Tweet

@AOMConnect

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

20 Dec 20

Many anti-market folks assert that property must have arisen from someone claiming for himself that which was jointly used. That's their bias, not an explanation or theory. Private property can emerge from joint or communal use without conflict. When it does, it is by definition

legitimate property. Locke showed how it could be done through mixing one's labor with unowned/unclaimed land. I have previously drafted an alternative theory. Neither claims that all existing property, or even the existing property *system*, is therefore libertarianpapers.org/5-man-matter-f…

legitimate, only that there can be legitimate private property. This is enough to carefully consider the concept, which must be accepted as a potential alternative solution for social production and economy. The arguments for property-based production are very strong, which is,

Read 13 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

6 Dec 20

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1335569777272688646

This is the type of nonsense we get without basic understanding of economy: Government is recommended to lure businesses to close by offering them money. There are many problems with this, including where that money comes from, but the greatest is the upending of what

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1335569777272688646

economy means. By establishing a payment system based on paying off *producers*, government effectively does away with consumer sovereignty. Businesses remain in business and earn profits because consumers value what they have to offer. When consumers don't, then the business

@CEPS_thinktank

fails. Like so many other schemes, this pretend-smart nonsense by @CEPS_thinktank and @WEF mistake the market economy for production management. Suggesting to pay off producers to not produce effectively shift the determination of the production structure away from consumer wants

Read 4 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

4 Dec 20

Needs do not matter. History is full of thinkers falling into the trap of referring to needs as were they something real and distinct. But by referring to what people "need," you're really using rhetoric without substance. You are creating the illusion that your claims are

objective, whereas they are not. To put it differently, it sounds smart but isn't. Economists recognized this fact in the early 1870s, which caused a revolution in the study of economics. Until then, they had, like everybody else, been trapped by thinking of people's needs in the

objective meaning that the term seems to imply. But there is nothing objective about it, and even if there were--it would still be irrelevant. So referring to "need" in your argument is akin to the trade of stage magicians: what you're doing looks impressive, but it's not. When

Read 25 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

18 Nov 20

Let's clear up some misconceptions about #AustrianEconomics. If people want to dismiss this school of thought, which many seem inclined to do for political (not theoretical) reasons, at least they should do so based on facts and knowledge, not on falsehoods. Here are corrections:

"Austrian economics is not empirical."
False.
Empirical studies ("history") are important in AE and have larger scope than in mainstream economics. Mises worked with applied research in the Vienna Chamber of Commerce and founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research,

for which he appointed Hayek as the first director. This is where Hayek did much of the business cycle research that later won him the Nobel Prize. What critics fail to understand is Austrians' narrower definition of theory, which is not a collection of hypotheses but true,

Read 25 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

16 Nov 20

This is the type of nonsense we get with the blind adherence to the consumption-spending fallacy ("Keynesianism"): "remote workers are 'contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits'." Producing at lower cost = cnb.cx/35mNe7x

@DeutscheBank

bad for the economy? 🤦‍♂️To these "analysts," people wasting less resources when producing (supposedly at the same level) need to be burdened with an extra tax to "make up for" (?) using less resources. Did anybody at @DeutscheBank think this through? If the problem is that they're

not spending enough to produce, i.e. that there is a higher output-input ratio (horror!), then they should, for the sake of consistency (and, from their POV, to stifle such economy-killing lower-cost production), also propose extra taxes for #innovation, #entrepreneurship, and

Read 4 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

29 Oct 20

Yuck. I'm not looking forward to teaching my #entrepreneurship students this nonsense. Cost-based pricing exists, but it is really stupid to use it in a startup with new product.

I wrote about this here (although the essay was given a strange title): mises.org/wire/how-gover…

https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2/status/1321768555935801344?s=20

As expected, this nutter feels compelled to flaunt his complete lack of theoretical understanding. In this case, of course, he wasn't even able to read the tweet he comments on. What does this Keynesian idiot think "in a startup with new product" mean?

https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2/status/1321768555935801344?s=20

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Per Bylund

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?