My First Article in a Print Newspaper

Screen Shot 2017-08-14 at 17.29.41

Last month, I wrote an article for Mises.org, wherein I explained how it was possible that a recent headline-making study could have ranked Britain’s NHS as “the number one health system” despite its many shortcomings, and why I believe the study was misleading.

Happily, my article went somewhat viral, being read around 20,000 times and receiving many hundreds of shares on social media.

Having read my original 1,200-word article, the editor of the comment section at the London-based financial newspaper City A.M. asked me to rewrite it as a 750-word piece for the paper.

I’m pleased to say that that abbreviated version was published as the lead article in City A.M.’s comment section today, making it my first article in a print newspaper.

You can read the article in question here: http://www.cityam.com/270171/nhs-world-class-if-you-ignore-its-woeful-outcomes

Advertisements

Live Stream with That Guy T

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 10.47.08

This week I have been attending the ‘Mises University’ summer programme, the Mises Institute’s week-long crash course in Austrian Economics, for the second year in a row. It’s always an incredibly fun and intense week of learning, which brings together around 150 students each year from all over the world, and teaches them more economics in one week than most of them have learned in years of university study.

For more info about attending MisesU in future years, as well as about other Mises Institute events, follow this link: https://mises.org/events

One of my fellow MisesU attendees this year is Taleed Brown, better known as ‘That Guy T‘, an infamous libertarian/alt-right social media personality, whose YouTube channel has over 100,000 subscribers. Last night, he invited Tho Bishop, the Mises Institute’s social media director, and me to do a YouTube live stream with him, to talk about the importance of the Mises Institute, as well as other more general topics.

There were a lot of questions about immigration and… *sigh* “ethno-states”, as well as other ultra-edgy alt-right topics which are apparently of considerably greater interest to Taleed’s audience than they are to me. But we managed to get a few bits of economics in there too, as well as raising some very generous donations to the Mises Institute, so that’s what matters.

If you’re interested in watching, I’m attaching the recording of the stream below.

Anarchists for Elizabeth? A follow-up

Screen Shot 2017-06-27 at 23.42.53

Yesterday I published an article on Mises.org defending the Queen from the misinformed faux-outrage of British leftists, who have recently been complaining about the pay rise she will enjoy next year. I argued that it was wrong to view the Queen’s income as a form of welfare from taxpayers’ money, as she is actually paid from the profits of the land she owns, known as ‘the Crown Estate’. I further argued that the world would be a better place from a libertarian perspective if she used her power to veto laws by ‘withholding the royal assent’ more frequently.

However, I then went on to claim that the Queen was a hero of liberty for having vetoed a few laws and that she was a victim of state oppression because the profits from her £12 billion worth of land go to the Treasury before she gets her 15% cut. I then finished the article by demanding that all principled libertarians should join me in an impassioned “God save the Queen”.

These latter remarks were obviously tongue-in-cheek, as was the article in general, a fact that should have been clear from the accompanying picture of a monarch posing in front of an anarchist flag. The not-entirely-serious nature of the article would have been made even more obvious had it been entitled ‘Why Anarchists should Support the Queen‘ as I had initially hoped. However, the editor decided to run it under the less obviously humorous title ‘For Libertarians, The British Monarchy is the Least of our Worries‘ in order to broaden the appeal, which threw people off the fact that it was intended as something of a joke. The irony was even further lost after the article was later shared under the title ‘A Libertarian Defence of the British Monarchy‘.

An increasing number of readers who completely missed the joke began leaving angery comments on the article, accusing me of being an idiot, the Mises Institute of being neo-feudalist sellouts, and so on. Such humourless people can be expected to come out of the woodwork whenever anything is posted on the internet, and it was abundantly clear that many of them had not read the article to begin with, so for me to waste my energy trying to persuade them of my opinion would be folly.

Screen Shot 2017-07-10 at 20.42.53

However, there was a second group of commenters who had clearly read the article and agreed with it for the most part, but who kept making the same objection. Their comments tended to go along these lines: “Given that the Crown lands came into the possession of the monarchy unjustly, how can you lament that the Queen suffers from state encroachment into her property? Shouldn’t we take all her land away from her, seeing as it’s unjustly acquired?”

