at least one person has said that california during the gold rush was possibly and example of a time when there was a pure 'free market' system in operation; i think that's not accurate, but i invite anyone to debate this
here's a video of thomas woods addressing wild west days:
[yt]wEOIY7eGaTc[/yt]
it seems to have been offered as support for the pure 'free market' assertion
Another excellent illustration is Plymouth Plantation, which you can read about in Governor Bradford's history (http://books.google.com/books?id=tYecOAN1cwwC&printsec=titlepage).
It started out being quite socialist, with everyone's production going into a common kitty. After something like 3 years of starvation, the governor switched to a private property model, where everybody got to keep what they made, and they flourished. There aren't many clear before-and-after examples like that.
Something I would like to see him do is to provide some better backing for this statement:
"a 'free market' is an abstract concept used by economists to create economic models; there is no real 'free market', nor is it possible to achieve in reality"
As for this statement of his: "if a pure 'free market' economy can exist outside of abstract theory, than you should be able to provide a real example of it, please do so"
I stand by my response to that on youtube: "His comment was about as nonsensical as 'If a "nonslave economy" can exist outside of abstract theory, than you should be able to provide a real example of it, please do so' when said before there were societies without slavery..."
Not a very convincing 'argument', really.
A free market is just an absence of force. If you're sitting there doing something, and no one is using force against you and you're not using force against anyone else, then technically for the moment you're acting in a pure free market.
Quotewhy is it that libertarians seem to be trying to revise history?
Yeah, clearly, they are just trying to revise the oh so obvious history of the Wild West. Everyone knows that people were shooting each other every day in those days. At least 10 men would die in duels every week and bank robberies we considered a normal part of life.
JUST LIKE IN THE MOVIES!
Seriously...
I guess the people that claim Einstein didn't suck at math are also trying to revise history to further their Zionist agenda, right?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
Another excellent illustration is Plymouth Plantation
i'd like to focus on one issue at a time and address the california gold rush, first
can we agree that the gold rush timeframe was 1848 to 1855?
Quote from: VectorM on November 28, 2010, 04:46:51 PM
Yeah, clearly, they are just trying to revise the oh so obvious history of the Wild West. Everyone knows that people were shooting each other every day in those days. At least 10 men would die in duels every week and bank robberies we considered a normal part of life.
JUST LIKE IN THE MOVIES!
Seriously...
I guess the people that claim Einstein didn't suck at math are also trying to revise history to further their Zionist agenda, right?
i'm not talking about movies, i'm talking about documented history
The Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, passed on April 22, 1850 by the California Legislature, allowed settlers to continue the Californio practice of capturing and using Native people as bonded workers. It also provided the basis for the enslavement and trafficking in Native American labor, particularly that of young women and children, which was carried on as a legal business enterprise. Native American villages were regularly raided to supply the demand, and young women and children were carried off to be sold, the men and remaining people often being killed in genocidal attacks.
source: Heizer, Robert F. (1974). The destruction of California Indians. Lincoln and London: Univ. of Nebraska Press. p. 243.
Indenture Law passed. The Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was enacted which provided for the indenture or apprenticeship of Indians of all ages to any white citizen for long periods of time. Was a common practice from 1850 until 1863.
http://www.shastacountyhistory.com/important_dates_in_indian_history (http://www.shastacountyhistory.com/important_dates_in_indian_history)
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 04:48:33 PM
i'd like to focus on one issue at a time and address the california gold rush, first
can we agree that the gold rush timeframe was 1848 to 1855?
I don't know where you get that ending time from; most of the activity was in 1849-50; by 1850 most of the gold that was easy to get to had pretty much been mined. Besides, 1850 was when California became a state, and we're talking about the pre-statist time.
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 04:53:46 PM
i'm not talking about movies, i'm talking about documented history
You mean, like the statistics showing only 1 murder per 100,000 (and in many places, 0)? How many places in the US today can boast of such a low rate?
