"Economic theory has identified four sources of economic progress"

In January Javier Milei explained to a room of Davos delegates to the WEF forum how the world works, and how economic progress and prosperity happens. This is an excerpt. [Milei's speech was originally in Spanish, and the English version at the WEF website has been transcribed by AI. I have edited slightly it for smoothness and clarity. Emphases mine]

As early as 380 BC, Xenophon pointed out that economics is a form of knowledge that enables men to increase their wealth while arguing that private property is the most beneficial vehicle for the life of individuals.

Xenophon ... [first] highlight[ed] the benefit of private property by stating that the owner's eye fattens his cattle. [Or as the English saying has it: "It's the master's eye that makes the mill go"]... Xenophon then delves into the dynamic realm, noting that efficiency also entails increasing wealth: that is, increasing the available quantity of goods through entrepreneurial creativity, namely through trade, innovation, and recognising opportunity. ...

"[T]he institution of private property deserves a separate chapter. By focussing on it, the Austrian School of Economics from Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner and Hoppe to Huerta de Soto has demonstrated the impossibility of socialism, thereby dismantling the illusory idea of John Stuart Mill that postulated independence between production and distribution; a form of academic deafness that led to socialism, and cost the world the lives of 150 million human beings -- while those who managed to survive the terror, did so in absurd poverty.

In line with [those writers'] previous remarks, and consistent with Xenophon's second [point], economic theory has identified four sources of economic progress.

First, there's the division of labour, which was illustrated by Adam Smith through the pin factory example. At its core, this is a mechanism that generates productivity gains, manifested as increasing returns. Although its limit is determined by market size, the size of the market is positively affected by this process. However, it is also worth noting that this virtuous process is not infinite and that its ultimate limit lies in the endowment of initial resources.

Second, there is the accumulation of capital, both physical and human. With regard to physical capital, the interaction between saving and investment is crucial, highlighting the fundamental role of capital markets and of the financial system in carrying out such intermediation. On the human capital side, the focus should not be limited to education alone, but should also include the development of cognitive capacities from birth, as well as nutrition and health, basic elements for gaining access to education and the labour market.

Third, there is technological progress, which consists in being able to produce a greater quantity of goods with the same amount of resources, or to produce the same output using a smaller quantity of inputs.

Finally, there is entrepreneurial spirit, or rather the entrepreneurial function, which, according to Professor Huerta De Soto constitutes the main driver of the economic growth process. Because, although the three factors mentioned are important, without entrepreneurs, there can be no production, and living standards would be extremely precarious.

In fact, the entrepreneurial function is not so much focused on short-term efficiency, but rather on increasing the quality of goods and services, which, in turn, leads to higher standards of living. On this basis, what truly matters is to expand the frontier of production possibilities to the maximum extent possible.

Thus, dynamic efficiency can be understood as an economy's capacity to foster entrepreneurial creativity and coordination.

In turn, the criterion of dynamic efficiency is inseparably linked to the concept of the entrepreneurial function, which is that typically human capacity to perceive profit opportunities that arise in the environment and to act accordingly to take advantage of them. This makes the task of discovering and creating new ends and means fundamental, driving spontaneous coordination to resolve market imbalances.

Moreover, this definition of dynamic efficiency proposed by Huerta de Soto coherently and appropriately combines Schumpeter’s idea of creative destruction with North's concept of adaptive efficiency.

Naturally, given the role of the entrepreneurial function, the institutions under which it develops are of vital importance. In this regard, both Douglass North and Jesús Huerta de Soto consider one of the key functions of institutions to be that of reducing uncertainty.

So, while North presents them as a set of humanly devised constraints that structure social interaction in a repetitive manner, Huerta de Soto considers that these institutions, conceived by human beings, emerge spontaneously from a process of social interaction without being designed by any single individual, and that they reduce uncertainty in the market process.

As Roy Cordato points out, the appropriate institutional framework is one that favours entrepreneurial discovery and coordination. Accordingly, within this framework, economic policy should aim to identify and remove all artificial barriers that hinder the entrepreneurial process and voluntary exchanges.

Given the decisive influence of institutions on economic progress, this directs our attention to the importance of ethics, as societies that adhere to stronger moral values and ethical principles in support of institutions will be dynamically more efficient and will therefore enjoy greater prosperity.

Accordingly, the fundamental ethical problem is a search for the best way to foster entrepreneurial coordination and creation.

Therefore, in the field of social ethics, we conclude that conceiving human beings as creative and coordinating actors entails accepting axiomatically the principle that every human being has the right to appropriate the results of their entrepreneurial creativity.

So the private appropriation of the fruits of what entrepreneurs create and discover is a principle of natural law because if an author were unable to appropriate what they create or discover, their capacity to detect profit opportunities would be blocked, and the incentive to carry out their actions would disappear. Ultimately, the ethical principle just stated is the fundamental ethical foundation of the entire market economy.

So, what we've just demonstrated is that free enterprise capitalism is not only just but also efficient and also that it is the one that maximises growth.

[Full speech here]

RELATED: Here's Per Bylund at the latest Ludwig Von Mises conference explaining that it's entrepreneurs, not politicians, who change the world for the better.

 

Javier Milei has revolutionised regulatory reform in his Argentina, taking a virtual chainsaw to useless bureaucracies. In a recent interview with Lex Fridman, Javier Milei revealed his method, described here in this guest post by Daphne Posadas. Here's ere's how his "chainsaw model could still inspire real reform in Washingtom, and even back here in Wellington...

Javier Milei’s Chainsaw on Bureaucracy

by Daphne Posadas

“What is the difference between a madman and a genius? Success.” That opening line set the tone for Javier Milei’s two-hour interview with Lex Fridman. In it, Argentina’s libertarian president reflected on the first few months of his administration following his historic electoral victory on November 19, 2023.

Milei has been called many things, but his methods and philosophy thrive under scrutiny. In a free society, being questioned is both a challenge and an opportunity. What sets Milei apart is his ability to answer tough questions with logic, evidence, and, most importantly, results.

His anarcho-capitaliist rhetoric is—as he said—rooted in a libertarianism that has an “unrestricted respect for the life project of others based on the principle of non-aggression and in defense of the rights to life, liberty, and property,” a definition championed by Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr., and that follows John Locke’s ideas.

A Model Exported

Milei’s reforms haven’t gone unnoticed in the U.S., especially after the announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to be led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

In the interview, Milei highlighted how Argentina’s Ministry of Deregulation and State Transformation, led by Federico Sturzenegger, is systematically dismantling protectionism and privilege by eliminating 1 to 5 economic restrictions daily.

This approach is catching attention worldwide, as Musk and Ramaswamy have hinted at adapting this “chainsaw” strategy. Ramaswamy recently posted on X: “A reasonable formula to fix the U.S. government: Milei-style cuts, on steroids.”

