Probably definitive proof that the gold market is manipulated. Ha Ha.

Of course. But that was all part of Mises' economics where the focus was on human behavior rather than nonsensical aggregate models that dealt with a handful of variables between which there was assumed to be causal relations such that you could boost or lower one to effect the others. 

The Reuters post on "new" versus "old" economics was excellent.

What’s old is new again, or soon to be. Unfortunately, we will probably have to incur an economic collapse before the modern-witch doctors we call economists are finally disgraced. For a variety of reasons, more and more people are questioning the so-called wizards.

Rolfe Winkler states: “If mainstream economists had the intellectual honesty to admit that their theories don’t properly account for debt, if they gave “fringe” thinkers like Minsky and Mises a fair hearing, we might discover the “new” economics that has been under our noses for a hundred years.”

Monty Pelerin www.economicnoise.com

Dr. Samuelson was the best physicist the economics profession ever produced. His mathematical gymnastics were unmatched in his early days. Yet, he never, in my opinion, understood economics which is a social science and not a physical one. Using tools accepted by the natural sciences may impress natural scientists, but they cannot lead to good results in the social sciences. Hayek referred to such foolishness as "scientism."

There is no way to refute Samuelson's statement because there is no way to know what would have happened. Samuelson should not have made the statement because he doesn't know what McCain's policies might have been. Even knowing the policies would not enable him to make the statement. If Samuelson's estimate were correct, it does not mean that we might not be better off with that outcome. That is, taking our medicine and allowing the economy to purge itself of the excess debt and malinvestment would put us on the road to recovery much sooner. Despite the pumped up numbers of last quarter, we are not in a recovery and nowhere near one. We are pursuing the same policies as Japan, and they have lost two decades and not recovered.

It is a shame when economists let their emotional attachment to a political party cloud their thinking. To be fair, Dr. Samuelson has lived a long and productive life. He has entered that phase where he should be allowed to say anything and not be held accountable. For fear that my memory will fail when I attain that status, I am keeping notes of all the things I have wanted to say and then will be able to get away with.

Regardless of what I and some others might think of his logical positivism and his adoption of an incorrect paradigm (Keynesianism), he is one of the giants in his field.

Monty Pelerin www.economicnoise.com

I suppose I should have included this quote in my last comment: "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." John Adams

I fear that your time frame is way too short. I posted earlier today regarding our problems being more Constitutional than Economic. By that, I mean that the near destruction of our Constitution over time has allowed the State to enter areas where it does not belong and do things that it should not be doing. I know of no instance in history where States "go back." The relentlessly move forward usurping more and more power. An election, perhaps several elections, are unlikely to reverse this. Our economic mess will worsen and last for a decade or two (ala Japan). Even if faces in the State were to change, policies will not. The worsening economic crisis will provide more "crises should never be wasted" opportunities, regardless of which party holds power.

Nice site. Looks like it could be helpful for those interested in real-estate related topics.

I have not verified the validity of the article, but have no reason to reject your finding that Carrington Automotive is fictitious. If so, so what! Is there any reason to believe that such a reaction would be improbable to current conditions? Do you not think small businessmen are not going through the same thought process, whether they formalize it in writing or speeches? If you were a business owner, what might you be thinking?

Of course.

Reagan would not consider himself a Keynesian, despite his large deficits. Nixon went both ways, ultimately declaring "we are all Keynesians now" and then imposing wage-price controls to cover up his monetary excesses in order to win re-election. I have no problem denouncing any politician regarding economic policies, at least within my adulthood. I find it interesting that that you make it somewhat of a precondition that I denounce Reagan and Nixon before you "...then happily offer to denounce Lyndon Johnson's failures of macroeconomic management as well..."

Economics has enough internal problems, especially methodological ones, without being corrupted by pols. Regardless of the "School," serving in politics compromises one's professional integrity. The Nixon price controls and George Schultz's reaction to them being Exhibit A. I believe it was Friedman that commented that he rejected various government offers because of this, arguing that he could be more helpful commenting as an independent observer.