Well, apparently one marijuana shop accepts Bitcoin (which I am sure they immediately convert to dollars).
Bloomberg video here.
Friday, January 3, 2014
OMG Joe Lieberman Joins Private Equity Firm
Neocon creep and former US Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, announced yesterday that he has joined Victory Park Capital, a $1.3 billion firm that focuses on small-cap public companies and mid-market private companies, often at times of distress. Portfolio companies include Jamba Juice, Kabbage and Silver Airways.
Get this, Lieberman will be chairman (and the first member) of VPC's executive board, a new group aimed at advising Chicago-based Victory Park on a variety of operational issues facing its portfolio companies.
What he is really doing is going total revolving door crony. Fortune writes:
Get this, Lieberman will be chairman (and the first member) of VPC's executive board, a new group aimed at advising Chicago-based Victory Park on a variety of operational issues facing its portfolio companies.
What he is really doing is going total revolving door crony. Fortune writes:
Expect that his focus will be on government and regulatory matters, although he will not directly lobby on behalf of Victory Park or its companies. Overall, Victory Park expects its executive board to have between six and eight members by year-end.
"Many of our portfolio companies have to deal with the government, whether they're involved in aviation or oil and gas or food service, and we also have an SBIC fund" explains Victory Park co-founder Brendan Carroll, who once interned for Lieberman while getting his undergraduate degree at Georgetown. "He has much more experience in those areas than I or anyone else here could ever hope to have."
Since leaving the Senate last year, Lieberman also has taken jobs as senior counsel at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP and as co-chair of the American Enterprise Institute's American Internationalism Project.
Is the Austrian School of Economics a Cult?
In a letter to Peter Boettke, Walter Block writes:
It just so happens that the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard identified the key characteristics of this type of cult:
There is no evidence that Austrian school economists hold anyone in such high regard that that person's words are taken as gospel. Indeed, the leading ASE institution, the Mises Institute, has a web site where all sorts of debates are going on all sorts of topics. Cults don't have debates, about anything. If a cult leader like Charles Manson says, "Lets go in this house and kill some people," followers do so, they don't debate. If Jim Jones says, "Let's drink this Kool Aid," well then everyone drinks the Kool Aid--no debate.
ASE is about rigorous thinking about economics from a deductive perspective. That's about as far from a cult as you can get.
What explains the cult charge made by mainstream economists? One explanation may be that they truly sense and know that Austrians do view the science of economics differently from them and they just don't know how to properly characterize the difference.
All of us, all the time, run into people who wear clothing different from us and people who act different than us. We know the differences, we see the differences and we may think the differences make the other people strange. But these are not necessarily people who belong to cults, but rather may only be people who belong to different subcultures. I may find it strange behavior when I see dudes from the hood walking around with their pants falling down and that strange hulking walk they have, but they see me walking in a blazer and loafers as strange and different. But, neither my behavior nor the dudes from the hood are displaying cult behavior.
Thus, the charitable interpretation of what mainstream economists are up to is that they sense a difference and fail to recognize the difference properly for what it is. They improperly classify the difference as cultism. It is a school of thought. Just like the school of thought that says the earth revolves around the sun--a one time controversial position. Those, who believe that the earth revolves around the sun, may agree with Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, but not because C and G have followers and close off debate, but because the logic of their argument makes sense. Mainstream economists have such figures in, for example, John Maynard Keynes, though his arguments appear incorrect to Austrians. Appreciating the theoretical argument of a person does not make one a cultist.
There is, of course, another possibility as to why mainstream economists call ASE a cult and that is that there are some mainstream economists who are sellouts. They know their theories are wrong but because they have become weak crony economists, they call names instead of debate. They are afraid of debate.
I have no idea where Becker and Buchanan fall on the spectrum of these two end pole possibilities, but if they are calling ASE a cult, something isn't right.
[Nobel prize winners Gary] Becker and [James] Buchanan have publicly stated we [Austrian school economists] are cultists, and surely this is but the tip of the iceberg; if two such high profile mainstreamers believe this, I imagine most neo classical economists believe it.I consider this a particularly nasty charge by mainstream economists. To be sure, the word cult has many meanings. A cult film, for example, is a film that has a hardcore following of film goers who have seen a specific "cult film" many times. To be associated with such a cult does not carry with it a negative connotation. However, as we all know, the word cult also carries with it much more negative connotation.
It just so happens that the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard identified the key characteristics of this type of cult:
In the America of the 1970s we are all too familiar with the religious cult, which has been proliferating in the last decade. Characteristic of the cult (from Hare Krishna to the “Moonies” to EST to Scientology to the Manson Family) is the dominance of the guru, or Maximum Leader, who is also the creator and ultimate interpreter of a given creed to which the acolyte must be unswervingly loyal. The major if not the only qualification for membership and advancement in the cult is absolute loyalty to and adoration of the guru, and absolute and unquestioning obedience to his commands. The lives of the members are dominated by the guru's influence and presence[...]The goals of the cult leadership are money and power. Power is achieved over the minds of the disciples through inducing them to accept without question the guru and his creed. This devotion is enforced through psychological sanctions. For once the acolyte is imbued with the view that approval of, and communication with, the guru are essential to his life, then the implicit and explicit threat of excommunication – of removal from the direct or indirect presence of the guru – creates a powerful psychological sanction for the “enforcement” of loyalty and obedience. Money flows upward from the members through the hierarchy, either in the form of volunteer labor service contributed by the members, or through cash payments[...]Since every cult is grounded on a faith in the infallibility of the guru, it becomes necessary to keep its disciples in ignorance of contradictory infidel writings which may wean cult members away from the fold.The type of cult described by Rothbard here is the type of cult Becker and Buchanan most certainly had in mind when calling ASE a cult. But does the nasty charge hold?
There is no evidence that Austrian school economists hold anyone in such high regard that that person's words are taken as gospel. Indeed, the leading ASE institution, the Mises Institute, has a web site where all sorts of debates are going on all sorts of topics. Cults don't have debates, about anything. If a cult leader like Charles Manson says, "Lets go in this house and kill some people," followers do so, they don't debate. If Jim Jones says, "Let's drink this Kool Aid," well then everyone drinks the Kool Aid--no debate.
ASE is about rigorous thinking about economics from a deductive perspective. That's about as far from a cult as you can get.
What explains the cult charge made by mainstream economists? One explanation may be that they truly sense and know that Austrians do view the science of economics differently from them and they just don't know how to properly characterize the difference.
All of us, all the time, run into people who wear clothing different from us and people who act different than us. We know the differences, we see the differences and we may think the differences make the other people strange. But these are not necessarily people who belong to cults, but rather may only be people who belong to different subcultures. I may find it strange behavior when I see dudes from the hood walking around with their pants falling down and that strange hulking walk they have, but they see me walking in a blazer and loafers as strange and different. But, neither my behavior nor the dudes from the hood are displaying cult behavior.
Thus, the charitable interpretation of what mainstream economists are up to is that they sense a difference and fail to recognize the difference properly for what it is. They improperly classify the difference as cultism. It is a school of thought. Just like the school of thought that says the earth revolves around the sun--a one time controversial position. Those, who believe that the earth revolves around the sun, may agree with Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, but not because C and G have followers and close off debate, but because the logic of their argument makes sense. Mainstream economists have such figures in, for example, John Maynard Keynes, though his arguments appear incorrect to Austrians. Appreciating the theoretical argument of a person does not make one a cultist.
There is, of course, another possibility as to why mainstream economists call ASE a cult and that is that there are some mainstream economists who are sellouts. They know their theories are wrong but because they have become weak crony economists, they call names instead of debate. They are afraid of debate.
I have no idea where Becker and Buchanan fall on the spectrum of these two end pole possibilities, but if they are calling ASE a cult, something isn't right.
Some Questions for Edward Snowden and Others
Alpha Mind writes:
Read the rest here.
These are the facts:1. Omidyar is funding a $250 million dollar new media venture with Glenn Greenwald based on the Snowden documents.2. Omidyar Network and Booz Allen Hamilton are both partners/investors of InnoCentive.3. Omidyar Network and a member of the Board of Directors of Booz Allen Hamilton, Philip Odeen, are both major shareholders of Globant. Sal Giambanco, a partner at Omidyar Network, is on the Board of Advisors of Globant. Philip Odeen is on the Board of Directors of Globant.4. Dhaya Lakshminarayanan, Michael Kent, Pranay Chulet and Patricia Sosrodjojo have all worked in strategic positions at both Omidyar Network and Booz Allen Hamilton.Here are the questions:Is this all circumstantial evidence? Are these connections acceptable or not given the gravity and sensitivity of the global surveillance situation?Has a revolving door of corporations with government ties regained a degree of control over the documents that were leaked by Snowden? What are the full intentions of First Post (NewCo, the $250 million dollar new media venture between Greenwald, billionaire Pierre Omidyar and others)?Is there a conflict of interest between Omidyar Network, Booz Allen Hamilton, Sal Giambanco (Partner of Omidyar Network and Globant), Philip Odeen (Partner of Booz Allen Hamilton and Globant), Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, the NewCo & the National Security community?What does Edward Snowden think of these connections and the massive profit being generated from his disclosures? Is he upset about it or is he getting a slice of the pie? Ed! Let us know what's going on!When will the rest of the documents be released? Will any be withheld and why?Where do you draw the line between 'non-publishable' leaked intel and information the public has a right to know?Why aren't these questions being deeply engaged by mainstream press? Why is most of the alternative press ignoring it?
Read the rest here.
Ludwig von Mises on Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty"
Mises wrote in 1960 that Hayek made too many concessions to the welfare state:
(Thanks to a comment by David Gordon)Professor Hayek has enlarged and substantiated his ideas in a comprehensive treatise, The Constitution of Liberty (University of Chicago Press, 1960). In the first two parts of this book the author provides a brilliant exposition of the meaning of liberty and the creative powers of a free civilization. Endorsing the famous definition that describes liberty as the rule of laws and not of men, he analyzes the constitutional and legal foundations of a commonwealth of free citizens. He contrasts the two schemes of society's social and political organization, government by the people (representative government), based upon legality, and government by the discretionary power of an authoritarian ruler or ruling clique, an Obrigkeit as the Germans used to call it. Fully appreciating the moral, practical, and material superiority of the former, he shows in detail what the legal requirements of such a state of affairs are, and what has to be done in order to make it work and to defend it against the machinations of its foes.The Welfare StateUnfortunately, the third part of Professor Hayek's book is rather disappointing. Here the author tries to distinguish between socialism and the Welfare State. Socialism, he alleges, is on the decline; the Welfare State is supplanting it. And he thinks the Welfare State is, under certain conditions, compatible with liberty.In fact, the Welfare State is merely a method for transforming the market economy step by step into socialism. The original plan of socialist action, as developed by Karl Marx in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto, aimed at a gradual realization of socialism by a series of governmental measures. The ten most powerful of such measures were enumerated in the Manifesto. They are well known to everybody because they are the very measures that form the essence of the activities of the Welfare State, of Bismarck's and the Kaiser Wilheim's German Sozialpolitik as well as of the American New Deal and British Fabian Socialism. The Communist Manifesto calls the measures it suggests "economically insufficient and untenable," but it stresses the fact that "in the course of the movement" they outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production."Later, Marx adopted a different method for the policies of his party. He abandoned the tactics of a gradual approach to the total state of socialism and advocated instead a violent revolutionary overthrow of the "bourgeois" system that at one stroke should "liquidate" the "exploiters" and establish "the dictatorship of the proletariat." This is what Lenin did in 1917 in Russia and this is what the Communist International plans to achieve everywhere. What separates the Communists from the advocates of the Welfare State is not the ultimate goal of their endeavors, but the methods by means of which they want to attain a goal that is common to both of them. The difference of opinions that divides them is the same as that which distinguished the Marx of 1848 from the Marx of 1867, the year of the first publication of the first volume of Das Kapital.However, the fact that Professor Hayek has misjudged the character of the Welfare State does not seriously detract from the value of his great book. His searching analysis of the policies and concerns of the Welfare State shows to every thoughtful reader why and how these much praised welfare policies inevitably always fail. These policies never attain those, allegedly beneficial, ends which the government and the self-styled Progressives who advocated them wanted to attain, but, on the contrary, bring about a state of affairs which?from the very point of view of the government and its supporters?is even more unsatisfactory than the previous state of affairs they wanted to "improve." If the government does not repeal its first intervention, it is induced to supplement it by further acts of intervention. As these fail again, still more meddling with business is resorted to until all economic freedom has been virtually abolished. What emerges is the system of all-round planning, i.e., socialism of the type which the German Hindenburg plan was aiming at in the first World War and which was later put into effect by Hitler after his seizure of power and by the British Coalition Cabinet in the second World War.
