I'd probably vote for a libertarian candidate (3rd party), is there a good candidate?

Theoretically, yes.
But in practice, no.

 

That's more like the NS I know.

I don't think you are dense enough to think I was really arguing over whether one should eat GMOs or not, but for some reason that's the direction you took it. So... OK.

You clearly didn't refer to the links I posted on Mises and the Acting Man concept, but that's OK. Time is scarce, and your time can be more valuably spent doing, well, anything else in the world that one can possibly do. (Plus, as you said, Mises didn't know as much about women's menstruation as you do, so what could he possibly know about economics? Nothing, that's what.)

But it's out there if you're ever curious. I just seem to remember you talking about how you argue with Austrians all the time, and I find that hard to believe as you clearly don't even know what Austrians' positions are. But again, that's OK.

And as for pointing to the machinations of central banks as evidence of capitalism run amok... well, I think you know where I'm going with this.

 

Very frivolous action that doesn't do any good.

 

I voted Gary Johnson for similar reasons. The government needs more people like him. Genuine.

 

Let me break it down for you---

The articles I posted detailed one of the most famous private attacks on a country for speculative purposes, the double play attack in HK during the Asian Financial Crisis by private (it should be noted mostly American) hedge funds.

The statement you made demonstrates ignorance on the subject in two distinct ways---

a) In thinking that the crisis was caused by the machinations of a central bank when the central bank was in reality responding to speculative attacks, as clearly enumerated in both papers, and an easy reference to "double play attack" for anyone who has a marginal background in finance or economics.
b) In not even realizing that the "machinations of the central bank" in this case revolves around the Hong Kong Currency Board approach which is designed not to resemble a classical central bank. In fact, the HKMA is the most famous case example of a different approach to central banking. Anybody who has taken the time to look into economic issues would not merely say "the machinations of the central bank" without regarding the very specific HK context. As a supposed free-marketer, Hong Kong should be your bread and butter. Sidestepping around it seems to show that you have not taken the time to look into these issues.

In summary, you posting Mises papers is nice---my point is that cognitive science has superseded his point of man being rational because rationality implies volition and etc. etc. (I did take the time to glance at your link, which you clearly did not even bother with mine), and his followers tend not to know about the technical points of well, anything regarding economics. Menstruation was an example of such a rationality/irrationality dichotomy based on "conscious volition" being invalid, but there are plenty more in cognitive science (I suggest you read some Pinker). Hell, in the 1950s, while Mises was kicking around, behavioural endocrinology was just beginning to be established as a field!

I will not go so far as to imply you are dense, but perhaps if you want to discuss these matters, instead of copy and pasting Mises ad nauseam, you might want to look at economic research and case studies after the 1950s. Quite a bit has changed.

To get you started---

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/finreg-achilles-heel-not-too-big-fail-too-connected-fail