Print
Share
Add to = MyMises
Subscribe

Repudiating the National Debt

Mises Daily by Murray N.=20 Rothbard | Posted on 1/16/2004 12:00:00 AM

=20

In the spring of 1981, conservative Republicans in the House of=20 Representatives cried. They cried because, in the first flush of the = Reagan=20 Revolution that was supposed to bring drastic cuts in taxes and = government=20 spending, as well as a balanced budget, they were being asked by the = White House=20 and their own leadership to vote for an increase in the statutory limit = on the=20 federal public debt, which was then scraping the legal ceiling of one = trillion=20 dollars. They cried because all of their lives they had voted against an = increase in public debt, and now they were being asked, by their own = party and=20 their own movement, to violate their lifelong principles. The White = House and=20 its leadership assured them that this breach in principle would be their = last:=20 that it was necessary for one last increase in the debt limit to give = President=20 Reagan a chance to bring about a balanced budget and to begin to reduce = the=20 debt. Many of these Republicans tearfully announced that they were = taking this=20 fateful step because they deeply trusted their President, who would not = let them=20 down.

Famous last words. In a sense, the Reagan handlers were right: there = were no=20 more tears, no more complaints, because the principles themselves were = quickly=20 forgotten, swept into the dustbin of history. Deficits and the public = debt have=20 piled up mountainously since then, and few people care, least of all=20 conservative Republicans. Every few years, the legal limit is raised=20 automatically. By the end of the Reagan reign the federal debt was $2.6=20 trillion; now it is $3.5 trillion and rising rapidly [ed. Note: $6.9 = trillion,=20 Jan. 13, 2004]. And this is the rosy side of the picture, because if you = add in=20 "off-budget" loan guarantees and contingencies, the grand total federal = debt is=20 $20 trillion.

Before the Reagan era, conservatives were clear about how they felt = about=20 deficits and the public debt: a balanced budget was good, and deficits = and the=20 public debt were bad, piled up by free-spending Keynesians and = socialists, who=20 absurdly proclaimed that there was nothing wrong or onerous about the = public=20 debt. In the famous words of the left-Keynesian apostle of "functional = finance,"=20 Professor Abba Lernr, there is nothing wrong with the public debt = because "we=20 owe it to ourselves." In those days, at least, conservatives were astute = enough=20 to realize that it made an enormous amount of difference = whether=E2=80=94slicing through=20 the obfuscatory collective nouns=E2=80=94one is a member of the "we" = (the burdened=20 taxpayer) or of the "ourselves" (those living off the proceeds of = taxation).

Since Reagan, however, intellectual-political life has gone = topsy-turvy.=20 Conservatives and allegedly "free-market" economists have turned = handsprings=20 trying to find new reasons why "deficits don't matter," why we should = all relax=20 and enjoy the process. Perhaps the most absurd argument of Reaganomists = was that=20 we should not worry about growing public debt because it is being = matched on the=20 federal balance sheet by an expansion of public "assets." Here was a new = twist=20 on free-market macroeconomics: things are going well because the value = of=20 government assets is rising! In that case, why not have the government=20 nationalize all assets outright? Reaganomists, indeed, came up with = every=20 conceivable argument for the public debt except the phrase of Abba = Lerner, and I=20 am convinced that they did not recycle that phrase because it would be = difficult=20 to sustain with a straight face at a time when foreign ownership of the = national=20 debt is skyrocketing. Even apart from foreign ownership, it is far more=20 difficult to sustain the Lerner thesis than before; in the late 1930's, = when=20 Lerner enunciated his thesis, total federal interest payments on the = public debt=20 were one billion dollars; now they have zoomed to $200 billion, the = third=20 largest item in the federal budget, after the military and Social = Security: the=20 "we" are looking ever shabbier compared to the "ourselves."

