In a capitalist world, socialists would be free to form their own socialist communities. They're largely free to do so now, although few do. This may be due to the fact that even the utopian version of socialism seems unpleasant.
The Fed's Federal Open Market Committee renewed its commitment to easy money this week. The Fed will pretend to be committed to raising rates while doing nothing, and its ongoing war against deflation will continue to make us poorer.
The fundamental divide between Austrian economics and the mainstream is apparent on the first page of many textbooks, in which the authors simply define economics.
Neoclassical economists make too many assumptions and decree that the desires of consumers must conform to some external definition of what's "rational." But consumers like to decide for themselves what they want, and when they want it.
There's no shortage of intellectuals eager to churn out new schemes for central planning.
Can Austrian economics explain selfless love?
While I have a high regard for what Austrian economics gets right that other economic schools do not, I consider myself a “Neo-Scholastic” economist, a term which I will try to explain.
The crash of 1929 came after a decade of interventionist politics following world War I. "Free markets" were blamed anyway. Decades later, we pursue even more interventionism, and when it fails, we blame "free markets" all over again.
In 1925, Winston Churchill, in spite of massive wartime inflation of the pound sterling, restored the gold standard at the old pre-war exchange rate. This set off a chain of events that led to the 1929 crash in America, and the rise of Keynesianism.
Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 23 July 2015.