Senate Sets Monday Vote on Janet Yellen to Head Fed
The Senate is expected to vote at around 5:30 p.m. EST Monday on Yellen, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide, reports Reuters.
Bernanke's second four-year term expires on January 31.
Bernanke's second four-year term expires on January 31.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Chinese Consulate in San Francisco Hit By Arson Fire
The San Francisco Examiner reports:
[A] fire at the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco was ignited at the front of the building, leading to an arson investigation and calls from the Chinese government for better protection of diplomats in the U.S.
No one was hurt in the Wednesday night blaze that charred the building's doorway, damaged the lobby and burned upward toward the roof[...]
Consulate workers say surveillance footage showed a person coming out of a van parked outside the compound with two buckets, pouring the contents on the front of the building and setting it on fire. The consulate has a surveillance camera outside the building located in San Francisco's Western Addition district.
"We strongly condemn this despicable act and have already made representations with the U.S. on the attack," said Wang Chuan, a spokesman for the Chinese consulate in San Francisco. "And we hope that the U.S. takes all necessary measures to provide adequate protection to the consular personnel and properties and bring the culprits to justice as soon as possible."
Walter Block Replies to Peter Boettke re Mathematical Economics
from: Walter Block <walterblock@cba.loyno.edu>
to: pboettke@gmu.edu,
rw@economicpolicyjournal.com,
Economics Faculty <Economics@business.loyno.edu>
1/2/14
Dear Pete:
I strongly agree with you that math and stat is important for our students if they want to succeed as professional economists (get a phd, and a good job afterward). My colleague John was surprised when I warmly supported his efforts to inaugurate an undergraduate course at Loyola in math econ, or was it econometrics, I forget, or maybe both. But he shouldn’t have been surprised. Just because I am an Austrian economist, and have rather a critical view on both of these subjects (math econ is a snare and a delusion, not to say pure bs: it perverts and undermines good economics; econometrics is ok for history, but not at all for theoretical economics; it is illicit to “test” praxeology with empirical data, only to illustrate it) doesn’t mean I don’t think it important for our students to be familiar with this material. It is absolutely crucial for getting a phd in all US grad schools, and, as you very correctly say, it is difficult, no, impossible, to criticize these intellectual abominations (my verbiage here, not yours) without knowing the first thing about them. However, I only agree with you, oh, 95% on this, not 100%. It is possible to get a phd and have a good career in economics without knowledge of these subjects (although of course quite impossible to criticize them adequately): all a young student need do is get a phd from one of our Austro-libertarian friendly universities in Europe, and then get a job back in the U.S. or stay in Europe. I readily admit that universities in the US are less receptive to phds from Europe (apart from Oxbridge, LSE, Sorbonne, etc.), but Richard Ebeling has one, and has a reasonably good job in the states.
I really think you should develop a thicker skin with regard to being criticized (you talk of my “blasts” at you), lest you be thought of as a person who can dish it out but not take it. Take a look at this excellent essay
DiLorenzo, Tom. 2014. “When Did Ronald Coase Become the Ayatollah of Economic Theory?” January 2; http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/thomas-dilorenzo/the-beltarian-cult/
that tells of how people sharply criticize each other at the University of Chicago. I think we should emulate the Chicagoans in this regard. You say to Bob Wenzel: “I suggest you read the piece with the intent to understand, not with the intent to indict and convict.” Why not both? You imply here that the former is legitimate, but not the latter. I just don’t understand this. Should we not “indict and convict” the Marxians? The Krugmanites? Why not each other?
Nor should there be any mystery as to why I would first, highly recommend to my students Mason in general and you in particular for graduate school, and, also, “blast” away at you from time to time for what I regard as your errors as an economist or a libertarian. I regard you as a magnificent mentor, an excellent teacher and a top scholar. When I send students to you, they almost always attain their phds. As you know, I have had horrid experiences with other grad schools in this regard. Please do not take my substantive criticisms personally. I have also blasted away at other scholars I like and admire and learn much from, such as Rothbard, Hoppe, Salerno, Howden, Bagus, Wisnieski, Molyneux, Ron Paul just to name a few, and have been for years been on good terms with all of them. I have also criticized Mises in almost a dozen publications, and I regard him as the best economist who ever lived.
When I said I agreed 100% with Joe Salerno’s criticism of you, it concerned only your views on why Austrianism is not accepted by the mainstream economics profession. These were my exact words: “I am a BIG FAN of both Bob Wenzel and Joe Salerno. Here, the former cites the latter's excellent critique of Pete Boettke on why Austrianism is not accepted by the mainstream economics profession. Needless to say, I think Salerno 100% correct on this, and Boettke 100% wrong.” How you can interpret this statement of mine as support for anything other than what I actually said, is beyond me. Certainly, I don’t agree with him on everything; see this blast of mine at him, where Bill and I ‘indict” him and two people he supports:
Barnett, William II, and Walter E. Block. 2005-2006. “Mises, Rothbard and Salerno on Costs.” Corporate Ownership & Control, Winter, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 203-205; http://www.virtusinterpress.org/additional_files/journ_coc/issues/COC_(Volume_3_Issue_2_Winter_2005-2006_Continued).pdf
I regard your views on this issue (why Austrianism is not accepted by the mainstream economics profession) as nothing less than preposterous. Of course, there is a bias against us Austro libertarians. Mises couldn’t get a paid faculty position at a top university. Hayek was blackballed by the econ dept of Chicago, and had to take refuge in their department of Social Thought. Becker and Buchanan have publicly stated we are cultists, and surely this is but the tip of the iceberg; if two such high profile mainstreamers believe this, I imagine most neo classical economists believe it. Sherwin Rosen viciously attacked us; he said in effect that the proof we were wrong was that there were so few of us. When is the last time any of us got published in a top mainstream journal writing as an Austrian? Why are none of us at top universities (with the exception of Mario and Israel)? And, of course, we are not rejected by the mainstream because for the most part we eschew math models and econometrics. Too many others do too (see the second list in the next paragraph) and they are far from rejected.
Speaking of blasts, when you say “mathematical modeling and statistical testing is the scientific language in which professional economists speak” I regard that as a shot across my bows. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Kirzner, Hayek, are professional economists. They don’t speak in those terms and neither do I. Of course, had you slightly modified that statement to this: “mathematical modeling and statistical testing is the scientific language in which MOST professional economists speak” that would have been unobjectionable, and correct. But, as stated, it is an unwarranted attack on those five Austro libertarians plus many others in our movement. It is also unfair to Coase, Demsetz, Buchanan and Tullock (I think; correct me if I’m wrong on this, I won’t take offense), Epstein, Posner and other mainstream law and econ people. I agree with Bob Wenzel in his critique of you on this matter when he says “Not once in the column do you even give a hint that mathematics may be the wrong methodology for economics and it should be studied only to attack it.” Why do you do things like that?
Pete, you ask me not to “judge (you) by (my) purity litmus test.” But how else can I judge you? How else do you judge other people, other than by your purity litmus test? And don’t say you don’t have one. Surely, you employ precisely that when you “blast away” at people you criticize. The implication here is that I am more narrow minded than I should be and you are not. But, how else are we, any of us, going to get that proverbial one millionth of an inch closer to the Truth than by applying the principles that make the most sense to us?
Different people have different conceptions of heaven. In the view of my friend, colleague and many time coauthor Bill Barnett, heaven is the place where we will know everything. He and I are trying to make our existence here on earth as “heavenly” as we can. Therefore, we are trying to know as much as we can. One way to do this is to come up with a “purity litmus test,” whether for Austrian economics or libertarian political philosophy, use it to the hilt, and let the chips fall where they may. That at least is my own way of operating. As I say, please don’t take any of this personally. I use this purity test on everyone. Certainly, this includes my own past publications, several of which I have had to publicly apologize for, because the later Walter saw an error in what the earlier Walter wrote. Two of them come immediately to mind: my piece with Bill Barnett on Coasean lighthouses, and Hayekian triangles.
If you want to keep this conversation going, I'll be glad to comply. If not, I'm glad we cleared the air a bit. I look forward to a continuation of our two way underground railroad.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
to: pboettke@gmu.edu,
rw@economicpolicyjournal.com,
Economics Faculty <Economics@business.loyno.edu>
1/2/14
Dear Pete:
I strongly agree with you that math and stat is important for our students if they want to succeed as professional economists (get a phd, and a good job afterward). My colleague John was surprised when I warmly supported his efforts to inaugurate an undergraduate course at Loyola in math econ, or was it econometrics, I forget, or maybe both. But he shouldn’t have been surprised. Just because I am an Austrian economist, and have rather a critical view on both of these subjects (math econ is a snare and a delusion, not to say pure bs: it perverts and undermines good economics; econometrics is ok for history, but not at all for theoretical economics; it is illicit to “test” praxeology with empirical data, only to illustrate it) doesn’t mean I don’t think it important for our students to be familiar with this material. It is absolutely crucial for getting a phd in all US grad schools, and, as you very correctly say, it is difficult, no, impossible, to criticize these intellectual abominations (my verbiage here, not yours) without knowing the first thing about them. However, I only agree with you, oh, 95% on this, not 100%. It is possible to get a phd and have a good career in economics without knowledge of these subjects (although of course quite impossible to criticize them adequately): all a young student need do is get a phd from one of our Austro-libertarian friendly universities in Europe, and then get a job back in the U.S. or stay in Europe. I readily admit that universities in the US are less receptive to phds from Europe (apart from Oxbridge, LSE, Sorbonne, etc.), but Richard Ebeling has one, and has a reasonably good job in the states.
I really think you should develop a thicker skin with regard to being criticized (you talk of my “blasts” at you), lest you be thought of as a person who can dish it out but not take it. Take a look at this excellent essay
DiLorenzo, Tom. 2014. “When Did Ronald Coase Become the Ayatollah of Economic Theory?” January 2; http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/thomas-dilorenzo/the-beltarian-cult/
that tells of how people sharply criticize each other at the University of Chicago. I think we should emulate the Chicagoans in this regard. You say to Bob Wenzel: “I suggest you read the piece with the intent to understand, not with the intent to indict and convict.” Why not both? You imply here that the former is legitimate, but not the latter. I just don’t understand this. Should we not “indict and convict” the Marxians? The Krugmanites? Why not each other?
