This article on Mises.org is disappointing (Daniel Lacalle, “Price Inflation Slowed to 3 Percent. That’s Still Far Too High,” Mises Wire (July 24, 2023). I guess it’s a blessing they seem to have disabled comments. Because this would be my comment:
This is not how Austrians think—at least, not Misesian-Rothbardians. The title gives it away: “Price Inflation Slowed to 3 Percent. That’s Still Far Too High.” As if there is a desired inflation rate—say, zero percent (in nominal terms).
And this line: “Inflation is caused by the constant increase in the quantity of currency in circulation well above real demand.” [continue reading…]
We spoke in the past, briefly, and I do appreciate that you’re open to emails. I’m not really expecting any kind of answer from this, just trying to bring to your attention a weird issue in the reasoning of a lot of pro-IP people that I’ve seen. AI has been a hot topic (though not the subject of this email), and in conversations with people about it I’ve seen the following come up time and time again. [continue reading…]
In 1912, in The Theory of Money and Credit[TMC], Ludwig von Mises argued that money is neither a producer good nor a consumer good, but a special type of good, which, following Karl Knies, he called media of exchange goods.1 Nowadays, some Austrians refer to money as a sui generis good (sui generis meaning “of its own kind”), to highlight its unique character, although Mises apparently never himself used this terminology. For example, in a recent article touching on this topic, Thorsten Polleit writes:
Money is no consumption good and no production good. It is the exchange good, a good sui generis. I should also note that money is not a claim on goods, and in a free market, no one is obliged to give you something for your money.2
What is your view on false TV ads? Do you consider it fraud when a customer purchases a product from a TV ad but finds out that the ad lied about the product?
Like if there was a TV commercial that claimed drinking soda would make me fly, and I went to the store to purchase that brand of soda thinking it would make me fly and ends up not, is that company liable for fraud?
Kinsella:
I think we would have to wait and see how a legal system decided such matters, because they could take into account previous case law, local custom, ask questions of witnesses and experts to determine the relevant context. In short, you can’t decide everything from the armchair. Sometimes you have to wait.1
My own view is that caveat emptor would be a reigning principle. Fools are easily parted with their money. You can’t rely on such information unless it is clearly deceptive, or you are given a clear guarantee. If you do, it’s at your own risk.
But whatever happens legally, practice would take it into account and change if necessary. If stupid customers win at such lawsuits, then vendors will start being more careful with their claims or add caveats, or maybe make the customer sign a waiver before the purchase. If the customers lose, then this would tend to spread the word of “caveat emptor” and customers would be more careful and/or buy insurance or rely more on private reputation agencies like the Better Business Bureau seal of approval. Suppose you know it’s hard to sue a vendor if they make shady claims. So you have a choice between Vendor A, who uses the BBB but whose prices are higher, but whose quality is probably higher; or Vendor B, who refuses to use BBB and thus might be more dishonest in his claims. One consumer may choose B because he’s cheaper, but now he’s taking a risk–some might say assuming the risk, and can’t complain if the product turns out to be shit.2
The late Doris Gordon1 was an interesting libertarian. She was an atheist, but also pro-life, and founder of Libertarians for Life. We corresponded a bit about the abortion issue in 1996, when I was practicing law in Philadelphia (reprinted below). I cannot recall how we came across each other. We talked on the phone but never met in person.
I liked Doris; she was genuine and sincere. But I thought then, and still do now, that her pro-life arguments are flawed. In my view, they are simply semantic and simplistic—and wrong. The argument is basically this: if “humans” have rights, then fetuses do too—after all, they “are humans” (“if they are not humans, what are they? Lizards?” is the retort you often get from the pro-life types). As she wrote me, “If Adult Stephan has the right not to be killed, then prima facie why not Zygote Stephan?” [continue reading…]
I am informed by her friend Richard Stevens that she passed away about twelve years ago. [↩]
Libertarian philosopher Gerard Casey has an excellent essay which is as yet unpublished: “Let the Poor Starve? A Libertarian Approach to Welfare.” Until it is formally published, I post it here, with permission. The text is below; here are the PDF and docx files. Casey’s note to me:
This was a talk to be given to people unfamiliar with libertarianism or, even worse, prejudiced against what they believe libertarianism to be. It is largely derivative in terms of its content, but I thought it would be a good idea to confront boldly and offensively with the biggest objection lurking in their minds. As befits an oral presentation, it’s relatively casual in style and will more than likely, despite my best efforts at emendation, still have some lurking typos. [continue reading…]
As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law) and KOL411 (Part 2: Copyright Law), although I’ve done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I’ve never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. KOL411 was a tutorial on copyright law.
This episode covers other types of IP, including trademark and trade secret, and argues that defamation law should be considered a type of IP law as well. (Recorded May 11, 2023.)
I’ve been fascinated with the inter-Austrian debate on fractional-reserve banking for years.1 My view has long been that fractional reserve freebanking (FRB) is not inherently fraudulent and should not be illegal; but that economically it makes no sense. I think Huerta de Soto’s Roman legal analysis of irregular deposit warehouse banking is correct,2 and that there is a distinction between the savings/warehousing function and credit intermediation. (Thus, our UK banking system reform proposal from a few years back.)3[continue reading…]
Recent Comments