Keep this in mind whenever you read a bunch of bulls*it!

Why would one support state intervention? The Nordic models and Asian countries aren't perfect by a long shot. Why does the free market have to be perfect? Must free markets be perfect to prove some point? To make you a free market ideologue?

Why are you here if not to support this ideology and free markets? Why would you support statism?

Recently I listened to a podcast talking different theories of economics. I remember a vague feeling somewhere in there that the person speaking didn't like Austrian economics because it was simple, and plain. Not complicated or very complex. Idk if Austrian economics are simple, straightforward etc. As compared to Keynesian economic theory.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-countries-that-introduced-a-flat-tax-rate-and-what-happened-next/ar-AA1w1LDs?ocid=socialshare&pc=W069&cvid=514344e5d37042ef9b3f6c2518e4573e&ei=15

Britain could one day join Estonia and Guernsey in introducing a flat rate of tax on personal income.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said on Monday she found the fiscal concept “very attractive”.

Generally a flat tax means replacing the current income tax and National Insurance rates with a single rate...

We only have projections for the more recent months but the official data we have already shows poverty rates decreasing month by month. Let's hope things keep getting better 🙏.

I am mixed on this. If you can afford a patent, you are paying to protect your idea. At the same time patents prevent competition. If anyone has the same chance to make the same thing, whoever manages their business and builds it better wins.

I am a capitalist, a supporter of Austrian Economics, and somewhere around minarchist politically.

I’m curious - does Austrian Economics have any prescriptions for dealing with firms that commit crimes? For example, if a factory next door releases smoke onto my property and gives me a disease, it has effectively assaulted me. I think most Austrians can agree in that case that my property rights have been violated, but what ought to happen to the firm responsible?

Obviously they’d owe me damages, but what they’ve done also has a criminal aspect. If the factory was a sole proprietorship, I’d argue you’d charge the owner with assault, or even with murder if I die as a result of my disease. When it’s a firm such as a corporation, however, how do we handle that? The shareholders don’t seem ethically responsible, so should management get jail time? Should there just be a fine large enough to harm the firm?

Essentially, I want to know what the government solution to this type of thing is, if any. Or is there a free market solution? In a free market stateless society, would I then be justified in shutting down the factory as a form of self-defense? How about in destroying it?

To clarify, I’m not asking about pollution - that’s just an example - I’m asking about what should happen when a firm does something that an individual would be criminally charged for.

So something I’ve noticed as I’ve been explaining the Austrian school is that you have to explain so much more about how it works than Marxist do. Like when I was a “libertarian socialist”(I.e a tanky that hadn’t realized it) any time I explained my thoughts was more just going “ don’t you want free stuff and don’t you think people should have their basic needs met” and then hoping they don’t push on it because there was nothing there. Compared to now I’m pretty much going “yeah we should get rid of the fed, hold on let me explain” then having to spend 20 mins going over everything.

So I’ve come to realize that we’re essentially on a losing front because we have so much more to do to get a person to understand what we’re trying to say. Or am I just over thinking things, which is not uncommon for me.

I thought of this when I saw pictures of Thomas Sowell on here and discussion of housing costs. Thomas Sowell pointed out that a late 1800s depression in America was recovered from quicker than the great depression as in free market vs Keynesian economics.

Here is one reason why, so basically if you have capital there are two ways to make money, interest or profits. Therefore, interest rates must be at around the same rate of return as profits(risk factored in). If interest is lower than profits, than there is no incentive to loan out money, this is an equilibrium like supply and demand. Appreciation of assets can also be considered profits since you are selling the asset higher than what you got it for, therefore a profit as opposed to keeping idle cash.

During a recession, profits drop, therefore demand drops and assets depreciate, thus, interest rates drop.

Because in the 1800s depression profits were dropping, idle cash flooded the market at low interest rates allowing for refinancing, businesses to borrow low to stay afloat, new businesses to enter the market and successful businesses to expand. Statistics on farm foreclosure rates and bankruptcies in the two depressions is evidence of this.

With Keynesian economics, prices and interest rates do not drop because it increases demand and inflation by printing money. Therefore, interest rates do not drop as low as they would otherwise and economic participants hold assets because they are appreciating while refinancing and cheap borrowing is not possible since interest rates are not low.

Hume also wrote an essay debunking public debt as harmless because it is a drag on the economy while also drives up demand for debt which raises interest rates.

For more info on this subject look up the Mises foundation articles on David Hume.