Nor should there be any mystery as to why I would first, highly recommend to my students Mason in general and you in particular for graduate school, and, also, “blast” away at you from time to time for what I regard as your errors as an economist or a libertarian. I regard you as a magnificent mentor, an excellent teacher and a top scholar. When I send students to you, they almost always attain their phds. As you know, I have had horrid experiences with other grad schools in this regard. Please do not take my substantive criticisms personally. I have also blasted away at other scholars I like and admire and learn much from, such as Rothbard, Hoppe, Salerno, Howden, Bagus, Wisnieski, Molyneux, Ron Paul just to name a few, and have been for years been on good terms with all of them. I have also criticized Mises in almost a dozen publications, and I regard him as the best economist who ever lived.
When I said I agreed 100% with Joe Salerno’s criticism of you, it concerned only your views on why Austrianism is not accepted by the mainstream economics profession. These were my exact words: “I am a BIG FAN of both Bob Wenzel and Joe Salerno. Here, the former cites the latter's excellent critique of Pete Boettke on why Austrianism is not accepted by the mainstream economics profession. Needless to say, I think Salerno 100% correct on this, and Boettke 100% wrong.” How you can interpret this statement of mine as support for anything other than what I actually said, is beyond me. Certainly, I don’t agree with him on everything; see this blast of mine at him, where Bill and I ‘indict” him and two people he supports:
Barnett, William II, and Walter E. Block. 2005-2006. “Mises, Rothbard and Salerno on Costs.” Corporate Ownership & Control, Winter, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 203-205; http://www.virtusinterpress.org/additional_files/journ_coc/issues/COC_(Volume_3_Issue_2_Winter_2005-2006_Continued).pdf
I regard your views on this issue (why Austrianism is not accepted by the mainstream economics profession) as nothing less than preposterous. Of course, there is a bias against us Austro libertarians. Mises couldn’t get a paid faculty position at a top university. Hayek was blackballed by the econ dept of Chicago, and had to take refuge in their department of Social Thought. Becker and Buchanan have publicly stated we are cultists, and surely this is but the tip of the iceberg; if two such high profile mainstreamers believe this, I imagine most neo classical economists believe it. Sherwin Rosen viciously attacked us; he said in effect that the proof we were wrong was that there were so few of us. When is the last time any of us got published in a top mainstream journal writing as an Austrian? Why are none of us at top universities (with the exception of Mario and Israel)? And, of course, we are not rejected by the mainstream because for the most part we eschew math models and econometrics. Too many others do too (see the second list in the next paragraph) and they are far from rejected.
Speaking of blasts, when you say “mathematical modeling and statistical testing is the scientific language in which professional economists speak” I regard that as a shot across my bows. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Kirzner, Hayek, are professional economists. They don’t speak in those terms and neither do I. Of course, had you slightly modified that statement to this: “mathematical modeling and statistical testing is the scientific language in which MOST professional economists speak” that would have been unobjectionable, and correct. But, as stated, it is an unwarranted attack on those five Austro libertarians plus many others in our movement. It is also unfair to Coase, Demsetz, Buchanan and Tullock (I think; correct me if I’m wrong on this, I won’t take offense), Epstein, Posner and other mainstream law and econ people. I agree with Bob Wenzel in his critique of you on this matter when he says “Not once in the column do you even give a hint that mathematics may be the wrong methodology for economics and it should be studied only to attack it.” Why do you do things like that?
Pete, you ask me not to “judge (you) by (my) purity litmus test.” But how else can I judge you? How else do you judge other people, other than by your purity litmus test? And don’t say you don’t have one. Surely, you employ precisely that when you “blast away” at people you criticize. The implication here is that I am more narrow minded than I should be and you are not. But, how else are we, any of us, going to get that proverbial one millionth of an inch closer to the Truth than by applying the principles that make the most sense to us?
Different people have different conceptions of heaven. In the view of my friend, colleague and many time coauthor Bill Barnett, heaven is the place where we will know everything. He and I are trying to make our existence here on earth as “heavenly” as we can. Therefore, we are trying to know as much as we can. One way to do this is to come up with a “purity litmus test,” whether for Austrian economics or libertarian political philosophy, use it to the hilt, and let the chips fall where they may. That at least is my own way of operating. As I say, please don’t take any of this personally. I use this purity test on everyone. Certainly, this includes my own past publications, several of which I have had to publicly apologize for, because the later Walter saw an error in what the earlier Walter wrote. Two of them come immediately to mind: my piece with Bill Barnett on Coasean lighthouses, and Hayekian triangles.
If you want to keep this conversation going, I'll be glad to comply. If not, I'm glad we cleared the air a bit. I look forward to a continuation of our two way underground railroad.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
Happy New Year from the Freedom Socialist Party!
Freedom and socialism appear to me as exact opposites, but that doesn't seem to bother the Freedom Socialist Party. They have high hopes for 2014.
In a New Year's greeting, the FSP said:
In a New Year's greeting, the FSP said:
Dear Friends,
Here’s wishing you and yours a revolutionary New Year in 2014!
From the vantage point of the window of the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP) National Office in Seattle, it would have been hard not to notice the fresh winds of dissent gaining strength
Locally, a series of hopeful events have taken place in recent months. Seattleites chose a Trotskyist socialist for the City Council, Kshama Sawant. Boeing workers voted down a lousy contract that their international union leadership was pushing hard. Just weeks later, Metro Transit employees told management and their own local union president to take a tentative agreement full of concessions and shove it. In the nearby town of SeaTac, low-paid workers won a ballot measure guaranteeing a $15.00 per hour minimum wage. And FSP’s initiative sparked international protests demanding the freedom of Seattle-area resident and indigenous leader Nestora Salgado from a prison in Mexico.
All this warmed the hearts of radicals, feminists, and working-class champions in the Pacific Northwest and beyond.
The Astounding Beliefs of New NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio
Bill de Blasio was sworn in as mayor of New York City, yesterday. During his short speech, he made clear that he is a serious interventionist, who sees a role for government in every nook and cranny of people lives.
He started by giving a shout out to the crony leftists Bill and Hillary Clinton, then dredged up from hell the ghosts of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. He went on to call for a higher minimum wage, equality, higher taxes and government influence over kids at the pre-school level.
Below is the speech in its entirety. I have highlighted some of his of his more disgusting comments, which signals a mayor that is hell-bent on running a command and control govenment .
He started by giving a shout out to the crony leftists Bill and Hillary Clinton, then dredged up from hell the ghosts of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. He went on to call for a higher minimum wage, equality, higher taxes and government influence over kids at the pre-school level.
Below is the speech in its entirety. I have highlighted some of his of his more disgusting comments, which signals a mayor that is hell-bent on running a command and control govenment .
Thank you, President Clinton, for your kind words. It was an honor to serve in your administration, and we’re all honored by your presence. I have to note that, over 20 years ago, when a conservative philosophy seemed dominant, you broke through – and told us to still believe in a place called Hope.
Thank you, Secretary Clinton. I was inspired by the time I spent on your first campaign. Your groundbreaking commitment to nurturing our children and families manifested itself in a phrase that is now a part of our American culture – and something we believe in deeply in this city. It Takes a Village.
Thank you, Rev. Fred Lucas Jr., Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Monsignor Robert Romano, and Imam Askia Muhammad for your words of prayer.
Thank you, Governor Cuomo. Working with you at HUD, I saw how big ideas can overcome big obstacles. And it will be my honor to serve shoulder-to-shoulder with you again.
Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. To say the least, you led our city through some extremely difficult times. And for that, we are all grateful. Your passion on issues such as environmental protection and public health has built a noble legacy. We pledge today to continue that great progress you made in these critically important areas. Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg.
Thank you, Mayor Dinkins, for starting us on the road to a safer city, and for always uplifting our young people – and I must say personally, for giving me my start in New York City government. Thank you. And Mayor Dinkins, you also had the wisdom to hire a strong and beautiful young woman who walked up to me one day in City Hall and changed my life forever.
Chirlane, you are my soul mate — and my best friend. And my partner in all I do. My love for you grows with each passing year. Chiara and Dante, I cannot put into words the joy and the pride that you bring your mother and me every day. You are the best thing that’s ever happened to us, and we love you so much.
And finally, thank you to my brothers Steve and Don, and all my family assembled here today — from all around this country, and from Italy. You have always guided and sustained me. Grazie.
Thank you, my fellow New Yorkers — my brothers and sisters — for joining Chirlane, Chiara, Dante and me on this chilly winter day. And we thank you for your fortitude.
De parte de Chirlane, Chiara, Dante y yo, les extiendo las gracias a ustedes, mis hermanas y hermanos niuyorquinos, por acompañarnos en este dia tan especial.
Like it is for so many of you, my family is my rock. Their wisdom, their compassion, and their sense of humor make each day a gift to cherish.
But, what makes today so special isn’t just my family, but our larger New York family. Yes I am borrowing from Governor Cuomo, our family of New York. We see what binds all New Yorkers together: an understanding that big dreams are not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but the animating force behind every community, in every borough.
The spark that ignites our unwavering resolve to do everything possible to ensure that every girl and boy, no matter what language they speak, what subway line they ride, what neighborhood they call home — that every child has the chance to succeed.
We recognize a city government’s first responsibilities: to keep our neighborhoods safe; to keep our streets clean; to ensure that those who live here – and those who visit – can get where they need to go in every boroughs. But we know that our mission reaches deeper. We are called to put an end to economic and social inequalities that threaten to unravel the city we love. And so today, we commit to a new progressive direction in New York. And that same progressive impulse has written our city’s history. It’s in our DNA.
Nearly a century ago, it was Al Smith who waged war on unsafe working conditions and child labor. It was Franklin Roosevelt and Frances Perkins who led the charge for the basic bargain of unemployment insurance and the minimum wage. It was Fiorello La Guardia who enacted the New Deal here on the city level, battled the excesses of Wall Street, and championed a progressive income tax.
From Jacob Riis to Eleanor Roosevelt to Harry Belafonte — who we are so honored to have with us here today — it was New Yorkers who challenged the status quo, who blazed a trail of progressive reform and political action, who took on the elite, who stood up to say that social and economic justice will start here and will start now.
It’s that tradition that inspires the work we now begin. A movement that sees the inequality crisis we face today, and resolves that it will not define our future. Now I know there are those who think that what I said during the campaign was just rhetoric, just “political talk” in the interest of getting elected. There are some who think now, as we turn to governing – well, things will just continue pretty much like they always have.
So let me be clear. When I said we would take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities, I meant it. And we will do it. I will honor the faith and trust you have placed in me. And we will give life to the hope of so many in our city. We will succeed as One City. We know this won’t be easy; It will require all that we can muster. And it won’t be accomplished only by me; It will be accomplished by all of us — those of us here today, and millions of everyday New Yorkers in every corner of our city.
You must continue to make your voices heard. You must be at the center of this debate. And our work begins now.
We will expand the Paid Sick Leave law — because no one should be forced to lose a day’s pay, or even a week’s pay, simply because illness strikes. And by this time next year, fully 300,000 additional New Yorkers will be protected by that law. We won’t wait.
We’ll do it now. We will require big developers to build more affordable housing. We’ll fight to stem the tide of hospital closures. And we’ll expand community health centers into neighborhoods in need, so that New Yorkers see our city not as the exclusive domain of the One Percent, but a place where everyday people can afford to live, work, and raise a family. We won’t wait. We’ll do it now.
We will reform a broken stop-and-frisk policy, both to protect the dignity and rights of young men of color, and to give our brave police officers the partnership they need to continue their success in driving down crime. We won’t wait. We’ll do it now.
We will ask the very wealthy to pay a little more in taxes so that we can offer full-day universal pre-K and after-school programs for every middle school student. And when we say “a little more,” we can rightly emphasize the “little.”
Those earning between $500,000 and one million dollars a year, for instance, would see their taxes increase by an average of $973 a year. That’s less than three bucks a day – about the cost of a small soy latte at your local Starbucks.
Think about it. A five-year tax on the wealthiest among us – with every dollar dedicated to pre-K and after-school. Asking those at the top to help our kids get on the right path and stay there. That’s our mission. And on that, we will not wait. We will do it now.
Of course, I know that our progressive vision isn’t universally shared. Some on the far right continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics. They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else. They sell their approach as the path of “rugged individualism.”
But Fiorello La Guardia — the man I consider to be the greatest Mayor this city has ever known — put it best. He said: “I, too, admire the ‘rugged individual,’ but no ‘rugged individual’ can survive in the midst of collective starvation.”
So please remember: we do not ask more of the wealthy to punish success. We do it to create more success stories. And we do it to honor a basic truth: that a strong economy is dependent on a thriving school system. We do it to give every kid a chance to get their education off on the right foot, from the earliest age, which study after study has shown leads to greater economic success, healthier lives, and a better chance of breaking the cycle of poverty.
We do it to give peace of mind to working parents, who suffer the anxiety of not knowing whether their child is safe and supervised during those critical hours after the school day ends, but before the workday is done. And we do it because we know that we must invest in our city, in the future inventors and C.E.O.'s and teachers and scientists, so that our generation – like every generation before us – can leave this city even stronger than we found it.
Our city is no stranger to big struggles — and no stranger to overcoming them.
New York has faced fiscal collapse, a crime epidemic, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters. But now, in our time, we face a different crisis – an inequality crisis. It’s not often the stuff of banner headlines in our daily newspapers. It’s a quiet crisis, but one no less pernicious than those that have come before.
Its urgency is read on the faces of our neighbors and their children, as families struggle to make it against increasingly long odds. To tackle a challenge this daunting, we need a dramatic new approach — rebuilding our communities from the bottom-up, from the neighborhoods up. And just like before, the world will watch as we succeed. All along the way, we will remember what makes New York, New York.
A city that fights injustice and inequality — not just because it honors our values, but because it strengthens our people. A city of five boroughs — all created equal. Black, white, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, old, young, rich, middle class, and poor. A city that remembers our responsibility to each other — our common cause — is to leave no New Yorker behind.
That’s the city that you and I believe in. It’s the city to which my grandparents were welcomed from the hills of Southern Italy, the city in which I was born, where I met the love of my life, where Chiara and Dante were raised.
It’s a place that celebrates a very simple notion: that no matter what your story is – this is your city. Our strength is derived from you. Working together, we will make this One City. And that mission — our march toward a fairer, more just, more progressive place, our march to keep the promise of New York alive for the next generation. It begins today.
Thank you, and God bless the people of New York City!
Fear Tactics That Gobble Up Liberty
By, Chris Rossini
While campaigning for President in 1948, Harry Truman made use of a highly-feared "ism" known as "Communism":
The justifications for fearing Communism were squashed by the great economist Ludwig Von Mises. He did the hard thinking that concluded with 'Socialists can't calculate'. Communism didn't collapse right away, of course. Politicians fight truth to the bitter end. It took many decades for Von Mises to be vindicated.
Unfortunately, the Communism tactic would be replaced with another highly-feared "ism": "Terrorism".
Today, a politician can say with a straight face:
Here's the good part:
Just as Von Mises shook the establishment to the core with 'Socialists can't calculate', so has Ron Paul shaken the establishment to the core on the military empire. It happened on a day that many of us will never forget:
That moment attracted so many people to the ideas of liberty that the positive effects are impossible to calculate. What a shame that Von Mises did not have the luxury of having his words broadcast on national television, or of having them watched countless times on YouTube.
Now, just as Communism didn't collapse right away, neither is the military empire interested in closing up shop anytime soon. Politicians still fight truth to the bitter end.
Von Mises was vindicated by a BIG bankruptcy in 1989. Ron Paul has been warning for years that the US is heading for a BIG bankruptcy of its own.
Governments (and the people who believe them) never learn.
Chris Rossini on Twitter, Facebook & Google+
While campaigning for President in 1948, Harry Truman made use of a highly-feared "ism" known as "Communism":
“If some of our people are living in slum housing and nothing is done about it, that is an invitation to Communism. If some of our people are forced to work at substandard wages and nothing is done about it, that is an invitation to Communism. If some of our people are arbitrarily denied the right to vote or deprived of other basic rights and nothing is done about it, that is an invitation to Communism. . . . And finally, if high prices are depriving some of our people of the necessities of life and nothing is done about it, that is an invitation to Communism. . . . Let us adopt legislation that will provide our citizens with the homes they need.”Can you imagine a politician trying to pull that off today?
The justifications for fearing Communism were squashed by the great economist Ludwig Von Mises. He did the hard thinking that concluded with 'Socialists can't calculate'. Communism didn't collapse right away, of course. Politicians fight truth to the bitter end. It took many decades for Von Mises to be vindicated.
Unfortunately, the Communism tactic would be replaced with another highly-feared "ism": "Terrorism".
Today, a politician can say with a straight face:
"If we don't listen to your phone calls, that is an invitation to Terrorism. If we don't track your web activity, that is an invitation to Terrorism. If we don't watch your bank account and credit card activity, that is an invitation to Terrorism. If we don't fly drones over your head, that is an invitation to Terrorism. If we don't feel your genitalia at the airport, that is an invitation to Terrorism."Sadly, that list can go on.
Here's the good part:
Just as Von Mises shook the establishment to the core with 'Socialists can't calculate', so has Ron Paul shaken the establishment to the core on the military empire. It happened on a day that many of us will never forget:
That moment attracted so many people to the ideas of liberty that the positive effects are impossible to calculate. What a shame that Von Mises did not have the luxury of having his words broadcast on national television, or of having them watched countless times on YouTube.
Now, just as Communism didn't collapse right away, neither is the military empire interested in closing up shop anytime soon. Politicians still fight truth to the bitter end.
Von Mises was vindicated by a BIG bankruptcy in 1989. Ron Paul has been warning for years that the US is heading for a BIG bankruptcy of its own.
Governments (and the people who believe them) never learn.
Chris Rossini on Twitter, Facebook & Google+
Ron Paul's Private Jet
I am reorganizing some files on my computer and came across these.
When I met with Ron Paul in Reno, Nevada during the 2012 presidential campaign (See: On the Road with Ron Paul and Ron Paul on Green Hair) , I took these pictures of the jet the campaign leased. Although it was very small, it did have two pilots. Both pilots seemed to be genuinely honored to be flying for Dr. Paul.
When I met with Ron Paul in Reno, Nevada during the 2012 presidential campaign (See: On the Road with Ron Paul and Ron Paul on Green Hair) , I took these pictures of the jet the campaign leased. Although it was very small, it did have two pilots. Both pilots seemed to be genuinely honored to be flying for Dr. Paul.
Ludwig von Mises Destroys Mathematical Economics
I have already commented on Peter Boettke's distorted implication that Ludwig von Mises supported the use of mathematical economics (See: OUTRAGEOUS Twisting Ludwig von Mises Beyond Recognition).
What did Mises really think about the use of mathematical economics in developing economic theory? Check this out from Memoirs (p. 45)
What did Mises really think about the use of mathematical economics in developing economic theory? Check this out from Memoirs (p. 45)
Throughout my book [The Theory of Money and Credit] I use the “step-by-step” method, a method being rediscovered today under the designations period analysis or process analysis. It is the only acceptable method. It renders the argument between short-run and long-run economics superfluous, and even the distinction between statics and dynamics becomes dispensable. If no condition is considered “normal”—if one is aware that the idea of “static equilibrium” has nothing to do with the life and action we study and is merely a mental image that is used in order to conceptualize human action through a state of nonaction—then one must recognize that it is always motion we are studying, but never a state of equilibrium. All of mathematical economics, with its beautiful curves and equations, is idle flirtation. The setting up of equations and the drawing of curves must be preceded by nonmathematical considerations; the setting up of equations does not broaden our understanding. Mechanical equations can be used to solve practical problems through the introduction of empirically acquired constants and data; but equations of mathematical catallactics cannot in the same way be of service to practical problems in the area of human action where constant relations do not exist.
In my book on money I made no use of polemics directed against the mathematical school. I presented the correct doctrine and refrained from attacking the method of mathematicians. I even withstood the temptation to unravel the vacuous term “velocity.” The death knell for mathematical economics was sounded when I proved that the money supply and spending power of the monetary unit are not inversely proportional. The proof demonstrated that the only constant relationship that was believed to have been found between “economic quantities” is in fact a variable determined by the data in each individual case. It also rendered Irving Fisher and Gustav Cassel’s equations of exchange obsolete.
Crony Capitalists, Not Environmentalists, Killed Traditional Light Bulbs
By Timothy Carney
Say goodbye to the regular light bulb this New Year.
For more than a century, the traditional incandescent bulb was the symbol of American innovation. Starting Jan. 1, the famous bulb is illegal to manufacture in the U.S., and it has become a fitting symbol for the collusion of big business and big government.
The 2007 Energy Bill, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn't produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed.
People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the plant. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn't here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).
This wasn't a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving. As the New York Times reported in 2011, “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.”
Read the rest here.
Say goodbye to the regular light bulb this New Year.
For more than a century, the traditional incandescent bulb was the symbol of American innovation. Starting Jan. 1, the famous bulb is illegal to manufacture in the U.S., and it has become a fitting symbol for the collusion of big business and big government.
The 2007 Energy Bill, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn't produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed.
People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the plant. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn't here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).
This wasn't a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving. As the New York Times reported in 2011, “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.”
Read the rest here.
10 Cities Where You Can Retire on $30,000 A Year
1. Daytona/Deltona/Ormond Beach, Fla.-The median home price is $108,900, the median mortgage payment is $416 and the median property tax is $1,161.
2. Pocatello, Idaho-The median home price is $127,500, the median mortgage payment is $487 and the median property tax is $1,179.
3. Bangor, Maine-The median home price is $110,400 in Bangor, the median mortgage payment is $421 and the median property tax is $1,303.
4. Greenville, S.C.-The median home price is $127,600, the median mortgage payment is $487 and the median property tax is $753 in Greenville.
5. Grand Rapids, Mich.-The median home price is $114,200, the median mortgage payment is $436 and the median property tax is $1,830.
6. South Bend, Ind.-The median home price is $82,500, the median mortgage payment is $315 and the median property tax is $846.
7. Erie, Penn.-The median home price is $106,600, the median mortgage payment is $407 and the median property tax is $1,899.
8. Louisville, Ky.-The median home price is $128,200, the median mortgage payment is $489 and the median property tax is $1,116.
9. Sherman/Denison, Texas-The median home price is $79,400, the median mortgage payment is $303 and the median property tax is $1,158.
10. Pueblo, Colo.-The median home price is $102,600, the median mortgage payment is $392 and the median property tax is $765.
From AARP via MarketWatch
Two Newspapers Urge Obama to Help NSA Whistleblower
The editorial boards of The New York Times and The Guardian published editorials on Wednesday, urging the Obama administration to treat Edward Snowden as a whistleblower and offer him some form of clemency, reports HuffPo.
The big question: Why does MSM have Snowden's back?
The big question: Why does MSM have Snowden's back?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)