-
There's not a right way and a wrong way to learn economics, just do it and never stop. Sometimes you should study history and sometimes you should study philosophy too. Personally I like the audiobook recordings and hundreds of recorded lectures available for free on this website, right from the mouths of Rothbard and Mises. I don't necessarily
-
Because obviously they believe that some of their assets valued in fiat currency or some of the debts owed in fiat currencies are too risky so they hedge their bets against inflation, just like any investor would. They can force the citizens to trade in their designated currency but they don't have to follow the same rules
-
Just about your last sentence, "the market will overcome price controls"- yes but at what cost? Honest people might die or starve in the process, criminals with machine guns will take over the black markets. People might resort to eating grass and insects if there are food shortages.There might even be wars instigated by the state to force
-
I am not sure I understand where your question is coming from Jargon. Are you implying that there are certain kind if incomes that are "just" and others that are "unjust" based on some formula where you decide what perntage of it is earned by labor? Are you following Marxian theory that land owners control everything and therefore
-
Ross, do you seriously believe that there is a room full of pencil pushers that sit around and determine prices? The marketr determine prices and buyers and sellers watch the market. A buyer and seller agree on a price and the buyer then finds a profitable use for the product or not. Tomorrow he decides it wasn't worth it and he refuses to pay the
-
Flying Axe, In my opinion you are co-mingling two different arguments. One question might be what do Murray Rothbard and Hoppe believe is the correct response to a sane and coherent person who is able to distinguish right from wrong, who: a. attempts murder and/or b. succeeds at murder. You scenario assumes that after two or three strikes your transgressor
-
Neodoxy, No, I think I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. Bastiat said long ago, that the difference between a good economist and a bad economist is: the second only takes anto consideration "that which is seen" (like the hospitals and bridges built by government) And the good economist considers all the effects, before
-
Whoaaa hold the boat Neodoxy. Are you saying that robbing Peter to pay Paul will increase capital, provided Paul uses the money to do something "useful" according to your definition? You leave out the good old broken window fallacy. What is the hidden cost? Firstly, in order to have the dollars to "improve the lives of citizens"
-
OK just at the outset I have issues with "negative homesteading" and "libertarian law" That is before we even come to the point of Block having to assume the scenario happens on unowned land- that is like Chicagoans having to assume an evenly rotating economy for their study to be relevant. Or for chess players to discuss how the
-
Whoa there Aristophanes.... seesh such temper If everybody knew everything there would be no need for this forum,. we would just all agree. Besides his question was not what are "excess reserves" but he was asking what Wheylous meant. On these forums, that these "corporate profits" have not been reinvested to grow the economy because