• junioreconomist
    +2

    It really depends on how you view the evidence. I can shoot holes through arguments like this one just like you'd be able to shoot holes through any study I could show you on the free market. Like I said, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My problem is the tunnel vision that people get when they choose to stand on either side of the issue. Fallacies exist on both sides of the argument.

    • spaceghoti
      +4

      My position rests on one simple proposition: whenever we listen to people urging deregulation and allow markets to "self-correct" without government intervention, more people get hurt than otherwise. So long as that continues to be true and without a single example of a free market policies that don't create distopian results I will continue to oppose the "alternative" schools of economic policy.

    • junioreconomist
      +2
      @spaceghoti -

      I wouldn't call the Chicago school alternative. Nor would I consider Hayek to be an alternative our counterculture economist. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc

    • junioreconomist
      +4
      @spaceghoti -

      I've very much enjoyed discussing this with you.

    • spaceghoti
      +3
      @junioreconomist -

      I wouldn't call the Chicago school alternative.

      Probably not any longer, no.

      Nor would I consider Hayek to be an alternative our counterculture economist.

      He's certainly not relevant to modern economics if he ever was.