Austrian economics and the safe network

Check out mises.org for a ton of resources on everything Austrian. This is where the intellectual freedom lovers go.

6 Likes

This would definitely be of interest to me!

1 Like

The school now firmly established as the Mises Institute https://mises.org/ that originated from the Libertarian Forum from 1964 through to 1984. The main drivers during and after that period were Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell and now Lewellyn H Rockwell Jr… I’ve read Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action, F. A. Hayek, heaps of Rothbard’s work and now into Rockwell Jr’s “Against the State”. That journey for me has and continues to be the most rewarding of my life and it seems to be the only pathway out of the trials and tribulations of the world today whether of war, corruption, financial oppression and the grotesque distortion of wealth and the means of exchange, plus of course the frightening increased militarization of government. Yes the school of economics that stands for LIBERTY is most certainly the Austrian school as promoted and taught through the Mises Institute. And I see a perfect fit of the SAFE network for the active projection of Austrian economics into every part of the world - read Liberty. The new currency however must have a gold standard and be created only by buyers and sellers.

4 Likes

That’s a big gap from Menger to Fetke! How how come you missed Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Ron Paul, Rockwell et al?

1 Like

Yes it’s pretty much a bypass of those guys and drawing more directly from the source of Menger, Adam Smith…and termed ‘The New Austrian school of Economics

I guess it would make for some interesting reading for yourself, to compare with the American based Austrians.

Why bother. Really. I think Austrian stuff is dead. Not because I am any sort of expert, not even remotely. But I just cringe when I hear it. Its been behind what is wrong with this world its like trying to make the Neoliberal stuff seem ethical- there might be an Austrian heart somewhere. This denial about that is insane. Its not about liberty that is the biggest bunch of BS. For instance I love Professor Russel Roberts of Stanford/George Mason and his show Econ Talk through the Library of Liberty and Economics. Its pure libertarian its associated with the Kochs and the Mercator and the Hoover institute and ALEC, but in my opinion Roberts is still great and Russ is certainly an expert in Austrian (not quite sure he self identifies that way) but I love him because as interviewer he seems to read the other person’s book meticulously prior to an interview and will come back again and again in interviews and at least for me never misses anything or leaves any stone unturned and will admit when he is wrong, is humble and respectful and although good with numbers, like an Austrian, won’t elevate them. He is really searching for the truth, its so obvious. He is also a good teacher and respectful of people he disagrees with.

But still he didn’t see the collapse coming (not alone there,) took a very long time abandoning the dogmas, but his honesty still brought him around. Still, he is a climate skeptic (why!) although he accepts there is a risk he just wants to down play it- what sense would it make to down play any such risk if it was real? So he naturally shares the Austrian sincere intent to make sure we don’t have a WWIII with inflated state power and the Austrian honesty about not getting lost in numbers but he is still caught up in the denial and although as with Hayek he would not be against welfare he would still be on the side of worrying that we don’t discourage work and all of that crap as in no basic income should be too generous, also obsessing about a tragedy of the commons etc. Krugman (although not on the same side) has recently shown himself to be incredibly dishonest to the point of discrediting himself and Russ has been caught up with this kind of thing to me because of the denial his Austrian Libertarian roots require. Look at the figures involved in manifesting the Austrian- look at the telltale pattern with people like Greenspan into that Ayn Rand Objectivist Tea Party fueling crap, Milton Friedman about as reputable as Kissinger now- Russ has interviewed him (Friedman) many times.

This Capitalist apologists stuff just doesn’t work, its crap. You can’t defend the plantation. Saying that crypto is going to finally vindicate the plantation, you can’t do that. Economics will never ever come before politics. It can’t. Money should never be the central thing in anyone’s life. Their bitterness toward FDR (despite his many flaws) is also ridiculous, the rich are a luxury no society can afford and the rich are always at war with a middle class trying to send everyone into poverty. All the whining about Keynes… The Austrian is going backwards. Its always the same thing- gold standard, privatization (supplier welfare state) and market worship, invisible hand, insistence that we’ve never seen the pure free market or the pure Austrian. Hayek wouldn’t be rejecting infrastructure, or the commons but the endless Rand fueled sycophants consistently do… The Austrian leads to Trump and Ryan and Greenspan and Romney and Cruz and all these people that really just come off as villains, a celebration of the worst. We can’t keep this up, its takes us backwards fast and its dangerous.

@chrisfostertv “American based Austrians.” That could be part of my problem, I could be mixing things seriously. But the Chicago school has been running the world and it has to stop because its so clear now they don’t know what they are doing and they are so ugly.

2 Likes

Yes, I’ve done that and come to the conclusion that Austrian economics as promoted by the Mises Institute in the US is clear, logical and commonsense. That of the so-called NASOE is at best a waste of time.

Well Warren, you have shown your true colours with your piece. No need to say more!

4 Likes

While I think Warren is silly sometimes (or all the time), it makes you think (not from any of his logical fallacies or flat out incorrectness, or even negative attitude, but rather a general underlying mode of thinking). That is, even if the perfect Austrian economical world existed (honestly I never took a class or read strict curriculum about it, so I have no idea about its tenets to a theoretical/practical perfection), maybe there really are systems that could improve how people are connected spiritually, as a planet. But then there’s that pesky individualism that perks up and rejects fellowship, or at least makes it more selective (which is the very idea of rejection in the first place?). Is that a value system or something fully ingrained? Dependent on the person? Dependent on the culture? There are so many different cultures; it would be a sin to try to impose one over the other. Everything’s in stages, too. Embrace multiculturalism. Travel around. Learn things. Feel the situation; don’t force it. The choice is yours; but not always.

The world is vastly complex, so there’s no real knowing of how events will turn out (regardless of guesses coincidentally becoming reality). People don’t want to give up their wealth that they perceive to have earned (or maybe they’re just gaming the system legally, etc.) But there is I think a standard that people should realize for themselves (only once they are given loosely scientific data for what seems to be wholesome attributes of living, such as a technical number / percentage / boundary, that’s laid out for people, that shows what can be possible to Optimize Happiness), and strive to uphold, as long as they’re given the opportunity to prosper. Most of the people on the whole planet do not know even what any of that is. IMO that’s why so many people are living, to try and ensure that through research and deliberation everyone can know of these statistics.

I mostly fear the entire world becoming like a bad spyware website that nobody wants to go to, yet is the only choice. And… it’s already there somewhat, basically. But there are always protectors. Even if SAFE is moderately successful, requiring tweaks along the way—it would be an intense advantage over any other system in the world, basically turning the world truly digital, for the first time. When I put it like that, it’s like this idea should really be spread around more, not even limited to the current developers. The initial investors are already at hand, so it’s not like they are holding progress back by any incentive for withholding secrets.

At this point there is still a lot of belief required in the current Maidsafe, and not a whole heck of a bunch are willing to back their being up with that level of belief—to say nothing of the coding required, or especially of the varying levels of immorality that 80% of the world is embracing today (e.g. defending the current system to keep themselves afloat) that is keeping them blind from disciplining themselves into believing.

So yeah Austrian economics, wish I knew more than 0 things, so I’ll get on that eventually. Just wanted to type a lot of things.

1 Like

You understand that the Chicago school does not advocate (or follow) the Austrian (anarchist/voluntaryist) view, right?

2 Likes

And I’m confident that is its designed purpose.

Right! Warren does get some things right err, nearly right.

1 Like

Exactly! Those who claim they know how best to use violence to get universally beneficial results are either fools or liars. Either way, I would rather they kept their hands out of my pockets.

4 Likes

I posted this article a while back in off-topic and it explains exactly what your speaking about here. People free to fix problems will try their best to do so. This is exactly what the team working on safe is doing. The free market of ideas doesn’t solve problems in and of itself. It’s not utopia. But people do solve problems, and free people do it better than those who are not free. It’s worth a read.

free markets are not solutions to problems, per se, but are rather what gives us the opportunity to find our own solutions to our own problems by finding the most valuable way to serve one another.

True liberalism (libertarianism) does not promise perfection, it does not even promise a solution. There will always be problems. Our goal should be to find the best way to improve the situation, not to achieve an ideal world of fantasy.

4 Likes

Congratulations, your article https://mises.org/library/market-doesnt-solve-problems-people-do on Mises’ blog is excellent and the rap video fight between Hayek and Keynes is just brilliant. It reminds me of the similarity of arguments in Hayek’s book “Denationalisation of Money” originally published 1976 and the 2009 essay of Dr. Zhou Xiaochuan “Reform the International Monetary System” http://www.bis.org/review/r090402c.pdf published by the BIS where he said inter alia “…The desirable goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”… Since then China with the BRICS have replicated the American-controlled reserve currency system, established a paralel payments facility to SWIFT and been admitted to the IMF even though Dr. Zhou views such systems as flawed because of the Triffen Delemma issues. Clearly half the world is now in favour of a global currency and there is absolutely no reason for it to be only for international trade. The time for a truly denationalised currency is now, and that is good news for SAFEcoin and other crypto currencies but also perhaps something more widely apealing and simpler to apply to bookkeeping, accounting and every-day payments like a “Debit and a Credit” or put another way a “Negotiable Trade Credit (NGT)”.

2 Likes

A self-contradicting fallacy, since that view is itself a norm of a certain sort of (diseased and self-destructive, in my view) culture, not shared by most other cultures (duh).

Some cultures are OK with needless torture of animals, or theft borne of envy, or mutilation of children, or the metaphorical equivalent of defecating in a public pool. The inferiority of those cultures and sub-cultures, and the people who practice them, is obvious to me, if not to others.

2 Likes

Thank you for focusing on the worst aspect of cultures (where are those ones, exactly, today?), really appreciate it. And then calling out some fallacy for me. Really cool. That’s totally what I was thinking!

I see the point, but why even call it a “market” then? Why not call it a commons as in FOSS. There is no necessity that anyone be paid. Why not call it a network or a search enhanced network? Or a smart/honest search enhanced networked commons with neutrality elements (freedom.)

‘Freemarket’ has become such a nasty euphemism for enslavement and people abusing other people with money, actually I don’t think it was ever anything else. The Tea Partiers as rule seems to think they have a new approach, when its just gas on a fire. I can only take my own country as an example, the standard of living has declined and is declining, speech is increasingly restricted, privacy is erroding, social mobility is reversing, stability and security are decreasing. A social democracy has degraded into a piece of crap empire. This Neoliberal-Teaparty-Sarah Palin-Libertarian stuff has absolutely unequivocally failed the test of history.

Its such a lie to associate it with a real tradition of non-coercion, all it amounts to is hiding behind market jingoism to make excuses for the same old plantation style theft. Its really liar speech and the notion of supplier freedom is truly idiotic.

@bluebird “inferior people” exactly zero sum, some people are better than others and exist to serve the pleasure and freedom of their superiors. Right, is that too charitable?

Its a mix of immaturity, dishonesty and lack of self awareness. Its something that should never be mixed math-crypto-tech sophistication. Its fine to want a currency that is harder to manipulate and distort with speculation or credit, but its not ok to want to further elevate the role of money.

The Communists in wanting to get rid of the state, money, markets and contracts were onto something.

“some people are better than others”

“The Communists were onto something.”

deaths from Communists societies:

USSR – 20 million

China – 65 million

Vietnam – 1 million

North Korea – 2 million

Cambodia – 2 million

Eastern Europe – 1 million

Latin America – 150,000

Africa – 1.7 million

Afghanistan – 1.5 million

pretty not smart thing to say, around these …well, any parts.

4 Likes

I grew up without family that I lost whose only crime was running a news paper against Fidel Castro’s regime. Can’t tell you how many times a day I wonder what my family was like. How a family who was noble enough to stand up against the communist death machine would have influenced my life.

Do you understand how what your advocating for is absolute foolishness? Do you not under stand that government is the single largest cause of genocide?

We haven’t had a free market since the 1800s. in 1913 the U.S. won every major war we were ever in. We had the best colleges, universities, schools and the best military on the face of the earth and we did it without a federal income tax.

WE DONT NEED GOVERNMENT THEFT. I DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT’S FUCKING HANDOUTS. I TAKE CARE OF MY OWN. I TAKE CARE OF MY FRIENDS AND MY NEIGHBORS AND I DON’T GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO DO SO.

You want to blame the free market? You call this “market” free? Look at the hundreds of thousands of laws that regulate our “free market”. That constrain and destroy the competitive market!

Don’t you understand what drives innovation? It’s the competitive market it’s two companies competing to provide the best product it can. Incentive by purchasing power of willing consumers.

8 Likes