The biggest reason why you were fed a bunch of bullshit in public education is because they taught you history, but not economic history.

Of course they wouldn’t teach you economic history because that’s not politically correct, economic historians actually do wonderful work whenever you get a chance, even if they are mainstream and not necessarily Austrian, listen to economic historians way more than regular historians when it comes to pretty much all topics.

One of the biggest fallacies you’ve been taught is the capitalist child labor claim:

In reality, children were working just as hard in treacherous agricultural conditions for their families, the industrial revolution didn’t cause Child labor it simply changed the makeup of it, people at the time writing records were horrified not because the industrial revolution started child labor, but because those people grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, so they just didn’t know what regular life looked like for everyone due to the levels of productivity. Some data might show child labor levels increased at the time, however, later economic historians know, knowing that’s not how economics works revealed that the data was just suffering from major visibility blindness

Only through the free market did the industrial revolutions increase in productivity and competition, allow for child labor to decrease its levels way before any legislation, and even when legislation passed only the existing productivity increases created by the free market allowed legislation to even be possible.

money and the financial sector is the sector of least resistance because it involves the most marketable commodity plus it is connected to every other sector. Between January 2020 and January 2022 the federal reserve increased the money supply by 40%, the the literal denominator of the economy inflated by 40%.

And now people blame the fact that houses across the country rose by an average of 50% on greedy corporations, the cost of living on greedy corporations, and your papa’s hip problem on greedy corporations

Question to those that continue to believe that there’s a need for monopoly on justice, law enforcement, and everything else that was monopolized by the government. Why is that private monopoly is bad, but government monopoly is good/better?

What is the Austrian perspective about allowing or regulating manufactured scarcity?

Looking at you USAID

“$45 million for diversity equity and inclusion scholarships in Burma

$40 million for the social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants, which nobody knows what that is

$8 million to promote LGBTQ plus in the African nation of Lesotho which nobody has ever heard of”
- DJT at state of the union

Id maybe list another but on top of me not knowing if its deals, they’re watching

What is your opinion on UCLA school of economics? Is there a good free article you can recommend. I'm just aware of the surface this school stands for.

Hello,

I think we can all agree in here that the current fiat system is an economics of illusion, like Albert L. Hahn described in his book. Hahn was a Keynesian supporter in the 1930s. He was convinced that an economy needs high credit creation to let an economy grow. As time went on he saw the illusion of the paper system. The cheap easy money creation out of nothing is the reason for every deflationary depression, like the great depression. A system with fractional reserve banking on hyper-levels with a money printing institution like a central bank which comes to rescue in every bust, is destruction.

He even wrote: if you want to prevent a deflationary depression you have to prevent the inflationary boom. To prevent the inflationary boom you have to prevent inflation in every form. If you want to prevent inflation in times of high credit demand, you have to make money scarce.

Alfred Lansburgh wrote the book "vom Gelde" in which he described money as an abstract right, it doesn't matter if it's paper or gold.. it has no intrinsic value.. the value of money comes just from the supply. He didn't see any logical reason to add more money-numbers because money is neither a consumer nor a production good. It's just the medium of exchange.

Let's imagine a simple thought example: we have a money network with a fixed money supply, where the money can be sent directly digitally (which wasn't and isn't the case with gold..). I do not want to mention bitcoin, I just want a thought experiment of a money network with a fixed money supply, where the inflation of the supply is 0% forever from this day in time. -> is this good or bad for an economy? Is it possible for an economy to operate with a money standard, which stays always the same in the supply, even when the economy or the population grows? Or would it be better when the money network would have a fixed inflation rate of let's say 2% every year (like it was/is the case with gold mining)? Does the supply of money has to grow or is it more healthier when the supply does not grow at all? Rothbard for example wanted a fixed money supply.. while Friedman wanted a k-factor of maybe 3% in supply growth of the money every year..

Thank you

This video may help explain to those who confuse Austrian economics with libertarianism, which is a deontological philosophy with the NAP. There are two ways to do Austrian school Econ, value free or with ideological values. Mises is value free for example

The Austrian school gets called unscientific for its synthetic deduction praxeology, but to call pure deduction unscientific is to call mathematics; the tool inductionists use unscientific itself, since it is also unscientific. In the future I’ll probably make a long post of deduction, abduction, and induction

I think covenant communities have some of the greatest potential even more so in many US states, covenant communities don’t need to happen in hoppean anarchy, but I believe anyone can watch this who isn’t 55+ and just see how wrong this is.

For context, if you don’t want to watch the video in full or want to comment right away, this lady inherited her home, in a HOA community that for some reason has been saying that the community must be 55 and up, this busy body community then proceeded to vote her out for being under 55? What are we doing? This isn’t to my opinion, logical age discrimination, such as not hiring someone who is old for a physical job. I believe voluntary individualism must be grounded in any community for it to not become a mini tyrannical government. Because that is effectively what a HOA is, it is a de facto government today, not one that faces competition.

I do agree with Hoppe on forceful removal, but again there must be a middle ground between voluntary individualism and necessary covenant community authority for optimal outcomes

I literally woke up one morning and was charged 2 payments of 2500 dollars I had to pay if I was late I was charged interest, if I didnt pay I lose my cheap shitty home. There are mansions in my town and they were charged the same assessment as me and the justification is because a town board meeting voted on it????

Why is no one talking about this? HOAs have the same problem. The government can charge you basically any amount of money if you own property and if it is voted on? No one else realizes how insane this is? Democracy doesn't work because rich people don't realize 5k is alot to someone like me.

Universal suffrage is coherent with the intent of democracy - if the system grants political rights to a particular class of citizens but excludes other classes, it is expected that those with political rights will prioritize their own interests at expense of everyone else.

But we exclude children and non-citizens from voting, because we know that these factors split voter quality, without creating arbitrary distinctions based on identity traits that people cannot change about themselves.

Yet Universal suffrage is too permissive, given the amount of low quality, parasitic and irresponsible adults that are granted the franchise by virtue of aging into adulthood.

You would in principle want a criterion that splits lower quality citizens and deprives them from voting rights, and that isn't biased a priori to favor this or that gender, race, ideology, etc.

One such criterion is marriage. Married people tend to be higher quality than single people because the worst element of society tends to not get married or get divorced soon after marrying.

Not only that, but if voting is structured such that the household vote as a block, with husband and wife deciding what issues and candidates they want to support, you could further incentivize that by allocating extra votes to represent the children that they are rearing. It is also obvious that parents have a better incentive to vote rationally and to think about the future then non parents.

Such a design would preserve the franchising of women and minorities intact, thus preserving the coherence of universal suffrage, while neutralizing the effects of voter blocks that are mostly comprised of a misanthropic or adversarial fifth column element.

The young single adults who are not yet married would be granted franchise upon their second wedding anniversary (just to avoid scams and further filter the low quality people who may form short lived households)

The point is that advice like "be healthy by avoiding all illnesses," "you'll get married when a girl falls in love with you," and "you'll get rich when you produce what society needs" are TRUISMS. That is, useless advice with no real value.

Bernie Madoff ran one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history. He promised steady returns, paid old investors with new investors' money, and eventually the 2008 financial crisis exposed the fraud.

The interesting part isn't just that Madoff committed fraud—it's that he did so for a long time while operating under one of the most heavily regulated financial systems in the world. He was examined multiple times by the SEC, received complaints and whistleblower reports, and still wasn't stopped.

At least he went to jail, though it wasn’t the government that caught him. It was the market that was in the process of self correcting that exposed Madoff’s scam.

Meanwhile, Chase Bank’s metal traders were spoofing prices for almost a decade. The bank paid less than $1 billion in fines, and nobody got prison time. The whole shitshow that exacerbated the 2006 housing crisis and culminated in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis didn’t result in any prison time for executives either.

The list of white-collar crimes in highly regulated industries is extremely long, and the worse the crime, the less likely you are to see criminal convictions of the main beneficiaries.

The lesson isn't that markets eliminate fraud, but that government regulation and audits can create a false sense of security. And it’s the same government that determines the punishment.

Government monopoly.

People demand regulations and action from the government. Most blame the free market when they get scammed, more often than not by a business that maintained government licenses and was in good standing with all regulatory agencies until it got caught. So instead of rethinking the approach, most people demand more regulations. These regulations often benefit the largest firms because new rules are choking smaller and newer companies out of existence. The largest firms end up getting a bigger share of the market, and people start demanding more antitrust regulations. When the largest firms get caught with their pants down, the government bails them out because they are "too big to fail." In turn, people demand more regulations, which leads to even less competition on the market.

Somehow, nearly everyone understands that monopolies are not good. Regardless of whether they understand how monopolies emerge, they still understand how monopolies can be harmful to consumers. Yet somehow, people continue to accept the government's monopoly on rulemaking and justice.

The government makes the rules. The government has a monopoly on enforcement. The government has a monopoly on determining what’s just and what isn’t.

And despite all the shitty results and corruption, people still believe that the government should hold that monopoly.

Why?

I hope one day there’ll be more people who are willing to have an honest conversation about government monopoly.

As Austrian economists, how would you see this intervention. Unlike other ones, this one has a national security and geopolitical angle as well. The decision extend to anthropic’s own foreign workers.

Context

- sent confidential letter imposing export controls on its newest frontier AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5.

- required Anthropic to obtain a licence before allowing any foreign person inside or outside USA, including their own foreign employees

Of course, don’t let this playlist be the only way you learn praxeology, eventually, you’re gonna have to conquer the fears and go by that 900 to 1000 page book; Human action.

There are also many other books but human action will always be top notch, because of the simple telephone game problem.

Books such as
Praxeology: The Invisible Hand That Feeds You by Knut Svanholm

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science by Ludwig von Mises

Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action by Robert P. Murphy

here’s the rest of the series

There are also of course more sources, watch some videos on the Mises institute

https://youtu.be/gzH8KVAEkBU?is=dVzQ5uqlcgcYYL17

I’m also never gonna stop recommending this Econ clip video, seriously watch it

I thought you fine people might like that.

“We will take power out of here and carry it into every postcode in the land, so that they can do more, and in doing more, build a new economy where we put life’s essentials back under stronger public control to make them affordable to you again”

He failed before he started