You failed to address any of the negative factors of the FDA and government drug regulation that I clearly listed. Moreover, licensing cartels and other means of artificially constricting the number of suppliers is ultimately MORE ADVERSE to the consumer than the presence of a bad option in a truly free market.

And corruption is only part of the challenge. The federal reserve board is universally acknowledged to have caused the great depression. It's founding was chartered to stabilize the money supply and minimize panics. Under their existence we have seen the greatest volatility in the money supply a greater frequency of panics/recessions and two of the greatest economic collapses in the history of the country. By every measure it has failed in it's original purpose and yet, in the wake of demonstrable unmitigated failure otherwise sane people will still attest to its 'incorruptability' while ignoring it's gross incompetence.

As I've said Keynes general theory and his vision of economic intervention was DEVISED because he clearly pointed out that a recession in his time was CAUSED solely bby the mismanagement of monetary policy in his own time in his own country.

And you're right. It is a matter of history. History calls us to examine all factors and results, not intentions and rhetoric. History teaches us that in times of economic recession state intervention usually makes matters worse. The taxes and ultimate devaluation are real, but the promised benefits are generally not. 1 trillion dollars (counting interest) of stimulus spending and we had the longest run over 8% unemployment since the great depression. Intentions are nice, results are necessary.

---

You failed to address any of the negative factors of the FDA and government drug regulation that I clearly listed.  Moreover, licensing cartels and other means of artificially constricting the number of suppliers is ultimately MORE ADVERSE to the consumer than the presence of a bad option in a truly free market.  

And corruption is only part of the challenge.  The federal reserve board is universally acknowledged to have caused the great depression.  It's founding was chartered to stabilize the money supply and minimize panics.  Under their existence we have seen the greatest volatility in the money supply a greater frequency of panics/recessions and two of the greatest economic collapses in the history of the country.  By every measure it has failed in it's original purpose and yet, in the wake of demonstrable unmitigated failure otherwise sane people will still attest to its 'incorruptability' while ignoring it's gross incompetence.  

As I've said Keynes general theory and his vision of economic intervention was DEVISED because he clearly pointed out that a recession in his time was CAUSED solely bby the mismanagement of monetary policy in his own time in his own country.  

And you're right.  It is a matter of history.  History calls us to examine all factors and results, not intentions and rhetoric.  History teaches us that in times of economic recession state intervention usually makes matters worse.  The taxes and ultimate devaluation are real, but the promised benefits are generally not.  1 trillion dollars (counting interest) of stimulus spending and we had the longest run over 8% unemployment since the great depression.  Intentions are nice, results are necessary.

What I'm saying is that, if you take the FDA away, there will still be name brand Advil and you'll be able to count on it having exactly 200 mg of pure ibuprofen that will be potent up to the expiration date, etc., but new drugs will enter the market that won't be as reliable and it will be hard for consumers to tell the difference.  It's possible that the makers of Advil and other trustworthy drugs would create a private cartel to check on each other and make sure that standards and scientific rigor is maintained, but I don't think it would be likely, and even if it happened, I think it would break down pretty quickly.  

I'm not interested in debating the history of the Federal Reserve with you.  We know that the Great Depression and the Great Recession both happened, but I don't think we can prove that either was caused or made worse by any one thing; both are too complicated.  The Fed was never in charge of welfare policies or unemployment insurance.  Its mandate changed in 1977.  There is also the question of, if a bad decision was made, is that the fault of the entire institution, or, just the fault of the people at the institution at the time.  For instance, if Bill Clinton made a bad decision, does that mean that we need to get rid of the whole institution of US President, or does it just mean we need to pick a better President next time?

I am interested to know, if the Federal Reserve is so bad, what you think would be better and why.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Today was painful.

---

You failed to address any of the negative factors of the FDA and government drug regulation that I clearly listed.  Moreover, licensing cartels and other means of artificially constricting the number of suppliers is ultimately MORE ADVERSE to the consumer than the presence of a bad option in a truly free market.  

