Ludwig von Mises understood that self-determination is the fundamental goal of liberty, of real liberalism. Today's Brexit vote fired a shot heard around the world, to challenge the wisdom of the “globalism is inevitable” narrative. Ultimately, Brexit is not a referendum on trade, immigration, or the technical rules promulgated by the (awful) European Parliament. It is a referendum on nationhood, which is a step away from globalism and closer to individual self-determination.
Mises argues that whenever the state meddles with the free market, it reduces the standard of living that had prevailed prior to any state intervention. Essentially, a Brexit will remove another layer of government intervention from the lives of Brits, and therefore there shouldn’t be any fear of a Brexit. On the contrary. A Brexit may hold the key to make Europe abandon a doomed course, bringing it to its senses and back onto the road of freedom and prosperity.
A state that controls the economy also has the power to loot it. But, there is a big difference between redistributing wealth and destroying everyone who attempts to create some of it.In order to redistribute wealth, you have to make it first. This is a distinction that the leaders of the Venezuela regime (and their supporters) have apparently long been too foolish to understand. For this, the people of Venezuela are paying a heavy price.
Carve-up, n. “An act or instance of dishonestly prearranging the result of a competition.” Just two hours before it was barred from issuing any more fatuous propaganda about Brexit, the UK Treasury last week managed to surpass themselves...
If libertarians lose on the inflation issue, they are threatened with the loss of every other issue. If libertarians could win the inflation issue, they could come close to winning everything else. If they could succeed in halting the increase in the quantity of money, it would be because they could halt the chronic deficits that force this increase. If they could halt these chronic deficits, it would be because they had halted the rapid increase in welfare spending and all the socialistic schemes that are dependent on welfare spending. If they could halt the constant increase in spending, they could halt the constant increase in government power.
The crisis in Venezuela is the most modern illustration of the horrific consequences of socialism and the devastating reality of hyperinflation. What makes this disaster all the more infuriating is that it could have been avoided with a basic understanding of history. We’ve seen the disaster of socialism and interventionism in various forms play out across the world time and time again with similar results, and yet new generations of central planners — backed by ideologically aligned intellectuals — are consistently able to fool people into believing that “this time will be different.”
Ludwig von Mises once wrote, "No one can escape the influence of a prevailing ideology.” The images coming from Venezuela should serve as a potent reminder of how dangerous the ideas of men like Joseph Stiglitz are.Statism and economic interventionism must be rejected, in order for humanity to thrive.
The errors of Keynes have empowered sociopathic political classes all over the world and deprived the world of the economic progress we would otherwise have enjoyed. No amount of stimulus ever seems to be quite enough. And when the stimulus fails, the blinkered Keynesian establishment can only think to double down, never to question the policy itself. The Keynesians are pretending they have everything under control, but we know that’s a fantasy. Simply put, "Keynes must die so the economy may live."
"The classical or orthodox gold standard alone is a truly effective check on the power of the government to inflate the currency. Without such a check all other constitutional safeguards can be rendered vain."
It must be admitted that the worst excesses in this propaganda are not committed by professors of economics but by the teachers of the other social sciences, by journalists, writers and sometimes even by ministers. But the source from which all the slogans of this hectic fanaticism spring is the teachings handed down by the “institutionalist” school of economic policies. All these dogmas and fallacies can be ultimately traced back to allegedly economic doctrines.
Speaking very generally, American libertarianism is consistent nationalism: not the expansionist, militaristic nationalism of Europe, but that of the Founders.In this country, a nationalist necessarily upholds the American tradition of limited government, the rule of law, and – yes – “isolationism” (“She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy”). No wonder John Kerry preaches the virtues of a “borderless world,” and warns graduating students of the dangers of “looking inward”! Empires aspiring to world hegemony don’t recognize the legitimacy of borders, and as for looking inward – why do that when we have a whole world to conquer?
The paradox of "planning" is that it cannot plan, because of the absence of economic calculation. What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark. There is no question of a rational choice of means for the best possible attainment of the ultimate ends sought. What is called conscious planning is precisely the elimination of conscious purposive action.
The history of economic central planning is not exactly glorious. In fact, as American economist Thomas Sowell once noted, "in general [central planning] has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."