Gad, why don't you just admit that you're as poorly read on free market economics, mircroeconomics, and political economy,
I admit it. There isn't a lot of encouragement to read stacks of books from theory schools. They focus on math and stats. And economics is boring anyway. The book worms usually come out of the policy schools, which tend to be more liberal.
This is a favorite argument of the environmental movement, claiming the represent the "social costs" of industrial or economic activity, and has been used in that context to limit and restrict development and economic growth.
Are you saying that pollution is not considered a negative externality by "conservative" economists? I actually think you're the one who wants to restrict development with your insistance that prostitution is "bad for the community". If you want to really give the US economy a shot of adrenaline, make prostitution legal.
CFR on where I have ever claimed national defense, police protection, and much infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, are not better supplied by government.
CFR on where I claimed you claimed this.
There is absolutly no doubt whatever
Would you say a good 90% or greater economic Phds agree here?
.Von Mises and others showed, at the beginning of the last century, that socialized markets (such as much of our present medical market) cannot work precisely because no set of government bureaucrats can ever, in any conceivable manner, acquire, process, and interpret the information necessary to set prices and determine market needs
But you already admitted above that the government can build roads and provide military protection better than the private sector? And you got very angry with me because you thought I suggested otherwise. How can the government ever determine the market needs for military protection and freeway services? How do they do all that processing and interpretation necessary to determine how large the Navy should be, or whether the main drag in Coggins's home town should upgrade to a stoplight?
free market, monopolies cannot exist for long, or at all, without the connivance of the state.
Huh?
Yours is a standard, public school educated and mainstream media understanding of economics.
..private school educated actually (as I thought you knew as I've mentioned it a few times over the years)
Why do I think this? Because you show virtually no familiarity with Chicago, Austrian, or general conservative/libertarian economic thought.
Can you point to any specific thing I've said that is at odds with what's taught at the University of Chicago?
"Leftist conservatives"? Care to comment Gad?
I'll let James Pnkerton answer on my behalf:
Thus the split between the Old Left (socially conservative, even puritanical) and the New Left (socially libertarian, even at the expense of class consciousness)—which would define the politics of the later 20th century—was visible even before the Russian Revolution
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_31/article.html
I linked to the published PDF of the original study as published by Timbro.
Ok, I'll make you a deal. See, all in all as a subject, I hate economics, and I hate reading economics papers. So, as payback for my current sig line, if you can provide me the quote from that paper which says Sweden is poorer than Mississippi, I will read the paper, AND put the quote in my sig line for a week. Believe me, I won't enjoy it at all.
Finally, given the lifetime study of microeconomics you've made, including having read stacks of books and papers on the subject, and since as I freely admit, I haven't read a single book or paper outside a class text on micro and I would kill myself before I ever do, can you tell me if they've ever found irrefutable evidence for the Slutsky Decomposition? If not, have they at least found a Giffen Good? If I can afford one, I'd like to own one before I die as an inside joke to myself.