Podcast appearances and mentions of Leonard Read

Professor Gary Galles, author of the new book Freedom in One Lesson: The Best of Leonard Read, tells Shaun about the moral philosopher Leonard Read and how his principles of libertarianism are so far from what either party defines as freedom.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shaun tells us the difference between corporatism and capitalism. PLUS, Shaun debates the Sovereign Wealth Fund with Scott Powell, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of the book Rediscovering America And Professor Gary Galles, author of the new book Freedom in One Lesson: The Best of Leonard Read, tells Shaun about the moral philosopher Leonard Read and how his principles of libertarianism are so far from what either party defines as freedom. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Adam Haman returns to discuss the hot topic of the day: Trump's tariffs! In particular, Adam helps Bob to analyze the justifications for the tariffs given by MAGA fans, and how free trading libertarians should respond.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this conversation.Bob on Trump's tariffs and income taxes.Leonard Read's, "I, Pencil."The HamanNature substack.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Mike and Taylor start Capitalize Your Fridays' new 4-part series - Economics Simplified. In this first episode, they discussed the books to look at when trying to dive into economic principles and the concepts behind those principles. The literary works discussed are Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and I, Pencil an essay by Leonard Read. Key takeaways are the importance and consideration of long-term effects, avoiding policies with hidden costs, and focusing on coordinating resources to create wealth. Tune in to hear more!

ARE WE BORN RACIST? ARE WE INHERENTLY RACIST? Is bigotry in our DNA, a remnant of our fear of “the other” way back when that was necessary? If so, why do some battle with their instincts while others embrace them? Humans are the most cooperative species on the planet – all part of a huge interconnected ecosystem. We have built vast cities, connected by a global nervous system of roads, shipping lanes and optical fibers. We have sent thousands of satellites spinning around the planet. Even seemingly simple objects like a graphite pencil are the work of thousands of hands from around the world, as the wonderful essay I-Pencil, quoted above, by Leonard Read describes. Yet we can also be surprisingly intolerant of each other. If we are completely honest, there is perhaps a little bit of xenophobia, racism, sexism and bigotry deep within all of us, if we would only allow it. Luckily, we can choose to control and suppress such tendencies for our own wellbeing and the good of society. When the media, and especially people we trust, talk in such a way, it has a profound effect on our receiving minds. It can even shape our beliefs in what we might think are purely rational issues. For example, the belief in whether humans are causing climate change is strongly associated with US political party membership. This is because we tend to adopt a common position on a topic to signal we are part of a group, just like football fans wear certain colors or have tattoos to show their tribal loyalty. Even strong individuals who stand up to oppressive regimes typically have shared ideals and norms with other members of a resistance movement. This tribalism can all feel very visceral and natural because, well, in a way, it is. It fires up the primal parts of our brain designed for such responses. Yet, there are other natural attitudes, such as compassion and consideration for others, that can be suppressed in such circumstances. Imbalanced cultures produce imbalanced brains. This combination of nature and nurture shaping our attitudes and behavior is apparent in many human characteristics, and unpicking some of these examples can help us see opportunities to steer the process. Consider the tendency to become overweight in modern society. In premodern times, sugary and fatty foods were rare and valuable for humans. Now, they are everywhere. A biological trait – the craving for sugary or fatty foods – which was adaptive in premodern times, has become detrimental and maladaptive. Surely our modern cultures can protect us from these innate drives when they are unhealthy for ourselves and society? After all, we effectively suppress violent behavior in society through the way we bring up children, policing and the prison system. Instead of acknowledging and protecting us from the innate drive to binge on unhealthy food, however, our modern cultures (in many countries at least) actually exacerbate that particular problem. The result is 2 billion people – over a quarter of the world's population – overweight or obese, while another 2 billion suffer some kind of micronutrient deficiency. When we understand how our hardwired urges interact with an unhelpful cultural context, we can begin to design positive interventions. In the case of obesity, this might mean less junk food marketing and altering the composition of manufactured food. We can also change our own behavior, for example laying down new routines and healthier eating habits. Climate change could boost bigotry But what about bigotry and xenophobia? Can't we simply design the right fixes for them? That may depend on how big the problems we face in future are. For example, growing ecological crises – climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss – may actually lead to more bigoted and xenophobic attitudes. Rewiring the brain Thankfully, we can use rational thinking to develop strategies to overcome these attitudes. We can reinforce positive values, building trust and compassion, reducing the distinction between our in-group and the “other”. An important first step is appreciating our connectedness to other people. We all evolved from the same bacteria-like ancestor, and right now we share over 99% of our DNA with everyone else on the planet. Our minds are closely linked through social networks, and the things we create are often the inevitable next step in a series of interdependent innovations. Innovation is part of a great, linked creative human endeavor with no respect for race or national boundaries. In the face of overwhelming evidence from multiple scientific disciplines (biology, psychology, neuroscience) you can even question whether we exist as discrete individuals, or whether this sense individuality is an illusion (as I argue in my book The Self Delusion). We evolved to believe we are discrete individuals because it brought survival benefits (such as memory formation and an ability to track complex social interactions). But taken too far, self-centered individualism can prevent us from solving collective problems. Beyond theory, practice is also necessary to literally rewire our brains – reinforcing the neural networks through which compassionate behavior arises. Outdoor community activities have been shown to increase our psychological connectedness to others. Similarly, meditation approaches alter neural networks in the brain and reduce our sense of isolated self-identity, instead promoting compassion towards others. Even computer games and books can be designed to increase empathy. Finally, at the societal level, we need frank and open debate about environmental change and its current and future human impacts – crucially, how our attitudes and values can affect other lives and livelihoods. We need public dialogue around climate-driven human migration and how we respond to that as a society, allowing us to mitigate the knee-jerk reaction of devaluing others. Let's defuse this ticking ethical timebomb and shame those who stoke flames of bigotry beneath it. Instead, we can open ourselves up to a more expansive attitude of connectedness, empowering us to work together in cooperation with our fellow human kin. It is possible to steer our cultures and rewire our brains so that xenophobia and bigotry all but disappear. Indeed, working collaboratively across borders to overcome the global challenges of the 21st century relies upon us doing just that. ------------------------------------------------------------ It is not there are so many people that are racist it is the perception or what Racism has been Conditioned into our society actually IS. Asking someone “Where do you work?” When I was young was not an unnatural question it was a matter of Conversation….Now someone that is hyper PC sensitive could “SOMEHOW” interpret that as “Racist”. Or demonstrating Patriotism and not being very tolerant of those that disrespect those that serve and preserve “”AS RACIST”. I think these hyper sensitive PC guys with the orange feet and horn honk noses perhaps should be asking the people that are suppose to be offended “IS this Racist?” To YOU? Would Probably find out those people have zero tolerance for Disrespecting their flag and their brother, father, sister, cousin that IS Protecting and Preserving…The Left had better get their message straightened out or their not going to have any voice. The only reason their voice is heard now is because the MSM is owned by a handful of Corporations that want a ONE World Deal. They don't want The USA to be Sovereign …they don't want us to have borders… What the Left has done to the Minorities (they're suppose to care so much about ha ha)…The MSM has done to the left liberal agenda…they're being used just like the minorities have been used. Well the Minorities are waking up…My Black friends My Hispanic friends have BEEN Woke up…they're successful in their business and want the Economy they're now enjoying. They're perception is exactly my perception I'm white, they're black or brown but, we all have the same thoughts…Give us a Chance and we will succeed…They hated Obama with a Passion not because he was black or half white but, BECAUSE he killed their business…graveyard dead. Those ARE the FACTS accept them or get used…Go get a job, start a business or just find your happy place BUT if you cannot do any of those things NOW?? Find the nearest Volcano and sacrifice yourself to the Village idiots god. Because …you will never have this opportunity again. Reagan was the last and that was when I was in College…Quit whining and use this CHANCE. The End.  

(NOTAS Y ENLACES COMPLETOS AQUÍ: https://www.jaimerodriguezdesantiago.com/kaizen/198-metacognicion-i-la-ilusion-de-conocimiento-dragones-cremalleras-y-biciceltas/)Empecemos hoy con un experimento. Te voy a hacer algunas preguntas y te sugiero que si es necesario pauses el podcast para responderlas en tu cabeza. ¿empezamos?Primera pregunta: de uno a siete, ¿cuánto dirías que comprendes cómo funciona una cremallera? Te doy unos segundos para pensarlo¿Lo tienes? Genial. Vamos por la segunda, y esta requiere más tiempo: ¿Cómo funciona una cremallera? Intenta describir lo más detalladamente posible todos los pasos que suceden cuando cierras o abres una. Lo ideal sería que lo pusieras por escrito, pero como imagino que estás haciendo otras cosas mientras escuchas el podcast, al menos, intenta describirlo de palabra, en tu cabeza o en alto, como prefieras, pero lo mejor que puedas. De nuevo te voy a dar unos segundos, pero si es necesario pausa el podcast.¿Has vuelto ya? Vale. Última pregunta, que es la misma que la primera:  Ahora, en la misma escala que antes, de uno a 7, ¿cuánto dirías que conoces el funcionamiento de una cremallera?Por lo general, tendemos a rebajar nuestra nota después de hacer el ejercicio de intentar describir cómo funciona algo y darnos cuenta de que no lo tenemos tan claro como creíamos. Resulta que los humanos vivimos continuamente en una ilusión. Una a la que vamos a dedicar el capítulo de hoy: la ilusión de conocimiento. Y por el camino, me temo, que nos van a salir unas cuantas preguntas raras. ¡Ya están abiertas las inscripciones para la 2ª edición del programa de desarrollo directivo y liderazgo que dirijo en Tramontana! ¿Te interesa? Toda la info aquí: https://www.tramontana.net/desarrollo-directivo-liderazgo¿Te gusta kaizen? Apoya el podcast uniéndote a la Comunidad y accede a contenidos y ventajas exclusivas: https://www.jaimerodriguezdesantiago.com/comunidad-kaizen/

One of the cliches of the New Deal was that businesses were entitled to a “fair” profit. Leonard Read astutely pointed out that profits (and losses) have nothing to do with “fairness.” Original Article: Are Businesses Entitled to a Fair Profit?

One of the cliches of the New Deal was that businesses were entitled to a “fair” profit. Leonard Read astutely pointed out that profits (and losses) have nothing to do with “fairness.” Original Article: Are Businesses Entitled to a Fair Profit?

One of the cliches of the New Deal was that businesses were entitled to a “fair” profit. Leonard Read astutely pointed out that profits (and losses) have nothing to do with “fairness.” Original Article: Are Businesses Entitled to a Fair Profit?

One of the cliches of the New Deal was that businesses were entitled to a “fair” profit. Leonard Read astutely pointed out that profits (and losses) have nothing to do with “fairness.” Narrated by Millian Quinteros.

One of the cliches of the New Deal was that businesses were entitled to a “fair” profit. Leonard Read astutely pointed out that profits (and losses) have nothing to do with “fairness.” Original Article: Are Businesses Entitled to a Fair Profit?

One of the cliches of the New Deal was that businesses were entitled to a “fair” profit. Leonard Read astutely pointed out that profits (and losses) have nothing to do with “fairness.” Original Article: Are Businesses Entitled to a Fair Profit?

Leonard Read's famous "I, Pencil" explained the workings of the market in terms of the creation of a simple pencil. However, we should not forget that the reviled fossil fuels are involved at every turn. Original Article: "Not Even a Pencil Could Exist without Fossil Fuels"

Leonard Read's famous "I, Pencil" explained the workings of the market in terms of the creation of a simple pencil. However, we should not forget that the reviled fossil fuels are involved at every turn. Original Article: "Not Even a Pencil Could Exist without Fossil Fuels"

Our statues must eat ice cream, our cities must be designed by cardiovascular surgeons, and we must all go to the fifth temple. Krish Ashok and Naren Shenoy join Amit Varma in episode 343 of The Seen and the Unseen to banter away a few perfectly good hours. What a waste of time, eh? NO! (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Krish Ashok on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, his own website and Spotify/Apple Music/Soundcloud. 2. Naren Shenoy on Twitter, Instagram and Blogspot. 3. Narendra Shenoy and Mr Narendra Shenoy — Episode 250 of The Seen and the Unseen. 4. A Scientist in the Kitchen — Episode 204 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Krish Ashok). 5. Masala Lab: The Science of Indian Cooking -- Krish Ashok. 6. Simblified, co-hosted by Narendra Shenoy. 7. We want Narendra Shenoy to write a book. 8. Lohapurusha -- Krish Ashok's Sanskrit Heavy Metal album. 9. The Masala Lab Dal Recipe Generator -- Krish Ashok. 10. The Amaklamatic Salad Recipe Generator -- Krish Ashok. 11. The Amaklamatic Chutney Recipe Generator -- Krish Ashok. 12.  Newton the Alchemist. Gandhi the Black Swan -- Episode 7 of Everything is Everything. 13. Krish Ashok hates computers and this is proof. 14. Roshan Abbas and the Creator Economy — Episode 239 of The Seen and the Unseen. 15. The Adda at the End of the Universe — Episode 309 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vikram Sathaye and Roshan Abbas). 16. The Prem Panicker Files — Episode 217 of The Seen and the Unseen. 17. Caste, Gender, Karnatik Music — Episode 162 of The Seen and the Unseen (w TM Krishna). 18. 4′33″ -- John Cage. 19. Is the Singularity Near? -- Episode 2 of Everything is Everything. 20. The Formula Behind Every Perfect Pop Song — Seeker. 21. I, Pencil -- Leonard Read. 22. The Cadbury Dairy Milk Mystery -- Krish Ashok. 23. A Poetry Handbook — Mary Oliver. 24. Tvam -- Krish Ashok's version of Rammstein's Du Hast. 25. Du Hast -- Rammstein. 26. Early Indians — Episode 112 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Tony Joseph). 27. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad — Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 28. Alice Evans Studies the Great Gender Divergence — Episode 297 of The Seen and the Unseen. 29. The Incredible Curiosities of Mukulika Banerjee — Episode 276 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Mukulika Banerjee). 30. The Pathan Unarmed — Mukulika Banerjee. 31. The Country Foods channel. 32. Ulhas Kamathe -- The Chicken Leg Piece Guy. 33. Sell the Tiger to Save It — Barun Mitra. 34. The Poultry Map. 35. The Egg Map. 36. Team Pizza or Team Biryani? 37. Gordon tries to make Pad Thai -- The F Word. 38. The Panchatantra. 39. Varun Grover Is in the House — Episode 292 of The Seen and the Unseen. 40. Kimaham Abhavam -- Krish Ashok's version of Johnny Cash's version of Nine Inch Nails's Hurt. 41. Hurt -- Johnny Cash. 42. Hurt -- Nine Inch Nails. 43. Miss Excel on Instagram and TikTok. 44. How an Excel Tiktoker Manifested Her Way to Making Six Figures a Day — Nilay Patel. 45. The Menu -- Mark Mylod. 46. Cilappatikaram. 47. Dunbar's number. 48. Womaning in India With Mahima Vashisht — Episode 293 of The Seen and the Unseen. 49. Womaning in India — Mahima Vashisht's newsletter. 50. Superforecasting -- Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner. 51. Essays -- Paul Graham. 52. Nityananda making sense. 53. Uncle Roger. 54. Abby Philips Fights for Science and Medicine — Episode 310 of The Seen and the Unseen. 55. Never Talk About TURMERIC on Social Media — Abby Philips. 56. The Magic Pill -- Rob Tate. 57. Wanting — Luke Burgis. 58. Luke Burgis Sees the Deer at His Window -- Episode 337 of The Seen and the Unseen. 59. Brandolini's law. 60. Foodpharmer on Instagram. 61. 1000 True Fans — Kevin Kelly. 62. 1000 True Fans? Try 100 — Li Jin. 63. The Case Against Sugar — Gary Taubes. 64. The Big Fat Surprise — Nina Teicholz. 65. The Obesity Code — Jason Fung. 66. Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas — Natasha Dow Schüll. 67. Your Undivided Attention -- Podcast by Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin. 68. Sara Rai Inhales Literature — Episode 255 of The Seen and the Unseen. 69. 3Blue1Brown on YouTube. 70. The Life and Times of Abhinandan Sekhri — Episode 254 of The Seen and the Unseen. 71. Jaya Varma and the Chandigarh Choir perform Dhano Dhanne. 72. In a Silent Way — Episode 316 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Gaurav Chintamani). 73. Sonnet 18 -- William Shakespeare. 74. Sonnet 18 -- Harriet Walter. 74. Sonnet 18 -- Akala. 75. Sonnet 18 -- David Gilmour. 76. Raga Ahir Bhairav -- Gangubai Hangal. 77. The Memoirs of Dr Haimabati Sen — Haimabati Sen (translated by Tapan Raychoudhuri). 78. Kavitha Rao and Our Lady Doctors — Episode 235 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Kavitha Rao). 79. Dark Was the Night -- Blind Willie Johnson. 80. Car Wheels on a Gravel Road -- Lucinda Williams. 81. Sweet Old World -- Lucinda Williams. 82. All That She Wants -- Ace of Base. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new video podcast. Check out Everything is Everything on YouTube. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘Amits' by Simahina.

What many people call government generosity Leonard Read called avarice. Original Article: "To Avarice No Sanction"

What many people call government generosity Leonard Read called avarice. Original Article: "To Avarice No Sanction"

Leonard Read asked how we preserve liberty in a culture that doesn't appreciate it. Liberty cannot come through force and organization. It comes from within oneself. Original Article: "Smarter Talk Is Smarter Action"

Leonard Read asked how we preserve liberty in a culture that doesn't appreciate it. Liberty cannot come through force and organization. It comes from within oneself. Original Article: "Smarter Talk Is Smarter Action"

American law protects what is called the "right to strike." However, Leonard Read found no moral code that permits such action. Original Article: "There Is No Moral Right to Strike"

American law protects what is called the "right to strike." However, Leonard Read found no moral code that permits such action. Original Article: "There Is No Moral Right to Strike"

More than forty years ago, Leonard Read urged graduates of Hillsdale College to find a premise, a belief in a universal idea of liberty. Original Article: "Living by a Premise"

More than forty years ago, Leonard Read urged graduates of Hillsdale College to find a premise, a belief in a universal idea of liberty. Original Article: "Living by a Premise"

Nel 1958, il teorico ultra-liberista Leonard Read pubblica un saggio, intitolato "I, Pencil", in cui una matita racconta in prima persona il complesso processo della sua creazione. L'immaginifica voce dell'oggetto elenca i tanti materiali che lo compongono ed esalta la libera convergenza delle migliaia di azioni necessarie per assemblarli. I, Pencil è un inno alla mano invisibile del libero mercato. Per molto tempo è stato il testo più letto in America dopo la Bibbia. E nel 1980, verrà ripreso dall'economista conservatore Milton Friedman nel corso del programma televisivo Free to Choose. Ma oggi che le filiere globali si sono inceppate e la catastrofe ambientale incombe, il mantra che ha dominato per quasi mezzo secolo svela la sua debolezza mentre l'appassionato monologo della matita si ribalta in una confessione troppo a lungo taciuta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dan Sanchez (Editor-in-Chief, @FEEonline) discuss the fundamental challenge that libertarians face, how to build a culture that addresses that problem, and what we can learn from great communicators like Leonard Read and Ron Paul. decentralizedrevolution.com/103 TakeHumanAction.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/misescaucus/message

Alex and Mike Munger discuss two strains of thought within the liberty movement - one concerned with philosophical purity and cohesion, the other with advancement towards a common ideal of greater freedom for all.  Episode Notes: Mike's article "The Right Kind of Nothing": https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-right-kind-of-nothing/ An introduction to Coasian bargaining: http://www.ejolt.org/2015/09/coasian-bargaining-2/  The Piece commissioned by Leonard Read by Milton Friedman and George Stigler on Rent Control: https://fee.org/resources/roofs-or-ceilings-the-current-housing-problem/  Mike Munger's piece "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things" https://www.aier.org/article/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-directionalists-vs-destinationists/  James Buchanan on Relatively Absolute Absolutes https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-021-00883-0 

He's one of our finest writers, lyricists, comedians, dissenters -- and the breadth of his work is matched by the depth of his insights. Varun Grover joins Amit Varma in episode 292 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about his life and work so far. (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Varun Grover on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and IMDb. 2. Masaan -- Directed by Neeraj Ghaywan and written by Varun Grover. 3. Aisi Taisi Democracy on YouTube. Twitter and Instagram. 4. Sandeep aur Pinky Faraar -- Directed by Dibakar Banerjee and co-written by Varun Grover. 5. Biksu -- Raj Kumari (illustrations) and Varun Grover (words). 6. Learn Screen Writing -- Varun Grover's course on Front Row. 7. Varun Grover interviewed on Slow Cafe by Neelesh Misra. 8. Guftagoo with Varun Grover. 9. Moh Moh Ke Dhaage -- Lyrics by Varun Grover. 10. Tu Kisi Rail Si -- Lyrics by Varun Grover. 11. Mann Kasturi -- Lyrics by Varun Grover. 12. Network -- Sidney Lumet. 13. Hot Drinks Equal Warm Feelings. 14. The Gita Press and Hindu Nationalism — Episode 139 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Akshaya Mukul). 15. A Life in Indian Politics — Episode 149 of The Seen and the Unseen (w JP Narayan). 16. Massive fire breaks out at Chitrakoot ground in Andheri. 17. Private Truths, Public Lies — Timur Kuran. 18. I, Pencil -- Leonard Read. 19. Uski Roti -- Mani Kaul. 20. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind — Gustave le Bon. 21. Crowds and Power — Elias Canetti. 22. Nikaah -- BR Chopra. 23. Masoom -- Shekhar Kapur. 24. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 25. The Refreshing Audacity of Vinay Singhal -- Episode 291 of The Seen and the Unseen. 26. Stage.in. 27. The Indianness of Indian Food — Episode 95 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vikram Doctor). 28. Blowin' in the Wind -- Bob Dylan. 29. You're Missing -- Bruce Springsteen. 30. Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh and Dushyant Kumar. 31. M Indicator. 32. Range -- David Epstein. 33. The desire to help, and the desire not to be helped — Roger Ebert's review of Ramin Bahrani's Goodbye Solo. 34. Georges Simenon on Amazon. 35. Fast Car -- Tracy Chapman. 36. Amitava Kumar Finds the Breath of Life -- Episode 265 of The Seen and the Unseen. 37. Aadha Gaon -- Rahi Masoom Raza. 38. Biba Sada Dil Morr De -- Nusrat Fatek Ali Khan. 39. Mirza Ghalib on Rekhta. 40. Early Indians — Episode 112 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Tony Joseph). 41. Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From — Tony Joseph. 42. Kishore Kumar, Mohammed Rafi, SD Burman, RD Burman and Abida Parveen on Spotify. 43. From Cairo to Delhi With Max Rodenbeck -- Episode 281 of The Seen and the Unseen. 44. Invisible Cities -- Italo Calvino. 45. The Rooted Cosmopolitanism of Sugata Srinivasaraju -- Episode 277 of The Seen and the Unseen. 46. Songs of Life -- Puneet Aghi. 47. Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! -- Sooraj Barjatya. 48. Surabhi. 49. Forrest Gump, Notting Hill and Rambo. 50. Majid Majidi, Abbas Kiorastami and Jafar Panahi. 51. Loha, Farishtay, Border and Gadar. 52. Babel and Amores Perros. 53. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie -- John Cassavetes. 54. Mean Streets and Taxi Driver by Martin Scorcese. 55. Flow: The Psychology of Happiness -- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 56. Ellevoro on Instagram and Trip Advisor. 57. Wanting — Luke Burgis. 58. Gunahon Ka Devta -- Dharamvir Bharati. 59. It is Immoral to Have Children. Here's Why — Amit Varma. 60. The Four Quadrants of Conformism — Paul Graham. 61. The Importance of Satya -- Episode 241 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Uday Bhatia). 62. The Great Man Theory of History. 63. Gaata Rahe Mera Dil -- Lyrics by Shailendra. 64. Surinder Kaur, Asa Singh Mastana, Mehdi Hassan, Ghulam Ali, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Parveen Sultana and Noor Jehan on Spotify. 65. Satyajit Ray on Wikipedia, IMDb and Amazon. 66. Agantuk -- Satyajit Ray. 67. The Wind Rises -- Hayao Miyazaki 68. Michael Haneke on Wikipedia and IMDb. 69. Dekalog — Krzysztof Kieślowski. 70. The Three Colours Trilogy --  Krzysztof Kieślowski. 71. A Short Film About Love --  Krzysztof Kieślowski. 72. A Short Film About Killing --  Krzysztof Kieślowski. 73. The God of Small Things -- Arundhati Roy. 74. Dharamvir Bharati, Harishankar Parsai, Uday Prakash and Manohar Shyam Joshi. 75. Raag Darbari (Hindi) (English) — Shrilal Shukla. 76. Naiyer Masud on Wikipedia, Rekhta and Amazon. 77. Collected Stories -- Naiyer Masud. 78. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi on Wikipedia, Rekhta and Amazon. 79. Kai Chaand The Sar-e-aasman --  Shamsur Rahman Faruqi. 80. Sara Rai Inhales Literature -- Episode 255 of The Seen and the Unseen. 81. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The Phantom of Liberty, That Obscure Object of Desire — Luis Buñuel. 82. The Dead -- John Huston. This episode is sponsored by Capital Mind. Check out their offerings here. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! The illustration for this episode is by Nishant Jain aka Sneaky Artist. Check out his podcast, Twitter, Instagram and Substack.

What impact did Leonard Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, have on the libertarian movement? Join FFF president Jacob G. Hornberger and Citadel professor Richard M. Ebeling as they examine the life of this libertarian luminary. Please subscribe to our email newsletter FFF Daily here.

If you were able to time travel back into the past, how would you go about proving you were from the future? Is there a set of predictions you could offer that would improve your chances of being believed? In this week's podcast, we discuss what it is that makes a person from the future different to those from the present day and what technology or innovation we might replicate to persuade the disbelieving. We also look at the illusion of explanatory depth, the concept of proof, rationality and the Flashman Papers Series. Finally, we disclose our desired guest list for a dinner party made up of historical attendees. - Javier, alleged time-travelling TikToker https://www.tiktok.com/@unicosobreviviente?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1 - I, Pencil by Leonard Read https://mises.org/library/i-pencil - Why it took so long to invent the wheel https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-it-took-so-long-to-inv/#:~:text=According%20to%20Anthony%2C%20%22It%20was,only%20once%2C%20in%20one%20place - The Science of Cycology https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/cycleweb.html - The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3062901/ For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com

On this episode, Harry and Philip dive into the big questions, "How can we balance liberalism and democracy?" and "Can a small government aimed only at protecting liberal freedom keep the system alive?" If you've ever wondered about the strengths and weaknesses of small government in building a healthy democratic society, join us and tune in! If you're interested in learning more about this subject and the writings we discuss in the episode: https://know-your-enemy-1682b684.simplecast.com/ (Know Your Enemy Podcast) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws (Milton Friedman, father of Neoliberalism, discusses the pencil) Anarchy, State and Utopia, by Robert Nozick. Relevant excerpts http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/Readings/Nozick_Justice.pdf (here). https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyF2EBYD-lkZWgOQYdgbEc3N9kMxtAncHtPu1axNmWn_n7RghuP_EWEaAq0bEALw_wcB ("I, Pencil," by Leonard Read.) "Federalist no. 10," James Madison. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1940/04/but-im-a-conservative/304434/ ( "But–I'm a Conservative!" by Peter Viereck, in The Atlantic.)

What's the biggest thing that separates authoritarians from supporters of freedom? Gary M. Galles draws upon another Leonard Read essay to provide a clear and compelling distinction. The damage done by Covid could more accurately be described as damage done by the official response to Covid. Brandon Smith has an explanation of the economic damage done and where it's leading us. With the intense heat wave we've been under lately, the thought of working in the garden isn't as appealing at the moment. Even so, Annie Holmquist has a terrific essay about the importance of not only gardening but teaching our children how to weather life's storms by rooting them in a garden.  Sponsors:  Monticello College Pure Light HSL Ammo The Heather Turner Team at Patriot Home Mortgage Subscribe to the podcast  Support this program by becoming a Patron 

Independence Day has come (and gone) once again and with it, the opportunity to reflect on what exactly we celebrate. Leonard E. Read's classic essay "The Essence of Americanism" is a great way to recount the remarkable shift that came about as a result of American independence. It's also a great antidote to the poisonous revamping of American history that is currently fashionable. What's the biggest thing that separates authoritarians from supporters of freedom? Gary M. Galles draws upon another Leonard Read essay to provide a clear and compelling distinction. The damage done by Covid could more accurately be described as damage done by the official response to Covid. Brandon Smith has an explanation of the economic damage done and where it's leading us. With the intense heat wave we've been under lately, the thought of working in the garden isn't as appealing at the moment. Even so, Annie Holmquist has a terrific essay about the importance of not only gardening but teaching our children how to weather life's storms by rooting them in a garden. www.thebryanhydeshow.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

If you're a fan of the Tuttle Twins and the Miraculous Pencil, you might have heard of Leonard Read. Read not only wrote I, Pencil, the book that inspired the Tuttle Twins book, he also founded the Foundation for Economic Education.

