http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2382683217626362775&q=krassimir+petrov Do not Prevent or delay liquidation. Do not re-inflate. Do not support wages. Do not support prices. Do not stimulate consumption. Do not subsidize unemployment. Do not prevent bankruns. Do not disencourage saving. Painfull but necessary steps an economy must go through in order to achieve viable economic growth that benefits the majority of the population. Theoretic nonsens or hard cold truth? Or is there a middle path somewhere in this as well? Thank you for your insights.
menger, bohm-bawerk, mises, hayek, rothbard, etc. should be required reading for all high school and college students. economics isn't complicated without manipulation.
Adam Smiths believe in the working of "the invisible hand" under proper conditions - the handiwork of only one hand ! If you see many hands at work, then the world is not too free.
You would probably have to include the prohibition of asset speculation and private property too. That probably won't go over too well here if you are really concerned about the "majority of the population".
Then there should be no tax levied by a government that doesn't Do Anything, therefore, there should be no government. This economic Darwanism sounds sexy, but the tumultuous environments that they create do not. Infighting, civil war, looting, murder, organized crime...etc. It's an unrealistic model and fails to factor in the danger of the angry "unwashed masses." There should never be "totally free markets" because we're human, and inherently flawed/evil at our very core, and given no restrictions, we will be as nasty as we can be in the name of our own self-interests. Good day to you all.
politicians don't get elected by saying "i'm not going to do anything". so, just get used to their schemes and learn to profit from them instead of whining about being on the losing end.