Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » So where should the money go?

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2   3 
So where should the money go?
Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

The poor people in the USA have a living standard on par with middle class Europeans. USA's poor are so rich that they are massively over weight as a group.

I recommend spending the money on none of the above if the government is involved. The only possible thing the USA can constitutionally spend the money on is the Iraq war. The rest of the items are not covered so they should not be funded.

If the money is in private hands let each individual do as they please. All of the above will get funded to some level then. Feeding starving kids provides the least bang for the buck and creates larger problems down the road.

"Even today, people in the lower-middle class live in fantastic wealth compared to even the kings of old (except perhaps in terms of per-capita castles)."

I read that very line yesterday in a book called politically incorrect capitalism.

The gap between the rich and poor will get nothing but bigger and bigger. As long as all boats rise this will not be a problem.

If I found a magic lamp on the beach and I made a wish to double everyone wealth, according to liberals I would be a mean heartless capitalist. I just doubled the frigging wealth gap with a single good intensioned wish. If the poor guy was worth 10 bucks and the rich guy was worth 100 bucks we would have a wealth gap of 90. After doubling the result would be that the poor guy is now worth 20 and the rich guy 200. This translates into a wealth gap of 180 bucks. This is the bad rap given to the free market. Poverty was here before capitalism ever showed up. Capitalism is the one thing picking all of us up from poverty. Its not spread evenly but its the best thing we got and those that work do well so it seems pretty fair to me.

Poor countries are poor for a reason. Until they get their act together they will continue to be poor. Its not that any race of people are better than another its the form of government they select that is more important in determining their future life style.

"gut feeling the people in England are poor" -Samuli
"taken out of context it's an awesome quote" - Jonatan Hedborg

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

USA's poor are so rich that they are massively over weight as a group.

I'd say it has more to do with the fact that unhealthy food is the cheapest.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
avatar

Quote:

I recommend spending the money on none of the above if the government is involved.

You are not the first person to make a comment similar to this, it just happens that your post is directly above mine. I thought the point of the thread was to ask where we would like the money to end up, not what we think about the current methods for getting it there.

From first principles, I would want to use the money to coerce whoever has the skills to fix some genuine problems into doing so. I think this is exactly why you trust the markets Frank, because when they are functioning correctly they have the effect of rewarding people for improving the lives of others, thereby creating an uplifting effect through capitalism. I would want to find places where the markets have failed or simply don't presently exist and force the issue there. I can't offhand think of a practical way of doing so.

EDIT: to sum up my current political ideology — the markets should not axiomatically be trusted to regulate themselves. However, government implemented regulation is an imperfect tool because effects of rules are often extremely difficult to predict and so should not be entered into lightly. There is an extent to which society benefits from some redistribution of wealth, but it can also be damaged by over-taxation of the rich. Not all universal provision schemes are inherently redistributive. However, many are justified.

Quote:

If I found a magic lamp on the beach and I made a wish to double everyone wealth, according to liberals I would be a mean heartless capitalist. I just doubled the frigging wealth gap with a single good intensioned wish.

No you didn't. The wealth gap is nearly always measured as percentages. That's why the damning statistics (these all being made up examples, by the way) say things like "90% of wealth is owned by 10% of people" or "30% of people living below poverty line" — when obviously doubling everyone's wealth would just change some graph axes, leaving exactly the same relative quantity of people below the poverty line as above it.

Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

Usually when markets fail it was due to government intervention.
The great depression in the USA would be a good example.

Even if the percentage of the entire pie shrinks for the poor that will be fine. The size of the pie get bigger and bigger over time as we increase productivity. This results in a rise of the standard of living or absolute wealth. People that promote wealth envy with all boats rising should be cast aside to the thrash heap of history.

The biased left media in the states usually speak in absolute dollars to make their pathetic case concerning the wealth gap. So I agree with you that percentages are the best way to describe the values.

Ramen noodles are the cheapest form of food and they are healthy for you!

I answered the main question and commented on others comments in this thread.

"gut feeling the people in England are poor" -Samuli
"taken out of context it's an awesome quote" - Jonatan Hedborg

Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
avatar

Quote:

The biased left media in the states usually speak in absolute dollars to make their pathetic case concerning the wealth gap. So I agree with you that percentages are the best way to describe the values.

Oh, well I didn't know that. That makes about as much sense as having to hear about the new "most [expensive/profitable] film ever made" every two or three years, like none of us have ever heard of compound inflation.

wiseguy
Member #44
April 2000
avatar

Frank Griffin said:

The poor people in the USA have a living standard on par with middle class Europeans. USA's poor are so rich that they are massively over weight as a group.

