What I really wanted to comment on was the unique (I’m saving it someplace) distinction between “legislator” and “politician.” (Can the distinction exist if one of the objects is obsolete? Sure; dinosaurs.) Yes, I think it’s a valid distinction. So, we just need genetically manipulated breeding to create a new generation of “legislators.”

(Yes, I see the irony of using Big Power to empower the masses. It’s my favorite downfall… got a name for it???)

Can you give an example of a society where the people do not want more than what they have? I can think of a few isolated cultures that are heavily influence by religion… But even in those, there is a constant struggle to be content with what they have, rather than striving for more.

Isn’t that the promise of capitalism, fascism, socialism, communism, and every other “ism” of economics? Don’t they all promise to give you more than what you currently have? If that doesn’t mean it’s a basic human nature, then what is?

What I mean to say was:

You certainly don’t have to agree with everything I say. And if you already know the cause of the Great Depression and our current economic crisis is lack of government regulation and the excesses of capitalism, then you have no need to look farther. But if you would like to read a different point of view, and an Austrian one that certainly explains all sorts of hows and whys, I would recommend Murray N. Rothbard’s “The Great Depression.” It’s definitely a different perspective that the standard “Roosevelt saved us all” that is gospel now. It actually indicates the opposite, and does so convincingly, in my opinion.

Basic needs, such as food and clothing, may indeed be the heart of societies and economics. But just as a body needs more than a heart to survive, most societies (and systems of economics) go far beyond these basics. It is the nature of mankind to want more. I think the heart of economics is understanding how to get more.

In some systems, they advocate simply taking it from others within your society. Some they advocate taking it from those outside your society. And some advocate creating it for yourself. To me, where the wealth (including basic needs) is generated, and how it is distributed is the heart of economics.

And both Hoover and Roosevelt made it an express part of their plans to try to keep prices and wages from dropping. This also a matter of historical record. Whether you believe they helped or hurt is of course up for debate.

As for the lack of government regulation both then and now… We’ll have to respectfully disagree on that point. In a land where the government backs mortgages, bails out banks, spends hundreds of billions of dollars putting half a million troops overseas, is responsible for half the health care spending… I really can’t see where we have a free market. You can’t even sell used toys for children because of regulations. I can’t count the number of people I know personally who had to close their small businesses because of government regulations, and high taxes.

But you certainly don’t have to agree with anything I’ve said. I would recommend Murray N Rothbard’s “The Great Depression.” It’s definitely a different viewpoint than the standard “Roosevelt saved us all” angle generally taught now

What I was getting at by calling into the question the meaning of demand, was a reminder that at the heart of all economics is the need to feed, house, and cloth ourselves, and that we create societies to do that cooperatively. But it seems you don’t need that reminder, so never mind.

One is that by government interference in other industries, the costs of materials and or labor was artificially enhanced to where creating shoes cost more than they could sell for, thus creating a shortage.

The second is that when the government inflated the money supply, this led to malinvestments that had to be liquidated. This created bottlenecks in supply and demand, as people desired things that couldn’t be readily produced for what they could afford to pay.

I hate to sound obtuse here, but in my defense, I am blond. What causes demand? I don’t really understand that question. Isn’t it simply people wanting things, more than they mind paying for them? I desire a painting, because I think it is pretty. I desire food, because I like the way it tastes. I desire medical care, because it keeps me healthy (theoretically). Where is the mystery in demand?

Do you mean why are certain things demanded, and others not? Or why demand sometimes runs into bubbles?

The cost of production is certainly not left out of Austrian theory, nor is labor, or capital. In a world of infinite demand and finite supply, the question isn’t *what* is desired, it is *how much* it is desired – and that is the crux.

Demand is what drives it all, but demand is merely a combination of desire vs. cost (and in the credit driven society, you have to factor in time preferences – how much am I willing to pay to have it NOW instead of saving up for it later).

Or are we using the word “demand” to mean different things? I find semantics to be at the heart of many arguments, as people sometimes mean different things by the same word.

By not explaining how or why I mean that it leaves the most important questions unanswered. The claim that it is all demand-based begs the question of what causes the demand. And, moreover, leaves out the issue of cost of production (hence my shoe example).

Of course, according to the Austrian school, it wasn’t merely the government interference directly upon the market that caused all of this; it was also (or mainly, even) the government’s role in expanding the money supply in the 1910s and 1920s.

The needed/desired aspect only works in a free market (which I realize would need to be defined for a more extensive conversation on the topic). When the market is interfered with by a third party, such as the government, the needed/desired/created/acquired channels are thwarted.

I realize this is probably off-topic, and if you don’t have time or interest, that’s certainly acceptable. But what do you mean that it doesn’t explain the how or why? I may have read different source materials; it seems to explain it to a great degree. Do you mean that it doesn’t lend itself to graphs and charts explaining why people buy the things they do, and in what quantities? I’d certainly agree with that. But I sense you mean something deeper than that.