Putting aside the ironic aspects of my original article, I actually tend to agree with this objection. To the extent that the Crown lands were acquired by conquest and coercion by the state, mostly after the invasion by William the Conqueror, it is true to say that the monarchy acquired them unjustly. However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that all the lands the Queen currently owns were originally acquired unjustly by previous monarchs during previous centuries, does this mean that the Queen’s ownership of them now is unjust? I don’t believe that logic necessarily follows, and to explain why it will be helpful to engage in a thought experiment.

What would happen to the Queen’s land under a Rothbardian legal system?

In his book The Ethics of Liberty (1982), the great Austrian economist and anarcho-capitalist philosopher Murray N. Rothbard devoted a considerable number of pages to explaining how just property claims would be preserved and distinguished from unjust property claims in a legal system based on the Non-Aggression Principle: the central moral precept of libertarianism. For example, Rothbard outlines a scenario wherein his NAP-based propertarian legal system would have to determine what would happen to a person, A, who inherited a piece of property from B which, unbeknownst to A, had been stolen by B from its previous owner, C. A has done nothing wrong in this scenario, but how would an NAP based legal system deal with this?

We can apply Rothbard’s solution to this problem to our own issue with the Queen and the Crown lands. Let’s assume for ease of argument that all of the Crown lands that the Queen now owns were acquired for the Crown unjustly by William the Conqueror, 1000 years ago. How would the NAP based legal system solve this problem, according to Rothbard?

Let’s say that Mr. Jones believes that a given parcel of the Queen’s land once belonged to his ancestor 1000 years ago and would belong to him now if it hadn’t been unjustly expropriated by William the Conqueror, and then eventually passed down through inheritance to the Queen. Mr. Jones would therefore take the Queen to the NAP-based court, alleging that she is in possession of stolen goods which rightfully belong to him. Firstly the court would have to determine whether the parcel of land really had been acquired unjustly by William the Conqueror. Assuming that they did determine this, it would therefore be assumed that the Queen’s claim to ownership of the property was unjust, and her claim to the property would no longer be legally recognised or upheld. Then it would be the prerogative of Mr. Jones to prove in the court that the property right in the land was rightfully his. If he was capable of doing this, the land would become his, and would therefore have been restored to its rightful owner. However, in the specific case of the Crown lands, there is an unusually long distance of time between the original expropriation and the present day, making it extremely unlikely that Mr. Jones, or anyone else, would be able to prove in court that they were the rightful owner of the property. If neither Mr. Jones nor the Queen is deemed to have a right of property in the land, then the court would declare the land unowned. The unowned land would then become the property of whoever first homesteaded it by mixing their labour with it; in other words, the person who was using the land most recently, the Queen. Therefore a libertarian, propertarian legal system would most likely determine that the Queen is indeed the just owner of most of the Crown lands, given that the original expropriation was so far back in history that it would be impossible to restore the land to the heirs of its rightful owners, meaning that the Queen has technically homesteaded it from an effectively unowned state.

Therefore, just because the monarchy first acquired the Crown lands unjustly, hundreds of years ago, it does not necessarily follow that the Queen is not the rightful owner of that land today. Assuming that she is the rightful owner of at least part of the Crown lands, it cannot therefore be argued from a libertarian perspective that she deserves to have the land taken away from her or out of her full control.

So in conclusion, upon further impartial investigation into this matter, I have determined that I was right all along, and everyone else is a idiot.

God save the Queen!

 

My Successful Mises Fellowship Proposal

Screen Shot 2017-06-29 at 09.51.57

This summer I have had the privilege of spending two months at the Mises Institute as a Fellow in Residence. The Institute’s Fellowship programme offers the opportunity for independent study and research, along with access to the Institute’s libraries and on-site academics, to around a dozen students each year, allowing them to either work on a chapter for their dissertation, an article for an academic journal, or some other such thing.

Most of the Fellows this year are Masters, PhD, and post-doc students in their 20s to early-30s, although admittance to the Fellowship programme is by no means exclusive to this age range, and I myself am a mere second-year undergraduate. I am currently around half way through my time at the Institute for 2017, which is the first time I’ve been a Fellow here, and it’s been the absolute time of my life; I’ve already made some great friends and wonderful memories, aside from getting some seriously good work done and improving my CV all at the same time.

However, when I was going through the application process a few months ago, I would have been grateful to have had a better idea of what sort of thing they were looking for in a successful application, as I hadn’t applied to this sort of thing before.

For anyone else out there who’s thinking about applying, but would feel more certain of their application if they were able to see a successful one first, I am including my research proposal for this year below, which formed the biggest part of my application. Obviously you won’t get far by simply copying my proposal, but it should at least help to give you an idea of the sort of thing they’re looking for in a successful application.

For more info about the Mises Institute’s summer Fellowship programme, go to https://mises.org/about-mises/fellowships

 


 

George Pickering

Mises Institute Fellowship in Residence 2017 Research Proposal

Competing views on the Origin of Money: A Critical Review of the Literature since Menger

I am applying for this 2017 Fellowship in Residence at the Mises Institute in the hope of conducting research on the topic of the origin of money; specifically on whether and to what extent the Mengerian/Austrian explanation of this topic could be complemented by, or is incompatible with, subsequent theories. My aim is not necessarily to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature, but rather to consider the major competing theories which have appeared since Menger’s On the Origin of Money, and assess the extent to which they are or are not compatible with Menger’s conclusions and methodology. While Menger’s explanation demonstrated that state intervention is not necessary in order for money to originate, I feel that an assessment of subsequent ‘State Theories’ of the origins of money might allow for a more full theoretical explanation of the process by which monies develop in cases when states do intervene. In particular, I am interested to consider the possible distortive effects of the institution of taxation on this process, a topic which I feel has not yet been fully explored in pre-existing Austrian literature on the origins of money.

In order to assess the compatibility of subsequent theories with the Mengerian/Austrian explanation, I intend to primarily use Menger’s own deductive methodology, (except, of course, in cases when comment is required on questionable empirical points raised by other authors.) I feel that this is an important and worthwhile topic of research not only due to the great importance of the concept of money to the study of economics, but also due to the ongoing significance of the economic forces which Menger identified as having led to the development of money. Menger’s explanation of the origins of money is not framed as a historical account of a series of events which took place by happenstance, but rather as a description of how still existing characteristics of human action could logically be expected to lead to the development of monies. As Menger’s himself stressed, inquiry into this topic is essential to a proper understanding of “not only the origin but also the nature of money” (Menger 2009, p.18). Indeed, a proper understanding of the origin of money is not only necessary to understand monetary history, but also to understand the forces still influencing monies and their related institutions in the present.

 

Annotated Bibliography

While the number of citations will undoubtedly increase before the paper is completed, the list included here is intended to present a selection of those sources which will be most central to the argument I anticipate making, either as key selections from the literature under review, or as important supporting documents. For this reason, I have grouped them here in a way that relates to their places in the structure of the paper, rather than listing them alphabetically.

i) Menger’s Theory of the Origin of Money:

I intend to begin by presenting the theory of the origin of money out of barter, as laid out by Menger (2009). Due to the central place of Menger’s explanation in the framework of Austrian economics, not to mention its early date and great influence on later theories of the origins of money, I plan to consider these subsequent theories in the context of how far they are compatible with or contrary to Menger’s explanation and methodology. The later adumbrations of Menger’s explanation by Mises (1998 and 2009) and Rothbard (2009), will be considered as complements to Menger’s theory, particularly given the development of the terminology surrounding this field by Mises (2009). Luther (2014) and Latzer and Schmitz (2002) will be used to provide context to Menger’s explanation, both in terms of its consistency with Menger’s methodology, and by highlighting a selection of its subsequent iterations and extensions.

  • Menger, Carl. [1892] 2009. On the Origin of Money. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • ——. [1912] 2009. The Theory of Money and Credit. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Rothbard, Murray N. 2009. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Scholar’s Edition, second edition. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Sennholz, Hans. 1992. “The Monetary Writings of Carl Menger”. in The Gold Standard: Perspectives in the Austrian School. edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Auburn, Ala: Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Luther, William J., 2014. Preface to On the Origins of Money by Carl Menger, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2446645
  • Latzer, Michael, and Stefan W. Schmitz. ed. 2002. Carl Menger and the Evolution of Payments Systems: From Barter to Electronic Money, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

 

ii) The State Theory of Money:

