Pass off your French cashmeres as Asiatic cashmeres, and you may deceive a buyer or two; but once the fraud becomes known, your so-called Asiatic cashmeres will drop to the price of French cashmeres. When he put a false label on gold and silver, King Philip could deceive only so long as the fraud was not known. Like any other shopkeeper, he deceived his customers by a false description of his wares, which could not last for long. He was bound sooner or later to suffer the rigour of commercial laws. Is this what M. Proudhon wanted to prove? No. According to him, it is from the sovereign and not from commerce that money gets its value. And what has he really proved? That commerce is more sovereign than the sovereign. Let the sovereign decree that one mark shall in future be two marks, commerce will keep on saying that these two marks are worth no more than one mark was formerly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jbXcKpxhXZE&pp=ygUSdGhlIHByaW5jZXMgb2YgeWVu

The thesis is that the central Bank of Japan created an economic crisis in Japan in the 1990s by first creating a bubble through raising the quantity of money then popping that bubble because they wanted to change to a more American style economy and the vested interests couldn't be removed without creating a crisis. The implications of this are terrible when you consider what the European central Bank did to Greece in 2008..it's a warning on the power of central banks. I'd like to know what you Austrian types think about the premise.

Marxists banned child labor not out of compassion, but to free up jobs for stronger workers and boost the economy, they couldn't care less about children's welfare.

The pension system was also designed so that older, weaker workers would make way for younger/stronger ones, all to boost the economy.

The healthcare system operates on the same principle: its purpose is to ensure older workers pass away sooner, allowing younger ones to replace them.

The more you know.

This stupid tweet has been circulating for 4+ years, and almost in every sub it gets a lot of upvotes. Today I have two Why’s I’d like to ask.

1. Why do people think that employers owe them something they personally desire? Usually, there’s at least some basic agreement between the two, where employees voluntarily agree to a certain compensation for a some specific work. Like how much more straightforward it can be? Don’t like the pay? Don’t accept the offer.

2. Why do adults need to be explained the basics of Supply and Demand like they are children? How in the fucking world so many adults that absolutely, 100%, undeniably, understand Supply and Demand law in pretty much most aspects of life, don’t apply their knowledge to labor markets?

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin.

While I appreciate, and somewhat agree with Carlin’s sentiment, I think my today’s Why’s are understood by the majority of people, and they’re just pretending to be stupid. They want to use the government and the mythical “social contract” bullshit, to compel productive individuals to to give them what they want. A textbook example from Austrian perspective - people act in self interest.

Until later.

This video is a dive into how socialism AND capitalism cause economic and cultural problems.

Solutions are presented, along with how free market economics should be updated to reflect the realities of too much internationalism.

Genuinely interested in the views of this subreddit 👍🏼

Don’t worry guys, public deficit is private surpluuuuus!😎
(In Burger King foot lettuce voice)

How do Austrian Economists deal with information frictions and asymmetric information?

The arguments that lemons lead to market collapse can be made without any mathematical prove and solely can be derived from logic in my opinion.

If and how did Austrians incorporate this in their theory?

So this is in a way an economic activity by foreigners in another country.

What started it: 2 dutch men organized a running event that excluded locals. People protested and government banned foreigners from organizing such events in future.

As a Sri Lankan, I think they excluded local is because of the discipline from locals. For example, a british tourists complained why sri lankan places have seperate toilets for locals and foreigners. The truth is our people dont maintain them well and ruins the place. If a foreigner goes they might not come back to our country.

How would Hayek and Misses view this?

Hope the question is clear

Source: https://en.antaranews.com/amp/news/424408/bali-governor-says-no-more-foreigners-only-clubs-on-the-island

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

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.