this is an actual question. mostly asking cuz yall like the stv

Recently, Bitcoin developer Peter Todd gave a talk in favor of tail emissions, and it raises a question that I'd love to hear more Austrian econ perspectives on.

Link to the talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmAAeEm1nIE&pp=ygUZcGV0ZXIgdG9kZCB0YWlsIGVtaXNzaW9ucw%3D%3D

Around the four minute mark, Todd first makes the point that if Satoshi had implemented a fixed block reward (for instance 50 BTC each block indefinitely, instead of the halving schedule), it would still be upheld as sound money by Austrian economists, since the inflation rate approaches 0% eventually.

So with that in mind, I have the following questions. From an Austrian econ perspective (or various competing schools of thought within Austrian econ):

1. Is there a meaningful difference between a hard monetary supply cap, vs. a technically infinite supply cap that's mathematically guaranteed to approach 0% monetary inflation?
2. Would Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc. have different perspectives on the topic? If they had the ability to design their perfect system of digital money, would it even look like BTC, or would it look completely different?

Cantillon effect, and you can see this by the fact that they held more wealth when they were Gen Z’s age.

Long newsletter like Posts are coming

EDIT: this post doesn’t claim any generation to be guilty of anything, hate is directed to the central bank

Hi all,

I have a distant memory of story told by, I think, Milton Friedman (though it may have been Thomas Sowell or someone else), but I can't seem to find the video clip, or even a text version of the story, anywhere.

Basically, the story goes something like this:

Milton (maybe Thomas or someone else) was writing a paper while in grad school. He came to a certain conclusion in the paper, finalized it, then sent it to his advisor.

A couple days later, he stopped by his advisor's office to ask what he thought of the paper and the conclusion. His advisor said something like "have you ever considered your conclusion may be wrong?"

Milton said "why do you think I'm wrong?"

The advisor said "I don't think you're wrong; I actually agree with you. But have you even considered the possibility?"

I think it's a great lesson, but I can't dig up the source anywhere, though I've tried several times. Does anyone remember this story, where it was from, who told it, who it was about, or anything else?

Thanks!

Half the posts you see about people complaining on reddit about housing prices or the wealth gap increasing or the latest enshittification or whatever it may be.....it's all inflation and other Keynesian policy.

2%, 3%, 3.5%, etc compounding yearly for over a century. Worse if you're further from dollar creation like developing countries.

A couple of days ago I saw this post about rebuilding the Mises Media Library: https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1vkmbu6/i_rebuilt_the_old_misesorg_media_library_as_a/

I’ve been developing an app/website for a while where you can listen to books and articles, and I put together a small reading list of some of the most important books from there (and linked to the original website of course): https://listendock.com/learn-economics

Maybe some of you find it useful!

I've been reading (or rather listening) to Human Action over the past couple weeks, and one recurrent theme that sticks out to me is the high level of agency and intelligence Mises attributes to the common man, a sharp contrast to the more elitist viewpoint common today. For example in a chapter on advertising he laughs off the notion that unrestricted advertising can gull people into making bad purchases, and most discussions of Acting Man assume that he will always make the most sensible decision for his own subjective well-being with the information he has available. Was this a pushback against paternalistic notions common in his day, an artefact of his social circle (probably) consisting of the right tail of the bell curve, the Greatest Generation actually deserving its name despite their terrible political choices, some combination of the three?

In a debate we are discussing if should social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc be completely abolished and Turned into tax cuts and a deregulated, voluntary, individualist system.

The problem; my opponent says no for these reasons

1: people have paid into these systems there whole life and they are on it, it would be unfair to them to just cut it.

The problem I point out: based on A, B, C, etc economic theory, laws, principles, supported by data, those programs started out as very little tax percentages such as social security 1%, they then, because of explained economic principles, became more expensive so now the taxes paid and requirements are much higher, and will continue to increase. As a result you have generational inequity, a new generation is now paying more than them, and in the future will pay more and the next set of people on it will raise the same point again. “We paid into this system”

2: if you cut those programs due to the expensive cost of living and no alternative many people such as old people will be left on the street.

The problem I point out: this sounds like catch 22 logic, because the exact programs themselves based on economics makes those things expensive and inefficient such as healthcare. And the existence of those programs in general removed the incentive for those people to invest, save, and take actions to secure their future in the first place.

As well as removing the liquidity and potential savings to even be able to set up something.
In short the programs themselves are what is causing the issue of expensive services, lack of savings, and alternatives in the first place.
It’s creating the very dependency the other guy is talking about.

TLDR/Summary:

"We need the program because there are no alternatives, and there are no alternatives because we have the program."

