Correcting Scrooge’s Economics

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Ryan McMaken via Mises Institute,

As Charles Dickens himself admits, Ebenezer Scrooge is a thoroughly peaceful man, guilty of no true crime, who has robbed no one. Therefore, we must conclude that his wealth is a sign of his ability to please at least some people, and as Michael Levin notes: “Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.”

But as he is a person with bad manners and a disagreeable personality, many have conflated Scrooge’s personality traits with his business practices, although the two are unrelated phenomena. As a miser and businessman, Scrooge provides numerous valuable services to the community including, as Walter Block has shown, driving down prices and making liquidity available to those who, unlike the wrongly maligned misers, have been either unwilling or unable to save in comparable amounts.

His business prowess notwithstanding, however, a closer look at Scrooge’s economics suggests some significant blind spots in several areas. Scrooge, as displayed in many of his comments and observations, misunderstands some key economics concepts. Indeed, Scrooge’s ignorance in these areas may contribute to his bad habit of assuming that others are taking advantage of him, or are too foolish or lazy to attain what Scrooge has.

Value is Subjective

As Carl Menger demonstrated long ago, value is subjective and different persons value goods differently depending on the person’s goals in life. Does the person want to raise a family? Perhaps he wishes to be an independent scholar who devotes all his time to reading and research. Perhaps he wishes to be a hermit who prays most of the day. Money prices reflect these goals, and a hermit will value a video game console differently from a gamer. But of course not everything can be calculated in terms of money prices. A like or dislike of Christmas, for example, cannot be calculated this way.

Scrooge, who is apparently not a Christmas enthusiast, greatly values money, and likes to have plenty of it handy. But why? If we accept the analysis of Scrooge’s former fiancée, (a fairly reliable source on that period in his life) she suggests that Scrooge “fear[s] the world too much” and that all his other hopes “have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid reproach.”

So here we see the real root of Scrooge’s fondness of money. In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises explained that human action stems from a desire to “remove unease” about one’s present situation. With Scrooge we see (if his fiancée is to be believed) that the thought of being destitute is a source of constant unease for him. Thus, he desires to build as much wealth as possible in the hope of being beyond the possibility of poverty.

As Scrooge’s primary goals is poverty avoidance, this colors how he views all economic action. His peers tend to not recognize this in him, either dismissing his as simply “odious,” as Mrs. Cratchit does, or as unhappy.

In fact, as Levin demonstrates, Scrooge appears rather content with his situation at this point, although, unfortunately — just as Scrooge’s colleagues and family members do not appreciate his ranking of values — Scrooge does not seem to appreciate that others might value money for different reasons.

This is demonstrated in an early exchange with Scrooge’s nephew. When wished a merry Christmas by his nephew Fred, Scrooge retorts "What right have you to be merry? What reason have you to be merry? You're poor enough."

To this Fred replies, "What right have you to be dismal? What reason have you to be morose? You're rich enough."

Fred is probably wrong about Scrooge being morose, and he also appears to not understand why Scrooge values money.

But at the same time, Scrooge also displays an ignorance of value subjectivity by suggesting that Fred’s ability to be merry is rendered impossible by his poverty.

(Now, in this case, “poverty” as used by Scrooge is a highly relative term. We know from the text that Fred enjoys a comfortable middle-class lifestyle in which he can afford a servant girl, plenty of lamplight, and a Christmas feast for his many friends. Moreover, Fred’s wife is, according to Scrooge’s own assessment, “exceedingly pretty.”)

In this same exchange, although Fred doesn’t understand how Scrooge could be happy, it is Fred who displays a better understanding of economic value when, in response to Scrooge’s declaration of Fred’s poverty, Fred declares “There are many things from which I might have derived good by which I have not profited.” By this, Fred means that he profits from many things which bring him no money profits.

Is Scrooge More Prudent?

It is often supposed by both critics and defenders of Scrooge (and by Scrooge himself) that he is a more skilled businessman than most, and that he is more savvy, more intelligent, and more prudent in his management of his own affairs. Other people, Scrooge supposes, are more likely to be incautious and trust to fate for good fortune.

But there is ample evidence that the lack of material wealth enjoyed by others is not due to any lack of intelligence or prudence, but simply that they value things differently from Scrooge.

