The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Economics Economics Questions
, , , ,
261

Some typos and it wont let me edit. So my last paragraph is restated:

Furthermore his benefit measurement analysis is flawed as is. He is NOT measuring all the economic output of the immigration, only measuring what he can see in monetary terms. As I already stated the immigration influx helped fuel the housing boom. Their economic output is astronomically high and possibly cannot be accurately measured but what they produced definitely outweighed any welfare costs. The problem is what they were producing was an error as reflected by the business cycle but again thats not their fault. They were simply filling a demand of labor.

262

My contention as well as the contention of Milton Friedman is:

“____unrestrained immigration and the welfare state do not mix”

There are 2 solutions:

  1. Get rid of the welfare state

  2. Restrain immigration

I am a consequentialist as well s a pragmatic classic liberal as was FA Hayek and Milton Friedman and dismiss the Utopian idea that we can get rid of the welfare state and/or get to pure anarchy. It is only suited for theoretical discussions and in philosophical forums. I work for change and for limiting the growth of government in general and the slimming down in particular. I call it “Lean Government”.

In the real ugly world there is a large and expanding welfare state. The economy will no longer grow at the rate it has after WWII. In Europe it’s down to 2-3 % annually. The US growth up until 2008 was 4-5 % but will now go to a European level after all the costly reforms of the Democrat congress as well as George W Bush huge underfunded extension of the entitlement programs, “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare D. This means that if the welfare state and its costs are not to explode we cannot bring more recipients into it. There is no more funding. Tremendous cuts in entitlements are soon to come, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Long overdue.

So the solution number 1 getting rid of the welfare state is not viable. Solution 2 is unpalatable for a libertarian. So should we do nothing because we dislike the options?

(We can discuss endlessly the calculations whether or not the new immigration is economically beneficial or not. I disregard factors that cannot be measured since their interpretation becomes too subjective. The facts on the ground is that Mexican immigrants are different than historic generations of immigrants, they cost more and are less likely to be prosperous and more likely to be on welfare. Older generations of immigrants were as pointed out culturally different but the succeeded to become economically integrated as have not the Mexican. Further I am for unlimited immigration of skilled immigrants only restriction on unskilled. I don’t think you can call that prohibition. FYI the quotes Flic attribute to argue against me is Alex Alexievs not mine.)

263

Friedman and Hayek are vastly different. They come from two entirely different and conflicting schools of thought.

Not getting rid of solution 1 will eventually destroy the state. Getting rid of option 2 will hinder it;s economic growth making that destruction much sooner rather than later.

Calculations aren’t necessary. Hayek himself, to my knowledge, contends with his teacher Mises about the problem of Economic Calculation in socialist programs.

My recommendation to you is don’t stop reading economics. So you’ve read a book from Hayek and a few from Freidmen. Why not pickup some books from Mises or Rothbard?

This will grow whether you have immigrants or not. Yet your solution you argue ‘as a realist’ is to eliminate immigration. As if that was more realistic then eliminating welfare.

arguing that solution 1 is not viable is entirely arbitrary and based on your own opinion. One of the convenietn things about calling yourself a ‘realist’ and pragmatist is that you can conveniently put yourself on a pedistool of non-budging opinions. I agree, such dogmatisism is nearly fruitless to argue against.

Still I want to correct you on Hayek. Have you read Road to surfdom or some of his other books? The concessions he makes are far different then the ones Freidman makes.

Your position is also logicaly fallacious. Be careful not to fall into a typical fallacy of [Arguing for Tradition](http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad antiquitatem). In the same manners murderers have been around since the dawn of man. That doesn’t mean we should accept them as status quo and make no attempt to stifle their efforts.

I would recomend you stop reading Milton Freidman all together. Most of his understanding of economics is built on various fallacies, as is the whole chicago school of economics. Instead build your understanding and foundation in logic and reason.

Also by supporting welfare your supporting the roots and creating a justification for socialism all together. Conceptual socialism will never die so long as such programs exist. Especially if they exist and are given the image as success’s. It is inconsistent for free-market economists to defend socialist programs and attack socialism at the same time. The public sees this. If the public things social security, welfare, social healthcare, and other social programs are a success they will continue to expand that ideology. Not from irrationality but due to their own ignorance and because of economists defending that status quo. In time the status quo grows larger you see. Eventually the system will topple onto itself as socialism does not produce anything, only markets do.

264

Another issue about being a realist is that the level of state intervention accepted by a realist is different for each person. There can be no reconciliation on those grounds as each person comes to their conclusions arbitrarily. The level of state intervention is decided apon entirely arbitrarily and subject to the whims of an opinion espoued from one individual to the next.

It is not subject to any logical scrutiny. That alone is problematic.

I can’t edit my old post so thats why I posted twice.

265

Homo Illuminatus,

Are you aware that Germans make up the majority of the white population of the United States? Are you aware that only a tiny fragment of that group speak german.

Integration does not take 2 seconds. It takes time.

I want you to admit the following

  1. The war on drugs, or drug prohibition is a failure. It is a waste of resources, and it does more harm then good.

  2. Admit that prohibiting immigration and making voluntary actions a crime e.g hiring “illegal immigrants” is really no different then voluntary narcotic transactions wrong.

  3. Then admit that “enforcing” or making laws on immigration more stringent will not work, and will be just as successful as the war on drugs.

So now you have to admit to yourself that starting a “war on illegal immigration” will be just as hurtful as the “war on drugs”, “war on terror” and the “war on poverty”.

And btw, you argument against ending welfare because it is entrenched is true for ALL state programs. They all become entrenched. No state wishes to willingly and easily relinquish power.

266

The War on poverty and the War on Drugs are miserable failures. It holds absolutist ideals that all drug abuse and all poverty can be eradicated. It can’t.

I hold all utopian and absolutist ideas and morals in contempt. Be they ideologically based such as Marxist and Objectivist, religious or based on other absolutist morals.

I’m not for prohibition but for restriction. I do not believe in decriminalization of the sale of drugs but I believe in the decriminalization of personal use. Portugal has chosen this route with great success.

When it comes to the War on Poverty I am for support but restricted and for a limited time period only.

The War on Terror is a misnomer; it should have been a police action against criminals that destroy property. The action against the Taliban in Afghanistan I supported as a police action. The Iraqi invasion is a much more difficult issue. As being a libertarian (the classic liberal version) I cannot really see your arguments against self defense. Are we not allowed to defend ourselves against aggressors or is it only domestic aggressors we can defend against?

I’m not for War on illegal immigration but for unlimited immigration of skilled workers and restriction on unskilled workers.

I’m neither for War on Welfare nor War on the Big State but try to restrict it as much as possible as well as stop its expansion.

I don’t understand your arguments. How are you going to accomplish the abolishment of welfare? So what is your action plan besides theoretical arguments, words are cheap action costs!

As you can see I’m consequent in my views. Absolutism, no. Prohibition, no. Restriction, yes.

267

So you choose to be a centrist. As a result however your beliefs are in conflict. Your principles lack integrity and will be granted no real intellectual weight as your beliefs change inconsistently from one topic to the next. In some cases you defend markets and private property, in others you do not. It shows that you may not necessarily understand what you believe in. I imagine that in some cases you argue that socialized goods and services generate a net benefit. Though you will be unable to define which goods those are, it is likely you espouse the goods and services adopted by the state. Though many of those were developed on the market before the state abducted them by way of force. You are inconsistent in your views and as a result you will always have a hard time defending your case.

Why do I need an action plan? I have the market.

That is the problem of a war on a concept. Another issue with the war on drugs is the definition of a drug. Such definitions are created arbitrarily and not from any formal logical. This is call legal positivism and these types of war overtly display the economic harm they cause.

Again the concept of a war on poverty or a war on any concept is just as fallacious as the other, war on drugs for example.

Amazingly you are correct and I commend you for making a distinction that 9/11 should have been handled as a violation of private property. Criminals should have been dealt with and defensive agents of the state should have been reprimanded. Though somehow you do not understand where private property is relevant for the war on poverty, drugs, or anything else. I suspect this is due to your acceptance of legal positivism.

How exactly can you define skilled and unskilled workers? Especially in a state of economic ignorance. Most policy makes have no idea what it means to be skilled or unskilled. Technically there is no such thing as being unskilled short of being unconscious. Here you support nothing other then dictatorship. The concept of freely moving goods/trade scares you. Because of this you would rather see a fascistic form of control of such goods. Remebering that labor is a market good just like anything else.