QuoteThe Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, passed on April 22, 1850 by the California Legislature, allowed settlers to continue the Californio practice of capturing and using Native people as bonded workers. It also provided the basis for the enslavement and trafficking in Native American labor, particularly that of young women and children, which was carried on as a legal business enterprise. Native American villages were regularly raided to supply the demand, and young women and children were carried off to be sold, the men and remaining people often being killed in genocidal attacks.
So, wait...because GOVERNMENT committed these atrocities, that somehow means the free market is bad???
QuoteIndenture Law passed.
More government activity. Irrelevant.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:08:30 PM
I don't know where you get that ending time from; most of the activity was in 1849-50; by 1850 most of the gold that was easy to get to had pretty much been mined. Besides, 1850 was when California became a state, and we're talking about the pre-statist time.
for convenience, it came from wiki, other sources say 1848 to 1859
http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/calgoldrush/calgoldrush.htm (http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/calgoldrush/calgoldrush.htm)
but, if you want to use 1849 & 1850, i can work with that
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:13:30 PM
You mean, like the statistics showing only 1 murder per 100,000 (and in many places, 0)? How many places in the US today can boast of such a low rate?
i doubt that it's valid to compare stats from 19th century california to the 20th/21st centuries
during 1848 and much of 1849, i don't think there were really any cities in alta california, just settlements, missions, ranches and settlers with lots of distance between them
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:13:30 PM
So, wait...because GOVERNMENT committed these atrocities, that somehow means the free market is bad???
More government activity. Irrelevant.
people committed atrocities, the act i mentioned says "allowed settlers to
continue the Californio practice of capturing and using Native people as bonded workers"; it was happening before, during and after 1849
my point is that native people were being forced work as servants
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 05:31:57 PMduring 1848 and much of 1849, i don't think there were really any cities in alta california, just settlements, missions, ranches and settlers with lots of distance between them
San Francisco was a big city, mostly because of the port. They boomed during the gold rush. Sacramento and San Jose had a lot to do with it, too.
Quotethe act i mentioned says "allowed settlers to continue the Californio practice
That was what the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT had been doing. NOT the free market.
Quotemy point is that native people were being forced work as servants
If there's force, it ain't a free market. Get that into your head!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on November 28, 2010, 04:34:46 PM
Something I would like to see him do is to provide some better backing for this statement:
"a 'free market' is an abstract concept used by economists to create economic models; there is no real 'free market', nor is it possible to achieve in reality"
As for this statement of his: "if a pure 'free market' economy can exist outside of abstract theory, than you should be able to provide a real example of it, please do so"
I stand by my response to that on youtube: "His comment was about as nonsensical as 'If a "nonslave economy" can exist outside of abstract theory, than you should be able to provide a real example of it, please do so' when said before there were societies without slavery..."
Not a very convincing 'argument', really.
read this and then get back to me if you have any questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model)
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 05:44:08 PM
read this and then get back to me if you have any questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model)
Which part of it?
It all seems irrelevant to me.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:42:56 PM
San Francisco was a big city, mostly because of the port. They boomed during the gold rush. Sacramento and San Jose had a lot to do with it, too.
i lived in san francisco from 2/1991 until 7/2005 and was quite interested in and somewhat familiar with local history
it took a little while for the people to get there, so it depends on exactly what date you're referring to
The population of San Francisco exploded from perhaps 1,000[11] in 1848 to 25,000 full-time residents by 1850.[12]
[11] Holliday, J. S. (1999), p. 51 ("800 residents").
[12] Rawls, James J. and Orsi, Richard J. (eds.) (1999). A golden state: mining and economic development in Gold Rush California (California History Sesquicentennial Series, 2). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. p. 187.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:42:56 PM
That was what the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT had been doing. NOT the free market.
If there's force, it ain't a free market. Get that into your head!
that's my point, a free market didn't exist in california and hasn't ever existed anywhere
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on November 28, 2010, 05:49:47 PM
Which part of it?
