POPULARITY
5 episodes with kirzner
3 episodes with kirzner
4 episodes with kirzner
2 episodes with kirzner
6 episodes with kirzner
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 491. https://youtu.be/lfjpoKCWBDA I've known Paul Cwik, Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Mount Olive and fellow of the Mises Institute since I started attending the Austrian Scholars Conference in 1995. He is an Austrian and libertarian of sorts but had some qualms with my anti-IP writing so presented a paper "Is There Room for Intellectual Property Rights in Austrian Economics?" at the Austrian Scholars Conference in 2008, which I attended and commented on. After 18 years we finally decided to get around to talking about this. I had planned on an hour but we ended up talking for 3. It turns out we were old friends but not that close; we didn't know much about each other. So the first 30-50 minutes or so is more preliminary discussion. To his credit, he read a good deal of the huge deluge of material I sent to read up on and asked many very good questions. He did not engage in intentional equivocation that is characteristic of many on the pro-IP side, and he was reasonable in conceding many of my points and was willing to ponder my push back. I was hoping to get him to see the light, since I have in person seen many people change their minds on IP after a long discussion but have never had it happen while recording. We did not resolve the issue, partly because we just didn't have enough time to keep going, but I think we made some progress. Maybe we will have a Part 2 later. Who knows. For now, some relevant links pertaining to some of the topics discussed. I will organize this better later. (Not to be confused with Bryan Cwik, who also has opinions on IP: “Good Ideas is Pretty Scarce”; Bryan Cwik, "Property Rights in Non‐rival Goods" (2, 3, 4); "Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights" (2; 3); Gamrot, Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik.) IP Proponents Do Not Even Know The Difference Between Patent, Copyright, Trademark … Types of Intellectual Property It is impossible to own ideas Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists See the Appendix to What Libertarianism Is: section “Concept and Definition of “Property”” The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property Gamrot, Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property” A Recurring Fallacy: “IP is a Purer Form of Property than Material Resources” New Working Paper: Machan on IP “Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP The Nature, Properties, and Characteristics of Goods (Igloo Coolers case) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach Libertarian Answer Man: Bitcoin and Fraud KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership” There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property (and trademark) KOL207 | Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Are Not About Plagiarism, Theft, Fraud, or Contract KOL020 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud” (Mises Academy, 2011) Copying vs. Plagiarism: A Recent Illustration—Grau vs. Hernandez on Milei Re the practice of attribution and credit: see Stephan Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Houston: Papinian Press and Property and Freedom Society, 2026), in the section “Excursus: The Role of Ideas in Human Action” “Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off“ Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy” IP Proponents Do Not Even Know The Difference Between Patent, Copyright, Trademark … Fraud: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Part III.E “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Part IV.C Labor and Leisure Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx's Labor Theory of Value KOL037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory “Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor” Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Labor, Value, Metaphors, Locke, Intellectual Property Concise Tweet on the Problem with IP Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward: Part IV.D: "Overreliance on “labor” metaphors also leads to confusion about IP. Locke correctly argued that the first person to “mix his labor with” an unowned resource owns it, since he thereby establishes an objective link to the resource which gives him a better claim to it than latecomers.[55] However, Locke based his argument on the confused and unnecessary idea that a person “owns” his labor and “therefore” owns resources that he mixes it with. But labor is not owned—it is an action, something a person performs with his body, which he does own—and this assumption is not needed for the Lockean labor-mixture argument to work.[56] This mistaken notion leads some people to favor IP because they figure that if you own a scarce resource because you mix your labor with it, you also own useful ideas that are produced with your labor. The related Smith-Ricardo-Marx labor theory of value, which underlies Marxism and socialism, is also sometimes used to support IP, as when people argue that if you work or labor, you “deserve” some kind of reward or profit. All this focus on labor must be rejected as overly metaphorical and confused, and, frankly, Marxian.[57]" On Libertarian Legal Theory, Self-Ownership and Drug Laws: p. 632 Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?, p. 687 Creationism: Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Right Libertarian Creationism KOL012 | “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism,” Austrian Scholars Conference 2008 KOL037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Part III.C.2 C. Contract and Fraud Arguments for IP Fraud and Plagiarism “Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off“ IP by Contract I discuss problems with the contractual argument for IP in: Kinsella (2008, pp. 51–55) — Against Intellectual Property Kinsella, April 8, 2025. “KOL458 | Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights (APEE 2025).” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast. Link Kinsella, Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society, Part III.C Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward, n.46 June 13, 2021. “Richard O. Hammer: Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts.” C4SIF Blog. https://c4sif.org/2021/06/richard-o-hammer-intellectual-property-rights-viewed-as-contracts/ 2023t, Stephan Kinsella on the Logic of Libertarianism and Why Intellectual Property Doesn't Exist, text at n.52 Jan. 8, 2025. “David Gordon on IP.” C4SIF Blog. https://c4sif.org/2025/01/david-gordon-on-ip/ See also Wendy McElroy's perceptive comments on this issue in Kinsella (March 19, 2013). “McElroy: ‘On the Subject of Intellectual Property' (1981).” C4SIF Blog. Link Bouckaert (1990, pp. 795 & 804–805). Bouckaert, Boudewijn (1990). “What is Property?” Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 13, no. 3: 775–816 (attached) Related Links Hoppe on Intellectual Property The Universal Principles of Liberty A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Key Works The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025) “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism”, Mises Daily (Nov. 17, 2009). Concise case against IP. An Overview of Libertarian Property Rights and the Case Against IP (from KOL341) How To Think About Property “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” Other Recommended KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property, Loyola University—New Orleans (a very good recent overview) KOL 037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Shownotes/Topical Summary (Grok) Stephan Kinsella with Paul Cwik • 2 hours 56 minutes In this nearly 3-hour conversation, Stephan Kinsella and economist Paul Cwik explore their personal histories, shared libertarian and Austrian foundations, and engage in a detailed, respectful debate on intellectual property — particularly copyright. Kinsella lays out his principled case against IP while Cwik defends copyright (but rejects patents). Timestamps & Detailed Summary 0:02 – Introduction and Casual Catch-Up Kinsella and Cwik greet each other and set the stage. Cwik explains he has wanted to discuss IP with Kinsella for years because their views differ. He notes he has persuaded people in person on IP and hopes to document the conversation. They acknowledge this is not a typical Kinsella podcast. 1:38 – How Long Have They Known Each Other? They reminisce about Mises Institute events. Kinsella's first was in 1990; Cwik started attending in 1995. They recall the Austrian Scholars Conferences and the tight-knit Austrian community at Auburn in the 1990s. ...
Mises described the problem, Hayek proposed the direction, Kirzner explains why the market will not stop. And the market, as so many times before, has already found the first step.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/ex-nihilo-no-more
Jesús Huerta de Soto traces the Austrian school's intellectual roots from the Spanish scholastics to Rothbard, making the case that anarcho-capitalism is the natural endpoint of the classical liberal tradition.The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Yousif Almoayyed.The Austrian Economics Research Conference is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian school, bringing together leading scholars doing research in this vibrant and influential intellectual tradition.Full Text version of the Lecture (Submitted by Prof. Huerta de Soto):Thank you very much to the Mises Institute and Joe Salerno for his kind introduction as well as for inviting me to deliver this “Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture” to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of Murray N. Rothbard's birthday. It is the second time I visit the Mises Institute to deliver this most important lecture: The first one was almost thirty years ago, back in April 1997, when I delivered a lecture on “The Scholastic Roots of the Austrian School”. In this second opportunity I am very happy to have been able to accept Joe's invitation and to come with a very well represented retinue of ten of my colleagues and doctoral students. All of them are teaching as professors or making their research at our more than twenty-year-old Doctoral and Master Programs in Austrian Economics at King Juan Carlos University back in Madrid, and which is the only one officially approved and with full validity inside the whole European Union. You have already had the opportunity to hear from each one of them a detailed description of the so-called “Madrid Austrian Research Hub” and of all the activities we are developing every year, including the 54 Doctoral Theses on Austrian Economics that have been read up to now in our program. And here you have also copies of the English version of our main books published by Routledge, Edward Elgar, and by the Macmillan Austrian Series edited by my Madrid Colleagues, the German professor Philipp Bagus and the Canadian professor Dave Howden. And you will have the unique opportunity to buy these books that, as you know, have a hefty price of almost 100 pounds each one, at the almost “stolen property” and symbolic price of 5 dollars per copy, thanks to the most generous help of the Spanish Jesús Huerta de Soto Foundation that is helping to finance our participation in this important event.And now what I will do in the next forty minutes is to try to summarize not only my main contributions, but also “The Libertarian Vision of the Scientific and Moral Truth” as we see it from our Austrian School Hub in Madrid. And I will do it by focusing on a series of fundamental points.Precisely, the youngest of all sciences, Economics is the one that has provided Humanity with the most important scientific contributionThe first one is that Economics, being the last science to arrive, or as Mises said, "the youngest of all sciences," has nevertheless achieved the milestone of providing Humanity with the most important scientific contribution. For the first time, and thanks to Economic Science, human beings have discovered and understood that voluntary social cooperation, free from all institutional and systematic external coercion, generates a spontaneous order that cannot be designed nor organized by anyone, and that peacefully and without limits drives the prosperity and expansion of Humankind.This transcendental message of Economic Science, on the one hand, resolves the impossible antithesis of attempting to apply, within the realm of interactions carried out by human beings endowed with free will, the manipulative approach of external entities that human beings have no choice but to use, supported by technology and the natural sciences, in order to dominate the subject of the material world. And on the other hand, this is a radically revolutionary message: for the first time, it has been scientifically demonstrated that states, in any of their forms, are neither necessary nor viable; that Society, understood as a process of voluntary human interactions, does not need anyone to govern it, because it regulates and organizes itself spontaneously; and that the attempt to coordinate Society on the basis of social engineering and state coercive commands is impossible, doomed to failure, and gives rise to all kinds of distortions, social conflicts and violence, that continually hinder and block human progress.Economic science is generalized into a complete Theory of Liberty that makes it possible to reinterpret History and promote the expansion of civilizationThe second point is that Economics has been generalized into a whole Theory of Liberty, understood as the most essential attribute and requirement of human nature. Liberty means that all human actions are carried out voluntarily, based on the principle of non-aggression, and free of external coercion or violence imposed and organized from above by the always minority group of human beings who, under whatever title, exercise any kind of political power.Moreover, Economics dismantles and turns upside down the erroneous and biased account of Thomas Hobbes and his followers. Neither was the "state of nature" a terrifying situation, nor did a supposed "social contract" ever exist or was it necessary to create and maintain a State that would impose order and guarantee peace. What happened was precisely the opposite: natural evolution consisted, above all, in the spontaneous discovery of the great advantages provided by voluntary exchanges and peaceful trade. Systematic and generalized violence, war, and terror arose only with the appearance of States, as coercive institutions composed of the most antisocial and violent human beings, who wanted (and still want) to live at the expense of plundering those citizens who earn their living by working and trading peacefully with each other (Oppenheimer, 1926).Thus, Economics, demonstrates that what Étienne de La Boétie named "voluntary servitude", is an anti-human aberration to which human beings have been subjected for centuries. And that it is not necessary to continue with the resigned habit of obeying the State; nor do governments enjoy an aura of prestige (but are literally "stripped" of any attribute of intellectual or moral superiority); nor is the caste—or “praetorian guard”—of intellectuals, “experts”, and acolytes that surround states and rulers to be regarded as untouchable; nor should we allow ourselves to be seduced and deceived by subsidies or perks, whether supposed or real, with which they seek to purchase the will and secure the loyalty of exploited human beings, so that they will consent, voluntarily and permanently, to their exploitation and servitude (De la Boétie, 1975).Economics is the Science developed by the Austrian School of Economics, which should in fact be known as the Spanish School, as it has its origins in the thinking of our scholastics of the Spanish Golden AgeThe third point is that Economic Science has reached its highest level of development thanks to the Austrian School of Economics. As you know, our school is based on the realism of its analytical assumptions, in the dynamic approach based on the entrepreneurial, creative, and coordinating capacity of every human being, and in the study of the spontaneous and self-regulated order of the social process of voluntary human interactions (Huerta de Soto, 2008). The institutional and multidisciplinary approach of the Austrian School is also very relevant. As a result of the spontaneous social process important institutions emerge which, in turn, make it possible and drive it forward: Law and property rights rooted in human nature and discovered and developed spontaneously outside the state; the family, a basic and essential institution, on which the expansion of Humanity is made possible and consolidated; moral principles, which act as a true "automatic pilot" for liberty and which human beings internalize and transmit from generation to generation, thanks to the family and other community or religious institutions; economic institutions, and in particular, money, which also evolves spontaneously outside the State, and which can and should be considered the social institution par excellence, since by overcoming the problems of barter, it enables the exponential multiplication of voluntary exchanges and human interactions, within which the rest of the social, linguistic, moral, legal, economic, and religious institutions are discovered, shaped, and perfected.Our fourth point is that the first theorists of the spontaneous order emerged in the field of law, led by the great jurists of classical Rome. They were the first ones to understand the organic and evolutionary nature of the social process, and so they became, without being aware of it, the first economists. Their tradition was kept alive throughout the Middle Ages thanks to the Catholic Church and, through thinkers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Antoninus of Florence, and Saint Bernardino of Siena, eventually came to influence the Spanish scholastics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries gathered around the University of Salamanca. As Rothbard demonstrated (Rothbard, 1976) these thinkers of the Spanish Golden Age should be considered the most immediate precedent of the Austrian School of Economics, which, precisely for this reason, should be called the Spanish School of Economics. And in fact, these Spanish scholastics were already able to articulate the following ten essential principles which constitute the theoretical foundation of the Austrian School:Firstly, the subjective theory of value developed by the Bishop of Segovia, Diego de Covarrubias, who as early as 1555 clearly explained that, although the objective nature of wheat is the same in Spain as in America, its price was higher in America because there human beings subjectively valued it much more highly; from this follows the correct relationship between prices and costs set out by Luis Sarabia de la Calle, in the sense that it is market prices that determine costs and not the other way around, as equilibrium theorists mistakenly believe; the Scholastics also realized that equilibrium models and prices lack realism and theoretical meaning because they presuppose a degree of knowledge “so complex that only God, and in no case human beings, could ever acquire it” (in latin “pretium iustum mathematicum licet soli Deo notum”), as already explained by the Jesuit cardinals Juan de Salas in 1617 and Juan de Lugo in 1643, more than three hundred years earlier than Hayek could conclude that “a science which assumes knowledge that can never be acquired is not a Science”; also the dynamic concept of competition is fundamental, understood as a process of rivalry among sellers based on the dynamic conception of market processes developed by Jerónimo Castillo de Bobadilla and Luis de Molina in 1589 and 1597, and that has nothing to do with the static model of "perfect competition" of equilibrium theorists; and also the important contributions of the Spanish Scholastics related with capital theory, business cycles, and the effects of fiduciary media generated by banks; so, particular emphasis should be placed on the rediscovery of the principle of time preference by Martín de Azpilcueta, following what Lessines had already stated in 1285; as well as on the fact that bankers commit mortal sin when they operate with fractional reserves, creating bank deposits as a form of virtual money (or chirographis pecuniarium, as Luis de Molina said in latin) that only exists in their accounting books and distorts the structure of relative prices, creating bubbles and deep economic crises that ultimately "bring everything crashing down," as Saravia de la Calle and Tomás de Mercado so vividly explained in the 16th Century; and in short, the Scholastic's idea that it is impossible to organize society through coercive commands due to lack of the information that would be required to give them coordinating content; as well as the discovery that inflation is a hidden and very harmful tax that arises from an act of tyranny, since it is neither known nor accepted by citizens, which would even justify the assassination of the King according to the theory of tyrannicide, a contribution originally made by the Castilian Comuneros eventually defeated by the tyrant King Charles V in 1521, and developed by Father Juan de Mariana almost a century later [in 1610].This entire line of proto-Austrian scholastic thought also spread throughout the Americas, especially in the newly founded universities of San Marcos in Lima and Mexico City in 1551 where brilliant disciples of these Scholastics, who had studied at the University of Salamanca itself, came to occupy prominent academic positions. Thus, for example, we should mention the cases of Bartolomé Frías de Albornoz in Mexico, and above all the great Juan de Matienzo, who became judge and president of the Royal Audiencia of Charcas and Lima from 1560 onwards (Popescu, 1997).Finally, the doctrine of our scholastics did spread even to North America two centuries later through the books of Juan de Mariana, who greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the United States.However, the southern part of the continent ultimately proved unable to neutralize the wave of growing statism and centralization that first came with the arrivals of the Habsburgs in Spain, and which was intensified even further after the arrival of the Bourbons with Philip V at the beginning of the eighteenth century (Martínez Marina, 1820). How different and much more prosperous and libertarian might the historical evolution of Spain and Latin America have been, had the statist centralism of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons not prevailed, and had the far more libertarian, local, and decentralized traditional representative institutions of the kingdoms of Castile instead remained predominant—institutions that were dismantled, together with Europe's first libertarian revolution, beginning with the defeat of the Castilian Comuneros at Villalar on April 23, 1521 (Leonard Liggio, 2025).The most important and far-reaching contributions of economic scienceLet us now turn, in greater detail, to the most important contributions of Economics, as developed by the Austrian School.First, human cooperation takes place spontaneously, without the need for anyone to organize it coercively from outside. This is so because human beings are endowed with an entrepreneurial and creative capacity that continually drives them to discover the multiple opportunities for profit that arise in their environment. Each of these opportunities embodies a previous discoordination in human behavior that remains latent until it is discovered and overcome by the corresponding entrepreneurial act. This entrepreneurial act always arises from a creative tension and interpretation of events of the outside world that is essentially subjective and, therefore, cannot be reproduced by any artificial intelligence algorithm; in other words, the same objective events can be interpreted in multiple ways, even contradictory ones, without it being possible to postulate which is correct until the corresponding entrepreneurial process is completed in the form of a subjective profit. In any case, every entrepreneurial act involves, firstly, the creation of information that did not exist before (regarding the profit opportunity that arose from the previous discoordination that had gone unnoticed); secondly, the transmission of that knowledge (directly to the parties involved in the entrepreneurial act and indirectly through a series of institutions and signals such as market prices); and third and finally, the coordination of the previous maladjustments takes place when the parties involved learn motu proprio, that is, voluntarily and for their own benefit, to discipline their behavior according to the needs of others (for example, when they discover that they achieve their ends more effectively by specializing and trading peacefully the mutual results of their efforts). The discovery of the essence of this pure entrepreneurial act, with its elements of creation and transmission of information and the spontaneous coordination of the previous maladjustments continually generated by human coexistence, constitutes the most important contribution that Economic Science has provided to Humanity, and explains why the spontaneous process of voluntary social cooperation that drives the multiplication of human beings and the expansion of civilization does not require any statist system of institutional coercion.Another essential contribution of Economics is the concept of Dynamic Efficiency, understood as the process of unlimited expansion of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination that arises only within a specific institutional framework of moral and legal norms. This framework is the one grounded on the ethical principle according to which every human being has a natural right to appropriate the results of his entrepreneurial creativity; that is, a property right over what one has created and which did not previously exist, which is the most obvious and important human right. For this reason, (dynamic) Efficiency and Morality and Justice (properly understood) cannot be separated one from the other; or, as we might say, they are two sides of the same coin in the sense that only Justice and Morality induce and generate efficiency; and at the same time, what is dynamically efficient in economic terms cannot be neither unjust nor immoral. All of which, on the other hand, demonstrates the integrated order that exists in the social universe, and highlights the three levels of research (theoretical, ethical, and historical) that complement and reinforce with each other and are essential in our search for truth (Huerta de Soto, 2000).Finally, another key contribution of Economic Science is to have demonstrated the impossibility of socialism, or better, the impossibility of statism, in the sense that it is impossible for the State to achieve and coordinate what it promises for the following four reasons:First, because of the enormous volume of information required for such coordination, which the State cannot acquire because it is dispersed in the minds of the eight billion human beings who participate and interact in the social process every day. Second, given the tacit and inarticulate character of this information (and therefore its inability to be transmitted in an objective manner). Third, because the information that is generated is not "given," nor is it static, but instead changes continuously as a result of human creativity, making it impossible to transmit today information that will only be created tomorrow, and which is precisely the information that the organs of State intervention and the so-called “experts” would need today in order to direct society to achieve their objectives tomorrow. And fourth, and above all, because the coercive nature of State commands blocks the entrepreneurial activity of creating the very information which the State organization itself would need in order to give its commands a coordinating content. In sum, the State is always and everywhere violence and coercion; coercion blocks the entrepreneurial act of creation, discovery, and adjustment of discoordinated human behavior, while at the same time preventing the creation of the information and the emergence of free market prices that make economic calculation and social coordination possible. For this reason, statism is not only unnecessary but is also scientifically impossible.The impact of these essential contributions of Economics on the course of social evolution has so far been very limitedAll of these scientific contributions have so far achieved only a very partial, imperfect, and limited impact on the inertia of a social and political reality that has for centuries been characterized by the coercive power of States and rulers, and by the more or less resigned servitude of the citizens. And despite the very limited nature of this impact to date, which at best has materialized in a series of naïve and "liberal" revolutions aimed, with as much arrogance as lack of success, toward the impossible objective of trying to separate and limit the powers of states and rulers through political constitutions and "liberal democracies" (Rothbard, 2009); Humanity has been propelled as never before in those places and historical moments where it has managed, despite everything, to at least partially free itself from the State and open up some of the new channels of liberty shown by the teachings of Economics. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, which was but the first chapter of the never-completed "Revolution of Liberty" inspired by Economics. And although what has been achieved in terms of prosperity and standard of living by the now eight billion human beings seems relatively significant—and indeed it is—we cannot even conceive of the standard of living and population size that could be achieved if Humanity were able to take full advantage of and fully implement the teachings of Economic Science.We can be few and poor in a context of servitude and submission to the State, or many and wealthy in a context of liberty (Hayek, 1988, p. 133). The globe is practically empty of human beings (the Earth's current population would fit into an area equivalent to that of the state of Alaska, with a population density equal to that of Brussels). And we cannot even imagine the prosperity that could be achieved in a free market daily driven by eighty billion, or even eight hundred billion, human beings. Economics explains and demonstrates that the increasing prosperity of an ever-growing population of human beings never results from deliberate and coercive State plans, nor from the egalitarian income redistribution, nor from increases in public spending, nor from subsidies, debt, or inflation, but only arises from the free market of the capitalist system. This consists of the process of voluntary exchanges among all human beings who, endowed with an innate entrepreneurial and creative capacity, are able to detect and assess, through the system of free prices, the relative urgency and necessity of each good and service, overcoming the relative scarcity of each and satisfying, every day and in the best humanly possible way, the desires and needs of billions of consumers. Entrepreneurs who succeed in this never-ending process of profit-seeking accumulate significant resources, which, in turn, are saved and invested in capital goods and new technologies that make human beings increasingly productive, boosting their wages and standards of living; a virtuous process of continuously expanding prosperity and population growth that, if not coerced or hindered by the State, has no limits.Therefore, it is crucially important for the future of Humanity that it be able to take full and maximum advantage of the lessons and essential message in pursuit of human liberty that Economics provides. But this will only be possible if we are able to unmask and carefully analyze the powerful forces of the pseudoscientific and counterrevolutionary reaction that has been mobilized to prevent the advance of the theory of liberty derived from Economic Science. Despite their diverse origins, they all converge on the same objective: to attempt to justify and preserve State coercion at all costs under the appearance of scientific legitimacy. They are driven by the "fatal conceit" (Hayek, 1988) of many visionaries, thinkers, and supposed "experts" who believe themselves to be clever enough to correct the spontaneous market order, of course, using the violence and coercive power of the State. Together with a privileged caste of rulers, bureaucrats and acolytes, they continually manipulate a Humanity that is sadly accustomed to serving the State. For all of them, it is vital that statism be maintained and that the message of liberty provided by Economics never prevail.Next, we will list the main reactionary pseudoscientific currents that have infiltrated Economic Science like a lethal virus and constitute, in Hayek's terminology, "the counter-revolution of science" (Hayek, 1955).Pseudoscientific reactionary currents opposed to Economic Science. The role played as “useful innocents” by many libertarian economists of the counterrevolutionary mainstreamFirst, positivism and scientism as pseudoscience. By "scientism" we must understand the improper application of the methods of the natural sciences to the field of Economic Science. Thus, while the natural sciences study their object of research as something external, measurable, and quantifiable, Economics studies the implications of the voluntary actions of human beings. And given the essentially creative nature of human beings, the supposed empirical "evidence" has, at best, only a superficial, partial, and always historically contingent value. In Bastiat's words, of "what is seen" —or rather, what is believed to have been seen— but not "what is not seen" (Bastiat, 1995); and at worst, it always entails the assumption, that human beings are an object of research that can be manipulated as the matter of the external world studied by the natural sciences. This inevitably introduces the idea that to improve the world, the State and its rulers must use their coercive power to manipulate and change the things they believe they see in their historically contingent "empirical photos." But these "empirical photos" cannot capture the underlying dynamic essence of spontaneous social processes, let alone what is already happening spontaneously to solve and coordinate every problem. Therefore, it is not surprising that from the very first steps of Economic Science promoted by the Austrian School, its most violent opponents were the "socialists of the chair" gathered around the German Historical School, reinforced in France by the empiricists of the school of Saint-Simon, the insane Comte, and Durkheim, who sought to create a new and alternative pseudoscience of society. And their unhealthy positivist and ultra-empirical influence has persisted to the present day, first through American Institutionalism and later through the massive compilation of empirical data, for example, in the work of Wesley C. Mitchell or Henry Schultz, the latter, as shown by Professor Salerno, having gone on to exert a decisive influence on his assistant Milton Friedman and, through him, even on the Chicago School itself (Salerno, 2023).Secondly, the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics is characterized by its claim that only its own approach constitutes true “science,” that is, the approach based on the principles of equilibrium, maximization, and constancy. Moreover, in addition to the lack of realism of its assumptions, it adds the reductionism of a mathematical language that has developed in response to the needs and demands of the natural sciences, but which is alien to Economic Science because it does not allow for the subjective concept of time or entrepreneurial creativity. Neoclassical economists develop their pseudoscience based not on real human beings of flesh and blood, but on "ideal types" that are like "robotic penguins" who, even in their most sophisticated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are limited to moving and reacting to events and State coercion as if they were characters of a sort of economic video game ("videogame economics"). Yet neoclassical pseudoscience, despite its apparent and ever-increasing sophistication, is not capable of accounting for the immense complexity of the real world and rebels against the idea of spontaneous market order in two ways that are equally harmful to human liberty: on the one hand, by promoting the coercive "social engineering" of central banks, States, and governments to use "fine tuning" to force reality toward to the mathematical optimum of their models; and, on the other hand, by labeling as "market failures" everything they believe they observe in reality that does not coincide, in their empirical studies, with their ghostly models of “perfect” equilibrium and adjustment (Milei, 2023); failures that, according to them, refute the "benefits" of the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty, and justify their elimination as soon as possible by a coercive State authority. Note also how neoclassical pseudoscience needs, and feeds upon, the empirical work of the previous pseudoscience, positivism, in order to justify its conclusions against human liberty and in favor of State coercion, so that positivists and neoclassicists join hands and end up reinforcing each other in their reactionary agenda.Third, Keynesianism and macroeconomics as pseudoscience. The very “macro” approach already entails, inevitably, an obvious bias in favor of justifying State intervention, aggression, and coercion against the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty. As F. A. Hayek pointed out in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1974 (Hayek, 1978), macroeconomists ignore everything they cannot measure, specifically truly relevant economic processes and theories. At the same time, they believe that certain aggregate concepts—which lack genuine economic meaning—possess a “real” existence, that permits to collect empirical information or evidence that can be manipulated and statistically treated. Once again, macroeconomic pseudoscience goes hand in hand with positivist pseudoscience, and the two reinforce with each other in their counterrevolutionary reaction. Furthermore, Keynesianism is particularly harmful: not only does it flatly deny the coordinating capacity of creative entrepreneurship and the spontaneous market order, but it also builds as an alternative explanation a whole model—of course—of equilibrium with permanent unemployment, to justify the coercive intervention of the State in the lives of human beings in the form of all kinds of fiscal and monetary manipulations. Moreover, the macroeconomic and Keynesian pseudoscience feeds upon, and is reinforced by, the pseudoscientific approach of the Neoclassical School, to the point that, the so-called "neoclassical Keynesian synthesis" became, throughout the twentieth century, the main reactionary movement inside Economics. Keynesians and macroeconomists thus become the champions of that intoxication with statism, manipulation, and political power which constitutes the framework, orchestrated by governments and central banks, to which we have, regrettably, become accustomed and in which we are forced to live. This context repeatedly destabilizes the spontaneous market order, generates serious financial and economic crises and social conflicts, and continually hampers the prosperity and advance of civilization.We have left the quasi-religious mysticism of Marxist pseudoscience for last, because Marxism was scientifically dead even before it was born: in fact, it emerged with—and was theoretically demolished by—the subjectivist revolution led by the Austrian School of Economics. From the beginning, the Austrian School's development of time preference and capital theory revealed the contradictions and grave scientific errors of Marxism, while at the same time exposing its pronounced character as an intellectual fraud (Böhm-Bawerk, 1949). This intellectual fraud was historically illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and of virtually all other communist countries, after many decades of unspeakable human suffering for a large part of the world's population, all of which was perfectly consistent with the theory on the impossibility of statism developed by the Austrian School beginning with the von Mises of 1920 (Mises, 1936), and which was the final nail that forever sealed the coffin of the corpse of Marxist pseudoscience (Huerta de Soto, 2010).Finally, in this context, we must mention the destructive role played by a number of distinguished economists who, although they defend liberty and the market economy, could be described as a kind of "useful innocents" in Mises' terminology (Mises, 1947). This is so because, even though they officially oppose rampant statism and defend liberty, by accepting—even if only partially—some of the postulates of the reactionary pseudoscientific currents we have described, they ultimately end up, often without intending to and much to their regret, providing additional impetus to the statist reaction within our discipline; for example, when they insist on advising States with proposals aimed at making them more efficient and at helping them do somewhat better things that they should not be doing at all. By way of illustration, we should include in this category of “useful innocents”, for example, thinkers as the Karl Popper of The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper, 1966, p. 366), who came to admire the “scientific capacity” and even the “humanism” of Karl Marx, and who proposed a statist strategy of “piecemeal social engineering”; or George Stigler, when he claimed that only empirical evidence could determine which economic system, socialism or capitalism, might function (Stigler, 1975, pp. 1-13); and, more generally, the members of the Chicago School, led by Gary Becker and Milton Friedman. Becker when defending that only economics developed within the strict limits of equilibrium, constancy, and maximization, typical of the neoclassical pseudoscience, constitutes true "economic science." And even more serious could be considered the case of Milton Friedman, whose very sincere love of liberty and intense and popular media support for free markets stand in sharp contrast to his pseudoscientific approach based on the aggregate method of economics of Keynesian origin, on positivist empiricism, and on the full acceptance of the unrealism of assumptions. Only in this way it can be explained Friedman's litany of scientific errors which, much to his regret, have invariably ended up reinforcing statist interventionism, to the point that Hayek himself was forced to conclude that after Keynes's The General Theory, the book that has done the greatest harm to Economic Science has been Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics (Hayek, 1994, pp. 145).The failure of democracy and classical liberalism: the triumph of statismAs we see, many classical liberals and advocates of liberal democracy have also acted as "useful innocents." The fatal error of classical liberals lies in the failure to realize that their program is theoretically impossible, because it incorporates within itself the seeds of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it considers necessary and accepts the existence of a State (even if it is "minimal") understood as the monopolistic agency of institutional coercion. Therefore, the great error of classical liberals is very basic: they believe in a program of political action and economic doctrine that aims to limit the power of the State, while at the same time accepting it and even considering state's existence necessary. However Economic Science has already shown that the State is unnecessary, that statism (even in its minimal form) is theoretically impossible, and that, given human nature, once the State exists, it is impossible to limit its power. On the other hand, liberal democracy is a concept as naïve as it is impossible. Mises already warned us that democracy could only function if all its participants accepted the classical liberal principles, which is impossible because democracy itself encourages and amplifies vote-buying and the partisan use of power. So, the inevitable conclusion is that "liberal democracy" is a contradiction in terms as absurd as speaking (following Anthony de Jasay) of a “square circle,” of “hot snow,” or of a “virgin prostitute” (A. de Jasay, 1990). And even Hayek considered democracy unworkable if it is understood as the exercise of absolute power by majorities (Kratos in classical Greek). It should therefore come as no surprise that democracy once and again tends to be a perverse system based on lying and buying votes with money stolen through taxation.The fact is that the State attracts like a magnet the worst passions and vices of human nature, for instance, when individuals try to obtain rents produced by others using the State's coercive power. Moreover, the combined effect of the privileged groups, the phenomena of governmental myopia and vote-buying, the megalomaniacal character of politicians, and the irresponsibility and blindness of bureaucracies generate a dangerous, unstable and explosive cocktail, continually shaken by social, economic, and political crises which, paradoxically, are always used by the political caste to justify further doses of intervention and statism that, instead of solving problems, further aggravate them. Statism therefore corrupts the entire social body and at the same time blocks the spontaneous and free market solutions of social and economic problems.In fact, the State has become the "idol" that almost everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is the most serious and dangerous social disease of our time. We are educated to believe that all problems can and must be detected and solved by the State. Our destiny depends on the State, and the politicians who control it are expected to guarantee everything our well-being may require. Human beings remain immature and rebel against their own creative nature, which makes their future always uncertain. They demand a crystal ball that assures them not only knowing what will happen, but also that any problems that arise will be solved for them. This "infantilization" of the masses is encouraged by politicians, as it justifies their own existence and ensures their popularity, position of dominance, and capacity to control. In addition, a whole legion of intellectuals, so-called "experts," and social engineers join in this arrogant intoxication of power. Not even the Church and the most respectable religious denominations have been able to realize that statolatry today constitutes the principal threat to the free, moral, and responsible human being; that the State is a false idol of immense power, worshipped by all, and that does not allow Humanity to be free from its control or have moral or religious loyalties beyond those the state can dominate. Furthermore, it is kept hidden from the public that the state is the true source of social conflicts and evils, and "scapegoats" (such as "capitalism" or private property) are blamed for the problems, and they become the goal of the most serious condemnations, even from moral and religious leaders, almost none of whom have realized the deception or dared to denounce that statolatry is the main threat in the present century to religion, morality, and, therefore, to human civilization.Perhaps the main exception within the Church is included in the brilliant biography of Jesus of Nazareth written by Benedict XVI. That the State and political power constitute the institutional incarnation of the Antichrist should be obvious to anyone with a minimal knowledge of history who reads the former Pope's considerations on the most serious temptation that the Evil One can present to us (and I quote Ratzinger literally): "The tempter is not so crude as to propose to us directly the worship of the devil. He merely proposes that we opt for the rational solution, that we prefer a planned and organized world in which God may have a place as a private spiritual matter, but must not be allowed to interfere in our essential purposes. Soloviev attributes to the Antichrist a book entitled The Open Road to World Peace and Prosperity; it becomes the new Bible, and its core message is the worship of well-being and rational planning," by the state (Ratzinger, 2007). And so, we should not be surprised that, for example, the great author of The Lord of the Rings, J. R. Tolkien, whose Catholic anarchism I fully share, went so far as to say that he would arrest anyone for simply daring to pronounce the word "State." Because the State is, always and everywhere, a reality of violence and systematic coercion against the most intimate essence of the human being, which is his capacity to act freely, creatively, and spontaneously; and so, it is unavoidable to conclude that the State is essentially immoral and that statism constitutes the principal threat to humankind.A theological digression: the dismantling of statism as a logical necessity inseparable from the work of GodAnd almost without realizing it, we can go ahead with a theological digression on how dismantling the State is a logical and moral necessity inseparable from the work of God. I fully understand that referring to God in this conference may come as a shock to many of those present, but I would ask that even those who do not believe in God, at least for dialectical purposes, make an effort of imagination and, for the next few minutes, imagine that God does indeed exist.And what do we mean by God? We must understand God to be a Supreme Being, Creator out of love for all things. And the most important creature that God has created is precisely the human being: in His image and likeness. And if there is a point of connection between God and man, it is precisely in the creative entrepreneurial ability: the capacity to discover, to see, and to create new things, goals and actions. But now I am going to go one step further and attempt to demonstrate that God is not only the Supreme, loving Creator of all things, but that—moreover—God is libertarian.And what does it mean to say that God is libertarian? It means that God, the Lord of all the Universe, has absolute power over it, and yet He chooses not to use force, but always leaves his creatures free. To the point that He gives human beings the freedom to rebel against Him; even though, again and again, God forgives human beings and allows them to rise up and begin anew.God always lets the universe He has created, flow in a spontaneous manner ("laissez faire, laissez passer, le monde va de lui même" could be the motto of our libertarian God). And this despite the fact that human beings tempt God again and again and demand that He manifest His absolute power, that He give us clear and indisputable signs of His existence and supreme power in order for us to believe in Him. But of course, God does not accept our challenge. Why? Because love and liberty are inseparable, and a forced conversion, for example by an evident cataclysm, would be completely contrary to that liberty with which God has created human beings out of love.Moreover, the Kingdom of God is not of this world; Jesus himself says this to a fearful Roman state official, who was also in charge of judging him: "My kingdom is not of this world." Does this mean that there are two types of kingdoms? The kingdoms of this world or States, which would be legitimate at their own level (remember "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"), and the Kingdom of God, of ("render unto God the things that are God's"). That is the standard interpretation that has prevailed until now, but I think is completely wrong. The Kingdom of God—which is the exact opposite of the kingdoms or States of this world—never makes systematic use of violence and coercion: it is a Kingdom that has already come to us and, moreover, has been given to us freely, in an act of immense mercy and love (Deus caritas est). And just as the hateful institution of slavery came to an end, the Kingdom of God will also dismantle the kingdoms of this world, the states of this world, or as St. Paul said, of every principality, power, and glory (Ephesians 1:21-23), because God is libertarian and man is made in the image and likeness of God.Ludwig von Mises, in his book Interventionism, introduced the term "destructionism" to refer to the economic and social effects of statism. If Evil (represented by statist destructionism in Mises' terminology) were to prevail, the human race and civilization would have disappeared long ago. The fact that, despite everything and the immense power of seduction of statism over humankind, the process of social cooperation continues to unfold and even prosper in certain historical periods and geographical areas, is a clear manifestation that God does not abandon the world nor leave libertarians alone in their struggle against the Evil; and that Good, represented by liberty, the principle of non-aggression, the spontaneous order of the market, entrepreneurial creativity and coordination, and above all, moral principles, always with God's help, prevails and is capable of overcoming Evil, represented by the fatal conceit of the statist ideal and the destruction that it produces.And now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human natureAnd now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human nature. The most important intellectual and moral event that is taking place nowadays is the full fusion between Christianity and anarcho-capitalism. Because anarcho-capitalism is the only possible system of social cooperation that is truly compatible with human nature. Anarcho-capitalism is the purest representation of the spontaneous market order in which all services, including law, justice, and public order, are provided through a voluntary process of social cooperation. In this system, no area is closed to the drive of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination; efficiency and justice in the resolution of problems are simultaneously enhanced, while the conflicts, inefficiencies, and discoordinations generated by the State are eradicated at their root.The progressive abolition of States and their gradual replacement by a dynamic network of private agencies different legal systems, and providing all kinds of prevention and defense services, constitutes the most important social transformation that will take place in the twenty first century. Without forgetting that exactly what prevents us from knowing with precision what the future without the state will look like, the creative nature of entrepreneurship, is what gives us the peace of mind of knowing that any problem will tend to be resolved and overcome, once the entrepreneurial effort and creativity of Humanity are devoted to its solution (Kirzner, 1985).Therefore, the revolution against the “Old Régime” carried out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the old classical liberals, today finds its natural continuation in the anarcho-capitalist revolution of the twenty-first century. The message of anarcho-capitalism is clearly revolutionary. Revolutionary in terms of its goal: the dismantling of the State and its replacement by a competitive market process consisting of a network of private agencies, associations, and organizations. And revolutionary in terms of its means, especially in the scientific, economic-social, and political fields:a) First, Scientific revolution, in the field of Economic Science, which becomes the general theory of spontaneous market order extended to all social areas. And by contrast and opposition, the theory and analysis of the effects of social discoordination generated by statism in any sphere in which it operates, as well as the study of the transition process from the State towards liberty.b) Second, an Economic and social revolution, as we cannot even imagine today the immense human achievements and discoveries that could be made in an entrepreneurial environment totally free from statism. Today, and despite continuous governmental harassment, an unknown civilization is already developing, with a degree of complexity that is beyond the reach and control of the state, and which will achieve unlimited expansion once it manages to completely rid itself of statism. And when human beings become more and more aware of the perverse nature of the State that restricts them, and of the immense possibilities that are frustrated each day when the State blocks the driving force of their entrepreneurial creativity, the social demand to reform and dismantle the State will multiply creating a future that is largely unknown to us but that will elevate human civilization to heights that we cannot even imagine today.c) And finally, a political revolution in which, although day-to-day political struggle is important, it should not be the top priority. It is true that the least interventionist alternatives must always be supported, in clear alliance with the efforts of classical liberals in their long term impossible democratic limitation of the State (including reforms such as those proposed by Hayek in the third volume of Law, Legislation, and Liberty). But the anarcho-capitalist does not stop at this task, for he knows that he can and must do much more. He knows that the ultimate goal is the total dismantling of the State, and this goal leads all his imagination and political action in everyday life. And here we cannot fail to mention the unprecedented impact of our disciple and follower of our Master Program in Austrian Economics in Madrid, the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, who has done more than anyone else before to disseminate the principles of the Austrian School and the anarcho-capitalist ideal. Principles that he never ceases to quote and explain and defend once and again in all his public appearances, from the United Nations to the Davos Forum; and in all his meetings with other Heads of State, universities, and parliaments, to whom he even gives copies of the most important Austrian works by Mises, Hayek and even myself, as he did, for example, with the two popes, Francis and Leo XIV, with the French President Macron, the Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and even with Elon Musk. For us, it is a great honor that Milei has, to a large extent, emerged from the Austrian School of Madrid and that he continually keeps drawing inspiration from us. This is, without a doubt, much more important than incremental political steps in the right direction—which should of course be welcomed—and that should never fall into a political pragmatism that could betray the ultimate goal of achieving the end of the State (Huerta de Soto, 2010).And all this with tireless enthusiasm in the search for scientific and moral truth, an attitude that, inspired by the immortal work of Miguel de Cervantes, we could describe as follows: "It matters not whether they be giants or windmills, when the plume of our helm is stirred by the winds of tenacity and faith." And always creating a future that, although it may seem distant today, may at any moment witness giant steps that will surprise even the most optimistic among us. History has entered into an accelerated process of change which, although it will never stop, will open a whole new chapter when humankind finally succeeds in ridding itself definitively of the State, reducing it to no more than a dark historical relic of tragic memory.Thank you very much.REFERENCESBASTIAT, Frédéric: Selected Essays on Political Economy, Foundation for Economic Education, New York 1995.DE LA BOÉTIE, Étienne: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Free Life Editions, Nueva York 1975.BÖHM-BAWERK, Eugen von: Karl Marx and the Close of His System, Augustus M. Kelley, Nueva York 1949."The Exploitation Theory," Capital and Interest, Vol. I: History and Critique of Interest Theories, Libertarian Press, South Holland 1959.HAYEK, Friedrich A. von: The Counter-Revolution of Science, Free Press, New York, 1955.Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue (eds. Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1994.Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. III: The Political Order of a Free People, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1979.The Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1988."The Pretence of Knowledge," in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1978.HUERTA DE SOTO, Jesús: Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2010."A Hayekian Strategy to Implement Free Market Reforms," in Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, Routledge, Oxfordshire, 2010.Proyecto Docente, Chapter I: "Ciencia y Economía," Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid 2000.The Austrian School: Market Order and Creative Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2008.DE JASAY, Anthony: Market Socialism: A Scrutiny, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Occasional Paper no. 84, 1990.KIRZNER, Israel: "The Perils of Regulation: A Market Process Approach" in Discovery and the Capitalist Process, University of Chicago Press, 1985.LIGGIO, Leonard: "The Hispanic tradition of Liberty," published in Procesos de Mercado: Revista Europea de Economía Política, vol. XXII, nº 1, Summer 2025, pp. 403-420.MARTÍNEZ MARINA, Francisco: Teoría de las cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los reinos de León y Castilla, Collado, 1820.MILEI, Javier: Capitalism, Socialism, and the Neoclassical Trap, in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume II (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.MISES, Ludwig von: Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Jonathan Cape, London 1936.Planned Chaos, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson 1947.OPPENHEIMER, Franz: The State, Vanguard Press, Nueva York 1926.POPESCU, Oreste: Studies in the History of Latin American Economic Thought, Routledge, London 1997.POPPER, Karl: The Open Society and its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1966.RATZINGER, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. Translated by Adrian J. Walker. Doubleday, New York, 2007.ROTHBARD, Murray N.: "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School," in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (editor Edwin G. Dolan), Sheed and Ward, Kansas City 1976, pp. 52–74.Anatomy of the State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn 2009.SALERNO, Joseph. "Milton Friedman's Views on Method and Money Reconsidered in Light of the Housing Bubble", in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume I, (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.STIGLER, George: The Citizen and the State, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, pp. 1-13.
This week, Bob walks through Javier Milei's 2026 address to the World Economic Forum, explaining the Austrian and neoclassical ideas behind Milei's defense of capitalism—from Rothbard and Kirzner to Pareto efficiency and the welfare theorems.Related:Bob's Breakdown of The Intra-Austrian Debate over Milei: Mises.org/HAP539aThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Hayek for the 21st Century. Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree
This week, Bob walks through Javier Milei's 2026 address to the World Economic Forum, explaining the Austrian and neoclassical ideas behind Milei's defense of capitalism—from Rothbard and Kirzner to Pareto efficiency and the welfare theorems.Related:Bob's Breakdown of The Intra-Austrian Debate over Milei: Mises.org/HAP539aThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Hayek for the 21st Century. Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree
Sabine speaks with Akiva Malamet and Mikayla Novak about the effects of market forces on gender as a social construct, the unlikely pairing of free markets and gender in an age of socialist feminist theory, and their recent co-authored article in Cosmos + Taxis. Episode Notes: "Gender as a Discovery Process: Social Construction, Markets, and Gender" Akiva Malamet and Mikayla Novak https://cosmosandtaxis.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/malamet_novak_ct_vol11_iss11_12_epub.pdf Randall Holcombe on Spontaneous Order: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212458270 David Pozen "We Are All Entrepreneurs Now": https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1044021 Immanuel Kant first introduces the concepts of "phenomena" and "noumena" in his critical philosophy, particularly in his work titled "Critique of Pure Reason" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft), which was first published in 1781. Isreal Kirzner on Entrepreneurship: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Kirzner.html Jason Kuznicki "Human, Transhuman, Transgender.": https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/human-transhuman-transgender
Le quattro caratteristiche fondamentali della Scuola Austriaca di economia, i suoi cinque contributi più importanti, le lontane origini che risalgono agli scolastici spagnoli tra il XVI e XVII secolo e, infine, gli sviluppi definitivi a partire dal XIX secolo con Carl Menger e Bohm Bawerk, continuati poi nel XX secolo con Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner....
La obra basada en un cortometraje español nominado a los Premios Oscar y Goya en 2022, "se trata de una reunión de consorcio que analizan entre todos los vecinos si admiten el ingreso al edificio a una persona con una especie de retraso mentla, pero que no se sabe bien qué es. De ahí nos agarramos de los pelos planteando las típicas posturas de humor argentino entre lo patétitoc y grotesco", explicó Gustavo Garzon, actor y director, parte del elenco de Votemos, la obra de tetra en la que participa junto a Agustina Cherri, Juan Gil Navarro, Virginia Lago, Tomás Kirzner, Carlos Portaluppi, Muriel Santa Ana y Alan Daicz, en el Teatro Metropolitan. "Es un tema que se vuelve interesante de analizar, es juzgar antes de saber", aclaró. La misma, habla con mucho humor y agudeza y coloca un espejo a la sociedas frente a sus miedos, estereotipos y contradicciones, que ya no podrán esconder, poniendo la tolerancia a prueba. Encuentro Nacional, lunes a viernes de 17.00 a 19.00 Con Luisa Valmaggia, Jorge Halperín, Eduardo Anguita, Alejandro Rodríguez Bodart, Leticia Martínez, Gastón Fiorda, Silvia Bacher, Gisela López, Luciana Peker y Daniela Bruno.
Université d'été IES-IREF 20-22 juillet 2023 (détails, inscriptions, bourses) https://ies-europe.org/fr/event/universite-dete-2023/ Pierre Garello est économiste, Professeur des Universités, en poste à la Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique d'Aix-en-Provence. Après un doctorat aux Etats-Unis il a parcouru l'Europe et le monde à la rencontre des promoteurs d'une économie de marché au service de la prospérité et du progrès social. Après quelques années de pause dans l'organisation, il a relancé les traditionnelles "Universités d'Eté" d'Aix-en-Provence, où des intervenants de tous pays et de toutes disciplines se retrouvent dans un cadre convivial et discutent du rôle que peuvent jouer les idées libérales dans le monde actuel. Cette année le thème retenu est la gestion des crises. Cet entretien a été enregistré à Aix-en-Provence en juin 2023. Pour soutenir l'émission et sa gratuité, vous pouvez faire un don https://www.contrepoints.org/aider-contrepoints PARTIE 1 : 01:45 - Présentation de l'invité 02:39 - Université d'été 2023 IES-IREF 13:31 - Programme de l'édition 2023 PARTIE 2 : 20:16 - Le problème avec les économistes néo-classiques 25:09 - Chicago School : un libéralisme utilitariste ? 27:48 - Brève introduction aux apports d'Israel Kirzner 34:02 - Le lobbying est-il d'abord causé par l'absence de marché ? 36:30 - Qu'est-ce que l'analyse économique du droit ? 44:44 - Conseils de lecture 49:44 - Le "nudging", un paternalisme moderne 52:52 - Conclusion Pour aller plus loin : Journal des Libertés (périodique dirigé par Pierre Garello) https://journaldeslibertes.fr Les « Nouveaux Economistes » (Podcast avec Kevin Brookes) https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contrepoints/episodes/Nolibralisme--pourquoi-ce-nest-pas-arriv-en-France---avec-Kevin-Brookes-e1gl8qb Concurrence et Esprit d'Entreprise (livre d'I.Kirzner) https://www.amazon.fr/Concurrence-Esprit-dentreprise-Israël-Kirzner/dp/2717849270/ How Markets Work: Disequilibrium, Entrepreneurship and Discovery (I. Kirzner, en anglais, IEA) https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/how-markets-work-disequilibrium-entrepreneurship-and-discovery Traité d'Economie Politique (J-B. Say, 1841, Institut Coppet) https://www.institutcoppet.org/jean-baptiste-say-traite-deconomie-politique-6e-edition-1841/ Tout sur Frédéric Bastiat (projet Bastiat.org) Gouvernance des biens communs: pour une nouvelle approche des ressources naturelles (E. Ostrom, 2010) https://www.amazon.fr/gouvernance-biens-communs-ressources-naturelles/dp/2804161412/ Suivez-nous sur le web : Notre site web - http://www.contrepoints.org Twitter Contrepoints https://twitter.com/Contrepoints Twitter Pierre Schweitzer https://twitter.com/Schweitzer_P Facebook - Contrepoints https://www.facebook.com/Contrepoints Youtube - Contrepoints https://www.youtube.com/@ContrepointsFR
Toto Kirzner vino a Vuelta y Media para presentar "Votemos", la obra con Juan Gil Navarro, Agustina Cherri y ¡muchos más actores! Habló de títulos polémicos que dijo alguna vez, compartió cómo es trabajar con su papá (Adrián Suar) y vivió la previa de Fútbol o Muerte. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/urbanaplayfm/message
Toto Kirzner se sumó a Fútbol o Muerte para debatir con los muchachos sobre Boca, el hijo del Tano, la actuación y ¡mucho más! Mirá este momentazo de Vuelta y Media. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/urbanaplayfm/message
On this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast, we'll hear a book panel discussion of Karen Vaughn's book, Essays on Austrian Economics and Political Economy. In it, Vaughn takes us through her intellectual journey and career. She conducts various explorations of ideas from her career, including wrestling with the concept of equilibrium through the lenses of Kirzner and Lachmann and building upon Hayek's work by applying systems theory to economics, as well as considering the future of Austrian economics. The panel is moderated by Peter Boettke, and they are joined on the panel by:Jayme Lemke, Senior Fellow with the F.A. Hayek ProgramBruce Caldwell, Director of the Center for the History of Political Economy & Distinguished Affiliated Fellow with the F.A. Hayek ProgramViktor Vanberg, Professor Emeritus at Freiburg University & Senior Fellow with the Walter Eucken InstitutIf you like the show, please leave a 5-star review for us on Apple Podcasts and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever else you get your podcasts. Virtual Sentiments, our new podcast series from the Hayek Program is now streaming! Subscribe today and listen to season one on digital democracy.Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium
¡Escuchá la apertura completa! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/urbanaplayfm/message
Hablamos con dos oyentes que están atravesando situaciones muy distintas pero similares a la vez: Por un lado Edith llamó porque no termina de entender lo que le pasa a Quique. Por lo que Sofi Martínez y Toto Kirzner se personificaron y actuaron la situación para encontrarle una solución al dilema de Edith. Por otro, Fátima está saliendo con dos muchachos a la vez y si bien uno le gusta más que el otro no sabe qué hacer. ¡Escuchá este momentazo que se volvió un poco radioteatro en #Perros2023! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/urbanaplayfm/message
“Ai miei occhi, il professor Mises è e rimane sopra ogni cosa un grande radicale, un radicaleintelligente e razionale e, soprattutto, un radicale nel giusto senso del termine” - Friedrichvon HayekLudwig von Mises è stato uno dei pensatori più influenti del ventesimo secolo. Dopo i primilavori sull'economia monetaria, Mises partecipa alla prima guerra mondiale e, alla suaconclusione, dà alcuni contributi di grande rilievo, che lo segnaleranno agli occhi del mondo.E' del 1919 "Nazione, Stato ed economia", un testo nel quale Mises mette a fuoco conpreveggenza i problemi del nazionalismo nelle aree con importanti minoranze linguistiche.Nel 1920, Mises pubblica il suo saggio sul calcolo economico nell'economia pianificata. Sitratta del più importante attacco teorico mai mosso al socialismo: la nazionalizzazione deimezzi di produzione, spiega Mises, rende impossibile il calcolo economico. Le stesse ideeverranno poi sviluppate in Socialismo, una critica a tutto tondo dell'ideologia più fortunata intutto il Novecento.Negli anni successivi, Mises non smette di lavorare, anche quando è costretto a fuggiredall'Austria dell'Anschluss, per approdare prima in Svizzera e poi negli Stati Uniti. Qui, perquanto con una posizione universitaria precaria, continua a pubblicare e influenzare unanuova generazione di economisti. Una sua biografia s'intitola, non a caso, “L'ultimocavaliere del liberalismo”.Protagonista:Lisa KinspergherOspite:Lorenzo Infantino, professore ordinario di Filosofia delle Scienze Sociali presto l'Università LUISSConsigli di Lettura: - “Socialismo” ([1922], 2020) di Ludwig von Mises, trad. e prefazione di L. Infantino,Rubbettinohttps://www.store.rubbettinoeditore.it/catalogo/socialismo/- “L'Azione Umana” ([1949], 2015) di Ludwig von Mises, trad. e prefazione di L. Infantino,Rubbettinohttps://www.store.rubbettinoeditore.it/catalogo/l-azione-umana/Presentazione del libro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8PmPwX6HJw- “Libertà e Proprietà” ([1952-1962] 2007) prefazione di L. Infantino e introduzione diMurray N. Rothbard, IBL-Rubbettinowww.amazon.it/Libertà-proprietà-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/8849817932- “Ludwig Von Mises: The Man and His Economics” (2019), di Israel M. Kirzner, a cura diPeter J. Boettke,https://www.amazon.it/Ludwig-Von-Mises-Man-Economics/dp/0865978654- “Il calcolo economico nello stato socialista” ([1920] 2013), di Ludwig von Mises, trad di P.Belardinelli, Collana eBook “Classici della libertà” IBL Librihttps://www.amazon.it/calcolo-economico-socialista-Classici-libert%C3%A0-ebook/dp/B00HEMI946- “Stato, Nazione ed Economia” ([1919] 1994), di Ludwig von Mises, Bollati Boringhierihttps://www.ibs.it/stato-nazione-ed-economia-contributi-libro-ludwig-von-mises/e/9788833907994- “La Teoria Austriaca del Ciclo Economico” ([1936] 2008), di Ludwig von Mises, IBLOccasional Paper 60https://www.brunoleoni.it/op-60-la-teoria-austriaca-del-ciclo-economicoPer Saperne di Più:- “My Years with Ludwig von Mises” (1984), di Margit von Mises, Mises Institutehttps://mises.org/library/my-years-ludwig-von-mises- “Politica Economica. Riflessioni per oggi e per domani” ([1999], 2007), di Ludwig vonMises, traduzione di Miliana Voltattorni e introduzione di Lorenzo Infantino, Liberilibri.https://www.liberilibri.it/index.php/prodotto/politica-economica- Mises Institutehttps://mises.org/
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 395. From the recently-concluded Sixteenth Annual (2022) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 17, 2022). This is the audio from my iPhone. Professionally-produced audio and video will be released in a few weeks. The slide presentation is also streamed below (ppt). For others, see the PFS YouTube channel, including the PFS 2022 YouTube Playlist (forthcoming). Related: The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ KOL044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) KOL049 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 5” (Mises Academy, 2011) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources” How We Come To Own Ourselves Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Hoppe, “A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis” and “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” both in The Great Fiction
Note: An article based on the transcript (below) was published as Stephan Kinsella, "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection," The Libertarian Standard (Oct. 25, 2022). An updated and revised version of this article appears as chap. 11 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). *** Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 395. From the recently-concluded Sixteenth Annual (2022) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 17, 2022). The video as well as slide presentation is also streamed below (ppt). I also recorded a version on my iphone. Also podcast at PFP245 | Stephan Kinsella, “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection” (PFS 2022). See the following panel discussion at PFP246 | Hülsmann, Fusillo, Israel, Polleit, Kinsella, Discussion, Q&A (PFS 2022). Transcript below. See published article based on this talk, here: Stephan Kinsella, "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection," The Libertarian Standard (Oct. 25, 2022; https://libertarianstandard.com/selling-does-not-imply-owning-and-vice-versa-a-dissection/); also at Freedom and Law substack. See also Walter Block's response: Walter E. Block, Block, "Rejoinder to Kinsella on ownership and the voluntary slave contract,” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MESTE) 11, no. 1 (Jan. 2023): 1-8 [pdf] For others, see the PFS YouTube channel, including the PFS 2022 YouTube Playlist. [For those interested in the Hoppe ringtone mentioned in the beginning: see this Facebook post or the opening to this podcast by Jared Howe.] https://youtu.be/5Q7chBHfHEQ Odysee: Panel discussion: https://youtu.be/Q3lvh5UqgxU Related: "Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward," the section "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership" The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership” The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ KOL044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) KOL049 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 5” (Mises Academy, 2011) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources” How We Come To Own Ourselves Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Hoppe, “A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis” and “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” both in The Great Fiction Transcript Selling Does Not Imply Owning, and Vice Versa by Stephan Kinsella From the Sixteenth Annual (2022) Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 17, 2022) 00:00:11 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Guido opened with some jokes. I'm not going to have any jokes, but I'll open with a little light-hearted humor. This is my iPhone's ring tone, my default ring tone [ring tone]. My wife really loves that, at restaurants. 00:00:32 Okay. My topic is—my title is Selling Does Not Imply Ownership—Owning, and Vice Versa, a Dissection. So I want to explore two related beliefs, which I think are fallacious, and they stem from confusions about core libertarian principles and confusions intr...
On this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast, we'll listen to an archived episode, featuring Israel Kirzner, discussing his career as an Austrian economist. Kirzner shares how he started his studies from an accounting focus, having never heard of Austrian economics, until a chance class with Ludwig von Mises changed the course of his career. He goes on to explore the process by which Austrian economics has developed over the years and explains the one insight from Mises it took him 10 years to fully understand. Join us for this exciting trip down memory lane as we hear from one of the key thinkers in Austrian economics!If you like the show, please leave a 5-star review for us on Apple Podcasts and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever else you get your podcasts.Do you have a question related to the podcast or maybe a show topic you'd like to suggest? Write to us at hayekprogram@mercatus.gmu.edu with your questions and suggestions.Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium
Nos visitó el actor Toto Kirzner para presentar "Tierra Incógnita", la nueva serie de Disney Plus. Charlamos del proyecto y se animó a contestar las encuestas de Vuelta y Media. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/urbanaplayfm/message
Después de la visita de la semana pasada quedamos muy manijas de saber más sobre la anécdota en el Safari y como los gustos hay que dárselos en vida, hoy Toto nos deslumbró al aire con esta desopilante historia. ¡Dale play!
The Canadian Taskforce to Combat Online Antisemitism is a MIGS project aimed at analyzing current trends in online antisemitism, holocaust denial and distortion, and looking at ways we can build better Canadian resiliency to it while addressing what tech companies and other actors can do to tackle this issue. As part of the project, we are launching a series of podcast episodes. In this episode, MIGS student fellow Nadia Trudel interviews Jaime Kirzner-Roberts the Director of Policy at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies (FSWC).
In recent weeks, there have been two separate incidents of students performing the Nazi salute in Toronto public schools, specifically directed at teachers. These incidents have been widely reported by the news media, but despite the widespread outrage and condemnation, there is a major element of the story being missed in reporting. To help understand the real story, in this episode of The Honest Report, we sat down with Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, Director of Policy at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto. Welcome to The Honest Report podcast. Please subscribe to our podcast, leave a review, and share our show. If you are interested in sponsoring a podcast, visit the HonestReporting Canada website. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thehonestreport/message
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
First Tuesday es organizado por Centro de emprendimiento Kirzner de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y el primer martes de cada mes tiene como invitado a un destacado emprendedor quién comparte su historia, anécdotas, tips, concejos y herramientas en una conferencia dirigida para emprendedores, este mes de noviembre contará con la participación de Edgar Heinemann, cofundador de CENDIS
In this Empowering Queer Lives episodes, 15 year old Juana Kirzner and I talk about her path to discovering her pansexuality and the dangers of queer social media dialogue. TOPICS COVERED:
Hoy nos visitó Toto Kirzner. Hablamos sobre su presente como actor, nos dió a conocer su top 5 artístico y le cumplimos el sueño de conducir un programa de animales en NatGeo. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/urbanaplayfm/message
On this episode of the Alix Turoff Nutrition podcast, Alix sits down with Dr. Amanda Kirzner who is a double board certified in anesthesiology and obesity medicine. She also holds a Master’s in Public Health in Healthcare Policy and Management. She works as an anesthesiologist in New York, and is in the process of opening her own weight loss practice. She lives with her husband and three small children. To learn more about Amanda: Connect with her on Instagram: @obesitymedicinedoc Resources: Apply for Alix’s 12 week group coaching program Apply for Alix’s 1:1 coaching program Follow Alix on Instagram Join Alix’s private Facebook group Download your FREE Happy Hour Survival Guide Buy Alix’s book on Amazon Shop my favorite products on Amazon Contact Alix via email Be sure you’re subscribed to this podcast to automatically receive your episodes!!! If you enjoyed today’s episode, I’d love it if you would take a minute to leave a rating and review! Subscribe to The Alix Turoff Nutrition Podcast Discount Codes: Built Bar: Use the code ALIX for 10% off your order
Principles of Austrian economics have immediate applications in business. Clay Miller, a deeply experienced and highly successful global tech entrepreneur, makes the case via five principles drawn from five easily-accessible sources of Austrian economic theory, with many accompanying examples. Principle 1: The distribution of knowledge requires disaggregated thinking. Source: "The Use Of Knowledge In Society," F.A. Hayek: Mises.org/E4E_92_Hayek Hayek wrote this paper as part of a research program into the problem that economics tries to solve. He defined it as a knowledge problem. Knowledge “never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess”. The implication he drew was for central planning by governments and their departments and committees that would attempt to plan production or set prices. Such central planning is impossible because dispersed knowledge can not be aggregated and so the planners never have enough knowledge on which to base a plan. Quote “The statistics which such a central authority would have to use would have to be arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor differences between the things, by lumping together, as resources of one kind, items which differ as regards location, quality, and other particulars, in a way which may be very significant for the specific decision. It follows from this that central planning based on statistical information by its nature cannot take direct account of these circumstances of time and place…..” Application In our Economics For Business project, we have the opportunity to help entrepreneurs apply the same principle to business knowledge, or data. Too much aggregation can obscure information that is really important and most useful for improving business performance. Here's an example. A frequently used KPI (Key Performance Indicator) is average revenue per customer. It's calculated by aggregating all customer revenue into one number and dividing by the number of customers. For this to be actionable intelligence, it is necessary to assume that spending by each customer is very uniform. But consider the case where average revenue per customer is $190 for a customer base of 10 users, composed of 9 who spend $100 each and one who spends $1,000. The KPI does not suggest that each new customer you acquire will spend $190. In fact, it's more likely they'll spend $100. And, in fact, what you would really like to know is the profile of the $1000 customer and whether that profile, applied in recruiting new customers, would enable you to recruit more $1,000 spenders. You really want to choose metrics that can provide insight into individual customer behavior — like the nature and motivation of the one $1,000 spender. Similar Austrian thinking would apply, for example, to Google analytics, which can profile the type of customer interacting with your website or app, and observable behavior such as conversion rate by page visited, or abandonment rate for specific pages. These are disaggregated statistics that can help you serve customers better. Austrian thinking is rigorous in seeking to identify cause and effect, and to ensure that correlation is not mistaken for causation. A simple example is restaurant data that exhibits a 30% increase in customer traffic on Tuesdays. There's a correlation between day-of-week and traffic increases — but it's not causation. Tuesday does not cause the traffic increase. What does? It requires digging to find out, perhaps, that a local firm offers a perk to office workers to pay for them eating out on Tuesdays. As Hayek would say, this is specific knowledge of time and place, more likely to be qualitative than statistical, embracing the subjectivity that's central to Austrian economics. Principle 2: Consumer Sovereignty requires that entrepreneurs are directed by their customers. Source: Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises: Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises This book focuses on the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of bureaucratic organizational structures and processes. In a chapter titled Profit Management, Mises defines the Austrian concept of consumer sovereignty. Understanding and applying this concept is central to entrepreneurs' capability to create effective value propositions for their offering, brand or business. Quote “Thus the capitalist system of production is an economic democracy, in which every penny gives the right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people's mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities.” Application Consumers are the ones driving production. It's up to business managers to make sure that every decision is towards bettering the value proposition offered to customers. For example, the décor in a restaurant should be chosen not because the owner favors it or because an interior designer decrees it, but for the purpose of enhancing the value experience of those consumers the owner wants to attract and to serve. This requires empathy. Consumer sovereignty and entrepreneurial empathy go together. Because consumers are the ones valuing what is produced, they are the ones ascribing value to the product or service the entrepreneur produces. The entrepreneur needs to anticipate what they value, and to do so requires ever-greater closeness to the customer. Clay described the value provided by simple but tasty barbecue restaurants in his home state of north Carolina, in a décor of plastic and paper and small booths. But that wouldn't attract the customers who prefer fine dining in a five star restaurant. The customer decides what experience they value. Startups can usefully anticipate consumer preferences by creating an imaginary perfect customer, and thinking through the value they want and the value the business can facilitate for them. Once in production, get as much feedback as possible on the actual value experience and the customer's feeling about it. Every decision made inside the business needs to be for the purpose of and directed towards improving the customer value proposition and value experience. Principle 3: Human value scales are complex and ever-changing and entrepreneurial empathy is required in order to reach an understanding of customers' value dynamics. Source: Human Action, Ludwig von Mises: Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises2 Human Action is the magnum opus of Austrian economic theory. Every chapter will yield great insights for business. Clay selected value scales as a topic. Quote “It is customary to say that acting man has a scale of wants or values in his mind when he arranges his actions. On the basis of such a scale he satisfies what is of higher value, i.e., his more urgent wants, and leaves unsatisfied what is of lower value, i.e., what is a less urgent want. There is no objection to such a presentation of the state of affairs. However, one must not forget that the scale of values or wants manifests itself only in the reality of action. These scales have no independent existence apart from the actual behavior of individuals. The only source from which our knowledge concerning these scales is derived is the observation of a man's actions.” Application When a person makes a decision to purchase your product or service, they conduct a quite complex evaluation to integrate your offering into their scale of values. And the values and the scale is constantly changing. Consumers are not static robots. Their circumstances change, their preferences for saving or spending change, their time of life or even time of day demand rearranging of value scales. A consumer may have a high preference for Krispy-Kreme donuts. But then they go on a diet. Their value scale changes. Losing weight and increasing fitness are now higher values than enjoying a donut. If you are the Krispy-Kreme donut franchisee, it's important to be aware of the value scale change, and to empathize with the customer. Maybe you could develop a promotion called “Cheat Day” that rewards them with a donut treat after a week of exercise and donut restraint. As Wayne Gretzky used to say, skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it is now. How can you understand value scales? One interview with a customer — what a researcher would call deep, rich qualitative information — can be worth much, much more than survey data. Mises said that we can only know an individual's value scales by observing an individual's actions. Having them answer a survey question such as “How highly do you value this item?” or “What price would you pay for this item?” does not indicate how they would fit the item into their value scale. They may say they would pay $250,000 for a Ferrari, but, when they weighted the experience of owning the Ferrari versus the opportunity cost of foregoing other experiences, would they actually make the purchase? The survey answers won't tell you. Entrepreneurs are rewarded for estimating correctly what the customer values and creating the appropriate value proposition. Principle 4: The market is a discovery process, with uncertainty on both sides of market exchanges. All entrepreneurial actions are tests, with no certain outcomes. Source: Competition And Entrepreneurship, Israel Kirzner: Mises.org/E4E_92_Kirzner This is a seminal work on entrepreneurship. One of the major themes is that markets are a process of discovery. That insight directs entrepreneurs to think in dynamic, process terms. The entrepreneur experiences uncertainty in what he or she is producing, because they are not sure of what customers will value in the future. The customer is uncertain, too, because they're unsure of how they'll value what the entrepreneur produces. Whenever we, as consumers, feel trepidation about “pulling the trigger” on a purchase, we are experiencing this uncertainty. Meanwhile, the producer is anxiously discovering the receptiveness to his or her value proposition. Quote “The market process, then, is set in motion by the results of the initial market ignorance of the participants. The process itself consists of the systematic plan changes generated by the flow of market information released by market participation — that is, by the testing of the plans in the market.” Application Kirzner points out that every plan an entrepreneur has, every value proposition, every offering made to prospective customers can only be a test, a trial. Nothing in the market can be certain. Entrepreneurs are trying to anticipate what customers are going to value, and they can never be sure in advance. That's why entrepreneurs use empathy, to imagine, if they were the customer, what type of experience the customer would be looking for. Entrepreneurs must imagine what customers might enjoy in the future. They must seek the customer's agreement that, “Yes, your product or service delivered what you promised and made me feel better.” One implication of Kirzner's principle of “market ignorance” is for branding. If a brand has accrued a certain level of market reputation, consumers will feel less ignorant. They will feel they “know” a brand that's been producing for 100 years, that is symbolized by the 3-point star that can be seen everywhere, and that is trusted and approved by many other consumers. A brand represents the stored experience and the stored reputation of many customers. Principle 5: All entrepreneurship is for social good, and more social good is achieved by subjecting business to the marketplace test of profit and loss. Source: Austrian Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organization, Peter G Klein, Nicolai Foss, and Matthew McCaffrey, "Austrian Perspectives On Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organization": Mises.org/E4E_92_Perspectives In Chapter 4 of this book, the authors discuss the concept of social entrepreneurship. This is an idea that seems to be gaining traction, especially among millennial business owners and millennial entrepreneurs. The idea is that business should be focused on something more than profit and loss. It should provide some “social value”, making the world better. Klein, Foss and McCaffrey provide some robust Austrian thinking with regard to social entrepreneurship. Quote “However, these metaphors (“social value”, etc) often imply a false conflict with traditional entrepreneurship. For example, the contrast between conventional market entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship implies that the former is somehow not social, or even anti-social. This is misleading, however; for example, Austrians would respond that Mises's calculation argument demonstrates that the entrepreneurial market economy is profoundly social. Entrepreneurs, by bearing uncertainty in an effort to satisfy consumers, work ceaselessly to improve the welfare of all members of society, and their work in turn strengthens bonds of cooperation between individuals and communities, while at the same time disincentivizing conflict and exploitation. This is social behavior in its most fundamental form.” Application Steve Jobs improved society greatly by inventing the iPhone. The impact on society was considerable — better communication and information sharing, and higher productivity for billions of people. Every venture — including social ventures — must grapple with basic economic problems. Taking on a social mission does not relieve the firm of the pressures of the marketplace. Social enterprises are business organizations, and if they earn revenues through the sale of goods and services, they must apply judgement to allocate scarce resources in the face of uncertainty. Genuine participation in the marketplace requires them to be subject to the profit and loss test. Klein, Foss and McCaffrey make the point that “social value” is incalculable. What's good for one individual is not the same as for another. Individuals value things subjectively. When a business pleases one group, it may be adversely affecting another. Profit is not evil. It's impossible to make a profit without serving your fellow man. You are doing good for society by being an entrepreneur, by producing things that people want and value. You forego your own consumption by investing in your business, and so you are making a sacrifice to serve others. And if social entrepreneurs are not subjecting themselves to the profit and loss test — if they are supported by charity or grants — then they are not receiving the signals form consumers that they are allocating scarce resources in the way that consumers — i.e., society — prefers. The ethic of entrepreneurship is to serve, and to make others' lives better, and to receive the approval and reward of customers via the profit and loss mechanism of the market. Downloads and Extras Mentioned in the Episode: "The Use Of Knowledge In Society," F.A. Hayek (American Economic Review, Vol. XXXV, No. 4, September 1945; pp. 519–30): Mises.org/E4E_92_Hayek Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises (Yale University Press, 1944): Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises Human Action, Ludwig von Mises (Mises Institute, 1999): Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises2 Competition and Entrepreneurship, Israel Kirzner (Liberty Fund, 1978): Mises.org/E4E_92_Kirzner Austrian Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organization, Peter G Klein, Nicolai Foss, and Matthew McCaffrey (Cambridge University Press, 2019): Mises.org/E4E_92_Perspectives
Principles of Austrian economics have immediate applications in business. Clay Miller, a deeply experienced and highly successful global tech entrepreneur, makes the case via five principles drawn from five easily-accessible sources of Austrian economic theory, with many accompanying examples. Principle 1: The distribution of knowledge requires disaggregated thinking. Source: "The Use Of Knowledge In Society," F.A. Hayek: Mises.org/E4E_92_Hayek Hayek wrote this paper as part of a research program into the problem that economics tries to solve. He defined it as a knowledge problem. Knowledge “never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess”. The implication he drew was for central planning by governments and their departments and committees that would attempt to plan production or set prices. Such central planning is impossible because dispersed knowledge can not be aggregated and so the planners never have enough knowledge on which to base a plan. Quote “The statistics which such a central authority would have to use would have to be arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor differences between the things, by lumping together, as resources of one kind, items which differ as regards location, quality, and other particulars, in a way which may be very significant for the specific decision. It follows from this that central planning based on statistical information by its nature cannot take direct account of these circumstances of time and place…..” Application In our Economics For Business project, we have the opportunity to help entrepreneurs apply the same principle to business knowledge, or data. Too much aggregation can obscure information that is really important and most useful for improving business performance. Here's an example. A frequently used KPI (Key Performance Indicator) is average revenue per customer. It's calculated by aggregating all customer revenue into one number and dividing by the number of customers. For this to be actionable intelligence, it is necessary to assume that spending by each customer is very uniform. But consider the case where average revenue per customer is $190 for a customer base of 10 users, composed of 9 who spend $100 each and one who spends $1,000. The KPI does not suggest that each new customer you acquire will spend $190. In fact, it's more likely they'll spend $100. And, in fact, what you would really like to know is the profile of the $1000 customer and whether that profile, applied in recruiting new customers, would enable you to recruit more $1,000 spenders. You really want to choose metrics that can provide insight into individual customer behavior — like the nature and motivation of the one $1,000 spender. Similar Austrian thinking would apply, for example, to Google analytics, which can profile the type of customer interacting with your website or app, and observable behavior such as conversion rate by page visited, or abandonment rate for specific pages. These are disaggregated statistics that can help you serve customers better. Austrian thinking is rigorous in seeking to identify cause and effect, and to ensure that correlation is not mistaken for causation. A simple example is restaurant data that exhibits a 30% increase in customer traffic on Tuesdays. There's a correlation between day-of-week and traffic increases — but it's not causation. Tuesday does not cause the traffic increase. What does? It requires digging to find out, perhaps, that a local firm offers a perk to office workers to pay for them eating out on Tuesdays. As Hayek would say, this is specific knowledge of time and place, more likely to be qualitative than statistical, embracing the subjectivity that's central to Austrian economics. Principle 2: Consumer Sovereignty requires that entrepreneurs are directed by their customers. Source: Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises: Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises This book focuses on the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of bureaucratic organizational structures and processes. In a chapter titled Profit Management, Mises defines the Austrian concept of consumer sovereignty. Understanding and applying this concept is central to entrepreneurs' capability to create effective value propositions for their offering, brand or business. Quote “Thus the capitalist system of production is an economic democracy, in which every penny gives the right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people's mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities.” Application Consumers are the ones driving production. It's up to business managers to make sure that every decision is towards bettering the value proposition offered to customers. For example, the décor in a restaurant should be chosen not because the owner favors it or because an interior designer decrees it, but for the purpose of enhancing the value experience of those consumers the owner wants to attract and to serve. This requires empathy. Consumer sovereignty and entrepreneurial empathy go together. Because consumers are the ones valuing what is produced, they are the ones ascribing value to the product or service the entrepreneur produces. The entrepreneur needs to anticipate what they value, and to do so requires ever-greater closeness to the customer. Clay described the value provided by simple but tasty barbecue restaurants in his home state of north Carolina, in a décor of plastic and paper and small booths. But that wouldn't attract the customers who prefer fine dining in a five star restaurant. The customer decides what experience they value. Startups can usefully anticipate consumer preferences by creating an imaginary perfect customer, and thinking through the value they want and the value the business can facilitate for them. Once in production, get as much feedback as possible on the actual value experience and the customer's feeling about it. Every decision made inside the business needs to be for the purpose of and directed towards improving the customer value proposition and value experience. Principle 3: Human value scales are complex and ever-changing and entrepreneurial empathy is required in order to reach an understanding of customers' value dynamics. Source: Human Action, Ludwig von Mises: Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises2 Human Action is the magnum opus of Austrian economic theory. Every chapter will yield great insights for business. Clay selected value scales as a topic. Quote “It is customary to say that acting man has a scale of wants or values in his mind when he arranges his actions. On the basis of such a scale he satisfies what is of higher value, i.e., his more urgent wants, and leaves unsatisfied what is of lower value, i.e., what is a less urgent want. There is no objection to such a presentation of the state of affairs. However, one must not forget that the scale of values or wants manifests itself only in the reality of action. These scales have no independent existence apart from the actual behavior of individuals. The only source from which our knowledge concerning these scales is derived is the observation of a man's actions.” Application When a person makes a decision to purchase your product or service, they conduct a quite complex evaluation to integrate your offering into their scale of values. And the values and the scale is constantly changing. Consumers are not static robots. Their circumstances change, their preferences for saving or spending change, their time of life or even time of day demand rearranging of value scales. A consumer may have a high preference for Krispy-Kreme donuts. But then they go on a diet. Their value scale changes. Losing weight and increasing fitness are now higher values than enjoying a donut. If you are the Krispy-Kreme donut franchisee, it's important to be aware of the value scale change, and to empathize with the customer. Maybe you could develop a promotion called “Cheat Day” that rewards them with a donut treat after a week of exercise and donut restraint. As Wayne Gretzky used to say, skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it is now. How can you understand value scales? One interview with a customer — what a researcher would call deep, rich qualitative information — can be worth much, much more than survey data. Mises said that we can only know an individual's value scales by observing an individual's actions. Having them answer a survey question such as “How highly do you value this item?” or “What price would you pay for this item?” does not indicate how they would fit the item into their value scale. They may say they would pay $250,000 for a Ferrari, but, when they weighted the experience of owning the Ferrari versus the opportunity cost of foregoing other experiences, would they actually make the purchase? The survey answers won't tell you. Entrepreneurs are rewarded for estimating correctly what the customer values and creating the appropriate value proposition. Principle 4: The market is a discovery process, with uncertainty on both sides of market exchanges. All entrepreneurial actions are tests, with no certain outcomes. Source: Competition And Entrepreneurship, Israel Kirzner: Mises.org/E4E_92_Kirzner This is a seminal work on entrepreneurship. One of the major themes is that markets are a process of discovery. That insight directs entrepreneurs to think in dynamic, process terms. The entrepreneur experiences uncertainty in what he or she is producing, because they are not sure of what customers will value in the future. The customer is uncertain, too, because they're unsure of how they'll value what the entrepreneur produces. Whenever we, as consumers, feel trepidation about “pulling the trigger” on a purchase, we are experiencing this uncertainty. Meanwhile, the producer is anxiously discovering the receptiveness to his or her value proposition. Quote “The market process, then, is set in motion by the results of the initial market ignorance of the participants. The process itself consists of the systematic plan changes generated by the flow of market information released by market participation — that is, by the testing of the plans in the market.” Application Kirzner points out that every plan an entrepreneur has, every value proposition, every offering made to prospective customers can only be a test, a trial. Nothing in the market can be certain. Entrepreneurs are trying to anticipate what customers are going to value, and they can never be sure in advance. That's why entrepreneurs use empathy, to imagine, if they were the customer, what type of experience the customer would be looking for. Entrepreneurs must imagine what customers might enjoy in the future. They must seek the customer's agreement that, “Yes, your product or service delivered what you promised and made me feel better.” One implication of Kirzner's principle of “market ignorance” is for branding. If a brand has accrued a certain level of market reputation, consumers will feel less ignorant. They will feel they “know” a brand that's been producing for 100 years, that is symbolized by the 3-point star that can be seen everywhere, and that is trusted and approved by many other consumers. A brand represents the stored experience and the stored reputation of many customers. Principle 5: All entrepreneurship is for social good, and more social good is achieved by subjecting business to the marketplace test of profit and loss. Source: Austrian Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organization, Peter G Klein, Nicolai Foss, and Matthew McCaffrey, "Austrian Perspectives On Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organization": Mises.org/E4E_92_Perspectives In Chapter 4 of this book, the authors discuss the concept of social entrepreneurship. This is an idea that seems to be gaining traction, especially among millennial business owners and millennial entrepreneurs. The idea is that business should be focused on something more than profit and loss. It should provide some “social value”, making the world better. Klein, Foss and McCaffrey provide some robust Austrian thinking with regard to social entrepreneurship. Quote “However, these metaphors (“social value”, etc) often imply a false conflict with traditional entrepreneurship. For example, the contrast between conventional market entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship implies that the former is somehow not social, or even anti-social. This is misleading, however; for example, Austrians would respond that Mises's calculation argument demonstrates that the entrepreneurial market economy is profoundly social. Entrepreneurs, by bearing uncertainty in an effort to satisfy consumers, work ceaselessly to improve the welfare of all members of society, and their work in turn strengthens bonds of cooperation between individuals and communities, while at the same time disincentivizing conflict and exploitation. This is social behavior in its most fundamental form.” Application Steve Jobs improved society greatly by inventing the iPhone. The impact on society was considerable — better communication and information sharing, and higher productivity for billions of people. Every venture — including social ventures — must grapple with basic economic problems. Taking on a social mission does not relieve the firm of the pressures of the marketplace. Social enterprises are business organizations, and if they earn revenues through the sale of goods and services, they must apply judgement to allocate scarce resources in the face of uncertainty. Genuine participation in the marketplace requires them to be subject to the profit and loss test. Klein, Foss and McCaffrey make the point that “social value” is incalculable. What's good for one individual is not the same as for another. Individuals value things subjectively. When a business pleases one group, it may be adversely affecting another. Profit is not evil. It's impossible to make a profit without serving your fellow man. You are doing good for society by being an entrepreneur, by producing things that people want and value. You forego your own consumption by investing in your business, and so you are making a sacrifice to serve others. And if social entrepreneurs are not subjecting themselves to the profit and loss test — if they are supported by charity or grants — then they are not receiving the signals form consumers that they are allocating scarce resources in the way that consumers — i.e., society — prefers. The ethic of entrepreneurship is to serve, and to make others' lives better, and to receive the approval and reward of customers via the profit and loss mechanism of the market. Downloads and Extras Mentioned in the Episode: "The Use Of Knowledge In Society," F.A. Hayek (American Economic Review, Vol. XXXV, No. 4, September 1945; pp. 519–30): Mises.org/E4E_92_Hayek Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises (Yale University Press, 1944): Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises Human Action, Ludwig von Mises (Mises Institute, 1999): Mises.org/E4E_92_Mises2 Competition and Entrepreneurship, Israel Kirzner (Liberty Fund, 1978): Mises.org/E4E_92_Kirzner Austrian Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organization, Peter G Klein, Nicolai Foss, and Matthew McCaffrey (Cambridge University Press, 2019): Mises.org/E4E_92_Perspectives
In 2014, the Mercatus F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics hosted a keynote speech and panel discussion by some of Hayek’s most prominent colleagues and interlocutors to reflect on the significance of Hayek’s Nobel Prize and the various strands of influence his work has had in subsequent decades of scholarship. In this installment of the series, Distinguished New York University Professor Emeritus Israel M. Kirzner delivers the keynote address on the revival of Austrian economics, focusing specifically on the history of Austrian economics and how Hayek's Nobel Prize paved the way for this revival. CC Music: Twisterium
With Election Day rapidly approaching, there are many issues of concern to each voter before they cast their ballot. But the Jewish voter is not monolithic. In each episode of “Behind the Ballot Box: Jewish Values and Our Vote,” Rabbi Jesse Olitzky speaks to rabbis and Jewish communal professionals about a specific issue at stake […]
In this archived episode of Hayek Program Podcast, Distinguished New York University Professor Emeritus Israel M. Kirzner was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Order for his pioneering work on the theory of the entrepreneurial market process. The event was chaired by Mario Rizzo, Associate Professor of Economics at New York University, and featured comments from Peter Boettke, Director of the F. A. Hayek Program and Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Peter Klein, W. W. Caruth Chair and Professor of Entrepreneurship at Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business, and Donald Boudreaux, Senior Fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program and Professor of Economics at George Mason University. CC Music: Twisterium
De fleste gennemgange af økonomiens teorihistorie slutter med Keynes' død. Det gør vores også. Næsten. Vi tager også et temaafsnit om Chicago-økonomerne. Inden vi kommer så langt, vil jeg i dagens afsnit lave et lille eksperiment. Jeg vil komme med et meget kort overslag over nogle af de vigtige teoretiske udviklinger indenfor økonomi fra 1946 og frem til nu. Det er et eksperiment, fordi jeg udelukkende bruger min egen hukommelse med en forudsætning om, at jeg må have huske noget af det væsentligste. Der er sikkert meget, der er glemt, men i hvert fald kommer vi igennem as-if-economics, adfærdsøkonomi, eksperimenter, entreprenørens genfødsel og meget mere. Der er sikkert noget, som jeg har glemt, men så vil det med garanti blive dækket i næste sæson, hvor jeg og min nye medvært Otto Brøns vil tale om alle nobelprismodtagerne i rækkefølge. Glæd dig! Har du nogensinde tænkt over, hvad økonomi er for en videnskab? Hvordan opstod den, og hvem var dens grundlæggere? Eller har du interesseret dig for moderne diskussioner om samfundet, herunder ulighed, ressourceforbrug eller konkurrence? Hvis dette er tilfældet, er økonomiens teorihistorie vigtig og nyttig for dig. Den type af diskussioner er nemlig mindst lige så gammel som den økonomiske videnskab selv, og du vil i dens rødder også finde rødderne til de moderne argumenter. Til dagens afsnit har jeg læst: Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Weibler, J. (2015). Heuristics as Adaptive Decision Strategies in Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, s. 33-52. Becker, G. S. (1993). The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior. Journal of Political Economy, s. 385-409. Boettke, P. (2017). Don't Be a "Jibbering Idiot": Economic Principles and the Properly Trained Economist. The Journal of Private Enterprise, s. 9-15. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2007). The Road Not Taken: How Psychology Was Removed From Economics, and How It Might Be Brought Back. The Economic Journal, s. 146-173. Camerer, C. (1999). Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, s. 10575-10577. Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, s. 386-405. Conlisk, J. (1996). Why Bounded Rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, s. 669-700. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain. Science, s. 684-687. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2008). The Case for Mindless Economics. The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics, s. 3-42. Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk. Econometrica, s. 263-291. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, s. 217-226. Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics. The American Economic Review, s. 465-508. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Environments That Makes Us Smart: Ecological Rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, s. 167-171. Williamson, O. (1996). Economics and Organization: A Primer. California Management Review, s. 131-146. I like to dedicate this season to my teachers Ole Bruus and Bruce Caldwell. All mistakes and mispronunciations are mine alone and no fault of theirs.
21,216 lives have been lost in NYC. The future of our city is unknown and while the number of hospitalizations and deaths are decreasing we just aren’t in the clear. I wanted to learn more about what was happening in the frontlines and who better to learn from than Dr. Kirzner, who is double-board certified in anesthesiology and obesity medicine. 3:35 Dr. Kirzner kindly walks us through her medical school journey, specific reasons why she went into anesthesiology, and what her responsibilities entail. 13:20 We also go into her role as a specialized healthcare provider during the coronavirus pandemic in NYC. We talk about what COVID-19 does to the body and we do a quick review on what ventilators do. instagram.com/obesitymedicinedoc The pandemic is far from over but we need to try to understand things, continue to try to reach our goals and to adapt and continuosly innovate. If you enjoyed listening to this optometry podcast that explores different opinions and fields of medicine I want to get to know you. Please follow me on Instagram and DM me with any feedback instagram.com/newyorkeyedoc or leave me a voice message ⬇️ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/newyorkeyedoc/message
Eran Kirzner is the co-founder and CEO of Lightbits Labs which offers solutions that separate storage and compute without touching the network. The company has raised $55 million from investors like Cisco Investments, Dell Technologies Capital, and Micron.
Eran Kirzner is the co-founder and CEO of Lightbits Labs which offers solutions that separate storage and compute without touching the network. The company has raised $55 million from investors like Cisco Investments, Dell Technologies Capital, and Micron.
Eran Kirzner is co-founder and CEO of Lightbits Labs (https://lightbitslabs.com) and has a storied history in the technology industry. This show is a must-listen for folks who are interested in how Lightbits Labs is disrupting the Hyperconverged market and extends into an exciting and dynamic conversation with many lessons from the lens of a founder on startup successes and challenges. Big thanks to Eran for sharing these lessons and stories which will inevitably excite anyone in the technology startup space or those looking to step into it.
The late Murray Rothbard has passionate fans and critics alike—but was he really the intransigent person his detractors portray? Was he prickly and difficult, or actually generous and helpful to students and colleagues? Did his reputation as an economist suffer for venturing into philosophy, ethics, history, sociology, and anarchism—even though Hayek did the same? Was Man, Economy, and State really just a rehash of Human Action? Did he deviate from Mises on method? Were Power & Market and the Ethics of Liberty just too radical and off-putting? Professor Patrick Newman considers critics like Arthur Burns, Kirzner, Leland Yeager, Nozick, Mario Rizzo, Selgin/White, Jason Brennan, Bryan Caplan, and of course Mises. If you like Rothbard you don't want to miss this show! Additional Resources In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism" by Murray Rothbard Conceived in Liberty, Volume V coming October 25 Join us for a celebration of Mises and his work in Los Angeles October 25–27. More info available here.
The late Murray Rothbard has passionate fans and critics alike—but was he really the intransigent person his detractors portray? Was he prickly and difficult, or actually generous and helpful to students and colleagues? Did his reputation as an economist suffer for venturing into philosophy, ethics, history, sociology, and anarchism—even though Hayek did the same? Was Man, Economy, and State really just a rehash of Human Action? Did he deviate from Mises on method? Were Power & Market and the Ethics of Liberty just too radical and off-putting? Professor Patrick Newman considers critics like Arthur Burns, Kirzner, Leland Yeager, Nozick, Mario Rizzo, Selgin/White, Jason Brennan, Bryan Caplan, and of course Mises. If you like Rothbard you don't want to miss this show! Additional Resources In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism" by Murray Rothbard Conceived in Liberty, Volume V coming October 25 Join us for a celebration of Mises and his work in Los Angeles October 25–27. More info available here.]]>
The late Murray Rothbard has passionate fans and critics alike—but was he really the intransigent person his detractors portray? Was he prickly and difficult, or actually generous and helpful to students and colleagues? Did his reputation as an economist suffer for venturing into philosophy, ethics, history, sociology, and anarchism—even though Hayek did the same? Was Man, Economy, and State really just a rehash of Human Action? Did he deviate from Mises on method? Were Power & Market and the Ethics of Liberty just too radical and off-putting? Professor Patrick Newman considers critics like Arthur Burns, Kirzner, Leland Yeager, Nozick, Mario Rizzo, Selgin/White, Jason Brennan, Bryan Caplan, and of course Mises. If you like Rothbard you don't want to miss this show! Additional Resources In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism" by Murray Rothbard Conceived in Liberty, Volume V coming October 25 Join us for a celebration of Mises and his work in Los Angeles October 25–27. More info available here.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274. [Update: For an article based on the transcript, see "Nobody Owns Bitcoin," StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 20, 2019) Update: See KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022).] This is my presentation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Also podcast at PFP215. Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019) [PFP218]. Related links/relevant material: Leon Wankum, "Bitcoin is a Possession, Not Property," Bitcoin Magazine (Oct. 2, 2023) Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property Marty Bent, "Is Bitcoin a New Type of Property?", Bitcoin Magazine (Jul. 29, 2022) On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN's Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply' to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274. This is my presentation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019). Related links/relevant material: Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money
Después de la administración de los Kirzner en el 2016, el nuevo Gobierno de Argentina recibió una economía en condiciones muy adversas, meses más tarde, las nuevas autoridades deciden reducir la alta tasa de inflación, implementando la política Lebac. A ese respecto, Nicolás Cachanosky presenta un análisis sobre esas medidas y sus consecuencias. La decisión fue tomada por el Ministerio de Economía explica Cachanosky y la herramienta fue elegida por el Banco Central de Argentina que dispuso no cambiar la cantidad de dinero, sino controlar la tasa de interés. "Argentina está entre las diez economías menos libres del mundo, presenta altos niveles de corrupción, bajo puntaje en Doing Business y un historial poco creíble en cuanto eficiencia y transparencia del Gobierno". - Nicolás Cachanosky Señala Cachanosky Nicolás que el problema no fue cambiar la meta inflacionaria sino la pérdida de autonomía del Banco Central de Argentina, obedeciendo a las decisiones del presidente. El colapso dice Cachanosky que se dio en torno a la crisis en Turquía, el aumento de las tasas de interés en los mercados internacionales, el nuevo impuesto sobre rentas financieras, incluidos Lebacs para residentes y no residente, así como la peligrosa política de Lebac. "El contexto en el que se intenta aplicar metas de inflación es muy difícil, la inflación es muy alta, el argumento se aplicó en el momento equivocado”. Conoce directamente desde el punto de vista de un especialista en análisis político y económico, la situación de Argentina, un país que a finales del siglo XIX y principios del XX tuvo una de las economías más ricas del mundo.
Compartir ¿Cómo estudiar los principios generales de la Escuela Austríaca? Eugenia Aldana | 12 de marzo de 2019 | Vistas: 4 Cálculo Económico Economía Escuela Austriaca Israel Kirzner Ludwig Von Mises Murray Rothbard Gabriel Zanotti plantea la importancia de conocer la historia y principios de la Escuela Austriaca de Economía, así como a sus autores, quienes han dado valiosos aportes a través de cuantiosas publicaciones. Menciona Gabriel que entre los grandes exponentes que dieron el primer paso de dicha Escuela está Carl Menger quien con base en elementos de conceptos filosóficos de autores alemanes, elaboró una teoría general del valor subjetivo. Quería demostrar a los profesores alemanes que se podía hacer una síntesis de las corrientes alemanas e inglesas”. La propuesta de Menger no fue bien aceptada, sin embargo, tuvo a dos importantes seguidores que fueron Friedrich von Wieser y Eugen Böhm von Bawerk quienes de alguna manera desarrollaron de manera más técnica la ley de utilidad marginal decreciente y productividad, que en Menger tenía otro enfoque más histórico y filosófico. Eugen Böhm von Bawerk desarrolló una teoría del valor subjetiva en el ámbito de las relaciones laborales, que fue en su momento una refutación a la plusvalía de la teoría de Marx”. Posteriormente, Ludwig von Mises comenzó a asistir a un seminario organizado por von Bawerk donde a través de las lecturas de Carl Menger elaboró su propia sistematización de lo que es una Escuela Austriaca de Economía más visible, con su tratado monetario, crítica al socialismo y su obra la Acción Humana. Comenta Zanotti que a su vez, Friedrich von Hayek se interesó en los seminarios de Ludwig von Mises, y escuchando su refutación sobre el cálculo económico del socialismo, toma conciencia de la importancia del sistema de precios en la economía de mercado y es a partir de allí que elabora tres importantes artículos que unidos al tratado de economía de Mises, van dando forma a la Escuela Austriaca de Economía. Agrega Gabriel qué con base en la teoría de precios, es necesario comprender que esta tiene un rol comunicativo, el cual indica la escasez relativa en el mercado, que según Hayek es imposible en un sistema centralizado. Funciona como un orden espontáneo porque son los oferentes de los bienes y servicios que al buscar mayor rentabilidad van hacia las señales que les están comunicando”. Sin embargo, debido a la influencia de John Mynor Keynes en los años 50, las ideas austriacas van perdiendo fuerza, pero dos importantes seguidores de Mises en EE.UU., Murray Rothbard e Israel Kirzner, inician la sistematización y además, de la teoría del proceso de mercado, como un sistema de coordinación. Además, Kirzner y Ludwig Lachmann imparten un seminario para formar a las nuevas generaciones de economistas austriacos. No vean a la Escuela Austriaca como una especie de doctrina unificada, no es un catecismo, es cambiante y dinámica. Sin embargo, si tiene un eje de pensamiento central…”. Otro punto importante de la Escuela Austriaca de Economía que explica Zanotti son las diversas corrientes de pensamiento qué, aunque difieran en algunos aspectos, tienen ideas en las que coinciden. Conoce de manera sencilla y didáctica la historia de la Escuela Austriaca de Economía, y metodología que recomienda Gabriel para estudiar sus bases y principales exponentes.
Cómo nacen y por qué nacen las ideas. Cómo una ocurrencia puede transformarse en un negocio global. Por qué un emprendedor elige el sistema de franquicia para crecer. GONZALO OTALORA entrevistó a Damián Kirzner, fundador y director de Mediamorfosis, una franquicias de eventos que promueve en toda América Latina, el desarrollo de nuevas narrativas, creadas a partir del uso innovador de la tecnología, en función de los nuevos hábitos de consumo. Mas info en FRANQUICIAS QUE INSPIRAN Contacto: Franquiciasqueinspiran@gmail.com
Mercatus Center Academic & Student Programs recently hosted the 2016 Advanced Austrian Seminar at which Dr. Israel M. Kirzner, Professor Emeritus of Economics at New York University, delivered the keynote lecture, “The History and Importance of the Austrian Theory of the Market Process.” In this talk, Professor Kirzner examines the history of thought in Austrian economics, specifically focusing on the developments in the 20th century, to develop a link between the Austrian theory of the market process and the notion of subjectivism as the central idea in Austrian economics.
Gradualmente, a Escola Austríaca vai conquistando um espaço no Brasil, especialmente no âmbito universitário. O ouvinte deste Podcast é testemunha privilegiada desse crescimento a partir dos trabalhos acadêmicos, livros e eventos vinculados à teoria Austríaca. O mais recente trabalho é o recém-lançado livro “O empreendedorismo de Israel Kirzner”, de Adriano Gianturco, doutor em Teoria Política e professor do Ibmec de Belo Horizonte, obra publicada pelo selo do Instituto Mises Brasil. Neste Podcast, Adriano diz por que decidiu estudar a obra do Kirzner depois de dedicar-se no mestrado à análise do trabalho do jurista italiano Bruno Leoni e fala sobre a grande contribuição de Kirzner para o estudo do empreendedorismo e da função empreendedora na perspectiva da Escola Austríaca. Membro do conselho editorial da MISES: Revista Interdisciplinar de Filosofia, Direito e Economia, Adriano situa a importância dos juízos de valor na análise científica de Kirzner, apresenta a crítica dele à justiça redistributiva e dimensiona a influência negativa da redistribuição coerciva realizada pelo governo na alocação por meio do mercado. O professor também explica a proposta de uma “Public Choice Austríaca” e apresenta as implicações políticas do argumento central do livro. *** A música da vinheta de abertura é o Cânone do compositor alemão Johann Pachelbel executada pelo guitarrista Lai Youttitham. *** Todos os Podcasts podem ser baixados e ouvidos pelo site, pela iTunes Store e pelo YouTube. E se você gostou deste e/ou dos podcasts anteriores, visite o nosso espaço na iTunes Store, faça a avaliação e deixe um comentário.
In this episode, Diana Thomas discusses the relationship between the Virginia School of Political Economy and the Austrian School of Economics. Diana is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Heider College of Business at Creighton University. The Virginia School is a branch of public choice, the application of the tools and techniques of economics to the study of political actors. The Virginia School’s founders, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, were the first to systematically apply a rational choice framework to the study of politics in The Calculus of Consent. Two assumptions commonly made by neoclassical economists are the “benevolence assumption” and the “omniscience assumption.” The benevolence assumption is implicit in normative analysis of what governments “ought” to do, as this assumes that political actors are motivated to maximize the common good rather than pursuing their self-interest. This assumption is challenged by public choice economists. The omniscience assumption is at play in economic models that depict the economy as being in equilibrium, whereby nobody is misinformed of or surprised by economic reality. This assumption is challenged by Austrian economists. The omniscience assumption implies that the economy should be possible to rationally plan, an idea that Mises and Hayek debunked in the socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 30s. As Diana states in her paper, Entrepreneurship: Catallactic and Constitutional Perspectives, “both Buchanan and Tullock reference Mises’ Human Action as the central reference for their understanding of methodological individualism.” The Virginia and Austrian schools also share common understandings of rationality and of self-interest. Diana draws a parallel between Israel Kirzner’s distinction between calculative and entrepreneurial action and Buchanan’s distinction between reactive and creative action. While calculative or reactive action consists in simply responding to known incentives and constraints, entrepreneurial or creative action consists in envisioning a future that is different from the present and in acting on that expectation. Kirzner applies the concept of entrepreneurship to businessmen seizing anticipated arbitrage opportunities in the market. Buchanan applies the concept of creative action to political actors attempting to reform constitutional rules. Buchanan conceives of constitutional rules as being made behind a “veil of uncertainty” since it is beyond political actors’ ability to predict in precisely what situations the rule will be applied, and whether their own self-interest will be served or hurt in those situations. Diana believes that political action is more entrepreneurial than most economists recognize. But while market entrepreneurship is guided by profit and loss towards those processes that best serve consumers, political entrepreneurship has no such guiding principle. Political entrepreneurs may innovate in ways that actually harm their constituents, but these innovations may nonetheless thrive and endure. Poll numbers and bad press can motivate political actors, but these signals may not conform to the actual impacts of the policy. Good policies are often derided as evil, while bad policies are often popular. A US President can boost his popularity by declaring war, but US military ventures have a terrible track record in terms of their ultimate consequences (see Chris Coyne’s After War). Market innovations such as Lyft and Uber clearly benefit consumers, and yet there has been a political backlash against these popular businesses. Public choice economists recognize that voters are “rationally ignorant,” since becoming informed about issues is costly, while the benefit is only manifested in better policy if the specific voter happens to be the swing vote in an otherwise tied election. Given these incentives, it would be irrational to be informed about policy, so it’s surprising that so many people vote at all. Diana explains it in terms of “expressive voting.” Voters vote because they want to express their views, not because their vote is particularly potent in shaping political outcomes. Diana argues that policies aren’t particularly strongly affected by who is elected to office, rather they stem from institutional incentives. The median voter theorem demonstrates how, under plausible conditions, politicians attempt to please the most people by converging to a centrist policy. Another theory says that policy is not directed primarily by elections but by the lobbying efforts of special interest groups (see Olson). Since these groups get concentrated benefits from preferential policies, they have a strong incentive to agitate for them. Those who pay the costs of these policies (usually consumers) have only a small incentive to agitate against them, as the costs are dispersed among a great number of individuals. Specific examples of policies made for the benefit of concentrated special interests are the US sugar quota, and Canadian customs duties charged for the importation of dairy products (leading to absurd cases of cheese smuggling). You can read more from Diana Thomas at her professional website.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
