October 21, 2024
October 14, 2024
Some people argue like this: Although the Fed as it now exists is very bad, a nation needs a central bank to regulate its money supply, and the Fed is better than nothing. That being so, we should try to urge the Fed to adopt a non-expansionary monetary policy. In this view, calls to "End the Fed" are mistaken. I'm sure most of my readers already know what I'm about to say, but, just to be clear, that view is disastrously wrong. We do not need a central bank, and to argue in the way indicated is to betray the great Murray Rothbard and the great Dr. Ron Paul, whose slogan "End the Fed" has galvanized so many of us.
What we need is the classical gold standard, based on 100% reserve banking. There is no need for an expansion of the monetary system, even a gradual expansion. In fact, monetary expansion is inflationary and dangerous. As the leading Rothbardian authority on money, Professor Joseph Salerno, explains: "Under the classical gold standard, [which prevailed in the nineteenth century before World War I] if people in one nation demanded more money to carry out more transactions or because they were more uncertain of the future, they would export more goods and financial assets to the rest of the world, while importing less. As a result, additional gold would flow in through a surplus in the balance of payments increasing the nation's money supply.
Sometimes, private banks tried to inflate the money supply by issuing additional bank notes and deposits, called 'fiduciary media,' promising to pay gold but unbacked by gold reserves. They lent these notes and deposits to either businesses or the government. However, as soon as the borrowers spent these additional fractional-reserve notes and deposits, domestic incomes and prices would begin to rise.
As a result, foreigners would reduce their purchases of the nation's exports, and domestic residents would increase their spending on the relatively cheap foreign imports. Gold would flow out of the coffers of the nation's banks to finance the resulting trade deficit, as the excess paper notes and checks were returned to their issuers for redemption in gold.
To check this outflow of gold reserves, which made their depositors very nervous, the banks would contract the supply of fiduciary media bringing about a monetary deflation and an ensuing depression.
Temporarily chastened by the experience, banks would refrain from again expanding credit for a while. If the Treasury tried to issue convertible notes only partially backed by gold, as it occasionally did, it too would face these consequences and be forced to restrain its note issue within narrow bounds.
Thus, governments and commercial banks under the gold standard did not have much influence over the money supply in the long run. The only sizable inflations that occurred during the 19th century did so during wartime when almost all belligerent nations would 'go off the gold standard.' They did so in order to conceal the staggering costs of war from their citizens by printing money rather than raising taxes to pay for it."
This was the system in effect in the nineteenth century, and a full Rothbardian gold standard would be even better. This is because the earlier system did not ban issuing more bank notes than reserves available. The Rothbardian system bans this altogether.
But, you might object, doesn't the Fed exist now? Don't we have to get along as best we can with it, even if we hope for its ultimate abolition? The answer is that is a clear "no." So long as it exists, the Fed finances the murderous welfare-warfare state of brain-dead "President" Joe Biden and "Cackling Kamala" Harris and their gang of neo-con controllers. Rothbard sets forward clearly what the appropriate attitude toward getting along with state institutions should be: "Hence, the libertarian goal, the victory of liberty, justifies the speediest possible means towards reaching the goal, but those means cannot be such as to contradict, and thereby undercut, the goal itself. We have already seen that gradualism-in-theory is such a contradictory means. Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.
If, then, the libertarian must call for immediate abolition of the State as an organized engine of aggression, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to the overriding end (and therefore impermissible), what further strategic stance should a libertarian take in a world in which States continue all too starkly to exist?
Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved.
The transitional demands, then, must be framed while
- always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process; and
- never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal."
Let's do every we can to end the Fed now! On this, there can be no compromise.
The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Many people oppose the free market because it leads to inequality of wealth and income. It is unfair, they say, that some people have vastly more money than others. Some defenders of the free market respond that these inequalities, while undesirable in themselves, make the poor better off than they would be otherwise, and so should be accepted. Another argument made by defenders of the free market is that restricting inequality would interfere liberty, so that, although inequality is bad, we have to put up with it.
While it is true that inequality makes the poor better off and that restricting inequality interferes with liberty, these are not the best arguments that defenders of the free market should use. They accept that inequality is bad, but we should reject this assumption. There is nothing bad about inequality.
People are unequal in every dimension of their being, including weight, height, muscle build, intelligence, and so on. This just the way the world is. Why should we try to change it? People who attempt this have a grudge against the world. They are not satisfied with the way God created it.
And of course they can't succeed. As the great Murray Rothbard points out, absolute equality is impossible. No two places on earth, for example, offer precisely the same view.
If we shouldn't defend the free market by arguing that it decreases equality, what should we do? Fortunately, there are many better arguments available. I'm going to list a number of them, but if you want more details, you should read Murray Rothbard's Power and Market and Ludwig von Mises's Human Action.
One of the best of these arguments is that the free market makes possible mutually beneficial gains from trade. If I have something that you want and you have something I want, we can make an exchange, so we are both better off. But what if our exchange makes someone else worse off? This question is a version of the "externalities" or "market failure" argument. The claim is that some of our activities, including trade, impose costs on others. If so, this indicates a failure to define property rights. Once we do so, the so-called "problem" dissolves.
This obviously raises another question. How do people acquire property rights? The best answer is given by Rothbard, further developed and extended by the great Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Everybody owns himself and, given that the earth starts out unowned, he can "mix his labor" with the land and thus acquire it.
Before leaving externalities aside, we should note another important argument. People who talk about externalities want the government to correct them, but what reason is there to think that the government will change things so that the supposedly "correct" amount is produced? There is every reason to think that the government will make matters worse.
There is an assumption that we have been making so far that should now be dropped. This assumption is that in deciding what sort of economic system to adopt, we have a choice. We can pick the free market, socialism, or some intermediate system that is a mixture of the free market and socialism. For any developed economy, this is not so, as Mises proved in his famous article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" (1920), expanded into his great book Socialism. Mises proved that without free market prices, economic calculation is impossible. Entrepreneurs cannot tell whether their investments are profitable. So, they are unable to use their resources efficiently. If they cannot do this, the economy will collapse into chaos.
Further, there is no third system intermediate between the free market and socialism. Interference with the market fails to achieve the ostensible goals of its supporters. Minimum wage laws create unemployment. Price controls lead to shortages. Faced with failure, the interventionists must either return to the free market or intervene again, in an effort to remedy the defects of the previous intervention. If this is continued, there will be no free market left. The result will be full-scale socialism, which has already been shown to be impossible. Human Action: The Scho... Best Price: $6.75 (as of 05:45 UTC - Details)
How did the socialists and interventionists respond to Mises's conclusive demonstration that their schemes cannot work? They denied the existence of economic laws that restricted what they could do. As Mises says in Human Action, "It is a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the debates concerning the essence, scope, and logical character of economics to dismiss them as the scholastic quibbling of pedantic professors. It is a widespread misconception that while pedants squandered useless talk about the most appropriate method of procedure, economics itself, indifferent to these idle disputes, went quietly on its way. In the Methodenstreit between the Austrian economists and the Prussian Historical School, the self-styled 'intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern,' and in the discussions between the school of John Bates Clark and American Institutionalism much more was at stake than the question of what kind of procedure was the most fruitful one. The real issue was the epistemological foundations of the science of human action and its logical legitimacy. Starting from an epistemological system to which praxeological thinking was strange and from a logic which acknowledged as scientific-besides logic and mathematics-only the empirical natural sciences and history, many authors tried to deny the value and usefulness of economic theory. Historicism aimed at replacing it by economic history; positivism recommended the substitution of an illusory social science which should adopt the logical structure and pattern of Newtonian mechanics. Both these schools agreed in a radical rejection of all the achievements of economic thought. It was impossible for the economists to keep silent in the face of all these attacks."
Thus, it's the free market or nothing. We are fortunate that the only economic system is on that benefits everybody through the chance of making mutually advantageous exchanges.
This point leads to another argument we can use to defend the free market. In the free market, it's to my advantage that others do well, because they can offer more goods and services to exchange. This will promote peace between nations. Why go to war with people who are making you better off?
Given the abundance of excellent arguments in favor of the free market, there is no need to use argument that accept the enemy's premise that equality is a good thing. Let's do everything that we can to support the genuine arguments in favor of the free market, as best expounded by Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.