Mises Daily

With this analysis of gift giving, we're reminded that mainstream economists seem hell-bent on reforming anything they haven't already screwed up.

It is not a conclusive proof of a doctrine's correctness that its adversaries use the police, the hangman, and violent mobs to fight it. But it is a proof of the fact that those taking recourse to violent oppression are convinced of the untenability of their own doctrines.

Disillusioned in the Prussian state, the Young Hegelians proclaimed the inevitable coming apocalyptic revolution to destroy and transcend that state.

"I am not saying that fiat money, once established on the ruins of gold, cannot then continue indefinitely on its own. Unfortunately … if fiat money could not continue indefinitely, I would not have to come here to plead for its abolition."

Why does this domino process affect only banks, and not real estate, publishing, oil, or any other industry that may get into trouble?

Suppose that a convincing orator should go on TV tomorrow, and urge the public: "The banking system of this country is insolvent."

The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration.

The fully satisfied individual is purposeless, he does not act, he has no incentive to think, he spends his days in leisurely enjoyment of life. It is certain that living men can never attain such a state of perfection and equilibrium.

The rulers of that period had far-reaching powers over the activities of their subjects, while individual liberties were largely submerged.

The Morgan-Rockefeller forces began to organize a "reform" movement to cure the "inelasticity" of money and to move slowly toward the establishment of a central bank.