@hanky:
Read these to help you get started:
http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf
Clayton -
In the newbie thread I linked earlier there’s a link to the Austrian economics links at Mises WIki, which compiles all the relevant links to “what is Austrian economics?” “What should I read first?”, etc.
As for Economics in One Lesson, there is also the PDF of the 2007 print as well at the Mises Wiki page…but as I was saying here I would go for the 1978 edition. (Which you can find a link to at the bottom of that thread).
However, as an opening text, one might actually do better with How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes or Lessons for the Young Economist. (Uncoincidentally, those are actually the three econ texts listed here):
Two books everyone must read
(one might also check out the list of reading lists)
However…Here was my
suggestions to another beginner
I was thinking about this last night and decided the truth wasn’t nearly as simplistic as my original statement let on.
When I said, paraphrased, “achieving profit is more difficult without respect for individual rights” I had in mind the overall reduction in wealth for people as a whole that occurs without the respect for rights. This is what I think we would both agree with.
However, we weren’t really talking about people as a whole; we were talking about personal profit and the pursuit thereof. In that case, you’re closer to the truth in your quote above than I was. For some people it is easier without a respect for individual rights. For there to be an overall reduction of wealth, however, that also means for some people it is harder. Enough so that it more than makes up for the benefits granted to the first group.
It is the political class (those using aggressive violence as their means) that has an easier time profiting and it is the rest (those using peaceful production and trade as their means, as though they were still operating in a free market) that are being leached from, to the overall detriment of everyone but for the immediate advancement of the political class.
The greater the ability of the political class to confiscate wealth, then, the better it should be to be part of that class and the worse it should be to be outside of that group. So, we should see these effects over time:
- Wealth and wealth growth should slow, stagnate, or reverse at a rate commensurate with the relative power and pervasiveness of the political class.
- People’s desire for political action should steadily increase as it presents the optimal way to pursue self interest (at least immediately).
- As the political method is more centralized (wealth flows through fewer channels than in a free market), we should see profits concentrate in the hands of relatively few as well.
This is basic stuff that we all more or less were aware of already, but I had not previously reached these conclusions from a similar starting point so I thought it would be worth posting my train of thought.
Environmentalism is the new reason to have (national) socialism, following the utter defeat of socialism in the intellectual battle over how to create material prosperity. A century ago pretty much everyone assumed that material prosperity can’t come about “by itself” through markets, you need the state to engineer that! That’s why countries like Russia, China and most of Africa attempted to state engineer their material prosperity. We know how that worked out. Much hardship and decades of lost progress later the empirical evidence is out: capitalism won.
But instead of admitting defeat, the (national) socialists simply changed their argument. “Ok, maybe capitalism is better to create material prosperity, but to protect the environment we still need socialism!”. So now the entire propaganda machinery - state school, tv - has been geared towards selling the myth that free markets spoil the environment and we urgently need more (national) socialism to fix that. And now everyone believes that producing a clean environment is somehow economically different than producing any other good or service.
Everybody just assumes - without evidence - that socialism is better at conserving resources and cleaning up the environment than market liberalism. But that belief absolutely isn’t supported by the empirical evidence. Just look at the world, where do they have growing forests, and progressively cleaner air and water? In the most capitalist countries; e.g. Britain, the US, Germany, France. And where do they have deteriorating environments? In all those failed (national) socialist countries; e.g. China, Haiti, Africa. The empirical evidence is crystal clear: Capitalism is good for the environment, socialism is not. In fact, most environmental socialism is counter-productive in the long term if you factor in the unintended consequences.
I too used to believe the myth that forests are chopped down by modern corporations because of profit. That’s the pictures they show on tv. But that’s actually not how forests disappear in the 21st century. They are chopped down by desperate people in socialist countries because they have no other way to cook their food. People in capitalist countries do not need to chop down their forests, they have electric stoves. The capitalist part of the world gets its lumber from tree-farms that are specifically grown for that purpose. That’s why forests are growing in countries on top of the most-free list and shrinking in countries on the bottom of the most-free list.
Material wealth and a clean environment are not mutually exclusive goods. And anticapitalistic asceticism is not a necessary condition for a clean environment. It’s the opposite way around: Real wealth is the only thing that ever managed to clean up the environment. People want a clean environment after they managed to feed and clothe themselves. The recent focus on environmentalism is not because it’s a growing problem, but because we are becoming rich enough to afford the luxury. Capitalism makes us wealthy and therefore allows us to clean up the environment. Socialism, including environmental socialism, makes us poor, and therefore harms the environment.
Great post, Nero.
I like your principles, but disagree with using empirical evidence to back them up, as one can just as soon say “well, yes, the US is preserving its environment - because of government!”
The same can be said about the lifespan v property rights graph. While we may like to claim that better property rights lead to better living and longer lifespans, a different analysis can easily conclude that the most democratic governments lead to longer lifespans. Really, anything can be used.
Thanks a lot, AJ!
Every poor and dirty place in the world has some history of well-intentioned social engineers attempting to fix their problems with government intervention. In fact, most poor and dirty countries have a lot more activisty governments than those relatively laissez-faire countries that did manage to improve their environments. If socialism is the solution to environmental concerns, why does it only work in the most free market places in the world? Shouldn’t it work even better in even more socialist countries? But the correlation is directly the opposite of that. The socialists are assuming causation that is directly the opposite of the observed correlation.
I know that socialisty types always say that socialism is totally different from what they want when it fails. That’s why the evil socialist countries don’t count. But by that standard I have a 100% success rate at guessing coin-flips; when I get it wrong it doesn’t count.
The “democracy fixes everything” argument is kind of a tautology, because countries that turn evil they don’t stay democratic. The best example of that is Germany pre ww2, which was a democracy. Once it became evil it quit being democratic, hence the track record of democracy remains untarnished. But democracy is a consequence of a successful society, not a cause of it. Democracy and long lifespans are both a consequence of free markets.
But I get your point. In the end it’s not possible to fully prove that our explanation of a particular correlation is accurate. But I think we can go a long way looking at the data with an open mind. Or even caring about empirical data at all. Most people apparently don’t.
I got here rather late. I had been reading this thread from November 30th! I see it is still alive however here on December 18th, so here’s my question. I’ve thought about this whole “environment” question many times.
I take as my 1st example the Grand Canyon in the USA. When it was first discovered by non-Native Americans (i.e. “us” Caucasian European types) some guy decided that a part of it was his and he built some ramshackle hut and started charging people to see and visit “his” Grand Canyon.
Some folks didn’t think this was such a good idea. They lobbied Congress and whichever president was in office for many years to make it into a National Park, thus preserving its beauty for everyone and not just this one guy (or guys).
A similar situation arose in the Yosemite area in California. Some private concern built a hotel or other type of boarding house in the Yosemite Valley. John Muir led the fight on this one. The idea being again that some land, some places are too singular in beauty, etc. to be owned by one or more persons, but should be accessible and preserved for all of the public. There are other examples of other national parks. On the face of it I like this approach as I am a biolgoist and natural historian. But I am also trying to learn and understand anarchy!
Now, how would the free market handle this? We can get into clear cutting the Redwoods later (I’m kidding).
The area as a whole or in parts would be sold to the highest bidder and used as they please, assuming they don’t impinge on the rights of the other owners.
If someone thought the area in whole was beautiful and to be preserved as a park in exclusion to all other uses, he would have to be the highest bidder. He could then charge for entry fees or w/e, or hold it for his own private use. In the end, it would be used for its most productive use. National parks are unecessary. Private parks would be better managed.