Newbies

Funny parody of anarchism and libertarianism

VanDoodah — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:25:12 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

A New Political "Spectrum"?

chloe732 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:37:06 GMT

Most people think of the political spectrum as "left" or "right". Differences are considered to be merely the extremes. Think of a continuum, a line, with arrows outward toward the left and right. They place Democrats on the "left" and Republicans on the "right". Then they think of the "extreme" left and "extreme" right.

I suggest the above is incorrect. I believe the political spectrum is actually a "segment", with two definite end points. On the left, one endpoint is called "dictatorship / totalitarianism". On the right, the other end point is called "freedom / liberty".

To illustrate, imagine a stick figure with arms outstretched. The left hand is a fist, representing the totalitarian state. The right hand is open, representing freedom / liberty. Two definite end points, not a continuum. In the middle is the "head" or the "human mind".

On the left elbow, I place the Republicans (interventionists). On the left wrist, are the Democrats (socialists). In the fist are the Collectivists (Marxists). On the right elbow, I place the "Independent Conservatives / Constitutionalists"; the right forearm, Minarchism; in the right hand (open) is Anarcho-Capitalism (freedom / liberty).

The human mind is the divider. We choose either liberty or tyranny (statism). The "left" and the "right" in the conventional sense are actually both on the same "arm", heading the same direction, to the fist. The Republicans are seen to be no different than the Democrats.

My question is this: Is the above representation useful? Does it provide insight or is it a waste of time?

Hello!

teuch — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:58:47 GMT

Just a brief introduction: I've been an active social democrat for about 10 years, more out of necessity than choice, working mainly in public housing advocacy and welfare rights. Stumbled across mises.org looking for works against intellectual property.

This site is opening up a whole world of thought I haven't seen before. Thanks for providing this terrific resource!

Newbie

Natalie — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:48:27 GMT

Hello Everyone,

I'm new to the Mises online community. I am not however, new to the ideas of Austrian economics. I am currently reading End the Fed-by Ron Paul and then moving on to Road to Serfdom-by Friedrich A. Hayek. I would love to hear about your favorite books or suggestions.

-Natalie

Philosophy for Beginners?

Justin Laws — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:53:02 GMT

Hey. I'm looking to delve into the philosophical aspects of, well, a lot of things!

A few subjects of interest: natural rights, natural law, subjective and objective, ethics, the socratic method, logical empiricism, marxism, or, well, whatevs!

I guess ethics, logic, political philosophy, mainly.

I am looking to get into the basics for a beginner on most subjects of philosophy and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on where to start?

newbie confused about inflation and prices

Smiling Dave — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:21:20 GMT

As I understand it, there are 2 opposing forces at work in a recession.

First, fewer jobs means less money to spend means reduced demand, which lowers prices.

Second, all that paper money being spewed out 24/7 by gov't means higher prices.

So why is Peter Schiff and others predicting hyperinflation? So confident as to say buy gold and commodities, and expect Walmart prices to look like Saks Fifth Avenue.

How does he know which of these opposing forces will win? After all, in the 20s and 30s, and UK in the 80s [I am told] and now [so far] prices are dropping.

Wasn't the only stagflation so far the Nixon 70s?

As always, links to short pieces or audios are best, but I appreciate all replies.

newbie confused about how Fed prints money

Smiling Dave — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:25:05 GMT

I read that the fed buys bonds from the big banks, say Chase for instance, and pays for them by adding zeroes to the amount of money registered to Chase in the fed's bank.

My q is, didn't Chase have to pay for those bonds at some point in the past? So isnt the fed just re-releasing money that was already in the system at one time?

NYU and the Austrian Economics Program

Johnnypanic — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:16:52 GMT

Hey, I'm not entirely sure but can someone please explain to me what's going on at NYU? I'm interested in transferring to NYU and I'm wondering how they are in terms of Austrian economics. I know there are a few acclaimed professors of the subject that teach there but is there actually an undergraduate program for it? I remember reading a few articles that NYU at one point had one and even gave me links to the economics department of NYU for Austrian economics but the link is no longer valid. In fact most of the sources I've found indicating that they do have one are dated by at least 10 years. Can anyone explain to me the state of Austrian economics at NYU? If it even exists there anymore...

Much appreciated.

Inflation due to decrease in population

fromswe — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:33:12 GMT

First question here.

I'm reading this in a swedish book on inflation(non-austrian book):

This is my try to translate it into english: "Most of the price history up to the First World War can be considered as the net result of two counteracting forces: inflation, which stems from an increasing supply of money and deflation resulting from a rising demand for money. An exception is the inflation that occured in the wake of the Black Death, when about half of Europe's population died( 1348-1351). Then the aggregate demand for cash(money?) fell and the price level went up"

I don't really see how a change in population could result in inflation. Isn't it more likely that people producing goods died and therefore a decline in goods produced caused the rise in the price level?

I guess it's not the austrian theory but i would like to understand what they mean with the demand for cash fall and therefore prices went up.

Newbie questions

Tukaram — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:35:35 GMT

I am new to the site and Austian economics. So I have a few stupid questions (and will have more later I'm sure).

My main question right now I guess is how much government control should there be in business, if any?

Would business competition smooth out the tendency towards greed and slothfulness? Or do we need some regulations? I think we would need some few, very basic, regulations but let capitalism work on it's own for the most part.

One of my favorite authors has always been Ayn Rand (We The Living is great). In Atlas Shrugged she made a good case for capatilist progressing society and the bleeding hearts ruining everything trying to make it 'fair'. As much as I agree with with her in theory I don't think I have as much faith in human nature as she seemd to.

For her model to work you need capitalists who run a company well, gives the workers a livable wage, and produce a good product. You need labor who doesn't demand outrageous wages, does an honest days work. You would also need well informed consumers.

Unfortunately we seem to have corporations run by greed not profit (I think some would strip mine their grandmothers grave for the silver in her hair). Workers that are only concerned with a big paycheck and when is the next coffee break. Add in the idiotic consumers and we get a mess.

Or am I just jaded?

Clinton 'Surplus" Confusion

Capital Pumper — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:57:32 GMT

I've come across a few leftist in the past who praised the Clinton "Surplus" as if it were the final nail in in the coffin of fiscal conservatism, and implicitly as a jab against the free market. This makes little sense to me since a surplus is just expropriated wealth that hasn't be thrown into the gutter of government spending. The state doesn't legitimately own anything, it only destroy wealth on a net scale through malinvestment into its grossly inefficient enterprises (a.k.a broken window fallacy).

All that aside I only know as far that intragovernment spending rose because the government bought treasury bonds from its own trust fund, mostly from the SSA surplus, public debt was being paid off (I only know that this includes treasury bills/bonds) while the national debt rose. One strawman of a rebuttal I received was, "deficits are not debt" as if they're mutually exclusive ; another time someone linked me a relatively indefinite congressional graph that shows a budget surplus of 236 billion dollars; subsequently special pleading that it cancels out the official treasury report I provided, which proves my findings regarding public debt, intragovernment spending, and national debt. Is there anything I'm missing? Did the Federal Reserve play some sort of sole in this surplus craziness?

Somewhere to the Right of Zeus

Edmund Carlyle — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:49:45 GMT

Reading a lot of Mises.org, I almost feel at home here, so it didn't occur to me until now to make an introductory post for the legions of people who almost certainly have no idea who I am. Or more importantly, what I am about.

I have always seen myself as an anti-democrat with a strong tendency towards plutarchy; and this is where I get on well with what might be called 'right libertarian' philosophy. I agree with the general economic theories and much of the political and sociological critique, though my ideas of a solution are somewhat different and perhaps more authoritarian (I do not shy from being called an authoritarian, though it is a qualified kind of authority). I am in favor of private equity governments constructed with reality in mind; for the benefit of their actually productive citizens; for the elemination of the criminal element and the neutralization of the indigent population (IE, plebs). I have many influences, but among them are Cato Minor, various imperialist swine, von Mises and other Austrians. As you may be able to tell by the pseudonym, I am also fond of Edmund Burke and Thomas Carlyle.

In my general outlook I would say I am a libertarian, in that I believe the things that fall under the rubric of 'policy' in democratic, communist are religious states are both ridiculous and hopeless projects; and that it is quite simply an evil method of organizing humans to force them to support half-wits and show obescience to the god state.

I never quite show up in any sort of coherent way on political tests (not that one need put much credence in such quizes) but in case anyone was curious these are my results:

www.thepoliticalcompass.org
Economic Left/Right: 8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.15

www.Theadvocates.org
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

www.moral-politics.com
Your scored 2 on Moral Order and -5.5 on Moral Rules.
The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):

System: Conservatism
Ideology: Conservative NeoLiberalism

http://politicalquiz.net/
Conservative/Progressive score: 6
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 0
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 2
Pacifist/Militarist score: 2

Supply-Side Economics Queries

Capital Pumper — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:22:55 GMT

How do the Austrians view Supply-Side Economics, and what are the main distinctions between the two of them?

Is Thomas Sowell correct in saying that Trickle-Down Theory is a strawman of Supply-Side Economics?

Mises' minarchism

Raibe — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:03:25 GMT

What justification does Mises give for the state? I have read the bit in Human Action (page 148-9 Scholar's Edition pdf), which simply seems so very weak, considering his anti-interventionism.

Book Recomendations

filc — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:36:34 GMT

I have a liberal friend who I'd like to make some reading recommendations for. He often comes from a standpoint where he arbitrarily decides what human needs are and thinks that governments should provide those needs because he thinks the market fails at it.

He made a comment to me today that he was scared that Comcast would become a market monopoly and raise the costs internet access and restrict it's use and degredate it's quality. I attempted to explain to him that natural monopolies tend to not exist but he has little economic understanding and fabricates fairytails to support his argument.

I ended the discussion because it was getting too ridiculous. Something about how Comcast becoming an ISP monopoly. SO he believed the state should provide the fiber backbone and lease rights to ISP's. I tried to explain to him that this actually WAS a monopoly by force and was able to cite him how inefficient it was. The city of Seattle paid for the installation of fiber below it's streets. No one has used it and as such taxpayers fronted a big bill for wasted resources. He thinks that because of this business's should be forced to use the city's pipe. We don't even know if it's adequate. Even though many ISP's derive a profit hes's not satisfied. Any ways I could ramble about the whole thing.

He ultimately plaid the "Voting is like a market" card. That turned into the validation of social contract ect....

These are the two books I was thinking of recomending.

Democracy: The god that Failed

Why Governments Doesn't Work

Neither I have read and am looking for advise. Should I recommend one of these or something entirely different?

I thought Ludwig Von Mises was against government coercion?

SilentXtarian — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:15:08 GMT

I'm reading Ludwig Von Mises's book Liberalism and I want for you to see what I saw here at this chapter: http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec7.asp. In it he argues that government coercion is okay for dealing with anti social people. So people who contribute to society are okay. I get that. But to him it's okay to use government coercion against people who are anti social and are problematic to society? I'm sorry but doesn't that go against everything he says? I just want to know what others think about this... I'm just shocked that he would be in favor of such a thing. I posted this in the newbies forum since I feel totally confused and now I don't really know what to think about him. Could someone clear it up for me?

Hello Community

ThomasC — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:56:06 GMT

I signed up just yesterday and dove right in, but I think I should probably introduce myself, so you guys know a little bit about who I am and how I ended up here.

I'm from Germany, 26 years old and I've been studying economics and political philosophy since I was around 18. I started out well within the boundaries of the german liberal mainstream (european liberal, not american), e.g. in general supply-side economics infused with the tacid understanding that about 1001 things just have to be provided for by the state. As this is basically as liberal as it gets around here, I didn't even know that there was such a thing as Austrian economics let alone Anarcho-capitalism.

But along came amazon.com and the "customers who bought this item also bought"-function and suddenly I was holding socially destructive works of evil like "The Ethics of Liberty" in my hands. What a revelation! Finally a consistent philosophy I could really embrace. I'm sure many of you know this feeling.

Then it was pretty straight forward. Over Rothbard I found mises.org about 3 years ago and I haven't stopped reading since.

Hello Mises Community

Live_Free_Or_Die — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:48:15 GMT

I look forward to continuing my journey of enlightenment on libertarian principles and the austrian school of economic thought.

Hello Mises Community

VanDoodah — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:50:07 GMT

I've posted a few times on here before, but I thought I'd better formally introduce myself.

I'm a teenager who became interested in politics and economics essentially because the British New Labour government has done such a terrible job. Being from an upper-middle-class, slightly guilty for being well-off British-Irish family, I always had quite a considerable leftist leaning on economic issues - until I discovered the Austrian School of economics. I honestly can't remember how I first came to know of the Austrian School (I don't study economics of politics in school, largely because the economics is all Keynesian and the politics is all very, very statist), but having read only a tiny fraction of all the classical liberal and anarchist literature available, I already consider myself, at least nominally, an anarcho-capitalist.

Thank you to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for this incredible website. In times where the Keynesians and socialists are blaming all our economic woes on laissez-faire capitalism, it's wonderful to have at least one website that serves as an outpost for intellectual honesty and economic sanity.

VanDoodah.

Im a newbie

Samuel — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:27:46 GMT

hai

The 10 Most Essential Austrian Works

Beefheart — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:26:26 GMT

In your opinion, what the 10 most essential works within the Austrian canon (or precursors to such thought, such as Bastiat or Spooner)? I don't know if you want to take accessibility into account... but I'm curious to see what ten books the average subscriber to Austrian economics values above all others. I'm sure Human Action is going to dominate the number one spot... but regardless, I want to see.

Hello Mises folk

Kierkeguardian — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:28:42 GMT

I wanna learn more about liberty. So I joined.

Conflict between states vrs between private parties

Southern — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:55:37 GMT

A discussion in another thread raised a question in my mind and wanted to get some opinions.

State militaries are immoral due to the fact that they are supported by tax dollars and more importantly because they kill. From what I understand a PDA is a free market alternative to state militaries. It is reasonable that at times a PDA may be put in a situation where they may take innocent lives to be effective. Is it possible to provide for a common defense, whether through a state military or PDA without being immoral? Or, assuming they are acting in a strictly defensive way, are PDA's absolved from responibility and the blame put on the aggressor?

Should I Buy "Human Action"?

VanDoodah — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:00:47 GMT

Hello all,

It's my eighteenth birthday coming up in a few weeks, and I was wondering whether or not it would be worth buying Ludwig von Mises' Human Action. I'm pretty new to economics, having only really read some Hayek and Rothbard as far as Austrian School economists go, so I'm wondering if I should start with something simpler or just jump right in at the deep end.

If Human Action is a bit too scholarly, could someone please recommend me another book/books instead.

Newbie q's. One about the Fed. one about booms.

Smiling Dave — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:19:54 GMT

1. I'm a bit confused here on a technical matter.

When the Fed wants to create money out of thin air, apparently it buys back treasury bonds from a bank and pays the bank by just scribbling into the computerized accounts the bank has with the Fed that the bank now has more money.

Why does it do it like that? Why can't it just buy whatever it wants, say tanks and guns, and pay for it by putting money into the weapons company's account? Who needs the banks?

I can take a wild guess that it's just a little bit of corruption, that the banks asked for it to be done this way so they make some money. Does anyone know for sure? Have a link?

2. I think I read that stagflation is always going to happen in a recession. Is the above drama the reason for that? The inflation from the gov printing the money and thus raising prices, the recession from the malinvestments caused by all that money and nothing to do with it, so might as well malinvest?