==> Reisenwitz vs. Borowski, settling things the way libertarians always do: through voting.
==> Why your iPhone footage from Europe has a weird strobe light effect.
==> John Carney looks at a Fed paper that (implicitly) challenges Austrian business cycle theory.
==> NYT on Edward Snowden (from a couple of weeks ago, I just haven’t posted it yet). I think some in even the mainstream media realize the danger in letting government crack down on whistleblowers.
==> Some in the Bitcoin controversies asked me to read this essay (by Niels van der Linden). They claimed that Rothbard botched things, and needed to go back to Menger, when it came to understanding the demand for media of exchange. The only real issue I see in this article, is the claim that when a commodity comes to be demanded as a medium of exchange, this wouldn’t actually increase the total demand for it. (In the standard Rothbardian treatment, there is a snowball effect as more and more people increase their demand for it.) The reason, according to van der Linden, is that you would just be substituting one person’s demand for another. For example, if I acquire a goat not because I want to consume it, but because I will trade it away down the road, then sure, my demand went up by “one goat” but then the person to whom I trade it will now reduce his demand from the rest of the community by “one goat” (since he’s getting the goat from me).
I see what the issue is here, but I don’t think it works. People hold media of exchange for a length of time, and sometimes not having specific future exchanges in mind. Think of it this way: If the whole community is walking around with gold coins in their pockets, and this was facilitated in part because there are a fraction of them who wear gold as necklaces, it is nonetheless true that the community is holding more total gold than would have been the case had gold not been adopted as money. It’s not the case that each gold coin is merely a shifting forward of that gold’s destiny as a commodity.