I have a challenge for you. Please cite one historical example where democracy effectively voted and reduced the size of welfare. You accuse us of being Utopian yet your own beliefs are as far fetched as the next. Welfare cannot be restricted and it does not shrink. It only grows like a cancer.

We don’t understand you. You change your fundamental principles from one case to the next. Not an attack on you but this is the fundamental problem with modern liberalism.

You seem to reveal that you know far less about libertarianism or classic liberalism than you claim.

Either you admit that freely moving goods and services is the best way to meet consumer desires and needs or you do not. You cannot believe white is black as well. It’s either white or black. You cannot eat your cake and have it to.

268

Homo Illuminatus please listen to this.

http://mises.org/media/2322

269

I also recomend these books.

Apparently they don’t dwell on the moral and ethical arguments that libertarian’s typically profess and stick just to the practicality of government. I think you would relate more to this.

Why Government Doesn’t Work and

The Great Libertarian Offer

270

Yes decriminalization (of personal use) is better then prohibition. And legalization is better then decriminalization.

Do you require that I explain the economics behind that? Or are you aware of it already?

I didn’t present an argument for ending welfare. And I don’t need to .I don’t care about whats politically feasible. I don’t think the state can be voted away or voted down. I don’t claim to know how to reduce the state. However, why do you believe that action is de facto better than inaction? What if that action is the wrong one? e.g struggling frantically in quicksand.

Btw it is inaccurate to see consequentialism as a synonym for realism or being practical. On a side note there are consequentialists that are against restriction and for full legalization, anarchy etc

It was a very poor demonstration of police action. It was an invasion. Its akin to canadian police coming into Germany, destroying the local community government that may have indirectly supported a terrorist action in cananda, (that canada had earlier given support to), murdering innocent people, and then installing a new state. How is that a police action?

A police action would be capturing the actual terrorists. And then trying them. I don’t see how how invading afghanistan is relevant to that.

271

Integration takes a long time of that we agree. German immigrants in the 19th century and Mexican immigrants in the 21th is vastly different. You bring a 19th century person to a 19th century surrounding with the demand for 19th century skill sets. Anybody in the 19th century could go about his daily business without being able to read and only do manual unskilled labor. Education and technological innovation went hand in hand with integration. Transplanting 3rd world person i.e. 19th with reading proficiency and with 19th century skill sets into a 21th century high tech world is something completely different.

Research show as you point at that immigration in general is beneficial for most societies but studies in Sweden and in the US show that subset of Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants differ in integration from previous cohorts of immigrants. It has nothing to do with their being Mexican or of Middle Eastern decent it has in my opinion to do with their lack of 21th century education and skill sets. I welcome any that have or can learn 21th century skill sets.

You seem to misunderstand me. I share your ideological points of view on the best of economic systems i.e. a completely free market. However I don’t believe in the more extreme variants of libertarianism that hold that all government is force and that Anarchy is preferable. My version of libertarianism, which I share with most libertarians, is the concept of the “Night watchman state”, police, fire, military defense and a court system.

The issue I’m debating is how to change the real world and to minimize the rise of the states intrusion in our personal and economic sphere. How to minimize the growth of the welfare state? Ideological purity i.e. like the ostrich putting its head in the sand is fine by me. However I live in the real world. I pay exorbitant taxes and government is intruding more and more into my private sphere.

I’m European as well as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics. So I follow Hayek and not Rothbard and Mises, at least not in the dogmatic way most American followers do. I have never understood orthodoxy of a portion of US libertarian that believe Ayn Rand is God with Mises and Rothbard as her prophets i.e. their word is law and to be taken literarily. I always ask them to show me how they prove the existence of absolute morals and where they originated from. They always fail. But that is the way of all (semi) religions, they rely on faith not reason.

However I think that the Austrian purists are misguided. Praxeology is way too esoteric, to cult like. The refusal to do any kind of calculations is also to cult like for me.

I hope that we soon will see a neo Austrian School that makes use of certain subsets of econometrics as well as rational economics, Becker et al, and neuro-psychology. Not all Austrians are against calculations only hard core Rothbardian and followers of Mises

You maybe should read this essay from Bryan Caplan George Mason University. (One of the few universities that have openly Austrian professors of Economics). He thinks that the followers of Rothbard and Mises are to narrow in their interpretation of the Austrian School. But Caplan is not of the Austrian Economic School of thought. I am.

Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist

I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that:

· (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

· (b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.

· (c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.

· (d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.

· Given this, I conclude that while self-labeled Austrian economists have some valid contributions to make to economics, these are simply not distinctive enough to sustain a school of thought. The task of developing an alternate Austrian paradigm has largely failed, producing an abundance of meta-economics (philosophy, methodology, and history of thought), but few substantive results. Whatever Austrian economists have that is worth saying should be simply be addressed to the broader economics profession, which (in spite of itself) remains eager for original, true, and substantive ideas.

· Needless to say, I have many friends who think more highly of Austrian economics than I do. I hope that this piece will spark interest and discussion without sparking any kind of personal acrimony

o

272

There is no need for this sort of mysticism. It has nothing to do with any century. There is infinite work to be done thus we can always offer work even to a basic laborer. There is no reason a 21st century economy could not accomodate a basic laborer, 21st century China keeps finding more and more jobs for them with ease. The reality is that no such jobs exist because of minimum wage, social security, union rules and other restrictions. Not the moodines of time.

273

Please read through this post very carefully. I think I finally see what is the root causes of our disagreement. I believe certain key factors have been misrepresented to you, and therefore have developed a misunderstanding of the issues below.

Homo Illuminatus?:

Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist

Thank you for the article. SmileHowever I have already read it. I am even considering to transferring to GMU as a matter of fact.

Homo Illuminatus?:
completely free market. However I don’t believe in the more extreme variants of libertarianism that hold that all government is force and that Anarchy is preferable. My version of libertarianism, which I share with most libertarians, is the concept of the “Night watchman state”, police, fire, military defense and a court system.

Then you don’t believe in a completely free market. A free market is one free of the state, where all interactions are voluntary. If the initiation of coercion is claimed as a “legitimate power which they retain a monopoly over”, that institution is a state. Once it uses it, you no longer have a 100% “free market”.

Homo Illuminatus?:
The issue I’m debating is how to change the real world and to minimize the rise of the states intrusion in our personal and economic sphere. How to minimize the growth of the welfare state? Ideological purity i.e. like the ostrich putting its head in the sand is fine by me. However I live in the real world. I pay exorbitant taxes and government is intruding more and more into my private sphere.

Changing the real world is fine however you face several issues which you need to admit exist :

  1. It gives the welfare state breathing room (how is that a good thing? Perhaps it struggling to live will help end it?)

  2. It makes otherwise voluntary exchange (with regards to immigrants of x,y,z) prohibited thereby creating a blackmarket, legitimate “citizens” into criminals and now a whole new problem that has to be dealt with by you guessed it…increase in state power.

  3. Overall you have increased the state. Not decreased it.

Don’t you see that your not only enlarging the state but also failing to fix the immigration problem in the first place!? Prohibition does not work!

Do you believe that using state intervention to fix problems causes new problems which then the state attempts to fix which causes new problems? ad infinitum.

Homo Illuminatus?:

'm European as well as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics. So I follow Hayek and not Rothbard and Mises, at least not in the dogmatic way most American followers do.

I’m european too, and an Austrian as well yet I have read all three. I know European Austrians who are Rothbardians. It’s not logical to say because your European and Austrian ergo you study Hayek and not Rothbard or Mises. It would make more sense to say, the mainstream uni’s in the UK/EU have either been sympathetic, tolerant or accepted Hayeks work, but simply are not familiar with Rothbard and Mises, and therefore it is unlikely that you have been exposed to it, or discussed it in person with someone who does know much about the other two Austrian Economists.

Homo Illuminatus?:
I have never understood orthodoxy of a portion of US libertarian that believe Ayn Rand is God with Mises and Rothbard as her prophets i.e. their word is law and to be taken literarily. I always ask them to show me how they prove the existence of absolute morals and where they originated from. They always fail. But that is the way of all (semi) religions, they rely on faith not reason.

Big major, major, major misunderstanding here. Mises came before Ayn Rand, so he can’t be her prophet. Rand certainly influenced Rothbard but they fell out. And well, they are not infallible, but they are brilliant, will you admit that (remember Hayek built off of von Mises)? Assuming your right on the absolute morals argument, doesn’t win you this argument nor does it break down the economics of Mises and Rothbard. Its also worth noting that Mises was a utilitarian similar to yourself whilst Rothbard was a Natural Law Libertarian.

Homo Illuminatus?:
However I think that the Austrian purists are misguided. Praxeology is way too esoteric, to cult like. The refusal to do any kind of calculations is also to cult like for me.

Another major major major misunderstanding.

  1. Rothbard and Mises both did calculations. They never said “Thall shall not do calculations”. What they (and any Austrian since to be an Austrian you use Praxeology, or using logic to derive principles of human action) argued against is attempting to using empirical data to prove one’s argument instead of illustrating it. Or that one can deduce principles of human action from empirical reasoning. Anyone feel free to correct me, but I’m 100% confident that you are incorrect in the above assertion.

Homo Illuminatus?:
I hope that we soon will see a neo Austrian School that makes use of certain subsets of econometrics as well as rational economics, Becker et al, and neuro-psychology. Not all Austrians are against calculations only hard core Rothbardian and followers of Mises

Calculation and econometrics are not synonyms. What is your first language?

Quick Reply
274

Marko,

In post-industrial societies there is only manual labor. In industrial societies the demand for skill rises and teh demand for manual labor decreases. In post industrial sociietes such as Sweden and soon the US the industrial work is scarece and unskilled manual labor practically disapperas.

in a post-industrial society there is no such thing as an abandunce of work. It is the opposite. There is no shortage of work but there is a shortage of highly educated and skilled workers. I grant you that minimum wage and union rules are making it more difficult for low skilled basic manual laborers but even if union rules and minimum wage was abolished there would still not be enough work for low skilled manual laborers.

I grant you that if we could abolsih welfare I would agree to unrestricted immigration. But I still contend as did Milton Friedman that unrestrained immigration is not compatibel with the welfare state. Since abolishing teh welfare state is politically and therefore practically impossible restraining low skilled immigration is a partial solution. To do nothing is always an option. But inaction has costs of its own even for those morally opposed to any state intervention. You will be asked to pay more and higher taxes, getting less and less service.

I choose the option of restraining low skilled immigration since i don’t want to see any further expansion of the welfare state, no more welfare recipients and as a consequence higher taxes and more intrusion in my personal sphere.

275

“Free market” what is that? An absolutely can free market can exists in the real world as little as anarchy can work in the real world. Both are theoretical abstractions. To reiterate I don’t believe in the utopia of anarchy. My minimal state is as I you told before the concept of the Night watchman state. I accept state coercion as well as state funding for these purposes. I have read “Anarchy, State and Utopia” and find Nozicks arguments weak for the anarchist state where everything is contracted upon.

As I pointed out before both action and inaction has consequences. A purist anarchist might not want to do anything to support the welfare state or the state since they want it to disappear, be destroyed under its own weight. But by inaction they make it grow even larger, and for your information the state will never go away. It has always been there and will always be there.

I’m not prohibiting immigrants but restricting their access to my territory. Do I not as a libertarian have the right to restrict access to my property? By allowing for unlimited access for skilled workers and only restricting unskilled I make the need for the bureaucracy of immigration much smaller. They only have to enforce and control low skilled workers i.e. state intervention is radically decreased. It is the same by introducing a flat tax. The IRS will be cut by 90 %.

I agree that prohibition does not work but restriction has worked. (Unless you equate restriction with prohibition)

I agree that it would be more correct to say that Europeans tend to be more sympathetic towards Hayek. The quip about Randians was just a quip about the semi-religious nature of certain US libertarians belief system. Paraphrasing “Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet”. I am fully aware that Hayek and Mises were as me consequentialist classic liberals.

It is correct that they never said “though shalt not do calculations” but their later day followers seem to have interpreted them as prohibiting econometrics. That is why I called for a neo-Austrian school in the same way old Keynesianism turned into a vulgar and simplified practice. There was a need for a restart. The neo-Keynesians have adapted with both Chicago School and Austrian School ideas especially now with the Austrian Business Cycle theory getting mainstream traction. It is also indirectly what Caplan is talking about. I don’t agree with him that the Austrian School should go mainstream but that it should adopt and evolve.

276

This is incredibly false but at least you admitted that it’s your opinion. Nearly all previous instances of major immigration to the US came from situations where the populous did not have ‘american status quo’ education.

Further more your definition of ‘skilled labor’ and being ‘properly educated’ is entirely arbitrary. IN ADDITION TO, as I have ALREADY STATED, the law of comparative advantage shows that you are still better off by trading with someone who’s productivity output is far inferior to yours. I’ve mentioned this at least 3 times now and all 3 times you have ignored it. You are essentially arguing against the laws of economics and then present strawmen to try and hide from the fact.

Your first sentence is a complete contradiction to the following sentence. It’s apparent you don’t really believe what you state. Perhaps you don’t really know what you state.

It’s nice that you can speak with authority on what most libertarian’s beleive. The problem with your ideology is it’s akin to slippery slope. First you state minimal police, that quickly becomes minimal police and anti-drug. That turns into policing business, and eventually grows into all sorts of policing that is harmful to the market.
Whats more shocking is your a libertarian saying that we should stop immigration before we should stop welfare, and believed that stopping immigration is a more realistic concept. Doesn’t sound very libertarian or very realistic to me. Stopping immigration is like stopping drug use. Black markets, here we come.

I understand what your saying but you have taken it to an extreme and as a result have discounted the correct way of doing things and legitimized the incorrect way of doing things. You’ve entirely flipped and gone backwards away from the libertarian concept.

Do you realize that Mises was Hayek’s teacher? Have you even given Mises or Rothbard a chance by reading some of their books before discounting them? Furthermore do you realize that Mises and Rothbard in and of themselves are vastly different?

So you reveal how little you actually know about this guys

Listen to this http://mises.org/media/2824

This just goes to show that you don’t know the first thing about praxeology. It’s hardly esoteric. You need to read Human Action before you can make such a judgement. Further more you discount your own idol, Hayek. You may not realize either but Austrian’s do use data to their service.

The difference between Austrian’s and everyone else is this. Everyone else uses statician’s to formulate their principles. You could call it a form of ideological positivism. As a result all other economic schools constantly have to change their understanding of economics as the data they pull over time contridicts with itself.

Building an ideology from random unquestioned stats is basically what everyone else does. What austrian’s realizew is that predicting the economy is like predicting the weather. There are far too many variables to account for to take all these stats literally. So they use logic instead FIRST, and then built on a foundational principle they can use data and stats to continue to substantiate their already logical consistent ideology.

The result is that austrian’s have been statistically consistent and theoretically unchanged. Where-as all other schools of economics were raving about how ‘sound the fundamentals are’ of our economy was two years ago. The austrian’s knew better.

Despite the fact that you CLAIM to believe in austrian economics your using the arguments most similar to the chicago school.

Instead of reading someone’s opinions in an article published on some website. Why not read the book for yourself and judge? Why do you let all these silly little internet publications so easily manipulate your opinions? WHy not make your own opinion rather then borrowing from someone else’s un-substantiated stats.

Why not read Human Action?

277

Thats false. It’s existed plenty of times in the past. Anarchy exists today. You just have the existence of compulsory based monopolies interfering with it’s interactions.

Try to keep your strawmen and characterisitcal attacks out of your arguments please.

278

This is entirely false. I can’t beleive what I am reading here. None of it is Austrian. I think you need to re-assess which school of economics you claim to follow. You seem to be stuck on Freidmen and all of the fallacies he brought to the table of ‘free-marketeering’. You are chicagian. :slight_smile:

279

I can’t edit guys sorry.

Wrong again. If anarchists could truly choose inaction people would opt out of the welfare system and it would go bankrupt.

Sigh wrong again. Just because it’s been there since you’ve been born does not mean it’s always been. Your observed life is not a reflection of mankind as a whole.

Prohibition has never worked, never has had evidence of working, and will never work as it’s impossible. The fact you beleive it’s worked shows how much merit and zeal you’ve granted the system.

Why do you keep repeating Hayek and Rand as if they are founding fathers of economics?

Who specifically?

280

This is empiricism. You said you were an austrian?

Where the market sets the prices there can be neither shortages nor surpluses.