As the topics on ATS continue, the topic I've noticed ( and I too have been passionate in my debate) is politics. We have both sides of the aisle.
One who stands firm with Conservatism, and the other, liberalism. Now, im sure most would agree, that we are free to choose what side of the fence we
prefer. And though we aren't always going to agree, one thing does escape most, regardless of the fence. And that is, what this country was founded
Now though there are many different viable ways to discuss what this country was founded upon, one key point that is a source of discussion, is the
philosophy of Capitalism, as opposed to socialism. Let me be clear, there are many terms used to define socialism. Nationalized, or Centralized are
terms that are now promoting the empowerment of the government. No matter what the topic is, when we discuss any added expansion of government rule,
that should be a cause for concern.
Many whom claim they are " conservatives ", dont want to face reality, in the sense that the GOP, while under 8 years of Bush, don't want to
acknowledge that though Bush may have claimed to be a republican, he was a conservative who believed in Big Government. Conservatives, over several
decades, have always claimed to be for small government, and little govt intervention. But the recent years of both Bush's refute that claim whole
President Reagan, regardless of your stance, had some of the biggest cuts in spending in American History, and promoted smaller government. Reagan
also said during his inauguration,
That government was the problem, not the solution.
With that said, we now look at the other side of the fence. Democrats have never pretended to be champions of small government. There have been many
short failings promoted by both parties. But the continued support for Unconstitutional social welfare programs, have been an ever increasing burden
on the tax payer. The liberals tend to push for these programs, without ever disclosing to the alleged people they represent the truths of the
We know, that the only divisional lines are the parties names. But ultimately, they ( being both parties ) are one in the same. Simply parading
under a different banner. We on ATS see all the time that " they all are involved with an agenda", but just how deep do the readers of these posts
really reflect on that?
Now we can discuss for hours on end about which party is right, which party isn't, but i would like to focus now, on the works of Ludwig von Mises.
Now before I begin, it is the philosophy of Mises I wish to bring to light. After further review, it would seem that Austrian economics, ( which many
from that region predicted the housing bubble in our country, and the financial crisis ), but it would seem that the " model " of the Austrian
economic system holds it's ground regardless of the surrounding countries stances.
Ludwig von Mises:
One of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the twentieth century, Ludwig von Mises, in the course of a long and highly
productive life, developed an integrated, deductive science of economics based on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act
purposively to achieve desired goals. Even though his economic analysis itself was “value-free” — in the sense of being irrelevant to values
held by economists — Mises concluded that the only viable economic policy for the human race was a policy of unrestricted laissez-faire, of free
markets and the unhampered exercise of the right of private property, with government strictly limited to the defense of person and property within
its territorial area.
This next section is rather spot on, considering many of us are now living what was discussed so many years ago.
For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only
possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race; (b) that socialism would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of
private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs, and (c) that government intervention, in
addition to hampering and crippling the market, would prove counter-productive and cumulative, leading inevitably to socialism unless the entire
tissue of interventions was repealed.
Holding these views, and hewing to truth indomitably in the face of a century increasingly devoted to statism and collectivism, Mises became famous
for his “intransigence” in insisting on a non-inflationary gold standard and on laissez-faire.
Effectively barred from any paid university post in Austria and later in the United States, Mises pursued his course gallantly. As the chief economic
adviser to the Austrian government in the 1920s, Mises was single-handedly able to slow down Austrian inflation; and he developed his own “private
seminar” which attracted the outstanding young economists, social scientists, and philosophers throughout Europe. As the founder of the
"neo-Austrian School" of economics, Mises’s business cycle theory, which blamed inflation and depressions on inflationary bank credit encouraged
by Central Banks, was adopted by most younger economists in England in the early 1930s as the best explanation of the Great Depression.
Having fled the Nazis to the United States, Mises did some of his most important work here. In over two decades of teaching, he inspired an emerging
Austrian School in the United States. The year after Mises died in 1973, his most distinguished follower, F.A. Hayek, was awarded the Nobel Prize in
economics for his work in elaborating Mises’s business cycle theory during the later 1920s and 1930s.
This next section is key, with an open mind, the once " follower " of government intervention, soon learned the error of his ways, and
Entering the University of Vienna at the turn of the century as a leftist interventionist, the young Mises discovered Principles of Economics by
Carl Menger, the founding work of the Austrian School of economics, and was quickly converted to the Austrian emphasis on individual action rather
than unrealistic mechanistic equations as the unit of economics analysis, and to the importance of a free-market economy.
He went on to provide theories over his years and made one distinct finding:
In his monetary theory, Mises revived the long forgotten British Currency School principle, prominent until the 1850s, that society does not at
all benefit from any increase in the money supply, that increased money and bank credit only causes inflation and business cycles, and that therefore
government policy should maintain the equivalent of a 100 percent gold standard.
Did you see that in the above? Look again, heres the key I wanted to make note of:
that society does not at all benefit from any increase in the money supply, that increased money and bank credit only causes inflation and business
Are we currently seeing this very issue in current state of events? If the answer is yes, then atleast your paying attention to reality. If the
answer is no, I suggest waking up!
Mises added to this insight the elements of his business cycle theory: that credit expansion by the banks, in addition to causing inflation, makes
depressions inevitable by causing “malinvestment,” i.e. by inducing businessmen to overinvest in “higher orders” of capital goods (machine
tools, construction, etc.) and to underinvest in consumer goods.
The above text is something that even Ron Paul has mentioned time and again. Speaking of malinvestment, and the ever expansion of the banking
The problem is that inflationary bank credit, when loaned to business, masquerades as pseudo-savings, and makes businessmen believe that there
are more savings available to invest in capital goods production than consumers are genuinely willing to save. Hence, an inflationary boom requires a
recession which becomes a painful but necessary process by which the market liquidates unsound investments and reestablishes the investment and
production structure that best satisfies consumer preferences and demands.
Are we now seeing the above in action? We are living and seeing the pseudo-savings, under the facade of a strong economy. But that's all it is,
what we are seeing, is massive liquidation. Yes there are those who are benefiting, but that's not what Im trying to address. I hope the readers see
the connection between Mises philosophy, and what we are living today.
In closing, I hope to bring to light, that our current situation, bailouts, failed stimulus, housing bubble, and financial discourse, was inevitable.
Many economists, from outside the US, saw this travesty upon this great nation coming long before it actually hit. The economists within our country,
were in my opinion, bought and paid for. ( which that is no new,news)
We all hold specific things near and dear. And regardless of the fence, I commend that. But I think a reevaluation of intervention, as opposed to
individualism needs to be sought.
We see daily, more and more rights and liberties being impacted. Should we, an alleged free " society " be all for Government intervention?
Allowing those very same parties who destroyed this country by, exploiting our country. Should those in question be given the rights to decide,
whether or not your child can take a lunch from home? Or grope us at the Airport?
Or should we embrace the idea of individualism? The ability to decide whats best for your family. Without the consent of the " big Government
entity"? This country was founded upon the people. And the people's ability to " choose" whats best for them, at any given time.
The works of Mises, should shed some light on the very affects we are living today, the question is, are we to late to do anything about it?