rEaGaNoMiCs!!

Hi guys! im trying to find an e-book called "Market based management : the science of human action applied in the organization" from Charles G Koch.

It is supposed to have business strategies based on the "Dispersed knowledge" concept proposed by Hayek.

I have a PDF copy but is quite unreadable on the kindle.

Thanks in advance! I also accept book suggestions!

• Issue 500 million Israeli shares/tokens on the Israeli Stock Exchange.

• Dole out 100 tokens to each of the 5 million genetically-jewish Israeli women.

• Replace democracy with shareholder-democracy.

• Fixed head-tax per-israeli-person to fund the Israeli Defence Agency; say, 5k$/person/year.

• Surplus gets paid back in the form of dividents.

• Likewise, issue tokens per City-State and distribute equally to all jewish landowners who have a property in that City-State, proportional to the property size in acres.

• City-states like The City-State of Jeruselem can ban public nudity, and even make it an Orthodox-Only city-state, big enough to house a hospital, a mall, etc. Others get evicted.

• City-states like Tel Aviv, the City-State of Tel Aviv, can legalize public nudity, lax noice-pollution laws to allow speakers in public at night, bigger policing force, so higher residency-fee/tax per head (5k-ish/person/year).

• Some city-states would end up being arab-majority, unless rich investors or pooled jewish mutual funds offer them lucrative deals and buy out the shares and make those ethnic_jewish_only-city-states too.

• Surplus gets paid back as dividents to the city-state shareholders.

Why should only women get the voting tokens?

• They can share those with their husband and children too by token transactions. So, technically, all families get them.

• The arabs wouldn't be so mad at the Israeli force, the Israeli men, because the Israeli men could just argue "hey bro, I didn't get any shares either; women took 'em all; we're both equally repressed; let's be friends". Lol.

• Does justice to the years of oppression at the hands of Judiasm that women had to suffer, and still do, as in, the laws that forbid jewish women filing for divorce, etc.

• Women make better leaders, more peaceful, inclusive, and less likely to go to war even when provoked. When women are the majority shareholder of the Israeli Defence, war would be unlikely, and most money would go into building bunkers, laser iron dome, etc.

What about the arabs?

• When they sell off their city-state shares, they earn.

• When they sell off their unusable/unenterable properties in jewish-only city-states, they earn lots more too.

• So it's not like they're not being compensated.

[They should have been compensated with lots of money at the founding of Israel itself, and sent to move abroad (with their newfound wealth), but it's not like Jews had any money back then to begin with; them Switz banks never returned the jews' stolen money. Plus the jews back then were acting in self-defence mode, no time to arrange for money. And compensation for what? Most of the cities the arabs lived in were all ancient jew-built; like in Jeruselum, every brick was laid by the jews, they never built anything newer over it, so compensation for what? It's like, you built yourself a home, go to a vacation, someone moves in and calls it their own, you return back, and now its theirs? And you gotta pay money to get it back? While being broke yourself and being chased from all corners? Nah.].

Very like how the dutch can fix their Netherlands if they wish to.

np.reddit.com/r/PVV/comments/1cjlxx6/dutch_microstate_of_netherlands/

Somewhat similar to how governance in Switzerland works, but kinda different.

Intermarriage is the biggest existential threat to the jews, and such city-states (not residential-gated-communities which already exist but don't offer all the services of a city-state) offering genetic homogeniety would be a savior, since most people only fall in love with someone who lives within a mile from them.

Don't change the Israeli flag; the flag is dope.

Hi guys! Im new to this type of knowledge and there is something that I cant wrap my head around.

What would be the solution for the Dutch disease under the theory of the austrian economics school?

We can agree that mineral resources arent infinite and that the damage they create to productivity is quite high so what can a society do to solve that situation?

Thanks for illustrating me!

Mises haters, deniers, censorers, are losers.

So r/economics deletes any posts that have a link to Mises.org. Has anyone else noticed censorship of Austria Economics on that sub?

I have always been a Chicago guy but some research is leading me to lean Austrian. Does anyone have a good list of books? I’m interested in monetary theory and banking.

Its my understanding that inflation is from the massive printing of the last several years. It was almost exactly 2 years ago the M2 peaked and started dropping and has now leveled out. Yet inflation is still rising today despite the drop in money supply. It's there somewhere that explains the delay from the drop of money supply and price movements?

I fell into the Austrian school of economics rabbit hole and since I have a economy background (never cared about the different schools of thought tbh), I thought, why not read THE BOOK. English is not my first language so I need to read many sentences a few times since the style of writing is pretty unusual (old?) for my brain to grasp at the first read.

The beginning is all about what Praxeology is, what natural scientists are getting wrong, what human action is all about etc. I have to admit that it feels boring and cumbersome to read. The only reason I keep pushing is the belief that this book and the thoughts of von Mises will be insightful.

Will the book get a bit more interesting and more about practical economy things? Should I keep reading?

Thx

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2024/04/28/no-inflation-is-most-certainly-not-rising-prices/?sh=5040bb27442d

Can anyone please recommend a single piece of literature that praxeologically makes the case for anarcho-capitalism step-by-step, starting from the action axiom and ending with, 'therefore, anarcho-capitalism is the only system that is just and morally in line with natural law (as defined by Murray Rothbard)'?

I have read Murray Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto and the Ethics of Liberty, so I think I could piece together a praxeological case for anarcho-capitalism from these two books, but it would be great if any writer has already compiled this lengthy argument into one text. I need this for my Master's dissertation.

On a similar note, please also recommend the most popular literature which criticizes anarcho-capitalism. I would also like to incorporate this into my dissertation so I can argue against it.

Has there ever been a time, other than right now, where rates have increased and house prices have also increased? I'm pretty sure no. Emperically it doesnt matter, since we're Autrians. Logic says rates and housing costs have an inverse relationship.

Obviously what is the reason, what gives? Right away it seems nefarious. What other explanation is there, besides the obvious that institutional buyers are doing most of the buying.

Austrians love to show how smart and knowledgeable they are but why are they always wrong. Debt was supposed to implode years ago the market was supposed to crash 1000 times. But yet here we are. At all time highs. What gives??

Ben bernake says the holy grail of economics is to know what caused the Great Depression. But I’m left wondering does it even matter? and who cares???

The United States is the most powerful and successful country on the planet. So who is our competition?? Like I see constant doomsday and negativity from this group of OutKast. Whining and blaming the government as incompetent. That doesn’t add up considering this is the most powerful and wealthy country in the world.

Also I don’t see Austrians putting in hard work and study to fix the problems they claim exist. They just whine.. it’s easy to complain.. harder to make effort to make a difference. Like you people haven’t made 1/10th of these government service people accomplishments.

Well that’s enough talking down to Austrians

TL;DR: how much does fractional reserve (model II) banking inflate the money supply exactly?

Richard Werner, who many of you know, typified banks into three models. I have included simplified examples below for reference.

(I'm not a huge fan of Werner's terminology, as I would consider model III to be a type of fractional reserve banking--since $10/$100 equals 10% and $100/$1000 also equals 10%--but whatever.)

Model I: Intermediary bank model

-Man deposits $100 into a demand deposit at the bank. The bank then lends out $0 and puts $100 in the vault.

Model II: Fractional Reserve bank model

-Man deposits $100 into a demand deposit at the bank. The bank then lends out $90 and puts $10 in the vault.

Model III: Credit Creation bank model

-Man deposits $100 into a demand deposit at the bank. The bank then lends out $900 and puts $100 in the vault.

Per Werner's research and per common sense, model III best describes money creation by banks in the modern economy. Model II was applicable back in the day when banks were storing physical gold coins and surreptitiously lending out those physical gold coins. The transition from model II to model III occurred as we shifted from commodity money to representative money.

It's easy to see that model III is inflationary (i.e. man deposits $100 and suddenly $900 springs into existence and is injected into the economy). We could say that the money supply was inflated 10x, growing from $100 to $1000. It would also cause demand driven inflation, because the people who received the 900 loaned dollars would proceed to spend money that they otherwise wouldn't have had.

Now, qualitatively speaking, I can see that model II is inflationary, because it allows for demand driven inflation. But, my question is, does model II inflate the money supply? If yes, by how much?

The debate has been raging for many years, so let's air it out... what is the best way for the government to raise revenue, while still preserving individual liberty? Some will say that all taxation is wrong, and I can certainly relate to that sentiment. Taxation is a form of theft after all (as is money printing). The practical side of me realizes that the government needs some revenue to perform it's basic functions. I say basic functions, because most of what the US gov't spends is arguable beyond its Constitutional purview and lines the pockets of foreign nations, select corporations, and politicians.

I was reading that prior to 1913, the government raised almost all of its revenue from excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco. It also looks as though the governement primarly raised funds through issuing bonds for specific projects. If you want to go to war, for example, the citizens had to buy the war bonds to fund it. In return, the citizens received their money back, plus interest. Now we have the opposite. The government steals our money, doesn't consult us one bit, we receive no interest on our stolen money, and they still manage to rack up a massive deficit.

Corporation taxes get passed on to consumers. Income tax gets paid by consumers. Tariffs ultimately get paid by consumer, but do have the effect of leveling the playing field against insanely cheap foreign goods.

So what is the most fair way to approach funding the government?