• Tag Archives cryptocurrency

  • The Conservative Case for Cryptocurrency

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    If you listen to defenders of the US dollar, you might get the idea that cryptocurrencies are only good for funding terrorism and hard drugs. And when you consider that cryptocurrencies represent a pretty clear break with tradition, a conservative might be inclined to stick with what’s familiar.

    That’s understandable. One of conservatism’s hallmarks is skepticism of change that happens too quickly or threatens well-established institutions. In this way, many conservatives think the US dollar is good enough: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    But I want to make the case that the dollar is broken. Indeed, I want to persuade you that adopting cryptocurrency is an act of patriotism.

    “To the extent it is used,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen of bitcoin, “I fear it’s often for illicit finance.”

    We can expect more of this kind of rhetoric from those who see cryptocurrencies as a threat to the dollar’s hegemony. This sort of rhetoric almost always precedes regulatory zeal. In this case, regulation would be designed to keep people locked in the dollar’s matrix. Otherwise, how will authorities make the people clean up their messes?

    Remember, politicians created the money for the recent $1.9 trillion “stimulus” package out of thin air. This sent US debt to GDP well past 100 percent. To pay off this debt, the choices are taxation or inflation.

    But nevermind the debt. Yellen wants you to look over there, instead.

    Bitcoin is “extremely inefficient” as a transaction medium, she says, as if bitcoin were the only cryptocurrency, and the US Treasury and Mastercard are one and the same. She neglects to compare bitcoin transmission to shipping stacks of dollar bills, which also happens to be a method preferred by terrorists and drug dealers. Yellen certainly doesn’t want to talk about bitcoin’s utility as an investment vehicle—particularly as a hedge against inflation.

    Fealty to the dollar is fealty to her appointers.

    “As measured by the Consumer Price Index,” says monetary economist Lawrence H. White in an interview, “today’s $1 buys no more than what 3.7 cents bought in 1913. The dollar has lost 96.3 percent of its purchasing power.”

    In 2021, some estimates have prices rising by 2.5 percent, but inflation doesn’t just show up in almond milk and toothpaste. Asset prices seem to be in bubble territory, as well.

    Despite its volatility, bitcoin hasn’t lost value. Yet throughout its eleven years of existence, skeptics have argued that the world’s first cryptocurrency is just a fad or worse, a Ponzi scheme. Others claim bitcoin has no ‘intrinsic value.’ Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, without a hint of irony, recently said of cryptocurrencies that “they’re not backed by anything.”

    Trouble is, nothing has intrinsic value. Value is subjective. Even if we agree that people tend to value gold or silver, which might justify staying with a gold-backed dollar, the dollar hasn’t been on a gold standard since 1933. Anyone waiting for the dollar to return to a gold standard will be waiting a long time. That includes Jerome Powell.

    “Our monetary system today is too centralized and too political,” says Lawrence H. White. “The supply of money depends on a single committee of political appointees at the Fed. They have no crystal ball and are subject to fads in macroeconomic thinking.”

    White thinks we’d be better off with a private monetary system similar to that envisioned by F. A. Hayek. He adds: “A better alternative is a decentralized commodity standard with competition among private money issuers.”

    Progressives created the Federal Reserve in 1913, purportedly to stabilize the financial system. Whether the mandarins achieved that stability is arguable, they succeeded in concentrating on outsized financial power in Washington and New York. The Federal Reserve is thus tangled in an unholy relationship with the federal government. That fact enables political authorities to spend beyond their means and tax people surreptitiously through inflation.

    So, when I say the dollar is broken, I mean both the federal government and the Federal Reserve systems are broken. In my latest book, I thus argue that the United States is headed for collapse.

    Ah, but surely we shouldn’t underestimate the resilience of the mighty US economy. Can’t we grow our way out of the US debt and unfunded liabilities?

    Here’s Lawrence White for an encore:

    Even if Congress were to balance the federal budget, which it won’t, it would take decades for economic growth to bring the debt/GDP ratio (currently 130 percent of GDP) down to where it was 20 years ago (54 percent of GDP). It’s mathematically impossible to grow our way out of the national debt when federal budget deficits are so large on average as to make the stock of debt grow faster than the real economy.

