My good friend Daniel from the University of Texas Libertarian Longhorns presented his paper on “Praxeology of the Knowledge Problem of Socialism.” The gist of the paper is actually pretty simple: Some Austrians call the “knowledge problem” (that Hayek frequently discussed) insignificant, because the problem is also applicable to a free market organization. Daniel says, “No, on the free market there is never a knowledge problem so long as there is always an opportunity for trade somewhere.” Only under a legally sanctioned monopoly – which is just socialism on another scale – or under a purely socialist economy will the knowledge problem become evident.

But the biggest event of the day was the special presentation by John Papola, the creator of the famous Keynes-Hayek rap earlier this year. Seriously, it’s got to be the single best pedagogical tool we have seen in the past few years for teaching Austrian econ. John talked about the process of making the movie and his vision for doing further work at his newly built website EconStories.tv. If you haven’t seen the video, well, you should! Here it is…

I have a picture of John and I together after the talk, but I haven’t taken it off the camera yet. Hopefully I’ll put it up in the next few days.

UPDATE: All of the lectures are being published on Mises.org very quickly, you can download them here.

If you missed it, read the post on Day 1 of the ASC 2010.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 – Day 2

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: economics, events, Mises Institute

Related Content:

• Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 – Day 1 (3)
• Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 (2)
• Anybody else attending the Houston Mises Circle? (0)
• Mises Circle Houston Recap (1)
• Austrian Scholars Conference 2009 (7)

The authors forum was great. I was impressed by Shawn Ritenour’s Foundations of Economics, which is essentially an econ textbook from a Christian perspective. He shows that the field of economics – from an Austrian point of view – is entirely coherent with Christianity. The book looks great for homeschoolers especially. I’m excited about this book and I hope to get a review copy soon. Jacob Huebert talked about his latest work, Libertarianism Today. It hasn’t been released yet, but the Mises Institute will be selling a less expensive paperback version and you should look out for it. I’ve known Huebert for a while and it was a pleasure seeing him again. Stephan Kinsella, another good friend of mine, talked about the festschrift (a volume of papers written by top specialists in honor of a major thinker) he and Guido Hulsmann put together in honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, called Property, Freedom and Society.

The topic of the afternoon session I attended was “Rothbard and the Pre-Austrians.” In other words, there are a number of interesting figures in history that approached ideas that took greater shape as the Austrian economists developed them. Joseph Weglarz gave a very interesting presentation on the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas; his greatest accomplishment was a synthesis of faith and reason forming the basis of Scholasticism. Daniel Coleman gave an excellent, concise, and easily understandable talk on Aquinas’s favorite philosopher – Aristotle – and his conception of trade.

Gerard Casey gave the Lou Church Memorial Lecture on Religion and Economics. He talked about the formulation of “religions” out of the dominant philosophies of the day, such as scientism, environmentism (no, that is not a misspelling), and even economism/statism. These “religions” set themselves up in the place of God and subvert man’s ultimate purpose. He concluded with an excellent call to the church to abandon coercion based on our understanding of the Christian worldview.

Following a nice dinner, we concluded the day hanging out with fellow libertarians over drinks, talking philosophy, current events, economics, and general anti-state awesomeness. Can’t beat it…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 – Day 1

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: economics, events, Mises Institute

Related Content:

• Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 – Day 2 (0)
• Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 (2)
• Anybody else attending the Houston Mises Circle? (0)
• Mises Circle Houston Recap (1)
• Austrian Scholars Conference 2009 (7)

My wife and I will be attending the Austrian Scholars Conference this week at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I’m really excited that one of my best buddies, Daniel Krawisz of the Libertarian Longhorns, will be presenting this year in a panel with Hans Herman Hoppe, M. Garrett Roth, Bernardita Escobar, and chaired by Thomas DiLorenzo. His talk is called “Praxeology of the Knowledge Problem of Socialism,” and he will be discussing the often-missed details of Hayek’s knowledge problem in the context of, you guessed it, Misesian praxeology (which is the logic of human action). If you want to tune in, you should be able to listen live on Mises.org sometime between 1:00 and 2:30pm CST on Saturday.

I’ll have some articles prepped to post late this week, and I’ll try to do a little summary post each day at some point. If any of you LCC readers are attending, let me know right now in the comments below. I really would love to meet you.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Austrian Scholars Conference 2010

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: economics, events, Mises Institute

Related Content:

• Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 – Day 1 (3)
• Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 – Day 2 (0)
• Anybody else attending the Houston Mises Circle? (0)
• Mises Circle Houston Recap (1)
• Austrian Scholars Conference 2009 (7)

Free trade exists when governments do not interfere with commercial transactions between individuals domestically and internationally. Free trade makes America and the world better off. The Institute for International Economics has calculated that completely liberalizing trade would add $500 billion, or $5,000 per household, to U.S. annual income. And, the World Bank has estimated that reducing trade restrictions would add an additional $350 billion in income for developing countries and $170 billion in income for developed countries by 2015.

Free trade is fair trade. Free trade is fair because it is voluntary and mutually beneficial. People trade the things they value less for the things they value more. For instance, I trade my money with IBM for a laptop computer. In doing so, both IBM and I are better off. An involuntary or disadvantageous trade is not a trade but coercion. Free trade is also fair because it promotes competition and innovation. In a global market there are more producers and consumers. With more producers there is more competition; and with more consumers production can take place on a large scale. More competition and large scale production lead to more innovation and lower prices, and thus to higher standards of living.

Free trade is efficient. Individuals engage in trade due to differences in comparative advantage. No one place has all the resources, such as raw materials, knowledge and skill, to produce most efficiently all the goods and services it needs. There is a reason, for example, that bananas are grown in Honduras and not Iceland. So, countries specialize in what they produce best and trade with one another to acquire what they either cannot produce at all or only inefficiently. Hence, free trade lets countries make more efficient use of resources.

Free trade increases prosperity worldwide. Throughout history, most humans lived in utter poverty. However, since the Industrial Revolution, per capita income worldwide has increased dramatically. According to economist Johan Norberg, just since 1965 Western countries have increased their wealth by 40 percent. The increase was even higher on the poorer continents: Latin America raised its wealth by 60 percent, Africa by 80 percent, and the average income in Asia rose by 300 percent. According to World Bank studies, global poverty rates fell from 33 percent to 18 percent between 1981 and 2001; poverty in East Asia fell from 58 to 16 percent and in South Asia from 52 to 31 percent. This kind of economic growth seems best explained by the motto “A rising tide lifts all ships.” Economic growth is fueled by investments in stocks, non-government bonds, real estate, or businesses, because such investments pay for new technology and new jobs. Global free trade increases investments from developed countries into underdeveloped and developing countries, and vice versa.

Free trade fosters peace. Humans naturally seek to want to improve their condition. In order to obtain what they need, they can either trade, enslave others to produce for them, or go to war and loot land and resources from the defeated. For much of human history, the pursuit of the latter two options prevailed; but trade dominates today. Over the past half century, the incidence of war and civil conflicts has steadily declined. .To be sure, trade is not a sufficient condition for peace, but it is a necessary one. Trade contributes to a country’s internal stability by raising incomes significantly more and across all sectors of society than slavery or war and by reducing poverty. Trade also encourages democratization and democratic countries are less likely to engage in war. Finally, the more trade takes place among countries, the higher the economic cost becomes to go to war since war would destroy the trade relations and investments already made.

Free trade helps the world’s poorest. Free trade facilitates economic growth. In turn, economic growth leads to higher living standards, lower infant mortality rates, increased average life expectancy, improved health, decreased hunger, greater access to drinking water, and increased literacy. Global trade improves these indicators for the world’s poorest, as Norberg’s research shows. For instance, he writes that hunger in developing countries has been reduced from 37 to 17 percent over the last 30 years. Calorie consumption actually rose fastest in the developing countries, from 1,932 calories a day in 1961 to 2,684 calories a day in 1999. Whereas 25 years ago, 90 percent of the world’s rural population had no access to clean water, today it is only 20 percent. And, in 1950, the developing world’s illiteracy rate was 70 percent; today it is only 23 percent.

Protectionism hurts individuals in poor countries. When governments impose import tariffs, quotas and hand out subsidies to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, they keep prices high and stifle economic development. This is particularly detrimental to poor countries. For instance, American cotton farmers receive an average of US $250,000 in subsidies, which keeps the price of cotton high for consumers and prevent producers in poorer countries like Burkina Faso from growing their economy by selling cotton in America. According the Fraser Institute’s 2007 report on economic freedom, the average per capita GDP of countries in the top quartile of economic freedom is $26,013, whereas that of countries in the lowest quartile is only $3,305. Free trade must occur in the absence of government intervention , but many so-called “free trade agreements” are riddled with subsidies, quotas and other protectionist elements.

Previous | Next | All Memes (upcoming)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Free Trade Now!

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: economics, free market, free trade

Related Content:

• The Nobility of the Bourgeoisie (0)
• Perspectives on Religion and Capitalism (2)
• Mises Circle Houston Recap (1)
• Is Limited Government an Oxymoron? (1)
• Economics Has the Answer: What’s the Question? (0)

Capitalism is the only moral social system. Only a capitalist system allows you to act in your own interest, to keep what you have worked for and trade it with other willing individuals. For much of human history, wealth has been produced primarily by looting or enslaving others. Under capitalism wealth is created by serving others, by creating values for them. Individuals who produce the best goods and services are rewarded by making the most profit. Those who produce shoddy goods, mediocre services or try to defraud others are weeded out when exposed.

Capitalism is win-win. Producers only make profits on goods and services that consumers choose to buy. Competition among producers ensures that consumers have a variety of goods and services at different price ranges to choose from. Workers and employers come together based on mutual consent. Employers can choose to fire incompetent workers, and workers can choose to leave an employer for a better job. Competition among employers for qualified workers drives wages and benefits up. Whereas politics is a zero-sum game in which power and tax dollars are redistributed from one group to another, capitalism continuously creates more wealth, thereby growing the pie and increasing prosperity for all.

Capitalism is fair. Capitalism is predicated upon and respects individuals’ free choices. No one has to pay for what he does not want and derives no benefit from. Under capitalism, individuals and businesses cannot seek politically enforced advantages or handouts. For instance, in a capitalist system steel producers would not be able to obtain tariffs and subsidies in order to avoid being undersold or driven out of business by foreign competitors, and a workers’ union could not get government to force employers to provide higher wages, more benefits and greater job security. Unable to run to the government for help, these groups must prove themselves entirely based on the worth of the goods and services they produce. That is fair to consumers and competitors.

Capitalism empowers the consumer. The consumer votes for or against goods and services with his money. If companies do not offer the kinds of goods and services consumers want to buy, they fail — but their demise inspires the emergence of new markets, new products, new services, and new methods of production. In this way, capitalism promotes innovation and efficiency through a process of creative destruction. Capitalism also fosters the creation of mass communication tools such as the internet. Thus, consumers can make informed decisions about what to purchase and can let others know about the quality of that purchase. Many consumers united together can persuade a producer to lower prices or change his product or service for the better.

Capitalism reflects human nature. People have limited knowledge. State-planned economies fail because no bureaucrat or committee, no matter how well educated in economics, has the knowledge to coordinate the actions of millions of individuals. People are also motivated by different values. Under capitalism people can pursue their chosen values, provided of course that they do not violate the rights of others. Pursuing values and being allowed to keep, dispose of and profit from the results of that pursuit motivates people to take care of things, to produce, and to innovate. Further, by tapping into human beings’ competitive nature, capitalism makes everything better. Just compare the best car created under a capitalist system to the best car created under a socialist system, where competition is suppressed.

Capitalism fosters benevolence. When individuals are well-off, as would be the case for the bulk of individuals under capitalism (perhaps only those currently receiving special treatment from some government body would be the exception), they have time and money to take care of others. Further, if they have the right to keep what they have worked for and dispose of it in the way they choose, they are more likely to embrace helping people in need and give more than if their money is forcibly taken from them by the government via taxation. For instance, you might already donate money to your local homeless shelter, food pantry or to an organization working for a cause that is very important to you. But if you were not taxed as heavily as you are, you might be willing and able to donate more.

Capitalism makes everyone richer. Even the least well-off person in a developed country today lives a life of luxury beyond the wildest dreams of the richest kings centuries ago: consider televisions, computers, iPods, cell phones, microwaves, cars, washing machines, or air conditioning. Compare how poor people live in the United States today to how they lived in the US a hundred years ago, or to how they live in Third World countries today. In fact, capitalism is our best hope for alleviating and eventually eradicating poverty worldwide because it creates more wealth — for everyone — than any other social system.

Capitalism promotes peace. Capitalist countries are less likely than non-capitalist countries to initiate violence against their citizens or against other countries. Where people come together for mutually beneficial interaction such as trade, issues of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation are less important. What matters is whether you can offer me the kinds of goods and services I want for the price I am willing to pay.

Previous | Next | All Memes (upcoming)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Enjoy Capitalism!

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: capitalism, economics, memes, money, morality, socialism, trade

Related Content:

• Economics Has the Answer: What’s the Question? (0)
• Churches and the Social Order (0)
• What are we so worried about again? (3)
• Universal Health Care is the new Post Office (3)
• The Nobility of the Bourgeoisie (0)

A well-functioning environment adds to the welfare of human beings. Most people want to breathe fresh air and drink clean water; to relax in abundant parks and green forests; and to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. These same folks think that a diversity of plants and animals is important and are awed and inspired by the sheer beauty of untouched places of nature. But human beings also need to survive, and for that they need the resources nature has to offer. Keeping the environment in good shape while still utilizing its resources for the well-being of humanity is a complex and challenging task. Yet, to decrease the world’s population, to oppose technology, or to call for governments to pass new laws and mandates is not the solution. Government policies cannot mimic the dynamism and spontaneity present in the market, and, in fact, more often than not create perverse and unintended consequences. The solution to environmental concerns is not for more government intervention but for the application of a free market approach, which encapsulates entrepreneurship, property rights, and voluntary transactions.

Why using free markets to solve environmental problems makes the most sense: Free markets best allocate scarce resources. Free markets are based on property rights. When a resource is held in common and owned by no one in particular, people tend to exploit it because they want to get the most out of it before everyone else. For example, when a forest is held in common (i.e. anyone can use it) you will try to log as many trees as you can, before the next person comes along. That person will think the same way you do, and the next person, etc., until eventually all trees are logged. And, you have no reason to plant new trees because you have no control over who logs them. On the other hand, if you own the forest, then you have control over its use and an incentive to preserve the value you derive from it. So, you might replace the trees you log because your forest is a long-term investment for your business success. Or, you might even decide that logging is not as profitable and make your forest a recreation spot, where people pay a fee to camp, hike and enjoy nature. Property rights also give you the ability to defend yourself against polluters and hold them accountable for their actions. For instance, in England and Scotland, if you are a commercial fisher or sport angler, you own fishing rights; if a factory pollutes the waters you fish in, you can seek relief in court. Privately held fishing rights also prevent the depletion of fish because fishers want to stay in business and thus have a vested interest not to over fish. So, clearly a system of private, rather than public ownership, better protects resources.

Free markets can better increase standards of living and protect the environment. Some radical environmentalists are opposed to the flourishing and advancement of human life because they believe that the progress of humans necessarily entails the destruction of nature. They would prefer the destruction of industrial civilization and the eradication of most of mankind. Most people rightly find this position morally abhorrent. Of course, we have to take into consideration that natural resources are not unlimited and that we cannot gratuitously destroy nature since we rely on it for our well-being. The answer lies in technology. Technological innovation arises out of the quest of producers to use resources more efficiently and effectively. But there is little incentive for innovation if people can’t derive any profit from their labor. The free market spurs innovation because it is based on voluntary action and exchange, and it provides the proper incentives. For instance, consider digitalization. It was driven by a quest of producers and consumers to speed up communication and save costs by reducing the use of paper and the use of energy in connection with the production and use of paper, such as the energy needed to log trees, transport and process the wood, make paper and print books, transport paper and paper products to office supply stores and books to local bookstores, etc.

Digitalization was a win-win for humans and trees. Pollution and unsustainable exploitation of natural materials can be solved by technological innovation. In fact, innovation often actually reduces the use of raw materials derived from nature. In his book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich argued that the growth of the world’s population would soon outpace the supply of food and resources. So, in 1980 Julian Simon made a famous wager with Ehrlich on how the prices of various commodity metals would change over the next 10 years up to 1990 (a price increase would reflect scarcity in supply). Simon bet the prices would go down, Ehrlich bet that the prices would go up. Even though the world’s population experienced the largest increase in history during the 1980s, the prices of all the metals the two men had bet on went down and Simon won the wager.

Government environmental regulations fail. Market failure, as is often alleged, is not the problem. The problem is that governments prevent or meddle with markets for natural resources. And, whereas markets punish or reward businesses with profits and losses, bureaucrats are not held accountable in the same way. They incur no punishment for wasting resources or reward for using them efficiently; they get to keep their jobs either way. As a result, government environmental regulations usually either fail outright or incur unintended consequences. Consider the case of scenic areas such as parks and forest preserves. When they are owned by the government, user fees are kept so low (by taxing folks who may never visit the park) that private owners are not able to compete and thus don’t consider it profitable to own a scenic area. And, government owned parks are often less well maintained. At the beginning of the 20th century, Seattle, WA had a privately owned park that was beautifully maintained and enjoyed by thousands of people every day. But the local government decided that it would not take the risk of the next private owner being less attentive to the park. Shortly after it condemned and took over the property, the park’s condition deteriorated. Another example of failed environmental regulation is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which says that if you have an endangered species on your land, you face stringent regulations as to how (if at all) you can use it. This has resulted in the 3-S treatment (shoot, shovel, and shut-up) to avoid regulations imposed by the government.

Government ownership of property causes more pollution. If public ownership of natural resources, scenic areas, and watersheds is such a good idea, why don’t environmentalists point to examples of such utopias under communist regimes (where private property was abolished?) Because communist countries, absent of free markets, have been some of the worst environmental offenders. In many Eastern bloc countries factory fumes caused the death of entire forests. Whole water bodies, such as the Aral and Caspian Seas, were contaminated with factory waste or diverted for irrigation, destroying the natural habitat of many species of plant and animals. The air pollution was often so bad that people had to drive with their lights on during the day to see the road, and the lack of clean air caused major health problems. About communist China, Thomas DiLorenzo writes in the March 1992 issue of The Freeman: “Depletion of government-owned forests has turned them into deserts, and millions of acres of grazing and farm land in the northern Chinese plains were made alkaline and unproductive during the ‘Great Leap Forward’ [of 1958 to 1960].” Similarly, in the United States, the public sector, meaning government, has been a major source of pollution. The Department of Defense produces 750,000 tons of hazardous waste each year—more than what the five largest private chemical companies in the U.S. produce combined.

Previous | Next | All Memes (upcoming)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Earth Liberation

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: economics, environment, free market, memes, regulations

Related Content:

• Why the Free Market Rocks, Reason #497… (4)
• Who Else Wants to Be a Good Steward? (1)
• The Nobility of the Bourgeoisie (0)
• Perspectives on Religion and Capitalism (2)
• Obama’s First 100 Days: Madmen, Blunders, Death Defined (1)

Communism is the vision of an egalitarian society with common ownership of property. Karl Marx, the father of communism, stated that the prevailing capitalist environment is responsible for class struggle and inequality among people. He believed that people’s lives are determined by their economic environment and in order to achieve the communist utopia, that environment has to be changed. For this change to occur, the working class (proletariat) must overthrow the existing regime, dismantle all capitalist institutions, and eliminate the possibility of a counterrevolution by the merchant class (bourgeoisie). Then, as a necessary pre-stage to communism, a socialist authoritarian government must be established to take complete control over the means of production—natural resources, infrastructure, tools, financial capital, and labor. Once people are thoroughly conditioned by this new structure they will morph into a “higher” man. Soon, government will wither away and in its place will emerge the stateless, egalitarian society that communists envisage. This may sound good in theory to some, but the communist experiments of the 20th century resulted in economic deprivation and murder on a massive scale.

Communism kills. Marx knew that winning the revolution would not be enough. He penned that “so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it…it must still use a measure of force, hence governmental measures.” Lenin purged his ideological rivals, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries. Stalin, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Castro, and Mao all eliminated whoever they suspected of opposing their regimes, whether by deporting dissidents to slave labor camps, subjecting them to sham trials in which the forgone conclusion was a “guilty” verdict and execution, or simply murdering them outright. In all, even according to conservative estimates, communist regimes have killed at least 150 million people. Not too peaceful…

Communism prohibits private property. As Marx saw it, private property is the primary cause of man’s alienation from his social nature and a limitation on his freedom: "The right of property is therefore, the right to enjoy one’s fortunes and dispose of it as he will; without regard for other men and independently of society…It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own liberty." Marx agreed that private property is the basis of the capitalist system, creating enormous wealth and economic progress; but he claimed that such wealth and progress is limited to a small class of rich merchants at the expense of a large class of poor workers. But, as classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke argued, private property is essential to securing man’s natural rights to life and liberty. Think about it: the right to life is the right to live, and to live in the way you choose; the right to liberty is the right to pursue what you need to survive and live a good life, so long as it does not entail violating the rights of someone else to do the same.

However, if the needs of others are the determinant of how much food, shelter, or clothing you are allowed to have or of the profession you may pursue—then, ultimately, your life depends on whoever can claim to have a greater need than you. That’s not freedom; that’s slavery.

Communism is full of contradictions:

• Communists claimed that their philosophy would outdo capitalism economically because it promotes the good of all rather than the narrow self-interest of a few greedy capitalists. Yet, if being self-interested means that one acts according to a set of values that one holds and wants to realize, then communism itself could not be implemented without self-interest. Capitalist economies far surpassed communist ones in wealth, evident by the fact that the least-well-off in the former have a greater standard of living than all but the top echelon of government officials in the latter. To achieve the economic growth necessary to alleviate poverty, productivity and innovation are key, both of which depend on the proper incentives. Under capitalism people get to keep and dispose of what they have produced, which gives them an incentive to produce and innovate more. This is absent under communism.
• Communist leaders hailed their societies as beacons for a more just, abundant society. Yet, one only needs to look at how people voted with their feet to know that was not true; many willingly risked death to escape the devastatingly brutal conditions of communist countries to obtain a better life in capitalist countries. Moreover, in areas once seen as “breadbaskets” of the world, communism (and the disallowance of private property) brought mass famine, as was seen in Russia in the early 1920s and in China in the late 1950s.
• Communists stated that their philosophy is ethically superior to classical liberalism and capitalism because it seeks to abolish inequality. Under communism, they claim, everybody is equally provided for but in reality only those in power (bureaucrats and party honchos) win while everybody else loses. The only level of equality reached by the common man is in the shared level of misery.

Next | All Memes (upcoming)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Communism Kills

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: capitalism, communism, economics, ethics, history, Marx

Related Content:

• Myths America Lives By – Richard Hughes (0)
• Defending Freedom and the Free Society (0)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• Rabbi Hillel the Elder, the Credit Crunch, and the Bailout (0)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Fear the Boom and Bust: Hayek vs. Keynes

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: business cycle, economics, Hayek, keynesianism, money, video

Related Content:

• What are we so worried about again? (3)
• The Full Socialization of America is Nigh (0)
• Ron Paul’s "End the Fed" Now Available! (3)
• Paul Krugman: Stop Talking Please (0)
• Panderer to Power: The True Story of Alan Greenspan (1)

Our group from the Libertarian Longhorns (and Robert Butler, executive director of LP-Texas) left Austin around 6am on Saturday, January 23, to make sure we arrived in time to get a decent seat. Robert volunteered his vehicle, and so I didn’t have to drive. We talked up the LP’s plans and upcoming events on the drive to Houston and back.

Upon arrival, we had the privilege to meet some really neat  people. I happened to run across a few LCC readers as well, like Yvonne Kelly (on the far left of the group picture). Tom Woods said hello as he walked in, and I briefly spoke with Lew Rockwell as well while drinking some coffee.

The theme of the day was "the failure of Keynesianism" — appropriate considering our current political situation, wouldn’t you say? Doug French was the first speaker. For some reason I have lost my notes, but his topic was "Bank Failures in a Keynesian World." What was most interesting to me about his talk was the striking parallels of the circumstances preceding "the lost decade" and the circumstances we are now experiencing in the United States. One can only hope that failed policies would be remembered, but alas and alack it’s politics not wisdom that we deal with.

Tom Woods spoke about "Keynesian Predictions vs. American History." Did you know that as World War 2 was coming to a close, policy makers were concerned that the soldiers coming home would overwhelm the economy and that a new depression would ensue. How wrong they were: 1946 was the single greatest year for the American economy ever. I also enjoyed his ransacking of Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman.

Before lunch we enjoyed hearing the beloved Congressman Ron Paul. His principal point was simply that a true revolution is philosophic in nature. This is most certainly true, and the Austrian School of Economics is at the forefront of this change. Dr. Paul touched on many topics, but as he likes to do he focused on monetary policy and foreign policy. He made specific mention of the importance of auditing the Federal Reserve. He said that once audited, two well-kept secrets will be brought into the open once again: (1) that the Fed frequently bails out friends via the discount window (Fed short term loans), and (2) that the Fed has many international activities unaccounted for. Thus, we find monetary policy is also connected to foreign policy as well. Call me conspiratorial if you must, but the CIA’s funding goes beyond Congress – it’s tied to the Fed as well. Best quote from Ron: "Quite frankly, in a Constitutional Republic, you would not have a CIA."

Lew Rockwell was our final speaker for the day on "Economics and Moral Courage." He noted that although in many ways we are quite free (such as the freedom of the internet), we are also having much freedom taken away from us little by little. Moreover, as more freedom is stolen from us, people are more frequently not able to envision how freedom actually works. They simply do not have experience in understanding cause and effect. In truth, this is due to the "banality of evil," something small that ekes its way into public life. For example, the acceptance of a wrong premise about the role of government in life can be a first step toward more and more government control, leading finally to totalitarianism. What begins with banality, ends in bloodshed.

Overall, I’d say it was a great day…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Mises Circle Houston Recap

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Austrian School, economics, free market, free society, freedom, history, keynesianism, Mises Institute, Ron Paul

Related Content:

• What We Can Learn from Spaghetti Sauce (2)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)
• The Nobility of the Bourgeoisie (0)
• Ron Paul: Get out of Afghanistan NOW! (0)
• Ron Paul’s "End the Fed" Now Available! (3)

Just the act of answering questions like this means that somebody, somewhere is probably going to hear the libertarian perspective, perhaps even for the first time. Here is the questionnaire and my answers. See what you think and comment about what you would have said. You can help me improve for next time!

Q1: Since the State financial support for education has decreased over the past two decades, what measures would you support to provide our public schools with adequate funding? (75 words)

A: Public school funding is not a sufficient metric for successful education efforts. Many private schools and homeschooling families operate on extremely low budgets yet educate children at a disproportionately high level relative to public schools. Rather than focus on increasing funding, I would support measures that give back control of educational resources to teachers and parents first. Eliminating systemic problems caused by political control of education should always take precedence over funding.

Q2: Texas is recognized as the highest carbon dioxide polluter among the 50 states. What would you propose to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Texas? (75 words)

A: Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced using many methods that do not resort to increasing the government’s control over the economy. Clean vehicle purchases can be encouraged by repealing all taxes and tariffs upon high-efficiency vehicles. Tax deductions should exist for efficiency improvements, upgrades, and repairs on older vehicles, and those purchases should be tax-free. Alternative energy subsidies should be eliminated; the free market will determine how to allocate energy resources most efficiently.

Q3: How would you address the major transportation problems in Texas? (75 words)

A: The Trans-Texas Corridor scheme proposed by Rick Perry is a scam, and the government’s general effort to manage transportation in Texas is a failure. If an effective, inexpensive solution is sought, the government should reduce its role in managing the system. By allowing private roads to develop freely and competitively upon the market (not like the pseudo-public-private toll roads that TXDOT has built), transportation problems will invariably begin to solve themselves.

Q4: How should Texas solve the depletion of the unemployment fund? (75 words)

A: Ultimately, the unemployment fund can have no other effect than the perpetuation of unemployment since financial resources are used to allow idleness rather than productive activity. Instead of worrying about the depletion of the unemployment fund, the government should work in every way to reduce its own spending, thereby allowing the free market to adjust resources and capital toward creating new jobs without interference by the government.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Why being a candidate can be beneficial for liberty

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: activism, economics, elections, philosophy, pollution, public schools, transportation, unemployment

Related Content:

• Who Else Wants to Be a Good Steward? (1)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• New Site: Libertarian Papers (7)
• My Journey Through Liberty (6)
• Defending Freedom and the Free Society (0)