It all seems irrelevant to me.
let's say this part:
In economics, a model is a
theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques.
this part:
Overview
In general terms, economic models have two functions: first as a simplification of and
abstraction from observed data, and second as a means of selection of data based on a
paradigm of econometric study.
and the part sub-titled:
Restrictive, unrealistic assumptions
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 06:10:43 PM
let's say this part:
In economics, a model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques.
this part:
Overview
In general terms, economic models have two functions: first as a simplification of and abstraction from observed data, and second as a means of selection of data based on a paradigm of econometric study.
and the part sub-titled: Restrictive, unrealistic assumptions
I see nothing in there that pertains to my post.
So more red herring.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on November 28, 2010, 06:23:46 PM
I see nothing in there that pertains to my post.
So more red herring.
just out of curiosity, have you ever taken any economics classes?
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 06:01:26 PMit took a little while for the people to get there, so it depends on exactly what date you're referring to
These had been established cities under Mexican rule.
Quotethat's my point, a free market didn't exist in california and hasn't ever existed anywhere
Except that we're talking about a period IN BETWEEN the two states you keep mentioning.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 07:10:32 PM
These had been established cities under Mexican rule.
which cities?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 07:10:32 PM
Except that we're talking about a period IN BETWEEN the two states you keep mentioning.
what specific time does "in between" refer to?
All of the cities I mentioned were established when California was a part of Mexico.
The rest of your question has been answered. I can only conclude that you're either stalling or evading now.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 29, 2010, 06:11:01 AM
San Francisco was a big city, mostly because of the port. They boomed during the gold rush. Sacramento and San Jose had a lot to do with it, too. All of the cities I mentioned were established when California was a part of Mexico.
san francisco was a more like a shanty town and i guess you can say sac was a city, but i'd call it a small town
The citizens of Sacramento adopted a city charter in 1849, which was recognized by the state legislature in 1850. Sacramento is the oldest incorporated city in California, incorporated on February 27, 1850. During the early 1850s the Sacramento valley was devastated by floods, fires and cholera epidemics. Despite this, because of its position just downstream from the Mother Lode in the Sierra Nevada, the new city grew, quickly reaching a population of 10,000.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 07:10:32 PM
Except that we're talking about a period IN BETWEEN the two states you keep mentioning.
let's say 8/1848 when the guadalupe treaty reached california until 4/1849 when riley served as the military governor , so that's about 8 months of no state government, but san francisco, san jose and sacramento had city governments; it just doesn't seem like there's a strong case for a pure 'free market' at that time, especially when this is what's recorded about that period:
Gold had profoundly adverse effects on California society. The annual yield of the gold fields in dollars was an incredible 10 million in '48; 40 million in '49; 50 million in '50; and an average of 60 million each year from '51 to '57. According to the State census there were 255,000 Californians in '52, about 100,000 or one-third of whom were miners. If the annual yield of gold was 60 million dollars in '52, the average annual earnings per miner would be $600 or about $2 per day - except that some individual miners made fortunes, while the struggling majority averaged little more than a dollar a day at a time when the wages for common labor were four or five times higher. So much for the hopes of striking it rich in the California gold fields. Add the isolation, hardship and dearth of family life to the inadequate and precarious income of most miners, and we can understand how gold mining contributed to the loosening of moral restraint. The result was a plague of vice and crime during the Gold Rush, especially in San Francisco.