¿Sabes cómo funciona el libre mercado? En este NUEVO episodio aprenderás con este libro para niños por qué incluso un lápiz es un invento maravilloso Este episodio te ayudará a comprender por qué el proceso necesario para fabricar un lápiz es la llave para la prosperidad de cada individuo Escucha el episodio completo por el LINK del Perfil, en SPOTIFY, Apple Podcasts, iVoox y YouTube Entra a podcastlibertario.com para dejar tus comentarios sobre el episodio. Libro: Los Gemelos Tuttle y el lápiz maravilloso Autor: Connor Boyack Basado en el ensayo clásico Yo, el lápiz de Leonard Read

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://donnyferguson.com/2021/01/21/14-leonard-read-quotes-from-pattern-for-revolt/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/donny-ferguson/message

How is a pencil made? What does this seemingly simply process entail? How many people? What materials? Join Ryan and Tanner reading and discussing the essay, "I, Pencil", where a pencil explains the marvels of the modern world by giving a brief glimpse of what it takes to make itself.Also, how is the environment connected to wealth generation in the modern world? Cars, coffee, and coats are great, but at what cost? Not monetarily, but to the environment. And, how large of a cost to and from the environment are we willing to front before our shoddy calculus leaves the economy in shambles, having destroyed the cornerstone of the economy, the environment itself.These thoughts, questions, and more inspired by the essay, "I, Pencil", by Leonard Read.

Ryan sits down with the Alaska Libertarian Party Chairmen to discuss politics, spirituality, and other topics!  I realized I forgot to mention the book recommendation so here it is: https://mises.org/library/elements-libertarian-leadership From one of the greasy in libertarian philosophy, Leonard Read! He discusses what it takes to lead a libertarian revolution.  iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tarred-and-feathered/id1559183879 Spotify:  https://open.spotify.com/show/6KJ9ZQ7rj9ErbmRyBmOTFU?si=z3wAwRFhSa29HIlhFDs9sQ Stitcher: Tarred and Feathered on Stitcher Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TarredAndFeather Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TAFCast/ Sponsor: http://Unitedahr.com In Austin!  And Remember to leave us a review!

"Eu, o Lápis", a encantadora história de Leonard Read, tornou-se um clássico - e merecidamente. Não sei de outro texto literário que ilustre tão sucinta, persuasiva e eficazmente, tanto o significado da mão invisível de Adam Smith - a possibilidade de cooperação sem coerção -, como a ênfase de Friedrich Hayek na importância do conhecimento disperso e no papel do sistema de preços na comunicação de informação que "leva os indivíduos a fazerem coisas desejáveis sem que ninguém tenha de lhes dizer o que fazer."Cortesia da Foundation for Economic Education.Publicado originalmente na revista The Freeman (dez. 1958).Tradução: Pedro Almeida JorgeNarração: Mariana Vargas e Tiago Soares

Svaret på frågan "Men vem bygger vägarna utan staten?" förklarades i denna sunda text redan 1958 av Leonard Read (och var då inte ens en ny tanke). Dess enkla, oemotsägliga ord kan få den mest kallhamrade etatisten att tappa fotfästet för en stund. https://www.mises.se/bibliotek/jag-pennan/

(NOTAS COMPLETAS Y ENLACES AQUÍ: https://www.jaimerodriguezdesantiago.com/kaizen/81-como-funciona-la-innovacion/)En 1958 Leonard Read escribió “Yo, el lápiz”, un brillante ensayo sobre el liberalismo. En él relata el milagro que supone un simple lápiz y el hecho de que tantas y tantas personas, energías y tareas se organicen para fabricarlo, sin conocerse entre sí y sin que casi ninguno de ellos, individualmente, quiera realmente producir un lápiz; simplemente cambian la minúscula fracción de conocimiento que tienen que es útil en el proceso por dinero para satisfacer sus propias necesidades. El lápiz finalmente es sólo el resultado de la libertad individual y una necesidad que otros pueden satisfacer.Es un texto escrito en un momento muy concreto, los años 50 del siglo XX, en el que aún había una pugna entre el comunismo y el capitalismo. Y es, claro, una exaltación del capitalismo. Pero más allá de eso, es también una ventana al tema del que vamos a hablar hoy: cómo funciona la innovación.De la innovación, en realidad, hemos hablado bastante en kaizen. Muy al principio del podcast, le dedicamos un capítulo entero a modelos mentales que tenían que ver con la innovación. Hemos tratado también temas como el aparente estancamiento que ha sufrido el desarrollo tecnológico en los últimos 50 años, cómo vamos a necesitar retomar la senda que marcó el proyecto Apollo, si queremos sobrevivir como especie; o, hace muy poquito, en la entrevista con Javier González Recuenco, cómo hay grandes atractores que influyen en nuestro progreso. Así que, sinceramente, no tenía pensado dedicar otro capítulo al tema tan pronto, pero hace unas semanas me encontré con este texto de Leonard Read, con un libro, How Innovation Works – Cómo funciona la innovación – de Matt Ridley y con una conversación entre el propio Matt y Naval, justo de quien te hablaba en el capítulo anterior. Y de ese mejunje surgieron algunas ideas que me cambiaron un poco la perspectiva. Así que he pensado que tal vez te gustaría escucharlas

Have you heard the classic story of the pencil? It’s really effective for illuminating how free markets work for the benefit of all! Join Kevin as he recounts this story and puts it in a modern context to consider, advocate, and apply. // Download this episode's Application & Action questions and PDF transcript at whitestone.org.

It is normal for entrepreneurs to occasionally feel down. How you react in those moments is critical and you need the right tools to be able to overcome that. In this podcast I share with you six steps and help me and many others to overcome those inevitable times of feeling less than our best as an entrepreneur You were going to get the help you need and can implement in a sound, rational way.  Thank you for joining me for Agorapreneurs, where we embrace the entrepreneurial spirit living life peacefully and voluntarily. "Anything that's peaceful," as spoken years ago by Leonard Read, is our motto. Get the ideas and energy you need from this podcast.  I look forward to hearing from you.  Terry Brock Terry@TerryBrock.com +1-407-363-0505  

Interview mit Enno Samp (https://www.kinder-der-freiheit.com/) Enno Samp ist studierter Ökonom und Musikwissenschaftler. Seit 2017 übersetzt und vertreibt er zudem die Kinderbücher über die Abenteuer der Tuttle-Zwillinge. Warum braucht es Kinderbücher über die freie Marktwirtschaft und privates Unternehmertums? Wir sprechen über F. A. von Hayek, Ayn Rand, Frédéric Bastiat, Leonard Read, Henry Hazlitt, Rothbard und Mises Natürlich sprechn wir auch über die Stars dieser Bücher, die Tuttle-Zwillinge Hier gibt es die Bücher für Bitcoin/Lightning https://satoshigoods.com/en/books/ Viel Spass damit! Wenn ihr mehr wollt, folgt uns auf Twitter. Kommt in unsere Telegram-Community.