To think sensibly about the public debt, we first have to go back to = first=20 principles and consider debt in general. Put simply, a credit = transaction occurs=20 when C, the creditor, transfers a sum of money (say $1,000) to D, the = debtor, in=20 exchange for a promise that D will repay C in a year's time the = principal plus=20 interest. If the agreed interest rate on the transaction is 10 percent, = then the=20 debtor obligates himself to pay in a year's time $1,100 to the creditor. = This=20 repayment completes the transaction, which in contrast to a regular = sale, takes=20 place over time.

So far, it is clear that there is nothing "wrong" with private debt. = As with=20 any private trade or exchange on the market, both parties to the = exchange=20 benefit, and no one loses. But suppose that the debtor is foolish, gets = himself=20 in over his head, and then finds that he can't repay the sum he had = agreed on?=20 This, of course is a risk incurred by debt, and the debtor had better = keep his=20 debts down to what he can surely repay. But this is not a problem of = debt alone.=20 Any consumer may spend foolishly; a man may blow his entire paycheck on = an=20 expensive trinket and then find that he can't feed his family. So = consumer=20 foolishness is hardly a problem confined to debt alone. But there is one = crucial=20 difference: if a man gets in over his head and he can't pay, the = creditor=20 suffers too, because the debtor has failed to return the creditor's = property. In=20 a profound sense, the debtor who fails to repay the $1,100 owed to the = creditor=20 has stolen property that belongs to the creditor; we have here not = simply a=20 civil debt, but a tort, an aggression against another's property.

In earlier centuries, the insolvent debtor's offense was considered = grave,=20 and unless the creditor was willing to "forgive" the debt out of = charity, the=20 debtor continued to owe the money plus accumulating interest, plus = penalty for=20 continuing nonpayment. Often, debtors were clapped into jail until they = could=20 pay=E2=80=94a bit Draconian perhaps, but at least in the proper spirit = of enforcing=20 property rights and defending the sanctity of contracts. The major = practical=20 problem was the difficulty for debtors in prison to earn the money to = repay the=20 loan; perhaps it would have been better to allow the debtor to be free, = provided=20 that his continuing income went to paying the creditor his just due.

As early as the 17th century, however, governments began sobbing = about the=20 plight of the unfortunate debtors, ignoring the fact that the insolvent = debtors=20 had gotten themselves into their own fix, and they began to subvert = their own=20 proclaimed function of enforcing contracts. Bankruptcy laws were passed = which,=20 increasingly, let the debtors off the hook and prevented the creditors = from=20 obtaining their own property. Theft was increasingly condoned, = improvidence was=20 subsidized, and thrift was hobbled. In fact, with the modern device of = Chapter=20 11, instituted by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, inefficient and = improvident=20 managers and stockholders are not only let off the hook, but they often = remain=20 in positions of power, debt-free and still running their firms, and = plaguing=20 consumers and creditors with their inefficiencies. Modern utilitarian=20 neoclassical economists see nothing wrong with any of this; the market, = after=20 all, "adjusts" to these changes in the law. It is true that the market = can=20 adjust to almost anything, but so what? Hobbling creditors means that = interest=20 rates rise permanently, to the sober and honest as well as the = improvident; but=20 why should the former be taxed to subsidize the latter? But there are = deeper=20 problems with this utilitarian attitude. It is the same amoral claim, = from the=20 same economists, that there is nothing wrong with rising crime against = residents=20 or storekeepers of the inner cities. The market, they assert, will = adjust and=20 discount for such high crime rates, and therefore rents and housing = values will=20 be lower in the inner-city areas. So everything will be taken care of. = But what=20 sort of consolation is that? And what sort of justification for = aggression and=20 crime?

In a just society, then, only voluntary forgiveness by creditors = would let=20 debtors off the hook; otherwise, bankruptcy laws are an unjust invasion = of the=20 property rights of creditors.