The Chainsaw Reforms

If there’s one image that defined Milei’s 2023 campaign, it’s the chainsaw. He carried a real chainsaw to his rallies, chanting “¡Motosierra! ¡Motosierra!” (Spanish for “chainsaw”) as a symbol of his promise to slash Argentina’s bloated bureaucracy.

When Milei took office, Argentina’s inflation was out of control, climbing at almost 1% per day. Fixing the fiscal deficit became his top priority, knowing nothing else would work without a solution on that front. In just a few months, he made drastic changes: cutting over 50,000 government jobs, shutting down more than half of the ministries, slashing regulations, and removing subsidies.

The results? Inflation has dropped from 211% year over year in December 2023 to 107.4% in November 2024, according to the latest inflation data from INDEC. According to UFM Reform Watch’s Daniel Fernandez, Javier Milei’s government has now achieved 10 consecutive months of primary fiscal surplus: “Between January and October 2024, the Argentine government accumulated a primary fiscal surplus equivalent to nearly 1.7% of GDP”—a remarkable turnaround.

Milei: A Former Academic

As a former economics professor, Milei excels at breaking down complex economic concepts. Early in the interview, he provided a roadmap for those interested in understanding Austrian economics with big references: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises and Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, two starting points for him. He also name-dropped other thinkers, including Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto, Juan Ramón Rallo, Philipp Bagus, and Walter Block—a quick guide to both Anglo and Hispanic perspectives on libertarian thought.

When Fridman dug deeper and asked about his economic philosophy, Milei replied: “Ideally, anarcho-capitalist; in reality, minarchist.” This summarizes his pragmatic approach to reducing the state’s size through what he calls “the largest structural reform in Argentina’s history” while being realistic about what’s possible. Here Milei also addressed criticism from some libertarians, saying they often fall for the “nirvana fallacy”—expecting perfect solutions in an imperfect world.

Key Takeaways

There are two main takeaways from Milei’s interview with Fridman. First, Milei knows what he’s talking about. Too many politicians don’t really understand economics, but Milei clearly does. He doesn’t just memorise numbers; he explains the reasoning behind his decisions, and it makes sense. Second, market-driven reforms can deliver results. Contrary to popular belief or experts’ advice, these changes don’t require decades to show their impact.

Will these reforms catch on all the way to the White House? [Or here in Wellington?] Only time will tell. But for now, it’s clear that Milei’s approach is turning heads around the world.

I highly recommend watching or listening to the full conversation [dubbed into English]. It’s an incredibly stimulating discussion, particularly for economics enthusiasts eager to see theory translated into real-world policy action.

Daphne Posadas is a Project Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education's FEE en Español, the Spanish branch of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). She holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Universidad Francisco Marroquín, andis pursuing a Master’s degree in Economics at the University of Troy, Alabama. In 2021, she was a panelist at the Mont Pelerin Society conference, becoming one of the youngest speakers in the conference’s history.

Her post first appeared at the FEE blog.

Ludwig von Mises: Capitalism's great defender

When Ludwig von Mises appeared on the economic scene, Marxism and the other socialist sects enjoyed a virtual intellectual monopoly — there was virtually no systematic intellectual opposition to socialism or defence of capitalism. Quite literally, the intellectual ramparts of civilization were undefended. What von Mises undertook, and which summarises the essence of his greatness, was to build an intellectual defence of capitalism and thus of civilisation.

On the 100th anniversary of his birth in 1881, his student George Reisman penned this tribute to one of capitalism's greatest defenders. . .

A Tribute to Ludwig von Mises on the Anniversary of his Birth

by George Reisman

September 29, 2024, is the one-hundred-and-forty-third anniversary of the birth of Ludwig von Mises, economist and social philosopher, who passed away in 1973. Von Mises was my teacher and mentor and the source or inspiration for most of what I know and consider to be important and worthwhile in these fields of what enables me to understand the events shaping the world in which we live. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, because I believe that he deserves to occupy a major place in the intellectual history of the twentieth century.

Von Mises is important because his teachings are necessary to the preservation of material civilization. As he showed, the base of material civilisation is the division of labour. Without the higher productivity of labour made possible by the division of labour, the great majority of mankind would simply die of starvation. The existence and successful functioning of the division of labour, however, vitally depends on the institutions of a capitalist society — that is, on limited government and economic freedom; on private ownership of land and all other property; on exchange and money; on saving and investment; on economic inequality and economic competition; and on the profit motive that institutions everywhere under attack for several generations.

When von Mises appeared on the scene, Marxism and the other socialist sects enjoyed a virtual intellectual monopoly. Major flaws and inconsistencies in the writings of Adam Smith and Ricardo and their followers enabled the socialists to claim classical economics as their actual ally. The writings of Jevons and the earlier Austrian economists Menger and Böhm-Bawerk were insufficiently comprehensive to provide an effective counter to the socialists. Bastiat had tried to provide one, but died too soon, and probably lacked the necessary theoretical depth in any case.

Thus, when von Mises appeared, there was virtually no systematic intellectual opposition to socialism or defense of capitalism. Quite literally, the intellectual ramparts of civilisation were undefended. What von Mises undertook, and which summarises the essence of his greatness, was to build an intellectual defence of capitalism and thus of civilisation.

Capitalism operates to the material self-interests of all

THE LEADING ARGUMENT OF the socialists was that the institutions of capitalism served the interests merely of a handful of rugged exploiters and monopolists, and operated against the interests of the great majority of mankind, which socialism would serve. While the only answer others could give was to devise plans to take away somewhat less of the capitalists’ wealth than the socialists were demanding, or to urge that property rights nevertheless be respected despite their incompatibility with most people’s well-being, von Mises challenged everyone’s basic assumption. He showed that capitalism operates to the material self-interests of all, including the non-capitalists the so-called proletarians. In a capitalist society, von Mises showed, privately-owned means of production serve the market. The physical beneficiaries of the factories and mills therefore are all who buy their products. And, together with the incentive of profit and loss, and the freedom of competition that it implies, the existence of private ownership ensures an ever-growing supply of products for all.

Thus, von Mises showed to be absolute nonsense such clichés as poverty causes communism. Not poverty, but poverty plus the mistaken belief that communism is the cure for poverty, causes communism. If the misguided revolutionaries of the backward countries and of impoverished slums understood economics, any desire they might have to fight poverty would make them advocates of capitalism.

Socialism means chaos

Socialism, von Mises showed, in his greatest original contribution to economic thought, not only abolishes the incentive of profit and loss and the freedom of competition along with private ownership of the means of production, but makes economic calculation, economic coordination, and economic planning impossible, and therefore results in chaos — because socialism means the abolition of the price system and the intellectual division of labour; it means the concentration and centralisation of all decision-making in the hands of one agency: the Central Planning Board or the Supreme Dictator.

Yet the planning of an economic system is beyond the power of any one consciousness: the number, variety and locations of the different factors of production, the various technological possibilities that are open to them, and the different possible permutations and combinations of what might be produced from them, are far beyond the power even of the greatest genius to keep in mind. Economic planning, von Mises showed, requires the cooperation of all who participate in the economic system. It can exist only under capitalism, where, every day, businessmen plan on the basis of calculations of profit and loss; workers, on the basis of wages; and consumers, on the basis of the prices of consumers’ goods.

Von Mises’s contributions to the debate between capitalism and socialism the leading issue of modern times are overwhelming. Before he wrote, people did not realise that capitalism has economic planning. They uncritically accepted the Marxian dogma that capitalism is an anarchy of production and that socialism represents rational economic planning. People were (and most still are) in the position of Moliere’s M. Jourdan, who never realized that what he was speaking all his life was prose. For, living in a capitalist society, people are literally surrounded by economic planning, and yet do not realise that it exists. Every day, there are countless businessmen who are planning to expand or contract their firms, who are planning to introduce new products or discontinue old ones, planning to open new branches or close down existing ones, planning to change their methods of production or continue with their present methods, planning to hire additional workers or let some of their present ones go. And every day, there are countless workers planning to improve their skills, change their occupations or places of work, or to continue with things as they are; and consumers, planning to buy homes, cars, stereos, steak or hamburger, and how to use the goods they already have for example, to drive to work or to take the train, instead.

Yet people deny the name planning to all this activity and reserve it for the feeble efforts of a handful of government officials, who, having prohibited the planning of everyone else, presume to substitute their knowledge and intelligence for the knowledge and intelligence of tens of millions. Von Mises identified the existence of planning under capitalism, the fact that it is based on prices ( economic calculations ), and the fact that the prices serve to coordinate and harmonise the activities of all the millions of separate, independent planners.

He showed that each individual, in being concerned with earning a revenue or income and with limiting his expenses, is led to adjust his particular plans to the plans of all others. For example, the worker who decides to become an accountant rather than an artist, because he values the higher income to be made as an accountant, changes his career plan in response to the plans of others to purchase accounting services rather than paintings. The individual who decides that a house in a particular neighborhood is too expensive and who therefore gives up his plan to live in that neighborhood, is similarly engaged in a process of adjusting his plans to the plans of others; because what makes the house too expensive is the plans of others to buy it who are able and willing to pay more. And, above all, von Mises showed, every business, in seeking to make profits and avoid losses, is led to plan its activities in a way that not only serves the plans of its own customers, but takes into account the plans of all other users of the same factors of production throughout the economic system.

Thus, von Mises demonstrated that capitalism is an economic system rationally planned by the combined, self-interested efforts of all who participate in it. The failure of socialism, he showed, results from the fact that it represents not economic planning, but the destruction of economic planning, which exists only under capitalism and the price system.

Competition under capitalism is of an entirely different character than competition in the animal kingdom

VON MISES WAS NOT primarily anti-socialist. He was pro-capitalist. His opposition to socialism, and to all forms of government intervention, stemmed from his support for capitalism and from his underlying love of individual freedom, and his conviction that the self-interests of free men are harmonious indeed, that one man’s gain under capitalism is not only not another’s loss, but is actually others’ gain. Von Mises was a consistent champion of the self-made man, of the intellectual and business pioneer, whose activities are the source of progress for all mankind and who, he showed, can flourish only under capitalism.

Von Mises demonstrated that competition under capitalism is of an entirely different character than competition in the animal kingdom. It is not a competition for scarce, nature-given means of subsistence, but a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth, from which all gain. For example, the effect of the competition between farmers using horses and those using tractors was not that the former group died of starvation, but that everyone had more food and the income available to purchase additional quantities of other goods as well. This was true even of the farmers who lost the competition, as soon as they relocated in other areas of the economic system, which were enabled to expand precisely by virtue of the improvements in agriculture. Similarly, the effect of the automobile’s supplanting the horse and buggy was to benefit even the former horse breeders and blacksmiths, once they made the necessary relocations.

In a major elaboration of Ricardo’s Law of Comparative Advantage, von Mises showed that there is room for all in the competition of capitalism, even those of the most modest abilities. Such people need only concentrate on the areas in which their relative productive inferiority is least. For example, an individual capable of being no more than a janitor does not have to fear the competition of the rest of society, almost all of whose members could be better janitors than he, if that is what they chose to be. Because however much better janitors other people might make, their advantage in other lines is even greater. And so long as the person of limited ability is willing to work for less as a janitor than other people can earn in other lines, he has nothing to worry about from their competition. He, in fact, outcompetes them for the job of janitor by being willing to accept a lower income than they. Von Mises showed that a harmony of interests prevails in this case, too. For the existence of the janitor enables more talented people to devote their time to more demanding tasks, while their existence enables him to obtain goods and services that would otherwise be altogether impossible for him to obtain.

He showed that the foundation of world peace is a policy of laissez-faire both domestically and internationally

ON THE BASIS OF such facts, von Mises argued against the possibility of inherent conflicts of interest among races and nations, as well as among individuals. For even if some races or nations were superior (or inferior) to others in every aspect of productive ability, mutual cooperation in the division of labour would still be advantageous to all. Thus, he showed that all doctrines alleging inherent conflicts rest on an ignorance of economics.

He argued with unanswerable logic that the economic causes of war are the result of government interference, in the form of trade and migration barriers, and that such interference restricting foreign economic relations is the product of other government interference, restricting domestic economic activity. For example, tariffs become necessary as a means of preventing unemployment only because of the existence of minimum wage laws and pro-union legislation, which prevent the domestic labor force from meeting foreign competition by means of the acceptance of lower wages when necessary. He showed that the foundation of world peace is a policy of laissez-faire both domestically and internationally.

In answer to the vicious and widely believed accusation of the Marxists that Nazism was an expression of capitalism, he showed, in addition to all the above, that Nazism was actually a form of socialism. Any system characterised by price and wage controls, and thus by shortages and government controls over production and distribution, as was Nazism, is a system in which the government is the de-facto owner of the means of production. Because, in such circumstances, the government decides not only the prices and wages charged and paid, but also what is to be produced, in what quantities, by what methods, and where it is to be sent. These are all the fundamental prerogatives of ownership. This identification of socialism on the German pattern, as he called it, is of immense value in understanding the nature of present demands for price controls.

Von Mises showed that all of the accusations made against capitalism were either altogether unfounded or should be directed against government intervention

VON MISES SHOWED THAT all of the accusations made against capitalism were either altogether unfounded or should be directed against government intervention, which destroys the workings of capitalism. He was among the first to point out that the poverty of the early years of the Industrial Revolution was the heritage of all previous history that it existed because the productivity of labour was still pitifully low; because scientists, inventors, businessmen, savers and investors could only step by step create the advances and accumulate the capital necessary to raise it. He showed that all the policies of so-called labour and social legislation were actually contrary to the interests of the masses of workers they were designed to help — that their effect was to cause unemployment, retard capital accumulation, and thus hold down the productivity of labour and the standard of living of all. 

In yet another major original contribution to economic thought, he showed that depressions were the result of government-sponsored policies of credit expansion designed to lower the market rate of interest. Such policies, he showed, created large-scale malinvestments, which deprived the economic system of liquid capital and brought on credit contractions and thus depressions. Von Mises was a leading supporter of the gold standard and of laissez-faire in banking, which, he believed, would virtually achieve a 100% reserve gold standard and thus make impossible both inflation and deflation.

I do not believe that anyone can claim to be really educated who has not absorbed a substantial measure of the immense wisdom present in his works

WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN of von Mises provides only the barest indication of the intellectual content that is to be found in his writings. He authored over a dozen volumes. And I venture to say that I cannot recall reading a single paragraph in any of them that did not contain one or more profound thoughts or observations. Even on the occasions when I found it necessary to disagree with him (for example, on his view that monopoly can exist under capitalism, his advocacy of the military draft, and certain aspects of his views on epistemology, the nature of value judgments, and the proper starting point for economics), I always found what he had to say to be extremely valuable and a powerful stimulus to my own thinking. I do not believe that anyone can claim to be really educated who has not absorbed a substantial measure of the immense wisdom present in his works.

Von Mises’s two most important books are Human Action and Socialism, which best represents the breadth and depth of his thought. These are not for beginners, however. They should be preceded by some of von Mises’s popular writings, such as Bureaucracy and Planning For Freedom.

The Theory of Money and Credit, Theory and History, Epistemological Problems of Economics, and The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science are more specialised works that should probably be read only after Human Action. Von Mises’s other popular writings in English include Omnipotent Government, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Liberalism, Critique of Interventionism, Economic Policy, and The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics. For anyone seriously interested in economics, social philosophy, or modern history, the entire list should be considered required reading. [All titles of von Mises currently in print can be ordered on this web site, or downloaded free here.]

Courage

VON MISES MUST BE JUDGED not only as a remarkably brilliant thinker but also as a remarkably courageous human being. He held the truth of his convictions above all else and was prepared to stand alone in their defence. He cared nothing for personal fame, position, or financial gain, if it meant having to purchase them at the sacrifice of principle. In his lifetime, he was shunned and ignored by the intellectual establishment, because the truth of his views and the sincerity and power with which he advanced them shattered the tissues of fallacies and lies on which most intellectuals then built, and even now continue to build, their professional careers.

It was my great privilege to have known von Mises personally over a period of twenty years. I met him for the first time when I was sixteen years old. Because he recognised the seriousness of my interest in economics, he invited me to attend his graduate seminar at New York University, which I did almost every week thereafter for the next seven years, stopping only when the start of my own teaching career made it no longer possible for me to continue in regular attendance.

His seminar, like his writings, was characterised by the highest level of scholarship and erudition, and always by the most profound respect for ideas. Von Mises was never concerned with the personal motivation or character of an author, but only with the question of whether the man’s ideas were true or false. In the same way, his personal manner was at all times highly respectful, reserved, and a source of friendly encouragement. He constantly strove to bring out the best in his students. This, combined with his stress on the importance of knowing foreign languages, led in my own case to using some of my time in college to learn German and then to undertaking the translation of his Epistemological Problems of Economics, something that has always been one of my proudest accomplishments.

Today, von Mises’s ideas at long last appear to be gaining in influence. His teachings about the nature of socialism have been confirmed in the first-hand observations of honest news reporters with extensive experience in Soviet Russia, such as Robert Kaiser, Hedrick Smith, John Dornberg, and Henry Kamm. They are being confirmed at this very moment by the actions of millions of angry workers in Poland.

Some of von Mises’s ideas are being propounded by the Nobel prizewinners F.A. Hayek (himself a former student of von Mises) and Milton Friedman. They exert a major influence on the writings of Henry Hazlitt and the staff of the Foundation for Economic Education, as well as such prominent former students as Hans Sennholz. Von Mises’s monetary theories permeate the pages of recent best-selling books on personal investments, such as those by Harry Browne and Jerome Smith. And last, but certainly not least, they appear to be exerting an important influence on the present President of the United States [Ronald Reagan], who has acknowledged reading Human Action and has expressed his admiration for it.

Von Mises’s books deserve to be required reading in every college and university curriculum not just in departments of economics, but also in departments of philosophy, history, government, sociology, law, business, journalism, education, and the humanities. He himself should be awarded an immediate posthumous Nobel Prize indeed, more than one. He deserves to receive every token of recognition and memorial that our society can bestow. For as much as anyone in history, he laboured to preserve it. If he is widely enough read, his labours may actually succeed in helping to save it.

* * * * 

Economist George Reisman was a student of Ludwig Von Mises, Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, and the author of Government Against the Economy and Capitalism: An Economic Treatise [free download here, or buy it here or here]. His blog is here, his website here, and all his publications here. This essay originally appeared in 1981, on the occasion of Mises’s one-hundredth birthday, and appeared recently at the Mises Institute blog.

 

It's no wonder so many get interest so wrong, when they think it's the price of money. Because as Andreas Granath outlines in this guest post, it's actually the price of time ...

Why Interest Rates Are Not the Price of Money

by Andreas Granath

According to mainstream economics, interest rates are the price of money, but the 'Austrian' school of economics says differently. To understand these conflicting ideas, we must understand what prices, money, and interest are.

First of all, prices are exchange-ratios between goods and/or services. An apple might be exchanged for a pear or two bananas. In that case we can conclude that the price of an apple, at that moment, is either one pear or two bananas. However, direct exchange has many disadvantages, and one of them is the price system. Expressing an apple’s price in pears and bananas doesn’t tell a dairy farmer or baker much about his product’s purchasing power. The exchange-ratios (prices) in a barter system are vast, specific, and ever-changing.

Money solves this problem. Since money is a generally-accepted medium of exchange, it is also a common denominator in which we express prices. Suppose that an apple exchanges for $1 (e.g., 1/20th an ounce of gold). Given the above exchange-ratios (prices), a pear would also cost $1 whereas a banana would cost half a dollar. Thus, money prices help agents navigate and communicate better within the economy.

When we have money prices of other goods, we also have a price of money. A seller of goods or services is a buyer of money and vice versa. Money purchases goods and goods purchase money. Therefore, the price of money is inverted to the price of goods and services. If the price of one apple is one dollar, then the price of one dollar is one apple. The price of money is the array of goods for which money can be traded at any given moment. Finding out the overall price of money, however, is not so easy since we need to know all the ever-changing prices in the economy.