In this conversation I talk to Luke Constable about the complicated tapestry of finance, funding projects, incentives, organizational and legal structures, social technologies, and more. Luke is the founder of the hedge fund Lembas Capital and publishes a widely-read newsletter full of fascinating deep dives. He’s also trained as a lawyer and historian so he looks at the world with a fairly unique set of lenses. Disclaimer: nothing Luke says is an offer to buy or sell a security or to make an investment Links Luke on Twitter Lembas Capital Theory of Investment Value (John Burr Williams) 1,000 True Fans (Kevin Kelly) Quantum Country Patreon Lembas Capital’s Open Questions The Empire of Value (André Orléan) Who Gets What and Why (Alvin Roth) The Mystery of Capital (Hernando de Soto) I, Pencil (Leonard Read) The Crime of Reason (Robert Laughlin) Andrew Lo’s papers Transcript 0:01:05 BR: So if technology creates a lot of wealth, why does it feel like most people in finance are hesitant to invest in technology?   0:01:19 Luke Constable: So that's an interesting place to start. I think you have to understand, no one invests in technology. If you think about investors, investors invest in businesses that use technology, and so that's probably the first frame I would use. Investors aren't hesitant to invest in technology, investors never invest in technology. What investors do is they invest in these products that are going to generate cash flow streams, and so that's sort of the first thing. And then the second thing is, a lot of the technologies that you and I think about, they seem obvious at a macro scale, where you take a high level view and you say, "Well, it would be so much better if we had a blank sheet of paper," and I said, "We should do X."   0:02:10 LC: For instance, you could make an argument about housing technology in San Francisco, and you could say, “All of these houses built in SF, they're old Victorians, they don't really have washing machines and laundry machines, you could probably change the structural engineering, probably build them higher”. And if you look at them and said, "Oh, I have a better prefab housing technology," or "I have a better way to do it," you'd miss the point, which is just because you've invented the physics, and this is the other thing, you actually have to sell it into a market. You have to work within the market, and so that's usually where I see a lot of the interesting technical products fall down.   0:02:53 BR: So the thing that I want to poke at in the assertion that people invest in businesses is that people invest in things that are not businesses as well, people invest in gold, in currencies and other, I guess, assets would be the high level thing, and so I guess the question is why isn't technology itself an asset, and there's probably a very obvious answer to this, I just...   0:03:25 LC: Sure, so let's take a step back and talk about the various asset classes, there's sort of a couple of ways to break them down.   0:03:32 BR: Okay.   0:03:33 LC: One way people do this is they'll say there are real assets, these are things like real estate, some people put commodities in there, and then there are sort of these yield assets, these are debt that is putting out a cash flow stream, and then you have equities, and there's some argument that cryptocurrency is sort of its own asset class, and then currencies might be their own asset class too. And what you'll quickly find is these things kind of blend together. A lot of them are different ways of financing sort of the same project. And then you have the ones that are just traded for their own sake. So there's sort of two questions you're asking, the first is, why isn't "technology" the same as like gold or silver or real estate, for instance? And so there's a use value to all of those commodities, and that's why they have value, and that actually is a cash flow stream, we actually do use gold, we do use silver, and that's how that works.   0:04:43 LC: But if you think about what's valuable, there's sort of something that's value... And I should have started with this. When you think about what value is, there's value in exchange and then there's value in use. So the value in exchange ones, these are often, you could argue, cryptocurrency or a lot of currencies, gold is actually usually thought of as a medium of exchange, that actually is valuable for cash flow purposes just probably not in the ways that you think. So what happens with these currencies and these stores of value is they sort of become Schelling points where I just know there are enough people transacting in that thing that I can find the liquidity, I can actually go convert to cash, and I can go basically get that cash when I need it. That actually is a cash flow need. It's just not often thought of that way.   0:05:40 LC: Now, liquidity is really valuable because you might be invested in the best business of all time, and it might have a very, very, very high net present value and be doing a lot of good for the world. But if you take a step back and say, "Wait a second, I have to pay off student loans," or "I have to pay off my mortgage," or "I just want some cash to go on vacation" or whatever you want to do with it, you look at this and say, "Gosh, I do need some liquidity," and that's what those other sort of trading assets are for.   0:06:10 BR: So basically, technology contributes to the use value of an equity asset, is that the right way to think about it?   0:06:22 LC: I don't think of technology that separate from... It's sort of so baked into the environment that it's just difficult to disentangle. Technology, lazily put, is just ways of doing things hopefully more efficiently than we're already doing them. And so if you think about why certain assets become tradable, either they're creating these cash flow streams, or there is some value in exchange. I mean, the way that I often frame investing for the people who I invest for is there's sort of two sets of flows that determine an asset's price. There is underlying asset's cash flows and then there are the capital flows of all the investors. So you have sellers for some reason, maybe they have liquidity needs, maybe they can't hold an asset for a regulatory reason or a legal reason, and then you have buyers who come in, because they're interested in that asset, and it could be because they think it's an interesting thing to invest in, it could be because the regulators told them that they have to buy it, it could be... You laugh, but this is actually...   0:07:32 BR: What sort of things do regulators mandate that people buy?   0:07:37 LC: Sure, so if you go look at banks and sovereign debt, well, actually banks and all debt. So you have the bank regulators set risk weightings on various types of debt, which is sort of a nice way of saying, there are all of these different cash flow streams, and the regulators are saying to you that certain cash flow streams are riskier or less risky. And shockingly, they often argue that their sovereign debt is less risky than some other cash flow streams.   0:08:13 BR: I'm shocked.   0:08:14 LC: In practice, that may or may not be true. It's a weird thing to think about, but, in some cases, a multi-national corporation might actually be a better credit than a country. But that's not how these things work, and so what happens is a bank regulator will sometimes go to a bank and say, "The risk weighting on the sovereign debt is far lower than the risk weighting on this corporate debt,” which effectively is pushing the bank to go buy a certain type of debt, which then goes and funds all of those projects. So then coming back to all of this, if you think about investing in sort of these two sets of flows, like that underlying asset's cash flows and then the capital flows of all the investors, you basically, in practical terms, want to think about markets in terms of what's driving someone's action.   0:09:05 LC: And when you think about that, that's when market prices start to make sense. They won't make sense to you if you think that you're just going to sit down and solve an analytical equation where you just sort of put in a few inputs, you make a few estimates and then the price gets spit out. It's much more of a socially constructed thing.   0:09:25 BR: And going back to your point about liquidity, it feels like there's this... I don't know how to describe it, like sort of a weird effect where it feels like there's a consensus that investing in... I won't say technology, I'll say investing in a business that is proposing to build a technology with a very long-term time scale, there's consensus that that will eventually create something... Will eventually create a lot of value, but then at the same time, because of these liquidity constraints, very few people are doing that, and that's the argument for why people are not making those investments, but it seems like that would be a point where you could arbitrage. It seems like there should be some people who are willing to not get cash flow for a couple of decades, and they would be able to reap the rewards of making these sorts of investments, but you don't see that, so I assume that those people are smarter than I am. And so the question is, why don't you see people doing that?   0:10:50 LC: So you actually do see people doing this literally all the time, but it's not for the sexy technology concepts that you are thinking of. So go look into the public markets right now. You'll see a handful of software businesses that are trading at very high multiples to sales. So the idea is that you sort of have this trade-off: you could get free cash flow after taxes right now, or effectively more free cash flow down the line from some company that's growing quickly, and so what you do is you pay some price based on that free cash flow multiple. What happens when the free cash flow is really, really far down the line, we don't even use the free cash flow number, we actually just use the sales number. And sales is obviously much higher than just free cash flow, 'cause free cash flow is after all of your expenses and taxes. So when you go look, and you see some company that's trading at 15 or 20 or 25 times sales, the stock market is betting on that business being around and generating free cash flow over a 25 or 30-year period. That's the only way that math works. In practice, the reason the stock gets priced that way has something to do with those cash flows and also a lot to do with the capital flow landscape, but that is what's happening.   0:12:15 LC: These companies are getting funded on a 30-year time scale, and so the right question shouldn't be, "Why aren't good projects getting funded?" They actually are. The right question is, "Why aren't other good projects getting funded?" And so I think it comes down to... I think it comes down to what is legible to institutional finance, and so you might look out into the world and say, "There are trillions of dollars of capital... " I mean, there's just oceans of money out there, and it seems like someone could raise billions of dollar to go trade a building with someone else or something else that seems like it isn't actually moving the world forward and this sort of simplistic take. But why can't we take that billion dollars and put it towards some technology, something that might be obvious in your opinion toward moving the world forward?   0:13:15 LC: So the first thing is you have to understand what matters is, in practice, even though it looks like there are trillions of dollars of capital out there, risk-adjusted or uncertainty-adjusted, there's actually very little capital available. And the right way to think about it is to say, what type of product are the capital allocators buying? And so this isn't, again, a place where we have an analytical equation and you just pop your numbers into the equation and you say, "Well, the return to society would be X percent higher if we invested in this type of technology that will have a payoff in 25 years." The right way to look at it is to have empathy with the person who is in this capital allocator's seat, in this investor's seat...   0:14:08 BR: I.e you.   0:14:08 LC: Well, me or anyone else. But again, I'm not trying to paint myself upfront, there's the intellectual side of capital allocation, and then there's the reality that a lot of people are using an element of gambling in this. But it's to understand what they're buying. And so the reason people are comfortable investing in that real estate or investing in an enterprise software company is someone has come up with a set of metrics that has convinced the market that those cash flow streams are durable, that they will exist and be predictable 20 or 30 years out. And so what you've done is you've created this yield product, and what you've really done is you've created a sense of certainty. And I think what people don't like is uncertainty, they really want to essentially have something that they don't have to do too much intellectual work to understand and that they feel like they can trust. And so the problem is actually sort of one of search costs.   0:15:20 BR: A really dumb question is, What does it mean for something to be risk or uncertainty adjusted? Because you said that there's trillions of dollars out there, but there's actually not that much when they're risk or uncertainty adjusted, and is that basically just say that capital allocators don't have the incentive to spend most of that money on anything that they perceive to be risky or uncertain?   0:15:50 LC: Not exactly.   0:15:51 BR: Okay.   0:15:52 LC: It's two things. So first, in terms of how most people think about risk, so the way that you might think about this before you start really looking at it is you'd think, Well, we're just trying to sort of predict the future, the future is relatively predictable, and we can make some educated guesses about probabilistically what is going to happen, and then we can sort of model out those payoffs, those defaults, and sort of go from there. And so sort of the canonical text in finance for equity evaluation is called The Theory of Investment Value, and it's written by a guy named John Burr Williams. I can send you links after this. It's written by a guy named John Burr Williams after the Great Depression, and he was basically trying to sort of scientifically estimate the value of all free cash flows. You may have heard of this concept of discounted free cash flows?   0:16:48 BR: Yeah.   0:16:48 LC: He's arguably the person who invented it or at least codified it. In practice, though, you quickly find it is unbelievably difficult to figure out and to actually estimate the cash flows of something, even four, five or six years out. The world just changes really quickly, competitive positions tend to change really quickly, and so you actually could come up with this range of outcomes, but they become somewhat uncertain. So you take that as sort of the investing reality, and now let's look at sort of the funding reality. A lot of the people who fund investment funds or who are making investments, they have cash flow needs. They have sort of real cash flow needs, and then they have sort of intellectually forced cash flow needs. The real cash flow needs are, look, we have to fund our endowment, we pay X percent out per year so that the college can function, so that the hospital can function.   0:17:53 LC: And then the intellectual cash flow needs are, look, here are the risk models that we use, and when we see the prices of our investments fall 8%, we consider that as fundamental information that our investments aren't performing well, and so we need to sell out. And so they actually don't just need cash flow to look good, they need the pricing information in the market to look good. So we're talking about arbitrages. This is probably one of the biggest arbitrages that exists in the market, but it's unbelievably difficult to capture. So let me give you an example, imagine that you had a row of 10 houses in a neighborhood and they were all... Let's just say for these purposes, valued at $100. So let's say one of the neighbors, they are in a rush and they need to sell their house because they got a good job offer somewhere else, so she sells her house for $97 because she'll just get whatever she can get. And then another neighbor gets a similar job offer, and she sells her house for $95, and suddenly some other neighbor along the street looks around and says, "Oh no, prices are falling on our houses, everything else is getting sold off, we need to sell." And so they might sell just because they're scared, because they think there's sort of fundamental information in those transactions, in saying, "Okay, the market price has fallen."   0:19:22 LC: So you've seen the marked prices fall from a $100 down to $95. The problem is the market shows the prices of transactions, they don't necessarily tell you the fundamental value behind those transactions. So as a result, you being a portfolio manager, say you're invested in houses, you might have a view and say, I think that those houses that sold off, those were forced sellers. That doesn't mean that the price of the assets have actually fallen, these prices will come back up. Someone else might say, "No, no, that's pretty arrogant of you. The market has spoken and job opportunities have changed and people are going to leave the neighborhood." Now, it's really difficult to capture that sort of arbitrage, and arbitrage isn't even the right word, but capture that valuation spread, because it actually comes effectively down to who is right, and that ends up being a grounded matter of opinion, but effectively a matter of opinion.   0:20:32 LC: You can do a lot of diligence, and then you can maybe figure out if you're generally more right or generally more wrong. Ideally, if you get really, really good at sourcing information on the asset cost that you're investing in, and then you go around looking for these situations where the market has sold them off, but you recognize that they're sort of incorrect in doing it. But for the big portfolio managers, again, there's an information search cost. Every single time one of their fund managers underperforms, fund manager is of course, going to come back and say, "No, no, it's temporary. We're right, the strategy will come back. Don't pull your money."   0:21:12 LC: And so the difficult thing for the allocators to funds is they sort of have to diligence the fund managers who are then diligencing the investments. And so you can see that as you sort of go down this line of information being passed from person to person, the search costs just rise. Whatt it really comes down to is basically trust, where the investor is investing in a company or in some operator, and then the allocator is investing with the investment fund. And all along those links in the chain, it's so expensive from an information perspective to figure out who's being honest and who isn't. That trust is actually the fastest way to figure out what is a good investment and what isn't.   0:22:06 BR: Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but then I sort of extrapolate that to the thought that it's actually very hard to build up trust in someone who's proposing to make, say, a 25-year bet, because you would need 25 years to build that trust, right?   0:22:31 LC: Sure, and this is actually the problem. And so if you look at it, most fund cycles for the investment funds themselves, they typically have about a three-year window to prove themselves. So if they can't show marked prices rising within two to three years, or they can't show cash flows coming out in those two to three years, it's in practice really difficult for that fund manager to go raise more money from an allocator. The best allocators, they really get it. But in practice, most people are sort of looking at each other trying to understand what we all think is valuable and what we don't, and people are actually pretty good at it. But if you're not seeing results within three years, it's difficult to go raise the next VC fund, the next private equity fund, or just to raise more money for whatever your next fund vehicle is. And so what happens in practice is, people don't go spend their time investing in projects that are going to take a really, really long time and won't get marked. So what that means is, for an entrepreneur or for someone who's trying to get funding for something, getting that asset mark is unbelievably important because that's what lets the great investors go invest in you.   0:24:00 LC: So it's really important that for the VC company to get that Series B or the Series C or the Series D done. That single mark in time is hugely important because everyone can sort of concentrate on that, take it as a market price, even if it's not a perfect market price, and then write that in their books, measure it, sort of trust it to some degree, and everyone can sort of coordinate around that because you have a market clearing price there. And so if you think about it, just on the equity side of it, every founder's equity actually is a product in and of itself. I always find this interesting because I think most people don't think of it this way.   0:24:42 BR: I don't.   0:24:45 LC: But when you start a company, you're actually... You're selling two products. The first is sort of your individual product. This is the thing that you think you're starting. And the second is your company itself. And so your company can turn into a product where you sell your debt or you sell your equity or you sell some other sort of financing scheme, but that's a product, too. And the way that product is priced is, in the private markets, you have one-off auctions where you sort of game the options as much as you can to get the highest price. This is where everyone in their C, Series A, B, C... Well, not so much in C, but in A, B, C, you basically create auctions where you try to get all of the partner meetings on Monday morning to be talking about you, put all of your meetings into a week, and then you get everyone to bid all at the same time, and then you maybe don't go to the highest bidder, but you go with some mix of the highest bidder plus the people that you want to work with.   0:25:35 LC: Then the public markets are actually a totally different mechanism, it's a different distribution method where it's a continuous auction, where there's bids and asks continuous in time, at all times. And so you can't actually create these small little one-off auctions where you can rig the price up because the bids and asks, they just keep coming. But the benefit is, if you know how to... If you do well in that channel, you then have a lot of liquidity and you can usually get a higher price and arguably more capital. It's not actually even clear that you need to do that, but that's sort of the argument. And so I think if you start thinking about it that way, you can start to recognize, "Alright, that's why some projects are getting funded and some aren't." It's because the projects that are getting funded, they are products that work well in that market, and they are actually products, it's not just a throwaway phrase.   0:26:37 LC: I was chatting with someone about this earlier. I think it's probably good to take the emotion out of whatever project you're working on and think about this for unemotional things. So one of my friends is trying to get a research project funded, sort of like an arts VR research project funded. And we're talking about this and she's like, "Oh, now I get it. I should think about this like soap." So imagine you are a soap manufacturer, and you have made the best soap in the world. You think it's better than any other soap. You wouldn't expect to sell that just because you've created it. You'd think, "Okay, how am I going to get it out there? Am I going to get it on to Amazon? Am I going to start a store on Shopify? Am I going to go to the people at Costco or Walmart and cut a deal with them so it's distributed?” Because I might have the best soap in the world, but some mediocre soap that gets into the Costco channel and then works with those constraints, they are going sell more than I am. That product is going to do better. And if you care about people using your product and you're sort of not just cash flow-driven, but you actually care about the impact, you really, really need to think about that distribution channel and how you're going to get it out there.   0:27:50 LC: What you quickly find is that often the constraints that people place on their products, it's not that they don't realize they're making their products worse, it's that they want those products to get distributed and they think the tradeoffs are worth it. And so the really interesting new products, they recognize that, "Oh, there's some constraint or there's some tradeoff that a lot of other people made with their existing product lines, and I don't have to do that," because the way you distribute it has changed, or some assumption that they've made, they actually don't have to make that tradeoff. And I use something like soap because it's boring and unemotional to at least most of us, but it's almost definitely true with research funding. And so you and I talk about this a lot, but I mean, if I were trying to go raise money for research, it would depend what I was trying to do, but I think there are probably new distribution channels out there, so I mentioned with small scale... Sorry, you were saying?   0:28:50 BR: Oh, there's just three different directions that are really exciting to go with this.   0:28:56 LC: Oh, please.   0:29:00 BR: Yeah, so I think what I'm going do is I'm going to lay... Actually, I will lay out the places that I think are all tied into this that are all really interesting, and you let me know how you want to weave through them. So one is actually this... So both this point about a project as a product is a little bit mindblowing, and I think that it's tied to an earlier point that you made that I wanted to dig into about what it means to be legible to institutions. And if I am understanding correctly, the marking of valuations is one of the ways in which... At least, in the startup world, venture capitalists make themselves, their firm, as a product legible to other institutions. And so Shopify comes along, and you can now distribute your soap through an online store that you never could. What would be the project funding equivalence of that new distribution channel?   0:30:17 LC: So I absolutely don't think that this is that new, but it seems to have come somewhat in vogue, and I think it's just patronage. And so if I were trying to go do research where I was trying to make, say, call it $100,000 a year or something along those lines, basically enough that you could live a really good life, afford rent in any city and sort of have basically time to yourself, I think the obvious way to do it is to try to build an online following. And this is not a new idea. Kevin Kelly wrote that old essay, I think it was 1000 True Fans, where he said, “Look, at 1000 True Fans paying you $10 a month, that's enough.” I think a mutual friend, Andy Matuschak, who has Quantum Country has done a great job with his Patreon. I think it would be really, really, really difficult to do this. But I would think a lot about what really causes someone to say, "I'll pay $5 a month to go read this newsletter, or to go basically fund some research I find interesting." And this distribution mechanism didn't really exist before, and so I actually think in some ways, we're still pretty early on. And all I would do is think, "Alright, I need to get 2000 people to sign up all over the world." The Internet rewards niche behavior, and so how do I get into the community of these people find it just sort of interesting, and this is sort of entertaining to them, and I would think a lot about how I could create something around there.   0:32:01 LC: For the larger amounts, I would actually do the opposite. So for the larger amounts, I would go become friends with everyone in the funding world. So they have incentives too. And what you'd want to think through is normally... I guess I'll put it this way, and I was chatting with my friend about this. Normally, the way that the great researchers I know think, they're almost... They're quite dogmatic, to be honest. They say, "Okay, my project is the best project. This really will advance the field." But in practice, what might make it easier to sell the project is to understand what gets the person funding the project promoted? What makes the funder feel good?   0:32:40 LC: What will get to that next level of funding for the person above them too? And then if you're able to map that out, you can represent it in a way that basically works for everyone. And she was actually pushing back on me and saying, "Look, I don't want to lie. I don't want to represent my project that way. That seems sort of fake or it seems like a veneer." But the truth is, is that the project that she has in her head only exists in her head and doesn't exist in anyone else's head that way. And if she doesn't communicate it in a way that actually makes sense to them, then it's not going to get anywhere.   0:33:21 LC: So I think the really frustrating thing to come out of this is that basically everyone's in sales in some way, shape or form, and I think a lot of people don't want to be in sales or think that it is a sort of a difficult thing to go do. And so as a result, they just sort of shy away from it. And so this is, again, why I think the distribution analogies really, really can work well, because it sort of takes the emotional weight out of it. And then if you look at this and say, "Oh, this isn't the best grant maker in the world, this is just Costco, and I'm just trying to get into the new line," I think it can feel a lot less heavy. And you can maybe treat it, and maybe the field might open up to you a little bit more.   0:34:05 BR: Okay. I guess, the tension I see there is building up trust with the people who are the capital allocators, almost feels like the opposite of figuring out a different way of making yourself legible to an institution. Institutions are obviously made up of people, so these aren't two separate things. But I think that there's something to the fact that you need trust when you're doing something that is not institutionally legible. So it's like you don't actually have trust with a lot of the companies that are publicly traded that you invest in, but they are... They've packaged themselves in a way that is sort of institutionally legible if that's... And I think this might actually be a good point to really... What do you mean by something being institutionally legible? What does that mean?   0:35:20 LC: It's a vague handwavy way of saying you just need to be recognizable to the people who are buying your product, and you just have to understand, in practice, how those relationships work. And once you understand the practicalities of whatever market you're working in, then you'll be able to understand how to craft a product for the people who actually want it. And, again, I think the difficult thing here, this is not intellectually that challenging, it's much more of an ego thing where we have to put aside what we think are the best products that everyone should be buying or what everyone should be doing. So if you think about it, since we're talking very abstractly here, what capitalism really rewards is, and actually this is true of all non-violent selection, it rewards behavior change. And so what we're really saying is how do you get someone to sort of change that behavior. And when you think about it that way, what's legible in your head, if someone else hasn't learned all the same things you have, they're going to end up using some sort of abstraction, some sort of shortcut.   0:36:41 LC: And that's sort of what I mean by saying intellectually... Or sorry, institutionally legible, is you understand the abstractions they use, you understand basically the mental models they're using to try to understand what's going on, and then you are able to fit your product into that. So I can give you a couple of examples and findings that are...   0:37:02 BR: Yeah, please.   0:37:04 LC: So I don't know how deep into accounting you are, but there is a metric that's really commonly used called EBITDA. And effectively, it is a free cash flow proxy metric. And it was invented by some people in the cable industry who wanted to raise a lot of money to go roll out cable systems all across the US. And they wanted to be able to quickly raise debt to go buy these sort of small cable operators and then put them all together. And with this metric that they invented, all of these other investors suddenly had a Schelling point. Suddenly, all of these investors had a new unit of measurement to look at this type of business. And because they accepted it, they were willing to go fund those purchases. Suddenly, a whole wave of those purchases were done, and basically a whole wave of these projects were financed because someone figured out a way to make that institutionally legible.   0:38:11 LC: And a similar thing has happened in the last 10 or 15 years with what we call enterprise SaaS companies, where we now have a new set of metrics that weren't really in use 20 years ago. These are metrics, I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, these are metrics like...   0:38:26 BR: The CAC.   0:38:27 LC: Gross churn... CAC, gross churn, net dollar retention. And if I went to someone today and I said, "Oh, I'm investing in a business that has an average customer life time of six years, an LTV to CAC of 4:1, it has 98% gross retention and 127% net dollar retention, and I think those numbers are going to persist for the next four or five years, that is something that I almost wouldn't even have to explain what the product is. If something met those metrics and truly met those metrics, it's a company that would get a huge valuation in today's markets. And it's again, it's because it's now institutionally legible. Someone has basically convinced the world of that. So then the question should probably be, why do these things get institutionally legible? And what I find is that, we're actually re-using the same math over and over again and finding new situations where we didn't realize that math applied. And so usually what's happening is, we're finding relationships that are really durable, that are really, really, really resilient.   0:39:40 LC: So I have this little questions page on my website, and the first one is, "What is the next durable customer relationship that we haven't really seen yet?" So what happens is, once the market recognizes that there is a durable customer relationship, and you can build that into our models. These models actually should come from how we model these bonds that last 20 or 30 years. If you can fit the customer relationship into that model, suddenly, all of the bond investors and sort of the bond valuation metrics that we used as proxies, they drift into the financing world. And people say, "Oh, this is also a durable relationship, so we should go fund it." And coming back to your first question to say, how do some of these huge technology projects get off the ground, it's because someone has convinced a set of investors somewhere that there is this long durable, and that's important, resilient set of cash flow streams 20 or 25 years out, and then we discount that forward, so that's how that works.   0:40:45 BR: Oh, man. Okay, so to riff on that and to go back to your analogy to products and distribution channels, what basically... You could almost think of it as someone coming in being really good at sales and arguably like marketing, and basically changing taste and creating a new product category where people didn't know they wanted gluten-free things, and then they go and they create that new marketing category, and now customer tastes change, would that be...   0:41:29 LC: And it's funny you use the word taste, that is... It's both fundamental reality of, Oh, in a true Bayesian universal sense where we're updating our priors correctly, imagine we had all knowledge, that does matter. But then taste does matter too, that's exactly right. There's another book I'd recommend called "The Empire of Value" by a guy named Andre Orlean, who is this really interesting French economist. And so in this book, he makes this argument that prices are completely socially constructed, and it's like you're saying, it's taste. As a side note, it's totally unclear to me why all of the people who are coming up with the socially constructed value theories are all these French people. It makes one wonder what's in the water in Paris. But similar is to say, actually, I think, and everyone else thinks, and we're all sort of self-referentially thinking, therefore, the thing exists, the price exists, the value exists.   0:42:32 BR: Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.   0:42:33 LC: It exists as this organizing principle, which everyone else then cites as a real reference and then it takes on a momentum of its own.   0:42:44 BR: And what... And so, I guess, do institutional structures like C-corps and LLCs, do those relate to institutional legibility? In my head, they do, but I might be going a step too far.   0:43:04 LC: Yes, they do, but I want to backtrack in terms of what you're saying.   0:43:12 BR: Yeah, do it.   0:43:14 LC: So what they do is they basically... The legal structure sets the landscape for markets. I should completely confess my own bias here. I am massively, massively pro-markets. I think virtually, no other social mechanism that we know of has raised so many people out of poverty. But as much as I love markets, I recognize that it's not sort of this shallow teenager's love of markets where I overdosed on Ayn Rand. It's more of on the lines of...   0:43:45 BR: Be nice to the little libertarians.   0:43:49 LC: No, I was once one when I was 14 too, I get it. And I think the problem is, you have to understand markets are these amazing and emergent phenomena that pop up basically naturally everywhere, people trade with each other. But efficiently functioning markets are actually very, very expensive public goods to maintain. And that means that you're depending on the bias of all the regulators to try to make the best guess as they can to create and maintain these liquid markets to make sure that people are transacting fairly. To give you another book recommendation, there is an economist named Alvin Roth, who wrote a book called "Who Gets What and Why," and a lot of his students went on to go work at Uber and Airbnb to sort of create these marketplaces. And if you look at it, they're actually quite intentional about how they're sort of creating the markets. So now, let's take one step further back and say, “Alright, all of the countries are creating markets themselves, too, and they're creating the balance of these markets.”   0:44:54 LC: So as you know, I'm a lawyer and was a history major and sort of loved looking into this stuff. I would argue that one of the least appreciated social technologies of the last few centuries is the concept of limited liability. And so it used to be, before we had easy access to creating limited liability organizations, if you started a business and it went bankrupt, you personally went bankrupt. Maybe you were thrown in jail, maybe your family went bankrupt, and so you couldn't go that far out onto the risk curve. And so, socially, if you were thinking about this sort of like an agent-based modeling perspective, if you could basically increase the variance of what agents could do, if you could basically socialize some of the risk, then you let people take a little bit more risk. Maybe it doesn't work out as well for a few people, but socially, you get to that higher hill in the hill-climbing analogy. And so you're asking about how C corps work and LLCs work. Do you want me to just run through the history really quickly?   0:46:01 BR: Well, I guess more what I'm poking at is just talking about how, at the end of the day, these aren't laws of nature, the structure of organizations and...   0:46:14 LC: Not at all. So why do we have Delaware C corps? Coming back to limited liability, in the late 1800s, New Jersey created a charter that let anyone go get a corporation. And then after that, later in the 1800s, New Jersey passed a set of laws that are colloquially known as the “Seven Sisters,” And these were these terrible laws in the view of all the businesses who were registered there, so they were looking for other places to register. Delaware saw this as an opportunity, so around 1900, Delaware lowers their taxes, lowers their registration fees, and they bring a lot of corporate registrations in. And then they set up their court systems so that they specialized in registrations, at which point Delaware becomes the de facto place. You get a runaway phenomenon, then all of the good corporate lawyers want to go practice in Delaware or they want to be corporate judges in Delaware, and all of the interesting cases go to Delaware. And it's literally gotten to the point where everyone in the US references Delaware corporate law, and non-US companies will create charters saying they'll defer to Delaware corporate law, and countries who are still forming their legal systems will effectively copy and paste a lot of Delaware corporate law. And so coming back to your point, it's not a law of nature. These are people doing the best they can to optimize the landscape, and that's how it works.   0:47:47 BR: And so my thought would be that that does relate to institutional legibility, because if I went to someone and said, "I'm using a B corp structure," they'd be like, "What the heck is that? I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole." But if I say that I am using a Delaware C corp, then that is a legible abstraction, so I guess that would be my argument for why institutional structures matter.   0:48:24 LC: They do, and I think what it comes down to is you have all these degrees of freedom when you're starting any organization or any project, and you just want to think about where you want to innovate and where you don't want to innovate. So you look at US business organizations, I should say this, since I'm a barred attorney, this is not legal advice. There are basically four options. You default into being a partnership where you actually have unlimited liability. You can be a limited liability company, which is done state-by state. You could be an S corp, which is a tax status of LLCs, or you can be a C corp, which is the one that you're talking about.   0:49:03 LC: And what you go see when you run through all of these things is, well, there might be a better way to do this, but for the company that I'm starting or the project I'm starting... So the fund that I run, we have a Delaware LLC. I could argue to you that there are things we could do that would actually be better for the investors and better for the whole strategy, but you then look at this and say, "Hmm, it's just not worth the marginal effort given the payoff of actually trying to overcome that sort of legibility hurdle." And so I think what ends up happening is you end up getting these innovations around the edges where someone says, "Okay, here is one use case that's a little bit better, and we'll keep everything else the same except for that," and then the new standard arises. I don't think it ends up being worth saying, "I want to create a new legal structure and a new product and do physics research all at the same time," just because there's not enough time in the day.   0:50:11 BR: Yeah, I guess it just... It makes me wonder, because it feels like these legal structures do impose certain constraints, it just makes me wonder out in the landscape on a completely different optimization mountain what other constraints could be imaginable.   0:50:40 LC: So probably the most difficult cost to measure out there is opportunity cost, because it's so difficult to say, what could things be if we organized everything differently? And one hopes that when you have 50 states, that's how federalism works in the US, one hopes you get people experimenting with regulation, and you can get maybe a new project started off the ground somewhere else, if not in the state that you live in, and then of course, with more countries, you can maybe go overseas and do it too. And it's interesting, you brought up Spotify a little bit earlier, it's unclear to me that Spotify could have gotten started in the United States, given the state of music laws at the time. But then what happens is all of these European customers start using the product, and that has an institutional legibility of itself, and people say, "Oh, okay, I can see it's working in that country, it will probably work here," and I wasn't involved in the record label negotiations, but I assume that's basically what they were looking at. And then you look and say, "Oh, okay, then the laws can change."   0:51:52 LC: The other thing that I just want to point out is that when a law is set, that's a much more fluid thing than I think most people realize who haven't spent a lot of time looking at this. So in practice, a lot of times, there are sort of these gray areas of the law, and I'm not saying people should go break the law. But there's a gray area of the law where the products that you're working with don't really fit into the regulation, or customer demand is just so massive that the regulators will actually change their mind once they see that demand. Now how far you want to push that boundary is really up to you. There are arguments that Uber or Airbnb were illegal when they were first started. There are arguments that they're illegal right now. I don't think so, and I think they did the right thing, and I think the world's a better place for giving everyone the options. But it’s also really, really important to realize is there are these constraints, but the constraints, when you read a law, it's not a law of physics. And the other thing that you have to understand is laws are executed by regulators, so understanding why they are enforced or what they actually want to enforce is also really, really important.   0:53:09 BR: Yeah, and do you think there's... So to your point about there being different regulations in different places, do you think that it's then problematic that you see so much copying of Delaware law and sort of copy-pasting that around the world? 'Cause wouldn't that then sort of make everything... Wouldn't that be a very strong attractor?   0:53:37 LC: I think what ends up happening is it's a good enough baseline. So I can't remember what the book is called right now, but there is another famous economist named Hernando de Soto who wrote about just the importance of property rights and how if you are able to sort of import the property rights regimes from the US into a lot of different countries that don't have them right now, it would be a huge driver [0:54:00] ____.   0:54:00 BR: It wouldn't necessarily work.   0:54:01 LC: And so I don't think we live in a world where we figured everything out so perfectly that all we need to do are these sort of minor experiments. I think we live in a pretty uneven world where if we just had relatively good legal functioning across the world, not just in terms of the laws that are written down, but sort of culturally how they're practiced, we could make life a lot better off for a lot of people. So it does make a lot of sense to me that if you and I were trying to start up a corporate law and corporate practice in some small country somewhere that was just starting to figure it out, or just decided they really wanted to change their system, I think we would go look at best practices. I think that's normal. It's unclear to me though that we are actually doing enough experimentation on the regulatory side, it's just really, really hard to say how much because it's just sort of this abstract opportunity cost question.   0:55:03 BR: Yeah, it's... And I guess these are sort of the same thing where I think of it as it's very hard to talk about counterfactuals, and actually, to riff off of the point about opportunity costs, my impression about... Of one of the reasons that large long-term projects don't get funded is because the opportunity cost is so high in that if I see that the stock market is increasing at a... It's like the number in my head is 5% of... I think of stock market 5%, I'm not... Is that roughly...   0:55:47 LC: I think nominally, the numbers, depending on the timeframe you look at, are along the range of 8%-10%.   0:55:56 BR: Oh, wow, okay.   0:55:57 LC: But there are actually a lot of people who right now think that 5% is what you're going to see for the next 10 years.   0:56:03 BR: Okay, well, let's...   0:56:05 LC: Anyway, doesn't really matter. Let's say 5%.   0:56:06 BR: Yeah, exactly. So in order to make the argument for something like the opportunity cost of investing in an illiquid thing is the compounding returns that you would get from 5% growth in the stock market, plus the amount that... Like the liquidity that you're giving up, which is, as you pointed out, a really big deal. And so it's... And then put uncertainty on top of that, so it's not even a guaranteed in the future compounding... Like you need to be... So it just... It seems like it's a fairly straightforward... It's actually a very, very large opportunity cost to propose an alternative investment to just the stock market.   0:57:07 LC: So I think it is and it isn't. First of all, I think you framed all of that correctly, that everything is subject to an opportunity cost. And so, of course, when I'm looking at whatever investments I'm making, and you are too, or deciding where to spend your time, you're going to look at your other alternatives and then choose. I don't think that necessarily should mean that it's impossible to go find a project worth working on. I think what it means is you just need to really, really understand what you're building. So that you understand why it's really valuable, and you have to go after sort of basically big projects or you have to have really, really fast experimentation, so you can just try out a lot of things and say, "Okay, maybe the opportunity cost is high over five to seven or eight years or 10 years, but I am going to try 2,000 different types of Shopify stores programmatically, I'm going to figure out which ones work, and then I'll have the revenue stream that I want once I've tested out and pulled out to the best 25, and then go on from there."   0:58:16 LC: So I do think that that it's definitely doable, you just have to recognize the opportunity cost. But you're right, there is an opportunity cost. I just think you shouldn't sell yourself short. I think implicit in what you're saying is that the world is relatively efficient, and because the world's relatively efficient, how on earth could I earn more than 5%? But I have to say, I look around everywhere and see a lot of products that, they were built on the constraints of the past distribution channels, they were built on the constraints of the past production approaches, or they were built on social relationships that have broken for whatever reason.   0:59:04 LC: So you look at this and say, huh, I think there's probably a better way to do it. And if I'm right, and if I really, really focus on figuring out what's wrong and how we can do this better, you're going to find that the returns you earn are massively more than the stock market. I just think you have to be really focused and intentional in how you're doing it, and I think you have to spend a lot of time understanding the people behind the process. If you ever... I'm trying to think. Have you ever read that essay "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read? There's this idea that if you look at any sort of product in front of you, so you look at a pencil, an uncountable number of relationships went into building that product. So for the pencil, someone had to chop the wood, someone had to mine the metal, someone had to refine it, someone had to put it all together, someone had to paint it, someone had to build the eraser, and someone had to invent all of that and patent all of that, and start all of those companies and then figure out how to market it, and then figure out how that distribution channel worked, and then figure out how consumer tastes were changing, and just look through all of that.   1:00:11 LC: There are so many relationships there, and if you think about it, there's just... There's no... It's extremely unlikely that we've reached the global maximum for almost any product, because you only need one of those relationships not to have been done perfectly, not to have been optimized, to have an opportunity to do things better. And then you look at the constraints that they used to have 80 years ago versus what we have now... Software has changed so much in the last 15 or 20 years, the Internet has changed the world a lot in the last 20 to 30 years. You look at this and say, there probably are better ways to organize these things or to sort of optimize things. And I think that's true... I'm looking around my apartment now, when you look at, I don't know, a glass, or you look at a countertop, or you look at any art or any hardware, I actually think this is true for almost the most mundane object in your life.  And actually I find... Once you start getting into the details of all of these mundane objects, it's not mundane, it's totally...   1:01:19 BR: My concern is actually the opposite, where I think that there are tons and tons of dollar bills on the ground, but the payoff you need to convince someone of becomes inordinately larger, the better the stock market is doing, it feels like, because of the opportunity cost.   1:01:45 LC: So yes and no. If you look, for reasons that are separate from this conversation, at demographics and the way that capital is structured, interest rates are low and look like they're going to stay low for a while, which means the required return for a project is going to keep falling. So yes, when the stock market is doing really well... Imagine the stock market were returning 40% a year, it would be harder and harder to get new projects funded because people would just put their money in the stock market. But as those returns fall from 8% to 5%, or you used to be able to get 6% or 8% over a 10-year period in a 10-year bond and now you're getting 2, 2 1/2% a year, you actually are more and more willing to go out onto that risk curve and sort of fund something new. So I actually don't think the problem is as much opportunity cost, especially today. Socially venture capital is so popular that I don't think the problem is opportunity cost. I actually think the problem is alpha. And so if you think about what alpha is in the finance world, it's basically, you're looking for an information advantage, and it's going back to cash flows and capital flows.   1:03:07 LC: You're looking for an information advantage on what's going on with those cash flows, with the product, the customer sort of thing, or what's going on with capital flows. So your alpha could be, you understand there's going to be a forced seller here or a forced buyer there, and then you bridge the liquidity into that market. And to throw one more book out there, the best book I know of to think about information sourcing is a book by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist named Robert Laughlin, it's a book called "The Crime of Reason." Have I ever mentioned this one to you?   1:03:39 BR: No.   1:03:39 LC: So it's really interesting. Frankly, it's a shocking book when you really process it. He basically argues that all economically valuable information is kept secret. And so you think that you really understand a lot about the world, but you actually understand, say, 98% about some topic, but that last 2% that really matters to get the project off the ground, to get the product built, to actually get funded, that's really kept secret. So the reason I think this is interesting is we've turned an opportunity cost problem of, "Well, there's really nothing I can do about it, I hope I come up with a good idea," to an information sourcing problem. So the way I think about this is I say, okay, there are really two places that you find information in the world. It can either be recorded or it can be in someone's head. So recorded could be like written and natural language, or in numbers in a database. And I often find, unless we're talking about you going and coming up with some new fundamental algorithm, all you really need to be doing is collecting all of that data and joining tables. It's not actually that complicated from an intellectual perspective, but it's really about finding those tables and joining them. And then on the side of, oh, it's in someone's head, it just ends up being about building relationships with people.   1:05:01 LC: And to your point about there being lots of dollar bills on the sidewalk, there are, but it's almost like they're invisible, so you need to go find the information to really understand, oh, that's a real one, that's a fake one. And it just ends up being a shoe leather exercise where you say, "Okay, I'm just going to go reach out to a lot of people, become friends with a lot of people, talk to them about their work, really try to understand what they're going through, and then I'll recognize what they want and what they don't want, and then I'll find effectively that alpha." And I think that's probably a more useful way to think about it than opportunity cost, because it's more empowering once you think about it that way.   1:05:38 BR: I like that. To change tracks a little bit drastically, but to just get to a point that I think it is really important to talk about... So you invest primarily in public equities, right?   1:05:52 LC: Mostly public, but public and private companies, yeah.   1:05:55 BR: Yeah, and so there is a argument that... I'm on like... There's basically an argument that short-term is like short-term thinking on the part of public investors has sort of pushed public companies to slash R&D costs and basically caused the fabled death of corporate labs. I think it is pretty clear that corporate labs don't sort of have the sort of world-changing output that they used to. However, I'm agnostic about the cause and still trying to figure that out, so... What do you think about that argument?   1:06:42 LC: So, I think it's complicated. I also think I'm not sure, but I can think it through with you.   1:06:50 BR: Yeah, let's think through it.   1:06:51 LC: Sure, so if you look at the valuations in the public markets today, they are very high by any historical measure. And so high valuations do not imply short-termism. They imply that the market is placing very, very high prices on companies. Now, it just turns out that a lot of that has to do with the way capital flows work today, not just with cash flows. And so what's going on effectively is we changed the retirement system in 2005. So we default decided to put a lot of people's money into index funds. Index funds just blindly buy a set of equity as a set of stocks, just as capital flows into them, and so we've had more and more retirement flows, so you see all of these stocks get bid up. That has been a huge reason for valuations going up. But anyway, you look at this and say, alright, so just on a project basis, companies are actually getting huge valuations. Now quarter to quarter, companies face unbelievable pressure to sort of make a mark that Wall Street thinks is good or bad. And what ends up happening is people are definitely optimizing over the quarters, because the research analysts, it's so difficult to see inside the companies that these are the metrics that they use to measure what's going on.   1:08:13 LC: So it's sort of a mixed bag. We are getting really high valuations, but there is still a lot of quarter to quarter pressure, but at the same time, I mean I look at this and say... I think it's actually closer to the journalism and editorial arguments, where it used to be that these newspapers were monopolies and then separately or sort of for social reasons, they were also safeguarding these unbelievable journalists, and it was this huge benefit to society. The reason it worked was the newspapers were monopolies, so they really didn't face competition, and then culturally it became normal for them to sort of support journalists. And then it was like a social competition, like "Who is going to win the Pulitzer price this year? Who's sort of funding the best journalists?" If you go look at the big corporate R&D labs, you find that it was a set of funders that were basically semi-government entities. They were such great monopolies, and culturally, the people who are running those companies also wanted the R&D labs, maybe out of the sense of patriotism, maybe out of some other sense, but I think that's sort of how they came to be. And when those monopolies were broken up, they basically weren't able to keep funding the R&D labs.   1:09:40 LC: I do think that some of today's monopolies and oligopolies, these are the Facebooks and the Googles and the Microsofts of the world, they are able to fund big R&D labs, and we could argue about whether it's the same as Bell labs or PARC... But they're definitely trying, they have been inspired by those old examples, and my friends who work there, I do think are quite brilliant. So I do think that the ones that you're talking about and that I've read that you've written about, I think that it was basically this really nice side effect of monopolies that also doing it. But at the same time, not every monopoly... And in fact, almost every monopoly isn't going to have that cultural imperative. And then on the flipside, let's look at the ones that aren't monopolies, and this is again, partially a narrative problem and partially a reality problem. People haven't come up with a good metric for outsiders to know that research projects are going to do well long-term, so the outsiders feel comfortable funding them.   1:10:48 LC: So an example is that over the last 15 years, you can go look at pharmaceutical companies, and you'll see that their R&D budgets are getting cut. And what happened was a lot of investors were looking at the returns on that R&D over a three-year basis and a five-year basis, and they were saying, "Look, we're not seeing any returns here, it really doesn't make sense for you to be spending money." And of course, people trot out the worst examples when they're making arguments, but there was a set of pharmaceutical companies that maybe was abusing the R&D line. Maybe they were basically not really doing great research, and they were paying themselves a lot of money to not do great research. And some hard-charging Wall Street hedge funds came in and really, really pressured those companies to stop spending on R&D. Now, you'd say socially, that's terrible outcome. We could say, "Look, maybe the R&D is a public good, not a private good, so we need some way to incentivize that and we can have that conversation." I think it's possibly solvable if we come up with a new set of metrics that everyone actually believes.   1:12:07 BR: Yeah, so this goes back to the legibility point.   1:12:09 LC: It does. So you and I have spoken about this one privately before, but there's a professor at MIT named Andrew Lo who proposed that you bundle cancer research projects together or any pharmaceutical projects together. And say you take 100 of these projects or 200 of these projects, you bundle them together, you give each of them, say, a couple million dollars, and then you bundle all the payoffs together. And so the idea is that, hopefully, that's institutionally legible enough that someone would be willing to fund it because they think, "Okay, there's actually a good chance that of these 200 projects, one or two of them will hit, and then you'll have this unbelievably valuable drug that will really be good for the world, and maybe that's a good way to push us out on the risk curve." I haven't seen this type of thinking really take hold because we're still very much in that project-based milestone-based financing approach where it's like, okay, you have the metrics that makes sense for your series A, for your series B and C and D.   1:13:18 LC: And there's also an argument that maybe the smartest biotech investors and pharma investors are already cherry-picking the best companies, the best projects. So maybe you'll sort of have this adverse selection where maybe of the top 200 projects, this would have worked, but if the best five are just going to go off on their own, you're just not going to get the good ones. And this is again, sort of that information s

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Furious Friday edition. Two weeks ago on Furious Friday, we went through an intro to the great reset. This episode we will look further into this topic, at some of the proposals and break these down further. I managed to talk to someone involved with the WEF in the interim which provided some good insights If you haven’t heard - The great reset is all about resetting the economy and society – resetting in the way that a handful of individuals at the top of entities like the WEF, UN deem to be in the world’s populations interest To start with – we need to get to the bottom of the best way to actually think about the economy - it is useful to think of an economy in real terms versus the purely financial terms I have said it many times in this podcast that the real economy is what is important – and that is you and I – our economic interactions, where we work, what we buy or how we consume or save, every one of our interactions at the aggregate level is the total sum of economic output – The economy when left to its own devices for economic growth can create a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts Through specialisation and effects of real economic growth leading to a greater output overall – all about an equilibrium being reached over time through having free economic interactions Everything that is a final product tends to have a greater value when compared to the sum of its parts – we process martials and they are transported and transformed into other physical goods, which are transported from point A to point B and consumed– Think about a pencil – there is a good essay called I, Pencil – by Leonard Read – talks about the complexity in making this – where no one person can actually produce a pencil – the gathering of the components and the trying to turn these components into one item as simple as a pencil – quote from it – “The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me (the pencil) into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the invisible hand at work.” This is very much akin to the metabolism that maintains a living body – which is a very complex system So when we are thinking about the economy – important to think of the economy as total system which encompasses the total body of humanity - all cultures, nations and families of the world and how they function on a day to day basis – Where economists and elites then step in – this can be very dangerous – their first step is that our economic interactions then gets measured – analysed and statistical representations are created – based around the models that are chosen by them – and what they choose to include or exclude in these models – hence we are relying on their interpretation of data and statistical measurements to get these aggregate economic indicators then – a handful of people analyse these data sets – then they believe that they know how to best maximise outputs based around a statistical representation – even though they had nothing to do with the output in the first place – However - they have studied for years and have come up with theories and therefore know better This brings into question the concept of economic specialised knowledge versus common knowledge – no handful of individuals can know what is best when compared to the common knowledge (each of whom have their own forms of specialised knowledge, which may not be economic) However - Even though economists or policy makers haven’t lived the same life as you – they still think they know what is best for you - they have different priorities and different personal economic situation – most of the people coming up with these plans are very connected and affluent individuals – on very good salaries that are not going to be affected by their proposals – if anything they will get more income Disappointing to see economists and policy makers believing that humans are stagnate representations of the outputs of these measurements They forget that humans are dynamic – we adapt – and tend to try and maximise for our own situation – there are lagged time periods depending on those who adapt first and those that actually never adapt They very nature of adaption comes back to creative destruction through a technological progress – however – those with the most power often don’t want this – their products are at the top currently – they are in power – in addition – for policies to work as intended there needs to be as little adaption as possible – the assumptions are based around individuals being stagnant after all so creative destructions that are population driven through the supply of new goods and services get stifled – And a greater focus is on demand – if no new supply beyond monopolies can exist – then you have to work with the existing supply and the only path to economic growth is seen through demand side That creates a situation that actually fails to meet the optimised results for the growing needs of humanity – hence the population concerns are ignored when looking at the actual outcome – This brings up back to the core concept of the great reset is that the WEF and their strategic partners – where they want to remake the economy and systems as they see are in our best interest – covid is used as an excuse push polices changes through whilst the population is malleable to change   This isn’t some out there theory – they are literally telling us - Simple manner of reading what they write – many people don’t – they are busy which is understandable – and many of these concepts do sound utopian on paper – but I am more focused on the likely outcome – not the proposals From the previous episode covering this – went through the strategic partners – on top of this – the great reset is also favoured by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) - an intergovernmental economic organisation with 37 member countries which we are a member of – as well as the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who is the former president of the Socialist International organisation You also have influential induvial like Prince Charles and the IMFs chief economist Gina Gopinath as well as having the backing from corporations including Microsoft, Google, Facebook and, many of the biggest banks and MasterCard backing these plans But Prince Charles stated that “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” His Father Prince Philip said in 1988 when speaking to German news agency “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” A lot of this reset has to go with the alignment of the economy to the emission-reduction goals, including net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It recommends stimulus measures to ensure “social development … is fully integrated with environmental objectives such as those in UN Sustainable Development Goals that form part of Agenda 2030 – but this is another topic for another day – that has already been covered in length on the podcast in the past – there is a series about 15 episodes long – on the website under the series called by any other name – united nations, socialism, fascism There is a disturbing trend through history – and that is leaders who think they possess the power to change the course of history through reshaping the economy and the social contracts that we would otherwise try to optimise The more that they have undemocratic control – the worse things tended to get - These individuals who believe they control the destiny of the population are not only deluded – but to enforce their plans things invariably become violent when human nature gets in the way – the more they wish to mould human nature to their utopian world – the greater the control is needed – and the greater control the state has over people – the worse the persons life tends to get – not only economically but at the very basis of freedom of choice I know that a lot of people can switch off here – as the thinking goes – this could never happen to us – you will probably be right – but what about future generations? Remember – in the world today – North Korea exists, Venezuela exists – looking back not that far – going back to the 90s the USSR existed, as well as Vietnam, Cambodia, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro – many countries have gone through the removals of freedoms of choice in economic interactions – never works well – and all of these previously mentioned countries - before this they were relatedly free countries when compared to what they turned into – but the turning point was once the population gave enough power to governments that the enforcement could be implemented – in the west I see it as more so a will of the government and not the ability – they have the ability in most western nations to enforce anything they want in population centres – seen it in the recent lock down enforcements   Getting to the core of the proposal - The Great Reset agenda would have three main focuses – with 6 components to achieve this and 52 sub components -   For the top-level focuses that the WEF have – The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes – the core of this focus is to create global governance to improve policy coordination on policies for taxation and at the regulatory level, as well as fiscal policy This includes upgrading trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” It is a fancy way of saying a centrally planned socialist economy – where profits should no longer be the focus but these should be given back to the people In the current environment they are – if you own a state in the company – but under this model – it sounds like what Marx was proposing back to factory workers – even though he never worked in a factory The WEF states that these proposals need governments to implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability This one confuses me a bit – it calls for large-scale Government spending programs – they say that “rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics” This last part has something to do with sustainability – but the equality component may have something to do with UBI proposals – but there is too little information to know at this stage The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good A lot of these align with the SDGs – the more I read about the proposals – the more I see the exact same vague proposals that the UN came out with For the six components to help achieve this – you have a lot of sub-components – and these normally relate to 2 or 3 of each Shaping the economic recovery – Taxation, gender parity, inclusive economic designs Redesigning social contracts, skills and jobs – LGBTI inclusion, human rights, future of mobility (immigration) Restoring the Health of the Environment – focus on climate change, the circular economy Developing sustainable business models – focused on climate change as well, employment in the workplace Harnessing the Fourth Industrial revolution – internet governance, digital identities, AI, digital economy and identities Strengthening regional development Revitalizing global cooperation – focused on global governance, globalisation trade, global financial and monetary systems When looking at these - Again – they have some detail of what their proposals are but not how they are gong to achieve this – especially around the equality elements The only system which can eliminate inequality is one where every citizen lives equally in tragedy – you have to reduce society to the lowest common denominator – obviously those who are proposing these changes from Davos – very nice area in Switzerland will be unaffected – as well as political leaders – you are paying their exorbitant salaries after all – no risk of the free market coming in the way of this But every time political leaders with the backing of the enforcement side of a Government wish to enforce equality – it doesn’t work well for us - Those living in Ukraine discovered this in the early 1930s when the Holodomor occurred - between 3 million and 12 million people starved to death after the Soviets convinced people to turn on their village’s farmers and the government confiscated all of the food – as they were apparently hoarding it – they went through their own form of lock downs – as they weren’t allowed to leave In the process – the breadbasket of the Soviet union no longer could provide food – so a lot of the USSR starved to death Looking at the top level proposals – a lot of this reeks of Marxist ideology - Marxist logic dictates that if someone profits from a sale of a good, or if the individual who has taken all the risk and put up their own capital to create a company to employer others – they are robbing people As there is an inequality due to them getting more out of the economic truncations – hence – if there is inequality, a crime has been committed and the population (or the government) has the right to commit a crime back in the form of violent enforcement This notion in the hands of Governments has prompted the most horror ever seen by humanity – even both of the world wars death tolls are less than communist death tolls – A free market does create inequality – but at the same time the living standards and wealth of those left behind are still vastly better than under a purely equal system - this is because wealth creation is not a zero-sum game There is not a finite amount of money or wealth - Money can be created, jobs can be created and people can be pulled out of tragedy and despair by a free market – might not be as easy as getting free money – but this is a ceiling trap – or welfare trap – where people can be trapped in poverty But individuals at the WEF are set to try and repeat the mistakes of the pass – if you view it as a mistake from a population level – for those at the top – these styles of governments are not a mistake – their lifestyles get better, whilst those under them get worse as Karl Marx would say: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”.   Important thing – don’t buy into the rhetoric around these proposals – they all sound good – but so did communism to those at the centre of the political spectrum - Nobody can know what you goals are but you – giving in control is sacrificing to those who don’t know you – don’t care about you – do not have the same shared goals – They say they want better for the world – but this is in their own vision – The best thing for their world may be to reduce the population to 500m and have a serf class with full automation – but that is not the best thing for us - Maybe next ep – might focus on some of the economic resets – especially the currency side of things towards a digital currency – but have covered this topic in the past – like the monetary resets to digital currencies – so let me know if you want to hear more and can do another episode - Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

The Covid Karens think shutting things down will save us, showing how economically ignorant they truly are. In reality, keeping things open is the best way to fight the virus.    We continue COVID week In today's episode, making the case for freedom using an article I wrote all the way back in April, inspired by Leonard Read's “I, Pencil.” choosewiseley.org twitter --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/basedliberty/support

Listen to this story set by an old sandy river bed! It is truly magnificent and a wonderful read! Thank you Jill Leonard for making this possible! What a fantastic book!! https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088FYW91T/ref=cm_sw_r_apa_i_vBbXEbV4ZCRGF

Should we boycott goods from China? It isn't possible, says Vivek Kaul. It isn't desirable, adds Amit Varma. Welcome to episode 1 of Econ Central, a new weekly podcast that looks at India through the lens of economic thinking. Amit and Vivek also discuss parottas, chocolate sandesh and the masterpiece Ghachar Ghochar. Also check out: 1. Econ Central Kicks Off -- Preview episode of Econ Central. 2. India's Economy in the Time of Covid-19 -- Episode 177 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vivek Kaul)). 3. It’s impossible to boycott Chinese products and brands -- Vivek Kaul. 4. Easynomics: Why companies leaving China will not come to India -- Vivek Kaul. 5. The dangers of India’s rising tariff walls -- Vivek Kaul. 6. Trump and Modi are Playing a Lose-Lose Game -- Amit Varma. 7. The Great Redistribution -- Amit Varma. 8. A trade deficit with a babysitter -- Tim Harford. 9. I, Pencil -- Leonard Read. 10. What is Libertarianism? -- Episode 117 of The Seen and the Unseen (w David Boaz) 11. The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom -- David Boaz. 12. Explained: Why parotta gets charged a higher GST than roti -- Aanchal Magazine. 13. GST -- Episode 3 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Devangshu Datta). 14. GST Revisited -- Episode 28 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vivek Kaul). 15. The Bad and Complex Tax -- Episode 74 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan). 16. Ghachar Ghochar -- Vivek Shanbhag (translated by Srinath Perur).  17. Lists of suicide prevention helpline numbers: 1, 2, 3. And hey, do also check out Vivek's book, Bad Money, as well as Amit's online course, TikTok and Indian Society.

Jay and Porter sit down to have a talk about Trump's nationalization of GM and how the Misesian Calculation problem applies. Read Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises: https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth Read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read: https://mises.org/library/i-pencil - Follow us on Instagram: @insurrection.inc @peaceful.slavery @mind_your_excuses - Follow us on Twitter: @insurrectionpod @peaceful_slave @mindyourexcuses --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/insurrection-inc/message

In this episode, we explore the background of free trade, the US-China trade war itself, and why tariffs are a bad idea.Please subscribe and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy’, Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer, 2018, All Points Books, United States.‘Schism: China, America and the Fracturing of the Global Trading System’, Paul Blustein, 2019, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada.‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, Adam Smith, Abridged with Commentary by Laurence Dickey, 1993, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge.‘On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation’, David Ricardo, 1817, republished in 2001, Batoche Books, Kitchener.‘Comparative Advantage’, Investopedia.‘International Trade’, Britannica.‘How Trump's Trade War Went From Method to Madness’, Bloomberg, YouTube.‘A Quick Guide to the US-China Trade War’, BBC.‘US-China trade war: 'We're all paying for this', Virginia Harrison, BBC.‘China tariffs will still cost US $316 billion by end of 2020, even after trade deal’, Gina Heeb, Business Insider.‘The US-China Trade War: A Timeline’, Dorcas Wong & Alexander Chipman Koty, China Briefing.‘I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read’, Leonard Read, republished by Foundation for Economic Education. ‘Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade’, N. Gregory Mankiw, New York Times.The World Trade Historical Database, Giovanni Federico & Antonio Tena-Junguito, VOXeu.org.‘Shooting an Elephant’, The Economist, September 17, 2016.‘Steve Lamar: Announced phase 1 trade deal gave retailers limited relief’, CNBC, YouTube.‘The U.S. Trade Deficit Is Narrowing for Reasons That Aren’t All Good’, Shawn Donnan, Bloomberg.‘Trade War From The Chinese Side’, Milton Ezrati, Forbes.‘How China Really Sees the Trade War’, Andrew J. Nathan, Foreign Affairs.‘The U.S. Trade War Has Caught Beijing’s Attention. Now Washington Needs a Longer-Term Plan.’, Tim Roemer, Foreign Policy.‘David Autor on Trade, China, and U.S. Labor Markets’, Econ Talk Podcast.‘Donald Trump accuses China of trade 'rape'’, The Telegraph, YouTube.‘Donald Trump FULL Speech | Toledo, Ohio Rally (10/27/2016)’, ABC News, YouTube.‘Trump vs Friedman - Trade Policy Debate’, LibertyPen, YouTube.‘Milton Friedman - Congressional House Economic Task Force (1993)’, BasicEconomics, YouTube.‘Krugman Says U.S. Not Taken Advantage of in Trade Deals’, Bloomberg Politics, YouTube.‘Don Boudreaux - Why Free Trade is ALWAYS Best Policy’, LibertyPen, YouTube.‘Trade wars are easy to start, very hard to stop: Economist Thomas Sowell’, Fox Business, YouTube.‘Milton Friedman - Free Trade’, BasicEconomics, YouTube.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

CORRECTION: "I, Pencil" was written by Leonard Read. I'll link to it in the notes below.Welcome back!This one was recorded in the car and there was a little more background noise than usual, but this episode is still chock full of great content.Today's episode focuses on two laws everyone can get behind: Trump's executive order for clear medical prices, and a new federal law against animal cruelty.Even Trump's fiercest critics remained silent as he signed these into law. But are these laws really as "good" as they seem?We'll explain how transparent pricing will only make our healthcare system an even BIGGER mess, and discuss some ways that it could really be improved.Then we'll talk about the federal animal cruelty law, and how it is set up to be a breeding ground for corruption.Available now on all major podcast platforms. Subscribe now!https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/24/735432387/trump-administration-pushes-to-make-health-care-pricing-more-transparenthttps://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/472944-hospital-groups-file-lawsuit-to-stop-trump-administrations-pricehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/trump-animal-cruelty-bill.htmlhttps://tomwoods.com/ep-481-how-capitalism-can-fix-health-care/https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Author and celebritarian Julie Borowski sits down with Matt Kibbe to discuss her new children’s book, “Nobody Knows How to Make a Pizza.” Inspired by Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil,” the book is a concise and fun explanation of economic cooperation and collaboration. Julie also reflects on the disintermediating influence of the internet and how anyone can reach out and find an audience without having to appeal to government gatekeepers. Subscribe to Kibbe on Liberty on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, YouTube, or anywhere you get podcasts.

Author and celebritarian Julie Borowski sits down with Matt Kibbe to discuss her new children’s book, “Nobody Knows How to Make a Pizza.” Inspired by Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil,” the book is a concise and fun explanation of economic cooperation and collaboration. Julie also reflects on the disintermediating influence of the internet and how anyone can reach out and find an audience without having to appeal to government gatekeepers. Nobody Knows How to Make a Pizza: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0578558564

'liason coordinator' by Tom Leonard read by Bob Carey-Grieve. 'liason coordinator' first appeared in 'Ghostie Men' published by Galloping Dog Press in 1980. A transcript can be found at https://tomleonard.co.uk/online-poetry-and-prose/liasoncoordinator.html More from Bob Carey-Grieve can be found at http://www.cyclingintothebin.com

(https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/nelson-nash.jpg) Nelson Nash is the developer of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC), which uses properly designed whole life insurance policies as a cashflow management vehicle. Although Bob (along with Carlos Lara and David Stearns) has worked closely with Nelson over the years in building the Nelson Nash Institute, this interview focuses on some of Nelson’s charming stories about learning to fly and being mentored by FEE’s founder, Leonard Read. The conversation then turns to the pernicious role that commercial bankers have played in history, and how IBC allows individuals to secede from that evil system. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The website of the Nelson Nash Institute (http://www.infinitebanking.org) . Nelson Nash’s classic book,  Becoming Your Own Banker (https://infinitebanking.org/product/becoming-your-own-banker/) . Nelson’s book (co-authored with Murphy and Carlos Lara),  (http://thecaseforibc.com) . The website of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). (https://fee.org/) Leonard Read’s most famous essay, “I, Pencil.” (https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl.html) Murphy’s talk on “Rothbardians versus ‘Free Bankers’ on Fractional Reserve Banking” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U69Qrz0xtbI) at Mises University. Lew Rockwell interviews John Denson on the “Hidden History of World War I.” (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/no_author/hidden-history-of-ww1-2/) The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media (https://www.podsworth.com/) .

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple. Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand— that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive master-minding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith. https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/josh-scandlen-podcast/support

Frequent guest Bob Murphy returns, this time talking about his new (co-authored) book, The Case for IBC. This is an acronym for "Infinite Banking Concept," a strategy that uses properly designed whole life insurance policies as a way to "become your own banker." The concept was developed by Nelson Nash, who besides working in insurance was personally tutored in Austrian theory by Leonard Read himself. Bob explains how the average person can benefit from IBC, and he answers common objections like "Isn't it better to buy term and invest the difference?" and "Why would I put my money in life insurance when the dollar is going to crash?"

Connor Boyack is the author The Tuttle Twins, a series of a premier free market educational books for kids.  Once a web developer and online marketer, his passion transformed him into an economic, history and political philosopher and educator. Because he was perplexed by current events, he began studying history's patterns, looking for answers to prevent us from repeating the mistakes of the past.  Through his study, he discovered the time-tested principles of free market economics, liberty, and entrepreneurship. Connor then immersed himself in political activism, starting a think tank to change state laws.  While helping Tesla battle against the traditional car companies and protectionist laws that prohibited them from selling any cars in Utah, he began grappling with a new question.  How could he help his young children understand his work of protecting the free market? Finding no other resources, he set out to create one for kids to understand these big philosophical ideas.  The Tuttle Twins books were born.  Now a series of nine stories that condense the ideas of liberty-minded authors such as Leonard Read, Henry Hazlitt, G. Edward Griffin, Ayn Rand, and Frederick Bastiat, the Tuttle Twins communicate big ideas in a way that everybody can understand. Because these books are creating a movement of thinkers, we wanted to share the author's take. Table of contentsWhere Creating a Legacy Fits into the Cash Flow SystemWho Is Connor Boyack?Connor Boyack Conversation Highlights (Partial Transcript)The Food Truck FiascoThe Book as an Instruction Manual for Protecting the Free MarketThe Miraculous PencilConversations About Collaboration In the Manufacturing ProcessFostering Awe, Wonder, and GratitudeThe Search for AtlasThe Tuttle Twins and the Search for AtlasThe Tuttle Twins and Their Spectacular Show BusinessKids Learn Free Market Ideas Through EntrepreneurshipHow the Book Gives Young Readers a Model for EntrepreneurshipThe Tuttle Twins and the Fate of the FutureQuestions from Our AudienceWhat are Your Thoughts on Democratic Schools?Passion-Driven EducationDemocratic SchoolsWould You Consider Writing a Book About the Importance of Investing in Yourself Financially with Mutual Whole Life Insurance?Other Topics Discussed with Connor BoyackActionCreate Your Time and Money Freedom Where Creating a Legacy Fits into the Cash Flow System As a community of wealth creators, one of our most compelling desires is not only to thrive personally, but to leave a legacy for our children of the wisdom, principles, and character that make it possible. Let's look at the big picture. In the Cash Flow System, you first increase cash flow by keeping more of the money you make, then you protect your money, and finally, you increase and make more. This conversation will take us full circle and land in two places. Firstly, it's part of helping you create and solidify your own mindset, philosophy, and principles of wealth creation in the very first step of the first phase. Secondly, it's also part of creating a legacy and passing on the wisdom that will help our kids flourish as entrepreneurs and value creators in the very last step of the last phase. Who Is Connor Boyack? Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute; a free market think tank in Utah. In that capacity, he has spearheaded many successful policy reforms in areas such as education reform, civil liberties, government transparency, business deregulation, personal freedom, and more. Connor is also president of The Association for Teaching Kids Economics, a nationally focused nonprofit training teachers on basic economic principles, so they are empowered and motivated to help their students learn more about the free market. As a public speaker and author of over a dozen books, Connor is best known for The Tuttle Twins books, a children's series introducing young readers to economic, political, and civic principles.

Leonard Edward Read (September 26, 1898 – May 14, 1983) was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which was one of the first modern libertarian institutions of its kind in the United States. He wrote 29 books and numerous essays, including the well-known I, Pencil (1958). Read and Henry Hazlitt founded the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946. In 1950, Read joined the board of directors for the newly founded periodical The Freeman, a free market magazine that was a forerunner of the conservative National Review, to which Read was also a contributor. Read received an Honorary Doctoral Degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in 1976. He continued to work with FEE until his death in 1983. Join Ed and Ron as they discuss FEE's free book, The Essential Leonard Read.

Leonard Edward Read (September 26, 1898 – May 14, 1983) was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which was one of the first modern libertarian institutions of its kind in the United States. He wrote 29 books and numerous essays, including the well-known I, Pencil (1958). Read and Henry Hazlitt founded the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946. In 1950, Read joined the board of directors for the newly founded periodical The Freeman, a free market magazine that was a forerunner of the conservative National Review, to which Read was also a contributor. Read received an Honorary Doctoral Degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in 1976. He continued to work with FEE until his death in 1983. Join Ed and Ron as they discuss FEE's free book, The Essential Leonard Read.

Leonard Edward Read (September 26, 1898 – May 14, 1983) was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which was one of the first modern libertarian institutions of its kind in the United States. He wrote 29 books and numerous essays, including the well-known I, Pencil (1958). Read and Henry Hazlitt founded the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946. In 1950, Read joined the board of directors for the newly founded periodical The Freeman, a free market magazine that was a forerunner of the conservative National Review, to which Read was also a contributor. Read received an Honorary Doctoral Degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in 1976. He continued to work with FEE until his death in 1983. Join Ed and Ron as they discuss FEE's free book, The Essential Leonard Read.

In the previous episode, Carlos and Bob talked with Nelson about his life before IBC. In this episode they focus more on his discovery of how to become your own banker.Mentioned in this episode: Leonard Read's famous essay, "I, Pencil": http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html Nelson Nash's bestselling book, Becoming Your Own Banker: https://infinitebanking.org/product/becoming-your-own-banker/ Previous podcast episodes to introduce IBC:https://lara-murphy.com/podcast/episode-17-guide-starting-ibc-part-1/https://lara-murphy.com/podcast/episode-18-guide-starting-ibc-part-2/

Carlos and Bob ask the founder of IBC about his background, including his faith, marriage, career in forestry, and meeting Leonard Read.Mentioned in this episode: Leonard Read's famous essay, "I, Pencil": http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html Nelson Nash's bestselling book, Becoming Your Own Banker: https://infinitebanking.org/product/becoming-your-own-banker/ Previous podcast episodes to introduce IBC:https://lara-murphy.com/podcast/episode-17-guide-starting-ibc-part-1/https://lara-murphy.com/podcast/episode-18-guide-starting-ibc-part-2/

Today we discuss some of the simple and helpful advice on how to teach your young children the fundamentals of economics as inspired by this essay by Leonard Read, called "Economics for Boys and Girls." Sponsor: Audible http://AudibleFathers.com Sponsor: Covenant Eyes http://CovenantFathers.com Sponsor: YNAB http://YNABFathers.com Leave us a voicemail: 804-464-3237 (804-464-DADS) Email the show: EncouragingChristianFathers@gmail.com Facebook: http://facebook.com/groups/EncouragingChristianFathers Joshua's other podcast: http://radicalpersonalfinance.com Dave's other podcast: http://anchoroftruth.com  

Roger Ver has been a long time proponent of voluntaryism, the idea that all human interactions should be by mutual consent, or not at all. He is most well known for his work promoting Bitcoin. In 2011, his company, Memorydealers.com, became the first mainstream company to start accepting bitcoin as payment. He then went on to create Bitcoinstore.com, the first website in the world to accept bitcoin as payment for hundreds of thousands of items, and was the impetus for the future wave of merchant adoption. He also became the first person in the entire world to start investing in Bitcoin startups. Nearly single-handedly, he funded the seed rounds for the entire first generation of Bitcoin businesses. In his earlier life, he was most influenced by the works of Murray Rothbard, but was also inspired by the likes of Fredric Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, Leonard Read, Frederick Hayek, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and many others in the Austrian school of economic thought.   Roger’s Challenge; Install a Bitcoin wallet and give it a try.     Like my crypto episodes? Support the work! Ethereum: 0x1c5f5da1efad45078c41bceb18eb777099138e6b Bitcoin: 13RcQZnZM4Lx6bw37YVdiv6Uc2X5b7anF3     If you liked this interview, check out episode 118 with Kevin Kelly where we discuss how technological forces will influence the near future.

Welcome to Fantasy Football, in Theory, a brand new fantasy football podcast dedicated to high-level fantasy strategy in the abstract.   Episode 2 continues our look at questions of size and how much it matters for NFL players. If you're curious about any of the essays cited, you can read them here: I, Pencil, by Leonard Read - http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html On Being the Right Size, by J.B.S. Haldane - http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html The Biology of B-Movie Monsters, by Michael C. LeBarbera - http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/   If you enjoyed today's guest, you can learn more about the Rookie Scouting Portfolio at his site - https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/ You can also read more of his work-- as well as my own!-- at www.footballguys.com. An archive of links to past articles of mine is also always available at my blog, http://dynastytheory.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-link-to-all-my-writings.html.

Free MarketsI, PencilAPRIL 1, 2009 Leonard E. ReadThe audio version of Leonard Read's classic essay. Narrated by Floy Lilley.Download audio fileREAD MORE

Free MarketsI, PencilAPRIL 1, 2009 Leonard E. ReadThe audio version of Leonard Read's classic essay. Narrated by Floy Lilley.Download audio fileREAD MORE

What can children read that illustrates the principles of liberty? Not a whole lot, to be blunt. That’s why I’m so pleased with Connor Boyack’s beautiful new Tuttle Twins series, the most recent entry of which is a children’s version of Leonard Read’s famous essay “I, Pencil.” That’s what we talked about on the show today. About the Guest Connor Boyack is the author of several books and the president of the, a public-policy think-tank based in Utah. Book Discussed Some Other Books by the Guest  (featuring a  by me). Also available as an audiobook, read by the author. Guest’s Website Special Offers  to adopt Ron Paul’s homeschool curriculum today (and 4 not to). Sign up through  and I’ll send you a FREE 10-lesson bonus course on the foundations of liberty, in time for the 2015-2016 academic year! Just  once you’ve signed up and I’ll get it to you. If you enjoy the Tom Woods Show, my new book —  — is for you. ! And get a free copy of the audiobook version, with me reading it, at.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 152. This is my speech “Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?” delivered at the NYC LibertyFest (Brooklyn, NY, October 11, 2014). The original title was "Libertarianism After Fifty Years: A Reassessment and Reappraisal" but I was allotted only about 15-20 minutes so condensed the scope and could only touch briefly on many of the matters discussed. This audio was recorded by me from my iphone in my pocket; video and a higher-quality audio should be available shortly. The outline and notes used for the speech is appended below, which includes extensive links to further material pertaining to  matters discussed in the speech. An edited transcript is available here. Speech Notes/Outline Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned? Stephan Kinsella NYC LibertyFest, Brooklyn, NY October 11, 2014   Introduction Modern libertarianism is about 50 years old. Main figures: Rand and Rothbard. “three furies of libertarianism” (Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism): Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson (1943) Mises, Hayek, Read, Friedman Rand Atlas, 1957; Rothbard, MES, 1962 From a Foreword I wrote for a forthcoming libertarian book: Modern libertarian theory is only about five decades old. The ideas that have influenced our greatest thinkers can be traced back centuries, of course,[1] to luminaries such as Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill, and to more recent and largely even more radical thinkers such as Gustave de Molinari, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Franz Oppenheimer, and Albert Jay Nock.[2] The beginnings of the modern movement can be detected in the works of the “three furies of libertarianism,” as Brian Doherty calls them: Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson, whose respective books The Discovery of Freedom, The Fountainhead, and The God of the Machine were all published, rather remarkably, in the same year: 1943.[3] But in its more modern form, libertarianism originated in the 1960s and 1970s from thinkers based primarily in the United States, notably Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Other significant influences on the nascent libertarian movement include Ludwig von Mises, author of Liberalism (1927) and Human Action (1949, with a predecessor version published in German in 1940); Nobel laureate F.A. von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944); Leonard Read, head of the Foundation for Economic Education (founded 1946); and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, author of the influential Capitalism and Freedom (1962). The most prominent and influential of modern libertarian figures, however, were the aforementioned novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, the founder of “Objectivism” and a “radical for capitalism,” and Murray Rothbard, the Mises-influenced libertarian anarcho-capitalist economist and political theorist. Rothbard's seminal role is widely recognized, even by non-Rothbardians. Objectivist John McCaskey, for example, has observed, that out of the debates in the mid-1900s about what rights citizens ought to have, "grew the main sort of libertarianism of the last fifty years. It was based on a principle articulated by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s this way: No one may initiate the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. The idea had roots in John Locke, America's founders, and more immediately Ayn Rand, but it was Rothbard's formulation that became standard. It became known as the non-aggression principle or—since Rothbard took it as the starting point of political theory and not the conclusion of philosophical justification—the non-aggression axiom. In the late twentieth century, anyone who accepted this principle could call himself, or could find himself called, a libertarian, even if he disagreed with Rothbard's own insistence that rights are best protected when there is no ...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 152. This is my speech “Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?” delivered at the NYC LibertyFest (Brooklyn, NY, October 11, 2014). The original title was "Libertarianism After Fifty Years: A Reassessment and Reappraisal" but I was allotted only about 15-20 minutes so condensed the scope and could only touch briefly on many of the matters discussed. This audio was recorded by me from my iphone in my pocket; video and a higher-quality audio should be available shortly. The outline and notes used for the speech is appended below, which includes extensive links to further material pertaining to  matters discussed in the speech. An edited transcript is available here. Speech Notes/Outline Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned? Stephan Kinsella NYC LibertyFest, Brooklyn, NY October 11, 2014   Introduction Modern libertarianism is about 50 years old. Main figures: Rand and Rothbard. “three furies of libertarianism” (Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism): Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson (1943) Mises, Hayek, Read, Friedman Rand Atlas, 1957; Rothbard, MES, 1962 From a Foreword I wrote for a forthcoming libertarian book: Modern libertarian theory is only about five decades old. The ideas that have influenced our greatest thinkers can be traced back centuries, of course,[1] to luminaries such as Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill, and to more recent and largely even more radical thinkers such as Gustave de Molinari, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Franz Oppenheimer, and Albert Jay Nock.[2] The beginnings of the modern movement can be detected in the works of the “three furies of libertarianism,” as Brian Doherty calls them: Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson, whose respective books The Discovery of Freedom, The Fountainhead, and The God of the Machine were all published, rather remarkably, in the same year: 1943.[3] But in its more modern form, libertarianism originated in the 1960s and 1970s from thinkers based primarily in the United States, notably Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Other significant influences on the nascent libertarian movement include Ludwig von Mises, author of Liberalism (1927) and Human Action (1949, with a predecessor version published in German in 1940); Nobel laureate F.A. von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944); Leonard Read, head of the Foundation for Economic Education (founded 1946); and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, author of the influential Capitalism and Freedom (1962). The most prominent and influential of modern libertarian figures, however, were the aforementioned novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, the founder of “Objectivism” and a “radical for capitalism,” and Murray Rothbard, the Mises-influenced libertarian anarcho-capitalist economist and political theorist. Rothbard’s seminal role is widely recognized, even by non-Rothbardians. Objectivist John McCaskey, for example, has observed, that out of the debates in the mid-1900s about what rights citizens ought to have, "grew the main sort of libertarianism of the last fifty years. It was based on a principle articulated by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s this way: No one may initiate the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. The idea had roots in John Locke, America’s founders, and more immediately Ayn Rand, but it was Rothbard’s formulation that became standard. It became known as the non-aggression principle or—since Rothbard took it as the starting point of political theory and not the conclusion of philosophical justification—the non-aggression axiom. In the late twentieth century, anyone who accepted this principle could call himself, or could find himself called, a libertarian, even if he disagreed with Rothbard’s own insistence that rights are best protected when there is no ...

Liberty does not and cannot include any action, regardless of sponsorship, which lessens the liberty of a single human being.

The audio version of Leonard Read's classic essay. Narrated by Floy Lilley.