Having outlined the Mengerian/Austrian explanation of the origin of money, I plan to contrast it with literature which emphasises the role of the state in that process. As well as addressing the theories presented in the literature, I hope to consider whether and to what extent the existing, non-Austrian descriptions of the influence of the state on the development of money might complement the Austrian theory. To the extent that the ‘State Theories’ can provide insights into how state action can influence the development of monies, while still accepting that Menger’s theory correctly describes characteristics of human action which propel that process, the question then arises of which of those two forces tends to exert the greater influence, and whether that is a matter for theoretical or empirical enquiry. Furthermore, how much can be said from a theoretical perspective about the necessary outcomes of state intervention per se, into the process of the development of a monetary commodity out of media of exchange, or is this an empirical question dependent upon the specifics of each given intervention? The literature on this subject is naturally extensive, but I anticipate that the history of these ideas presented by Wray (2014) will provide a very valuable aid in the writing of this section.

  • Knapp, George Friedrich. 1924. The State Theory of Money. London: Macmillan & Company Limited
  • Lerner, Abba P., 1947. Money as a Creature of the State. The American Economic Review, Vol. 37, No. 2
  • Desan, Christine A., 2013. Creation Stories: Myths About the Origins of Money. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 13-20.
  • ——. 2014. Making Money: Coin Currency and the Coming of Capitalism. Oxford University Press
  • Wray, L. Randall. 2014. From the State Theory of Money to Modern Monetary Theory: An Alternative to Economic Orthodoxy. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Working Paper No.792

 

iii) The Effect of Taxation on the development of a Money out of Media of Exchange

During my assessment of the state theories of the origins of money, I am particularly interested to consider the influence of the institution of taxation, when introduced to the chain of events described in Menger’s theory. It is true to say that the economic forces described in Menger’s framework are logically sufficient to explain the development of monies (i.e. generally accepted media of exchange). However, given that states stand to benefit by restricting the number of commodities accepted in payment of taxation, they can thus be expected to accelerate and influence the process by which a single money eventually develops out of media of exchange. This is so because, if a state stipulates that taxation must be paid in a particular commodity, citizens who expect they will be forced to pay those taxes will tend to wish to acquire that commodity more strongly than would otherwise be the case. To the extent that this increases the valuation of that commodity by a large part of the population within that state’s borders, and therefore makes that commodity more saleable, the desirability of using that commodity as a medium of exchange would also increase, other things being equal. For this reason, the institution of taxation can be expected to distort the process by which a money develops out of media of exchange, away from what would have taken place if that process had developed along exclusively Mengerian lines. The selection of chartalist literature outlined by Wray (2014) could provide valuable insights into the impacts on the development of money when states restrict the number of commodities accepted in payment of taxation. Furthermore, Tilly (1982) provides an interesting illustration of the process by which taxation likely developed in early societies, through the nature of coercion and obligation.

  • Tilly, Charles. 1982. Warmaking and Statemaking as Organized Crime. University of Michigan CRSO Working Paper No.256

 

iv) The Credit Theory of Money:

I also hope to consider a range of theories which emphasise the importance of credit in pre-monetary societies, to the development of money. Wray (2004) collects several interesting contributions to this literature, including by A. Mitchell Innes and Geoffrey W. Gardiner, (as well as chapters relevant to the state theory of money.) However, I am particularly eager to consider the chapter “The Myth of Barter” by Graeber (2011), which directly and forcefully attacks theories such as that of Carl Menger (whom Graeber apparently confuses with Karl Menger, the mathematician). Concerningly, Graeber seems to take issue with the very idea that economists should use hypotheticals or thought experiments in their analysis of this issue, and therefore dismisses descriptions of barter in his opponents’ explanations as “faraway fantasylands” (Graeber 2011, p.25). Given the lengths Graeber goes to in his attempt to dismiss barter theories of the origins of money, it is less clear whether credit theories such as his own would be at all compatible with Menger’s explanation.

  • Wray, L. Randall. ed. 2004. Credit and State Theories of Money. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
  • Graeber, David. 2011. Debt: The First 5000 Years. New York: Melville House Publishing
  • Watson, Michael V. Szpindor. “A Cheer for Innes: Incorporating Inter-temporal Barter into Menger’s Account on the Emergence of Money.” Presented to the Austrian Economics Research Conference, March 10-11, 2017. (Due to the very recent date of this paper, I have not yet been afforded the opportunity to fully consider how closely it will relate to my own line of inquiry. However, I suspect that my work on this topic will be benefitted by an assessment of Watson’s insights.)

 

Other sources of interest:

  • Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1975. Money: Whence it came, where it went. London: André Deutsch Limited

While it does not necessarily present a systematic theoretical explanation of the causes of the development of money, Galbraith’s work nevertheless provides an interesting account of the history of the development of money.

 

Conclusion

While Menger’s pathbreaking work brilliantly demonstrated that state intervention is not necessary in order for money to originate, he himself nevertheless recognised the distortive influence which “state recognition and state regulation” (Menger 2009, p.51) could have on the process by which monies develop. I feel that a sound assessment of the competing theories of the origins of money since Menger, particularly of the extent to which they are compatible with the praxeological method, could prove to be a valuable resource in the development of a theoretical explanation of the impacts of state intervention on the origins of money. Not only would such an explanation expand the scope of sound, Austrian economic theory, but it would also provide valuable insights into the nature of the forces which still influence the monetary landscape of the world today. In the event that I am fortunate enough to be offered the opportunity to pursue this topic as a Fellow in Residence at the Mises Institute, it is my hope that the resultant research might go some way toward developing a better understanding of this important topic.

My Thoughts on the New Tory Government


Just a quick post to say I was recently privileged to have my first article published on  the very important libertarian site LewRockwell.com


In the article I give my opinion on the first major speech by new British PM Theresa May, and the unpleasant new direction in which she seems to be taking the Conservative Party. As you can probably guess from Lew’s characteristically incendiary headline, I’m not too pleased with how the new government seems to be combining the economic policies of Labour with the immigration policies of UKIP.

For the full story, feel free to check out the article here:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/george-pickering/evil-new-uk-pm/

And as always, my “List of Articles” page here on this blog contains an up-to-date list of everything I’ve written elsewhere. So if you’re interested to read more, be sure to check up on that page to make sure you’re not letting anything else fly under the radar.

More to come soon…

Could the Next Crash Happen This Month?

In late August of this year, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen began hinting that the Fed might raise interest rates some time in September. Speaking at the annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Ms Yellen said that “in light of the continued solid performance of the labour market and our outlook for economic activity and inflation, I believe that the case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened in recent months.”

screen-shot-2016-09-11-at-11-34-59

Fed chair Janet Yellen recently hinted that the Fed Funds Rate might be raised in September.

While there was a stock market reaction to the announcement, it was fairly mild, with the S&P 500 falling by just 0.16%. Tellingly however, the bond market was much more severely hit, with yields on two-year US government bonds rising by 6.8%, and on 10-year US government bonds rising by 3.6%. This speaks to the way in which the easy money policy which the Fed has been pursuing since the last crash, has inflated a bubble in the value of government debt, particularly in the current low-rates climate, where it’s seen as one of the few safe ways to see a return on your savings. (For more about how central banks have been inflating a dangerous government debt bubble, see my recent article for the Mises Institute.)

So why might a Fed rates hike start the next crash? Essentially, the low interest rates, quantitative easing, and general “money-printing” which central banks have been pursuing since the last crash, has allowed investors to bid asset prices higher than they otherwise would have been, and governments to borrow at lower cost. As illustrated by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, not only does the cheap cost of borrowing enabled by artificially low interest rates allow for the inflation of unsustainable asset bubbles, but it also encourages businesses to borrow money to invest in more risky projects. The problem with this is that it gives the illusion of profitability to projects which would not have appeared profitable if interest rates had been allowed to naturally reflect the state of real resources in the economy.

When a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, forces interest rates lower than they otherwise would have been, it distorts the signals businesses have available to them, concerning the state of real resources the economy has at its disposal. An artificially low interest rate signals that the economy has more saved up resources than it actually does. This makes certain, long-term investments appear as though they’re going to be profitable, when actually there aren’t enough real resources in the economy to see them all through to completion. Eventually, in order to avoid hyperinflation, the central bank will have to cease its money printing and allow interest rates to rise again, at which point a whole host of these projects across the economy are suddenly revealed to have been unprofitable all along, with the resources invested in them having been wasted. Bankruptcies ensue, and the crash begins.

Furthermore, to illustrate the way in which central bank money printing has created a bubble in the stock market, I have stolen this graph from Lara-Murphy.com, which shows a clear correlation between the rate at which the Fed has been increasing the money supply, and the value of the S&P 500.

screen-shot-2016-09-11-at-12-39-30

The blue line approximates the total amount of money in the US economy, as controlled by the Fed, and the red line shows the value of the S&P 500.

The graph shows quite a striking correlation. Whenever the Fed has stepped on the gas and ramped up its quantitative easing – such as can be seen here between late-2012 and late-2014 – the stock market has boomed with it, and whenever it has hung fire the stock market has stuttered, as can be seen on the graph in late-2011. The extraordinary thing about this is that throughout almost this entire time period, Fed interest rates were close to 0%. The fact that, even during a time when borrowing was forced to be so cheap, so much of the stock market growth still seems to have been nothing more than a result of inflation, hints at just how little the US economy really has recovered from the Great Recession, even to this day.

A taste of the calamity we have in store for when this bubble finally bursts, was provided in December of 2015, when the Fed raised interest rates for the first time since 2006. Even that interest hike of a mere 0.25%, caused a dramatic downturn in the stock market, as can be seen on the graph above, and widespread speculation in January of this year that we were about to plunge into another recession. The massive downturn caused by such a modest rates hike then, gives an insight into the enormous degree of malinvestment which must be lurking under the surface of the economy, a bubble teetering precariously on the edge of bursting, kept there by low interest rates alone. When the Fed finally does have to raise rates more, and this stock market bubble finally bursts, I suspect that the similar bubbles throughout the economy – government debt, house prices, auto-loans, etc – which will come crashing down with it.

Even the mere suggestion of another possible rates hike has already caused a wobble in the economic house of cards the Fed’s easy money has propped up. The S&P 500 fell by 2.45% on Friday, its biggest decline since the Brexit shock, whilst the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 2.13% and the Nasdaq fell by 2.54%. The fact that these key economic indicators were so bludgeoned by even the faintest hint of a rates rise, lays bare the unstable, low rates fuelled bubbles which have been the source of so much of their apparent recent “growth”, and which now appear close to bursting.

So will the rates hike and crash really arrive this September?

While Ms Yellen’s remarks did initially spark concerns that this could be the case, prediction markets have now quieted down somewhat about the possibility of a September rates hike. According to the CME Group fed funds futures, the likelihood of a rates rise in September has fallen to just 27%. The consensus at this point is that the Fed will wait until after this year’s election before contemplating any further action, with the likelihood that a Fed Funds Rate hike will be agreed upon at the Fed’s final meeting of the year placed at 46%.

However, as much as I suspect a crash will follow any rates hike they do pursue, this delay is actually not necessarily good news. The longer interest rates are held low, the more malinvestments will be made before the crash comes, and consequently the worse the crash will eventually be. With interest rates having been at extraordinary lows since the start of the Great Recession, there’s no way of completely avoiding the fact that such a long period of low rates means malinvestments have already been made, the bubble has already been inflated, and so the crash is inevitably coming. It’s not within our power at this point to avoid the next crash altogether, because the mistakes which will cause it have already been made. But an early rates hike would at least get the recession out of the way before the bubble could inflate any further.

Sadly though, high rates in 2016 are scarcely more popular at the Fed than they are at the Bank of England. The likelihood that policymakers will be bold enough to raise rates enough to give us the short, sharp shock needed to rid us of this bubble and get the inevitable recession out of the way quickly, are rather slim.

My First Published Article

Screen Shot 2016-08-26 at 13.49.14

So this past Monday I had my first ever article published. It was put out by Mises Wire, the daily online publication of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, where I recently spent a week studying Austrian Economics at their ‘Mises University’ summer programme.

In the article, I discuss the little clues which have come to the surface in the British economy since the new Bank of England interest rates cut, and what they might point to for the future of the world economy.

You can read the full article at this link:

https://mises.org/blog/bank-england-turns-more-easy-money

More to come soon, on both this blog and hopefully over on Mises Wire again. Stay tuned…