The Mises Community

Marginal productivity of factors

Prashanth Perumal — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:34:24 GMT

According to economic theory, scarce factors of production are paid based on their marginal productivity. But, in practise, how does any businessman discern the marginal productivity of each factor? It seems to be something complicated.

And this is only the first question. I have a series of questions, but I want to ask them as a series with intervals right here in this thread. So please care to check in.

Your Austrian Library

Le Master — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:56:44 GMT

Show off your [ever-expanding] library of Austrian books.

These are the ones I have in physical form, while I have nearly every book in the Mises.org library on my eBook reader.

History of Economic Thought - Economic Thought Before Adam Smith

Man, Economy, and State with Power & Market

America's Great Depression

Human Action

Theory of Money and Credit

Socialism

Theory and History

Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles

End the Fed

PIG to the Great Depression and the New Deal

Meltdown

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

Democracy - The God That Failed

Crisis and Leviathan

Defending the Undefendable

The School of Salamanca

A Tiger by the Tail (original first edition)

History of Economic Thought - Classical Economists

A question about Ludwig Von Mises.

SilentXtarian — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:47:24 GMT

I think I've been putting off listening to Human Action because I just am sometimes put off by just how Ludwig Von Mises seems to have a complete dislike of philosophies. I understand where he's coming from... but it's as if he's attacking these philosophies for being against individualism... and that Ludwig Von Mises fails to understand or at least doesn't want to understand what these philosophies are trying to explain.

Not all these philosophies are somehow socialist because they don't have an individualist mindset like him or I or someone else here might have. I am an individualist myself... but I want some clarification about Ludwig Von Mises so I can listen to him and all without being put off by him. So he's that kind of guy that detests philosophy or am I missing something? I just want to make sure I understand what his point of view is before I keep listening to him... is it that he disagrees with the metaphysical approach that the old philosophers have taken? What's his view on philosophy? This has just been bothering me (while I've listened to him). So I felt I should ask the question.

Gay marriage and civil unions

Individualist — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:49:50 GMT

Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage? Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions? Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?

Federal government to pay Stop lossed personell 500 per month of extension.

Saan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:52:41 GMT

Well guys, my old driver called me up and told me about this. I checked it out. It's true. I can't link anyone to the official site. It is secure.

My information so far says this legislation was passed on Oct 21st this year. (unverified as of yet)

What are everyones thoughts about this. According to the application form I can collect 3,000 dollars. I don't think I'm gonna do it. It's blood money. I've had enough of that. Anyone care to try and justify me collecting my due.

Finding books on the Internet

Peter Sidor — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:11:52 GMT

Searching here and there for resources, it makes you appreciate any book available online, so you don't have to lose time going into a library. For many older books, not even a large library may help.

While far from perfect, online books are immediately accessible and ready to be quoted - if you can find them. Here are a few useful links to search online books at, feel free to add more!

Gutenberg.org, the oldest digital library with many books in the public domain, often old books and quite a few economical texts too.

The Internet Archive contains huge amounts of information, little of it useful... and then it can surprise with the oddest finds.

The Open Library boasts of having many books as well. Haven't had any experience with it yet, but it looks hopeful.

Google Books have often only incomplete versions, but it should do for most quoting.

Last but not least, Mises.org has many Austrian and related books too!

Request for feedback on my new site, Murray's List

JustAHappyKid — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:47:05 GMT

Hi all.

I've been slowly working, over the past few months, on what I like to call a "Craig's List for sound money". I think I am finally ready to tell the world about it, though I know many important features are still missing; I need some real users to keep me motivated.

I plan to soon reach out to all of the libertarian/alt-currency websites and et al. that I know of, but before I get too much traffic, I want to make sure the basics are in place and functioning properly. So, I'd like to ask the members of the Mises Community, here, to help me out.

Here's a link to the site: http://www.murrayslist.org/

Please consider posting any things you were looking to sell and any services you might care to offer. I would love to hear what you think, and I'd especially like to know if you come across any bugs or issues you consider to be show-stoppers. I realize there are many obvious features missing -- such as photo uploading, interfaces for easily converting between USD and gold/silver prices, and better site navigation -- but I hope that it is at least usable at a bare-minimum level already.

Also, if you have any suggestions for promoting the site, that'd be great as well. I have already begun creating a list of liberty-oriented websites, mailing lists, and the like, but I'm sure there are hundreds I haven't considered.

Mises Given His Due in the Wall Street Journal

Lilburne — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:10:50 GMT

The Man Who Predicted the Depression

"Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today."

Austrian & Keynesian Theories Vs. Mathematical Facts

DrKrbyLuv — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:40:35 GMT

George Orwell’s classic 1984 describes “doublethink” as holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accepting both. To do so denies the existence of objective reality. A good example is the belief in economic theories that contradict mathematical facts.

Both Austrian and Keynesian economic theories hold fundamental beliefs that do not square up with math. The exponential growth of debt in our debt based money system is ignored and refuted by both theories. In place of math, we are offered beliefs such as the “quantity theory of money.”

To deny the exponential growth of debt cuts to the very core and credibility of monetary theories. If the exponential growth can be proven, then equally, Austrian and Keynesian theories are dis-proven. Economic theories hide the fact that a debt based money system is usury by definition and neither Austrian nor Keynesian theories are sustainable. Both systems create bankruptcies and defaults while enriching banks at the expense of the people.

The inherent and terminal mathematical flaw of debt based systems can be proven anecdotally. Our total money supply (M3) is around $15 trillion while our national and private debt total around $55 trillion. How do we pay an existing $55 trillion in debt with a total of $15 trillion? We are short $40 trillion, where will that money come from?

In our debt based monetary system there is only one way to add money and that is through new debt. Eventually, the $40 trillion must be borrowed. If the money is borrowed, it will add new debt of over $40 trillion (principal + interest). The debt can only grow, it can never be repaid as the gap between money and debt will continue to increase.

The two economic theories will try to explain away this reality by claiming that the velocity of money can be increased so that a given amount of money can be used for more transactions. This is true when we spend money but it is not true when we repay debt. When debt is repaid it is extinguished, that is that the money ceases to exist which means that money can only be used to repay principal debt once. Most of the interest debt returns to circulation but never the less, the gap between money and debt will still increase since only the principal is created through new debt which brings new interest.

The specie of money doesn’t matter. If our money were backed by gold, the gold would simply be transferred to those who collect the interest. We saw this in 1933 when the gold standard collapsed and we lost most of our gold.

The two prevailing economic theories give us a false sense of choice just like the two party system of Democrats and Republicans. The science of money has been replaced by a belief system just like in the dark ages when science was dominated and defined by religious beliefs. If the next renaissance is to happen, it will come when the science of money displaces unfounded beliefs.

We are suffering from an intellectual amnesia. The Babylonians of antiquity understood the destructive power of debt interest and at one time Christianity and Judaism forbid it as sinful usury. The Islamic faith still forbids debt interest and perhaps that is a reason that we are clashing.

Our debt based monetary system is a form of usury that will result in the transfer of all wealth from the many to the few. The intended outcome is debt slavery and tyranny under the cruel boots of oligarchs - a financial aristocracy.

People are becoming discontent and they sense that something is terribly awry. To rebel against the status quo invariably leads to another tyranny as we have seen through democratic elections and third world rebellions.

If a successful peoples revolution is to happen it will really be an awakening. A higher consciousness where we come to understand how and why the game has been rigged by flawed monetary theories.

Massacre at Fort Hood and its repurcussions

Capital Pumper — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:01:52 GMT

Link

A nationalist rallying point never fails to bring out people's true colours. I see this incident is already being used as pretext to dehumanize an entire group of people. A couple of people I'm acquainted with have labeled the shooter as "another Muslim fanatic". They try to justify their call to arms sentiment of indignation through special pleading, "they've dehumanized themselves!" It's a wonder people churn out such rhetoric, when the historical consequences of the us vs them mentality are crystal clear.

Anyone here watch MMA?

jmorris84 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:22:09 GMT

And more specificaly, the Fedor vs Rogers fight? Fedor proving once again he is the best P4P fighter in this sport!

Barter, gold and silver

lostinwilderness — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:04:36 GMT

Since barter is still legal (last I heard) in the US, what's to stop Americans from bartering for goods and services with gold and silver?

The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

Samarami — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:01:05 GMT

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

The fatal error of classical liberals lies in their failure to realize that their ideal is theoretically impossible, as it contains the seed of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it includes the necessary existence of a state (even a minimal one), understood as the sole agent of institutional coercion.

Therefore, classical liberals commit their great error in their approach: they view liberalism as a plan of political action and a set of economic principles, the goal of which is to limit the power of the state while accepting its existence and even deeming it necessary. However, today (in the first decade of the 21st century) economic science has already shown:

1. that the state is unnecessary;

2. that statism (even if minimal) is theoretically impossible; and

3. that, given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.

We will comment on each of these matters separately.

Read the Article:

http://mises.org/story/3791

Ebook reader + Mises.org = perfect combination

toban — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:03:32 GMT

It's nice having all the books available as free pdfs, but it's not so nice having to read them on a computer screen (eyestrain). That's why ebook readers will be such a boon to the Austrian readership. They use a non-lit screen (think etch-a-sketch), so it's like reading paper: no more eyestrain.

Unfortunately, the technology (E Ink) is patented and that's slowing down the competitive process, so the devices are still pretty expensive and lousy. But more and more companies are putting out devices, so in the near future there could be some decent ones for reasonable prices.

Once they get better, ebook readers will be the perfect combination for the Mises.org literature. You could download all the books you want for free, and read them on an eye-friendly display. This could be a huge new medium for spreading the Austrian literature.

Roderick Long speaks Klingon

Sage — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:53:57 GMT

See 44:35 here.

Dr. Ed Lopez speaking at my university tomorrow

jct181 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:09:43 GMT

Dr. Ed Lopez (an Austrian style economist) is giving a lecture at my university tomorrow about Intellectual Property rights. Does anyone have any ideas for some good questions I could ask him?

Has Zur Theorie des Kapitals ever been translated?

theleion — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:50:59 GMT

Has Zur Theorie des Kapitals ever been translated? Mises, I understand, took Menger's view of Capital in the sense of accounting for all higher-order economic goods. But, it seems this 1888 paper of Menger's hasn't been translated, as far as I know. JSTOR has a reprint from 1921, and the original doesn't seem to be here either.

Personal Productivity.

Fephisto — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:55:47 GMT

Given that there is so much to study, so much to read, so many skills to obtain, and so many things to learn....

How do you guys remain productive?

What proposals can libertarians make that would lead to cleaner energy / lighter CO2 footprints?

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:16:04 GMT

I`ve pulled together here various suggestions that I`ve seen:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Given the current logjam, it seems to me that libertarians have a chance in steering things in a deregulatory direction.

Even those who think that libertarians should remain, in principle, disengaged from trying to engage with others in trying budge the policy process, might have some suggestions.

Thanks.

Austrian vs Neoclassical Axioms

Solid_Choke — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:16:54 GMT

The large majority of neoclassical microeconomics can be derived from two principles (or axioms) and a few extra assumptions. It is often said that Austrian microeconomics is certainly true because all of it can be derived from a self-evident axiom.

The two axioms of neoclassical economics could be stated like this:

The Optimization Principle: People try to choose the best patterns of consumption that they can afford.

The Equilibrium Principle: Prices adjust until the amount that people demand of something is equal to the amount that is supplied.

What would be a good way to state the axioms of Austrian microeconomics?

Are they really more reasonable as premises than those that are the foundation of neoclassical microeconomics?

John Stuart Mill and Left-Libertarianism

Lilburne — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:41:40 GMT

I highly recommend listening to Ralph Raico's Mises University lecture on Liberalism. He is a pleasure to listen to and a font of wisdom.

His discussion of John Stuart Mill made me realize just how much of an influence the 19th century intellectual has been on left-libertarian thought. I've transcribed the parts of Raico's lecture relevant to this below, and bolded the most relevant and interesting bits...

Raico notes that to many today believe that...

what liberalism is about is individual self-expression. The vast majority of the human race is interested in economic freedom: the sort of things that go along with private property. Intellectuals, however, are interested in individual self-expression. [...].

How did this confusion come about? Much of the present contradiction and confusion about liberalism can be traced to a man named John Stuart Mill. [...] He was called the "saint of rationalism" by Gladstone, but he was responsible for key distortions of the liberal doctrine that had come down to him. For instance, if you look at his little book On Liberty, he says at the very beginning that "I'm not going to be dealing with the doctrine of free trade", by which he meant economic freedom: the use of property and so on, which of course is what the vast majority of the human race is interested in. Instead he's going to deal with freedom of expression and "experiments in lifestyle" [...]

To stay on point, here, I exclude some great stuff Raico said about Mill's anti-capitalism and military interventionism.