Scrooge’s ex-fiancée, for example, is no fool when it comes to money. In her final conversation with Scrooge, she notes that when she and Scrooge had agreed to marry, it was assumed that they would be poor in the beginning, but that “we could improve our worldly fortune by our patient industry.” In this, she is expressing what most young heads of household know — that in most circumstances, households build wealth slowly, since raising a family is costly. Her words hardly suggest a woman who plans to throw caution to the wind.

There is no denying that Scrooge is highly skilled at attaining what he values, (i.e., large amounts of material wealth in the form of cash and revenue-producing capital) but it does not follow that others do not possess these things because they are less intelligent or less industrious. Others simply value other things in life such as child rearing, Christmas celebrations, and consumption as well as the things that can be obtained by “patient industry.”

Scrooge is quick to assume that others are imprudent for marrying (he is dismayed by his nephew’s decision to marry for love) or doing other activities they find to be pleasurable when those same energies could be devoted to making money. But Scrooge is simply imposing his value systems on others, although in this, he is no more guilty than Dickens, Fred, and all the others who insist that Scrooge absolutely must celebrate Christmas.

Bob Cratchit: Victim or Wily Negotiator?

In addition to lacking insight on the subjective nature of value, Scrooge also fails to understand the intricacies of voluntary exchange.

Much is made by Dickens of how Cratchit is the hapless victim of Scrooge’s miserliness, and in response, the contrarians note that if Cratchit were indeed underpaid, as Dickens implies, then Cratchit is free to find employment elsewhere.

This is no doubt true, all things being equal, but we also find that Scrooge himself, well before his change of heart at the end of the story, is open to re-negotiating the terms of Cratchit’s employment. Scrooge denies his openness to renegotiation in words, but shows it with his actions.

When Cratchit asks for a vacation day on Christmas day, Scrooge claims that this is akin to “picking a man’s pocket,” but ultimately, Cratchit negotiates for himself the day off, with nothing more than a tepid “be here all the earlier next morning,” from Scrooge. Scrooge was not compelled to give Cratchit the day off, so given Scrooge’s clearly demonstrated immunity to social pressures, it stands to reason that Scrooge concluded it was more profitable to give Cratchit the day off than face the possibility of losing Cratchit as his clerk. But even if he were susceptible to being shamed into giving the day off, he is nonetheless voluntarily doing so.

At this point, Scrooge shows that his claim of having his pocket picked is sheer nonsense since we plainly see that his demonstrated preference was to grant the day off. Scrooge cannot now claim that he was somehow robbed. If he felt he was being robbed, he could have denied Cratchit the day off. It turns out, however, that Cratchit, while not “underpaid,” is at least seen as a bargain employee by Scrooge, and so much so that Scrooge felt he could afford to voluntarily pay Cratchit a small raise in the form of a day off.

Poor Scrooge

Ebenezer Scrooge asks very little of his fellow human beings. He only asks that they keep up their ends of the bargains in the business agreements they make. It was just his misfortune, then, that he is surrounded by a bevy of control freaks who are hell bent on making sure Scrooge enjoys Christmas in just the way they want him to.

Scrooge returns the favor by maintaining a ferociously low opinion of most others around him, concluding quite often that others are simply fools for choosing to enjoy the company of friends and family when there’s money to be made.

Ultimately, though, it’s all just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and one that might be improved by a reading of Man, Economy, and State.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
buzzsaw99's picture

crachit wouldn't have been so damned poor if he didn't have six friggin' kids. give it a rest bob, jesus.

cynicalskeptic's picture

Without reliable birth control kids happen.  At least Bob was getting some.  You really think Scrooge was?     Maybe that's why he was all 'Bah, Humbug!'

Most Victorian poor seemed to be alcoholics so give Bob some credit for engaging in 'productive' endeavors. And if Bob had some disposable income he might have other options for 'entertainment' when using his meager spare time'.  

UrbanMiner's picture

It's called 'pulling out', has worked perfectly for me, 2 kids is enough!

Tall Tom's picture

Until it doesn't...


I pity you.


There are better methods than Coitus Interruptus. More pleasing methods.


Ah...the Roman Catholic...He thinks that Onanism is masterbation but that is NOT what the scriptures say.


God struck Onan dead because he pulled it out and spilled his seed upon the ground.


Maybe you ought to actually READ THE BIBLE...The story is in Genesis 38:7-10


        (7) And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.

        (8) Juda therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.

        (9) He, knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground,6

        lest children should be born in his brother's name.

        (10) And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.


Enjoy "Every Sperm is Sacred" by Monty Python....



detached.amusement's picture

its a control perversion, just like many other misinterpretations

Earl Slaughter-- Truck Driver.'s picture

Gotta admit that was freakin funny-- great post TD.

duo's picture

Scrooge had Obamacare and knew that a week in the hospital would cost  him his life savings, so he saved all he could.

And he knew that an antibiotic that went for $20 a course a few years ago is $1200 now, and not covered by his insurance, so an ear infection is 4 crowns and 2 shillings.

DutchR's picture

Kid's where a retirement fund those day's, i guess nothing changed.

Drummond's picture

Scrooge would know how to run the Fed. Not like the helicopter twins. Fucking psychos.

Cautiously Pessimistic's picture

Ebenezer Scrooge at the helm of the Fed and perhaps Jacob Marley heading up the Treasury Depatment?

SAT 800's picture

Now there's an interesting thought. What a different world that woud be. Every business man of his day, and indeed every rational citizen who considered himself literate and reasonably well-informed was 112% in favor of the Gold Standard; and a completely gold exchangable currency; anything else was seen as the mark of a bananna republic, and was regarded as either fraudulent, or as close to it as made no nevermind. So We can imagine him badgering the Treasury and Executive branches relentlessly until they rescinded Nixons Singularity, and the nation began to live within its means, once again. A different world, indeed.

MEFOBILLS's picture

In Scrooges day, they had gold system, with gold as base and credit riding on top.  Credit would be more than 10X ratio of Gold.  Banker credit on top of Gold is always necessary because all economies are S shaped, and must flex with seasons and uneven production.  OK... All economies must have some way of injected and pulling out money to account for this.  

Usury on Credit would suck gold out of supply toward bankers.  Bankers would also demand treasuries as base currency from Government.  (Gold would be transferred from Govt or people to get out of debt to bankers.  Govt would create Treasuries to Exchange for Banker Credit Money)

Therefore M0 (Savings not earmarked for destruction and used for transactions) would be provided in this mixed money supply by both Gold and Treasuries.   This is what Gold Bugs fixate on, the M0.

To fill M0, Government had to deficit spend more TBills than income in taxes.  Effectively, the TBill comes from nothing and is lent to banker at interest. Banker Credit as money from Government then becomes Savings and Base Currency (M0).  Bankers don't care if they have gold or Treasuries in their reserve loops, they just want it there so they can make credit on top, and earn the usury.

So, Scrooges actions, when looked at in this system, held Gold as Savings.  Too many scrooges in economy, this then deleveraged 10:1 credit riding on top of said Gold, causing an accelerated depression.  As credit declines, banks call in loans and deny more credit, so money supply Collapses quickly into depression.

Bankers or those holding Gold, then buy up the world cheap as labor offers their goods and services at depressed prices.

Not necessarily way to go Scrooge.  It's  just that humanity does not and did not have a banking/money system that works.  A good money system would allow scrooge to hold real assets as wealth, and not jack around with the medium we need to do trade.

Money system was  fraudulent then and is now.  That is the real story.  No going back to Gold, it is deflationary system used to harvest populations, and has actions similar to banker credit system today. 

There is no magical properties to Gold.   The highest form of money is law, and has proper civil institutions behind it, so civilization can trade equitably.  

I too wish that man had a magical mechanism outside of a control system, but it just isn't so.  Money is law and force and control - that is just how it is.  Markets are not magical, they are manmade and have law and guidance built into them too. 

We need civil institutions that are not rent-seeking in their inherent design.  Since almost the beginning of time, privateers have taken rents via the money mechanism and these rents show up as higher prices, thus stealing your output.  Gold and metal money systems also have rents built into them as a natural consequence of their inflexiblity (volume inelasticicty).


Supernova Born's picture

MEFOBILLS: "There is no magical properties to Gold.   The highest form of money is law, and has proper civil institutions behind it, so civilization can trade equitably."

Urban Roman's picture

.. and, after an accidental dose of psilocybin or ergot or something, he became a Keynsian!

DeadFred's picture

Are you saying ergot poisoning was why Bernanke was all twitchy when he was promising he wouldn't monetize the debt? I thought it was a tell that he was lying.

cynicalskeptic's picture

Scrooge isn't making any political contributions to get his business favorable treatment and exemption from regulations and the law......  Scrooge didn't get trillions in bail out moeny when his business failed.....


