Maybe thats why all of economics has to do with rationalizing interventionalism instead of doing what its supposed to.
Certainly all of niemivh's economics does. There are other schools.
Har har. Telling me what I believe again; after you read those books that I cited under "book club" you'll have a closer understanding of what I stand for, although not fully inclusive of what my positions are. Outside of the areas where government should intervene government should not intervene; it's just that the government we presently have does almost nothing for the public interest so what I'm proposing might seem like a sudden shift, but in historical reality it's largely things that the government has done in the past and should do presently.
To say that "all of Niemivh's economics [rationalizes interventionalism]" isn't even remotely true - once again the litmus test is as I said before: "What further mobilizes the total productive and technological potential of the nation for the advancement, progress, happiness and welfare of the people of this state and the world". Where the private sector with the present regulatory structure is generating value, progress or otherwise a socially useful function then, great. Fantastic. Have at it, hoss. Enjoy your success, you deserved it. It's where they insist on parasitizing the public or otherwise promoting something cancerous that I would do what I can to inveigh against it. Unfortunately in our degraded present condition, that means doing a lot.