[rt]

“The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.”
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Also look:
http://mises.org/daily/3660
https://mises.org/daily/4641

[rt]

I like LC a lot, especially the Forum!
I like listening to LC-Lectures during bus/train rides on the way to school and when I’m going for a run. I’d suggest to improve the audio and video quality which could be a lot better. I’m happy with the content and everything else!

[rt]

He mentioned Apple, Microsoft, Monsanto and a european cartel called “Schienenfreunde” (friends of railroads). I pointed out that there is in fact competition in those areas, that these corporations are improving their products but that their “monopoly” is caused by Intellectual Property laws. Hence, they are not operating in the free market. After a little research I found out that the cartel was broken up because one company undercut the fixed price. So I asked him again to name a company that has achieved a monopoly over a long term without help from the government and he was unable to name one… Anyway, thanks for the resources!

[rt]

Here’s Kinsella on argumentation ethics:
http://mises.org/daily/5322/

[rt]

You might be looking for this. I haven’t read though: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/argumentation-ethics/

And here’s a critic by Robert Murphy:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

[rt]

Okay, thank you!

[rt]

Okay I think I understand!

[rt]

Thanks but I guess I have difficulties understanding how a change of the interest rate in general has effects the particular prices of already existing capital goods.
Imagine an entrepreneur during the boom who buys a machine that generates products worth $1000. If the interest rate is 2%, the present value of this machine is $10,000 – 2% = $9800. Let’s say the interest rate rises to 10%.
How does this increased interest rate decrease the present value of the mentioned type of machine? What are the changes in supply and demand that change the price?

[rt]

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Good
Starting at minute 23 somewhere Joe Salerno speaks about goods, means and the preconditions for a good to be called a good.

Maybe this helps a little bit

[rt]

If the people denouncing machinery were right, humanity would have started out with 0% unemployment. But with inventions such as the wheel, factories, steam engine, railroads etc. etc. unemployment would have increased steadily and we would be at 70% unemployment right now, no? History shows empirical evidence that over the long term the argument against machinery is false.

[rt]

I agree with you, the documentary “Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve” contains so much information of books like “What has government done to our money” and “The Case against the Fed”. You get to know so much in a short period of time.

[rt]

Thanks Tom and Jeff. I’ll try to read the material you mentioned in the near future!

[rt]

If the government accumulates debt, it has to borrow money. The resources that are used to finance government spending are dragged from the private productive sector into the public sector. These resources cannot be used to finance private investment which is a lot better for the economy than government spending. Moreover, if the government borrows a lot of money, there’s less money available to be loaned out to private individuals and companies which leads to higher interest rates which makes private investment less profitable.

If the government monetizes the debt, the debt is payed by new money created by the Central Bank (in the US the FED). In that case, the money supply increases, the value of the currency falls, prices rise etc. The interest rates might be forced down and trigger an unsustainable boom.

The government might default on it but then spending has to be cut dramatically because nobody will lend money to the government in the future. So entitlements would have to be cut and austerity measures implemented.
If it is payed back, then the government will have to collect more taxes in the future which sucks more resources out of the private sector.

[rt]

Thank You for all your kind replies. I’ll get back to you soon with a bigger reply and I’ll check out the video behind the link!

[rt]

Without the Federal Reserve, government deposit insurance and other regulations the reserve ratio set by the market would probably be very high (perhaps though not 100%). This would probably be the case if fractional reserve banking was legal.

But there’s a great debate among Austrians if FRB should also be legally prohibited because it can be considered fraudulent and an infringement of property rights. If it were illegal, a 100% reserve ratio would be required.

(A bank following a 100% reserve ratio, would not be able to create money out of thin air and thus increase the money supply.

I’m sure you can find articles on this topic on mises.org

I’ve never heard of endogenous money and I’ve read lots of Austrian literature. The Wikipedia Article on endogenous money states that the concept was explained by Irving Sisher, a neo-classical economist, not an Austrian.

I’m not sure about the second part of your questions. It seems to me you’re confusing the scenario in the example with fractional reserve banking. (I’m also not sure if a store would accept the ‘credit money’.)

In the case of FRB, if I deposit $500 in a bank and the reserve requirement ratio is 20%, then the bank can loan out additional $400 (80% of $500). I would be able to withdraw the $500 from my checking account. The receiver of the $400 credit loan is of course also able to spend that money. So the money supply has increased from $500 to $900. If the loan is payed back, the money supply shrinks back to $500.

I hope I could help a little bit

[Author]

Posts