By the beginning of 1849 San Francisco had become a vortex of heterogeneous people arriving overland and on a myriad fleet of vessels. Hundreds of them were vacated and left swinging at anchor in Yerba Buena Cove, abandoned by passengers and crew alike who decamped for the diggings. Population of the town was placed at 3000 in March 1849; 5000 in July; 15,000 in October; and by the end of the year, 30,000. In 1850 the population was 35,000, and still it grew. San Francisco was mainly an encampment of tents and flimsy shelters improvised of planks, brush or earth, ranked row on row along the hills above the Cove. Open fires were necessary for cooking and warmth. Wildfires kindled by them, and by arsonists, swept repeatedly through the shanty town, that was promptly rebuilt. Supplies and services of every sort were rapidly exhausted and prices quickly rose to fantastic heights. To add to the hardship and peril of the immigrants, there was among the new arrivals, mostly male, a disproportionate representation of the restless and disorderly who created a reign of crime including murders and heinous lawlessness of every kind. The depredations of the criminals, and the corrupt politicians who took over city government, were controlled ultimately only by intervention of the Vigilance Committees of 1851 and 1856...
http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap2/chap2-sect6.html
there's more at the above link that indicates what a chaotic and violent time the gold rush days were
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 08:50:38 AM
there's more at the above link that indicates what a chaotic and violent time the gold rush days were
Compared to what?
Quote from: VectorM on November 29, 2010, 09:46:58 AM
Compared to what?
it's not a comparison
the following is offered as a refutation of wood's video in the original post:
Towns offered bounty hunters cash for every Indian head or scalp they obtained. Rewards ranged from $5 for every severed head in Shasta City in 1855 to 25 cents for a scalp in Honey Lake in 1863. One resident of Shasta City wrote about how he remembers seeing men bringing mules to town, each laden with eight to twelve Indian heads. Other regions passed laws that called for collective punishment for the whole village for crimes committed by Indians, up to the destruction of the entire village and all of its inhabitants. These policies led to the destruction of as many as 150 Native communities.
In both 1851 and 1852 California paid out $1 million--revenue from the gold fields--to militias that hunted down and slaughtered Indians. In 1857, the state issued $400,000 in bonds to pay for anti-Indian militias.
http://revcom.us/a/v21/1030-039/1039/gold1.htm (http://revcom.us/a/v21/1030-039/1039/gold1.htm)
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 10:55:28 AM
it's not a comparison
You really posses no common sense, do you?
Quote from: VectorM on November 29, 2010, 11:07:22 AM
You really posses no common sense, do you?
certainly, i do
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
It started out being quite socialist, with everyone's production going into a common kitty.
Do you think it would've been more succesfull if the production would've gone into a common doggie?
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 08:50:38 AM
san francisco was a more like a shanty town
San Francisco was a bustling port town.
Quoteand i guess you can say sac was a city, but i'd call it a small town
Who cares what YOU'D call it? Weren't you the one saying we shouldn't be judging then by today's standards?
The only thing the rest of your post shows is that you can copy and paste. What any of it has to do with our discussion is a mystery resolved only in your head.
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 10:55:28 AMTowns offered bounty hunters cash for every Indian head or scalp they obtained.
Government again.
What did the considerably numerous free market players do?
QuoteIn both 1851 and 1852 California paid out $1 million--revenue from the gold fields--to militias that hunted down and slaughtered Indians.
Government again.
Do you even UNDERSTAND what this debate is about?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 29, 2010, 04:20:27 PM
Government again.
What did the considerably numerous free market players do?
Government again.
Do you even UNDERSTAND what this debate is about?
it seems like you keep making my point for me, even in the time in between mexican rule and american rule, there were municipal governments; so there was no pure 'free market' system operating in california
And what about all the places in between?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 29, 2010, 07:56:02 PM
And what about all the places in between?
it was a mixed economy, as most if not every system is
Were the people not living in the cities subject to the authority of the cities, yes or no?
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 11:45:30 AM
certainly, i do
No, you don't.
Common sense was all you you needed to understand, that you must make a comparison with something to say that "This was bad, that was good, etc."
San Francisco was a shitty town compared to what? The rest of the country back then? San Francisco today? Europe?
