Consulting by RPM || Free Advice Blog

“I can’t believe it! I don’t know a single person who voted for Reagan!”

Such was apparently the reaction of some liberal in 1980, according to a conservative writer I read a long time ago. I was reminded of this anecdote when reading Tom Woods discuss his upcoming Phoenix appearance:

Austrian Study Group in Nashville Area

I am passing along this email, which I received from Matt Raum. Note that I am not organizing this group. If it gets up and running, I will probably stop in once in a while. I’m just passing this along in case there are readers who want to join.

I told Matt that he should start with either Callahan’s Economics for Real People or with my Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, depending on the interest of the group.

If you want to contact Matt, his email is: Matt.Raum@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Murphy,

I am starting an Austrian Economics reading group in Nashville with a few
friends. I have struggled to read the more academic books like Human Action and
America’s Great Depression and I think my odds of reading and comprehending will
be improved if I can do it with a few others. So far the group consists of two
musicians, a bartender and a Vandy econ. grad. student. The other musician has
an econ. undergrad, the bartender has a philosophy undergrad and I have only a
GED. The idea is to pick a book to read and meet up weekly for coffee or beers
and discuss and debate. I’ve never been a part of anything like this but I
thought I’d give it a try.

I thought I would let you know about it since I know you live in the area. Maybe
you happen to know some other amateurs that would be interested in our group. I
think Human Action may be the place to start but maybe you could suggest a
better book to begin with. I found Economics In One Lesson fairly ease but Human
Action was too tough for me to get through on my own. Of course, I would love
for you to be involved in some way but we do not have the type of jobs that
would allow us to pay you anything for teaching. I think we could probably
afford to cover your drinks if you felt like showing up sometime.

Thanks for any help,

Matt Raum

Potpourri

* My recent interview on the Victory Report. It’s familiar ground for most of you, but maybe you’re bored on your commute. We talk about monetary theory and what the average Joe should do.

* Silas Barta has a saucy post relating to my new book [.pdf] on whole life insurance and fractional reserve banking. His idea sounds promising. When I get more time, I may come back to explain what (I think) Silas is overlooking. In the book, co-author Carlos Lara and I don’t merely say whole life is good because “saving is good.” We give very specific reasons for why this approach is better than many others, including 401(k) contributions.

* Benoit Mandelbrot has died. He coined the term “fractal” and his work is used in “chaos theory” (the field, not my pamphlet). With Thomas Bundt I wrote a paper in the RAE using non-Gaussian probability distributions to show the limitations of standard neoclassical modeling.

* Yikes! This shows why some of the worries over getting rid of IP law are overblown. People would still be heavily penalized for plagiarism, at least in certain contexts. At the very least, the moral of the story is: Don’t mess with someone named Gonzalo.

Come See the Murphy-Wenzel Seminars at the Historic Omni Parker House in Boston

On Friday, October 29, Bob Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and I will host an afternoon and then evening seminar at the historic Omni Parker House in downtown Boston. The two seminars will feature independent content:

* During the lunch seminar from 12pm – 2pm, Murphy will discuss 5 reasons investors should study Austrian economics, rather than Keynesian. Wenzel will discuss Austrian business cycle theory, and how it should be used by investors.

* During the evening seminar from 7pm – 9pm, Murphy will discuss the Great Depression and its lessons for today. Wenzel will explain how to talk code like the elites, so that you can navigate the regulatory framework as an insider. Wenzel will illustrate his lessons using real-life examples of techniques he and acquaintances have used to achieve remarkable goals while others have been suffocated by regulations.

Both seminars will be held in the luxurious Omni Parker House:

Please note that food and drinks will be available to attendees at both the afternoon and evening seminars, but that they will have to be purchased separately.

The admission fee for either event is $30 at the door. However, if you order online, admission for each event is only $24. If you order online for both events, the total fee is $32.

==> Click here to order the afternoon seminar.

==> Click here to order the evening seminar.

==> Click here for the best value to order both seminars.

In addition to the above public seminars, Wenzel is available for private consultation. Contact him for details.

And on Friday night, Murphy is available for karaoke requests. 2-drink minimum.

Putting Austrian Business Cycle Theory to the Test

I actually have some empirical analysis in this one. Target: Krugman.

Thomas Sowell Back in the Day

I didn’t know such videos were floating around. Thanks to Tony Garcia.

Religious Toleration and Moderation

A few weeks ago, David Ranallo–a self-described kind-hearted libertarian atheist–asked that I blog about this video from Sam Harris. I agreed to do so, even though I don’t think Harris makes a good case. If you are pressed for time, I think you can just watch the last 5 minutes of this and get the gist of it:

(If you want to hear more, here is Part 2 of the above talk, which I haven’t watched.)

So here are my reactions:

* Yes, I totally agree with RanalloHarris that religious views–just like views on physics and literature–should be held up to scrutiny. In fact, from my perspective the single most fundamental question a person needs to answer is, “Does God exist?” Your answer to that question will ramify throughout your being and your life.

* As RanalloHarris himself admits (in the 11th minute of the video, I believe), religious fundamentalists actually do this quite well. For example, American evangelicals have no problem saying publicly that Islam is wrong, etc., and that people who don’t think like them are going to burn in hell. (Note that I personally don’t endorse the inflammatory, self-congratulatory tone that these statements often take.)

* RanalloHarris’s real objection, in this talk, is to religious “moderates,” the watered-down, we-can’t-judge-anyone-else’s-beliefs crowd. I actually agree with him. In the political realm, this is like the middle-of-the-roader who says, “Well we need some government, it just has gotten out of hand in the last few decades.” I’m not saying you need to be either a totalitarian or an anarchist, but I am saying that I would like some principles to justify one’s views.

* On this blog, I certainly don’t take the position that RanalloHarris is criticizing. I hope I do not come off as judgmental or offensive, but I definitely think there is an OBJECTIVE ANSWER to religious questions. There is a fact of the matter about such issues as the existence and nature of hell, whether people have souls, etc. I certainly do not claim to have all the answers, but I do claim that I am sure these answers exist. Religious questions are not akin to asking, “What is your taste in music?” or “Do you like Thai food?” I have engaged in battles with commenters on my posts–K Sralla comes to mind–and we never say, “Well, that’s how I feel, I have faith in that view, so let’s stop this discussion.”

* Having said all that, I believe–contrary to RanalloHarris–that one should be respectful of someone else’s religious views. But the reason (at least for me, in my personal life) is that I try not to be a jerk. I also would be very very cautious in criticizing someone’s children, or an artist’s painting that took him a year to complete. For people who are deeply religious, those views are literally the aspect of their lives they hold most dear. For example, the worst insults someone could give to me, would be to say that I am a bad example of a Christian, or that I don’t really believe all this nonsense and must be faking it for some ulterior motive.

* In terms of our culture, I think there is a very good reason we have religious moderation and tolerance: This is a completely understandable legacy of religious wars. Even though I believe there are objective answers to religious questions, nonetheless it is much harder to come to agreement on them, compared to (say) issues in physics. So that’s why, in the interests of peace, Americans (and presumably many other groups, but I don’t know how much) have adopted the idea of religious toleration. “You can believe what you want to believe, just don’t tell me what I can believe.” Also, if you subscribe to libertarian notions of property rights, then “religious freedom” is an obvious corollary.

* Ironically, RanalloHarris–at least in this first part of his talk–doesn’t actually give any arguments against the views he attacks. He just informs the crowd that 44% of Americans think Jesus will probably come back in the next 50 years, and that Catholics think condom usage is immoral. That’s it, that’s the punchline. He doesn’t even make an attempt to bring up their arguments for these views; he just condemns them as obviously absurd. In fact, I think he even goes so far as to say that they don’t have reasons for these views, which simply isn’t true.

Will Smith Thinks He Can Beat Up Mike Tyson

(Song reference.)

This was a very pleasant surprise. Normally what happens is that I like the performance of an actor, and then can’t stand the guy when he opens his mouth in an interview. Yet I had the opposite reaction to this collage, which a reader emailed me.