And corruption is only part of the challenge.  The federal reserve board is universally acknowledged to have caused the great depression.  It's founding was chartered to stabilize the money supply and minimize panics.  Under their existence we have seen the greatest volatility in the money supply a greater frequency of panics/recessions and two of the greatest economic collapses in the history of the country.  By every measure it has failed in it's original purpose and yet, in the wake of demonstrable unmitigated failure otherwise sane people will still attest to its 'incorruptability' while ignoring it's gross incompetence.  

As I've said Keynes general theory and his vision of economic intervention was DEVISED because he clearly pointed out that a recession in his time was CAUSED solely bby the mismanagement of monetary policy in his own time in his own country.  

And you're right.  It is a matter of history.  History calls us to examine all factors and results, not intentions and rhetoric.  History teaches us that in times of economic recession state intervention usually makes matters worse.  The taxes and ultimate devaluation are real, but the promised benefits are generally not.  1 trillion dollars (counting interest) of stimulus spending and we had the longest run over 8% unemployment since the great depression.  Intentions are nice, results are necessary.

What I'm saying is that, if you take the FDA away, there will still be name brand Advil and you'll be able to count on it having exactly 200 mg of pure ibuprofen that will be potent up to the expiration date, etc., but new drugs will enter the market that won't be as reliable and it will be hard for consumers to tell the difference.  It's possible that the makers of Advil and other trustworthy drugs would create a private cartel to check on each other and make sure that standards and scientific rigor is maintained, but I don't think it would be likely, and even if it happened, I think it would break down pretty quickly.

The FDA tightly regulates the amount of Gluten that can be part of a product and still be labeled GLUTEN FREE.  There are rigorous tests, ratios, formulas and so on.  I can only imagine the number of people it employs or the time it takes.  Still, the best indicator (wife with Celiac Disease) is what independent consumer advocates and fellow consumers themselves recommend.  So the webpage or the blog is more accurate than the tens of millions of dollars the FDA spends on its OVERSIGHT.  

Now, I may not say that it is a necessity that the entirety of the FDA be removed.  What I am saying is that in the absence of a big regulatory nanny state or a cartel of private producers that in a free market with plentiful alternatives that the consumer benefits.   

I'm not interested in debating the history of the Federal Reserve with you.  We know that the Great Depression and the Great Recession both happened, but I don't think we can prove that either was caused or made worse by any one thing; both are too complicated.  The Fed was never in charge of welfare policies or unemployment insurance.  Its mandate changed in 1977.  There is also the question of, if a bad decision was made, is that the fault of the entire institution, or, just the fault of the people at the institution at the time.  For instance, if Bill Clinton made a bad decision, does that mean that we need to get rid of the whole institution of US President, or does it just mean we need to pick a better President next time?

I am interested to know, if the Federal Reserve is so bad, what you think would be better and why.

There is no debate.  They were established to centrally mange risk through interest rates and the supply of money through quantative easing and so on.  Their mismanagement of monetary policy caused the great depression (which was subsequently worsened by the kind of fiscal interventions that you talk about.)  They also lead to the great recession.  When housing prices were rising at 20% with stagnant wage growth it doesn't take a team of Harvard PHD's to know that you have inflation in the system caused by cheap money.  That's the whole "purpose" of having a central regulation of interest rates.  And at the most critical time it failed.  We won't even get into the Government Sponsored Entities and their charge for "Affordable housing."

At every turn, we create these institutions to make us feel better because this or that area of the economy is "too important" to be left to the free Market.  When faced with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that these "institutions" have NEVER allocated resources as efficiently AS the Market the common refrain from my interventionist colleagues is always "well whose to say, who knows, nd its too complicated." And that's the best instance, the truly worst instances is when a policy wholly undertaken by the state to achieve social and not actuarial aims BLOWS UP IN THE FACE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE you have a young good looking senator from Illinois get up in front of a collection of press and Decry that the current Government Crisis is to be blamed on the FREE MARKET!

---

What I'm saying is that, if you take the FDA away, there will still be name brand Advil and you'll be able to count on it having exactly 200 mg of pure ibuprofen that will be potent up to the expiration date, etc., but new drugs will enter the market that won't be as reliable and it will be hard for consumers to tell the difference.  It's possible that the makers of Advil and other trustworthy drugs would create a private cartel to check on each other and make sure that standards and scientific rigor is maintained, but I don't think it would be likely, and even if it happened, I think it would break down pretty quickly.

The FDA tightly regulates the amount of Gluten that can be part of a product and still be labeled GLUTEN FREE.  There are rigorous tests, ratios, formulas and so on.  I can only imagine the number of people it employs or the time it takes.  Still, the best indicator (wife with Celiac Disease) is what independent consumer advocates and fellow consumers themselves recommend.  So the webpage or the blog is more accurate than the tens of millions of dollars the FDA spends on its OVERSIGHT.  

Now, I may not say that it is a necessity that the entirety of the FDA be removed.  What I am saying is that in the absence of a big regulatory nanny state or a cartel of private producers that in a free market with plentiful alternatives that the consumer benefits.   

I'm not interested in debating the history of the Federal Reserve with you.  We know that the Great Depression and the Great Recession both happened, but I don't think we can prove that either was caused or made worse by any one thing; both are too complicated.  The Fed was never in charge of welfare policies or unemployment insurance.  Its mandate changed in 1977.  There is also the question of, if a bad decision was made, is that the fault of the entire institution, or, just the fault of the people at the institution at the time.  For instance, if Bill Clinton made a bad decision, does that mean that we need to get rid of the whole institution of US President, or does it just mean we need to pick a better President next time?

I am interested to know, if the Federal Reserve is so bad, what you think would be better and why.

There is no debate.  They were established to centrally mange risk through interest rates and the supply of money through quantative easing and so on.  Their mismanagement of monetary policy caused the great depression (which was subsequently worsened by the kind of fiscal interventions that you talk about.)  They also lead to the great recession.  When housing prices were rising at 20% with stagnant wage growth it doesn't take a team of Harvard PHD's to know that you have inflation in the system caused by cheap money.  That's the whole "purpose" of having a central regulation of interest rates.  And at the most critical time it failed.  We won't even get into the Government Sponsored Entities and their charge for "Affordable housing."

At every turn, we create these institutions to make us feel better because this or that area of the economy is "too important" to be left to the free Market.  When faced with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that these "institutions" have NEVER allocated resources as efficiently AS the Market the common refrain from my interventionist colleagues is always "well whose to say, who knows, nd its too complicated." And that's the best instance, the truly worst instances is when a policy wholly undertaken by the state to achieve social and not actuarial aims BLOWS UP IN THE FACE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE you have a young good looking senator from Illinois get up in front of a collection of press and Decry that the current Government Crisis is to be blamed on the FREE MARKET!

You are repeating your arguments for the status quo being bad without pointing to or recommending any possible change to the status quo.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Name one time where I used that term? I specifically stated and have given examples that centralized planning, more often than not, causes more harm than it abated.

And on the whole that is NOT the status quo. Before the modern incarnation of interventionism (Keynes) it was the general practice that in times of panic or recession that the only thing the federal government did was reduce spending commensurate with the lower revenues. Never during that time did we experience a recession the length and depth of the great depression.

The comparison is so stark that the interventionist have to rewrite history and cast Herbert hoover, an interventionist, as the 'do nothing' president. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is so astounding it can only be propagated in the halls of academia. In reality, Calvin Coolidge faced the same initial crisis, did nothing reduced spending and low and behold the tens of millions of people with individual vested interests and needs for economic growth found a way to heal and grow their economy.

But what do we replace it with? The primary role of the state is to enforce rights, primarily property rights. Aside from that the best result will come from free people working out their own economic arrangements to serve their own interests.

---

Name one time where I used that term?  I specifically stated and have given examples that centralized planning, more often than not, causes more harm than it abated.  

And on the whole that is NOT the status quo. Before the modern incarnation of interventionism (Keynes) it was the general practice that in times of panic or recession that the only thing the federal government did was reduce spending commensurate with the lower revenues.  Never during that time did we experience a recession the length and depth of the great depression.

The comparison is so stark that the interventionist have to rewrite history and cast Herbert hoover, an interventionist, as the 'do nothing' president.  That kind of intellectual dishonesty is so astounding it can only be propagated in the halls of academia.  In reality, Calvin Coolidge faced the same initial crisis, did nothing reduced spending and low and behold the tens of millions of people with individual vested interests and needs for economic growth found a way to heal and grow their economy.  

But what do we replace it with?  The primary role of the state is to enforce rights, primarily property rights.  Aside from that the best result will come from free people working out their own economic arrangements to serve their own interests.

I know that Hoover and the Congress at the time upped spending in major ways.   I agree that history doesn't quite remember him correctly. 
I don't know that there was any crash or crisis while Coolidge was president, can you tell me more about that?
I think the idea that we should "stop intervening" doesn't square with reality.  The first act of any newly independent government is to create a currency, and ours was no exception.  The government sovereign creates the medium of exchange and transforms any market in its territory with it.  From that point on, if there is fractional reserve lending, new money will be created.  The government can also intentionally print more outside of the fractional reserve system.  Other "precious metal based" systems of exchange have always been less convenient and more exposed to bandits than systems of paper or debased metal that governments create.
Individuals in the market don't get to control either form of money creation.  One is controlled by a few big banks, the other could be controlled by a "bank of banks" as in our system, or by the sovereign power itself (our Congress often ordered specific amounts of money to be printed at specific times before the Federal Reserve System).  If either of these forms of money creation is done without care, there can quickly be massive price instability.  Either inflation that wipes out savings, or deflation that discourages people from ever buying anything that they don't need today even if they can afford it.  Deflation was a major component of many economic crises throughout history, including the great depression - there was essentially a shortage of currency in circulation. 
It's possible that new technology like Bitcoin will eliminate the advantages that government-originated money has enjoyed for thousands of years up to now, but I just see that as unlikely and I approach any idea in that direction with caution.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're absolutely right. You don't hear about the recession and recovery under Coolidge. Why? Because he didn't misuse fiscal policy and TURN IT INTO a depression like subsequent administrations.

And frankly the general establishment of a currency doesn't require an all powerful central banking institution to try and play God with the economy.

The federal reserve was chartered to promote full employment discourage panics and manage the money supply. The countries stability in ALL THREE AREAS has been worse under the federal reserve system including the two biggest recessions in the countries history.

---

You're absolutely right.  You don't hear about the recession and recovery under Coolidge.  Why?  Because he didn't misuse fiscal policy and TURN IT INTO a depression like subsequent administrations.  

And frankly the general establishment of a currency doesn't require an all powerful central banking institution to try and play God with the economy.  

The federal reserve was chartered to promote full employment discourage panics and manage the money supply.  The countries stability in ALL THREE AREAS has been worse under the federal reserve system including the two biggest recessions in the countries history.

If you could send me an article about this Coolidge panic that almost happened but didnt, that would be great.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're absolutely right.  You don't hear about the recession and recovery under Coolidge.  Why?  Because he didn't misuse fiscal policy and TURN IT INTO a depression like subsequent administrations.  

And frankly the general establishment of a currency doesn't require an all powerful central banking institution to try and play God with the economy.  

The federal reserve was chartered to promote full employment discourage panics and manage the money supply.  The countries stability in ALL THREE AREAS has been worse under the federal reserve system including the two biggest recessions in the countries history.

If you could send me an article about this Coolidge panic that almost happened but didnt, that would be great.

I think he's referring to the Depression of 1920 under Harding when Coolidge was the Veep. Harding's response in 1920 and '21 (laissez-faire combined with rapid government downsizing) should be the model for almost all downturns, but the morons in power think they can fix it with just the right nudges and tweaks.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato