Mises Community Archive: Unanswered Threads

2 issues/questions on Free Trade vs Protectionism

LandJ — Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:38:41 GMT

Hello everyone. I have two questions on economics and especially on International Trade: Free trade vs Protectionism. I would appreciate it if you could help me understand. (they are beginner's questions) - Subject A Suppose there are two countries, USA and Japan who produce the same cars at market price 10,000$. US government impose a 10% tariff on Japanese cars to protect US car industry and now Japanese cars cost 11,000$. Now Americans buy american cars because they are cheaper. Market law says, that when supply decreases the price increases. So, US producers will increase their prices up to 11,000$ for more profit. Thus, US consumers are harmed by this tariff. My Question: Why US producers (after the decrease of competition) will increase the price of their cars? If they rise the price of their cars from 10,000$ to 11,000$ they will immediatelly put again in the game of competition the Japanese car producers (although their cars have been imposed with tariffs). And the market share will be shared among US and Japan car producers again. So, how we are sure that the market law (price increases when supply decreases and demand remain stable or increases), will work in this case? - Subject B I watched a video of Milton Friedman who said that it is good for USA to import Japanese products, because Japanese who now will have in their hands american dollars, will use them to buy/import US products. In other words, imports of Japanese products to USA, in the long run create/fund the exports of US products to Japan. My question: Why the Japanese producer who exported his products to USA, having american dollars will use them to buy/import US products? He can go to a bank in his place, exchange the american dollars with Yen and buy Japanese products. So, how Friedman is so sure that the Japanese exporter later will buy/import US products, and thus stimulate US exports? Thank you all.

Praxeological Science — Group (Mises Forum of Old)

Conza88 — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:27:35 GMT

Hi team, Everyone is welcome to join the discussion here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/286974241416271/

A liberty minded group created to foster discussions about praxeology—the science of human action. All interested parties are welcome. No special education is required to participate though it is hoped that members of this group are familiar with the writings of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

— Housekeeping —

There is a plethora of pages, websites, and blogs that cater to general libertarian and Austrian Economics content. Whilst incredibly valuable they have their place elsewhere. This group aims to specialise in discussions specifically related to praxeology—the science of human action...

What have Austrians been wrong about?

Austen — Wed, 08 May 2013 03:36:55 GMT

1. What have Austrians been wrong about in general?

2. What have Austrians wrongly predicted?

3. What have Austrians wrongly predicted that Keynesians have correctly predicted?

Did the Obama administration ever change the way unemployment is calculated?

Phriend — Sat, 04 Oct 2014 23:36:33 GMT

Is there any evidence that the Obama administration has further changed the way unemployment is calculated (to make the numbers look better)?

Demand creates Supply or Supply creates Demand?

LandJ — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:29:40 GMT

Since I am new in free market economics, I do not understand something. Others claim that Demand creates Supply (Keynsians or am I wrong?), while Austrian economics say that Supply creates Demand*.

Can someone explain this to me, please?

If Demand creates Supply is wrong? If so, why? Let's say for example, there is an entrepreneur who understood that increasing muslim population lead to increasing demand for burgas. Then, he opens a small factory to produce and sell burgas. This is a scenario that could happen in real world. Isn't this a proof that indeed Demand creates Supply?

And apart from the above, in a free market consumers are the "kings". They decide what will be produced, when, how, in what quality and quantity etc. Doesn't this illustrate the "Demand creates Supply" viewpoint?

*If I am wrong about the Austrian position in this, please inform me.

Illegal Drugs and China

LandJ — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:32:45 GMT

Hi.
I would like your opinion about war on drugs, and especially in China. A friend of mine told me that although in China laws about production, distribution and use of drugs are extremelly strict, China achieved to vanish or keep those activities in very low percentages. I don't know where did he read that, but what's your opinion about China and illegal drugs? Do you have information that and in China illegal drugs exist?

Quick Question

Gavin23 — Thu, 09 May 2013 19:25:58 GMT

Hello all got a really quick question hope you can help me out with.

As I understand it many Anarcho Capitalists and even many Minarchists do not support the concept of Intellectual Property. I tend to agree with that.

What is there view then on other intangible forms of property such as various finacial instruments and securities like stocks etc? Would this not count as real property under this line of thinking?

Thanks!

Top Torrent sites Used Most often

limitgov — Fri, 10 May 2013 14:01:28 GMT

What are the top torrent sites that you or others use most often?

ka.ph - kickass torrents

isohunt.com

piratebay.org - pirate bay, of course

And of course, utorrent is the software that seems to be the best.

The more people that use these sites, the better for all of us.

Mises and Rorty quote, Aristotle tidbit, AE confession

vive la insurrection — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:35:24 GMT

I was looking through my old laptop and I found these three scraps of thoughts that were by themselves and saved:

‘The endeavors of psychology to dissolve the Ego and to unmask it as an illusion are idle"

-Mises

"hermeneutics, ‘as a polemical term in contemporary philosophy’, is a name for the attempt to set aside epistemologically centred philosophy."

-Richard Rorty

Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics said that every science should adapt its method to its object, that the object under study should determine the method of studying it.

- Source unkown (maybe my own)

I have no clue where these thoughts and quote came from, but they are almost undoubtably from the same source (be it a book, article, or interview). What they do is show an "ontological irreducability" that tends to get ignored in the onslaught of formalism and positivsm that people seem to take a sadistic pleasure in applying where it need not be applied.

There is no need to study Human Action (or history or psychology) as "man-apes": the category of "human" , "conscience", economic transaction, or "I" are irreducible unique human entities and self-justifing - and are (like it or not) based off of intersubjective relations of intelligibility and understanding - not formalistic causal approaches. This may sound like a crazy-ass Stirnerite / Husserl / Scholastic type of ontology, and it is, but the fact that it gets ignored or written off baffles the shit out of me.

In the sense that the words "objective", "naturalistic", or if they are really stupid "mechanistic" are used (there are obviously many ways to use the words) by "scientism" type of people in the social science - they are merely flavors, and appeals to no authority greater than themsleves and the institutions that support them. Of course, that they have such an appeal: that is, that they are so popular is their biggest strength - but that is the only point they have (and it is a legit and strong point).

Even still, and this is something I realized quite early in my life, whatever statistics or graph a social scientist uses to call a fact - is not a fact: it is a specific orientation with an interpretation of facts that is presented: this leads to the obvious question: why is it done in such a way, and why is it supposed to be my concern?

What I realize:

I am almost certainly not a "Rothbardian-Misean" in the way people of Mises.org are, and I think this post just declared that fact. While I obviously started with Mises.org type of reading for heterodox economics, even early on I noticed certain tensions in my thought (chiefly on the nature of applications of subjectivity, determinism, equilibrium, institutions: basically my inherent Aristotelianism and Lachmannia). EIther way, in total sum over the past 2 - 3 years, I have read "Mises.org" types less than other Austrians, Lachmannites, Post-Keynesians. Not that that means much, because I'm not a professional social scientist or philosopher - and I am still prone to forgetting and even misreading basic basic concepts some times (as I am not utilizing this info for anything other than long term personal amusment).

Other than Lachmann and Weber: in so much as I can gauge and grasp things I have an underdeveloped appreciation for: aspects of the "historical school, Keynes (gasp!), Hayek, Institutional Economics, Post Keynesianism, and certainly George Shackle.

Does immigration explain most of the inequality in the OECD states?

Asgeir Ingvarsson — Mon, 06 May 2013 14:56:27 GMT

Hi all. This is my first post in the Mises community.

I am fishing for resources and leads (and thoughts) for my Masters dissertation at the LSE.

I will be exploring a theory I have about how immigration might be the main factor in explaining differing levels of inequality in the OECD states.

As it turns out immigrants tend to mostly enter the workforce from the bottom (unskilled labor) and the top (specialists, investors, billionaires) and would therefore tend to pull at the income distribution curve at both ends.

I produced a scatter chart of the OECD states comparing Gini-scores and migration levels and found a somewhat obvious correlation. There are a few outliers, but those appear to be countries that have a different composition of immigrants than the other OECD states.

To my surprise it seems that the immigration variable has not been properly studied before and it is proving to be quite a challenge to find material to support or refute my theory.