More than a few of our banksters could use visits from spirits - though I doubt that they'd have any effect on people lacking souls.  Havuing worked on Wall Street I believe that either these people actually believe they are 'better' than everyone else and are actually doing what 'needs' to be done (a deluded minority) or they simply don't give a flying f**k about byone else and will grab whatever they can anddo whatever they can get away with simply because they can.  NONE of these people are worried about their own possible impoverishment - poverty is for the little people.   One EVP screwed all the $20,000 a year (this was way back in the early 80's) out of their measley $2,000 bonuses in a 'bad' year so he could keep HIS $2 million bonus.  He DESERVED IT and his lifestyle would suffer without it.   NEvermind that the $2000 meant more to a $29,000 a year clerk who worked a hell of a lot harder for the little they got.

BTW - this same EVP - charged with developing a new broker system failed to develop ANYTHING - in part because he got rid of anyone smarter than he was (pretty much gutting Systems) bluffing his way with smoke and mirrors for a couple years.  They finally caught on and demoted him to a regional head to 'demo' the new system.  He ran for the hills and somehow got hired as CEO of another company that he proceeded to destroy (though he got very rich in the process).

cynicalskeptic's picture

And in CONTRAST - to show that there IS another path:

I knew someone personally (now dead) who came from nothing.  Even he will admit he married well ('It's alot easier to marry the first million') - started off working for his wife's father, learned the business but was fired the day she died (early of cancer).  He started his own business - even paying the payroll at one point by selling off property he owned  at Hilton head.  Did well in time - very well.  Made the Forbes 400 list when he sold off part of the company (for tax planning reasons - he wanted his company to survive his death).  Got a few BILLION in doing so.  EVERY employee got a cut - based on length of service and even though the business was literally cut in half with the sale NOBODY got laid off.

He also made the Forbes philanthropy list the same year he became one of the 400.  Gave away half his worth before he died, the rest went into a foundation.  The University he attended (for one year - all he could afford) got enough to guarantee that anyone admitted could afford to attend - they give out 20-30 scholarships a year that cover pretty much EVERYTHING.  He wa at a Robin Hood Foundation gig where he paid for a whole new library for a Brooklyn school - and pushed a colleague to do the same.

The guy was a bit eccentric and demanding but he believed that you share with the people that helped you and your business (eg you paid your employees well).  He ALWAYS left money on the table in business dealings and never tried to get the last dime out out of any business deal (if you were more than 'fair' in business dealings, your business would grow faster).  He remebered those that helped him and took care of more than a few facing hard times later in their careers.

In the process he created a load of jobs in his company and elsewhere - well paying jobs - and created brands that are now iconic.   You see that in people that CREATE companies - NOT in those that run established ones (where they confuse 'squeezing' money out with actually GROWING the company).  And inherited wealth... best if you keep thm out of business entirely.  THEIR focus seems to be on keeping the fortune they inherited and getting MORE - while not understanding how the money was created in the first place.  (Look at the Walmart heirs and Koch Brothers) 


Unfortunately the next generation is very much the stereotype of inherited wealth (much of it from their mother's father).  Trust fund kids who don't have to work.  One married the scion of another fortune - nice enough but oblivious to the concerns of most people.  One actually does work as a teacher - I give her credit.  Another travels the world living in luxury hotels. ...... and then there's the oldest son... he fancies himself as some 'financial' expert and likes to think he knows what he's doing but......  Complained that he wasn't given enough cash to pay the inheritance taxes that came with all he was given on his father's death.

cherry picker's picture

We must be running out of material tonight.  A fictional character supposedly with 'satisfied customers'  Scrooge was a created fantasy, much like economists these days methinks.

The Shape's picture

Surprised the Saudi budget cuts didn't rate a mention here today.

It might be a little tougher on the Saudi locals next year as the Kingdom tries to play world politics.

But I'm sure they'll understand, not like any of them would go ISIS or anything...

ebworthen's picture

The Mises Institute is being a big Scrooge trying to co-opt the Dickens's work about humanity and a person's soul to make a buck.

ebworthen's picture

Not that the book isn't good but concluding the article with a link to it for $25?


If they really care they'd make it a free PDF; Rothbard has been dead for almost 20 years.

John Wilmot's picture

They did make it a free PDF.

Most, if not all, of the books they sell they also offer as free PDFs.

Merry go fuck yourself.

ebworthen's picture

Oh good, thank you, and yet they were trolling for cash?

