Economics

Mises Institute – Mises Media Podcasts, interviews, lectures, articles, essays, and more. This is the Mises Institute’s master online media catalog.

  • The Private Production of Defense
    by Clay on July 10, 2019 at 7:10 pm

    The Private Production of DefenseThe Private Production of Defense Hans Hoppe takes on the most difficult subject in economic and political theory: the provision of security. Download the audiobook for free today!

  • A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
    by Clay on July 9, 2019 at 7:10 pm

    A Theory of Socialism and CapitalismA Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Hans Hoppe’s Rothbardian work on Socialism and Capitalism, now available as a free audiobook!

  • What Socialized Medicine Really Looks Like
    by Clay on October 9, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    2018 Supporters SummitWhat Socialized Medicine Really Looks Like Presented at the Mises Institute’s 2018 Supporters Summit in Auburn, Alabama.

  • Chapter 4. The Case for Private Security
    by Clay on July 10, 2018 at 5:00 am

    The Private Production of DefenseChapter 4. The Case for Private Security Pages 21–26 in the text.

  • Chapter 5. More on Aggression Insurance
    by Clay on July 10, 2018 at 5:00 am

    The Private Production of DefenseChapter 5. More on Aggression Insurance Pages 27–30 in the text. 

  • YouTube Attempts to Silence the Mises Institute
    by Jeff Deist on November 25, 2020 at 9:15 pm

    By: Jeff Deist YouTube, the dominant video platform owned by Google, decided yesterday to remove a Mises Institute video. This decision apparently lasts for all eternity, cannot be appealed to an actual human, and comes with this friendly admonition: “Because it’s the first time, this is just a warning. If it happens again, your channel will get a strike and you won’t be able to do things like upload, post, or live stream for 1 week.”  The video, a talk by Tom Woods titled “The Covid Cult” with more than 1.5 million views, was recorded at our live event in Texas two weeks ago. It offered challenges to the official narrative surrounding the coronavirus, particularly with respect to mask mandates. Woods’s talk featured several charts showing rises in Covid “cases” across multiple cities and countries not long after imposing mask rules, demonstrating how such rules apparently have little effect on slowing transmission of the virus. The speech was nothing less than a heartfelt tour de force against the terrible lockdowns and pseudoscience plaguing the debate over Covid, and a call to reexamine tradeoffs and priorities. It was, as you might imagine, a mix of unassailable data combined with our friend Tom’s strong prescription for liberty and personal choice rather than centralized state edicts. In other words, YouTube had no earthly business removing it. This kind of discourse seems to me the best and highest use for YouTube, its most important function.   “Big Digital,” as Professor Michael Rectenwald terms tech companies, have become “governmentalities”: supposedly private enterprises turned into instruments of state power and state narratives. This sordid process is different for each company, (some are more complicit than others, a few are heroically non-compliant) but it involves a mix of early start-up funding; connections and contracts with state agencies, particularly relating to defense and surveillance; and propaganda campaigns in service of state narratives. Rectenwald explains this phenomenon in his own recent talk titled “The Google Election”: In short, Google, Facebook and others are not strictly private sector entities; they are governmentalities in the sense that I have given to the term. They are extensions and apparatuses of the state. Furthermore, these platforms are governmentalities with a particular interest in the growth and extension of governmentality itself. This includes championing every kind of “subordinated” and newly created identity class that they can find or create, because such “endangered” categories require state acknowledgement and protection. Thus, the state’s circumference continues to expand. Big Digital is partial to the interests and growth of the state. It not only does business with statists but also shares their values. This helps makes sense of its leftist bent and their preference for the deep state Democrats. Leftism is statism. We encourage readers to consider the entirety of Rectenwald’s talk, and his sobering book Google Archipelago for his thorough treatment of the facts and realities behind tech companies and the US state. This is not alarmism or conspiracies, but documented examples of how Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and others actively participate—including financially—in a melding of corporate and state power.  This, then, is real fascism. Big Digital—what writer Ilana Mercer calls “Deep Tech”— is not a collection of private companies in the sense we think of such. They are partners of the federal government, committed to ideological service as part and parcel of their own bottom line. Thankfully,  the sneering call to “build your own platforms” is being answered. Companies like Bitchute and LBRY (its video platform is Odysee) continue to host Mises Institute content, and promise to continue doing so. In fact, you can view Dr. Woods’s forbidden talk at those respective source here and here. Truth tellers matter more than ever. It’s time for our own institutions and platforms, which is precisely why the Mises Institute exists.

  • Judy Shelton aún podría ser confirmada. Pero parece muy improbable.
    by Robert Aro on November 23, 2020 at 11:00 am

    By: Robert Aro El 2 de julio de 2019, el presidente Donald Trump nombró a la Sra. Judy Shelton para que se uniera a la Junta de Gobernadores de la Reserva Federal. Ella tiene una distinguida carrera como economista e incluso es coautora de un libro llamado Roads to Sound Money, que apoya ideas como el dinero sano y la libertad individual. Para aquellos que apoyan el libre mercado y la responsabilidad monetaria/fiscal, su nominación no es nada menos que un regalo de Dios. Pero en la votación del martes, el Senado de la mayoría Republicana aún no ha confirmado su nominación. A pesar de que este proceso es altamente burocrático y requiere de muchos «si», ella todavía tiene una oportunidad. CNN informa: La votación final fue 47-50. Los 50 votos en contra de la Sra. Shelton incluyen: El líder de la mayoría del Senado Mitch McConnell, que inicialmente había votado a favor de la candidata, cambió a votar en contra de ella, dándole el derecho procesal de llevarla a otra votación en un futuro próximo. Mitch cambió su voto, utilizando un «derecho procesal», algo que la mayoría de los ciudadanos nunca podrían citar ni probablemente sabían que existía. Sin embargo: El senador Chuck Grassley, Republicano de Iowa, anunció que tendría que poner en cuarentena después de una posible exposición al Covid-19 y perderse la votación, su primer voto perdido en 27 años. Se une al senador Republicano de Florida, Rick Scott, quien anunció el sábado que estaría fuera del Capitolio por la misma razón. «Si» los dos senadores Republicanos estuvieran presentes, y «si» Mitch votara por Shelton, entonces las cosas se verían muy diferentes; pero eso no sucedió. Entonces, ¿dónde deja eso las cosas? Si hay otra votación, CNN dice que probablemente se programe para después de Acción de Gracias. Pero esto complica las cosas ya que: Se espera que el senador electo Mark Kelly, un Demócrata que ganó un escaño en las elecciones especiales de Arizona, preste juramento, lo que significa que es probable que haya otro voto Demócrata negativo… Esto no sería un buen presagio, ya que el Wall Street Journal informa que el demócrata Mark Kelly prestaría juramento el 30 de noviembre, si se combina con los tres republicanos Mitt Romney, Susan Collins y el más reciente «disidente» Lamar Alexander, haría aún más difícil una ya delgada confirmación del «sí». Una vez que las matemáticas, la estrategia de votación y las líneas de partido se dibujan, surge una nueva pregunta: ¿Cuándo la nominación del gobernador de la Reserva Federal se convirtió en «política partidista» en Washington? Incluso las notas del Wall Street Journal: Los votos de la línea del partido para los puestos de la junta de la Fed no se han producido antes, lo que refleja la naturaleza apolítica de la institución. Por todo lo que se ha dicho sobre esta «controvertida» elección, la Sra. Shelton sólo tendría un voto en una junta de siete miembros. Ella no sería una amenaza para detener el (objetivo no oficial de) la degradación del dólar de la noche a la mañana, ni sería capaz de implementar un estándar de oro en el corto plazo. Pero lo que ya ha hecho, aunque sea inadvertidamente, es ilustrar varios problemas con la forma en que funciona este sistema de democracia y banca central. Desde su nominación, hemos visto innumerables muestras de este «sistema», que parece no ayudar ni siquiera a aquellos a los que dice servir. El senador Republicano Lamar Alexander mostró esto el lunes cuando se enfrentó a la Sra. Shelton, como la CNBC lo cita diciendo: No quiero entregar la administración del dinero a un Congreso y un Presidente que no pueden equilibrar el presupuesto federal. Lamar es sólo uno de los 100 senadores electos, elegidos «por el pueblo» para representar sus intereses. En este caso, deben confirmar a alguien para servir en la junta de gobernadores para administrar el banco central de la nación, una idea defendida por muchos anticapitalistas, incluyendo a Karl Marx. No obstante, tal como está diseñado actualmente el sistema, requiere que los senadores elegidos, como Alexander, se encarguen de gestionar los asuntos económicos de toda la nación; si estos senadores entienden de economía es algo que no tiene importancia. Afortunadamente, en los casos en que un funcionario electo no entiende, o desea deshacerse de alguien con una idea con la que no está de acuerdo, pueden emplear la demagogia para influir en la opinión pública. Como se ha señalado anteriormente, el Senador puede pintar un cuadro de que la oferta de dinero de la nación se entregaría de alguna manera al Presidente y al Congreso. Esto es engañoso porque malinterpreta completamente la noción de dinero sano, gobierno limitado, y el control de la oferta monetaria, todo lo cual subraya el patrón oro. Si Judy Shelton no es confirmada a la Reserva Federal, perdemos la oportunidad de expandir la base de conocimiento en la Reserva Federal. Tendremos que añadir eso a la lista de cosas que han salido mal en 2020, y luego seguir adelante. Esto nos lleva a la inevitable y desagradable pregunta: Si no es Judy, entonces ¿qué debe decir o hacer el próximo candidato para apelar a ambos lados del pasillo político?

  • Judy Shelton Could Still Be Confirmed. But It’s Looking Very Unlikely.
    by Robert Aro on November 23, 2020 at 11:00 am

    By: Robert Aro On July 2, 2019, President Donald Trump nominated Mrs. Judy Shelton to join the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She has a distinguished career as an economist and even co-authored a book called Roads to Sound Money, which supports ideas such as sound money and individual liberty. To those who support the free market and monetary/fiscal responsibility, her nomination is nothing short of a Godsend. But as of Tuesday’s vote, the Republican majority Senate still has not confirmed her nomination. Despite this process being highly bureaucratic and requiring many if’s, she actually still has a shot! CNN reports: The final vote was 47-50. The 50 votes against Mrs. Shelton include: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had initially voted for the nominee, switched to vote against her, giving him the procedural right to bring her up for another vote in the near future. Mitch switched his vote, utilizing a “procedural right,” something most citizens could never cite nor likely even knew existed. However: Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, announced he would have to quarantine after potential exposure to Covid-19 and miss the vote — his first missed vote in 27 years. He joins Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, who announced Saturday he would be away from the Capitol for the same reason. “If” the two Republican Senators were in attendance, and “if” Mitch voted for Shelton, then things would look much different; but that did not happen. So where does that leave things? Should there be another vote, CNN goes on to say, it will likely be scheduled after Thanksgiving. But this complicates things as: Sen.-elect Mark Kelly, a Democrat who won a GOP seat in the special election in Arizona, is expected to be sworn in, meaning there would likely be one more Democratic “no” vote… This wouldn’t bode well, as the Wall Street Journal reports that Democrat Mark Kelly would be sworn in on Nov 30, if combined with the three Republicans Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and more recent “dissenter” Lamar Alexander, it would make an already slim “yes” confirmation all the more difficult. Once the math, voting strategy, and party lines become drawn, a new question arises: When did the Federal Reserve governor nomination become “partisan politics” in Washington? Even the Wall Street Journal notes: Party-line votes for Fed board positions haven’t occurred before, reflecting the institution’s apolitical nature.  For all that’s been said about this “controversial” pick, Mrs. Shelton would have only one vote on a seven member board. She’d hardly be a threat to stopping the (unofficial goal of) US dollar debasement overnight, nor would she be able to implement a gold standard anytime soon. But what she has already done, even if inadvertently, is illustrate various problems with the way this system of democracy and central banking works. Since her nomination, we’ve seen countless displays of this “system,” which appears to not even help those it claims to serve. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander displayed this on Monday when he came out against Mrs. Shelton, as CNBC quotes him saying: I don’t want to turn over management of the money supply to a Congress and a President who can’t balance the federal budget. Lamar is just one of 100 elected Senators, chosen “by the people” to represent their interests. In this case, they must confirm someone to serve on the board of governors to manage the nation’s central bank, an idea championed by many anti-capitalists, including Karl Marx. Nonetheless, as the system is currently designed, it requires elected Senators like Alexander to be charged with managing the economic affairs of the entire nation; whether these senators understand economics is besides the point. Luckily, in instances where an elected official doesn’t understand, or wishes to be rid of someone with an idea they disagree, they can employ demagoguery to sway public opinion. As noted above, the Senator can paint a picture that the nation’s money supply would be somehow handed over to the President and Congress. This is misleading because it completely misunderstands the notion of sound money, limited government, and the control of the money supply, all which underline the gold standard. If Judy Shelton does not get confirmed to the Federal Reserve, we lose an opportunity to expand the knowledge base at the Fed. We’ll have to add that to the list of things gone wrong in 2020, then move on. This leads us to the inevitable, unpleasant question: If not Judy, then what must the next candidate say or do in order to appeal to both sides of the political aisle?

  • Even in the Midst of a Culture War, Policy Debates Still Matter
    by M.J. Galles on November 23, 2020 at 10:00 am

    By: M.J. Galles Watching as Biden and Trump supporters went at it, I found myself bewildered by what was hardly being discussed, by the dearth of coverage of the serious issues facing us today. Differences between competing visions for the future have never been greater, yet even as Americans process election results, the focus remains nearly entirely on ad hominem arguments. Republicans can’t believe “Sleepy Joe” may have now wrapped it up, while Democrats seem apoplectic “bullying Trump” is fighting back, claiming he threatens the fabric of our democracy, while ignoring their own maneuverings years past. None of this is surprising in our heavily partisan environment. Easier to craft salacious headlines and lob heated charges against a candidate than to enumerate policy differences driving current results, to thoughtfully analyze what brought us to this point. Yet those differences drew many to the polls this November. And it’s ultimately what drew me into checking out Jo Jorgensen. In my mind, policies still count. Late in the game I began quietly supporting the Libertarian candidate. “Quiet” because I endeavored to remain at peace with friends and family. To speak up often meant feeling anger and scorn. Instead, I kept my mouth shut. Increasingly, however, I’ve been filled with growing repugnance, watching as the disputed election drags on. The principles at stake matter, yet the media gives them short shrift. It’s why, even if libertarians are kept from debates and under-reported, going forward I will more openly support their positions and ideas. Democracy itself was once only the germ of an idea into which flesh and blood breathed life. However far from current policy some of their positions may seem, libertarians offer proposals that honor the agency of every citizen. They are filled with possibility and hope. As Jorgensen laid out on her website, the War on Drugs has long been racist and destructive. Americans have died in droves. Total deaths far exceed the deaths from Covid 19, yet where is the focused plan of attack? We can’t mandate masks for that. And where is real reform of our criminal justice and prison systems? For decades we have seen bluster with little progress. Minority communities in particular continue to be devastated. And forget about serious immigration reform. Beyond the hype, nobody has made more than a dent. Then there’s the devastation of our environment along with our undeniable need for energy. Both major parties play games with environmental claims and data, leading to much distrust. Wind power, for example, looks good on paper, if you only compare it to the pollution from fossil fuels while ignoring its slaughter of birds and the replacement of the blades with short lifespans. Challenging to break down, those fields of gigantic blades don’t decompose. Yet Americans are inventive. By removing governmental barriers to entry, as Jorgensen proposes, small innovators and businesses, where the greatest innovation comes, will once again stand a fighting chance. They can meaningfully compete against corporations who now receive preferential treatment from the federal government. Perhaps most important for the world of my grandchildren, I’ve been won over by the libertarian idea of neutrality, the belief that we, as a nation, have no business being imperialists. Humanitarian “interventionists,” assisting with aid, certainly. Americans have famously opened up their hearts when global disasters strike. But better to take Jorgensen’s position in my mind, to use Switzerland as our model, neutral and well-armed, open to the world for trade and for tourism, while remaining secure in our defense. I have only to look around at our sons and daughters who served our military to see the cost of our decades of arrogance and folly. Our veterans’ brokenness, continually under-served by our government, remains a true national disgrace. The list of differences I have with the major political parties is a long one, from allowing seizure of private property to regulating love. And while I’m well aware some of these positions can trigger outrage in many, are libertarian ideas really that improbable? Perhaps. In today’s environment, it’s a battle to be sure. But are they impossible to enact? Far from it. Though they are dangerous for those invested in the status quo. Oscar Wilde once said, “An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.” In the aftermath of such a tumultuous and painful year in America, maybe it’s time to consider a new path.

  • Incluso en medio de una guerra cultural, los debates políticos aun importan
    by M.J. Galles on November 23, 2020 at 10:00 am

    By: M.J. Galles Viendo como los partidarios de Biden y Trump iban a ello, me encontré desconcertado por lo que apenas se estaba discutiendo, por la escasez de cobertura de los graves problemas que enfrentamos hoy en día. Las diferencias entre las visiones en competencia para el futuro nunca han sido tan grandes, pero incluso cuando los americanos procesan los resultados de las elecciones, el enfoque sigue siendo casi totalmente en los argumentos ad hominem. Los Republicanos no pueden creer que el «Dormilón» haya terminado, mientras que los Demócratas parecen apopléjicos «intimidando a Trump» se defiende, afirmando que amenaza la estructura de nuestra democracia, mientras ignoran sus propias maniobras de años atrás. Nada de esto es sorprendente en nuestro entorno fuertemente partidista. Es más fácil elaborar titulares salaces y lanzar acusaciones acaloradas contra un candidato que enumerar las diferencias de política que impulsan los resultados actuales, para analizar pensativamente lo que nos ha llevado a este punto. Sin embargo, esas diferencias atrajeron a muchos a las encuestas de este noviembre. Y es en última instancia lo que me llevó a revisar a Jo Jorgensen. En mi mente, las políticas todavía cuentan. Al final del partido empecé a apoyar tranquilamente al candidato de la Libertadores. «Tranquilo» porque me esforcé por mantenerme en paz con mis amigos y mi familia. Hablar a menudo significaba sentir ira y desprecio. En cambio, mantuve mi boca cerrada. Cada vez más, sin embargo, me he llenado de una creciente repugnancia, viendo como se prolongan las disputadas elecciones. Los principios en juego son importantes, pero los medios de comunicación les dan poca importancia. Por eso, aunque los libertarios se mantengan al margen de los debates y no se informe sobre ellos, en el futuro apoyaré más abiertamente sus posiciones e ideas. La democracia en sí misma fue una vez sólo el germen de una idea en la que la carne y la sangre respiraban vida. Por muy lejos de la política actual que puedan parecer algunas de sus posiciones, los libertarios ofrecen propuestas que honran la agencia de cada ciudadano. Están llenos de posibilidades y esperanza. Como Jorgensen expuso en su sitio web, la guerra contra las drogas ha sido durante mucho tiempo racista y destructiva. Los estadounidenses han muerto en grandes cantidades. El total de muertes excede con creces las muertes del Covid 19, sin embargo, ¿dónde está el plan de ataque enfocado? No podemos ordenar máscaras para eso. ¿Y dónde está la verdadera reforma de nuestros sistemas de justicia penal y penitenciario? Durante décadas hemos visto fanfarronadas con poco progreso. Las comunidades minoritarias en particular siguen siendo devastadas. Y olvídense de una reforma migratoria seria. Más allá del bombo, nadie ha hecho más que una abolladura. Luego está la devastación de nuestro medio ambiente junto con nuestra innegable necesidad de energía. Los dos partidos principales juegan con las afirmaciones y datos ambientales, lo que lleva a mucha desconfianza. La energía eólica, por ejemplo, se ve bien en el papel, si sólo se compara con la contaminación de los combustibles fósiles, ignorando su matanza de aves y el reemplazo de las aspas con una vida útil corta. Desafiando a la descomposición, esos campos de aspas gigantes no se descomponen. Sin embargo, los estadounidenses son inventivos. Eliminando las barreras gubernamentales a la entrada, como propone Jorgensen, los pequeños innovadores y las empresas, donde se produce la mayor innovación, tendrán de nuevo una oportunidad de luchar. Podrán competir de manera significativa contra las corporaciones que ahora reciben un trato preferencial del gobierno federal. Tal vez lo más importante para el mundo de mis nietos es que me ha convencido la idea libertaria de la neutralidad, la creencia de que nosotros, como nación, no tenemos por qué ser imperialistas. «Intervencionistas» humanitarios, asistiendo con ayuda, ciertamente. Los americanos han abierto sus corazones cuando ocurren desastres globales. Pero es mejor tomar la posición de Jorgensen en mi mente, usar a Suiza como nuestro modelo, neutral y bien armado, abierto al mundo para el comercio y el turismo, mientras permanecemos seguros en nuestra defensa. Sólo tengo que mirar alrededor de nuestros hijos e hijas que sirvieron a nuestro ejército para ver el costo de nuestras décadas de arrogancia y locura. El quebrantamiento de nuestros veteranos, continuamente desatendido por nuestro gobierno, sigue siendo una verdadera desgracia nacional. La lista de diferencias que tengo con los principales partidos políticos es larga, desde permitir la confiscación de la propiedad privada hasta regular el amor. Y aunque soy consciente de que algunas de estas posiciones pueden provocar indignación en muchos, ¿son realmente tan improbables las ideas libertarias? Tal vez. En el entorno actual, es una batalla para estar seguros. ¿Pero son imposibles de promulgar? Lejos de eso. Aunque son peligrosas para los que están involucrados en el status quo. Oscar Wilde dijo una vez: «Una idea que no es peligrosa es indigna de ser llamada idea en absoluto». Tras un año tan tumultuoso y doloroso en Estados Unidos, quizás sea el momento de considerar un nuevo camino.

 34 total views,  1 views today