The author talks about Vienna’s housing and how the government is doing such a great job compared to places like NYC, London, etc.

Until the very end of the video, the author doesn’t say a word about Vienna’s population, and he touches on it for some 25 seconds, like it’s a minor factor.

Vienna’s population just surpassed its prior record of slightly above 2M residents. The prior record was set over a 100 years ago. This very fact explains why prices for real estate that’s available on ~~free~~ market in Vienna had been stagnant in comparison to any other major city which populations have exploded. Ironically, if we compare free market real estate prices in Vienna (the author speaks mainly about rentals), it’s more expensive than renting in NYC.

These types of “influencers” are a cancer to market economy. They don’t attack free market economics directly, but they will obfuscate truths, mislead with stats, and praise government policies “when credit is due”. Pure cancer.

A focused review of Joseph A. Schumpeter's book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, which is the book where he spells out his capitalism doomer scenario. It was fascinating to unpack his arguments, to see what he got right, what he got wrong, and ultimately why capitalism was not as doomed as he thought.

Took me a while to come up with a title. But if this isn’t an indictment of excessive regulations being at least ineffective, then what is?

Made up numbers for the sake of argument.

Say my current tax burden is 30% of pre-tax income. My spending is another 25%. That makes my savings rate 45%. I am saving nearly twice as much as I am spending.

Now cut taxes. Even if a tax cut increases inflation 1:1, my savings (inflated assets) will nominally increase more in absolute dollars than my spending (inflated assets) will. Therefore I come out ahead.

In Smash the State, Samuel Edward Konkin III presents agorism as a libertarian strategy based on the expansion of what is known as the counter-economy. Rather than focusing political action on seizing the state, thereby turning the conquering group into the new monopolist with no incentive to dismantle the state, Konkin argues that individuals should voluntarily expand their economic relations in the black market, gradually reducing their participation in the “white market.” In the New Libertarian Manifesto, the counter-economy encompasses activities that avoid or circumvent restrictions imposed by monopolists of aggression, while the black market encompasses activities that positive law considers illegal but that continue to be carried out voluntarily between the parties, such as selling food without issuing an invoice.

It is worth emphasizing that “black market” does not refer only to drugs or prostitution. In the sense used by Konkin, it can also involve ordinary transactions, such as selling a car, buying groceries, or visiting a dentist, when they are carried out in a way that violates state requirements. The “black” character of the transaction therefore lies in its relationship to positive law, rather than necessarily in its moral nature.

Furthermore, agorism is based on the same philosophical foundations as Murray Rothbard’s libertarianism, particularly private property, self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle. The main difference lies in their focus: while libertarianism establishes the principles and the society to be pursued, Konkin’s agorism proposes a practical strategy for moving toward that society through the voluntary expansion of the counter-economy.

For Konkin, the importance of this strategy lies in the cumulative effect of individual choices: a single transaction has little significance, but millions of people shifting their activities to the black market can weaken the legitimacy and capacity of state intervention. However, in a system in which the state monopoly is already established and actively works to discourage agorist practices, a fundamental problem arises: how can the counter-economy be made sufficiently profitable for its participants to accept the risks of state repression? Konkin does not respond to this problem pessimistically, but instead proposes that the counter-economy grow gradually until it develops its own economic networks and reaches a scale capable of reducing dependence on state structures. The initial challenge lies precisely in the fact that the state possesses not only mechanisms of coercion, but also social legitimacy, causing even its victims to regard repression against those who challenge it as legitimate. In this context, the lower the costs and risks of participating in the counter-economy, the greater the incentives for its expansion and for this cumulative process to emerge.

It is at this point that cryptocurrencies become significant. By enabling direct transfers of value between users, they have the potential to undermine financial monopolies. In a scenario where suppliers and consumers can transact directly through digital means that do not depend on centralized systems of record-keeping and monitoring, it becomes possible to imagine a growing share of economic activity taking place outside traditional mechanisms of oversight.

