tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76150410620709705932024-02-08T11:27:02.273-08:00Slightly Politicalmanfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-72549965582878937102017-06-24T11:27:00.000-07:002017-06-24T11:27:26.182-07:00Reading about Gender StudiesLet's start with a confession. I've reposted on Facebook an <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/">article that was making its rounds about a hoax paper successfully published in a gender studies journal</a>. That's certainly good fun and starkly points out certain issues in the academic publishing world. The article, however, goes further and attacks gender studies in general. Which is even better since it's always good to make fun of dem crazy feminists! Right? Right!<br /><br />But then a friend of mine who is into this stuff pointed out that the article didn't exactly PROVE that gender studies are wrong and was merely bashing them. Which is true for the most part with the possible exception of something I'll address later. There is a point to it for me as well - I never had any solid grounding to dismiss gender studies, all I had was a strong suspicion about its conclusions and aversion to the general ideological tendencies that the entire field seems to have. It's uncomfortable to admit, but yes, I was making fun of something I didn't know about and when I was asked to defend my views I failed miserably. Which can't exactly impress people that strongly hold these views and happen to be friends. I am sorry for that.<br /><br />---<br /><br />So, okay, I have an unsubstantiated beef with gender studies. But how does one disprove an entire field of study? There are thousands of people creating new studies and writing articles with its own obscure jargon, having disagreements, feuding and splitting into new subschools... which means that disproving any part can be simply "refuted" by pointing to another school or another author. Criticising specific articles etc. can be rejected by pointing to yet another article or just saying that any field will contain some subpar works.<br /><br /><br />The original article this started with pointed to a Twitter account listing what are supposed to be particularly bad examples of gender studies: <a href="https://twitter.com/@RealPeerReview">https://twitter.com/@RealPeerReview</a><br /><br />A Twitter account is not the most impressive source of evidence but I'll try to pick up a few examples and see whether it's a good source of bad articles about gender studies which would at least in a limited fashion support the claims of the initial article by Boghossian and Lindsay. Then I'm going to try to find more 'representative' and authoritative gender studies works and see where that leads me.<br />
<br />
<br />
Let's start with what seems to be a pretty bad example.<br />
<br />
---<br /><br /><b><a href="http://gcfs.ucpress.edu/content/17/1/33">“Lose Like a Man”: Gender and the Constraints of Self-Making in Weight Watchers Online</a></b><br />
by Emily Contois<br /><br />"This constraint upon self-making exposes how patriarchy subordinates even the men assumed to profit the most from its power, as the male weight loss promise withholds transformative potentials."<br /><br />The article picks two advertising videos and analyses the heck out of them, deriving and proving already assumed gender stereotypes from this tiny sample. Assuming the two stories were not picked by chance (which is easily possible), there is at least one more uncomfortable option open not picked up by the article: maybe men and women are different after all and different argumentation motivates them differently? Or maybe the Weight Watchers simply followed some gender stereotypes or their actual knowledge about their customers - which might prove misconception on their part but in either case the mystical "patriarchy did it" claim falls apart. Not that the "patriarchy" is ever actually described or defined - is it the Weight Watchers? Somebody else? An elusive cosmic force? We might never know.<br /><br />The article declares that although the man in the story provided by WW loses weight, is promoted, becomes a role model and is on track to run a marathon, that exact man is somehow excluded from the the process of transformation, acquiring agency and new skills that women get out of the process. But never mind that, the article already has the correct solution prepared:<br /><br />"To embark on such a process requires destabilizing the masculine subject, conceding space for improvement, admitting vulnerability, and relinquishing power — all actions in conflict with hegemonic masculinity, as currently crystallized." <br /> - How and why is it needed to destabilize the masculine subject - and what does that even mean? Didn't the man in the story clearly concede space for improvement, admitted vulnerability and relinquished power to the company and its online program? He did these things but apparently not to a sufficient degree or in a desired way for the author. (And what is hegemonic masculinity anyway?)<br /><br /><br /><br />"Dan does not speak of fatness, weight, or weight loss in terms that relate to his identity and sense of self." while at the same time the article says: "he states that he was a sergeant in the military who 'could have been honorably discharged [for] barely meeting the fitness requirements.'" Could it be that this is how this character identifies himself? Or could it be that this character in a two-minute advertising video is not a fully three-dimensional representation of a complete person?<br /><br /><br />The concluding statement about the multi-billion dollar diet industry manages to sabotage itself: "While reality weight loss TV shows like The Biggest Loser depict men experiencing the emotions of weight loss, Weight Watchers’ men do not engage in the self-help process of reflecting upon weight gain. Men are not expected to employ self-discipline... <br /><br />The work of male weight loss is external to the self — oriented around public life, professional advancement, and athletic achievement. This is the script for how Weight Watchers has extended its weight loss promise to a new “niche market.” Given the diet industry’s capitalist motivations and the near total failure rate of diets, weight loss promises are rarely realized (Campos 2004; Fraser 1998; Gaesser 2009). Weight Watchers’ construction of “masculine” weight loss demonstrates another terrain upon which dieting fails."<br /><br />So, is this, in the end, a condemnation of a single company that gets its message wrong, while another company manages to get the message right? Wouldn't that exonerate the diet industry?<br /><br />And what if, shockingly, there is more than type of person interested in weight loss, with different motivations and personalities? What if these ways to weight loss work differently for different people?<br /><br />The article points out that dieting frequently fails and this is a brand new niche market. Since this is a new marketplace it is quite possible that the old knowledge doesn't apply - and who knows, these weight loss methods might actually work.<br /><br /><br />Finally, the article doesn't fail to complain about the "diet industry’ s capitalist motivations and near total failure of diets". Interestingly, this provides a very capitalist motivation for anyone capable to actually bring about the promises of weight loss - anybody capable of doing so could take over the profits of this billion-dollar heavy industry. Since that's not the case, could it be that weight loss is indeed extremely hard to achieve and the few that do so have been helped by these companies? It is perfectly possible that these are evil companies that rake in profits from their gullible customers but that makes them vulnerable to the real deal... if there is such a thing.<br /><br />What if the business of the diet industry is providing the elusive chance of real weight loss to the masses yearning for it - actual weight loss to the lucky few and perhaps a better health and some sense of 'doing something' for everybody else? If weight loss is very hard to accomplish, as it seems, the diet industry provides an outlet to popular frustrations with some (however marginal) benefits. Hopefully, one day this problem will be resolved.<br /><br /><br />To finish on a positive note, the article sums up nicely the recent developments in the diet industry and the challenges it faces. The gender-focused analysis doesn't stand up to scrutiny, however.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-15632341189976784212013-03-09T13:29:00.003-08:002013-03-09T13:29:48.043-08:00Private alternatives to public goods and wiki projectsAnd so it happened that I've finished another wiki project. It started out with a focus on <a href="http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/MisesWiki:Call_to_Action/Voluntary_Cooperation">voluntary cooperation</a> in general, but it soon turned into a more specific topic: <b><a href="http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Private_alternatives_to_public_goods">Public goods and their private alternatives</a></b> (links to an overview page).<br />
<br />
What is becoming more and more frustrating is the level of participation in these wiki projects - or rather the lack of it. I start these projects with an open invitation for anyone to join and choose how much they want to participate. I get limited feedback on the project itself, and then... nothing (or a few edits or link recommendations if I'm lucky). When I finally complete it, I advertise it around, get a few accolades, some backlinks, and... that's it.<br />
<br />
<br />
When I started the Austrian Economics Wiki, which turned later on into the Mises Wiki, I really hoped to create an actual community that would continue creating resources of this kind. Not just randomly blogging about topics that happen to attract interest at the moment, but creating a database of links and arguments about any given topic one might be interested in. And it's getting there, even if very slowly.<br />
<br />
But, I wonder, where are all the brave people calling for "a resource like Wikipedia", so eager at the start, but contributing so little? There <i>is</i> some demand for the wiki pages and the occasional editing by other users, but for the most part, nothing much happens. Is there enough demand to keep it alive (with more than one regular contributor)? I'm starting to wonder.<br />
<br />
<br />
Anyway, go and check out the page on private alternatives to public goods... there is a lot of material to feed arguments with.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-50909679018723157342013-02-20T01:51:00.000-08:002013-03-09T13:31:05.025-08:00Liberal or libertarianI came across a little debate brewing between <a href="http://mises.ca/posts/articles/the-curious-case-of-the-non-libertarian-george-jonas/">Walter Block</a> and <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/19/george-jonas-dont-call-me-a-libertarian/">George Jonas</a> and it got me thinking.<br />
<br />
Jonas comes across as very thoughtful when explaining the prevalent political thought in <a href="http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Canada">Canada</a> in his youth and his reasons for not subscribing to it. He calls himself a "19th-century liberal" (classical liberal as some call it) and his ideals seem to fit. Reading on his principles, he might be quite fairly described as a libertarian minarchist.<br />
<br />
But as Block in his colorful way points out - why not libertarian? Jonas doesn't really explain that in the article called "Don’t call me a libertarian" - although to be fair the title might have been a decision by editors, see <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/28/george-jonas-on-libertarianism-drawing-out-the-true-believers/">next article</a>.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, in the second article Jonas still hasn't quite explained what is for him the crucial difference between the two terms, although he seems to dislike the radicalism of libertarians (which would be perfectly fair, but he quotes it as a new, possible, reason). It would seem that he simply prefers the term liberal, without any particular explanation.<br />
<br />
But thinking about it, I <i>do</i> like "liberal" a bit more than "libertarian". I consider it better for pretty much the same historical reasons as Jonas, with points added for the word being shorter and easier to use. Then again, one may have to explain more, extend the description (I prefer "classical liberal", but that also needs explanation) or simply go with libertarian - which I am comfortable with as well. Here in Europe you can occasionally use the term and people know what it means. Occasionally.<br />
<br />
<br />
For most people, the two terms used in the right context might as well be interchangeable. For those of us that are sticklers for words and their usage, Jonas' articles feel slightly frustrating. There are two (in the context) very similar descriptors A and B. So if someone says, I'm A, not B, explains his thinking about the issue (which may describe one as A or B) but doesn't explain what's the problem with B, well, people subscribing to B are going to be confused. To put it more bluntly, if someone is, say, a fan of sports, but doesn't like ice-hockey, it doesn't help to explain how great sports are in general while avoiding the topic of ice-hockey.<br />
<br />
It's perfectly fair to dislike a term for any number of reasons (Preferring the older, original term? Those using the new term are radical crazies one doesn't want to be associated with? Following some particular aspect of the original philosophy? Aesthetic preferences?). We just need to know, preferably right away.<br />
<br />
<br />
Fortunately, there is a <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/16/george-jonas-on-libertarianism-the-state-has-its-place/">third article</a> from Jonas. His ultimate reason seems to be that "libertarianism is too much of a good thing".<br />
<br />
To quote: "Unbridled liberty can become chaotic. Chaos doesn’t enhance freedom. On the contrary, it ties freedom into knots. Poorly designed and unregulated intersections in Asia kill bicyclists and pedestrians by the hundreds but, as if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Anyone can witness the consequences of vehicular anarchy on YouTube. It’s scary and enlightening."<br />
<br />