The Roman Empire was a barbaric place by OUR standards. But by the standards back then, it was the pinnacle of civilization. Do you get it now?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 29, 2010, 08:56:59 PM
Were the people not living in the cities subject to the authority of the cities, yes or no?
after some thought, i suspect that the influence of san francisco and sacramento's law probably did exert some effect on a portion, if not many outlying areas
was anybody outside the towns subjected to forced labor and other atrocities?
from all indications it seems that most of the non-native people were eager to have congress make california a united state; i suspect much of that was because they felt that the lawlessness could be overcome through the federal government's influence
Quote from: VectorM on November 29, 2010, 10:49:18 PM
Do you get it now?
yes, i get it, you have a narrow-minded view
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 11:28:30 PM
yes, i get it, you have a narrow-minded view
And how was anything I said "narrow-minded" exactly?
I didn't claim that San Francisco was some sort of heaven on earth. I didn't really claim anything at all. Yes, the place was shitty. But was it worse than the rest of the country back then? How did other cities compare back then? You were the one who disputed comparisons to modern day cities after all.
Quote from: VectorM on November 30, 2010, 12:57:39 AM
And how was anything I said "narrow-minded" exactly?
I didn't claim that San Francisco was some sort of heaven on earth. I didn't really claim anything at all. Yes, the place was shitty. But was it worse than the rest of the country back then? How did other cities compare back then? You were the one who disputed comparisons to modern day cities after all.
san francisco was more chaotic than most places at that time, i don't see any valid comparisons to make, but if you're so anxious for one, make it yourself
Quotesan francisco was more chaotic than most places at that time
Like? And what criteria are you using for "chaotic"? And how do you distinguish good forms of being chaotic (such as spontaneous organization, like the flock of starlings) with the bad forms?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 10:05:08 AM
Like?
like nothing
Quote from: MrBogosity link=topic=578.msg6557#msg6557date=1291129508
And how do you distinguish good forms of being chaotic (such as spontaneous organization, like the flock of starlings) with the bad forms?
no
Quote from: sfiorare on November 30, 2010, 10:33:40 AM
like nothing
So, "san francisco was more chaotic than most places at that time" like "nothing." So, compared to nothing, San Fran was more chaotic.
Quoteno
That wasn't a yes/no question! Are you sure you can parse basic English?
Well, he get that one right, if nothing else, you can say that nothing not chaotic...or anything else.
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
just out of curiosity, have you ever taken any economics classes?
Still waiting for to tell me how your link to Wikipedia was in any way relevant to my original post.
If it was it response to my point about a free market being a "model" I saw nothing in the part of the article you pointed me to that was at all relevant.
Again, until I get an explanation, your post remains a Red Herring.
Also, Shane, given that a free market is a negative condition
[yt]ftd-AiOz_KI[/yt]
He's basically demanding that we prove a negative, which is shifting the burden of proof.
We don't have to "prove" that liberty or freedom exists anymore than we have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on November 30, 2010, 11:39:24 PM
He's basically demanding that we prove a negative, which is shifting the burden of proof.
We don't have to "prove" that liberty or freedom exists anymore than we have to prove that god doesn't exist.
you don't know what you're talking about
Quote from: sfiorare on November 30, 2010, 11:57:20 PM
you don't know what you're talking about
You know, I never thought I'd actually see someone dig themselves so deeply into their own grave that they're in danger of reaching China, so I guess I should thank you for putting on a wonderful show for us. I'm calling poe's law. You simply cannot be serious. Either you're a troll, or some brain-dead teenager who thinks listening to 'Rage Against The Machine' and emulating the band's misguided political philosophy makes them "edgy".
He honestly looks like the type of guy, who thinks he is smarter than most, because he can copy-paste from an article that sounds intelligent to him.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 01, 2010, 01:39:59 AM
You know, I never thought I'd actually see someone dig themselves so deeply into their own grave that they're in danger of reaching China, so I guess I should thank you for putting on a wonderful show for us. I'm calling poe's law. You simply cannot be serious. Either you're a troll, or some brain-dead teenager who thinks listening to 'Rage Against The Machine' and emulating the band's misguided political philosophy makes them "edgy".
again with the projections
Quote from: sfiorare on December 01, 2010, 09:42:55 AM
again with the projections
You do realize that anyone can say that in response to any sort of criticism and it would be just as (un)valid, right?
The stupidity is outstanding.
I would support a system, where after certain amount of bogons received, the user gets a trollometer instead. You are bound to get some high scores on both.
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 09:49:37 AM
You do realize that anyone can say that in response to any sort of criticism and it would be just as (un)valid, right?
The stupidity is outstanding.
I would support a system, where after certain amount of bogons received, the user gets a trollometer instead. You are bound to get some high scores on both.
True, but do you think he'll break RCO's record of 40 bogons?
He will when we all chip in!
Have at it boys! To victory, to victory in the Queen's name!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 01, 2010, 10:08:30 AM
True, but do you think he'll break RCO's record of 40 bogons?
He would have way more bogons if I actually called BO-GUS on every single comment of his that deserved it. So far, I did it only twice, but he deserves more, honestly.
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 11:05:59 AM
He would have way more bogons if I actually called BO-GUS on every single comment of his that deserved it. So far, I did it only twice, but he deserves more, honestly.
could anybody be more bogus than you and your geeky buddies?
Your use of Ad Hominem is pathetic.
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 10:35:27 PM
Your use of Ad Hominem is pathetic.
what a coward you are
I am a coward, because you used idiotic Ad Hominem? Are you 8?
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 10:46:21 PM
I am a coward, because you used idiotic Ad Hominem? Are you 8?
you're a coward for hiding behind lies, i'm 52
Quote from: sfiorare on December 01, 2010, 10:55:25 PM
you're a coward for hiding behind lies, i'm 52
Says the guy whose regular staples are demonstrably untrue claims given without sources, insults, ad hominem fallacies, straw-man fallacies, and a plethora of clumsy rhetorical strategies. I use the term 'strategies' loosely, given their poor execution.
And it was a rhetorical question, moron. How can you be 52 and not understand even that?
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 01, 2010, 11:35:40 PM
Says the guy whose regular staples are demonstrably untrue claims given without sources, insults, ad hominem fallacies, straw-man fallacies, and a plethora of clumsy rhetorical strategies. I use the term 'strategies' loosely, given their poor execution.
And it was a rhetorical question, moron. How can you be 52 and not understand even that?
what grade are you in?
Quote from: sfiorare on December 02, 2010, 12:07:03 AM
answer the question
The question is irrelevant, both to the topic and to the circumstances.
Now explain yourself. What are you hoping to accomplish here?
OK, I really think it's time to just ignore the obvious troll guys.
Quote from: VectorM on December 02, 2010, 12:26:38 AM
OK, I really think it's time to just ignore the obvious troll guys.
We're just giving him some rope to hang himself with. I've already posted info about this website on his youtube page, so anyone who deals with him can come here and see his nonsense for themselves. The more he rambles, the worse he looks, and the less seriously he'll be taken. He's essentially digging his own grave.
You are making the assumption that he wanted to be taken seriously in the first place.
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 06:10:43 PM
let's say this part:
In economics, a model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques.
this part:
Overview
In general terms, economic models have two functions: first as a simplification of and abstraction from observed data, and second as a means of selection of data based on a paradigm of econometric study.
and the part sub-titled: Restrictive, unrealistic assumptions
Ironic that you would try to treat free market economics as using unrealistic assumptions of perfect competition, perfect knowledge, etc, thus committing a poisoning the well fallacy and strawman fallacy towards free market economics, when it is the very un-free market school of Neo-Classicalism (http://mises.org/daily/4886) that does this, not the Austrian School with I am a part of, thank you very much. Thus, I can only conclude that your posts on that are nothing but even more psychological projection.
In short, you are an epic failure.