So you do not think fraud should be illegal? I guess you do not believe in contracts? You think that it is OK for someone to promise something and then break the promise? Because FRB promises that everyone banking with the bank can withdraw all their funds at anytime.
Yes I do. “Perfectly good” may be vague but “working car” is not. If I sell you a “working car” with no motor I’m defrauding you. No different than extending ‘credit’ not backed by savings, or backed by property I don’t own.
The problem is misrepresenting the nature of the slips of paper.
But it is not. Except for a few cranks who call themselves ‘economists’, ordinary people guided by self-interest would never accept unbacked paper. And the crank economists won’t either actually. You know, just like the liberals who praise socialism but never move to cuba…
Well, I believe it is fraud, but I also believe there’s no point in outlawing it.
Yes, just like people can choose to communicate using telepathy, or buy a cell phone. If you think the first option works, by all means use it =]
The thing is, if you knew basic history and basic economics, you’d realize that FRB lost to sound money. That’s why the banking mafia got the state to enact
- fiat money
- central banking
- ‘insurance’
- countless regulations.
Oh, by the way, babbling about ‘efficiency’ without referring to property and the moral system that defines property, doesn’t cut it. Efficiency is a term that makes sense in engineering, not in economics.
Lovely.
Well, that’s not really an economics issue, is it? It’s a legal one.
Which is why I imagine Peter Boettke defined Rothbard as a property rights economist and not as an “Austrian” one.
Also, I don’t know how much that is the case and it is a sticky issue, I suppose. It might just be that fractional reserve banking is a misnomer, because I was well aware of the fact that the bank lends out deposits.
Economics and law are intertwined.
What part of law is wertfrei?
would he not have to say the same about Mises, who was pretty jumped up about property rights? (in a good way)
How is economic analysis of law value ridden?
If there is something (gold, silver, etc.) to back up the notes, then there is no problem. But if you are simply “creating” money, then that’s fraud.
Nice assertion, but why?
Why what ? What do you mean by why ? I’m not sure what ‘assertion’ means, either ? And isn’t the word ‘nice’ subjective ? Or maybe the concept ‘nice’ is subjective ? Is there any connection at all between words and concepts ? And …
Normative law is not the economic analysis of law. I don’t see what you’re getting at.
No, because Mises didn’t scream to the top of his lungs about it like Rothbard did.
INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian – people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself – Mises got up and said, “You’re all a bunch of socialists,” and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.
Too bad Mises considered himself an ‘utilitarian’ - whatever that means. On the other hand, it’s lovely how people like Friedman are willing to murder any dissenter that refuses to pay taxes, while at the same time regard themselves as ‘tolerant’ libertarians …
there is good tolerance and bad tolerance. i hope that story about Mises and Friedman is true.
Propertarianism is where its @ . yo.
[8-)]
I think Boettke is flat out wrong in pretending that rothbard is somehow ‘more propertarian’ than Mises… (aside from the obvious case whcih he does not mention, which is in the market for law and security… but anyhow more generally…)
were statements like these made by Rothbard or Mises?
Private property of the material factors of production is not a restriction of the freedom of all other people to choose what suits them best. It is, on the contrary, the means that assigns to the common man, in his capacity as a buyer, supremacy in all economic affairs. It is the means to stimulate a nation’s most enterprising men to exert themselves to the best of their abilities in the service of all of the people.
"A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption.
The foundation of any and every civilization, including our own, is private ownership of the means of production. Whoever wishes to criticize modern civilization, therefore, begins with private property.
The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production. . . . All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.
The essential teaching of liberalism is that social cooperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production, i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. All the other principles of liberalismdemocracy, personal freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and of the press, religious tolerance, peace among the nationsare consequences of this basic postulate. They can be realized only within a society based on private property
and on and on
I think you’re confusing the public policy Mises with the economics Mises. The Theory of Money and Credit had both in it, but the better part was dominated by the economics Mises.
EDIT: In contrast Rothbard really doesn’t have that distinguishment. Everything for Rothbard is public policy and you shouldn’t do this or you should do that. The differences are subtle, of course, but there nonetheless.
Though I get that you’ll defend Rothbard to the death, this is just how I and many others not taken in by the man see it.