentally alter, and with which they strove to replace notions of “society” i.e. Thatcher’s pronouncement that there is “no such thing as society”.

The Chicago School gained 10 Nobel prizes for economic sciences from 1969 onwards. Ross Emmett, a Michigan State University Professor who has written three works on the Chicago School, wrote “by the mid-1970s there was a whole generation in government and academia who had trained at Chicago or at places influenced by it”.

These people are or were “disciples of Friedman”. If you have a definition of “disciple” that undermines my description of those referred to above as disciples of Friedman, please enlighten me.

Chapter Two: Spreading the Word.

Thatcher and Reagan remoulded their countries’ economic environments to closely mirror Friedman’s vision, to a growing chorus of approval from global business interests and from Friedman himself. The relaxation of government control over the economic activities of private business, and the privatisation of as much state activity as was practicable, became the trademarks of leaders from Thatcher to Blair and Reagan to Bush. I’ll return later to the special relationship between Friedman and leaders of the English-speaking world.

These leaders and their political appointees set in train the removal of regulations, checks and balances from the activities of private investment bankers and other financial services sectors. Those schooled by Chicago composed highly complicated mathematical formulae to drive new financial mechanisms. These futures, derivatives, options and other instruments for the creation of notional wealth provided an illusion of victory for the free-market fundamentalists, a victory that was long and loudly trumpeted by the cheerleaders for globalised capitalism.

This apparent victory of Friedman and Hayek’s disciples throughout the English-speaking world was unquestioningly accepted as the birth and vindication of a new and unassailable global economic order.

Chapter Three: The Unravelling.

Investment bankers, and investors generally, bought into the argument that, because government interference in the markets was at a new low, the likelihood of economic busts had become negligible. They utterly failed to see the coming collapse in confidence and banking systems. The complex financial instruments invented by disciples of Friedman are at the centre of the maelstrom of unravelling financial structures, along with the mincing up, repackaging, obscuring and reselling of toxic debts. The latter process was launched, of course, in Friedman’s heartland, the USA.

Believers in ever-freer markets engaged in fiscal mismanagement on a level never seen before, and hundreds of millions of people are now taking the hit as a result. If you think the term “economic catastrophe” doesn’t accurately describe the current state of global economic affairs, then perhaps you’ll explain why.

Joseph Stiglitz, himself a Nobel winner, recently wrote "the Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self-adjusting, and the best role for government is to do nothing".

If you have any doubt about the centrality of Friedman’s theories to the political and economic direction of the English-speaking world over the past quarter of a century, I’d suggest you have a look at the website of the Friedman Foundation. You won’t find any disavowal of Thatcher, Reagan and other zealots for economic liberalism. You will find copious tributes to Friedman from the likes of Thatcher and Greenspan, and you’ll find it transparently clear that the Friedman Foundation claims that the “great man” has altered massively the global economic balance in favour of greater economic and political freedom

Friedman Foundation - Statements From Around the World

If, as is patently clear, Friedman (and Hayek too) had a massive influence on governments from Thatcher’s Britain to the US administrations of Reagan and the Bush family, and if, as is also clear, the global economic turmoil has emanated from the USA, hitting the UK hardest amongst other major economies, I stand resolute over my assertion that “Friedman’s disciples have led us to economic catastrophe”.

Chapter Four: Friedman, and his Teacher, Hayek.

Having tried to absolve Friedman of any responsibility for our current predicament, you then attempt to portray Friedman and Hayek as representing “monumentally” different points on the spectrum of economic theory, with Hayek representing your views most closely. You argue that you discussed Hayek across 150 posts with three or four people who agree with you. It's strange that not one of you deigned to mention him at all. Is it possible to debate Marx across so many contributions without mentioning his name? In fact, you did mention fringe economic theorists like Rothbard and Von Mises, but Hayek? Not a murmur about him.

As regards Friedman and Hayek representing “monumentally different” points on the spectrum of economic theory, try this for size.

“Over the years, I have again and again asked fellow believers in a free society how they managed to escape the contagion of their collectivist intellectual environment. No name has been mentioned more often as the source of enlightenment and understanding than Friedrich Hayek's. I, like the others, owe him a great debt . . his powerful mind . . his lucid and always principled exposition have helped to broaden and deepen my understanding of the meaning and the requisites of a free society”.

Precisely, Mr Friedman. Thank you for your kind words on your colleague and teacher, Friedrich Hayek.

The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think-tank based in Canada, was founded by Hayek among others. This extremely influential group is opposed to government interference in almost every aspect of life, save, of course, for the army, police, judiciary and other means of controlling behaviours which threaten private property and privilege. While I’m on the subject of the FI, they are even opposed to measures to combat global-warming, such is their zeal to promote the interests of business over all other considerations. They have promoted the discredited GW sceptic Bjorn Lomberg, no doubt because he advises us to carry on consuming our tiny planet, sweet music to the ears of those who place economic activity above all else.