Some economists speak of an alteration in the so-called general “price level” and notice when frequently-purchased goods depreciate or appreciate, however, there is no economically meaningful way to define a general price level.

Interest, therefore, is not technically the price of money. But what is interest and why do some economists get it wrong? 

It might be better said that interest is the price of time. It is the premium some people pay for not being able to wait, as well as the discount some people get for being able to wait.

Interest is best explained by the concept of time preference, which means that people necessarily prefer present consumption more than future consumption. Suppose that John Smith wants to buy a house that he cannot yet afford. Since Smith has a very high time preference, he doesn’t even bother saving some money. Instead, he asks his cousin if he can borrow $100,000. Although his cousin values having his $100,000 stuffed under his mattress, he agrees to loan Smith his money. However, because of the sacrifice of not having access to the money in the present, he charges his cousin an interest premium of $105,000.

By observing this transaction, we can draw some conclusions. First, the price of the $100,000 in this case was one house. Second, the price of the loan provided was the 5% interest rate that amounted to $5000 in this case. Finally, suppose the money with which Smith paid back the loan was money he had earned from labor. In that case, the price of $105,000 was the amount of labor hours for which Smith was paid wages.

That said, many economists interpret this observation in the following way: since $100,000 can be exchanged for $100,000 today, the price of a dollar is a dollar. However, since the interest rate over a year is 5%, the price of today’s dollar is priced at 1.05 dollars-in-a-year. Hence, the conclusion that the interest rate is merely the “price” of money.

To sum up, I would like to end with a quote from an article on this same subject from economist Nicolás Cachanosky. He writes:

...if you get money and pay interest, eventually the day will come when you have to return the amount of money (plus interest.) If you have to return it, then you didn’t buy the money and so the interest rate is not the price of buying money.

* * * * 

Andreas Granath lives in southern Sweden with his wife and two daughters. He currently is working with valves for the marine industry. His passion for Austrian economics and Libertarianism began some years ago and he is self taught in the two studies. He writes for the Swedish Ludwig von Mises Institute.
His piece previously appeared at the Mises Wire.

After the UK election, what is the future of British conservatism?

Conservative Party MP (and Austrian economics enthusiast) Steve Baker lost his High Wycombe seat in the UK election. He was asked about the future of the Conservative Party, about which he has himself been severely critical even when in government, and if "small c" conservative policies were the cause of Britain's problems. [Starts at 9:16]

“GB NEWS INTERVIEWER: What is the future of British conservatism?”

“Whatever problems Britain has got, they weren't caused by government being limited, by taxes being too low, by budgets being balanced, or by debt being too low — or even by money being too tight with high interest rates, because we haven't had those. …
    “The problem is that we've had big government. High spending. Lots of debt, QE and cheap credit. That is not conservative economic policy. And the problem is we've really — and I've said this in all the interviews I've done for 50 years — the [whole] Western world has been living systematically beyond its means and using cheap credit and now QE to cover the gap. And you can't do that without manufacturing Mass Injustice. This is why people can't afford houses — young people particularly. If you pump lots of cheap credit into houses don't be surprised if the price soars, particularly when planning law constrains the supply of land.
    “These are disastrous policies. But in the end, they arise because the state spends too much. So the future of conservatism actually is to face the real world as it is which is that you can't spend more than you're earning in the long run. And your viewers know that.”

 Meanwhile, Razi Ginsberg and Morgan Carter at the Ayn Rand Centre UK observe that things can only get worse ...

Economic education today is, for the most part, worse than no economic education at all says economics lecturer Per Bylund. He explains himself in this guest post ...

Economic Education Has Become Economic Disinformation

by Per Bylund

Modern economics is in terrible shape. But economics education appears to be worse still. This becomes clear when discussing basic economics with those who have taken courses in the field. Rather than doing away with economic misunderstandings and outright nonsense, economics education apparently provides students with a pseudoscientific rationale for their illusions.

Two such ideas are annoyingly common. One is the view that markets can only work under perfect conditions. The other is that economic growth requires that profits tend toward zero. Yes, they are ridiculous, but they are so commonly held (and believed so strongly) that they suggest a fundamental failure of economics education. Whether or not they are explicitly taught, it is easy to see how an economics education that focuses on models rather than understanding can lead to—if not create—such misperceptions.

“Markets Only Work under Perfect Conditions”

Introductory economics courses often take the perfectly-competitive model as a starting point so as to introduce students to economic thinking. It makes sense to do it this way. By assuming away complexities, students can be introduced to the economic way of thinking, ceteris paribus reasoning, and supply-and-demand analysis.

The approach is innocent but can be counterproductive or even destructive unless students also learn that a model is merely a simplified version of (and thus different from) reality. The model is not reality, and its assumptions are not real, but because of its simplified assumptions it facilitates analysis of reality. A model is a tool.

This obvious fact seems to not be communicated to economics students, who instead adopt the model wholesale as not only a description of but a necessary condition for reality. In other words, because the supply-and-demand diagram used on the blackboard relies on “perfect information,” many students conclude that real markets only work under such conditions.

It is of course the other way around: markets work because they solve or alleviate the problems that are excluded from the model. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out, there is no competition in the perfectly competitive model. All such activities are assumed to have already taken place so that the allocation under end-state efficiency can be explained—and the economic trend in markets therefore uncovered. But students somehow learn the exact opposite.

“Economic Growth Requires That Profits Tend toward Zero”

This idea is similarly a misapplication and misunderstanding of a model presented to students. In the static model of the economy, under assumptions of perfect information and zero transaction costs, economic profits will be zero. This is mainstream economists’ rather quirky explanation of economic efficiency: because all opportunities have already been taken advantage of, value production is maximized.

As follows from this model logically, profits tend toward zero as market reality closes in on “perfect” competition assumptions (that is, the problems are solved or alleviated). There is empirical support for this too: profits tend to fall in commodity markets and mature industries that are no longer innovative (the low-hanging fruits have been picked). Producers compete on cost rather than value. But this does not mean the economy is in an end-state; it only means some industries (such as grain production) have come to the end of the road in terms of product development—entrepreneurs see little or no opportunities for new value creation.

In reality, economic growth — more accurately economic progress — is the process of closing in on this highly theoretical end-state (which we as economists of the Austrian school realise is only theoretical—it cannot and never will be achieved). Our higher standard of living (economic growth) is the result of innovations that create more value—it is not the result of an absence of innovations.

Education as Disinformation

That students struggle with understanding the use and value of models, and may draw the wrong conclusions when studying market forces in the abstract, is unfortunate but understandable. It is the duty of the economics instructor to make sure students do not get the wrong ideas—that they go home with a greater understanding of how economies and markets work. Education, after all, should be enlightening and provide the student with new knowledge.

But somehow economics education fails to communicate the obvious fact that markets solve problems, not that they require that all problems have already been solved. And that economic growth is the creation of new value, not the absence of creating such value.

The failure of economics education is not merely the unproductive use of instructors’ and students’ time. As the above examples show, it is in fact destructive—students of economics get the wrong ideas and therefore graduate with less (not more) understanding of how markets and economies work.

Economics education with this outcome is disinformation, and we are better off without it.

* * * * 

Per Bylund is Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University, and an Associate Fellow of the Ratio Institute in Stockholm.
Dr. Bylund has published research in top journals in both entrepreneurship and management as well as in both the 'Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics' and the 'Review of Austrian Economics,' and the author of How to Think about the Economy: A Primer — which you can get free here to kick off off your real economic (re)education. (His article first appeared at the Mises Wire.)

What to say post-fight

 

I don't recommend you tune into cage-fighting TV. Not unless you just skip straight to the post-fight interviews — though I doubt they're all as admirable as this one ...

"If you care about your fucking country," said rising Brazilion champion Renato Moicano, "read Ludwig Von Mises and 'The Six Lessons' of the Austrian economics school, motherfuckers."

He's right you know. You should. Motherfuckers. 

But a strange thing to have in your head, right, after several minutes of beating in someone else's. He explained later that "as his platform continues to enlarge, [he] wants to use his spotlight to help change the world, particularly the United States."

“A lot of people talk to me about money. But, the problem is, it’s not about how much money you get, it’s about how much money you can keep. With the inflation how it is…and this book, he explained what the government does with your money ,with taxes, and the way they [finance] debt… 

“[I]n Brazil, people are going crazy with [my interview], a lot of people have gotten interested in it and how people are getting taxed with inflation. My message is so important…it’s crystal clear. If you don’t control the debt, that’s going to ruin this country. We need a free market of ideas.”

He's right. We do. 

[Click here for the free e-book or PDF; and on the Ludwig Von Mises tag below to see what I've written over the years about the great man.] 

 

This guest post by Soham Patil is for everyone who still thinks that falling prices are a bad thing, and that rising prices are, somehow, good...

CNN Is Wrong. "Deflation" Is a Good Thing.

by Soham Patil

A recent video by CNN states that lower prices are bad for the economy, and that consumers must get used to the newer, higher prices. The video goes so far as to say, “We’re never going to pay 2019 prices again.” The video claims that deflation is responsible for a long list of problems including layoffs, high unemployment, and falling incomes. Americans should simply get used to paying more and more each year, they say, and be happy about it. Except, so-called "deflation" -- falling prices, caused by rising productivity rather than by monetary collapse — is actually good for consumers despite the contentions of inflation-supporting economists.

The conclusion that inflation is a good thing is reached by the mishandling of economic terms. While Austrian economics accepts that "inflation" when used accurately is the expansion of the money supply, mainstream economics contends that inflation is simply an increase in the general price level in an economy however it is caused. This skewed definition allows one to erroneously conclude that inflation causes prosperity by raising profits and incomes through higher consumer prices. The problem with this is that “price inflation” (rising prices) is also often caused by real inflation: i..e, the increase of the money supply. An increase in the money supply comes from the creation of additional units of money. The wealth of savers is diluted by the expansion of the money supply, which leads to the hardships many Americans face.

Further, while the video contends that the pandemic may have caused rising prices, it cannot explain the continual growth of prices even after the effects of the pandemic have subsided. The pandemic is not responsible for the continual trend of increasing prices; the growth of the money supply is.

Figure 1: The M2 in the United States, 1959–2024

Source: FRED. Data from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

While the money supply of US dollars has increased steadily over the past few decades, a significant jump can be seen after 2019 when the Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policies caused a great rise in the money supply. This growth, uncompensated by additional production due to the pandemic, caused the price inflation that many now blame solely on the pandemic. The truth is that if the pandemic were the cause of prices rising a significant amount, the absence of the pandemic should account for a proportionally drastic deflationary period afterward. This never occurred, and thus the money supply paints a more honest picture of inflation than any index of a collection of prices ever could.

Rising prices are obviously troublesome for both consumers and producers (everyone faces rising costs). By contrast, deflation (falling prices) is often a good thing. "Deflation" in simple terms simply means that the same unit of money is worth more today than it was yesterday. Consumers thus can buy more today than they could yesterday. Instead of actively being impoverished during conditions of rising prices, during times of gently falling prices consumers would instead be made richer. There are two contrasting ways that we might see falling prices: when productivity increases faster than the money supply (a very good thing), or when the money supply collapses after a failed inflationary boom (almost always a bad thing). Unfortunately, both good and bad are tarred with the same semantic brush.

The reason many economists are quick to champion inflationary booms as somehow creating prosperity is because central banks have previously used expansionary monetary policies to temporarily boost the economy by increasing aggregate demand. Several of these policies, often specifically lowering interest rates, cause a boom-bust cycle. When the money supply is expanded and cheap credit is abundant, firms are able to take on ambitious projects that they may not have been able to previously. Malinvestment results from the unsustainable credit expansion created by extremely low interest rates. There is greater demand for the factors of production, and an increase is seen in conventional metrics of economic growth such as gross domestic product.

During the process of malinvestment, an increase in employment occurs due to the firms having access to cheap and easy credit, allowing for greater business spending. However, when firms lose access to cheap and easy credit due to the central banks having to prioritise cutting inflation, jobs are lost. These job losses are not the fault of the deflation but rather of the malinvestment during the false economic booms. Without malinvestment and inflation, resources would have been invested in more-profitable endeavours, making better use of these resources.

Artificially cheap credit causes a misallocation of resources by skewing price information. Eventually, a bust must follow the boom. In this period, deflation often occurs due to market actors coming to more-realistic valuations of the factors of production. After these realistic valuations come about, consumers are able to pay less for their goods and services . . . at least until the central bank causes the next boom-bust cycle.

In conclusion, it would be wrong to pinpoint deflation as a potential issue for the economy. To do so would be to conflate the cause and effect of how money supply affects an economy. Contrary to CNN’s video, the Federal Reserve throughout its history has not helped the cause of consumers, evidenced by the exponential growth of prices since its foundation.

* * * * 

Soham Patil is a high school senior at Symbiosis International School. He is passionate about Austrian Economics and Philosophy.

 

His post first appeared at the Mises Wire.

Have Argentine voters truly voted to overturn their destructive economic past, and to rediscover liberty? As these four guest posts point out (including one from Milei's adviser Jesús Huerta de Soto), President-Elect Javier Milei has the credentials, and has offered as much liberty as (it seems) the Argentinian people are willing to accept. Will it be a revolution of liberty? History will only tell....

Have Argentine Voters FINALLY Chosen Liberty? Time Will Tell

Guest post by Octavio Bermudez

A historical event has taken place, not only for the libertarian movement but for the history of the world. The first libertarian president has been elected in none other country than Argentina.

The Argentinian people faced a dichotomy, either continue with the socialist road to serfdom embodied by the ruling Peronist regime or adopt a radical change towards liberty, the leader of said change being Javier Milei, self-proclaimed Rothbardian and anarcho-capitalist. Finally, with more than 55 percent of the votes, Argentinians elected Milei as their new president.

Argentina’s situation is critical and the people know it. 142,7 percent accumulated inflation this year, 40 percent of the population under poverty levels and at least 80 percent of public debt in terms of GDP, just to mention some of the main economic problems. Crime -which is rampant in many parts of the country- is the other main concern of the public that Milei has had to address in his campaign. He has done so mainly through his vice-president Victoria Villarruel, expert on defense and security matters.

Argentinians chose a free market path, a liberty road towards prosperity and justice.

Now, besides the celebration and enthusiasm that such an occasion merits, we libertarians (especially Argentinian libertarians) must draw upon the wisdom of the British economist Alfred Marshall who said that one must stay on our toes to keep our heart warm. Milei has introduced many libertarians’ ideas to Argentinian political discourse but not all of them have been received favorably by the general public or the media. Milei has had to engage in retreatism due to backlash regarding some free market-oriented ideas such as a voucher system for education, eliminating gun regulations, 100 percent bank reserves and privatising both education and the health system.

Milei has offered as much liberty as the Argentinian people are willing to accept. Socialist and collectivist ideals still prevail in major parts of the population, it would be an error to affirm that even half of the electors that choose Milei are full libertarians. Milei’s upcoming administration will be a test, if it succeeds in pushing for a libertarian program, then more people will rally behind the Gadsden flag and Argentina will serve as a beacon of freedom in Latin America.

Even more important is the cultural shift that has taken place due to Milei’s political activism. Books by the Austrian School of Economics and libertarians can be found in any bookstore (before Milei, those works were harder to access, almost clandestine) and liberty friendly universities and programs are now more frequented. Being a classical liberal or a libertarian is no longer a cultural crime in Argentina.

A libertarian hardcore has been formed and continues to grow, they are the vanguard of the movement, convincing lay people to support Milei’s reforms. True enough, many times they may not convince everyone to embrace libertarianism but at least they persuade them not to oppose it. That’s how the libertarian spirit in Argentina can grow.

Milei’s plan is a moderate one if seen through ideal lenses but as I have already pointed out, it is the most libertarian program that could be advanced upon without being ostracised by the public and mainstream media. Compromises were made after the general elections. The Libertarian-Republican alliance was formed to confront the Peronist regime in the ballot boxes, Milei allied himself with his former competitor Patricia Bullrich and former president Mauricio Macri to rally the necessary votes to win in the ballotage against the leftist Peronist candidate Sergio Massa. The alliance succeeded in calling for the votes necessary to win. It was an epic campaign, thousands attended Milei’s rallies crying out “Liberty!” In many parts of the country, shouts of joy and relief were heard when the Peronist candidate recognized his defeat on live TV. I of course joined the people in the cries for victory.

Bearing in mind the compromises made in the alliance to defeat Peronism, the most crucial libertarian proposals such as slashing public spending and taxes, deregulating the economy and labor market, free trade, privatization of public companies (like the oil company “YPF” and the state airline “Aerolineas Argentinas”) and abolition of the central bank are going to be implemented, at least on paper. Milei, although an anarcho-capitalist has had to moderate in order to gain office, once taking the reins of the state we shall see how much of the freedom program he proposes is implemented.

Will it be a revolution of liberty? History will only tell.

The Economics of Javier Milei

Guest post by David Howden

The election of Javier Milei brings the first libertarian/anarchocapitalist world leader in history. Although prolific in the Spanish-speaking world, English speakers know very little of the Argentine´s views. The fact that he heads the Libertarian Party of Argentina certainly hints at what direction his politics run.

Earlier this year, Philipp Bagus and I edited a two-volume book in honour of Jesús Huerta de Soto [see Bagus's and de Soto's post below.]. Milei wrote a chapter entitled “Capitalism, Socialism, and the Neoclassical Trap.” To my knowledge, it is Milei's only writing made directly in English for an English audience.

If anyone doubts Milei´s credentials, the chapter is a scathing critique of neoclassical growth theory. It also offers a full-blown Rothbardian alternative. Mises's work on interventionism and Hayek's knowledge problem form the basis of his analysis.

Milei identifies a crucial rationalistic error in neoclassical economic analysis:

Note that whenever situations arise that do not match the mathematical structure [modelled by the neoclassical analysis], they are considered “market failures,” and that is where the government appears to correct those failures. However, to successfully solve this problem, it is assumed that the government knows the utility function of all individuals (preferences) for the past, the present, the future, the time preference rate and knows the state of the current technology and all future enhancements, along with their respective amortization rates. In short, to solve the problem in question, the government should be able to master a significant amount of information that, by definition, individuals themselves ignore or are not able to handle, which exposes that the idea of the welfare state acting on the market to correct failures is a contradiction.

Furthermore, Milei concludes that:

when it is made clear that the correction of market failures by the government as proposed in the neoclassical paradigm is conceptually invalid, taking into consideration that the only ones who can internalize those effects are individuals, once the artificial separation of decision-making processes is eliminated, there will no longer be any reason for government intervention, which will not only stop the socialist advance but will also allow us to counterattack.

This is not your grandfather´s South American leader who politicises under the influence of neoclassical "Chicago Boy" economists. Milei is a full-blown libertarian. His Libertarian Party won yesterday´s run-off election by carrying nineteen of twenty-two Argentine states and 56% of the popular vote. After decades of socialism, a plurality of Argentine voters must surely be fed up with it.

A Statement on Javier Milei from Spanish Libertarians 

Guest post by Jesús Huerta de Soto and Philipp Bagus

Senior Mises Institute Fellow Jesús Huerta de Soto and Fellow Philipp Bagus write:

In our own name and in the name of the rest of the Spanish libertarians and anarcho-capitalists we want to send Javier Milei our most enthusiastic congratulations. Today is a historic day for liberty only comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall and communism. For the first time in history an anarcho-capitalist has won the Presidency of a country as important as Argentina. This shows that in the end the ideas of liberty against statism, left or right, end up prevailing. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the great thinkers and theoreticians of liberty planted the ideas that Milei have had the enormous merit of making attractive to the broadest layers of the population and, especially, to the most vulnerable who are always the main victims of the manipulations of socialists and interventionists of all stripes. We are now advising him closely especially on the necessity to establish a 100 per cent reserve ratio on his dollarisation process to avoid any new "corralitos." Viva la libertad carajo.

Milei's Long-Term Victory Depends on Him Winning in the Battle of Ideas

Guest post by Ryan McMaken

Last Sunday, Javier Milei was elected president of Argentina by a comfortable margin, with 56 percent of the vote. He will be sworn in as president on December 10.

Over the past year, however, Milei has made a name for himself as an extremely vocal critic of socialism, central banks, and many types of government intervention in general. He has become memorable for fiery commentary condemning the Left's ideology and tactics while expressing an interest in immediate (i.e., not gradualist) change. He has said he seeks to abolish Argentina's central bank and introduce the US dollar as the country's dominant currency.

His fiscal policy is far more in the free-market direction than any other head of state in a country as large as Argentina (with 46 million residents). Milei has expressed admiration for the work of Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, and a variety of economists who are more centrist than Rothbard and Hayek, but which we might reasonably describe as more-or-less free market. Moreover, Milei self-identifies as a supporter of the Austrian School of economics.

If Milei remains committed to reining in (or abolishing) the central bank, lowering taxes, and cutting government spending, Milei has the opportunity to push through real economic reforms that could provide relief to the beleaguered Argentine middle class. These people have suffered greatly under decades of easy-money-induced price inflation, and an ever-growing burden of taxation and regulation.

Many libertarian supporters of Milei (both inside and outside the country) have responded to Milei's candidacy with celebratory enthusiasm. Some have declared him the next Ron Paul, and many others seem to assume that his election will translate into actual implementation of his stated policies. That could happen, but unfortunately, the hard part has only begun.

It is entirely possible that Milei is sincere in his stated goals and in his apparent commitment to radical opposition against the disastrous status quo in Argentina. If so, that is excellent news. After Milei's election comes the real test, however. Assuming that Milei is sincere right now, that doesn't mean he won't later be unwilling to carry out such policies if they prove to be unpopular as his administration unfolds. Given his short history of serving in political office, we have little to suggest a likely outcome one way or another.

Another possibility is that we may find that he lacks the political skill necessary to harness and exploit what free-market sentiment in the country presently exists. He will have to do this to actually push through any of these reforms. What political skills are necessary? Milei must be able to convince a sizeable portion of the voting public that his policies will work or are working. This doesn't necessarily mean a majority have to be enthusiastically with him at all times. But he at least has to be able to use public opinion to pressure the legislature and powerful interest groups. Since Milei will not be a dictator as president, he will be forced to somehow squeeze concessions out of countless socialists and interventionists in government who quite literally hate him and his policies.

This is not just a problem in countries with democratic institutions. Not even dictators can simply enact radical policies at will. As absolutist monarchs and countless military dictators have found in their days, chief executives meet fierce opposition from entrenched interests within the state in all types of regimes—except, perhaps, in fully totalitarian ones. The sorts of reforms Milei wants will hurt many interest groups who have benefited from inflation and high government spending. The productive class may suffer greatly under these policies, but there are also millions of politically active voters who believe they benefit from Peronist-style economic policy. Those who think they stand to lose from reform will resist.

No Victory Is Possible without Progress in the Battle of Ideas

For the sake of argument, however, let's say that Milei is both sincere in his views and is also among the most skilled politician we've seen in decades. Let's say he is skilled at the tricks successful politicians employ to confound adversaries and build coalitions.

Ultimately, not even these skills can bring about the successful implementation of true radical free-market reforms if Milei and his supporters lose the battle of ideas in the meantime. Milei can only succeed if the public agrees that Milei's policies are "worth it." After all, as Milei tries to push through reforms such as tax cuts or limits on monetary inflation, his political opponents will flood the media with explanations of how Milei is hurting ordinary people, destroying the economy, or is somehow "a threat to democracy." Milei's intellectual opponents will trot out economists to explain how high taxes and inflation are actually good. The public will hear from various "experts" about how Milei is wrong, and that the usual socialists and interventionists have it right.

These tactics are especially dangerous in the short term because efforts by Milei to cut spending and rein in price inflation will be sure to cause plenty of short-term pain in the economy. Cuts in government spending and an end to easy monetary policy tend to pop financial bubbles and drive government-dependent industries into decline. Surging unemployment results in the short term as bankruptcies spike. That, of course, is bad news for any elected politician.

Unless the public can be convinced that this pain will lead to better days ahead, the public is likely to abandon Milei and his policies in short order. Then, four years form now, the Peronists will return to power and the status quo will proceed as if nothing ever happened.

The only antidote to this is to relentlessly fight the battle of ideas in academia, in the media, and with the public. Free-market intellectuals, activists, columnists, and speakers must never tire of endlessly recapitulating the truth about freedom, free markets, and peace. So long as a sizeable portion of the public thinks the Peronists "get it right," no free-market reformer can win.

After all, the only reason any people—including Milei—quote Austrian School economists or appreciate the wisdom of free-market classical liberals is because those people learned those ideas from some teacher, publication, or organisation. Without scholars like Rothbard, Hayek, and the others that Milei says he admires, there would be no Milei campaign as we know it. Without organizations like the Mises Institute, it is a safe bet we would not be hearing Milei call for the abolition of a central bank. Without hardcore classical liberals like Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Molinari, and Bastiat, there would be virtually no one, anywhere, calling for radical cuts to taxes, spending, and state power overall.

Those who wage these battles of ideas provide the foundation for the political movements that build upon the ideas. Yet, these movements can only succeed if the public learns—to at least some extent—why fiat money is bad, why state power is a problem, and why high taxes are disastrous. The public doesn't need to know the technical details behind these arguments, of course, and is probably not interested. But the public must believe on some level that freedom and free markets are good things.

It remains to be seen if the voting public is willing to give Milei a chance to try beyond the very short term. Much of that will depend on whether or not Argentine libertarians have managed to sufficiently preserve or advance some lingering measure of pro-liberty sentiment. If they have not, Milei will fail politically, regardless of his political skills. If that happens, free-market activists and intellectuals will have to simply keep up the fight until the political situation again favours a viable free-market candidate.

The situation is no different for those of us in the rest of the world.

* * * * 

CONTRIBUTORS:

Octavio Bermudez is an Argentinian student and Austro-libertarian interested in Austrian economics, political philosophy, and history.

David Howden is Chair of the Department of Business and Economics, and professor of economics, at Saint Louis University at its Madrid campus.

Jesús Huerta de Soto is a Spanish economist of the Austrian School. He is a professor in the Department of Applied Economics at King Juan Carlos University of Madrid, Spain and a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute. His website is here.

Philipp Bagus is professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. He is a Fellow of the Mises Institute, an IREF scholar, and the author of numerous books.

Ryan McMaken is an economist and writer living in Colorado where he has taught political science since 2004. He has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and is an Associated Scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.

These posts first appeared at the Power & Market blog.