http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/26/mccain-health-care-reform-has-sparked-a-peaceful-revolt-2/#more-66010

Predictions From 1991 Have Proved to Be Correct

This theory accurately predicted this depressionary period 17 years ago, based on the idea that industrial revolutions happen every 80 years, leading to 2 kinds of economic depressions.

• About 20 years ago I started writing predictions about the past decade based on a theory that scientific revolutions and industrial revolutions happen at 80 year intervals, more and less, and that these industrial revolutions lead to two kinds of economic depressionary periods. One kind happens during the industrial revolutions (1890s, 1970s, etc.) and another kind happens midway between these industrial revolution depressions about 10 years after the beginning of a productivity growth acceleration.
About 10 years after the beginning of a productivity growth spurt, like happened about 1999, since there is the formatation of oligopolies and a cessation of introduction of new kinds of products, people become unemployed. I call this kind of depression “technological acceleration” depressions. During these depressions, there have been high productivity growth rates. Productivity growth will continue to increase during the next two decades I predict, if the economy follows the past pattern. By about 2030 or 2040, it will reach a peak. This matches what happened in the last two cycles. This theory is an explanation for the Kondratiev wave as I described in articles you can see online at lenr-canr or on my website cust38.metawerx.com.au
In 1990, based on this theory, I predicted the timing of the productivity growth acceleration, the economic boom, and the characteristics and timing of this depressionary period. What I mean, is that I predicted 17 years ago that a deep recession or depression would start about now, following a 10 year “booming 20s” type economic boom. It did. You can understand the reasoning for the theory by reading my prior articles and online articles. I tried to publish these ideas many times, but have rarely been able to.

During the 1990s, a problem was convincing people who already believed in “long-waves” or Kondratieff waves that the long-wave economic depressionary cycle is really a 40 year periodicity, not a half-century or 60 year periodicity as they believed. I tried to explain to people that the 40 year economic depression cycle is based on a 80 year industrial revolution cycle, which is in turn based on an 80 year scientific revolution cycle. But few people believed me.

But it is obvious no 1930s style depressionary period happened during the 1990s or early 2000s. It is happening now, as I predicted 17 years ago or more. It is happening now, starting about 40 years after the last depressionary period in the 1970s, which followed 40 year after the beginning of the Great Depression, which in turn followed about 40 years after the beginning of the depressionary period of the 1890s. In the US, this depression started about 1893. But in Britain it started in the 1880s, because Britain was the technology leader.

This current depressionary period is starting now, at the end of the decade of the 2000s, because at this time in the life cycle of the industries based on quantum mechanics theory, the emphasis has switched from product innovation to process innovation which involves price competition for standardized products. Historically, during the prior two industrial revolution cycles, process innovation involved the formation of oligopolies and the reduction of human labor by automation and economies of corporate scale. The same process is happening now, as I predicted two decades ago. This is why labor productivity is increasing rapidly, as also happened during the prior two technological acceleration depressions.

Another problem I faced is that people seem to think a scientific revolution replacing quantum mechanics theory can’t happen, and economists think cold fusion anomalies are a hoax. They also think Fleischmann and Pons were hoaxters, as do physicists, generally. People don’t think a scientific revolution cycle is possible. There has also been a lot of stupidity.

This theory is an explanation for the Kondratiev wave as I described in articles you can see online at lenr-canr or on my website cust38.metawerx.com.au If you don’t know about the current state of the cold fusion field, you can see various online sites and conference websites.

Katherine does an excellent job writing about our economical situation, and I’m very pleased she has received a lot of well deserved attention for this particular story.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/MSFT-UAUA-PFE-CAT-SLB-tm/index/a/20799

A free market is a market with “zero” government regulation, something we don’t have today, and pressure group warfare won’t work in a free market. Its because of government intervention in the form of a gazillion laws and regulations – a practice that lets pressure groups lobby to get legislation passed in their favor or against their competitors – that things get ugly. A free market will punish bad businesses – they will go bankrupt; in a regulated market, governments bails them out depending on their size, for the “common good”, of course.

I don’t think I will be able to change your views on ideas such as creation of the “greater social good” or working towards the “common good”; I don’t believe that a government exists to maintain morals in society or to redistribute wealth. Further, the only responsibility a business has is towards its shareholders – make the highest possible profits. Intelligent businesses – those that are not fly-by-night operators – that take sane risks knowing that they can’t steal from the tax payer and pay for their mistakes (the “bailout”) are the ones that would normally succeed. And its “greed” that will keep such businesses in line in a free market; reputation, after all, is not something that can be earned overnight.

“[G]overnment intervention is necessary because regulation is the only thing that counterbalances the tendency of factionalism to grow like a cancer in a free market economy.”
Like the corporatist-socialist US government and its social welfare programs?

“If you don’t believe me just look at the mortgage crisis.”
If the mortgage crisis is a result of the free market, “free” needs to be redefined.

Regarding Adam Smith (I haven’t read him, or any other work of economic theory for that matter), you might want to read this article on Smith by Austrian Economist, libertarian, and anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard.