In interview, Hoppe gives a
great example of how printing money causes malinvestments and savings increases the standard of living.
"I’ll give you a simple example. Imagine Robinson Crusoe and Friday on
their desert island. If Robinson catches fish and consumes some of them,
but not all, he can lend those to Friday who can eat them for a few
days, and invest his time in the construction of a fishing net of his
own. With this net he can catch so many fish that he can feed himself
and to give Robinson the borrowed fish back. Both are doing even better
than before. But what happens if Robinson does not save, but eats all
the fish himself and gives Friday only a certificate that can be
exchanged for this fish? If Friday wants to go to Robinson to redeem the
certificate, he finds that no fish is there. Friday must therefore
quickly obtain food himself and has no time to finish the net. It
remains an abandoned project. The standard of living of Friday and
Robinson drops."
Hoppe reminds us that as bad as things are, they can always get worse.
"The central banks are trying to save the paper money system by any
means. I’m afraid the next step is to eliminate the remaining currency
competition through a centralization of money and banking. At the end
there might be a kind of global central bank, with a global single
currency, into which the dollar, euro and yen are merged. Freed from
competition with other currencies, this central bank would then have
even more room for inflation. The crisis would not be over, but would
return with a vengeance on the global level."
Maybe this is the exit strategy our rulers are preparing. It fits with the rumors ten years ago about about a North American amero currency.
"For China, it would be a clever move to back the yuan by gold to push
the dollar from the global dominance. With a gold-backed yuan, the days
of America’s economic dominance and the dollar would be numbered. The
West will therefore do everything possible to prevent China from doing
this."
But it seems to be happening.
"States generally have the tendency to centralize their power. In
Europe, powers are transferred to Brussels to eliminate competition
among countries. The dream of the statists is a world state with uniform
taxes and regulations, which robs the citizens of any opportunity to
improve their lives by emigrating. Citizens recognize that basically the
European Union is a huge redistribution apparatus. This fuels
discontent and incites the envy of nations among themselves.
...
For the cause of freedom it would be best if Europe were to fall
apart into as many micro-states as possible. This applies to Germany as
well. The smaller the spatial extent of a State, the easier it is to
emigrate and the nicer the state must be to its citizens in order to
retain the productive people."
I hope this happens in the US, soon.
"The classical liberals underestimate the extent of the state’s
inherent tendency to grow. Who determines how many tax-financed police
officers, judges and soldiers there are in the night-watchman state? In
the market, based on voluntary payments for goods and services, the
answer is clear: milk is produced to such an extent and sold at such
prices that consumers are willing to pay. However, to the question “how
much” the government of any country will always answer: The more money
we have, the more we can do. Because they can force citizens to pay
taxes, the government will ask for more and more money and deliver a
continuously poorer performance. The idea of a minimal state is a
conceptually faulty design. Minimal states can never remain minimal
states.
...
If the state protects property by state police, it requires taxes.
However, taxes are expropriation. The state thus becomes an
expropriating property protector. And a state that wants to maintain law
and order, but can itself issue laws, is a law breaking law maintainer."
The state is internally inconsistent. This is a really good interview about the advantages of stateless societies and people's fear of them. Naturally the interview ends with the free rider question regarding security, which Hoppe rejects on moral grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment