(09-06-2018, 02:24 PM)jj82284 Wrote: 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.

---