(One should note at this point that there are perfectly designed and regulated intersections all over Europe and America that also kill bicyclists and pedestrians in large numbers. As if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Check the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space">Shared space</a> concept for an alternative that uses exactly the deplored vehicular anarchy to great effect. However, even if someone would subscribe to anarchist thinking, it doesn't mean that there <b>must</b> be anarchist traffic as well! Having traffic lights and all seems to work out at least in some cases, and perhaps there are even better alternatives out there to be discovered.)<br />
<br />
It seems that the real problem Jonas has with libertarians lies in their association with anarchism, or simply going too far - "I’ve more tolerance for what I call janitorial government than my libertarian friends, but agree that most of their functions could safely be privatized."<br />
<br />
If that is the case, one should point out that a great many libertarians subscribe to exactly the same view (including the briefly mentioned Ron Paul). George Jonas may disagree with Walter Block's brand of libertarian thinking, but there's much more out there than that. Jonas can be still easily characterized as a libertarian minarchist - but it's okay to use a different term.<br />
<br />
(Note: Walter Block has posted a <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/block/block218.html">response</a> of his own, with much more detail and much more entertaining.) manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-28451119641141048602012-02-04T05:27:00.000-08:002012-02-04T05:32:26.855-08:00Mises Wiki has over 1000 articlesIt took like ages, but the <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://wiki.mises.org/">Mises Wiki</a></span> has finally reached - and breached - the 1000 page limit. Announced and lightly <a href="http://blog.mises.org/20827/mises-wiki-has-over-1000-articles/">advertised</a>, the news did not produce much consternation.<br /><br />Time to take a breather and focus on other projects. 1000! 1! 111! And so on.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-17953242283806032592011-03-14T12:55:00.000-07:002011-03-14T13:52:45.523-07:00Busy timesToo much to do, even to write something on this sadly forgotten blog. Holidays, time out, but primarily work, work, work. Meanwhile, the <a href="http://wiki.mises.org/">wiki</a> is nicely growing with the help of a pleasant bunch. Let's review the development of the phenomenon:<br /><br />April 23, 2009 - first edit on Austrian Economics Wiki<br />August 1, 2010 - over 100 pages on AEW ( + 1 year 3 months)<br />October 6, 2010 - over 300 pages after all countries were added (+ 2 months)<br />November 5, 2010 - jump to Mises Wiki (+ 1 month)<br />March 3, 2011 - 600 pages reached (+ 4 months)<br /><br />So in a third of time was produced about three times as much, if only page count is concerned. There's more to it than page count, but...<br /><br />...not bad at all. :)manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-19096944472049559152010-11-11T15:29:00.000-08:002010-11-11T15:40:05.858-08:00Mises WikiAnd then happened, what had to happen: Austrian Economics Wiki has been migrated to <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://wiki.mises.org/">Mises Wiki</a></span>.<br /><br />I have explained the reasons in <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Pestergaines/Wiki_Migration">other places</a>, suffice to say, that the behavior of Wikia repulsed many users, and the possibility of working with the Mises Institute was simply too attractive.<br /><br />So there it goes - good luck, Mises Wiki!manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-76346975322979998252010-10-06T00:39:00.000-07:002010-10-06T00:53:13.918-07:00On CountriesThere have been quite a few positive developments in the mean time, and several honorary mentions of the wiki - not least thanks to a <a href="http://blog.mises.org/13519/austrian-economics-wiki/">Mises.org mention</a>. Still encouraging. :)<br /><br />Most recent was my drive to create <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Countries">country pages</a> for every single country out there. This has been now finished, and a few (<a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Greece">Greece</a>, <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Iceland">Iceland</a>) were expanded some more to show what the pages are good for - hopefully attracting more editors! And, with some 200 countries has the wiki jumped to over three hundred pages!<br /><br />A lot has been done, there is still a lot to do, but good news all around. That's the message for today.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-29340918283580925332010-08-10T15:54:00.001-07:002010-08-10T15:55:46.604-07:00Wiki on Mises.org!Speaking of major breakthroughs: the wiki has just been featured on the <a href="http://blog.mises.org/13519/austrian-economics-wiki/">Mises Economics Blog</a>!<br /><br />I am in shock and amazed. :)manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-2050021444267075952010-08-01T14:19:00.000-07:002010-08-01T15:02:46.300-07:00Wiki has over 100 postsFinally, a major goal has been reached: <span style="font-weight:bold;">over 100 wiki pages on the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/">Austrian Economics Wiki</a></span>.<br /><br />It took much longer than I've expected, and could be probably done faster, but I wanted to give it due attention (which is not easy with all the procrastinating). There are still many imperfect pages, which may be improved, one day.<br /><br />For now though, I need a break from the wiki pages, but will try to propagandize it a little. Go Wiki!<br /><br />---<br /><br />Just for the information, here are a few statistics after the 100 goal - and for comparision, in parenthesis also the stats from the '<a href="http://economics.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page">Economics Wiki</a>', which has been around longer, but is far less focused - on the other hand, it had way more than one contributor:<br /><br />Total posts: 102 (400)<br />Size of the database: 619.1 KB (786.8 KB)<br />Words: 89.4 K (97.7 K)<br />External links: 551 (305)<br /><br />Created in 2005, the Economics Wiki has somewhat more content, but it's not all that much considering that it has many more pages (so mine are bigger!). It has also minimally changed over the last few years. There are way more external links in Austrian Economics Wiki. I didn't even compare images, where the other wiki wins, hands down.<br /><br />But all in all, a year's worth of work by one person comes quite close to five years of erratic work by a few dozen editors. It all can be done, if one wants to!manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-83853888059966178152010-05-09T01:52:00.000-07:002010-05-09T02:58:37.059-07:00On scurvy and scientific regress<a href="http://blog.mises.org/12262/scientific-regress-the-case-of-scurvy/">Courtesy</a> of the Mises.org Blog, read the article named "<a href="http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Scott and Scurvy</span></a>".<br /><br />With the specific example of scurvy, it is shown how a perfectly working and proven cure can be forgotten and how a series of wrong, but plausibly seeming theories needs to be overcome before the right one is discovered. For a much more recent example, note the causes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptic_ulcer#History">ulcers</a>. Or see the example on <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html">freezing water</a>.