I don't think the idea of the post is so much how to fix an existing recession, as it is how to keep the monetary system from making the recession worse, and perhaps how to keep the monetary system from potentiating future recessions. When production precipitously drops during a recession, the decline in the money supply might exceed that drop, resulting in a monetary and price deflation that is what is meant by not having "the amount of money they want". The mere inability of prices to adjust rapidly enough results in even more bankruptcies and unemployment than the recession would otherwise have produced.

You want to do better than that. You want to fix the production issues that are the cause of a recession. But that is not a simple monetary phenomenon (at least not once it has happened). Conversion and re-accumulation of capital takes time and widely distributed expertise.

You refer to the recent bout of QE as an example of the state doing what you think it should do, and what this post allegedly thinks it shouldn't. But you are wrong on both accounts. This post says that a sound money maintains a nominal GDP. But by that standard, it can be argued that the amount of QE was insufficient, not too much. You are not separating out what today's central bank did that matched the post's recommendation, and what the central bank did that not match it.

And in general the empirical observation of such efforts is not encouraging, as you seem to think. Central banks' management of the money supply is notoriously procyclical, which nearly everyone seems to think is not how things should work. And the record of economic stability post-central banking compared to pre-central banking is equivocal at best.

"markets will raise the cost, to Americans of oil & gas"

How does raising market efficiency by removing global trade barriers *increase* the global price of oil or gas?

"treat it as the property of those who are actually using it to provide services or those who consume those services"

How is that legitimate? Don't you mean treat it as the property of those who were forcibly expropriated to produce it? I'm well aware of the state corporatist subsidize-more-than-expropriate scam to make state parasites falsely appear to be providers to the state, but for you to claim that consumption at another's expense bestows legitimate ownership upon that consumer is to justify the whole statist model.

"The only difference between a “public service” performed directly by the state’s own employees, and one performed by a “private” corporation paid with taxpayer money, is that the cost of the latter includes a parasitic layer of shareholders and corporate managers."

You VASTLY underestimate the scale of the parasitic layer of government support industries and bureaucratic managerial and other pseudosupport staff. The "difference" you speak of is likely positive rather than negative.

But your main point is a good one, that it is a privatization scam to loot taxpayers and later hand results over to private interests. This type of "privatization" only creates greater incentives for state growth to fuel ever greater amounts of such "privatization".

For the incentives to work against statism, privatization must never significantly provide net profit to anyone. Proceeds of privatization must be a partial compensation to the expropriated victims of state enterprise.

“Slam Mark Hughes's work”

“Work”? You make it sound like a considered long time research effort on his part. If that’s true, it only reflects worse on him.

“at least he has enough self respect to use his real name.”

If that is his real name (and it makes no difference to me if it is or not) then you confuse self respect with poor judgement. I have no interest in researching the name “Mark Hughes”, but potential employers the world over might. It is common practice these days for human resources to compile a thorough Internet record of a potential hire for a position of responsibility. If Mark Hughes is not in the field of economics, there is only down side in revealing his identity on politically controversial topics. If he is in the field then, given the content of his posts, there is only down side for him. The humanitarian in me hopes that isn’t his real name.

“Its hard to take your pontification (occasionaly thoughtfull but punctuated by over-the-top nastiness) seriously when you hide behind a nom de plume.”

Please explain to me how the truthfulness of my statements depends upon my identity. Is there a reason *I* should take seriously someone who uses such flagrantly fallacious logic? More common fare for Rothbardians, I suppose.

“If your going to defame "Rothbardians" with your scurrilous insults at least grow a pair and sign your work.”

Why would that be “growing a pair”? Are you suggesting someone would do something to me if he knew who I was? Is fear a good director for producing truthful arguments?

And I can’t possibly defame or scurrilously insult anyone whose reputation already matches my description. And anyway, ample evidence has been produced here to justify my language.

You were actually motivated to post that. I guess nobody can call you a dullard.

If you ever manage to conjure up an interesting thought, please don't hesitate to drag me back here again.

Why? Would that be any less likely to attract cranks?

When I check my gmail inbox and see that you’ve lured me back to this otherwise uninteresting site once again, I’m truly touched by the expression of how much you miss me. But if you are going to put me out, you could offer up a critique of one of my arguments. Since I’ve exposed every last one of my arguments repetitively and in detail with precise mathematical examples, you could do what nobody else has tried, and say “VV, you idiot, your math is all wrong here...”. Or “VV, you moron, my standard college textbook defines fracres banking differently as...” Or, you could pull a ‘Mark Hughes’ and deliberately misrepresent an authority figure like Mises, knowing that the laziness of the readership here is unlikely to check your source.

Or at the very least, you could give me a clever considered insult that I myself might find useful when future rhetorical incompetents such as yourself again prove argumentation to be a waste of time.

On the other hand, “could” is probably a stretch.

The very best starting points in both cases are free online:

1) http://j.mp/UIXc6T

2) http://j.mp/10i4gsj

I've been searching since CafeHayek closed its commenting doors to anonymity. It seems wherever I go, the cranks dominate the comments, even if the bloggers themselves are quite good.

I'll let you know if I find something.

Post apparently didn’t work last week. I've mutated the links (ach tee tee pee headers and slashes removed) and broken up the post to get it to take..

“How about some proof”

Since when are Rothbardians interested in proof?

“you blow-hard fool”

You might be half right, which is quite an achievement for your ilk.

“Don Broudeaux had nothing but respect for Rothbard.”

Wrong.

“And, along with George Selgin, he was one of the LvMI's very first grad student fellows.”

So?

Look, my disillusionment with this community is complete without you topping off the mountain of evidence of its incurable shallow ignorance. I’ve no doubt that your call for proof was rhetorical, and I’m sure you have no desire to do anything but block it out, but since it only requires a 5 minute Google search, what the hell...

Since atrocious reading comprehension is one your cult’s signature traits, it comes as no surprise that you misread my post. I specifically referred to “Rothbardians” not to Rothbard. Rothbard was a smart fellow who made a stupid mistake. Rothbardians are stupid fellows whose entire worldview is based upon Rothbard’s stupid mistake and who couldn’t hope to understand much of what Rothbard wrote. I have found myself defending Rothbard against the criticisms of Boudreaux and Selgin. But since I have yet to bump into a Rothbardian--whether here or Reddit or Forbes or anywhere else--who wasn’t a buffoon, I am perfectly comfortable in all of Boudreaux’s and Selgin’s criticisms of them and more.

“And Rothbard hardly ranks as a “great mind” – of this or of any other time.”
--Don Broudeaux j.mp slash 136keda

“You should read less Rothbard and more real scholarship.”
--Don Broudeaux j.mp slash 136kqJx

“But I’ve read too much Rothbard over the years to fail to recognize that his frequent mischaracterization of authors whom (for whatever reason) he wishes to discredit is so skillfully done that he likely misleads well-meaning people into believing that he (Rothbard) has slain a dragon when, in fact, he’s merely slaughtered a straw, fictional devil of his own creation.”
--Don Broudeaux j.mp slash 136kqJx

“Murray Was No Milton”
--Don Broudeaux j.mp slash 136kA3I

“George Selgin justifiably finds unintended humor in the many barbs – some quite vicious – directed against him by “Rothbardians.””
--Don Broudeaux j.mp slash 139ydy0