I find it most interesting that the very first book to be published by the Fraser Institute was co-authored by Friedman and Hayek. Unsurprisingly, the book was an attack on rent controls (isn’t it terrible how left-wing loonies want to interfere with the rights of property owners and developers to extract the last cent from their tenants? Imagine the mess we’d be in here if property developers hadn’t been let loose over the past decade).

These “monumentally different” thinkers were also co-founders of the Mont Pelerin Society, another group dedicated to the spread of the gospel of Hayek. They differed in matters of doctrinal detail, but otherwise collaborated in advancing the primacy of economic liberalism over any role for government, democratic or otherwise, in economic affairs. It’s not uncommon for Hayek and Friedman to be viewed together in opposition to Von Mises and Rothbard, the latter being seen as unflinching zealots for a radical return to non-paper money. Friedman was probably less comfortable than Hayek with right-wing dictatorships such as that of Pinochet, but it’s hard to tell, as he chose not to confront the horrors unleashed by Chilean followers of his teachings.

On his support for Augusto Pinochet’s regime of rapists, murdereres and torturers, Hayek said “My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism."

Clearly, unregulated capitalism, established by means including mass-murder, free of the need for a mandate, was to Hayek preferable to a democratically elected government, free of mass-murder, working against social injustice by hindering the unfettered march of the rich.

You attempt to portray the past quarter of a century as a betrayal of Hayekian economics. Here are a few quotes, published on hayekcenter.org, which undermine your assertions:

“By the time of his death, his fundamental way of thought had supplanted the system of John Maynard Keynes -- his chief intellectual rival of the century -- in the battle since the 1930s for the minds of economists and the policies of governments.”

- Julian Simon (University of Maryland)

"Friedrich Hayek is the twentieth-century social theorist who, probably more than any other, found himself vindicated by events -- if not wholly, then at least in his central contention. He is also the one who, more than any other, himself exercised a significant political influence”

- Michael Lessnoff (University of Glasgow)

“As a result of the efforts of Hayek and the many others who share [his] general outlook, the idea of a centrally planned and centrally administered economy, so popular in the 1930s and early 1940s, has been discredited."

- Irving Kristol, a leading Neo-conservative, whose global political outlook would seem to be in tatters, just as the globalised free-market system is.

The Friedrich Hayek Quote Page

No problem. You’re a disciple of a man who looked favourably on the Pinochet regime, as, presumably, do Atlantic and 2000miles.

Chapter Five: Ireland, the Socialist Nightmare.

Atlantic, your fellow-traveller on the road to economic anarchy, portrayed FF/PD governments as spouting “socialist claptrap” and “taxing the sh1te out of us”. You and your friends have stated as a core element of your argument that Ireland has long laboured under socialist governance, despite our extremely soft tax regime, our public funding of private education, our lamentable provision of social housing, our rapidly widening gap between rich and poor etc etc.

Thankfully, your friends in the (Hayekian) Fraser Institute have kindly provided powerful backing for my arguments against this nonsense. Just a few months ago the institute published a colour-coded map of the world, depicting a scale of economic freedom from minimum to maximum. This was based on the Economic Freedom of the World index, created initially by the institute in conjunction with none other than Friedman himself. How galling it must be to find that the FI places this “socialist” state at the maximum level of “freedom”, in sixth place, just behind the USA. I realise that to some people on the furthest right-wing margins of the political and economic spectrum the USA is socialist in nature too, but there you go.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Comme...06ffEFWmap.pdf

The Heritage Foundation, another favourite of Ronald Reagan, which promoted his Reagan Doctrine of murder and mayhem in Central America, last year named Ireland as the third freest economy in the world behind Hong Kong and Singapore.

What do you know that they don’t?

Chapter Six: Friedman, Hayek, and the English-speaking Economies.

It’s interesting that the top seven freest economies exist in former British colonies, according to the Heritage Foundation. It’s also interesting that the collapse in credit is wreaking more fiscal carnage in the US, the UK and here than in most economies across the globe, and that this depression, the worst since before the advent of western centralised economies, is happening while governments have to the greatest extent since then taken their hands off the economic levers.

The gloriously free English-speaking economies, those most clearly influenced by Friedman and Hayek, would appear not to be faring as well as the disciples believed they would, and not as well as economies with greater government involvement in economic regulation.

Over to you.

You were "rescued" from the stagnation of the 70s and 80s by being able to borrow the money of German savers at a very cheap rate and by the foreign multinationals. It was certainly an opportunity, but the private sector in Ireland are too stupid and greedy to use that sort of opportunity. Instead they behaved like psychotic children who had broken into a cream cake shop, and thats why sane people want our future taken out of the infantile clutches of the privateers.

__________________
If voting could change anything - it would be banned.

"The transition from Capitalism to Communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." V.I. Lenin. The State and Revolution.