Smiling Dave Learns About 9/11.


If you have 15 minutes to invest in learning what happened, have a look at this:

Ultra short summary: Putting aside the twin towers themselves, there was a third building, 47 stories high, called Building 7, that also imploded on 9/11 [in seven seconds]. No plane hit that building, everyone agrees. So why did it collapse?

NIST, the agency paid 16 million dollars by the US Govt to find out what happened on 9/11, says the building collapsed because of fire, caused by burning office furniture.

Over 2,500 architects and engineers beg to disagree, and in fact have an online petition going round to investigate the whole ugly business independently.

The video shows many buildings collapsing in the exact same manner the twin towers and Building 7 did. It happens routinely all around the world. It’s called “planned demolition.” It takes many months to prepare, and it involves putting explosives inside the building and blowing it up. Experts who saw the 9/11 videos say that what happened, the flattening like a pancake, the incredible speed of the collapse, could only happen if there was a planned demolition, planned months in advance.

No fire could ever do it. Modern buildings have caught fire, at much hotter heat, and they did not collapse. It’s like saying Hiroshima happened because somebody lit a match. Plenty of clips showing those fires, too.

I am totally convinced. These are not kooks by any definition, but serious people, such as the manager of Underwriter Laboratories, technical experts with degrees, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, high rise architects, materials scientists, chemists, metallurgists, physicists, explosive experts, demolitions experts, fire protection experts, winners of science medals in their fields, and on and on.

There are many more suspicious happenings that the video points out. Have a watch.

16 Classical Economic Mistakes That AE Fixed Up.

Oddly enough, Mainstream Economics hasn’t learned much in the last hundred years, and still makes most of these ancient blunders.

Source for this article:
Mises and Austrian Economics Murray N Rothbard.mp3

and Mises and Austrian Economics Murray N Rothbard_2.pdf [full of typos, sadly]

In other words, I’m summarizing Rothbard. I’m not sure when he made the presentation. He mentions computers and calculators being cheap, and the Communist countries still being Communist, so that may give some clue. The format will be as follows. I’ll name the fallacy, then quote Rothbard about it in italic font, then mention what little I know about it. Without further ado, the big 16.

1. Too much aggregate, too little individual.
…all the other schools of economics…deal with aggregates, groups, classes, wholes of one
sort or another, without focusing on the individual first and building up
from there.
Smiling Dave: Yep, this one is still with us.
Devil’s Advocate: But Dave, you don’t explain why it’s wrong.
SD: That’s beyond the scope of the article, which is very long already. Just going to list the blunders, not refute them.

2. Consumer prices are determined by cost of production [when the truth is vice versa].
…value, economic value, price, was determined by the cost of production…
SD: I’m told this is no longer believed by the mainstream.

3. Labor Theory of Value.
the cost of production is embodied in some fashion in the product, and specifically by the quantity of labor hours embodied in it.
SD: In another mp3 in the series, his listeners tell Rothbard that no professional economists, not even Marxist economists, believe in that anymore. But among sociologists, fiction writers, and the like, people who are Marxists but have not actually studied any economics, the Labor Theory of Value is alive and kicking.

4. False Dichotomy of Exchange Value and Use Value.
…value in use and value in exchange, … and we have to deal with exchange value, and forget about use value. You see right away this sets up the conditions for a whole bunch of left wing thought in the late 19th, early 20th century. It’s still going, I suppose,…production for use and production for profit. It immediately sets that up somehow as a big distinction.
SD: I’m told that the mainstream no longer thinks like that.

5. Preoccupation With Numbers.
…science meant measurement in those days for these people. And so therefore, how do you measure value, how do you measure changes? He’s looking for some hard quantity…
SD: Oh, yes, worse than ever.

6. Distribution Theory.
...they had a separate thing called distribution, theory…trying to figure out—this is Ricardo particularly—who decides how much of the national output goes to wages, how much goes to profits, how much goes to landlords?
SD: I’m told this one is dead.

7. Class Conflict.
…a class struggle between these three mighty groups, [land, labor, and capital]. In other words, the good is produced somewhere, first they produce it, then they fight for who gets the different shares of income.
SD: Most people still believe this. I’m told that mainstream econ does not.

8. Iron Law of Wages.
…wages are determined by the iron law of wages, the Malthusian iron
law, down at the subsistence level…Everybody gets the lowest possible wages…
SD: Mainstream econ doesn’t believe this anymore, I’m told.

9. Landlords are Parasites Who Deserve to Be Paid Zero Rent.
…evil, unproductive landlords, getting an increasing share
of the national product…
SD: I think this is still believed by laymen, and I think by Keynes as well [he wanted euthanasia of someone or other]. Mainstream, I’m told, is silent about this, so it seems they no longer agree with it.

10. Focus on Equilibrium.
…focused totally on nonexistent, unreal,long-run
equilibrium. This is done right now by modern microeconomics, and
macroeconomics, for that matter…In long-run equilibrium you
don’t have to forecast anything; nothing ever changes.
SD: I’m told that this is still around.

11. Forgot about the Entrepreneur.
…they don’t talk about entrepreneurs because entrepreneurs deal with change and uncertainty. You make a profit if you can forecast better than the next guy. You make losses if you can’t forecast. In long-run equilibrium you don’t have to forecast anything; nothing ever changes…So the entrepreneur then becomes a pain in the neck. It’s messing up your neat mathematical system.
SD: Still going strong.

12. Perfect Knowledge.
Since nothing ever changes, everybody has perfect knowledge, as they
call it, perfect knowledge, everybody’s in perfect competition, there’s no
uncertainty, no risk, no profits, there are no losses.
SD: Rational Expectations Theory and Efficient Market Hypothesis seem to indicate this is still around.

13. Micro and Macro Never Meet.
…separate, divide totally the macro from the micro sphere.
We’re all familiar with that, those of us who take current economics…
Micro, you learn about supply and demand or whatever,
and then suddenly you leap into macro and nobody talks about supply and demand, they all talk about growth curves and velocity and all that, totally different.

…It’s like two hermetically sealed spheres.
There’s the microsphere where things are going on, it’s fairly
understandable, supply and demand, prices and all that. Then there’s
the macro sphere, totally cut off from the micro, where you have
money and prices bouncing up and down, with no relationship between the two.
SD: Alive and kicking.

14. Don’t Understand Interest.
…the poor anti-usury people could never
figure out… what their justification for interest
is, interest on a pure loan. They could understand about risk, they
understood about uncertainty and all that; they just didn’t understand
about, why should people be able to charge three percent or eight
percent or whatever on a pure loan.
SD: Keynes believed this. The mainstream still doesn’t understand interest, though they may think it’s OK to charge it.

15. Capital is a Homogeneous Lump.
We have capital, not as a homogeneous lump, which modern economics still tends to say, just add more capital, as if it’s somehow a blob out there.

Capital is a latticework, it’s a network, a structure which all has to fit in
together. And by the way, only the free market can fit it in. Only
entrepreneurs, the profit and loss test, profit and loss, incentive, and
free price system can do the fitting.
SD: Still around, I’m told. How else can you put Capital into an equation?

16. It Takes Time to Make Stuff, and Some Things Need More Time than Others..
…modern economics still has not learned, capital takes time, production
takes time. Capital is a time structure.
Some goods are very close to consumers, like producing Wonder Bread,
where the retailer is very close to the consumer.
On the other hand, machinery, the iron ore that goes into making the
machinery that produces Wonder Bread is way up the structure, takes
a lot of time to get to the earlier phase of production or a higher order
of production. So we have then production taking time.
SD: I’m told they don’t get this yet.

So there you have it. Mainstrean Economics gets 9 out of 16 wrong. Their grade on a test of basic economic knowledge, provable from first principles and obvious to common sense as well, that has been around for well over a hundred years, is 43%.

[Thanks to the members of the libertyhq forum for their info on what’s being taught today in the schools. All errors are mine].

About homework.

From the intro to an advanced math book:

5. The book contains an abundance of homework problems. They are not
graded by level of difficulty since life does not present problems that way.

Devil’s Advocate: What’s not to like, Dave? He’s right, isn’t he? Life does not present problems that way.

SD: He’s right if we are talking about homework that prepares one for life.
But there is another kind of homework, namely,
homework that aids in mastering the material.
And new material is best mastered by going from the easier to the harder.
First we learn to crawl, etc.

DA: I’m glad you pointed this out. My one year old son had started to crawl all over the house. I was having none of that. I took the little fellow out into the street, with traffic constantly streaming by, and forced him to stand. He started crying.

“Son”, I told him, “I can’t let you crawl freely in a protected environment. Life is not like that. Get up and walk, son, and watch out for those cars.”

SD: And what happened?

DA: He failed his math course.

If you dislike the new Firefox.

There’s Palemoon, which is not bad, but it is incompatible with many great addons.

So here’s my suggestion. Get Comodo Ice Dragon Browser, portable version preferably.

Get the add on Remove It Permanently [RIP]. You won’t need the bloated Adblock if you have this one.

Other addons that I use, listed in no particular order.

Tab Mix Plus.

X-notifier to check your emails. [And for hassle free, more or less, email provider].

Grab My Books, to turn web pages into epubs.

Ghostery. Maybe with RIP you don’t need this. Dunno.

Download Them All.

Clear Fields.

BlockSite Plus. Maybe with RIP you don’t need this. Dunno.

Flash Video Downloader.

Redirect Bypasser.

Smart Video for Youtube.

Reddit Enhancement Suite.

Switch Private Browsing.

Twitter Disconnect. Maybe with Ghostery and/or RIP you don’t need this. Dunno.

Windows Programs I like:


Sumatra pdf.


Chess hero.



Quite RSS


Revo Uninstaller

Duplicate Cleaner Free

Advanced Renamer

Peer Block

All are available as portable but for Chess Hero.



On Religion.

Devil’s Advocate: Having a unique perspective on all this, as should be obvious from my very name, allow me to inject my two cents.

People come down here all the time. It gets quite crowded, and the waiting line to boiled in the fiery flames is very long. So we all have plenty of time to while away, and we talk very freely. Here are the various religious positions people tell me they have.

The Scared in a Scary World Guy: I can’t handle it anymore. I’m about to lose my mind. I can only keep on going if I can assume there is Someone more powerful than me out there to help me out. Naturally, I’ll seize on any scrap of anything to bolster my need.

The Mellow Atheist: I see no evidence for any spiritual forces, and I feel no inner need for them to be any. So let’s leave it at that.

The Varieties of Religious Experience Guy: I never gave it much thought, until one day I was dying in a hospital bed. Suddenly I looked down and saw myself. An out of body experience. Then a very warm, friendly, masculine voice told me, “God here.”
“Nice to meet You, Sir. Am I dead?”
“No, you still have a minor role to play in the world.”
“Then what am I doing here floating above my physical body?”
“It’s a way of giving you some rest. You’ll be back inside soon.”

Smiling Dave: Why was he down there with you, Devil?

DA: Nobody’s perfect. BTW, what’s your take, Dave?

SD: I’m a very, very, very, very, mild case of V. of Rel. Exp Guy. But I’ve spoken to a solid V.O.R.E.G., and, given my pre-existing mild case, I was open enough to be totally convinced by his story.

DA: But what about all the unanswered devastating questions that Science Guy and Bitter Atheist Guy keep asking?

SD: I don’t know the answers.

DA: How does God expect people to even believe He exists, given that He almost never shows Himself like He did to your friend, when all the q’s about Him remain unanswered?

SD: I can only assume that’s the way He wants it. And I think it follows that the assumption that we are all going to join you down there, Devil, unless we believe in Him, are incorrect. He seems too nice a guy to screw all humanity like that.

DA: So the default position should be agnosticism, or maybe even atheism, unless He takes us personally by the hand? Why did He set things up like that?

SD: He baffles me sometimes. In fact, most of the time.

DA: What about Jones here, who is open minded and wants to investigate? Is Jones to just twiddle his thumbs until God shows up in his living room?