One myth about "debtors'" relief is that debtors are habitually poor = and=20 creditors rich, so that intervening to save debtors is merely a = requirement of=20 egalitarian "fairness." But this assumption was never true: in business, = the=20 wealthier the businessman the more likely he is to be a large debtor. It = is the=20 Donald Trumps and Robert Maxwells of this world whose debts = spectacularly exceed=20 their assets. Intervention on behalf of debtors has generally been = lobbied for=20 by large businesses with large debts. In modern corporations, the effect = of=20 ever-tightening bankruptcy laws has been to hobble the = creditor-bondholders for=20 the benefit of the stockholders and the existing managers, who are = usually=20 installed by, and allied with, a few dominant large stockholders. The = very fact=20 that a corporation is insolvent demonstrates that its managers have been = inefficient, and they should be removed promptly from the scene. = Bankruptcy laws=20 that keep prolonging the rule of existing managers, then, not only = invade the=20 property rights of the creditors; they also injure the consumers and the = entire=20 economic system by preventing the market from purging the inefficient = and=20 improvident managers and stockholders and from shifting the ownership of = industrial assets to the more efficient creditors. Not only that; in a = recent=20 law review article, Bradley and Rosenzweig have shown that the = stockholders,=20 too, as well as the creditors, have lost a significant amount of assets = due to=20 the installation of Chapter 11 in 1978. As they write, "if bondholders = and=20 stockholders are both losers under Chapter 11, then who are the = winners?" The=20 winners, remarkably but unsurprisingly, turn out to be the existing, = inefficient=20 corporate managers, as well as the assorted lawyers, accountants, and = financial=20 advisers who earn huge fees from bankruptcy reorganizations.

In a free-market economy that respects property rights, the volume of = private=20 debt is self-policed by the necessity to repay the creditor, since no = Papa=20 Government is letting you off the hook. In addition, the interest rate a = debtor=20 must pay depends not only on the general rate of time preference but on = the=20 degree of risk he as a debtor poses to the creditor. A good credit risk = will be=20 a "prime borrower," who will pay relatively low interest; on the other = hand, an=20 improvident person or a transient who has been bankrupt before, will = have to pay=20 a much higher interest rate, commensurate with the degree of risk on the = loan.

Most people, unfortunately, apply the same analysis to public debt as = they do=20 to private. If sanctity of contracts should rule in the world of private = debt,=20 shouldn't they be equally as sacrosanct in public debt? Shouldn't public = debt be=20 governed by the same principles as private? The answer is no, even = though such=20 an answer may shock the sensibilities of most people. The reason is that = the two=20 forms of debt-transaction are totally different. If I borrow money from = a=20 mortgage bank, I have made a contract to transfer my money to a creditor = at a=20 future date; in a deep sense, he is the true owner of the money at that = point,=20 and if I don't pay I am robbing him of his just property. But when = government=20 borrows money, it does not pledge its own money; its own resources are = not=20 liable. Government commits not its own life, fortune, and sacred honor = to repay=20 the debt, but ours. This is a horse, and a transaction, of a very = different=20 color.

For unlike the rest of us, government sells no productive good or = service and=20 therefore earns nothing. It can only get money by looting our resources = through=20 taxes, or through the hidden tax of legalized counterfeiting known as=20 "inflation." There are some exceptions, of course, such as when the = government=20 sells stamps to collectors or carries our mail with gross inefficiency, = but the=20 overwhelming bulk of government revenues is acquired through taxation or = its=20 monetary equivalent. Actually, in the days of monarchy, and especially = in the=20 medieval period before the rise of the modern state, kings got the bulk = of their=20 income from their private estates=E2=80=94such as forests and = agricultural lands. Their=20 debt, in other words, was more private than public, and as a result, = their debt=20 amounted to next to nothing compared to the public debt that began with = a=20 flourish in the late 17th century.

The public debt transaction, then, is very different from private = debt.=20 Instead of a low-time preference creditor exchanging money for an IOU = from a=20 high-time preference debtor, the government now receives money from = creditors,=20 both parties realizing that the money will be paid back not out of the = pockets=20 or the hides of the politicians and bureaucrats, but out of the looted = wallets=20 and purses of the hapless taxpayers, the subjects of the state. The = government=20 gets the money by tax-coercion; and the public creditors, far from being = innocents, know full well that their proceeds will come out of that = selfsame=20 coercion. In short, public creditors are willing to hand over money to = the=20 government now in order to receive a share of tax loot in the future. = This is=20 the opposite of a free market, or a genuinely voluntary transaction. = Both=20 parties are immorally contracting to participate in the violation of the = property rights of citizens in the future. Both parties, therefore, are = making=20 agreements about other people's property, and both deserve the back of = our hand.=20 The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be = considered=20 sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in = advance=20 should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract.

Any melding of public debt into a private transaction must rest on = the common=20 but absurd notion that taxation is really "voluntary," and that whenever = the=20 government does anything, "we" are willingly doing it. This convenient = myth was=20 wittily and trenchantly disposed of by the great economist Joseph = Schumpeter:=20 "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the=20 purchases of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the = social=20 sciences is from scientific habits of mind." Morality and economic = utility=20 generally go hand in hand. Contrary to Alexander Hamilton, who spoke for = a small=20 but powerful clique of New York and Philadelphia public creditors, the = national=20 debt is not a "national blessing." The annual government deficit, plus = the=20 annual interest payment that keeps rising as the total debt accumulates, = increasingly channels scarce and precious private savings into wasteful=20 government boondoggles, which "crowd out" productive investments. = Establishment=20 economists, including Reaganomists, cleverly fudge the issue by = arbitrarily=20 labeling virtually all government spending as "investments," making it = sound as=20 if everything is fine and dandy because savings are being productively=20 "invested." In reality, however, government spending only qualifies as=20 "investment" in an Orwellian sense; government actually spends on behalf = of the=20 "consumer goods" and desires of bureaucrats, politicians, and their = dependent=20 client groups. Government spending, therefore, rather than being = "investment,"=20 is consumer spending of a peculiarly wasteful and unproductive sort, = since it is=20 indulged not by producers but by a parasitic class that is living off, = and=20 increasingly weakening, the productive private sector. Thus, we see that = statistics are not in the least "scientific" or "valuefree"; how data = are=20 classified=E2=80=94whether, for example, government spending is = "consumption" or=20 "investment"=E2=80=94depends upon the political philosophy and insights = of the=20 classifier.

Deficits and a mounting debt, therefore, are a growing and = intolerable burden=20 on the society and economy, both because they raise the tax burden and=20 increasingly drain resources from the productive to the parasitic,=20 counterproductive, "public" sector. Moreover, whenever deficits are = financed by=20 expanding bank credit=E2=80=94in other words, by creating new = money=E2=80=94matters become still=20 worse, since credit inflation creates permanent and rising price = inflation as=20 well as waves of boombust "business cycles."

It is for all these reasons that the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians = (who,=20 contrary to the myths of historians, were extraordinarily knowledgeable = in=20 economic and monetary theory) hated and reviled the public debt. Indeed, = the=20 national debt was paid off twice in American history, the first time by = Thomas=20 Jefferson and the second, and undoubtedly the last time, by Andrew = Jackson.

Unfortunately, paying off a national debt that will soon reach $4 = trillion=20 would quickly bankrupt the entire country. Think about the consequences = of=20 imposing new taxes of $4 trillion in the United States next year! = Another way,=20 and almost as devastating, a way to pay off the public debt would be to = print $4=20 trillion of new money=E2=80=94either in paper dollars or by creating new = bank credit.=20 This method would be extraordinarily inflationary, and prices would = quickly=20 skyrocket, ruining all groups whose earnings did not increase to the = same=20 extent, and destroying the value of the dollar. But in essence this is = what=20 happens in countries that hyper-inflate, as Germany did in 1923, and in=20 countless countries since, particularly the Third World. If a country = inflates=20 the currency to pay off its debt, prices will rise so that the dollars = or marks=20 or pesos the creditor receives are worth a lot less than the dollars or = pesos=20 they originally lent out. When an American purchased a 10,000 mark = German bond=20 in 1914, it was worth several thousand dollars; those 10,000 marks by = late 1923=20 would not have been worth more than a stick of bubble gum. Inflation, = then, is=20 an underhanded and terribly destructive way of indirectly repudiating = the=20 "public debt"; destructive because it ruins the currency unit, which = individuals=20 and businesses depend upon for calculating all their economic = decisions.

