In the current political climate, we hear again and again that the key to lessening the prevalence and effects of poverty is to raise nominal incomes. We hear it repeatedly in calls for a “living wage” and calls for a minimum wage. It is further promoted in debates over a “minimum basic income,” Social Security, and other types of taxpayer-funded social benefits.

Historically, however, the poor themselves understood that the most effective way to reduce poverty was to reduce the cost of living, and thus to increase real wages.

James Bovard’s article, “How Government Buys Your Support“ is now available in Italian at Miglioverde. 

Thanks to Pedro Jorge at the Mises Institute of Portugal, Ryan McMaken’s article “Will North Korea and Cuba ever be wealthy?” is now available in Portuguese.

The ECB officially decided to end production of the €500 note yesterday, with production winding down at the end of 2018. Ostensibly this was done to prohibit the use of the €500 note by criminals and terrorists. While this is just one step in the long-term War on Cash, what might some of the more immediate effects be?

The state of Rhode Island is considering the legalization of recreational marijuana, and some opponents of legalization have jumped in to demand the status quo continues. 

From The Quotable Mises, Ludwig von Mises’s best nine quotes on gold and the gold standard:

1. Every nation, whether rich or poor, powerful or feeble, can at any hour once again adopt the gold standard.

[This article was adapted from a talk delivered at the 2016 Austrian Economics Research Conference at the Mises Institute.]

Although most economists today generally see the benefits of free trade, such is not the case in the political realm. Leftists who are beholden to labor unions, for example, support protectionist measures to keep the votes coming from their their largest constituencies. Meanwhile, Conservatives are a mixed bag, and the “best” conservatives are often the worst when it comes to free trade.

This talk, delivered by Lew Rockwell at a memorial service for Murray Rothbard, gives a great perspective on Rothbard’s life, work, influence, courage, and personality. Especially fascinating is Rockwell’s account of Rothbard’s willingness to defy political boundaries and work with both Left and Right — causing each to believe fervently that he was in the other camp!

The progressive intellectual looks upon capitalism as the most ghastly of all evils. Mankind, he contends, lived rather happily in the good old days. But then, as a British historian said, the Industrial Revolution “fell like a war or a plague” on the peoples. The “bourgeoisie” converted plenty into scarcity. A few tycoons enjoy all luxuries. But, as Marx himself observed, the worker “sinks deeper and deeper” because the bourgeoisie “is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery.”

For a group of people who reject political power and even the state itself, libertarians sure seem to care a lot about the election. In the past few months, there’s even been a kind of desperation in libertarian circles to find something, anything that could vaguely connect one of the candidates to a philosophy of liberty or economic sanity. The leaps of logic required to make these endorsements defy all attempt at parody: warmongers, democratic socialists, and economic and human protectionists have by turns been suggested as the most viable options for libertarians.

[Debating War: Why Arguments Opposing American Wars and Interventions Fail. By David J. Lorenzo. Routledge, 2016. viii + 233 pages.]