<br /><br />Not to blame the medicine (or other sciences), it can be pointed out, that less than a century ago it was full of what we can consider today quacks and charlatans, some of them great authorities and scientists. And wrong concepts can easily survive even today. Luckily, medicine has tools and methods, which it can use to improve it chances to find better answers and recognize the wrong answers - note that they are chances, no guarantees.<br /><br />Medicine may not be a very exact science, with much reserved for the individual reactions and special features of different organisms, but it can conduct experiments and trials and so analyse its theories - and these experiments have some validity. But in the science of economics, there are no such experiments available. There are no laboratories, and the results of repeated 'experiments' will necessarily differ, since the starting conditions will be different and the people will behave differently. (This is not even to speak of <span style="font-style:italic;">other</span> motivations to pursue specific theories...)<br /><br />To put it short, economics can be easily full of quacks and charlatans even today.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-31153453572733775672010-02-13T09:08:00.000-08:002010-02-13T09:27:03.028-08:00On Father's DilemmaThis is a repost from <a href="http://www.meetup.com/Munich-Libertarians/messages/boards/thread/8575732">here</a>. A friend mentioned a dilemma from his father with the ideas of freedom. Put shortly, imagine a valley cut off from the rest of the world, and there is only one location possible to build a bridge. What if nobody doesn't get around to building one, due to disagreements or other reasons? And what if someone does, but abuses the exclusive position (a 'natural monopoly')?<br /><br />The hypothetical dilemma has several weaknesses that we have already talked about, but let's take it by itself.<br /><br /><br />Ultimately, there is no way for you to get everything you want.<br /><br />And sometimes, you don't get things which you REALLY want or need, even things every single person in the world would say you deserve. That's not free market, that's life.<br /><br />What can be said about the free market, or voluntary cooperation, if you want, is, that it motivates people to meet the needs of other people. If there are hard to reach parts of the world, with people wanting to reach them or be reached, there is profit to be made by connecting them to civilization. If one way seems unreachable, there is profit in devising alternatives (for the mountain valley, there are planes, helicopters, even cable cars - or build a tunnel). If the expense to build that bridge is too high, one can turn to charity of other people to help funding it. If there is disagreement, or people acting as assholes, there are voluntary ways to exercise social pressure to guide them to reason. But we've been through this.<br /><br />Value is subjective, so there is no real way to compare the needs of different people (except by saying "I like this more!"). What if someone wants to use that crucial piece of property for another purpose? Is your goal more important than his? What if by building bridges and roads into every inaccessible corner of the world requires the resources, that would be needed to create a Cure for Cancer? (See, you can beat one crass hypothetical example by another. :) )<br /><br />Without being cruel, one could say, that maybe those people in that remote valley don't deserve that bridge. If they can't make it on their own, nor can those most inclined, then perhaps the time has not come yet. "Society" is not wealthy enough to afford it yet.<br /><br /><br />You can't get everything you want by voluntary means. You can't get everything by involuntary means either. But let's say, you can get this one thing, this time, without too much violence. Somebody would have to pay for it, of course. But you would be better off, so why not?<br /><br />If this is acceptable to you, the question is, what becomes of the precedent? If you force other people in person, even if you don't become an outlaw, somebody else may get the same idea and start forcing other people. If there is an institution you persuaded or created to force others, somebody else will try to convince them, too - and there is absolutely no lack of good intentions out there.<br /><br />You have chosen to force other people to improve your own life. What if somebody else starts forcing you to improve their life? Maybe it will be a small inconvenience. Maybe they'll ruin your existence.<br /><br />So let me turn the dilemma on its head. You wanted to be better off. What if somebody makes you worse off, in the name of the same grand ideas? How can you defend yourself from an infinite number of people eager to change your life, because they need something, too! You have already agreed to it in principle.<br /><br />---<br /><br />What do other folks think? The essence if the dilemma is this: people want many things, and sooner or later will want something, that the free market, or voluntary cooperation can't provide (or not in the way they want, or not quickly enough, you get it). Why shouldn't they turn to force, and what happens if they do?manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-25856814465798893412010-01-13T05:42:00.000-08:002010-01-13T05:55:59.921-08:00Happy New Year!Well, it was the time anyway.<br /><br />This year, I shall continue to work on the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki">wiki</a> and have some Big Plans for its expansion. One is to have at least 100 article pages (Stubs count, too, but have to have decent size... like most of the already existing Stubs). As that isn't as hard, I have another plan - but that shall not be revealed, not yet at least. Might take a few months to get there.<br /><br />The wiki has been quoted in a few blog posts in the mean time, so it is slowly acquiring some notoriety. Making it more popular is a general plan as well.<br /><br />But the real reason why I'm writing here is, that someone has just updated a page and created another... page with the name "Cashola" and the content "money as zeke percieves it". Simple vandalism, was deleted immediately.<br /><br /><br />But do you, my non-existent readers, understand what it means? The wiki is finally known enough to be vandalized! Woot!manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-58313705723265558882009-12-14T11:50:00.000-08:002009-12-14T11:51:44.661-08:00Time for a holidayIt's time to give the Wiki a break. Change is needed: while you can learn a lot with all the research, it is very dry and exhausting. While at it...<br /><br />I declare the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki">Austrian Economics Wiki</a> version 1.0 to be complete. It is the time, and it is pretty much all I wanted for a first version. 60+ pages, some initial points on the ABCT, could be always better, but there is already a huge amount of stuff inside. More work is to be done. Of course I have big plans for the Wiki, but they can wait till next year. Some recommending etc. may still happen, but the holidays will be devoted to other things.<br /><br />See you around next time!manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-15709883282410578152009-12-07T15:26:00.000-08:002010-04-04T12:04:49.920-07:00The Stuff Business Cycle Theory(This is a simplification of the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory">ABCT</a>, created to emphasize an aspect, that sometimes seems overlooked. Let me know how it brings the point across.)<br /><br />People produce <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">stuff</span></span>. There are many different types of stuff, which are not freely interchangeable, but let's keep it simple, and call it stuff.<br /><br />So what is this stuff for? Why do we make it?<br /><br />First off, we want to consume some of the stuff. We have to eat something, we have to live somewhere and we want that life to be good. To that effect, we need a lot of stuff, from food to computers to read articles on the Internet - to cover all the essential needs.<br /><br />But to make all this stuff, you need to expend quite a lot effort - and a lot more stuff. The people making the stuff also need to be taken care of. To build those complicated things, you need parts and raw materials, you need factories and mines and all the infrastructure around, and you need shops and a lot more to get the stuff to the consumers. To maintain a certain structure of consumption, you need a massive structure of production - the difference between the visible part of the iceberg and what lies below. It needs to be built and then kept in shape. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Pencil">I, Pencil</a> is but one illustration of it.)<br /><br />All this effort and stuff needs to be expended just to stay in one place, without changing anything.<br /><br />But we don't like to stay in one place, we want to have a better life, make the world a better place, achieve more - or simply change our taste now and then.<br /><br />To do this, to change the structure of production, requires more effort and more stuff. It has to come from somewhere. And no matter how you turn it (using your own stuff, somebody lending you theirs, or giving you a gift), some people have to sacrifice part of their lifestyles, and effort and stuff have to be invested. We may be better off tomorrow - and we hope so - but today we will have to do with less.<br /><br />Assuming those investments work out, the production structure will be upgraded and produce more (better, different) stuff. That means you can enjoy it more in consumption, invest it to produce more, or do some of both. This is that famed "natural growth". And it takes time.<br /><br /><br />If it comes to the business cycle, people mostly look at the bust - businesses crashing, unemployment, an overall slump in production and standards of living. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains this with the practice of Fractional Reserve Banking and the expansion of credit, the lowering of interest rates, which misinforms entrepreneurs into wrong investments lines. In the boom, we waste a lot of stuff on things we can't really afford yet.<br /><br />Some critics(<a href="http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/03/austrian-business-cycle-theory/">1</a>)(<a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10/paul-krugman-on.html">2</a>) argue, that this cannot be the case, because if people are investing too much, shouldn't they also be forced to limit their consumption? A boom is characterized by an increase in investment AND consumption, after all.<br /><br />So what is wrong about the boom? What can be wrong about having more stuff?<br /><br />To produce more and different and better stuff, people need to consume less first. If they all of sudden invest more and produce more while consuming more, they<br />a) miraculously have more stuff from somewhere, or<br />b) they forgot something<br /><br />What is often overlooked, is the existing structure of production the boom is supposed to run on. If it was a house, it would be like starting to build an additional story or five on it, moving more people to live inside and perhaps building a factory on the top of it... ignoring any structural supports and foundations. Since there isn't really more stuff around, the new projects can't be finished, or run effectively - at least not without affecting the existing functions of the house. And since much of the construction material is torn out of the existing structure, the house might just collapse one day and bury all those enthusiastic builders.<br /><br />A lot of stuff will be wasted. Worse yet, you will need more stuff and effort just to rebuild the original structure.<br /><br />And that is what happens in the bust.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-60505092647356612692009-10-13T13:38:00.000-07:002009-10-15T13:22:37.915-07:00Quietly risingBeen on holiday, but did some decent work on the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/">wiki</a>, so didn't have much time to post here. The wiki does grow nicely, from the basic <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_money_and_banking_in_the_US">historical</a> posts to more theoretical affairs, which is good.<br /><br />Speaking of growth... I keep an eye out on my Google rankings over time, and there is indeed a slow rise noticeable over the few months I have been working with the wiki. Despite minimal outside links and attention, it seems the constant updates are appreciated by some of Google's mysterious internal workings. And irony is never far. These days, if one searches for "Austrian economics", the wiki is on place 46, and the venerable <a href="http://blog.mises.org/">Mises Economics Blog</a> of THE Mises.org is on the lousy position of 57.<br /><br />And thus novelty prevails over experience and content! Woohoo!manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-5461684160645971892009-09-13T03:21:00.000-07:002009-09-13T03:23:35.409-07:00Obama funThere's countless jokes on Obama, but you've gotta give it to Onion making this:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/white_house_reveals_obama_is">White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase</a></span><br /><br />Rhymes with the economical Depression quite nicely.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-62487038022794941142009-09-01T03:03:00.000-07:002009-09-01T03:14:38.399-07:00Done with EthicsAt last, the posting of material from the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ethics of Money Production</span> (<a href="http://www.mises.org/books/moneyproduction.pdf">pdf</a>) into the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki">wiki</a> is over!<br /><br />That is not to say that more won't follow, but at least the sequential processing is done. A big thanks belongs to Jörg Guido Hülsmann, his book, while concentrating on a very specific topic contained much information of general interest. While probably unintended, for some it might even serve as an introduction to (Austrian) economics and a quick guide to the relevant parts of history.<br /><br />Woohoo!manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-65971042097265395122009-08-22T15:27:00.000-07:002009-10-25T03:06:07.990-07:00The new Gold StandardThis was just lovably cruel:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/good-news-bad-news---america-s-recession">Good News/Bad News</a> from the Daily Show.<br /><br />In the last few days, the results of a research made the news: 9 out of 10 dollar banknotes are tainted with cocaine.(<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090817/sc_livescience/mostusmoneylacedwithcocaine">source</a>)<br /><br />And then it is all summarized in this sentence, for all fans of gold:<br /> "We're not on the Gold Standard, people, we're on the Columbian Gold Standard!"manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-43251134850449339532009-08-15T06:20:00.000-07:002009-08-15T07:32:49.113-07:00The Ethics of Money Production, Conclusion1. If capitalism is to be judged, then it should be pointed out, that there are two conceptions to consider. One is the free market model of respect to private property rights. Here, says Hülsmann, is the Catholic church positively inclined to capitalism. And here is also a link to Austrian economists, that have for long held, that as an economical system it provides the best chances for the full development of man and society.<br /><br />Then there is the other, 'actual' capitalism of the West, that markedly differs from the ideal. Both groups are again in accord, that many of its aspects are worthy of critique - not the least in the production of money. There is no justification for the current system of paper money and fractional reserve banking, be it economical, legal, moral, or spiritual. They affect the lives of millions, and cause excesses for which is capitalism too often blamed.<br /><br />These institutions were made not out of necessity, but because they gave politicians and bankers an easy income source, tapping the wealth of others. This is not a matter of conspiracy, but of a relentless drive to gain more money for the states - and paper money with fractional reserve banking merely turned out to be very efficient ways to do so.<br /><br />2. A reform of our monetary institutions is badly needed and this book tried to present one alternative. Despite all the possible objections, the return of sound money is in the end a matter of will. It has been done before and can be achieved again. <br /><br />Let us hope we won't have to wait too long.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-6497722972699516832009-08-12T09:25:00.000-07:002009-08-31T12:10:06.527-07:00The Ethics of Money Production, Chapter 17<span style="font-weight:bold;">17. International paper money systems 1971-?</span><br /><br />1. With the Fed's suspension of payments was created a large number of paper currencies, their exchange rates fluctuated wildly and every country could set its monetary policies as it desired. But very soon, international paper currencies have dominated the scene.<br /><br />International businesses can of course profit from using a widespread currency, but how does a currency become widespread and how can it avoid overt fluctuations?<br /><br />The reason is not hard to find. States have always need for more income. But for most states is living off their citizens insufficient. They can try to attract investments from foreigners, or try to make their own citizenry wealthier. But to accumulate wealth takes a lot of time and little interference, and few governments are willing to wait, denying themselves tax income. It is better for if foreign capital comes in. Since investors don't like to throw away their money, they must be persuaded, that the money won't be simply printed, letting the exchange rates fall and ruin their investments. There are several institutional precautions.<br /><br />First, the states can produce bonds in a different currency than their own; many float bonds in Euro or the U.S. dollar.<br /><br />Second, they can give public or implicit guarantees that the exchange rate will be maintained. They can inflate at will and dispossess their own people as well as the foreigners. It is assumed, says Hülsmann, that the Fed gave such guarantees to several countries in the 90s. When it was finally abolished, financial crises in the debtor countries followed (Mexico 1994, Asia 1997). This tactic was not attempted again.<br /><br />Third, the debtor states have created currency boards, issuing notes backed by foreign paper money. Their own currency becomes a mere substitute for another paper money. It is used by e.g. Hong Kong, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Bosnia and Brunei.<br /><br />Fourth, they can abandon their national currency completely and use the currency of their lenders. This is called "dollarization" (does not have to be U.S. dollars). Recent examples include Ecuador, El Salvador, Kosovo and Montenegro.<br /><br />International paper money is brought about by governments seeking more income sources. Preferred will be the currencies, that are legal tender in the largest capital markets. Thus have the Yen, Dollar and newly the Euro risen to the top.<br /><br />2. After the fall of the Bretton Woods system began the governments of Western Europe to amass public debt to grow their welfare states. But it was soon recognized their wildly fluctuating currencies hindered international trade and could so undermine their income.<br /><br />The first attempt to stabilize their currencies was the European Monetary System (EMS, founded 1978). It was a cartel of paper money producers, who agreed to stabilize the exchange rates between their currencies at certain levels, or parities. In practice, those inflating the least would determine the inflation rates of all others. If someone were to inflate more, they would have to persuade others to do the same, or risk a change of parity.<br /><br />As it happened, the German Bundesbank was the most conservative of the central banks, so the pressing issue for other governments was to push the German Mark towards more inflation, to keep up with their own financial demands. It was only the rejoining of East and West Germany, that changed this. The price for the agreement of other western states, says Hülsmann, was the German Mark.<br /><br />Within a few years were the paper money producers united in the European Central Bank (ECB, started operation in 1999). The Euro, lauded as a great boon for the citizens of European states, was just another means to control the money supply and secure the unlimited source of income, that paper money represents.<br /><br />3. The current international monetary order is shaped by several competing currency systems, each based on a standard paper currency and a number of secondary and tertiary currencies. The most important are the U.S. dollar, euro and yen.<br /><br />The relationship between these currencies are similar to those between a central bank and commercial banks. But there is no commodity money, that would limit inflation, and more importantly, there are no legal means to force them to cooperation. National sovereignty rules and the secondary and tertiary producers can inflate at will. This is compounded by the fact, that the primary producers will likely bail them out, in yet another manifestation of moral hazard.<br /><br />Bailing out others by printing money means of course the all of rates and rising prices, and both currencies will be less attractive for investors.<br /><br />But not bailing out is risky too: a country in a crisis could threaten to switch to another standard, which could damage the standing of the primary currency. If countries started to avoid it, it would eventually travel back to where it has legal tender privileges, raising prices and potentially even create a hyperinflation. Since all countries are free to switch to a different currency, the more money is in foreign countries, the more likely is the primary producer to accept this blackmail.<br /><br />The American central bank is aware of the risk and pays some of the foreign countries for their cooperation. But that is not enough. Cooperation between the producers of standard money may be required to stabilize currencies in times of crisis.<br /><br />Why would the competitors help each other out? For once, those, who would blackmail their peers, could also blackmail them. And second, profiting from a currency crisis of someone else could easily backfire, once their competitor's crises is over.<br /><br />Paper money producers have the same motivation as on the national level to increase their production, because their competitors are likely to bail them out. With such a moral hazard, inflation on a large scale is inevitable.<br /><br />One way to escape this mess could be to completely avoid international trade - probably an even more destructive option. But what if all the paper money producers fused into one (possibly with a worldwide regulation of banking and capital markets)?<br /><br />4. As was shown, there is a strong tendency to form currency blocks around paper monies used in the largest capital markets. States with a small income (or too small for their taste) have to turn to these standard currencies as well.<br /><br />Even competitors are motivated to cooperate and eventually fuse. One currency for the whole world would be the logical continuation; and it was already called for, by Lord Keynes in Bretton Woods in 1944.<br /><br />But even if all political hurdles were overcome, and "the humanity" was united, even if the secondary destructive effects were curtailed and all politicians became noble paragons of virtue and defenders of liberty... even then would the monetary union fail to bring the promised stability.<br /><br />A global paper currency cannot escape the fate of the national ones - it must either collapse in hyperinflation, or force the state to regulate everything, and subject all economical resources to a total control. Or both.<br /><br />But there is still hope, closes Hülsmann. We can still return to natural production of money, to the only defensible monetary system.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-10732777914744834582009-08-01T14:51:00.000-07:002009-08-02T06:26:32.571-07:00The Ethics of Money Production: Chapter 16<span style="font-weight:bold;">Chapter 16: International Banking Systems, 1871 - 1971</span><br /><br />Gold was legal tender in Great Britain since 1821 and the de facto currency in the US since 1834 (the Coinage Act). Australia and Canada followed 20 years later. The breakthrough for gold and the era of the classic gold standard began after the war between France and Germany (1870-1871). The German government received war damages of 5 billion francs in gold and made it fiat currency instead of silver, that was losing popularity at the time. The Prussian Bank ('Preusische Bank') was turned into a central bank ('Reichsbank'). Its notes became legal tender in 1909 - all a copy of the British system.<br /><br />Why was it gold? For once, Great Britain, with the largest capital market in the world was using it. Several major lands using silver (Russia, Austria) have suspended payments by the time. Finally, silver has less purchasing power than gold, making its weight for large transfers rather problematic.<br /><br />Practically all western lands and their many colonies have followed suit. In the heyday of free trade, when monopolies were frowned upon as never before, a unified monetary system seemed like a great idea; it was another massive state intervention, this time unopposed.<br /><br />The classical gold standard has eliminated the fluctuations between gold and silver (though they were less than between today's paper currencies, it is a positive point). It also caused a significant forced deflation, with all its effects.<br /><br />But the gold standard was still coupled with the practice of fractional reserve banking, and hence unstable. The coming of World War I. finished it off before it could collapse.<br /><br />2. In the "classical" gold standard was a central bank of each country expected to hold enough gold in its reserves, while the commercial banks would rely mainly on its banknotes (another English practice, that spread out). The advantage were greater possibilities of inflation for them and more power for the central bank.<br /><br />The 'Gold Exchange Standard' enhanced the already existing international cooperation between banks by a manifold. The American Fed and the Bank of England were to be the central banks for the whole world (with a few exceptions, notably France). Inflating slowly, others would rely on the pound and the dollar for backing, and could inflate much more. This unstable system lasted only from 1925 to 1931, the Great Depression of 1929 caused a rise of protectionist policies and foreign exchange controls, that choked the international currency trade. The Bank of England could not renew its gold reserves and suspended its payments, followed by other banks. From then on currencies fluctuated freely, which lasted until the end of World War II.<br /><br />3. A new system was designed in 1944 in Bretton Woods (New Hampshire US), to make the production of banknotes even more 'flexible'. The gold reserves of the whole world should be concentrated in a single pool, the Fed would redeem its notes while all others would keep the US dollar as reserve. It was a logical choice, as the United States have attracted much gold and after WWII became Fort Knox the largest storage in the world. (England, represented by Lord Keynes, tried to push for a pure paper money, but it didn't come to be.)<br /><br />To reduce the resulting dependency on the Fed, and to make it politically acceptable, two organizations were created: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both to influence the distribution of new banknotes. They would supply short-term (IMF) and long-term (WB) credit to member states in trouble, primarily the board members.<br /><br />The growth of inflation, the main purpose of the Bretton Woods, was so successful, that the Fed eventually ran out of gold and had to suspend its payments in 1971. That was the end of the so-called gold standard and its versions.<br /><br />4. The IMF and the World Bank did not die with the Bretton Woods system and started to supply credit to third world countries, transferring the income of western taxpayers. Since responsible states can get credit easily, it is often given to those not paying their debts, those nationalizing foreign investments or regulating overly their own countries. Thus arises a tendency to support dictators and violent regimes, often in exchange for other concessions. Their rule tends to be prolonged and the declared goal of fighting against poverty becomes more than a little dubious.<br /><br />(Aside: back in <a href="http://slightlypolitical.blogspot.com/2009/04/ethics-of-money-production-introduction.html">Introduction</a> I remarked on the light, friendly tone of the book and it stayed so for the most part. But this chapter seemed to have so far the sharpest tone of all. Interesting.)manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-61120706788359295052009-07-31T16:45:00.000-07:002009-08-02T06:28:05.344-07:00Healthcare plans in the USA fascinating reading, just breeze through it if you don't have time for the whole ten pages:<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf">summary of the "best" points of the Obama Administration’s Health Care Plan</a> currently under consideration.<br /><br />Read the points, it is instructive even from behind the pond. Would love to see more laws being analyzed in detail with the cherries picked for general consumption.<br /><br /><br />"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." There's more. (Hat tip to <a href="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=22827">C4L</a>.)manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-81040309505619097802009-07-29T05:39:00.000-07:002009-07-29T06:04:54.071-07:00The message of nopeSometimes it just hits you, an expression or lucky choice of words, that you have to consider or just laugh about. And this is one:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.idlewordship.com/2009/07/bushbama-and-continuing-message-of-nope.html">Bushbama and the continuing message of nope</a>, by <a href="http://www.idlewordship.com/">Idle Worship</a>.<br /><br />I heard some versions of it before ("the message of dope") and countless versions of "Yes we can" and "Change you can't believe in". But the simple wording of 'the message of nope' brought me immediately great pleasure. The picture blending Bush and Obama into one person is just the icing on the cake.<br /><br />---<br /><br />The reason I found the blog in the first place, is that I am considering to rename this blog, just note its subtitle. 'Slightly Political' doesn't seem that great, now that I'm posting here with some regularity.<br /><br />Comments and ideas are welcome.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-29763130550800200722009-07-25T09:49:00.000-07:002009-07-26T12:15:56.775-07:00The Ethics of Money Production: Chapter 15<span style="font-weight:bold;">Chapter 15: Fiat Monetary Systems in the Realm of the Nation-State</span><br /><br />1. Paper money, as we know it today, originates from the European fractional reserve banks of the 17th century, while the search for more money by governments was the main driving force.<br /><br />The Bank of England, a notable example, was founded to provide the English crown a massive loan, in exchange for special privileges. It made use of the 'suspension of payments' only two years after its founding, but was quite reliable afterwards (in peacetime at least). It grew through the growing business with the state and supplied it with more and more loans. Its notes became legal tender, it became a monopoly, until it stopped redeeming its notes permanently in 1914.<br /><br />Other significant banks developed in similar ways, often faster and more recklessly. Fractional reserve banknotes have been widespread by the end of 18th century and the trend continued. They have turned into paper money in most countries by the beginning of World War I.<br /><br />2. In the British colonies of North America, the local governments pushed for paper notes with legal tender privileges. The merchants forced to accept this rapidly depreciating money complained to the British Parliament, and it forbade the emission of further notes in all colonies. This, notes Hülsmann ironically, might have been one of the roots of the American revolution.<br /><br />But the revolution moved away from the inflationist tendencies and those against inflation were for a long time successful. The principles for hard money based on gold and silver were even put down in the constitution.<br /><br />Two central banks were set up, but their charters were not extended. The civil war brought paper money and a group of privileged "national banks". The money did not last, but the banking system was centralized. Finally, in 1913 was founded the central bank, that lasts until today. The pro-inflation movement has won.<br /><br />3. On the national level was the cartelization of banks guided by laws, but it wasn't so on the international level. There have been purely voluntary cartels, which will be discussed in the next two chapters. What the future brings, we will see.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615041062070970593.post-59271545711620049042009-07-16T14:28:00.000-07:002009-08-05T12:22:09.422-07:00The Ethics of Money Production: Chapter 14<span style="font-weight:bold;">Chapter 14: Monetary Order</span><br /><br />1. Until now was the book analyzing economical theory, with historical examples used merely for demonstration. That being done, it is time to look at actual history through the theory available.<br /><br />The analysis of the free market (or "natural") production of money, however theoretical, allows to analyze the many breaches of property rights and their effects. It also shows, points out Hülsmann, that a natural production of money is "unrealistic" only because of a lack of political will. There are no technical hindrances to its introduction, and it is superior in every way to the present system. It is a viable system. And free competition would allow it to spread.<br /><br />2. A minor note on credit money: it is compatible with a free market. It probably won't see widespread use, but there is no reason to not let it compete along with other monies.<br /><br />---<br /><br />This was another short chapter, so let me talk a bit about the blogging process itself. Turns out, for 'liveblogging' is this a pretty extended activity, but it can be called blogging at least. :)<br /><br />The book divided into chapters and smaller sections and most are not too long. When processing a chapter, I read the whole chapter first. Then I read the first section; and then I start making notes on the section itself, book in hand. That done, I go over to the next section and so on. Sometimes can be the text condensed nicely, some parts need to be repeated almost word for word. <br /><br />Meanwhile, I am posting the chapters as I have time, stabilized at around once a week. Typing it up, more changes in text are sure to come in, but its mostly just cosmetic issues and wording. It is fun and useful to have a feeling for what is coming, while posting the current chapter. It also helps when points from the current chapter are posted into the <a href="http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki">wiki</a>.<br /><br />From this follows, that the note-taking and blogging can diverge quite a bit. The note-taking takes mostly less than a week, but I got delayed on several long chapters, so it matches up. At this moment though, there are notes up to Chapter 17, the last numbered chapter (there is one more short 'afterword' chapter), so the end is finally drawing near! It is quite taxing to do it all, but it is worth it... I can only recommend, if you have the time.manfredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530195427816360967noreply@blogger.com0