    Unlike central banks, private issuers can’t afford to get things wrong. And this is precisely the insight understood by the creators of cryptocurrencies. All of them are competing to provide the properties people want to see in 21st century assets.

    The dollar’s defenders tend to pick on bitcoin, say, for its volatility. But myriad alternatives offer different properties, many of which have pre-programmed price stability. Some have higher transaction speeds, including hard forks of bitcoin. Consider, for example, the average transactions per second (tps) for each:

    • Bitcoin (BTC) – 7 tps
    • Bitcoin Cash (BCH) – 300 tps
    • Bitcoin SV (BSV) – 224 tps

    All of these options have sprung up in the last four years. Imagine if you could fork the US dollar and give users the choice of a gold-backed version. A lot of people would quite happily choose that forked dollar. Alas, no such option is available. So we criticize by creating.

    None of the versions of bitcoin are themselves a static system. Instead, each evolves and improves. If higher transaction speeds were all anyone was looking for in a property, one might choose other blockchains. But a lot of people are happy with “digital gold,” at least for now.

    The thing about cryptocurrencies is this: Nearly any property is programmable. People want myriad features in their tokens, though sometimes these properties require tradeoffs one against another. Yet these decentralized systems are continuously improving. Here are some of their key features:

    • Sovereign and permissionless
    • Anonymous
    • Secure
    • Medium of exchange
    • Transaction speed
    • Deflationary
    • Stable
    • Low transaction fees
    • Store of value
    • Liquid
    • Smart contracts
    • Tokenization

    With each passing day, programmers are developing new properties. That means each offers people more of exactly what they’re looking for in an asset. In this way, the systems themselves have instrumental value, depending on what properties you want and the emergent network effects they give rise to. The dollar has legacy network effects, to be sure. Still, it is tied to the capricious nature of politics—a fact which America’s Founders would surely have despised.

    Thomas Jefferson didn’t want a central bank. And in an 1803 letter to Albert Gallatin, he wrote:

    The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution. An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government.

    Jefferson tried to warn us, and yet his worries turned out to be only half the story. The government and the central bank are mutually corruptive.

    Jefferson would have been happy to water the tree of liberty with a bleeding US dollar. I bet he would have cheered the rise of cryptocurrencies, even if only because they represent a popular revolt against political elites in collusion with central bankers.

    So, is cryptocurrency for conservatives?

    Patriotism should never be confused with nostalgia. While some conservatives might be willing to settle for a system that props up the political class and their profligacy, most understand Russell Kirk’s Seventh Law of Conservatism, which says that freedom and property are linked:

    “Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all,” Kirk wrote. “Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.”

    Cryptocurrencies are designed to create financial sovereignty for everyone. If conservatives continue to stay locked in the dollar’s matrix, they will be playing into the hands and plans of people they most oppose.

    –

    Max Borders is author of After Collapse: The Death of America and the Rebirth of Her Ideals. Support his work with cryptocurrency here.


    Max Borders

    Max Borders is author of The Social Singularity. He is also the founder and Executive Director of Social Evolution—a non-profit organization dedicated to liberating humanity through innovation. Max is also co-founder of the Voice & Exit event and former editor at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). Max is a futurist, a theorist, a published author and an entrepreneur.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • India Seeks to Criminalize Cryptocurrencies

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    The Indian government is expected to propose a bill that would give cryptocurrency holders six months to liquidate their holdings. Failure to do so will result in fines, and one government committee even called for jail terms up to 10 years.

    It’s well known that the Indian government has not been a fan of cryptocurrencies. However, a blanket ban would be the country’s most severe policy, yet. As reported by Aftab Ahmed and Nupur Anand at Reuters, the bill is expected to criminalize the possession, issuance, mining, and trading of cryptocurrencies. And it is no exaggeration to say that this proposal could not have come at a worse time.

    Bitcoin recently reached a meteoric high of $61,000. However, the real success story might be in what has been happening behind the scenes. Namely, Bitcoin has been catching the attention of both large-scale investors and the masses. It is no longer just in the hands of a few tech enthusiasts and maximalists. Companies like Tesla, MicroStrategy, and Square have taken long term positions and Wall Street has been turning to Bitcoin increasingly for speculative investing.

    These companies have brought an “institutional credibility” to cryptocurrencies. For years, enthusiasts have been putting their money where their mouth is, but now that money is coming in the form of billion dollar investments. And people are taking notice. India alone has an estimated 8 million people invested in cryptocurrencies.

    In short, people are voting with their wallets and they have shown that they believe cryptocurrencies hold a promising future. To pull the rug out from under them now would only punish Indian citizens for their entrepreneurial spirit. Moreover, undermining the network of investors and companies that have been built over the last decade will not be without cost.

    The government’s hostility has already motivated some citizens to leave for greener pastures.

    Rahul Jain told the Economic Times that his company has moved to Estonia so that “any Indian law to criminalize crypto will not impact us.” And others are doing the same. Sathvik Vishwanath said that if the bill is passed, “it will not make sense to continue our business in India.”

    It seems that the risk is too high to ignore, yet the opportunities yielded from cryptocurrencies are too high to abandon.

    Luckily, private citizens have not been in this fight alone. It was only a year ago that India’s Supreme Court struck down the Reserve Bank of India’s attempt to forbid banks from dealing in cryptocurrencies. After weighing the arguments, the court ruled that the Reserve Bank’s move was unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately, the Reserve Bank’s incentives were no mystery: it has been planning to launch its own central bank digital currency since 2017. In fact, launching a central bank digital currency is the other half of the proposed cryptocurrency ban.

    It seems the Indian government believes that a blanket ban would be the easiest way to eliminate the competition.

    In fact, a recent report from the Reserve Bank noted that central bank digital currencies are attractive because they can be designed to “promote non-anonymity at the individual level, monitor transactions, … [and pump] central bank ‘helicopter money.’” Whereas cryptocurrencies have innovated to serve users, it seems this digital currency would be designed to serve the government. Without a ban on alternatives, it might be a hard sell.

    As the formal announcement of the proposal grows near, legislators would be wise to take note of the world around them. Cryptocurrencies have never been more popular, and they continue to break further into the mainstream with each day.

    A blanket ban in 2021 would be a poor decision.

    Currency competition should be welcomed, not penalized. The people have spoken, and they want to see the future of this technology.

    If the Indian government wants to launch a central bank digital currency, let it encourage adoption by making it the most attractive currency on the market––not by banning the competition and forcing its use.


    Nicholas Anthony

    Nicholas Anthony is an economic researcher in Washington, D.C. where he specializes in monetary and financial policy.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • Good Money, Bad Money—And How Bitcoin Fits In

    Posted on by Azrael Comment


    bit

    Let us start with talking about bad money, by which I mean the US dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen, the Chinese renminbi, the British pound, the Swiss franc, and basically all official currencies.

    They all represent fiat money. The term fiat is derived from the Latin word fiat and means “so be it.” Fiat money is “coercive money,” or “money forced upon the people.”

    There are three major characteristics of fiat money:

    1. The state (or its agent, the central bank) has a monopoly on money production.
    2. Fiat money is produced through bank credit expansion; it is literally created out of thin air.
    3. Fiat money is intrinsically valueless. It is just brightly colored paper and intangible bits and bytes that can be produced at any time and in any amount deemed politically expedient.

    Just in passing, I would like to let you know that fiat money has not come into this world naturally. States have worked long and hard to replace commodity money in the form of gold and silver with their own fiat money.

    The final blow to commodity money came on August 15, 1971: US President Richard Nixon announced that the US dollar would no longer be convertible into gold. This very decision (which I like to call the greatest monetary expropriation in modern history) effectively put the world on a fiat money regime.

    Against this backdrop, it may not come as a surprise that fiat money suffers from economic and ethical deficiencies.

    First, fiat money is inflationary. Its buying power dwindles over time, and history has shown that this entropy is almost as irreversible as gravity.

    Second, fiat money enriches a chosen few at the expense of many others. The first receivers to get a hold of the new money benefit to the detriment of latecomers.

    Third, fiat money fosters speculative bubbles and capital misallocations that culminate in crises. This is why economies boom and bust.

    Fourth, fiat money lures states, banks, consumers, and firms into the pitfall trap of excessive debt. Sooner or later, borrowers find themselves in a deep hole with no way out.

    Fifth, fiat money feeds big government. And as the state expands and sprouts like weeds in an untended garden, this outgrowth strangles—even destroys—individual freedom and liberty.

    I have spoken enough about bad money. Let us talk about good money.

    What is good money? To answer this question, we just have to think about how a free market in money works.

    Here, people are free to decide which kind of money they would like to use, and they also have the freedom to cater to the needs of fellow people seeking good money.

    The outcome of a free market in money will be good money simply because people will demand, out of self-interest, good money—not bad money. This is actually what sound monetary theory would tell us. Money has emerged from a commodity and spontaneously from the free the market: no state or no central bank was needed in the process.

    To qualify as good money, the “thing” or good in question must have specific properties. It must be scarce, homogeneous, divisible, durable, transportable, mintable, etc. Gold and silver meet these requirements par excellence, and this is why they were chosen as the universally accepted means of payment whenever people were free to choose.

    How does Bitcoin fit in?

    I would argue that from a monetary theory point of view, Bitcoin qualifies as a good money candidate. It has emerged from the free market through the voluntary actions of all participants involved, respecting individual freedom and private property rights.

    I would also argue that Bitcoin complies with the regression theorem and thus provides the crypto unit with a necessary requirement to potentially become money. The key question, therefore, is whether Bitcoin will stand a chance in challenging and outcompeting official fiat currencies or gold money. Let us think about this in further detail.

    One exciting feature of Bitcoin is that its quantity is limited to 21 million units. This hard cap means that at some point, the quantity of Bitcoin will not grow any further. If the quantity of money is constant and the economy expands, prices for goods and services will fall.

    Would that be a problem for money users or the economy? No, it would not. Firms can still be successful if prices decline. Their profits result from the spread between revenues and costs. If goods prices fall (in nominal terms), firms just have to make sure that revenues keep exceeding costs.

    Consumers would be pleased to see the prices of goods fall. Their money becomes more valuable. They can reduce their cash balances and increase spending.

    But wait: would consumers not refrain from buying goods if and when prices can be expected to fall over time? Imagine a car costs $50,000 today and only $40,000 in a year. If I need the car right now (because my old one has broken down), I would have to buy a new one right away, I would not and could not wait.

    The general answer is this: People make their decision to buy now or later based on discounted marginal utility. The marginal utility of buying the car for $50,000 ranks lower on people’s value scale than paying only $40,000. But the car available for $40,000 is not for sale now but in a year. When it comes to decision-making, people will, therefore, discount the marginal utility of purchasing the good for $40,000 in a year using their individual time preference rate.

    They will then compare the result with the marginal utility of buying the good now for $50,000. If the discounted marginal utility of buying the car for $40,000 in a year is lower than the marginal utility of buying at $50,000 now, people buy now. If it is higher, they will postpone their purchase.

    The important point is: There is no reason to fear that the economy will come to a standstill if and when the prices of goods decline over time. Money that has a limited quantity, such as Bitcoin, would work just fine!

    Let me stress something fundamentally important here: The quantity of money in an economy does not have to grow to make increases in production and employment possible. The sole function of money is exchange, and so a rise in its quantity does not make an economy richer; it does not bring about any social benefit.

    All an increase in the quantity of money does is lower the purchasing power of one money unit compared to a situation in which the quantity of money has not been increased.

    We just heard that in a Bitcoin money regime, we would have to expect price deflation. What would that do to the credit market? As the prices of goods fall, holding money becomes more profitable.

    If, for instance, prices fall by three percent per year, the purchasing power of money increases by three percent. In this case, I would not exchange my money for a T-Bill that yields only, say, two percent per year.

    To make me part with my money, a borrower would have to offer me a return on the investment that is higher than the increase in the purchasing power of money. Borrowers would be careful taking up debt because they know that in times of stress, they will not be bailed out by an inflationary monetary policy.

    Therefore, it is likely that in an economy where there is a constant quantity of money, the credit market will remain relatively small—especially compared to the debt pyramid that comes with today’s fiat money regime.

    At the same time, firms retaining earnings and issuing equity for funding would be much more commonplace. People would invest their life savings in company stock rather than debt (be it issued by banks, governments, or corporations).

    What about the market interest rate in a world in which price deflation occurs? We know that in a free market, the nominal interest rate cannot drop below zero. This is easy to understand: if I lend $100 to you for one year at, say, minus 5 percent per annum, you would have to return $95 in one year.

    Of course, any lender (who is not out of his mind) would politely reject this kind of deal. They would be better off just holding on to cash and would not lend at a negative interest rate. I cannot go into detail here but will simply say that in a free money market, the market clearing interest rate is determined by people’s time preference. Time preference is always and everywhere positive, and so is its manifestation, the originary interest rate. In other words: the interest rate would not and cannot fall to zero, let alone into negative territory.

    So far, I have argued that the limited quantity of Bitcoin does not stand in the way of the crypto unit becoming money. However, some aspects appear to be disadvantageous for Bitcoin’s aspirations to become money.

    From the current state of technical capabilities, distributed ledger technology is unlikely to be put to widespread use in retail and large value payments. Currently, there are around 360.000 Bitcoin transactions per day, and given its current configuration, the Bitcoin network is presumably running at full capacity. This is not enough. For instance, in Germany alone there is an average of around 75 million transactions per business day!

    What is more, Bitcoin transaction costs vary widely. For instance, in July 2016, it cost around $.08 for a transaction mined on the block (data recorded in files) in the next 10 minutes. In December 2017, it cost more than $37. Currently, the price is around $4. High and volatile transaction costs might discourage the use of Bitcoin from the viewpoint of many people and institutions.

    Another aspect is finality. Financial transactions require a point in time from which they can be taken as valid. However, not all DLT (distributed ledger transaction) consensus mechanisms offer this. The “proof of work” protocol, for instance, merely provides a probabilistic finality (due to the creation of forks).

    What about safety? Progress has been made in Bitcoin safekeeping (think of, for instance, cold storage wallets). However, vulnerabilities remain, as scams and thefts at even the largest and most sophisticated crypto exchanges prove.

    A central issue in this context is where to store your private cryptographic keys. They need to be stored offline (so they cannot be hacked), and the place of storage must the secured (to prevent theft) and immune to electromagnetic fields (otherwise the stored codes could be destroyed).

    For professional investors, this is a challenge. They might need a bunker storage solution, but this could turn out to be quite inconvenient. How does one get access to private keys quickly and at low costs?

    Bitcoin was developed for peer-to-peer (P2P) exchange without any intermediation. But would people really want a monetary and financial system without any middleman? For some payments, you may not need intermediation (e.g. to buy a book).

    For others, you may wish to involve an intermediary. Imagine you mistakenly send 100 Bitcoins instead of just one. How would you get it back? Who is going to help you out in a P2P world without any intermediation? The answer is nobody, and nobody would help you if your wallet got hacked.

    What about more sophisticated financial transactions like borrowing and lending? It is hard to imagine that this can be done in an anonymous and trustless regime as envisaged by the Bitcoin protocol. Interestingly enough, many Bitcoin owners seem to keep their coins on crypto exchanges, which control the private keys of the Bitcoins. Obviously, people trust some intermediaries in the Bitcoin space, actively demanding the services supplied by these “middlemen.”

    This observation points us toward a rather important but unfortunately often neglected issue: To support economic progress and a sophisticated monetary sphere, a currency must be compatible with some form of financial intermediation. Otherwise, it will be difficult to compete effectively with existing fiat currencies, which offer money users many convenient intermediary services.

    How would an intermediation structure look in a free market of money? For the sake of illustration, let us review the workings of a digitalized gold money system.

    Let us say Mr. Miller owns one ounce of gold (31,1034 … grams). It is recorded on the asset side of his private balance sheet.

    For greater convenience, he deposits 10 grams of gold with a money warehouse, which offers security, storage, and settlement services.

    The 10 grams of gold are credited on Mr. Miller’s account with the money warehouse, and the accounting unit is gold gram.

    In return, Mr. Miller gets a digital gold gram certificate (which may be called a money certificate) documenting that he owns 10 grams of gold deposited with the money warehouse.

    The digital gold gram certificate serves as a means of payment, and it can be redeemed into gold at any time at par with the money warehouse.

    Now there is a steel company that wants to raise money by issuing a bond. Mr. Miller wishes to earn some return, so he decides to exchange his digital gold gram certificate against the bond. In Mr. Miller’s balance sheet, the digital money certificate is replaced by the bond. The steel company records the digital gold gram certificate as an asset on the left side of its balance sheet and a liability on the right side of its balance sheet. Now the steel company can spend the money on input factors, salaries, rents, etc.

    In addition to this “direct credit transaction,” a digitalized gold money also facilitates all sorts of “indirect credit transactions,” as well as all kinds of transactions in stock and bond markets, derivative and commodity markets, M&A markets, and so on.

    In fact, in a free market of money, you would not only have money warehouses (offering safekeeping and settlement services for money proper) but also institutions specialized in credit, hedging, pooling risks, insurance, etc.

    Of course, we could imagine Bitcoin, rather than gold, being “base money,” and digital Bitcoin certificates, rather than digital gold certificates, being used as a means of payment. Either way, intermediation would work just fine, and unhampered competition would effectively prevent the practice of money warehouses operating on fractional reserves.

    However, with the need for an intermediation structure, it is hard to see how the monetary system—whether Bitcoin or gold serves as “base money”—could escape the repression of the state. Under intermediation, it is no longer possible to have transfers of any kind confined to the purely virtual realm; transfers would have a point of reference in the real world where the state has become overwhelmingly powerful.

    While states might no longer be in a position to stamp out cryptocurrencies, they can and actually will do everything in their power to increase the hurdles preventing money candidates—be they cryptocurrencies or precious metals—from replacing fiat currencies.

    For instance, states impose VAT and capital gains taxes and restrictive regulations on potential money candidates, and they bestow the privilege of legal tender status on their own fiat currency. All of these are hostile to the idea of good money.

    The emergence of cryptocurrencies has given great impetus to the search for better money. As paradoxical as it sounds, it is the state that is one of the greatest allies of Bitcoin in particular or any other crypto unit in general. If there were no state (as we know it today), we would undoubtedly have a free money market. People would be free to decide what money they would choose. No one would have to hide. In a genuinely free market of money, it would be far from a done deal that Bitcoin would outcompete digitalized gold money.

    The world is as it is, however, so I would like to conclude by saying that technological progress is just one aspect of making the emergence of good money possible. The other aspect is to inform the public at large that fiat money is bad money, that good money is possible, and that it is advantageous for them, and that all it takes is a free market in money unimpeded by the state.

    Technology alone might not do the trick of putting an end to the tyranny of fiat monies—it also requires people to actively invoke their right to self-determination in monetary affairs.

    ***

    This talk was given at the Value of Bitcoin Conference in Munich, 3 June 2019.

    Deutsche Bundesbank (2017), Distributed-Ledger-Technologien im Zahlungsverkehr und in der Wertpapierabwicklung: Potenziale und Risiken, Monthly Report, September, pp. 35 – 50.

    Harwick, C. (2016), Cryptocurrency and the Problem of Intermediation, The Independent Review, v. 20, n. 4, Spring, pp. 569 – 588.

    Herbener, J. ed. (2011), The Pure Time Preference Theory of Interest. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    Hülsmann, J. G. (2008), The Ethics of Money Production, Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    Mises, L. v. (1998), Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    Mises, L. v. (1953), Theory of Money and Credit. New Haven, Yale University Press.

    Polleit, T. (2017), Die Blockchain-Disruption: Geld, Bitcoin und Digitalisiertes Goldgeld, Ludwig von Mises Institut Deutschland, 20 December.

    Polleit, T. (2014), Geldreform: Vom schlechten Staatsgeld zum guten Marktgeld, FinanzbuchVerlag, München.

    Reik, T. (2019), Bitcoin Revisited, Sprott Insights, 29 May.

    Rothbard, M. N. (2009), Man, Economy, and State. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, US Alabama.

    Rothbard, M. N. (2008), The Mystery of Banking, 2nd Edition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, US Ala-bama.

    Thorsten Polleit


    Thorsten Polleit

    Thorsten Polleit, Chief Economist of Degussa, Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth, and Partner of Polleit & Riechert Investment Management.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged