The Problem with Cults

Shaka has brought some interesting perspectives that merit our discussion. First, I can tell you that Austrian Economics are mathematically flawed at the most fundamental level.

The flaw is terminal - the system cannot be sustained. The have done away with math and replaced it with euphemisms like sound money and bogeymen like inflation.

For details, check my post here on the forum:

Austrian & Keynesian Theories Vs. Mathematical Facts
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/113843

END the FED before it ENDS US

'co-operatives'. If that is the case, I am completely supportive. In that 'sense' it is socialist in a sense that Amish are 'socialist' within their communities and the way they choose to labor for their communal prosperity.

If you will recall Argentina, I believe in 2002 or 2003, when their money system failed, there was a run on the banks etc. When the dust settled, many workers banded together and co-operatively purchased the businesses they worked for.

These businesses went on within their 'free market' as best they could to make a profit and share that profit as group owners.

It is simply another wonderful form of free market. My opinion.

Your post reminds me of times during the campaign.. especially the Nashville Ron Paul Meetup.. man did that group make one hellofa YouTube.. then there came a power play, a fight, spilled over into here and RP forums, and other Meetups.. and many people felt so taken for a ride by Ron Paul..

I don't like the way I'm seeing HR1207 progress, and I don't like how "our side" is allowing Greyson to be the hero. I don't get it... or if I thought I did... I'd say. RP may not be the real deal, but it's the biggest to being the real deal there is... unless you know better... what have you?

Within even the preview section of the book, you get to hear that this is a controversial subject and not accepted by mainstream Austrian Economists. You will always have people running at the fringe for every think tank.

For instance, even here at the DP, there are a number of minarchists which we tolerate... ;) And this book is contains criticisms of Hayek. It is hardly a "proper" Austrian work, but you can fly it that way if you think you can get any suckers.

Besides, you used to come in and tell how wrong we all were and push your own economic agenda, even shilling your book. I don't know who or what you are, but showing back up just in time for the controversy seems suspicious.

Here is the followup text for anyone who missed it:

"It was a great surprise and a real pleasure to receive the 2007 Smith Center prize for Socialism after Hayek. I do consider the book to be Austrian in its economics, if not in its normative political economy, but I had not anticipated that more “traditional” Austrians would be willing to accept the book as a contribution to the school. In fact, the normative perspective and the policy proposals that the book principally advocates – workplace democracy in the context of a rivalrous market process, universal capital grants, and some form of a welfare state – have been criticized for an overly optimistic assessment of democratic politics. Horwitz, for instance, castigates me for failing to investigate “whether self-interested political actors can produce the outcomes they promise” (Horwitz 2007, 69). Storr (2007) makes a similar point, which also seems to be raised by Peart and Levy’s comment about
Hayek’s skepticism of interest-group democracy. Based on these reactions, I would like to rework a criticism of Hayek made briefly in my book in order to state, in a different form, what a post-Hayekian socialism might look like. "
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

The quote from the Austrian economist blog is particularly disturbing, I think I see why the word "free" was avoided in "market economy".

As for the ronpaulforums post, I personally know the mod who closed that thread, and I can tell you %100 that she is with us.

She is an old school paleoconservative who has been an expert minarchist for a very long time.

She's actually a very impressive lady in that regard.

My guess is that she just perceived the thread as being personally antagonistic somehow, so she's just trying to keep civil order.

~
Obama's Mind Game by Robin of Berkeley | American Thinker | Nov 17

We’re playing those mind games together

Pushing the barriers,

Planting seeds

Playing the mind guerrilla

Chanting the mantra, peace on earth

~ John Lennon


It’s a chilling moment when the light goes out in someone’s eyes. A once-radiant child hardens from abuse. A woman’s heart shrinks after her husband’s abandonment.

The person looks the same, maybe acts the same. But something is gone, and what’s lost is irretrievable. It’s like when a person dies: in a heartbeat, the soul vanishes.

I witnessed this alteration recently when I visited my goddaughter, a radiant girl. Her mom, a hardcore progressive, has started exposing her to the darkest elements of the left. And the last time I looked in the girl’s eyes, the light had gone out. Disappeared. Just like that …
…

Why now? This may be the most important question of our time. Why are some people reaching the boiling point? Why do many others look vacant, like an Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The shootings at military bases, from Little Rock to Fort Hood — why now?

It’s Obama, of course … continue …

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamas_mind_game.html