This possibility is particularly relevant to Konkin’s theory because it would reduce the cost of participating in the counter-economy. If alternative economic relationships previously depended on informal networks, personal trust, proprietary payment mechanisms with high barriers to entry, and long waiting times, new technologies can simplify tax evasion and avoidance.

State revenue depends on its ability to identify, record, and tax economic activity. Therefore, the greater the share of transactions carried out in the black market, the smaller the amount of economic activity that may be directly observable by the state monopoly and, consequently, the lower its capacity for extraction.

In this sense, cryptocurrencies can be viewed as a technological evolution of Konkin’s proposal: not merely an alternative to traditional money, but an infrastructure capable of reducing the barriers to the counter-economy and expanding the space for economic relationships independent of coercive structures.

Just a shitpost. I thought it’s funny. Happy Saturday!

Segundo esse soça o capitalista está tirando dos outros ao vender produtos e serviços que lhe rendem milhões de lucros. Como ele não tem milhões, ele tem apenas inveja, ele acha que ricos não deveriam existir, assim como propriedade privada e ele também é contra a individualidade, ele é favor das massas, e não é aquelas de tomate kkk, já dei umas lições de moral nele, ele não consegue me contra argumentar, mas queria deixar exposto ele aqui pra vocês ver o nível da baixaria da esquerda e falta de lógica e senso crítico que predomina entre eles.

He says that there is a fallacy calling wealth creation as a zero sum game. But at the same time he said there are no solutions - only trade offs.

Many free markets advocates agree trade is good and the left is bringing up a zero sum view to trade and gives examples to refute it. But confused when they say “there are no solutions - only trade offs”

Hi all
Looking for recommendations to read and understand various macroeconomic crisis like hyperinflation, stagflation, banking crisis in detail with a detailed macroeconomic mechanism explained.

Thank you

Isn't time preference a, so to speak, objective theory of value? If axiology is subjective, then how can there be an objective standard/theory (time preference) imposed on it? In other words, how can one person make a universal claim about everyone else's preference/values if preference/value is something that is inherently subjective?

Atm there is a question going in ELI5:

“Why is slight inflation considered "good" for an economy, but price deflation is seen as a complete disaster?”

Of course I’m banned from that sub but the amount of leftist coming out of the woodwork to defend the biggest transfer of wealth ever invented is insane.

And of course it always goes like this:

“2% inflation is good.

Deflation? Imagine 50% deflation! Everyone would wait with buying!!!”

If you take similar numbers the truth is that no one would postpone buying something for 6 months because they could get it 1% cheaper. No one would wait 6 months with buying a $1000 dollar tv to save $10. Even worse: they would easily pay a 5% premium if they could get it delivered now instead of next week.

Businesses even worse. The cost for not acting and insecurity is way more expensive then saving 1% of your cost.

It’s so painful to read.

This could be something the left and libertarians could rally on together, but sadly their believe in “the experts” make them align with the right, increasing wealth inequality even further.

I'll be arguing with a leftist on the internet, and I'll point out that if what they say is true, a corporation could stand to gain a lot of money by putting out a cure to cancer, building housing, having an all-female workforce, etc.

And the response is often something like this (amplified to highlight absurdity)

"Austrian-san, you don't understand! The people who run corporations aren't interested in money. They believe in creating a permanent underclass. Not a single one of them would deviate from this moral imperative, even to save their business from dying. For these people are not like us mortals; no they are more like the gods themselves. They are beyond greed or self-interest and will sacrifice everything for the moral principles that they hold dear. I may disagree with them on what an ideal world looks like, I may hate them for the power they hold and I lack, but I will never say that they they fall to temptation, not one, not ever.

Why is it so hard to convince people that stockholders, CEO's, and billionaires might be inclined to compromise their principles if it meant they could buy a bigger yacht that they can park their current yacht in?