History major here. Complete newfag to economics. There isn't

What is the middle ground?

Somewhere between Austrian and Keynsian

>laissez faire capitalism causes bubbles
No

The middle ground is where we are now, where we have the remnants of a free market, but with constant government interference and regulation.

Your mistake is assuming the middle ground is always desirable.

>>1171720

Could you direct me to where I could be appropriately schooled on Austrian/Keynesian please?

Preferably not wikipedia.

>>1171722

Government interference is essential for the sake of sovereignty. Speaking as a born and bred citizen of a country whose essential services (not just manufacturing) have been sold off to foreign interests who cut through margins with literal slave labour.

what is going on with thr names

Benis?

oh and the bubbles in America's economy, at least, have been largely created through legislation. nothing wrong with some smart regulation, but I'd argue there are too many restrictive and crony laws on the books. You didnt include smartly regulated capitalism on your list

Europoor here. Free,laissez-faire capitalism is the answer. The problem lies in the fact that we're about to reach capitalism on a global scale. Of course its fun and dandy to live in '50s USA, when every other major country's economy was bombed to ashes. But guess what, now for every lazy millenial in the west, there are about 5 hard-working, smart and indoctrinated asians about to enter and compete in a global economy. Where is most of the stuff you use manufactured today? Where do all the resources come from? Who has accumulated an astronomic amount of denbts? Who has the biggest military ready to fuck every emerging competition, including destabilisation of its own "allies"?

Its either massive decline of the US accompanied with the rising chinese/indian/arab middle class, or WWIII. What do you like more?

>>1171742
>the bubbles in America's economy, at least, have been largely created through legislation.

Could you give an example please?

Not disputing because I don't know the first thing about economics.

Just want to understand your premise.

>>1171754

How many generations will it take before humanity is operating under a consolidated, uniformed producer/consumer dynamic?

Provided we don't wipe ourselves out in the interim...

And wouldn't the aftermath resemble a state capitalism similar to China's model?

>>1171764
Nope.

>2025
>True Humen-Levlel AI is established
>Unemployment goes up to 100%
>Economy collapses
>New Post-Scarcity Communist Utopia is established, where everyone can do what they want.

>>1171766

Spoken like a true optimist.

>>1171766
That or

>2025
>True Humen-Levlel AI is established
>Unemployment goes up to 100%
>Mega Conglomerates Use New Free Workforce to increase their own power
>Ai improves til Whoever controls the AI is able to wipe out everyone else.

>2035
>everyone is dead except Larry Page, the new ruler of the Universe.

>>1171755
housing bubble largely caused by laws encouraging banks to lend to uncreditworthy people, dotcom bubble caused by money flooding out of an overregulated economy into the unregulated internet market.

>>1171771
>laws encouraging banks to lend to uncreditworthy people

That sounds more like de-regulation... Giving free reign to banks so they can absorb as much of the populace as possible - Particularly the vulnerable.

>dotcom bubble caused by money flooding out of an overregulated economy

The source wasn't the issue. The capital existed in the first place.

>Into the unregulated internet market.

Which obviously needed regulating from the get-go if so much capital was being sank into the black hole.

I know I'm dim on econ but you're making less and less sense. From what I'm ascertaining, both of these bubbles could have been prevented, or at least curtailed, by stricter regulation.

It seems to me that the markets moved faster than the government was able to catch up.

>>1171732
>Government interference is essential for the sake of sovereignty.

you mean the same governments that are actively pursuing free trade agreements and globalism ?

>>1171786

That's my point.

I was speaking from the position of an idealist who values sovereignty over market empires. Market empires that are enacting the TTIP and the "governments" are entirely complicit.

You can't even call our rulers governments any more.

>>1171782
well you would be wrong. banks would have never lent to uncreditworthy clients without the government incentives in place to do so. yes, there were some problems created when Clinton deregulated the investment banks. But he also mandated that banks go into poor neighborhoods, lending to folks who could never pay the duration. As usual, there isn't one clear solution to fix everything. In places, there was too much regulation and in places not enough. That is the reality of the government: they usually do what the big money wants, so regulation only effectively limits the small guy. This is why you should be overwhelmingly against stricter regulation, judging only on a case by case basis specific proposals.

As for your internet assumption, you are making the typical big government mistake: creating a problem, then announcing the solution, which is doing more of which created the problem. It's akin to levying an enormous corporate tax, driving business overseas, then offering the solution to the lowered revenues as higher taxes.

>>1171732
>Could you direct me to where I could be appropriately schooled on Austrian/Keynesian please?
>Preferably not wikipedia.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01A0B5THW/sr=8-2-fkmr0/qid=1459532996/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1459532996&sr=8-2-fkmr0

>>1171754
all empires must fall
wonder if i get to watch