The problem I have with statements like this is that some people think that just because they heard or read a story about this kind of thing, that it applies to everyone in the USA. There are people in the USA that are just as poor as the poorest Europeans. But these people don't make it into the studies. I know, because I have been in that position. When you've been the person who had to wait to eat every 14 or more days, and you are sleeping outside somewhere with nowhere to go, you would never say anything like this.

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

Tobias Dammers said:

1) The Tragedy Of The Commons.
2) Once you're rich, becoming richer is easier than becoming rich in the first place. In other words, the more you can invest, the better your revenue (on average, that is). Which means that a truly free market amplifies the differences between rich and poor.

1) A great observation! Here's a question for you: do Commons exist in a free-market capitalist society? The answer is, of course, no. They can only exist by government benevolence (or dictate).

The one counter-example is the atmosphere, but that is being hotly debated in more libertarian circles. The concept of homesteading is not currently well understood when volumes of matter are so volatile.

2) The rich don't get richer by magic. Like you said, they invest.

What does investing entail? It usually entails loaning your money to other people to build factories (that employ less rich people), do R&D (that employ less rich people), speculate (which over the long run benefits non-speculators), store their money in a bank, which turns around and gives people with less money a loan so they can buy their houses, etc.

Regardless of the merit of any of these things, all of those transactions are purely voluntary. No one is forcing you at gun-point to build a factory for the rich person, right?

Given that all exchanges are voluntary, then they are necessarily mutually beneficial. In other words, they raise the standard of living of everyone involved. If they weren't mutually beneficial, why would you take part in them?

I'll preempt your first objection: What about third parties that might be harmed? Let's say by having a factory dump waste in a river.

Note that free-market capitalism requires strong private property rights. Even if you don't own the river itself, the upstream pollution will eventually seep out to your land that borders the river. This damages your property and reduces its value. Therefore, you have a legitimate claim against the factory owner. He must compensate you for your recurring loss, or at least for the current loss if he finds alternative means of waste disposal.

Pollution is economically unviable, because 1) it costs money, and 2) it proves that you don't use your input material efficiently. Thus less polluting agencies have a natural advantage: they spend less money for the same output.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

The gap between the rich and poor will get nothing but bigger and bigger. As long as all boats rise this will not be a problem.

The problem with this is that economics is a zero-sum game; if some are getting richer, others are getting poorer. I'm speaking in terms of real value here, not any specific currency.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

I'm speaking in terms of real value here, not any specific currency.

What is value in this case? (How are you measuring it?)

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

Quote:

The problem with this is that economics is a zero-sum game; if some are getting richer, others are getting poorer. I'm speaking in terms of real value here, not any specific currency.

That just isn't true. Although on monetary terms that might look like it (given a constant money supply), that just doesn't work when wealth is measured.

If I buy something from you for (let's say) $5, then it's because I think I'll be better off than if I don't. Thus, I am getting more than $5 worth of goods from you, from my perspective. Similarly, the fact that you are willing to sell me something for $5 means that you are better off if you do. Thus, your good is valued at less than $5 by you.

So we're both better off.

But if you looked at this same scenario on a purely montary basis, you'd end up with the fallacious conclusion that exactly $5 was exchanged against exactly $5 worth of goods, and therefore no wealth increase has occured. Or worse, that $5 was traded against goods worth less than $5 and thus a wealth transfer has occured (ie: I lose and you win).

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

If I buy something from you for (let's say) $5, then it's because I think I'll be better off than if I don't. Thus, I am getting more than $5 worth of goods from you, from my perspective. Similarly, the fact that you are willing to sell me something for $5 means that you are better off if you do. Thus, your good is valued at less than $5 by you.

Not true. Say you buy a loaf of bread for $5, you are better off, but it's not because the bread is worth more than $5, it's because you can't eat a five-dollar bill. Goods and services are exchanged, not solely to make a profit on the fact of the exchange, but also because at different times, people need different goods/services. Money is just a convenient way of liquidating some good/service you have and don't need so you can exchange it for anything from anyone, not just someone who needs your specific good/service.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

HardTranceFan
Member #7,317
June 2006
avatar

If wealth was dependent on perception, wouldn't that make it difficult to measure as it has become subjective? Measuring on a pure monetary basis would then appear to be the only accurate method, being completely objective.

--
"Shame your mind don't shine like your possessions do" - Faithless (I want more part 1)

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

Measuring on a pure monetary basis would then appear to be the only accurate method, being completely objective.