I propose, then, a seemingly drastic but actually far less = destructive way of=20 paying off the public debt at a single blow: out-right debt repudiation. = Consider this question: why should the poor, battered citizens of Russia = or=20 Poland or the other ex-Communist countries be bound by the debts = contracted by=20 their former Communist masters? In the Communist situation, the = injustice is=20 clear: that citizens struggling for freedom and for a free-market = economy should=20 be taxed to pay for debts contracted by the monstrous former ruling = class. But=20 this injustice only differs by degree from "normal" public debt. For,=20 conversely, why should the Communist government of the Soviet Union have = been=20 bound by debts contracted by the Czarist government they hated and = overthrew?=20 And why should we, struggling American citizens of today, be bound by = debts=20 created by a past ruling elite who contracted these debts at our = expense? One of=20 the cogent arguments against paying blacks "reparations" for past = slavery is=20 that we, the living, were not slaveholders. Similarly, we the living did = not=20 contract for either the past or the present debts incurred by the = politicians=20 and bureaucrats in Washington.

Although largely forgotten by historians and by the public, = repudiation of=20 public debt is a solid part of the American tradition. The first wave of = repudiation of state debt came during the 1840's, after the panics of = 1837 and=20 1839. Those panics were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom = fueled by=20 the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States. Riding the wave of = inflationary=20 credit, numerous state governments, largely those run by the Whigs, = floated an=20 enormous amount of debt, most of which went into wasteful public works=20 (euphemistically called "internal improvements"), and into the creation = of=20 inflationary banks. Outstanding public debt by state governments rose = from $26=20 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830's. Most of these=20 securities were financed by British and Dutch investors.

During the deflationary 1840's succeeding the panics, state = governments faced=20 repayment of their debt in dollars that were now more valuable than the = ones=20 they had borrowed. Many states, now largely in Democratic hands, met the = crisis=20 by repudiating these debts, either totally or partially by scaling down = the=20 amount in "readjustments." Specifically, of the 28 American states in = the=20 1840's, nine were in the glorious position of having no public debt, and = one=20 (Missouri's) was negligible; of the 18 remaining, nine paid the interest = on=20 their public debt without interruption, while another nine (Maryland,=20 Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Louisiana, = Mississippi, and=20 Florida) repudiated part or all of their liabilities. Of these states, = four=20 defaulted for several years in their interest payments, whereas the = other five=20 (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) totally and=20 permanently repudiated their entire outstanding public debt. As in every = debt=20 repudiation, the result was to lift a great burden from the backs of the = taxpayers in the defaulting and repudiating states.

Apart from the moral, or sanctity-of-contract argument against = repudiation=20 that we have already discussed, the standard economic argument is that = such=20 repudiation is disastrous, because who, in his right mind, would lend = again to a=20 repudiating government? But the effective counterargument has rarely = been=20 considered: why should more private capital be poured down government = rat holes?=20 It is precisely the drying up of future public credit that constitutes = one of=20 the main arguments for repudiation, for it means beneficially drying up = a major=20 channel for the wasteful destruction of the savings of the public. What = we want=20 is abundant savings and investment in private enterprises, and a lean, = austere,=20 low-budget, minimal government. The people and the economy can only wax = fat and=20 prosperous when their government is starved and puny.

The next great wave of state debt repudiation came in the South after = the=20 blight of Northern occupation and Reconstruction had been lifted from = them.=20 Eight Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North = Carolina,=20 South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) proceeded, during the late = 1870's and=20 early 1880's under Democratic regimes, to repudiate the debt foisted = upon their=20 taxpayers by the corrupt and wasteful carpetbag Radical Republican = governments=20 under Reconstruction.

So what can be done now? The current federal debt is $3.5 trillion.=20 Approximately $1.4 trillion, or 40 percent, is owned by one or another = agency of=20 the federal government. It is ridiculous for a citizen to be taxed by = one arm of=20 the federal government (the IRS), to pay interest and principal on debt = owned by=20 another agency of the federal government. It would save the taxpayer a = great=20 deal of money, and spare savings from further waste, to simply cancel = that debt=20 outright. The alleged debt is simply an accounting fiction that provides = a mask=20 over reality and furnishes a convenient means for mulcting the taxpayer. = Thus,=20 most people think that the Social Security Administration takes their = premiums=20 and accumulates it, perhaps by sound investment, and then "pays back" = the=20 "insured" citizen when he turns 65. Nothing could be further from the = truth.=20 There is no insurance and there is no "fund," as there indeed must be in = any=20 system of private insurance. The federal government simply takes the = Social=20 Security "premiums" (taxes) of the young person, spends them in the = general=20 expenditures of the Treasury, and then, when the person turns 65, taxes = someone=20 else to pay the "insurance benefit." Social Security, perhaps the most = revered=20 institution in the American polity, is also the greatest single racket. = It's=20 simply a giant Ponzi scheme controlled by the federal government. But = this=20 reality is masked by the Social Security Administration's purchase of = government=20 bonds, the Treasury then spending these funds on whatever it wishes. But = the=20 fact that the SSA has government bonds in its portfolio, and collects = interest=20 and payment from the American taxpayer, allows it to masquerade as a = legitimate=20 insurance business.

Canceling federal agency-held bonds, then, reduces the federal debt = by 40=20 percent. I would advocate going on to repudiate the entire debt = outright, and=20 let the chips fall where they may. The glorious result would be an = immediate=20 drop of $200 billion in federal expenditures, with at least the fighting = chance=20 of an equivalent cut in taxes.

But if this scheme is considered too Draconian, why not treat the = federal=20 government as any private bankrupt is treated (forgetting about Chapter = 11)? The=20 government is an organization, so why not liquidate the assets of that=20 organization and pay the creditors (the government bondholders) a = pro-rata share=20 of those assets? This solution would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, = once again,=20 relieve him of $200 billion in annual interest payments. The United = States=20 government should be forced to disgorge its assets, sell them at = auction, and=20 then pay off the creditors accordingly. What government assets? There = are a=20 great deal of assets, from TVA to the national lands to various = structures such=20 as the Post Office. The massive CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, = should=20 raise a pretty penny for enough condominium housing for the entire work = force=20 inside the Beltway. Perhaps we could eject the United Nations from the = United=20 States, reclaim the land and buildings, and sell them for luxury housing = for the=20 East Side gliterati. Another serendipity out of this process would be a = massive=20 privatization of the socialized land of the Western United States and of = the=20 rest of America as well. This combination of repudiation and = privatization would=20 go a long way to reducing the tax burden, establishing fiscal soundness, = and=20 desocializing the United States.

In order to go this route, however, we first have to rid ourselves of = the=20 fallacious mindset that conflates public and private, and that treats = government=20 debt as if it were a productive contract between two legitimate property = owners.

Murray N. Rothbard = (1926=E2=80=931995) was=20 professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and=20 vice-president for academic affairs at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. = This=20 article ran in the June 1992 issue of Chronicles (pp. = 49=E2=80=9352).

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. = Go here to subscribe or=20 unsubscribe.

User-Contributed Tags: =

inflation Freedom Liberty Interest National=20 Debt Public Debt taxes destroying the=20 empire balanced = budget=20

What is 2 + 3? =20 (Sign in to turn off = the=20 captcha.)=20

Add a=20 Tag =20 (Ex: Human Action, Inflation)

Print
Share
Add to = MyMises
Subscribe

Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Newsvine
StumbleUpon

Search

">Advance= d Search=20 =C2=BB=20

The = Bailout=20 Reader

Mises Daily Search

rss=20

About the Author

Murray N. = Rothbard=20

Murray N. Rothbard (1926=E2=80=931995) was dean of the Austrian = School. He was an=20 economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. =

view = archives

Featured

=20

Future of = Austrian=20 Economics, The (DVD)

Author: Ludwig von Mises=20 Institute
$15.00
view = all=E2=80=A6=20

Mises Community

US Prices: 1665 - = est.=20 2013 Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:57:35 -0600 by Jeffrey = Tucker=20
It turns out that = Government=20 Worked Directly With Goldman Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:28:52 -0600 = by Jeffrey = Tucker=20
Replies to Readers = of My=20 Article on the Real Right to Medical Care Sat, 08 Aug 2009 = 19:34:25=20 -0600 by George=20 Reisman
Software Models and = Austrian=20 Economics Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:14:56 -0600 by Robert = Blumen=20
"Feser on Rothbard = as a=20 Philosopher," by Gerard Casey [Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. = No.=20 34] Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:21:00 -0600 by Stephan = Kinsella=20
My Lucas = Critique=20 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:36:59 -0600 by Robert = Murphy=20
The Ten-Year = Stagnation=20 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:38:32 -0600 by Jeffrey = Tucker=20

view all=E2=80=A6 mises blog = rss

The=20 19th Century Bernanke 8/8/2009 6:20:00 PM by Lilb= urne=20
M= y first=20 interview: Art is commitment and support for life 8/8/2009 = 4:18:00 PM=20 by rroop= str=20
Non-scarcity=20 of intellectual property 8/7/2009 4:55:00 AM by Solre= yus=20
I= f you=20 don't like it... 8/5/2009 11:54:00 PM by thedo= =20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 6th, 2009: "Not so fast!" 8/5/2009 = 8:52:00=20 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
a=20 poem 8/5/2009 4:17:00 AM by Solre= yus=20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 5th, 2009: An interesting day = 8/4/2009=20 7:29:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 4th, 2009: "Updating the forecast" = 8/4/2009=20 7:55:00 AM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Ask=20 Not... 8/3/2009 3:53:00 PM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Obama=20 Proves Tax Cuts Stimulate Economy 8/3/2009 3:33:00 PM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Environmentalism=20 and the Austrian Response 8/2/2009 12:07:00 PM by roma= ntivist=20
M= ore=20 Thoughts on Categorizing Economic Schools 8/1/2009 5:08:00 PM = by zirag= t=20
E= ntrevista=20 6 agosto 2009 como artista pict=C3=B3rico 8/1/2009 2:36:00 PM = by rroop= str=20
Mises=20 Daily Editing Group Newsletter 2 7/31/2009 4:39:38 PM by natma= rcus=20
A=20 Teachable Moment 7/31/2009 10:20:00 AM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E7=BC=96=E6=A0=A1the proofreading plan for Chinese = translation 7/30/2009=20 9:54:00 PM by Dingd= ong=20 Pu
T= he=20 Importance of Fellow Travelers 7/30/2009 3:39:00 PM by zirag= t=20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, July 30th, 2009: "A quick summary of main = thoughts"=20 7/29/2009 10:26:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Jatropha=20 biofuel, Third World exploitation 7/29/2009 1:41:00 PM by Charl= es=20 Anthony
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E6=A0=A1=E8=AF=91=E4=B9=8B24. The Assault on Saving = (4-1,2) 7/29/2009 3:31:00 AM=20 by Dingd= ong=20 Pu

view all=E2=80=A6 user blogs = rss

Mises=20 Blog
User = Blogs
Forums

Who shot = JFK?=20 8/6/2009 9:53:11 PM by Fephi= sto=20
Ed = Herman and Noam=20 Chomsky's Propaganda Model 8/8/2009 3:02:21 PM by VanD= oodah=20
2nd = Amendment=20 Debates: How to diffuse the nuclear option 8/9/2009 12:09:09 = AM by Ryan= =20 Magnon
Auto = Insurance=20 8/9/2009 9:26:38 AM by acto= rkent=20
Question = on Human=20 Action, Chapter XX, Page 557. 8/8/2009 12:33:28 PM by Peter= Van=20 Wieren
Ron Paul = is=20 spreading the idea of freedom globally! 8/9/2009 6:34:52 AM by = Arvin= =20
Is = Government=20 Itself a Scam/ Scheme? 7/28/2009 8:12:17 PM by limit= gov=20
How does = one buy=20 gold from a gold mining company in economy using gold as money?=20 8/8/2009 9:43:14 PM by Davi= d=20 Doctor
The = Metaphysical=20 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature' 8/9/2009 = 12:58:16 PM=20 by prim= er=20
Antitrust: I need = a good retort to a stupid, stupid comment... 8/7/2009 11:42:22 = AM by=20 McDuf= fie=20
The core = issue in=20 most conflicts involve property rights. 8/2/2009 1:28:55 PM by = billo= tt1=20
Fractional = Reserve=20 Banking 7/28/2009 7:54:59 PM by adam = knott
Key = Insights?=20 8/9/2009 3:54:46 AM by redu= ndancyisfreedom=20
Help = with=20 understanding Hulsmann's paper 8/9/2009 7:15:08 AM by Avra= m=20
Mises.org is,=20 well, working so darn well! 8/8/2009 9:53:43 PM by jtuck= er=20
Resisting Health=20 Care Deformation 8/9/2009 12:42:18 AM by redu= ndancyisfreedom=20
The = prudence of=20 concealing libertarian sentiment and Austrianism... 7/15/2009 = 4:16:05=20 PM by Iris= hLiberal=20
Ideological=20 "evolution" among libertarians 8/7/2009 3:19:17 PM by ivanf= oofoo=20
How do = natural=20 rights theories cross the is/ought divide? 8/1/2009 8:20:29 PM = by Lilb= urne=20
Promising Book on = Anarchist History 8/8/2009 9:13:51 PM by econ = student

view all=E2=80=A6 forums = rss

Literature

rss=20

Feser = on=20 Rothbard as a Philosopher by Gerard N. Casey
= Reply=20 to Matt Mortellaro on "Block=E2=80=99s Paradox": Causation, = Responsibility,=20 Libertarian Law, Entrapment, Threats and Blackmail by Walter=20 Block
Gold, = the Golden=20 Rule, and Government: Civil Society and the End of the State = by D. G.=20 White
History of = American=20 Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes
The Freeman 1999 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1997 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1996 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
Pro= perty,=20 Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe by = J=C3=B6rg=20 Guido H=C3=BClsmann
The Freeman 1995 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1986 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1985 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Libertarian = Review December=20 1980 by Libertarian Review

view all=E2=80=A6

Upcoming Events

rss=20

San Francisco, California, = Intercontinental Hotel August 29, 2009
= =20
Dealing with Economic Depression (Mises Circle sponsored by Mark = L. Hart=20 III)
Seattle, Washington=20 September 12, 2009
=20
The Greatest Depression? (Mises Circle, sponsored by James M.=20 Wolfe)
Greenville, South = Carolina=20 October 3, 2009
=20
Depression, Monetary Destruction, and the Path to Sound Money = (Mises=20 Circle sponsored by Atlantic Bullion and Coin, and Professional = Planning of=20 Easley LLC)
Salamanca, Spain = October=20 21-24, 2009
=20
The Birthplace of Economic Theory: A Trip to Salamanca,=20 Spain

view=20 all=E2=80=A6

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Repudiating the National Debt

User-Contributed Tags: =

Search

The = Bailout=20 Reader

Mises Daily Search

About the Author

Murray N. = Rothbard=20

Related

Featured

Future of = Austrian=20 Economics, The (DVD)

Mises Community

Literature

Upcoming Events

San Francisco, California, = Intercontinental Hotel August 29, 2009

Dealing with Economic Depression (Mises Circle sponsored by Mark = L. Hart=20 III)

Seattle, Washington=20 September 12, 2009

The Greatest Depression? (Mises Circle, sponsored by James M.=20 Wolfe)

Greenville, South = Carolina=20 October 3, 2009

Depression, Monetary Destruction, and the Path to Sound Money = (Mises=20 Circle sponsored by Atlantic Bullion and Coin, and Professional = Planning of=20 Easley LLC)

Salamanca, Spain = October=20 21-24, 2009

The Birthplace of Economic Theory: A Trip to Salamanca,=20 Spain

The Quotable = Mises