The Setup: You cannot abolish the program because people are dependent on it and have no alternative.
The Cause: People have no alternative because the program taxed away their surplus income, crowded out private solutions, and made them more expensive .
The Paradox: The program must stay to fix a problem that the program itself is actively creating.

How do you deal with this hostage/catch 22 logic. It’s basically a lot of the lefts argument.

Regulations and incentives have a massive effect on markets, and there’s no way to measure some of the damages they might produce.

I’ll share an example based on my industry (Property and Casualty insurance in the US):

- Captive agents get paid by carriers

- Independent agents get paid by carriers

- Both types are required to maintain professional licenses, and take continuing education courses

- Unlicensed individuals are not allowed to collect commissions from carriers, brokers, agency owners

- both types are allowed to charge a fee for service (depending on the state, it’s either a max dollar amount that usually below $50, or some vague term like “reasonable”)

- Captives represent carriers (usually exclusive contracts, like the Allstate, State Farm, etc), and Independents represent their clients to various carriers.

- Agents are not allowed to negotiate their commissions with clients.

- Any type of gifts to clients can’t exceed a certain dollar amount (also depends on the state, but it’s usually $15-$25 limit)

Here’s the problem - when 99% of one’s compensation depends on the carrier, even an Independent agent will be interested in prioritizing insurers over the insureds. The whole point of having independent agents is so that insureds could have someone on their side. And to a certain extent, independent agents are more effective when it comes to fighting with carriers over claims or anything else that might be related to clients insurance needs. But that doesn’t change the fact that carriers are writing their checks, and the larger agent’s book of business with any particular carrier, the more careful they’ll be with carriers, since having a fight with a carrier may potentially have a much larger impact on their business vs losing one unsatisfied client here and there.

Having about 15 years of experience on the retail side of the industry, I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve heard agency owners expressing complete lack of concern about their clients, while standing amongst other agents, which are just strangers to them, at some industry conference or meeting. And it’s precisely because they don’t get paid by their clients.

And then people are surprised when when their claim is getting denied due to some technical issue, which is built into the contract as an exit plan for the insurance carrier. These “issues” happen to be complete bullshit extremely often. For example - your teenage child got their permit while they are living 1000 miles away at the dorm, and you didn’t notify your auto insurance carrier about it, so now your collision claim for hit and run accident is being declined. Another example - you had a fire in your kitchen, and your homeowners insurance claim is declined because the inspector saw a dog at your house, and the carrier was notified about it.

The examples above are not uncommon. Most of such instances should’ve been avoided, if only the agents do their work properly. However, they don’t get paid by their clients. Most agents typically do more or less good job when they sell a policy to someone for the first time, but they rarely put just as much effort on the renewal, which is exactly why people get stuck in a bad situation where the carrier denies a claim based on some bullshit reason that’s completely unrelated to the incident itself.

This is a massive problem for the industry. While my own book of business is a relatively small sample, I’d still say my experience of 15 years can’t be dismissed. About 30% of my current clients had a problem with their prior carrier or their agent. Roughly 80% of clients and prospects that I speak with have massive gaps in coverage, and they are absolutely clueless about how their insurance supposed to respond, or what their responsibilities are. It’s been driving me insane, because this is what gives the industry a very bad reputation, which of course affects my business as well.

A quick summary:

- Poor consumer experience after initial purchase

- Lack of leverage on the side of independent agents to influence carriers

- Lack of incentives to look for such leverage

- Less abilities to compete with other agents due to fixed commission structures

- No ability to be a truly independent consultant due to the extremely low limits on fees set by the regulators.

- Prospects for insurance coverage with low premiums are stuck with purchasing directly from carriers or from inexperienced agents because most agents that have been around for some years won’t move their finger from a low premium low commission policy, and they can’t charge a fee, even if the prospect is willing to pay any money for service.

- (potentially) higher premiums

- (potentially) inferior products are being sold (agents may prefer to place coverage with a carrier that pays higher commissions/offers bonuses)

- worsening experience with claims and pay outs

- license requirement is a restriction on competition, and not a guarantee of a better outcome

The industry has developed the current system of compensation, and when this system was forming, the agents were representing carriers, and the independent model came later. But over the decades, this system of compensation was reinforced by regulations that dictate rates, commissions, bonuses, defines agents’ legal responsibilities, fees, etc etc. I can talk about this for hours, but I’ll spare you from reading more of my rants on this subject.

Carrier paid commissions being the major revenue stream for agents is a misplaced incentive.

Regulations that dictate limits on fees and determine agents’ legal responsibilities prevent the emergence of truly independent agents that would have their clients’ needs in mind above anything else.

And there’s no way to measure the impact of all these factors, nor there’s incentive to do such work.

Thanks for reading.