Not really; the current monetary value of, say, a thing in a store a) varies largely from store to store, and b) is determined by the proprietor of the store, subjectively. Which is why I've never quite understood people saying "the price of <insert some good here>", because obviously there are many different prices and they are determined by people.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

Quote:

Say you buy a loaf of bread for $5, you are better off, but it's not because the bread is worth more than $5, it's because you can't eat a five-dollar bill.

So all goods are purchased purely for bare survival? Clearly not, so your objection is, at best, against a subset of my claim.

But I'll go ahead and show you why you're wrong, even in the case of spending $10,000 for a bottle of water in the desert.

Values are subjective. You place clearly place the value of survival in the desert above $10,000; otherwise you would not purchase the bottle of water and instead take your chances. The high price is justified after all; whoever is sitting there in the desert with you could probably himself use that water for his own survival!

Thus, you have ranked your valuations as:
1. Bottle of water
2. $10,000
3. Second bottle of water
4. A sandwich.
5. Something else.

In that order. If you could have both water and cash (by better planing your trip for example), then you'll clearly go for both: there is no need to make the purchase in constrained conditions.

Remember: you do not have to purchase anything. You are, however, better off when you do.

Note that you cannot transpose the valuations ranking from the example above to another scenario. If you're at home and you have running water, you will likely value the even first bottle of water far less than $10,000. Valuations ranking is context-dependent and instance-dependent.

Now back to the bread case. You don't buy bread because you can't eat money. You buy bread using money. Note the difference. You buy bread because you're hungry, and because you therefore value bread higher than $5. Otherwise, why not look for alternative nourishment, that costs less than $5?

Quote:

Goods and services are exchanged, not solely to make a profit on the fact of the exchange, but also because at different times, people need different goods/services.

That's what I said. You're just confusing wealth with profit. They're not the same.

Quote:

Money is just a convenient way of liquidating some good/service you have and don't need so you can exchange it for anything from anyone, not just someone who needs your specific good/service.

Correct! Money just is the most convenient commodity for exchanges.

Edit: Minor fixes.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

What you say here is true; what I was responding to was your assertion that because a certain person values X good priced at $5 higher than $5 (and hence will buy it), more wealth is being created.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

I think you're going to need to define wealth, because our definitions clearly don't match.

Edit: Here's a relevent article, on wealth innequality.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Here "wealth" is amount of goods/services available. For services, it should be construed to mean number of people with the ability to perform said service.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

In that case, then no, at the instant the bread is purchased, wealth has not increased.

However the total availability bread (or substitutes) in the future has increased. This seems non-obvious for a consumable, like bread. After all, you just ate the bread, so how can there now be more bread than before?

Because the baker who sold you the bread for $5 values the money higher than the loaf of bread, he will aim to maximise his profits. This done either by producing more bread (and reaching more custommers), lowering (his) cost of bread, or lowering both his cost and his price of bread.

Or failing that, another producer will (eventually) move in to provide the bread that is lacking. After all, by purchasing bread, you increased the total demand for bread. Although prices can temporarily rise because of the increased demand, there will, due to competition from some people liking money more than bread, eventually be increased supply

Going back to the 3 options above, clearly producing more bread increases the supply of bread, and thus increases the total amount of goods available, and therefore increases wealth, by your definition. You can recursively apply this to all constituents of bread.

The next step is in lowering the cost of making bread. This is usually done by purchasing machinery, buying in bulk, or figuring out how to make bread with cheaper ingredients. The first two of those results in additional demand for other goods, which if applied recursively also increase wealth. For the third, we now have two options: Either the new bread is equal or better than the old, in which case there will be no complaints from purchasers, or it's not, in which case the baker risks losing his business unless the cheaper-made bread is accompanied by a corresponding price cut, which brings us to the last point.

Finally, both prices and costs can be reduced by any combination of the above. This step needs to be made explicit to cover the "market saturation" case, where everyone can buy all the bread they need. Then there is nothing but one way for bread prices to go: down. The means by which this is achieved are varied (technological improvements, lower profit margins, etc).

Either way, the lower cost of bread frees up more money in consumers to purchase additional goods. In effect, consumers now have both money and bread, as opposed to just one of the two.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

X-G
Member #856
December 2000
avatar

That's all fine and theoretical; but what happens when the most profitable elements of the free market--monopolizing, collusion and pricefixing--enter the game? After all, they are the most effective ways of doing business, so they will by necessity be approached as time goes on. However, they are clearly in direct opposition with the best interest of the market, where maximizing competition and variety is optimal. How do you reconcile this problem?

The whole problem with a completely free market is that the optimal course for any person is to maximize his own profit, rather to offer the best service he can. No, the two are not synonymous nor does the former necessarily imply the latter. In fact, in most cases, offering the best service possible is uncompetitive because someone else will be able to do it acceptably but at a much better profit margin--and the worse of a service you can get away with, the more profit you will make. If anything, a free market actively encourages minimally good service, because service isn't free, and ultimately the goal is profit.

Eventually, this will lead to a warped economy where either you buy the things you want at exorbitant prices, or you hoard your money, neither of which are especially good outcomes. And if the item in question is a necessity for life, such as bread, you have no choice but to pay the artifically inflated costs, efficiently redistributing all the wealth to the richest few, who own the bread factories.

--
Since 2008-Jun-18, democracy in Sweden is dead. | 悪霊退散!悪霊退散!怨霊、物の怪、困った時は ドーマン!セーマン!ドーマン!セーマン! 直ぐに呼びましょう陰陽師レッツゴー!

Arvidsson
Member #4,603
May 2004
avatar

Quote:

The great depression in the USA would be a good example.

I'd say the key culprit was the gold standard itself.

Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
avatar

Frank Griffin said:

Usually when markets fail it was due to government intervention.

But do we agree that some markets do require some external regulation, and that some civilised human needs should be solely provided for by government?

In the former case, I'm thinking of the laws against things like insider trading and false accounting. In the latter, I'm thinking about the provision of services such as policing.

Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
avatar

add to that:

- Public transportation
- power distribution
- health care
- education

Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard)
Current project: [Star Trek Project ] Join if you want ;-)

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

X-G said:

but what happens when the most profitable elements of the free market--monopolizing, collusion and pricefixing--enter the game?

Yes, let's explore what happens then, for each of those.

1. Monopolies. I'm assuming that the monopoly was aquired legitimately (ie: by providing "better" services or goods, not by government mandate, thus driving out all other competitors). In that case, there are 3 possibilities:

a. The monopoly keeps proving better goods and services, better than would-be competitors. In which case, we agree there is no real problem, right?

b. The monopoly provides worse goods and services than would-be competitors, and the barrier of entry is low. Then clearly, competitors would enter the field and steal business from the monopoly, who then no longer becomes a monopoly. So now we agree there's no real problem, right?

c. The monopoly provides worse goods and services than would-be competitors, and the barrier of entry is high. Let's assume for a second that the high barrier of entry is due to the necessary initial capital investments, not because of government (ie: patents, taxpayer-paid infrastructure, etc). The monopoly must then charge a high price compared to the value of provided goods or services.

Thankfully, option c) doesn't happen for basic necessities, since they tend to fall in cases a) or b). I'm pretty sure humans know how to make bread these days and that doesn't cost billions.

So this leaves non-necessary goods/services. Ie: more optional things. Prices are thus kept in check by having people spend less money on products of the monopoly, up to the point where monopolizing is counter-productive, or they invest in alternatives for the sake of those alternatives.

Regardless, the monopoly situation is at best temporary and damage is quite limited.

Now, if we're talking about government granted monopolies, that's a different thing (and not part of the Free-Market).

Another thing to consider, which would be totally obvious if you ever worked at large corporations: They are horrendously innefficient. Bureaucracy takes over quite quickly and adds a large overhead to all operations. Sure they might get better bulk pricing, but that doesn't help if they can't do much after that.

If it takes 6 months and 30 forms for IBM to ship an empty box, imagine the insanity of larger corporations.

2. Collusion. There are three forms of collusions: Intent to defraud, obtaining a legal advantage, or oligopolies. The later falls in case #1, so I don't need to talk too much about it. Except there is one additional case to the above: when one of the colluders breaks the deal to gain a market advantage (which, incidentally, results in a return to normal prices at the detriment of the colluders).

Fraud is still supposed to be illegal. So if there is suspicion of collusion, I'd expect a police investigation of some sort. Private property rights are still inforced in a Free Market. It's not some kind of anarchy.

This just leaves obtaining a legal advantage (government mandate of some sort). Those should be recogized for what they are and treated as such: corruption on the part of government officials, and intrusion into and distortion of the Free Market. This isn't an intrinsic part of the Free Market.

3. Price-fixing. This falls in the oligopoly case discussed in #1 and #2. There's nothing more to say here. Price-fixing deals are naturally unstable and unsustainable.

Quote:

If anything, a free market actively encourages minimally good service, because service isn't free, and ultimately the goal is profit.

That may be true for some cases, but that's not universally true. Thankfully, division of labor (and competition) is still in effect, and a premium for better service or products is usually warranted. Notice the recent assention of Apple at the detriment of Dell, for example, even if Dell offers the minimally good service.

If there is sufficient demand for better service, it will eventually be satisfied as there would be a profit to made. If there isn't, then the demand is possibly unreasonable.

Regardless, I don't see how any other economic system would change this.

Quote:

Eventually, this will lead to a warped economy where either you buy the things you want at exorbitant prices, or you hoard your money, neither of which are especially good outcomes.

I want to buy a Ferrari, but I only have $12 on me. What do I do? Scale down my wants to what I can actually afford.

Besides, why is hoarding money bad? It ultimately forces prices down by temporarily increasing the value of money.

Quote:

And if the item in question is a necessity for life, such as bread, you have no choice but to pay the artifically inflated costs, efficiently redistributing all the wealth to the richest few, who own the bread factories.

Right, because all the production capabilities for the basic necessaties of life are owned by the rich few. Oh wait. Given flour, even I can make bread, in my home. So clearly, the price of bread made by the rich people who supposedly own all the bread factories can't be too high, or otherwise compteition from bread-consumers would render their initial investment in such factories worthless.

But what if they own all the flour producers too? Farmers can make it from grain. It's not hard and the initial investment isn't too large. But what if the rich own the farms too? All of them? A difficult case to imagine, considering that it never happened yet, and that the costs would be astronomical. But let's pretend for a second that "they" could do that.

Wouldn't (cheaper) bread substitutes be created? Or farming alternatives, like hydroponics, now that they're worth building due to the high price of generated goods?

If not, then either non-rich people starve (and thus destroy profit for the rich people), or they pay the price of bread. It would be hard to imagine how you could recoup the astronimical cost of buying all the farms by pricing highly bread though.

It's hard to imagine the case where all the rich people are Machiavellians and actually want people to starve, regardless of how it negatively affects their bottom line.

Regardless, I can't imagine getting there: the top 1000 rich families on the planet don't have enough money to get there. And even if they did (at current prices), word would get out eventually that farmland is being purchased quickly and at arbitrary price. This will force farmland prices up, significantly, making it even more difficult for said rich people to buy up all the farmland.

No, the usual case of the rich owning all the bread factories comes from government-granted priviledges (patents, zoning laws, tax-payer-funded bread making, etc), not from the Free Market.

Arvidsson said:

I'd say the key culprit was the gold standard itself.

Hardly.

Funny how in 3000+ years of gold being used as money, no other such large depression has occured, but soon after the creation of debt-based fiat currency, we end up in this situation. It must be, of course, gold that's the issue.

Before 1920, recessions were called "panics" and lasted an average of 3 months. What changed?

Thomas Harte said:

In the former case, I'm thinking of the laws against things like insider trading and false accounting. In the latter, I'm thinking about the provision of services such as policing

Well, that's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism. It can be argued both ways. It's not like either has been tried before to get a historical perspective though.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

Arvidsson
Member #4,603
May 2004
avatar

Quote:

Hardly.

Recent research says otherwise. Scholars have found that the international gold standard played a central role in starting, deepening and spreading the depression.

Quote:

Funny how in 3000+ years of gold being used as money, no other such large depression has occured, but soon after the creation of debt-based fiat currency, we end up in this situation. It must be, of course, gold that's the issue.

Uhm, banking happened? Globalization? I'm talking about the international gold standard. Not about using gold as a simple trading instrument.

Quote:

Before 1920, recessions were called "panics" and lasted an average of 3 months. What changed?

One of the greatest depressions and economic crises of all time happened. Nothing in history could compare to it up until then.

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

Arvidsson said:

Recent research says otherwise. Scholars have found that the international gold standard played a central role in starting, deepening and spreading the depression.

Sources please?

Quote:

Uhm, banking happened?

Banking and central banking have been around for a long, long time. Google "tally sticks england". Ironically, countries that have adopted similar banking systems have all had periods of large inflation followed by deepening deflation. Must be purely coincidental, I'm sure.

Btw, I highly recommend Theory of Money and Credit by Von Mises, Hayek's Monetary Nationalism and International Stability, and America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. The last two are from Nobel(*)-prise winning economists, who are largely influenced by the first.

Not that you'll bother reading them. Books are so 19th century.

(*) Yeah, yeah, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]

 1   2   3 


Go to: