>>259
While I'm not concerned with Europe, per se, I'll be glad to respond. Inflation is caused by other things, true. A diminishing supply of, say, flax will cause the price of flax-based products to increase. Which falls under that natural trend for the price of goods to increase. As far as Europe goes, if they can make central banking work, somehow, then good for them. The US Fed is not working. All it has done, as I can see, is set optimistic goals and devalue the dollar.
China does have more regulation than India, it is true. But you omit the fact that China has been benefiting from decades of foreign investment, especially in industry, whereas India has only lately (let's say the past decade) started to receive that same influx of money and industry. Also, to a small extent, China does have a higher population and that does result in a generally higher industrial output. And while I take no offense at the condescending banter, I kind of chuckled about the "...so simple that two or three things..." bit. What other reason would China have to out-pace India? Perhaps it is the notion that the Chinese do what is best for China and always have; that the Chinese, or east-Asians in general, have a damned fine work ethic and that does result in increased performance across the board. I attribute the fact that Japan went from a poorly industrialized nation circa 1900 to the second most powerful economy as of today to that hell-bent work ethic and national determination. India doesn't seem to have that as much. Should I go into other facets?
Crime-lords are like emperors: far removed and out of touch with the foot soldiers. While they may have a good deal of control along part of the transition line, at the end they have a lot less control. It's up to the governors, if you will. And that entire idea ignores what I call free-lance drug dealers, like meth cooks and people growing their own pot. There are no meth crime lords and yet that market mostly governs itself.
Libertarian utopia? Hmmm. Of course, I was trying to point out that things can run themselves without government -- being an American it's hard to find a single thing that is free of government involvement, excepting drugs or crime. But if you can think of something legal and devoid of government regulation, please let me know.
So let me ask. Why do you take issue with the libertarian philosophy? It's just a matter of curiosity, so I can know where you are coming from. Do you consider it infeasible? Idealistic? Demagoguery?