Thus far one of the best hints I've gotten ponted me towards german journalist Olaf Gerseman who wrote about the subject in a book of his and apparently proved that if you factor in immigration it turns out that inequality becomes the same among developed nations.

If it turns out my theory is correct I'm hoping that would be important news for libertarians, as it would serve to prove that the "problem" with inequality has nothing (or very little) to do with e.g. whether a country has a strong or weak welfare system.

Also, it appears that over time immigrants tend to slowly move closer to locals in wages and education, so the individuals move up the inome ladder, effectively lifting themselves up from the bottom of the inequality curve. I've found data from the US that shows that by the second generation immigrants have become completely normalized with regards to education. So looking at the progression of the individual inequality starts to not seem like such a big problem.

Here's a link to an image of the scatter chart showing how inequality tends to rise as the inflow of migrants rises. http://imgur.com/0h8iX1A

I would really appreciate any comments, suggestions or reccomended readings.

Fiscal Multipliers Debunked?

ITGF — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:31:14 GMT

I recently encountered a series of youtube videos which claimed to find errors in the logic and algebra underpinning Keynesian economics.

Excuse me for being sceptical, but I think its strange that it has taken 75 yrs to find these flaws. Surely if they existed, it would be well known by now? Below is a link to one of these videos. Has the author found a previously unknown flaw? Or is this well-known? Or has the author, in fact, got it completely wrong?

Pt. 2: Fiscal Multiplier Destroyed: Keynes' Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encPMexUm8w

If you are interested, here is the full list of videos:

The Maynard Keynes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA67E8jMq84&NR=1

Pt. 1: Fiscal Multiplier Debunked and Destroyed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vnus-Kw5Is&NR=1

Pt. 3: Fiscal Multiplier Destroyed: The Other Multiplier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZDIZ1U7gEk

Pt. 4: Fiscal Multiplier Destroyed: The Chain Reaction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1AVThNZuR4

Pt. 5: Consumption Function & Keynesian Cross Destroyed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bmsYNnS2MA

Pt. 6: Government Spending Multiplier Destroyed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHa-HE7Olq0

Pt 7: Tax Cut Multiplier Destroyed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oUMjJKQkkQ

Pt 8: Balanced Budget Multiplier Swindle - Keynesian Asymmetries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZL_1L9r-T4

Pt 9: Keynesian Logic - Apples, Oranges, Asses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XErrpJHaExA

Pt 10: Keynesian Asymmetry and "Other Multiplier" Revisited
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=684WIoQP6XQ

What are the main Austrian criticisms of government regulation?

WallStreetAce — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:08:16 GMT

Hi all,

I'm relatively new to Austrian economics, but truly believe in all of its principles and have come to love it. Most of the time, I am able to state the reasons why government shouldn't set price controls, minimum wages, inflate the money supply etc. However, as of late I've been at a loss as to how to explain from an Austrian POV why government regulations aren't needed and cause more harm to the economy than good.

With that said, I was recently debating a friend of mine who was vehemently in favor of nearly all government regulations. He said that without them businesses would create shoddy products to cut costs, causing death and injury to their customers in the process. He went on to say that without government regulations there would be no industry standards, and that nothing would be uniform across certain sectors and lines of business, again causing injury and chaos. After he said these things, I used Rothbard's argument that regulations impose a cost on a producer that has yet to do anything wrong, and as a result are illegitimate. I also told him that in a completely free society without government controls, the market would regulate itself and those companies with shoddy products killing people would be weeded out because consumers would shift to the ones who don't create such products. He told me that such a world view is a fantasy, and that firms can't be trusted to make good products if all they're relying on is cutting costs to make a profit, and that you can't wait for people to die in order to do something. He ended by saying: "If you can save people's lives with a simple safety standard why wouldn't you be in favor of that? What, you don't want to save people's lives? What's wrong with you?". I then just lost it and threw up my arms in disgust.

So, with that said, can someone please educate me further on the Austrian criticisms of government regulations, why they are not needed in a free market and why they cause more harm than good? Because every time I tell people that I'm against regulation of any kind, they look at me like I need to be put into a mental institution. Like the guy I just quoted, they then say how bad things were before the regulatory state we now live in and give the usual stupid arguments in favor of them. Any links to works by either Mises, Rothbard or Hayek on the subject would be great. I could really use some study materials.

Thanks a lot!

Higher Order Goods and Interest Rate Sensitivity

Jargon — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:21:40 GMT

I'm having trouble with the notion of the higher order capital goods being more interest rate sensitive. For instance, it makes sense that a segment of production which is capital intensive is sensitive to interest rates. If the rate of interest is too high in the perspective of an entrepeneur he will not invest in the needed capital. And it seems intuitive that higher order processes are more capital intensive just from observation of an economy. Burger flippers basically just need a grill and a restaurant, more of the costs are in labor, whereas griddle/frier producers require a complex array of machinery and tools for the fixing thereof. But what is the reason that the segment of production furthest from the final good is necessarily the most interest rate sensitive?

For example, if we're producing HomeDepot miniShacks, the entire process might go like this: logging->cutting->treating->assembling->transporting->selling. How is it necessarily the case that logging is more capital intensive and thus interest rate sensitive than treating wood with chemicals?

The standard explanation is that higher order goods are furthest from the final good and so there is a longer period between the initial investment and the "payoff" - that period in which revenue starts coming in and interest can start to be paid off. But the producer of higher order goods does not have to wait for the demand from the final good producer; due to the forward-looking nature of entrepeneurship, a producer of a good "one level" beneath him will buy that highest order good to satisfy his own business plan. This is ultimately dependent on how much of the final good is bought from what is produced, but the point is that the producer of the highest order good is not deprived of revenue for a greater period of time (or at least not the period of time it takes for one "round" of production to occur). He can sell his good to the next producer down the line. So what in Bohm-Bawerk's laws makes it completely implausible/impossible that the segment of production "beneath" him is less capital intensive? Or am I not conceiving of this issue correctly?

It occurred to me that producers in those segments furthest from the final good will be more subject to both time lag and more layers of entrepeneurial failure/success. Mises might call this the higgling of the market. But it doesn't seem a compelling reason that, granting abstention from consumption and reallocation of said absentions into the loan market, process N's frontier of production will necessarily expand greater than N-1's (N here being a 'stage' of production).

How do people/businesses get affected by the interest rate?

fakename — Fri, 03 May 2013 00:40:18 GMT

Abstract theory tells us that interest rates affect people and institutions but in my experience, (which is admittedly limited) I can't see how they do this.

Obviously the rate of interest encourages people to leave more money in the bank rather than less, however I'm not sure how that fact concretely translates into employment/unemployment or depressions/booms? For instance, the construction industry is greatly influenced by interest rates but I don't see lots of hard-hatted construction workers in banks taking out loans so I have no concrete mechanism for how this happens.

Also, how does the FED enforce its decrees on what number the interest rate should be?

Huerta de Soto and secondary deposit

Zordon — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:07:52 GMT

In his book "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles' in chapter 4 subchapter 5 he writes on page 223 (second english edition, .pdf version - http://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf) that: "ds1 represents Bank A’s secondary deposits and equals 1,219,512 m.u", while (if I correctly understand the definition) I would argue that Bank A's secondary deposits equal 1 097 560 money units and 121 952 of primary deposits (pp 218-219). Do I err or he errs?

Is the Austrian School the Creationism of Economics?

Austen — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:54:47 GMT

This guy thinks so. http://www.debate.org/forums/economics/topic/30571

What about the employees rights?

DunklenWurzeln — Wed, 01 May 2013 19:58:23 GMT

Hi everyone, this is my first thread here, and I created this account to ask the libertarian position about the employees rights. I've been reading and watching a lot of online libertarian content, I've read some Walter Block's books but still I can't seem to discover what would happen if there was no such things as the mininum wage, maximum working period, and many other benefits that workers have.

I know that the minimum wage generates unemployment, because many aren't able or don't want to pay the minimum wage for some of their employees, but the big question is, wouldn't employers abuse the lacking rights? Wouldn't we go back to the times of the first Industrial Revolution where labor conditions were precarious and inhuman? 0,5 a dollar for 18 hour shifts. Would people rather just be unemployed and not eat than work in those conditions? How would that work?

Difference between conservatives, liberals and libertarians...?

Monroe — Thu, 02 May 2013 19:14:17 GMT

I had some thoughts after hearing an interview with Allen West recently on the push for at least part of his and others sharing his political views agendas to be passed slowly but surely. It spurs the argument against Incrementalism, so I'll paste my thoughts here and hopefully start a discussion.

People often assume if a person is not liberal, they are conservative - and for a good reason. Like in many other aspects of life (say someone is not a creationist, well surely they would be an evolutionist right?), disagreement with one position tends to place you in the position furthest apart. There may be cases however, where the position you 'fall' into still upholds values that you strongly refute. This is where my argument lies, a part of conservative philosophy that could turn off those who are even so opposed to liberal philosophy is incrementalism.

You could call incrementalism gradualism and still come away with the same meaning: a policy where gradual social and economical changes bring about the preferred outcome. Think about people you know or even in your own life, specifically those who had problems with addiction. A few methods come to mind that people in an intervention might discuss. They might have been told "baby steps..." "one step at a time..." or my favorite "please tie your shoelaces before going down the st-" you get the point. This method would be known as incrementalism - a deceivingly harmless approach but one that is completely dependent upon time.

This -ism is how conservative thinkers would approach fixing the current socioeconomic problems that we so desperately need to alleviate. The key word here is "desperately" - urgency - which supports the notion of incrementalism's dependency on time.

What if your friend (or you) - the addict - was in the intervention after already being in a horrible state of mind, not just beginning to go downhill but nearing terminal velocity itself? Would taking baby steps really meet the sense of urgency required to prevent them from going beyond the point of repair? You could argue against that. So, what then could the intervention suggest?

"Cold turkey."

Interestingly enough, quitting something cold turkey might just suffice. After all, I don't think the addict needs any more examples of what might happen if he or she pursues the current path any further (which is a version of incrementalism catered toward liberal philosophers).

So how would all of this apply to America? Well, I bring up conservative and liberal thought here because they are the two primary driving forces in our country's decision making. The idea that policies implemented in the near future (2014 and onward) which promote slow, gradual changes (the kinds of changes you'll notice when you hear pundits say "this plan is a good start") can sufficiently allow for necessary recovery is a tad obsolete. Sure, implementing these changes say 40 years ago would have been manageable, but not in the present era. Likewise, the idea that continuing on our pattern of masking our debt while encouraging consumer spending as the savior of our economy is about as wise as covering a dirty bandage with a clean one.

This leaves us with a middle ground - logically speaking - where in combination of urgency, application and resource, we need to abandon the mainstream thoughts of recovery, namely incrementalism, and pursue one of a draconian nature.

Thoughts?

(ps I hope this post isn't a repeat of something similar out there, I just started posting here a couple days ago.....)

ABCT and a-priorism

Prashanth Perumal — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:52:04 GMT

I have been studying the ABCT for the past two months, and while most of the theory makes sense to me, there is one that puts me in doubt.

As argued in the ABCT, an increase in the proportion of savings against consumption leads to the addition of new stages to the production structure. What I'm skeptical about is: when we assume increase in savings would necessarily cause more roundabout methods of production to be adopted, aren't we assuming that there are more roundabout techniques of production available?

If so, shouldn't the validity of the ABCT be tested empirically rather than being asserted as an a-priori conclusion?

Consumer theory proves that P=NP?

Wheylous — Wed, 01 May 2013 18:13:09 GMT

We were learning about P and NP in computer science today. All that is relevant to the conversation is that a certain set of problems P is a subset of another set NP.

A big question is whether P=NP.

Now, it has been proved that there are certain problems in NP called NP-complete. If these NP-complete problems can be shown to be part of the set P, then all NP problems are in P.

(To those interested, P is the set of problems that can be solved in polynomial time, while NP is the set of problems that can have their solutions verified in polynomial time. Showing that P=NP proves that if you can check the solution in polynomial time, you can also solve it from scratch in polynomial time).

One of the NP-complete problems is the knapsack problem:

You have a certain number of items. You also have a knapsack. The knapsack can only carry some limited amount of weight. The different items have a certain value. The knapsack problem is to maximize the total value of the items you put in the knapsack, constrained by the maximum weight the knapsack can carry.

If this problem can be shown to be P, then all NP problems are P.

My idea is as follows:

In consumer theory in economics, we know that people solve constrained optimization problems when buying things. That is, they maximize the utility they gain from the stuff they buy, constrained by the budgets they have. This problem is equivalent to the knapsack problem. Since the human brain is just a computer, then it seems that people solve the knapsack problem quickly, which shows P=NP.

If, on the other hand, the human brain cannot solve the knapsack problem, then the field of consumer theory in economics is wrong.

The assumption of economics that must be true is that of completeness. That is, given any two bundles of goods, a person may choose between them or be indifferent.

My intuition is that people do not in fact satisfy completeness, and instead think of only a limited number of bundles that they rank.

But if people's valuation is indeed complete, then I've just proved that P=NP and should win a million dollars.

? ... ! ... =D - DIY Law Enforcement in Cash-Strapped Oregon County

Primetime — Thu, 02 May 2013 03:14:00 GMT

This needed it's own thread. Just too good

(Please visit the site to view this media)

New Austro-Libertarian Website up

Kaasproav — Wed, 01 May 2013 21:44:17 GMT

Hey everyone! My brother and I have launched our Austro-Libertarian website. I hope you check it out. It's TheGammaWave.com if you would like to write for it just email me at crdavisbourne@icloud.com . If you have any suggestions or comments also email me. Anyway I hope you check it out.

GIving Robert Christgau some love

vive la insurrection — Wed, 01 May 2013 17:41:42 GMT

For those who don't know RC is a very prominent and important rock music critic (he did Consumer's guide for the Village Voice)

I HATE HATE HATE Robert Christgau (or at least I thought I did, or at least I hated the idea of Robert Christgau, or at least his reviews still can REALLY get under my skin) - Anyway This interview was great, and I agree with almost everything he says:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102822/Concision-and-Clarity.aspx

Some cool highlights:

I: So why should publishers publish criticism if people don't buy the publications to read criticism?

RC: Because they care about good writing. I work for the Barnes & Noble Review these days, and Barnes & Noble used to be a bête noire among book lovers because they were killing the independent bookstore. I'm a socialist. But does that mean I think capitalism is bad? No.

I always tell my socialist friends rock 'n' roll would not have happened without capitalism. It is a capitalist form, and it's [one of] the best things about capitalism. Being socialist doesn't mean there's nothing good about capitalism, far from it. But I will tell you one thing I really like about capitalism: The people who make things and really care about what they make.

And the guy who owns Barnes & Noble cares about books. Similarly, the people who own magazines and newspapers should care about words.

(on Rock and Roll being good only for young artists):

It's not the music of youth. In fact, for various formal reasons, good records by people under 30 are becoming more and more unusual. That's because, I think, the creative part of that subculture is caught in the contrarian mindset to which I referred before, and is making stuff that isn't something else. And that's a much harder way to make something good. Not impossible, but harder. Not a good place to start, with the negative

Aesthetics:

I always did what I believe artists should do. Why is popular culture good? Is it good because the formulas are good? Well, sometimes the formulas are useful. However, formulas tend to be deadening. What usually happens in the best art is that somebody pushes the formula in some way, the envelope, as is now the cliché. I always kept my eye on people who I felt were working within the form but stretching the form. I thought that was the ideal for myself as well. Push the formula.

Twitter:

Twitter is not a rewriter's medium. It's a place where people say stupid things.

The Market

I: The market should not get what it wants?

RC: No, the market exists to be fucked with. When I say push the envelope, when I say push the parameters, when I say pop forms are good for people, that's the market, right

Still a couple things I hate (he wouldn't be Christgau if he didn't say something that wouldn't piss me off): like the whole moralizing aspect of criticism....still though good stuff.

And probably a cool voice to listen to from the whole "rock is dead" perspective.

where is the error with this image?

nomar — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:35:15 GMT

I know this might be very old, but based in the austrian economics theory, where is the error?

Thanks in advance and sorry for any english mistake.

Why can I access Mises.org's CMS?

abskebabs — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:34:53 GMT

To the right of the events link on the main page bar I see a link saying edit. When I click it takes me to something it says is the Mises.org Content Management System. Was this supposed to happen? I have the power to upload pdfs it seems...