You know, I like the bent of the Mises Institute, but lately they have been acting Keynesian/Progressive, which disturbs me.

That's all, Austrian Economics Libertarian Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

SAT 800's picture

do your homework, ebworthen. no one will know you're a fool if you remain silent.

Billy Shears's picture

Didn't Scrooge lend money at interest?

lasvegaspersona's picture

Scrooge's 'crime' was to save in the medium of exchange (at the time, gold) thereby depriving others of it's use. When the medium of exchange and the store of value are one and the same then saving itself is an act against others. Only when the medium of exchange is separated from the store of value and they are different things can this issue be resolved.

When fiat is the medium of exchange and gold is the (preferred) store of value these problems will be resolved.

That is what is coming.


goldsansstandard's picture

Scrooge and the lefts other favorite boogeyyman Scrooge Mc Duck did nothing but improve the lot of the rest of community. By not using the gold he earned, he left all the stuff he did not consume available for the rest of the community to either consume or invest. Plus by taking some gold outof circulation, hemade everybody elses gold more valuable in the goods it could purchase more abundant for the rest of the community.

goldsansstandard's picture

Scrooge and the lefts other favorite boogeyyman Scrooge Mc Duck did nothing but improve the lot of the rest of community. By not using the gold he earned, he left all the stuff he did not consume available for the rest of the community to either consume or invest. Plus by taking some gold outof circulation, hemade everybody elses gold more valuable in the goods it could purchase more abundant for the rest of the community.

goldsansstandard's picture

The thinking that divides the circulating media from the saving media is a result of all of us living in a fiat worldd
You are correct that the debtor in a gold world would have to earn or produce more stuff to pay off his loans if a a large amount of gold was stored without being invested. However the pain would end there. The debtor would have to get to work or default.The lender would lose. The amount of gold in circulation would not change very much.

On the other hand when money comes from debt, then when debts are repaid, and the lenders get antsy, then the amount of money in circulation can drop dramatically.

We all have to check our fiat thinking at the mouse pad when entering the Hedge.

Future Jim's picture

If srooge was totally honest, totally unlikeable, not an innovator, not any kind of crony, and did not make money through lawsuits, then how could he have been all that rich? How did he fend off actual cronies, shysters, and other thieves?

Future Jim's picture

For example, if he were exploiting people who were victims of bad laws and corrupt/incompetent government because he knew they were ignorant and desperate and would make bad personal decisions (as if he were a drug pusher), then he would be a kind of crony.

goldsansstandard's picture

Steve Jobs did it and made the biggest company in the known Galaxy.

Loophole's picture

Value is objective, not subjective, according to Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, I can't copy and paste her comments on this here or the link to them. But they are worth reading.

John Wilmot's picture

And Ayn Rand is wrong.

She reached the right conclusions by the wrong logical route.

Value is subjective; an ethics which fails to recognize that is hopeless.

Read Rothbard's essay on welfare economics and Pareto optimality.

(to be fair though, Rothbard fell into the same Aristotelian natural-rights/objective-ethics trap in other writings)

SAT 800's picture

Hoping to see more posts from you here.

lordbyroniv's picture

If value is subjective than there is no objective morality.   

I do not believe in the Superman.

No no, have it wrong.  Value IS objective.

There is no beyond good & evil.

Your premises are incorrect.


exomike's picture

I made my fortune by digging up the corpse of Ayn Rand and pimping her out for $100 Bucks a pop to Libertarians, Austrian School Economists, Supreme Court Judges, Fox News reporters, venture capitalists, famous anti-Islam bigots, and many more. For obvious reasons I couldn't interest Alan Greenspan but he did tell me that the best thing about getting a blow job from Rand was that at least it shut her up for a few minutes.

easypoint's picture

I like your point. This premise, used as motivation  for much of Scrooge's behavior, " In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises explained that human action stems form a desire to 'remove unease' about one's present situation." Really? Human action only occurs when one is uncomfortable? Pretty base don't you think?

If one indulges in behavior that makes one "uneasy" in order perform service to mankind, is this for profit? Yes. Can you calculate it? No.

To reduce the motivation of mankind to "removing unease" from one's mind is degrading. Is this why we get out of bed? To remove ourselves from an "uneasy" situation?

This brings to mind a favorite quote of mine from an unlikely source to weigh in here, C.S. Lewis. "If you seek truth, you may find comfort in the end. If you seek comfort, you will get neither comfort nor truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." 

Man requires a higher motivation for meaningful existence than comfort. Who would want to exist only to 'remove unease" from one's present situation?

goldsansstandard's picture

Maybe Martin Luther King was uneasy with Jim Crow, and Ghandi was uneasy with King George,, or the soldier who threw hinmself on the grenade was uncomfortable with the thought of his comrads dying.

I suppose you are comfortable accusing Mises thoughts as base

Perhaps Mises was uncomfortable with the horrific suffering in Austria ,and increased his comfort every day by abservation, thought and writing on what was producing those conditions. Perhaps at first he thought he could influence the events, but then he had to be comforted by the prospects that his works may help the human condition in the future.

John Wilmot's picture

easypoint is an idiot

(I suppose his points are easy because he doesn't exercise his grey matter before sharing them with us)

Mises "felt uneasiness" is a purely formal concept. It simply means that people act if and only if they believe that their current situation is in some sense unsatisfactory and could be improved by said action - which is tautologically true. It's the same point Sartre makes; ability to imagine a different state of affairs than presently exists + preference for that alternative over the status quo = action.

In any event, I responded to you because you mentioned Mises' personal life in Austria, which is extremely interesting. I recommend (to you or anyone else reading this) Jorg Guido Hulsmann's biography "Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism."

tl;dr = Ludwig von Mises was a minor nobleman in Austria-Hungary. He studied at the University of Vienna under Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, student of Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian school of economics. He was conscripted to fight in the Hapsburg Army in 1914 and saw action in the catastrophic opening battles against Russia, and later on the Italian front. He saw his country obliterated 1914-1919. His first major work was a history of the war, "Nation, State, and Economy" in which he criticized the conduct of the wartime Hapsburg state. He then served in the new Austrian government and was almost single-highhandedly responsible for preventing a hyperinflation and socialist revolution in Austria, as had befallen Germany. He fought for liberalism in Austria during the inter-war period. In the end, he lost. When the national socialists took power, Mises, Jew, was stripped of his position at the University and forced to leave Austria. He fled through France in his car just ahead of the German Army in 1940, to eventually arrive in America - whereupon he was shunned by socialist academia. He eventually attracted a following in the United States (including Murray Rothbard, who was his student), which gave birth to the Ludwig von Mises Institute - and, in large part, modern libertarianism.

MEFOBILLS's picture

Yes, and the same crowd funded the Chicago School Monetarists.  Libertarianism is closely linked to debt spreading banking as a dialectic to confuse the Goyim.

Say it isn't so.  I'm sorry it is so.  I'm not going to prove it here, but any honest reasearcher can find the data.  Both debt spreading and libertariansim spring from the same Jewish money sources.

Libertariaism and Marx were and are into value theory.  

As Gessell would say, there is no such thing as value, there is only price.

I would add to Gessel , there is price and it is discovered in markets.  Good markets and price discovery depend on a money system that works (no rent taking).

Two people doing exhange decide value on the spot - and make prices and then trade.  Read Silvio Gessels works to understand just how wrong libertarianism is.  It is a hegalian dialectic designed to snare the unwary--- where do tarians get all of their propaganda funding?  They are never short on money it seems, for a group that is shilling as if they are honest.

Libertarianism always shill for a money system that cannot work, that is inflexible, has usury built into it, and denies basic law structure.  Why push this hypnotic suggestion onto the population? 

It is to continue to take rents on the Goyim as a form of parasititism.  Those rents can either be with private banker fiat debt spreading, or they can be with depressionary Gold.


tumblemore's picture

"Man requires a higher motivation for meaningful existence than comfort."


Some do, some don't. C.S Lewis was one of the ones who did. Mises sounds like someone who didn't.

robnume's picture

All I can say is that WB VII's depiction of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is the best and truest - contextually speaking - of all of the versions I've seen over the years. It's his Xmas gift this year to all of us loyal and steadfast ZH'er's and it's the best gift I got all year!

tumblemore's picture

“Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.”


Not neccessarily true. Money lending for consumption has made lots of people very rich over the centuries and doesn't require any satisfied customers over the long term because the initial satisfaction from having the object *sooner* is often/mostly/always outweighed by the much higher cost of the object over the long term.




"she suggests that Scrooge “fear[s] the world too much” and that all his other hopes “have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid reproach.”


Although greed often being the product of paranoia makes a lot of sense.