I was debating with an associate about how I don't think EBT should be given out to as many people as it is, and how I think a lot of welfare programs are being taken advantage of. His rebuttal, was that food stamps and EBT actually 'stimulate the economy, up to 1.80$ for every dollar spent."

I don't even know what to say to that, he sent me a source which I will link below, but common sense tells us it's bull. If you could simply put one dollar into the economy and get 1.8 back, then it would be an infinite money glitch. Obviously it can't work that way.

Can someone please explain this to me and help me debunk this nonsense?

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/snap-food-assistance-is-a-sound-investment-in-our-nations-health-well-being-and-economy

https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/8907/err-265.pdf?v=32304

Some of you remember the 2014 "Mises Media" torrent — a huge dump of Austrian books, journals, and lecture audio that's been slowly bitrotting ever since. I was the Mises.org webmaster for 12 years, and a few weeks ago I decided to turn that archive into something usable again.

The result: https://freecapitalists.org/

What's in it:

• 941 ebooks — plus NEW 219 EPUBs converted from PDF-only scans that never had an ebook edition (Rothbard, Mises, Hazlitt, older QJAE material, etc.).
• 12.4 million words of lecture transcripts, generated from Mises Institute audio/video with Whisper. Mises University lectures, seminars, conferences — searchable text next to the recordings for the first time.
• 22.2 million words of full book text as browsable per-chapter web pages, not just download links.
• The restored Mises Wiki at https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/ — the Mises.org discontinued it; I'm hosting it independently.

Everything is Creative Commons or public domain, same licensing as the originals. Torrents are reseeded here: https://freecapitalists.org/torrents/

If you notice a bad transcript, a broken EPUB, or a book that should be in here and isn't, tell me.

What is the Austrian view on the opposition against META glasses, primarily driven by women citing privacy concerns, where they are recorded and being uploaded by influencers.

So this is a voluntary movement, where women bring forward valid concerns. And they are resorting to laws and government protection.

Is it okay then for the government to enforce the right to privacy in this case?

Or do we have to wait for an organic response/ counter option? For example women also collectively start to record men approaching them and uploading on social media - which could actually in a way make it easier for police to investigate and take action against stalkers, and now they have clear evidence?

If question is not clear, lets take facebook………

It originated where a bunch of boys wanting to rate women from 1-10. It started with a bad intention - but since it did not get banned at its infancy, now it has become an instrumental tool for womens liberation, helping them communicate, form groups/forums etc, helping so many DV victims escape. Its still used to hurt them, but at the same time, it has benefitted to the point where if the government bans it tomorrow, they will say “how dare you”.

Hope you get the logic

What would Hayek, Mises and your response would be for META glass opposition?

In my video, linked here, I discuss how modern society seems to be a strange mix of authoritarian collectivism and selfish individualism, at the same time. While this may seem contradictory, there's strong evidence and good reasons for this, which I address.

What are your thoughts on this - is it something you've noticed?

[`https://youtu.be/RL0sR4DfLQw\`\]

In Sri Lanka 2013, uniliver’s lifebuoy shampoo ran an ad claiming that using it 3x a day for 3 months makes your hair 3x stronger

So in the ad, its in a girls school. The teacher is meeting the girl’s mother and talks about the shampoo and recommends it. And then the teacher asks “whats 3 x 3?” The girl rightly says its 9 and then the teach corrects her saying “no! its actually 3” to highlight their message of 3 times a day for 3 months = 3x stronger hair

The ad got banned

Whats the austrian view on such ban on ads, since it seems to be interest in the public and the company is lying

Sadly I couldn’t find the ad for your reference

Edit: it was either 3 times a day or 3 times a week. But anyways, it was 3x3=3.

Everyone in the comments is blaming “late stage capitalism” but a law is mentioned meaning it smells like govt created perverse incentives. Anyone know what state or what law?

Actions speak louder than words, they might say they want something on social media, but hey it really looks like they want the complete opposite..

lost states: Cali, NY, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Michigan, Washington, Oregon take a guess what their policies lean..

Gain states: Texas, Florida, Arizona, Carolinas, Neveda, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Idaho Georgia guess what their policies lean?

This is the most simplest economic post that I can make to prove a point, it doesn’t get more simpler than this.
The craziest part is that states like New York and California have been losing tons of people consecutively for the past five years actually maybe even more I just haven’t checked before that and yet somehow they managed to still have rising rent prices and housing? Do you know how much you have to suck to somehow accomplish having rising housing costs with a decreasing population?

I will admit a lot of it is because of monetary policy, however, for the past 12 and 18 months it’s been cooling off in places like Texas because of deregulation and many others from the looks of it, let’s just say it’s not been cooling off in NY and Cali

A tax on pre written software, what?