“But isn’t China, increasingly prosperous as it is, still a command economy? Goyette addresses this by saying that “as China freed its command economy, growth came.” Yes, but that doesn’t mean China is free from command. Nor does it mean that America won’t stop the top-down action until it becomes the USSA.”

America’s path of government growth has been incrementally consistent since the days of Lincoln. The pace has quickened since the days of Roosevelt. Since Clinton, government growth has been breakneck. The hundred+ year trend is clear. There has not been a decade when government size & power decreased. We are closer than you think to a soviet style economy. We will be there eventually.

The level of government intrusion in Chinese markets has been consistently decreasing for decades. The level of government intrusion in American markets has been consistently increasing for decades. The level of government intrusion is markets is inversely proportional to wealth. This is the point Goyette makes, and your attempt to misrepresent is was misdirected to say the least.

“Goyette later recommends buying an ETN (exchange-traded note) issued by the (socialist) government of Sweden. We hate central command, but we support it when it’s in our own interest?”

Socialist governments are necessarily inefficient. If you don’t know why, read Human Action. With that said, in a world of socialist governments that redistribute and confiscate wealth through force, there is a possibility of investing in a government backed securities that could increase one’s wealth because, well, governments that confiscate wealth and print money can be reliable when paying their bills. Government is socialism. Goyette realizes the Swedish government is socialist.

You criticisms are not very well thought out. Please think of the potential simple explanations to your arguments before commenting on the incredibly diverse subjects of economic and social theory.

“If you can get over a couple of belief-system rabbit holes, and the occasional divisive language”

If you can prove a certain theory to be incorrect, or certain Rhetoric to be unnecessary, do so already, but just don’t state as much without providing any specific criticism. That was a cheap shot. It was an intellectually lazy attempt to disparage a philosophy that obviously hits a sore spot of yours.

First book in the sequence:

MORE THAN LAISSEZ-FAIRE (2008)

Second book in the sequence:

The HUMAN ESSENCE of Economics (2009)

A combination of the first and second book:

MACRO & MICRO Economics Renewed (2009)