But worst of all was Mill's deformation of the concept of liberty itself. Liberty, it seems, is a condition that is threatened, not only by physical aggression on the part of the state or other institutions or individuals. Rather, society often poses even graver dangers to individual freedom. This it achieves through what he called the "tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling". He says the tendency to impose by other ways than civil penalties its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them. What society does is compel all characters to fashion themselves upon a model of its own. True liberty requires what Mill called "autonomy", because if you adopt the traditions and customs of other people, you're simply engaging in ape-like imitation. Where we would say that men and women choosing goals laid out for them by institutions whose authority over them they freely accept, Mill perceives the extinction of freedom. In a striking and utterly preposterous illustration, the "saint of rationalism" says, "An individual Jesuit is, to the utmost degree of abasement, a slave of his order." One wonders what is supposed to follow from this. Must we form abolitionist societies to emancipate the willing slaves of the Society of Jesus? How should we go about selecting our John Browns to lead the storming of the slave pits of Fordham University and Georgetown? [laughter] You have to ask yourself by what right Mill and his alter ego, his girlfriend Harriet Taylor, could ever have imagined themselves entitled to pass judgment on the status of members of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religious orders, on Orthodox Jews and devout Muslims, or any other religious believers. [...] Mill's comment on the Jesuits illustrates a facet of Mill too rarely noted. There's a British philosopher, I think who passed away since, who calls Mill one of the most censorious of 19th century moralists. Mill constantly passed judgments on the habits, attitudes, preferences and moral standards of vast numbers of people of whom he knew nothing. [...] Hanburger and Linda Reider conclude that Mill was not in favor of real freedom of expression. He had a hidden agenda; his hidden agenda was to destroy organized religion as it existed in his time and to replace it by Mill's concept of the "religion of humanity" where everybody would somehow spontaneously work their whole lives through for the good of everyone else. [...]

From Mill's time on, liberalism in the minds of some of these commentators has become linked to an adversarial stance vis-a-vis religion, tradition, and social norms. Here's an example by a well-known scholar, Owen Chadwick, who is Dixie Professor Emeritus of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge. Chadwick said, "A liberal was one who wanted more liberty: that is, freedom from restraint, whether the restraint was exercised by police, by law, or by social pressure, or by an orthodoxy of opinion, which men assailed at their peril. The liberal thought men needed far more room to act and think than they were allowed by established laws and convention in European society. That's really more of a description of Greenwich Village bohemians than liberals. You can't recognize Lord Acton, for instance, in something like that. John Donne, who is a very famous British political philosopher and historian of politics wrote, "If the central dispositional value of liberals is tolerance..."-- which, itself is absurd. Tolerance of what? The central dispositional characteristic of liberals is a belief in liberty, I think. "The central political value is a fundamental antipathy towards authority in any of its forms." That means that somebody, for instance, who is a practicing Roman Catholic submits himself to the authority of his church voluntarily-- we're not talking about the Spanish Inquisition anymore-- somehow can't be a liberal. [...] Mill's view seems to erase the critical distinction between incurring social disapproval and incurring imprisonment. It leads to pitting liberalism against innocent non-coercive traditional values and arrangements, especially religious ones. It also forges an offensive alliance between liberalism and the state, even if contrary to Mill's intention, since it's very hard to imagine how they can demolish everything Mill wants to demolish, without using political power.

I should stress that Raico never mentions left-libertarianism in his talk. But I can't help but wonder if Roderick Long (who, I must say, I do admire in many ways) was in the audience squirming in his seat.

Here in John Stuart Mill, we have the left-libertarian's preoccupation against tradition and norms ("tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling"), against organized religion, against "bossism" ("antipathy towards authority in any of its forms"), and even perhaps their predilection for systems like eudaimonism ("religion of humanity").

The stress on "liberty of lifestyle" at the expense of focusing on the far more important issue of economic freedom is also shown to perhaps be a rather selfish emphasis promoted by intellectuals who would personally benefit more from the former freedom than the latter.

Worst of all, we see in Mill the left-libertarian's insistence on injecting distracting and divisive culture wars into politics, which is really a matter of freedom and its enemy, the state. I should note that strident conservative libertarians are guilty of this last as well.

Health Care Reform: All our problems are solved!

Snowflake — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:03:28 GMT

Alright! They finally passed it!

220-215. 50.6% voted for the plan, 49.4% against. Rounding up the winners' vote to 100% and the losers vote down to 0%, democracy is clearly of the people and by the people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act will apply to everyone whether they want it or not because that's just how it works this is a democracy case closed.

A short summary of provisions is posted on wikipedia, but I would like to add some clarifying notes for all those naysayers out there who doubt the wisdom and good will of lobbyists who spent millions of their own dollars pushing this bill through. All for our benefit.

They are as follows:

"prohibit health insurers from charging different rates based on patients' medical histories or gender [and] prohibit health insurers from refusing coverage based on patients' medical histories" Because you have a right to the pooled resources of other people. They have NO right to deny you entry into their free and voluntary associations.

"repeal of the exemption for insurance companies from anti-trust laws" Because otherwise government would be in violation of anti trust laws, and government is NOT a monopoly.

"requiring most employers to provide coverage for their workers or pay a surtax on the worker's wages up to 8%" Because those greedy employers hate poor people! If the government didn't require employers to offer health benefits they wouldn't.

"An expansion of Medicare to all low income Americans." Because what if someone needed pharmaceuticals or they'd die? We need to stop people from dieing so lets massively expand the pharm industry. It had an annual 17% growth rate before this bill, I wonder what will happen next? :D

"provide a subsidy to low to middle income Americans to help buy insurance." The subsidy will also be paid for by low and middle income Americans.

"a central insurance exchange where the public can compare policies and rates" Because that information isn't available anywhere else!

"a government run insurance plan (public option)" Because the free market isn't competitive enough for some reason...

"requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties" Because people are dumb! What if you had an accident and didn't have insurance? You should have bought insurance! For your own good you should be forced to buy some.

"a 5.4% tax on personal income over $500,000 (individuals) or $1,000,000 (families)" Because those people are rich and greedy! Don't worry though, The valuable rich people of society like doctors and lawyers will more than break even under our expanded health care system.

"reductions in projected spending on Medicare by $400 million per year" Because we'll spend less... eventually. But right now we need to expand the $#@! out of health care. We can stay on budget just like we always do.

"a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices" Because we're going to pay for health care by taxing health care...

Anyway, I hope this answers your questions! Libertarians just seem not to get it. Hang in there mises people, you'll come around sometime ;)

A Real Mises University: Suggestions Anyone?

Adam Knott — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:33:28 GMT

Question:

Why couldn't the Mises Institute found its own private university?

This university could be both entirely private and entirely online. No physical campus would be necessary.

Professors and scholars associated with the Mises Institute could teach or lead classes from their homes or offices. Possibly, teachers could be paid more along the lines of a market model, perhaps according to the number of students who sign up for their classes. The Institute wouldn't have to shoulder the burden of paying the teachers since teachers would be paid according to enrollment.

The Mises Institute could act as the unifying organizer of the structure of the university, but the university itself could be largely self-financing and decentralized. As people enroll, money becomes available, and teachers are hired.

Mises University could possibly be founded as a social science university providing degrees in economics, philosophy, ethics, etc...

If state or federal requirements for providing degrees are too restrictive, then the Institute could possibly decide to design their own programs and confer their own "degrees" that were totally independent of government approved degrees. I.e., Just start something altogether new having nothing to do with the existing university system. (just as Mises's own seminars were largely conducted outside of the government university system)

A Mises University could be a place where libertarian scholars from around the world could come to learn and to teach. It could be a leading model for a movement to erect libertarian social structures outside of or coexisting with the older state-run and geographical-centered system.

Why couldn't it be done?

Why shouldn't it be done?

Islam and liberty

Individualist — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:17:39 GMT

I hope its all right with you all that I bring up religion's relationship to liberty on this forum. Didn't Islam originally spread by conquest (with no purported miraculous confirmation of its truth)? Wouldn't that mean that consistent Muslims would support such a method of spreading their faith? Doesn't the Islamic scripture approve of things like this?

If, on the other hand, Islam is consistent with liberty; why didn't religious freedom sprout in Islamic nations?

can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

0069twiggy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:27:07 GMT

I use to be a liberal (culturally, socially, economically, ect.) but Ron Paul's presidential campaign opened my eyes to the evilness of the state. I am now a hard-core libertarian (the libertarian party is too statist for me) in the Rothbardian tradition.

However, on cultural issues I am still rather liberal. I support same-sex marriage and adoption, pornography, I more or less support the idea of free love, I'm an Atheist, I gamble, and while I don't use recreational drugs I have no problem with those who do (it's their body). The only exception really is my opposition to abortion. I view these actions as wholly personal chooses, which the state should neither endorse nor oppose.

I ask this because I have noticed the tendency of some libertarians to be more conservative culturally. I understand the core concepts of libertarianism are property rights and opposition to the state. One of the main reasons why I am a libertarian is because I want to be able to do as I please, regardless of whether or not others approve.

I was just wondering if my counter-cultureish values are at odds with libertarianism.