Тег: Freedom Pride

Crises. Where to lay some straw?

Freedom pride, which I have mentioned here before, published an article on their VK page “How Not to Bring Back 2008”, where they briefly outline the Austrian theory of the business cycle (thanks!), and then move on to explain the real business cycle theory, which in the author’s presentation essentially claims that no cycles exist, only random shocks—basically, sometimes a black swan just craps on your business from the sky. That’s all there is to it, and there’s no need to ponder where these swans come from; it doesn’t matter.

Of course, such an approach seems insufficiently satisfying for something claiming the status of a theory. The Austrian approach clearly identifies the cause of cycles: credit expansion by banks operating under fractional reserves and the regulation of the discount rate by central banks. Without specifying the causes, it becomes something like stating a death was caused by the flu, while the deceased was over a hundred years old and their body was completely worn out. Had they not died of the flu today, they would have died of a heart attack tomorrow. In other words, the specific black swan is less important than the systemic factor of old age.

However, within the framework of the article, it is indeed not so important why cycles happen; it focuses not on how to get rid of credit expansion, but on what allows the economy of one country or another to weather crises more easily. Accumulated statistics by country show that countries with free economies endure crises much more easily, even though it would seem that the most terrifying bubbles inflate in the financial markets there, and they should be worse off. But that’s not the case; the market levels the structure of supply and demand much faster than any dirigiste government measures.

That is to say, even if one considers either business cycles or simply random shocks to be inevitable, a country can quite possibly minimize their consequences simply by having a liberal economy. It is for the sake of this optimistic conclusion that I recommend this somewhat controversial article.


Comparative growth index of relatively less economically free and relatively more economically free countries in 2001-2017 (below the 2001 median and above the 2001 median, respectively). For 16 consecutive years, freer countries have shown higher average growth rates. The greatest difference is observed in the crisis year of 2009 (-0.3% for freer countries versus -2.8% for unfree countries)

Subjective Ethical Utilitarianism

I would like to recommend a very interesting article written byCreadon and published in the Freedom pride public page on the wretched VKontakte. The article brings ethics closer to economics within the framework of the general principle of methodological subjectivism, which is precisely why it is valuable, since economic theory is already very well developed and derived quite rigorously, whereas libertarian ethics has been attempted to be built on all sorts of strange foundations. Here, the foundation is reliable. I will provide a fragment as a teaser:

Let’s be blunt: nobody owes anyone anything. Instead of dividing people into debtors and beneficiaries, we will consider all human actions in a more general form — as a balance between rewards and costs. And questions of debt will remain a special case of this balance.
This can be briefly characterized as “subjective utilitarianism“. Subjective because it views people as subjects of action and takes into account their goals and means. Utilitarianism because its goal is maximum efficiency and maximum utility. This concept has great potential because, based on the same game theory, the most efficient strategies will win in repeated dilemmas. Moreover, “utility” itself has a very important property — within science, it is quite easily integrated into formal systems and exists there as an axiomatic crutch. Relying on this crutch, we can build further analysis around the system of utilitarianism without getting stuck in a dead end.

Imagine the interaction of individuals as a huge game where all resources are limited, and there are no hundred-percent guarantees or unconditional boons falling from the sky. The only way to obtain resources in such a system is by completing tasks. Each task has two parameters: the price (or cost) we pay for its execution and the result, which is our reward. When the reward exceeds the costs, we take on such a project. When the costs exceed the reward, we leave it. And yet, since human predictive abilities are not perfect, we sometimes miss the opportunity to participate in a profitable project. Or, conversely, we take on a doomed cause and incur losses.

Even if we add to these reflections some higher authority (for example, God), who will punish us for transgressions according to His principles, the central idea of the model will not go anywhere. We still have tasks that have their own price and their own reward. The price of an apple could be climbing a tree or going to the store. The price of sinning, say, committing adultery, is eternity in Hell.

It is important to understand that obligation is someone’s subjective perspective. In the cashier’s opinion, you must pay for the goods. In your mother’s opinion, you ought to visit her more often. In the opinion of the public (despite the vagueness of this category, nevertheless), you must observe generally accepted norms of behavior. In the opinion of the state, you must pay taxes. And the final decision on all these dilemmas, regardless of the circumstances, is made by the acting subject himself.

You. It is for you to decide whom you owe and what.