SD: Some people say He can be found if one looks with all ones heart and all ones soul.

DA: What does that even mean? How do you play hide and seek with an Invisible Being?

SD: Some say Jones should be alert. Be on the lookout for instances of Happy Coincidence. Others say to open mindedly think about Nature and the Universe. They claim that this whole theory of evolution thing is full of obvious gaping holes.

DA: What about the Great Teachings that have been handed down by the various religions?

SD: You think I’m here to give all the answers?

Agent Carter

Over at they are very excited about the new show, Agent Carter, about a woman in 1946 who is a secret agent for the US govt. What makes the show so great, they explain, is how human she is. She has to wash the dishes and everything.

In the climax of the first episode, she brings her own brand of justice to a fat white male who touches a waitress inappropriately. She puts a fork to his body, and threatens to kill him with it unless he first tips the waitress handsomely and then leaves, never to return.

The context of the show clearly intends for us to applaud Agent Carter for her derring-do.

Let’s imagine a show about a Klansman. He sees a fat black male who touches a white waitress inappropriately. The Klansman puts a fork to his body, and threatens to kill him with it unless he first tips the waitress handsomely and then leaves, never to return.

Devil’s Advocate: But Dave, that is an outrage. The Klansman should have been tasered and tossed in jail for threatening murder. Not only that, how dare he deny anyone entry to a public place of business, especially with threats of violence? What right has he to cause financial loss to the owner of the diner? And if he thinks he is helping the waitress, he has another think coming. The owner of the diner will ask around about why his oldest customer now eats next door. When he learns it’s because of the waitress’s friend, he will fire the waitress.

Not only that, such a show places violence on a pedestal. It makes the Klansman seem like a hero for using violence. It gives the viewers, some of whom are small children, the idea that threats of murder are the best way to deal with difficult problems. It encourages them to act like Klansmen, to trample all over other people’s lives and incomes to resolve a problem that clearly has a better solution. It dehumanizes fat black men.

SD: And when Agent Carter does all that?

DA: Then it’s OK.

Bitcoin’s Supposed Non Monetary Use As a Transporter of Money.

That’s the latest rationalization for bitcoin having non monetary value. Bitcoin has non monetary value as a means of transporting money. The folks at have even fallen for this one. I’ve written about it before, but I just had a new idea.

Costello: Hey, Abbot, get this. A new Armored Truck company has opened for business. They will transport your money securely anywhere, plus there is a roulette wheel installed in the truck. As the truck speeds your money to its destination, it is automatically bet on any number you choose, from 0 to 00 to 36.

Abbot: What if I don’t want to bet on any number, just keep my money as is? All I want is for the Armored truck to deliver my money to its destination.

Costello: That’s no fun.

Abbot: No, that’s bitcoin. As a means of transporting money, it includes a gamble its price may drop and you lose big time. What kind of way is that to transport money?

Costello: Come on, Abbot, if you work fast, buy the bitcoin right away, then instantly transport it, the odds of losing anything are miniscule.

Abbot: But what about the recipient? Why should he accept payment in something that may drop in price?

Costello: He will have to unload it right away, too.

Abbot: So we are talking about a means of transporting money that involves both the sender and the recipient not holding onto the money for more than a few seconds, and this is baked into the transportation system.

Costello: Yep, and that’s how Microsoft and all them others are using bitcoin. Isn’t it wonderful?

Abbot: Of course, Microsoft pays a nice fee to some third party willing to take the bitcoins off their hands and assume the risk.

Costello: And that third party will always be there. Like the Roman Empire. I guarantee it.

Abbot: So bitcoin is a means of transportation that has baked into it a serious risk of losing big chunks of the money sent, but there are people out there willing, for a fee, to take the risk.

Costello: Sound viable to me. That’s exactly the kind of thing Mises was talking about when he said a money has to start off with intrinsic value. Risky, but someone out there is, for now, willing to insure you against the losses. Can’t get more intrinsic than that. What’s not to like? Microsoft thinks it’s OK, so why are you worried about it?

Abbot: To Microsoft, the whole thing is just another advertising expense. The companies interviewed about why they accept bitcoin all said it’s an advertising gimmick, and a cheap one at that, must cheaper than a television commercial. But Mr Average person would never agree to transporting money that way, or accepting money transported to him that way, with his money constantly gambled with whether he likes it or not.

Costello: Unless he’s buying drugs or something, which is a transaction involving other risks. So he figures the risk of losing on the roulette wheel is less than that of being arrested if he uses real money.

Abbot: Bottom line, bitcoin is not transporting money. It is transporting a lottery ticket with an unknown expiration date.

Costello: So it’s like a delivery truck that can only deliver rotten eggs.

Abbot: Exactly.

Deep Stuff About Time Preference.

Gentle reader, this post assumes a little background knowledge of basic AE.

I finally understood the concepts presented here after listening to part of Jeffrey Herbener’s excellent lecture. Link is here:

Devil’s Advocate: You know Dave, I can disprove the whole originary interest thing, the whole time preference thing.

SD: Oh?

DA: Easy. You claim people prefer things today rather than tomorrow? And will pay less if they have to wait to get the thing tomorrow?

SD: Yep.

DA: How about this scenario. My daughter is getting married next month. I call up the bakery and ask about prices. They tell me the price, and then add that they have a special one day only sale, and if I get the cake today, right now this minute, they will give me a 10% discount. You think I’ll take the cake today? Ha!

SD: Anything else?

DA: Yes, the whole ice in the summer, ice in the winter thing. I don’t agree that they are two different things. Ice is ice.

SD: You’re certainly on a roll today, Devil.

DA: And I have one more, directed at Human Action itself. I’m going for the jugular now. Mises writes:

The very act of gratifying a desire implies that gratification at the present
instant is preferred to that at a later instant. He who consumes a nonperish-
able good instead of postponing consumption for an indefinite later moment
thereby reveals a higher valuation of present satisfaction as compared with
later satisfaction. If he were not to prefer satisfaction in a nearer period of the future to that in a remoter period, he would never consume and so satisfy wants. He would always accumulate, he would never consume and enjoy. He would not consume today, but he would not consume tomorrow either, as the morrow would confront him with the same alternative.

SD: Sounds OK to me. What do you find wrong there?

DA: Are you kidding me? Mises is saying the only reason people eat is because they would rather eat now than later. Time preference. Well I think that is absurd. Use your common sense, Dave. Let’s say we have some kind of person born with a certain kind of brain damage. He has no concept of time, no time preference ingrained in him, nothing. Are you saying he will never eat? That’s ridiculous. He will get hungry, grab a sandwich, and eat it.

SD: Yeah, Herbener had some struggle with that one, too.

DA: Well, then. I’m calling up my good buddy, Lord Keynes the blogger, and tell him about this. Boy, are you Austrians gonna have egg on your faces. Three solid refutations of the very heart of Austrian theory. So there!

SD: Actually, they are three versions of the same misunderstanding of Austrian theory.

To understand the wedding cake story, let’s look at two neighbors, Smith and Jones. Smith’s daughter is getting married today. Jones doesn’t have a daughter. Smith wants a wedding cake today, Jones doesn’t. How do you explain that?

DA: What even needs explaining? They are in different situations, and thus their needs are different.

SD: How about this one? We have identical twins, exactly the same in every way, except that one is at the cold, cold, North Pole and the other is in sunny Florida. The one at the North Pole is sick of ice, the one in Florida craves ice. How do you explain that?

DA: Same thing. Their needs are different because they are in different situations.

SD: How about this one. Smith hasn’t eaten for days, Jones has just finished a huge meal. Offered a sandwich, Smith takes it hungrily, Jones declines.

DA: Again, different situations, different needs. I’m surprised you don’t grasp this simple idea, Dave. People value things differently depending on their situations.

Why, even the same person will value things differently in different situations. Today, his daughter is not getting married, so he has no need for wedding cake. Next month is her wedding day, and then he will need cake. Today in the summer, he wants ice. In the winter, he is in a different situation and does not want ice. Today he is not hungry, and tomorrow he will be famished. Different situations.

SD: So when Austrians talk about time preference, how people would rather have something today than tomorrow, are they talking about the same situation today as tomorrow, or about today and tomorrow being different situations?

DA: Obviously the concept of time preference assumes all other things unchanged. That other than the passage of time, the situations today and tomorrow are identical. We can compare ice today and ice in the future only if the future is the same situation as today, both hot days or both cold days. Same with the wedding cake. And that quote from HA was not talking about eating, because with the passage of time, ones body changes, and thus he is in a different situation. First he is not hungry, then he is.

SD: If you mix your situations, you are like a physicist measuring gravity on Earth, and assuming it will be the same in outer space.

DA: So all my refutations are as naught.

SD: Not only yours, Piero Sraffa’s as well. He takes different situations and conflates them indiscriminately, as explained in my humble article here.

DA: Where’s that wedding cake?

Austrian Economics on Marxism. Part One, In Which the Very Basis of All Marxism is Shown to be Absurd.

Marx had first, a long, complicated explanation of why the free market is doomed, and second, a proposed solution to the problems he thought he found, Socialism.

Here at the blog, we have written at length about his proposed solution, Socialism, and why it is inherently flawed from an economic point of view, meaning that the laws of economics guarantee misery and death to any country that institutes Socialism, just like in North Korea, for example. Just do a search for Calculation Problem on this humble site.

Many have shown that politically as well Socialism is a guaranteed nightmare, but that’s not our thing. Politics makes Dave feel sick, so he avoids talking about it.

This article is not about Marx’s solution, Socialism, but about his complicated theoretical edifice, as laid out in his book Das Kapital, which he claims proves that the free market is evil and doomed. The content here is based on this excellent lecture by Richard Ebeling, and on various excellent works by the Austrian School . So let’s start right in.

We have a special guest with us tonight, Karl Marx himself, who has kindly agreed to rise from the grave to chat with us.

1. First mistake, the concept of Exchange Value.

Karl Marx: You’re off on the wrong foot right away, Dave. The great Adam Smith himself invented the concept of Exchange Value. Why are you picking on poor me when I have such a giant on my side?

Smiling Dave: That’s why I’m an Austrian, and not a follower of Adam Smith. The Austrians do not believe in the whole Exchange Value thing. To them the value of anything to anyone is subjective, meaning varies with the individual.

KM: I agree with that. I called it Use Value, you call it Subjective Value, same thing. But I went one step further. I claimed that Use Value is not what counts. What decides prices is something I discovered, called Exchange Value.

SD: Not what counts where?

KM: Go to the store. You see that five dollars can get you, say, a hammer, a sickle, a used math book, a pound of beef. They all have something in common, namely, the price tag. They are all worth five dollars. But they all have completely different uses. So what is it about them that they all have in common, that makes them all worth five bucks?

SD: You are going to say their exchange value.

KM: Exactly. We are forced to posit the existence of something abstract in each of them, some mystical entity that they all have in common, which manifests itself in the market as a price of five dollars. That five dollar price tag reveals to us that the hammer, the sickle, the math book, the beef, all have the same amount of mysterious something in the exact same quantity, that makes them all worth five dollars. I call that mysterious something Exchange Value, and I will later show that there is nothing mystical about it. I will show exactly what is it and where it comes from.

SD: OK, here we are. We have arrived at your first mistake. Exchange value is a flawed concept, and it also is an unnecessary one. The Subjective Value, or what you call the Use Value, is enough to explain everything.

KM: Well, it’s pretty boring down there in the grave. I like being up here. Amuse me with your explanation of how Use Value makes all those things equal, all worth five dollars.

SD: It’s very simple. Five dollars is what the owner of the hammer etc. thinks he can get for his hammer. He thinks he can find a customer who will pay five dollars, so he sets the price at five dollars.

KM: But why will the customer pay five dollars exactly?

SD: There is no such thing as “the customer”. Every customer is different. Some want hammers, some want sickles, some want nothing and stay at home and don’t come to the store.

KM: I knew that.

SD: So you also knew that the five dollar price tag is not meant for every customer. Those who don’t need hammers that much, or at all, will not pay five dollars for the hammer. The seller was not even talking to them when he puts a five dollar price tag on the hammer. To them, the hammer may be worth a dollar, or even zero.

KM: So you are saying that it is absurd to say that the hammer, sickle, book, and beef are all worth five dollars, when there is not a single person in the store or in the city who will pay five dollars for all of them. Smith will pay five for the hammer, but zero for the other stuff, Jones will pay five for the book, but nothing for the other stuff, and so on. And to everyone who stayed home and did not go the store, all of the objects are worth zero. Nobody equates them, nobody considers them of equal value. Certainly they are not worth five dollars to the seller, who is trying to get rid of them.

SD: Yep. The seller is putting a five dollar price tag on each because he thinks he will find one person out there who will want a hammer so badly he will pay five bucks for it, and so on.

KM: I still think I’m onto something, Dave. There must be a reason that the seller assumes there exists at least one person put there willing to pay five for the hammer, another to pay five for the sickle, etc. The fact that for each commodity in the list there exists at least one person willing to pay five bucks means there is something “five-dollary” about them all.

SD: Nah, it’s a coincidence, and I’ll prove it. See that bottled water? It’s going for twenty five cents now. But should the city water supply get infected with Ebola, that same bottle will go for five dollars.

KM: You’re saying that it’s absurd to think there is something inherently five-dollary about a particular item when each person has his own estimation of the worth of the thing, each day, sometimes each minute, these estimations change, outside events unrelated to the object change its price, the whole price system is so personal, and so fluid, and so influenced by events that do not change the composition of the object, that it is foolish to think there is some abstract quality in the object that determines its price.

SD: Yeppers. The whole Exchange Value thing was created to solve a theoretical problem that didn’t exist in the first place. And the concept itself is fatally flawed.

KM: OK. So the very basis of my whole book has now been destroyed. But don’t send me back to the grave. I hate it there. Let’s talk about other flaws in my book.

SD: Maybe next time.

That MIT Paper That Supposedly Knows the Future of Bitcoin.

The paper is right here:

The quotes are from here:

Devil’s Advocate: So MIT Guy. I bet you are a billionaire now. I mean, knowing the future and everything. You must have sold your house and borrowed every last penny you could get your hands on, the better to invest it in bitcoins using your fool proof algorithm.

MIT Guy: Give me your money and I’d be happy to invest it for you.

DA: Did any Austrian Economics go into making up your computerized predictor? You know, trying to actually understand the humans who are buying and selling, and what makes them tick?

MIT Guy: Can we explain the price variation in terms of factors related to the human world? We have not spent a lot of time doing that.

DA: One thing AE says about all these computer predictions is that they work perfectly until they don’t. So I’m sure you tested your gizmo in all kinds of situations, bitcoin going up and down, over a long, long time period, to make sure you weren’t being stupid and cherry picking one tiny interval, say two months,  where bitcoin was going in one direction only.

MIT Guy: Let me show you a summary in graph form:

See? The blue line is the price of bitcoins, and the black line is how much money we made. So 50 days

DA: Oh, I see. 50 whole days. And I notice the ups were huge and the downs were slight.

MIT Guy: Hey, it’s not my fault we picked the one time this whole year bitcoin was going up. And I resent you calling that cherry picking. Give me your money and I’d be happy to invest it for you.

Smiling Dave: What’s worrisome is not that the guy doesn’t know how to do statistics. Plenty of statisticians don’t know their job. What’s worrisome is that he thinks statistics is where to look in the first place.

DA: Take your articles, for instance, Dave. With zero statistical data, using sheer logical reasoning from first principles, Mises and Timothy Terrel and Peter Schiff and others have predicted that bitcoin is going to die, and explained why it was doomed from the get go. And you summarized their work right here at

SD: Yes, the current state of mainstream Economics is sad indeed. But hey, it always has been. I mean, the whole idea of having universities teach economics in the first place was to make sure the students learned govt propaganda. Read up on what happened to Say and Bastiat.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers