Don't blame the voters, blame the Chicago School.

[20000miles]

At least I see where you are coming from. Would he be arguing for LESS regulation by any chance? I note the company to which he works as economist isn't exactly involved in the sort of real production of bread and potatoes wealth he is arguing for! Seems to be just another form of gambling to me:

Why Trade Futures?*****-*****MFGlobal Futures broker, Futures trading, CFD trading, online Futures trading

This fallacy stems from the classical economics belief that only physical goods constitute "real" wealth. This is incorrect. Shostak is merely pointing out the basic tenets of economics - production, exchange....

They are BROADLY associated with the same school, Hayek and Friedman would both be credited as big influences on Reagan and Thatcher and their advisors. You see some people include politics and other social theories in their analysis not just economics.

No, Hayek was an Austrian School economist who argued for private competing currencies. The Austrian School consistently argues for monetary freedom. Milton Friedman was a member of the Chicago School/Monetarist tradition. Despite his belief in free markets he argued that the government should have a territorial monopoly on the production of money. And that's just one of the differences.

Completely different.

I think your guy Shostak, points out that this sort of thinking is Keynesian, not necessarily moronic. There is no need to accuse someone you disagree with as being moronic, an act which brings the accusation you make right back on yourself. This "moron" was one of the founders of the Jubilee2000 campaign growing into a global campaign and if you read her blog (which you probably won't because you disagree with her) she was predicting the debt/deflation crises for the reasons it has happened for quite a number of years.

I'm sorry but that quote from the article you linked to was ludicrous. I disagree with her because she is massively wrong on that point.

[Irish Liberty Forum]

Yikes. What are you talking about? The lasty ten or more years has seen a steady erosion of regulation in financial circles, culminating in the widespread use of the utterly demented naked shorting in the markets that brought down Lehman, with FTD rates in the billions daily. The crucial Glass-Steagal act was also repealed, and specifically in Ireland, the financial regulator was more or less under the aegis of the Central Bank, in fact if not on paper, with reduced regulations and lack of enforcement on all sides, allowing the introduction of Pfandbrief-style securitisation which gave the banks a false security blanket so they felt they could lend with impunity. Don't let sarbox regulations fool you, thats just record keeping, not guidelines to behaviour.

Lehman failed because of its own bad bets. You can't destroy a bank just by manipulating its stock price (a task which is nearly always impossible for private speculators anyway).

[Dios]

Lehman failed because of its own bad bets. You can't destroy a bank just by manipulating its stock price (a task which is nearly always impossible for private speculators anyway).

Read. FTD means failure to deliver, when you naked short and don't come up with the goods. There were other issues with Lehman, no doubt about that, but the swarm of imaginary shares was without a doubt what broke it in the end.

[Irish Liberty Forum]

Thanks for the link. I'm already familiar with the story, though. What happened to Lehman's stock is a different type of story to what Lehman itself did, how they ended up with billions of dollars in losses. You can't blame the real losses incurred by Lehman on a few speculators.