MSkousen.com

Ben Franklin: The most modern of the Founders

Mark Skousen — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:39:39 +0000

by Mark Skousen

01/17/2012 (This article was also published on Human Events)

“I have sometimes almost wished it had been my destiny to have been born two or three centuries hence.” — Ben Franklin

Benjamin Franklin, whose birthday we celebrate today, Jan. 17, 1706, was the oldest of the founding fathers — he was indeed a whole generation ahead of George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson — and yet he was the most forward-looking of the group, a man ahead of his times. He was a supporter of free-enterprise capitalism and globalization, a skeptic about organized religion, defender of the rights of minorities, a lover of modern gadgetry, and proponent of the sexual revolution.

His views were distinctly modern. Of all the founders, he would be the one most comfortable living today. He would not be surprised by the tremendous advances in people’s incomes and living standards. After the American revolution, he predicted, “America will, with God’s blessing, become a great and happy country.” He was an optimist and a believer in progress and the American dream, the idea that every American could get ahead through industry, thrift and a good education. Franklin was in many ways the father of American capitalism. He would be pleased with the buzz of daily life in the market place and our major cities.

As an advocate of the “new” economics of “free trade” and open borders, he embraced the benefits of globalization, the spread of democracy and representative government. “Our cause is the cause of all mankind. God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all nations of the earth so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, this is my country!”

Throughout his adult life, he was mesmerized by scientific advances in transportation, medicine, and agriculture, and loved to hear about and even create his own new inventions. “I have sometimes almost wished it had been my destiny to have been born two or three centuries hence,” he dreamed, “for inventions of improvement are prolific, and beget more of their kind. The present progress is rapid. Many of great importance, now unthought of, will before that period be procured. I mention one reason for such a wish, which is that if the art of physic [medicine] shall be improved in proportion with other arts, we may then be able to avoid diseases, and live as long as the patriarchs in Genesis.” Franklin would be the first to have a cell phone and an HD television.

His attitudes toward religion were very much in keeping with today’s tolerant and skeptical views. He opposed any kind of requirement of a religious test on legislators, and believed in a “general toleration of all.” He actually donated funds to all the various churches in Philadelphia. Of the three virtues, hope, faith and charity, he regarded charity (good works) as the most important. He believed in God, but had his doubts about the divinity of Christ.

His views were advanced for his age when it came to treatment of minorities. He let his slaves go during his lifetime, and was an advocate for the abolition of slavery. He considered blacks equally capable as whites. He blamed most of the Indian disputes on the white population.

Franklin was a defender of women’s rights and treated them as his equals. “Women, especially, flocked to see him, to speak to him for hours on end,” commented his French friend Le Roy. The savant of Philadelphia was no distant marble figure like the reserved Virginian George Washington or the cantankerous prude John Adams. Here was a red-blooded American Casanova who disdained the mores of a sexually-repressed Puritan age, enjoyed a strong libido, and was adored by the fairer sex for his charm, story-telling, fame and savoir faire. A thoroughly modern founding father who had few hang-ups.

As far as politics is concerned, there are many characteristics of today’s government he might find agreeable and some disagreeable. He was not especially fond of the gold standard, and preferred a paper money standard, though he feared too much inflation could be “mischievous and the populous apt to demand more than is necessary.” He supported and invested in Robert Morris’s Bank of North America, a precursor to Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States, America’s first central bank.

Some features of modern-day America would appall Franklin. He would feel terribly uncomfortable with the size and burden of today’s national debt, and America’s leaders failure to balance the budget. The sheer size of the federal government would depress him. He believed “a virtuous and laborious [industrious] people can be cheaply governed.” He would dislike the engagement in foreign wars by the U. S. military. “The system of America is [should be] commerce with all, and war with none.”

Finally, he hated party politics. “There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men, ambition and avarice, the love of power and the love of money….And of what kind of men will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, thro’ all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will trust themselves to this government and be their rules.”

Mr. Skousen is a renowned financial economist, author and university professor. He has been the editor of the financial advice newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies, for 30 years. Two of his books highlight Milton Friedman’s career: “The Making of Modern Economics” and “Vienna and Chicago, Friends or Foes?.” Check out his latest book “The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, And John Maynard Keynes” or “Investing in One Lesson” and “EconoPower: How a New Generation of Economists is

Free-Market Economists on the Defensive at AEA Meeting in Chicago

Mark Skousen — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:10:51 +0000

“The big cannon should be fiscal policy [more deficit spending].” — Peter Diamond, Nobel Prize Economist and New Fed Member

Every year I attend (and sometimes speak) at the American Economic Association (AEA) meetings, where the top economists meet and present papers on current issues. In the past, I’ve confronted Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, government officials, and Nobel laureates with tough questions.

This year’s conference was held in Chicago, home of the famed free-market Chicago School of Economics. After the financial crisis of 2008, the Chicago school has been under assault, and there was a session on “Has the Chicago School Emerged from the Crisis Unscathed?” Clearly not, the panelists concluded.

Peter Diamond’s Solution to the Unemployment Problem: Tax (the Rich) and Spend!

Panels are always the most provocative, and usually involved famous people. This year the panels were dominated by Keynesian Nobel Prize winners such as Paul Krugman and Peter Diamond. Diamond was just appointed by President Obama to be a new Fed member. A major topic at this year’s conference was the lousy employment numbers. The unemployment rate is 8.5%, and more importantly, job openings are falling. Apparently the unemployed are dropping out of the labor force and giving up.

In a popular session, “What Happened to the US Employment Miracle,” the panelists agreed that the employment miracle ended around 2000, even before the 2008 crisis. And 10.6 million jobs will be needed just to get back to 2007 levels. Chicago economist Steven Davis said that despite the clear benefits of a college education, men are not responding and going to college.

What to do? “The big cannon is now fiscal policy,” Diamond said. He recommended that Washington spend more and run even deeper deficits, preferably on education, R&D, and infrastructure, not foreign wars. And he meant “now is the time to act to get people back to work.”

More than $1.7 trillion a year? Aren’t we risking default like Europe? Apparently not. “There is no imminent debt problem in the United States as there is in Europe,” he responded.

Since he was headed to the Fed, I asked him what he would recommend Bernanke do to stimulate the economy. “Should we inflate our way out?”

“There is no inflation problem today,” he said. Meaning: Get the printing presses going 24/7!

I asked Diamond and other experts on why the employment market was so stagnant. Was it due to excessive regulation (ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, minimum wage)? They said “no” to all these reasons. But higher taxes and unpredictable monetary policy could hamper the recovery in the jobs market.

Diamond recommended that now is time to reform Social Security, before all the baby boomers start getting benefits. I suspect that means higher taxes on the wealthy and raising the retirement age — not privatization — but he didn’t go into particulars.

Diamond is an advocate of a sharp increase in the marginal tax rate on wealthy individuals — to as high as 73%, according to the latest issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives — and without any loopholes. He says the studies show this high rate won’t hurt incentives. Really?

Krugman Sings the Same Tune

Paul Krugman (see photo) echoed Diamond. He told me that the only option left open now is “more massive deficit spending.”

What about the fear that we are headed toward default European style?

“Not a chance,” he replied. “We’re years away.” He pointed out that Treasury bonds are still rising, so there’s no worry. (10 year bond yield is under 2%!)

I pointed to numerous examples of developed countries (Canada, Sweden, New Zealand) that had cut spending and reduced their deficits, and their economies flourished. “Not relevant!” he exclaimed. “None of these countries were suffering from a severe recession.”

Would he favor a cut in the corporate tax rate, as advocated even by Democrats? “No,” he said emphatically. In fact, he supports a tax increase on wealthy Americans, up to 50% without loopholes.

Sadly, these are the kind of economists who President Obama is listening to. Can we afford another four years of tax and spend? It’s scary.

Robert Shiller and the Real Estate Market

Yale economist Robert Shiller is more cordial and open-minded. He was on the platform at an AEA luncheon, along with a dozen or more other economists (why is it that only ivy-league economists are so honored?).

He is famous for his book Irrational Exuberance, wherein he predicted the tops of both the stock market in 2001 and the real estate market in 2006. He is also co-inventor of the Case-Shiller Real Estate Index. I asked him if the index suggested a bottoming pattern. He didn’t know, but the futures market for real estate looked promising.

In fact, a new report states that “the number of improving housing markets nearly doubled,” including Dallas, Denver, and Philadelphia. I’m bullish and have been recommending housing stocks.

Interestingly, Paul Krugman told me that Nouriel Roubini, the notoriously bearish economist from NYU, recently bought a house in the New York area. “That’s a clear sign of a bottom,” Krugman said with some glee.

Bob was kind enough to ask me about my new book. I told him about The Maxims of Wall Street and shared with him some of the Wall Street sayings.

Robert Mundell on the Euro and EU Crisis

I also had a chance to interview free-market economist and Nobel Prize winner Robert Mundell. We were on the same flight together to and from New York. He was appalled by the “crude” Keynesians at the AEA meeting who advocated all-out inflationary policies.

“What about the future of the euro and the Euro zone?” I asked. Mundell is considered the father of the euro.

“Some countries like Greece will have to default on their debt, but the euro is here to stay and the EU will survive,” he predicted. He no doubt would reject out of hand Robert Barro’s op ed in the Wall Street Journal (January 9) that the euro be disbanded. Such an event would undoubtedly cause a stock market crash.

I interviewed Larry Summers, former president of Harvard and recently President Obama’s top economist. (See photo.) I asked if he it was true that no president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 8%, and he said, “It’s not so much the rate as the direction of the unemployment rate.” If it’s headed down, that’s positive for Obama.

China: Threat to the West?

Summers participated in an high-powered panel on “The United States and China” with Robert Mundell, Gary Becker, and Robert Zoellick, the new president of the World Bank. It was a lively session moderated by Fordham professor Dominick Salvatore. Gary Becker said that China is surpassing us rapidly in education. While our graduation rates are declining, theirs is increasing. Our immigration policy is biased against skilled workers.

Robert Mundell and Larry Summers agreed that the rise of China is “the greatest fact of the 21st century,” and China’s GDP could surpass ours in ten years or less. But both Summers and Becker warned not to extrapolate too much, recalling that pundits predicted in the 1960s that the Soviet Union would bury us economically, and in the 1980s Japan would dominate the world. Neither prediction came true.

Robert Zoellick noted that when he visited China, the Chinese officials were concerned not to develop into an excessive welfare state like Europe. But he warned that there is little dialog between the US and China on China’s growing political/military side — a real danger.

I was the only one who was given the opportunity to ask a question at the end of the two hour session. I asked them what their reaction was to the China bashing that Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and other Republicans are doing, especially Trump’s advocacy of a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports?

All four panelists responded. Robert Mundell said it would be a financial disaster, like an atomic bomb hitting the world. “Besides,” he said, “It would be illegal under GATT rules.” The other panelists agreed that the China bashing was “bad rhetoric” that hopefully would not carry over if they won the presidency.

Tour of the Exhibit Hall and Book Publishers

It’s always fun to tour the exhibit hall and meet with all the publishers here in the States and from the UK. My publisher, ME Sharpe, was there, and told me that my books, The Making of Modern Economics and The Big Three in Economics continue to sell well around the country.

Usually the Cato Institute has a booth at the AEA meetings, but not this year. However, I did see Liberty Fund and the Ayn Rand Institute there. The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) has a reception Friday night for friends of IHS. It was crowded and a nice opportunity to meet like-minded economists.

Are There Any Libertarian Mormons?

Mark Skousen — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:24:28 +0000

There’s a lot of interest these days in Mormons, with a Broadway play about Mormon missionaries, and two running for president (Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman). Most Mormons are Republican conservatives, although Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is a social Democrat. Whether Republican or Democrat, they usually support immigration controls, the war on drugs, nation-building in foreign lands, and traditional marriage laws.

Are there any Mormons who favor laissez faire and libertarian policies?

I wish to direct your attention to a new book called “Latter-Day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government & Politics,” written by a young libertarian named Connor Boyack and published by Cedar Fort Publishers in Utah.

Boyack is a BYU graduate, and a big fan of Cleon Skousen and our pamphlet “Persuasion vs. Force.” Generally, Boyack is more libertarian than conservative. In addition to citing libertarian passages from Mormon scripture and Church leaders, he has extensive chapters on war, immigration, illegal drugs, as well as commentary on controversial subjects such as Christian Communism, Prohibition, and the Welfare State. In the appendix of “Latter-Day Liberty,” he reprints President Ezra Taft Benson’s classic “The Proper Role of Government,” which is libertarian in tone.

It is so well written and persuasive that I agreed to write the foreword when he approached me earlier this year. This is the first time I’ve agreed to write an introduction to someone else’s work.The book has been endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul, FEE, and the Mises Institute, among others.

For more information on the book, go to the website, www.ldsliberty.org.

“Latter-Day Liberty” is available on Amazon for only $12.23, plus S&H. Amazon has several positive reviews.

Connor Boyack will be a featured speaker at FreedomFest next year (July 11-14, 2012, Las Vegas).

A Letter from Warren Buffett on 11-11-11

Mark Skousen — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:39:55 +0000

Dear Friends,

I received a nice letter from Warren Buffett yesterday after I sent him a copy of my new book, “The Maxims of Wall Street.” I quote him and several dozen other Wall Street gurus in the first ever collection of famous sayings on Wall Street. (I met Mr. Buffett last year at the graduation ceremony at Sing Sing.)

Warren Buffett and Mark Skousen at Hudson Link Graduation at Sing Sing

Dear Mark: I’m really going to enjoy the little book you sent me. In fact, I plan to shamelessly steal some of the lines. Thanks for thinking of me. Sincerely, Warren Buffett

Click here to read all about “Maxims” and how to order one or multiple copies at a discount.

I’m getting quite a few orders for “Maxims” as gifts for the holidays — for investors, stockbrokers, money managers, and friends. Greg Galloway of Fund Advisors of America and Jeff Phillips of Global Markets ordered an entire box (32 to a box)….Martin Truax of Morgan Keegan bought four boxes…and Frank Holmes of US Global Investors bought 1000 copies for his shareholders.

The first limited edition (autographed and numbered) has now sold out, and a second printing of the first edition will be available next week on Amazon.com, or by calling Eagle Publishing at 1-800-211-7661 or www.markskousen.com.

Cheers, AEIOU,

Mark Skousen
11-11-11

My Run-In With the SEC

Mark Skousen — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:35:44 +0000

Last Thursday I was at Utah State in Logan, where I delivered the luncheon address at the annual Partners in Business conference there. It is the first time I’ve been invited to speak before a group of professional accountants. Beautiful setting in the mountains.

In the morning session, the chief accountant of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) from 2007 to 2011 (he’s now works for Price Waterhouse but said he wants to come back as an SEC commissioner) spoke for nearly an hour on the “Current Developments of the SEC” and not once mentioned the $64 billion Bernie Madoff scandal or how it has affected SEC policy (new whistleblower program, etc.).

Needless to say, I was incensed.

After his talk, he took questions, and I asked, “I’m amazed that in your entire talk you never once mentioned the biggest scandal in SEC history and biggest financial fraud ever committed on Wall Street. Is it because you are too embarrassed to talk about it? Do you think that investors who lost money in the Madoff scandal should have the right to sue the SEC for negligence?”

The SEC man looked shaken and visibly unset. He strongly defended the SEC and said he sacrificed his salary to work for the SEC, and the SEC gets hundreds of letters about potential fraud cases, and can’t police them all, but the SEC does a highly competent job for the American people.

He made no attempt to express sympathy for the victims of the Madoff crime ($64 billion fraud), or what changes the SEC has made because of its massive failure. When I brought up Harry Markopolos and his book “Nobody Would Listen,” about how Markopolos the repeatedly warned the Boston and New York offices about Madoff’s ponzi scheme, he was silent.

“Is that your apology?” I asked.

“Apology? I don’t need to apologize and will never apologize for what happened. In fact, you should be thanking us for what we did,” he said with considerable emotion.

Half the audience applauded!

Can you believe the arrogant of this guy? The SEC is out of control, I fear. Why couldn’t he just acknowledge that the SEC made a huge blunder and has adopted a number of policies and rules to make sure it never happens again? Instead, he adopted the “no apology” and “let’s not talk about it” routine.

Needless to say, my tough questioning was the talk of the conference, and I believe my luncheon speech was energized by the earlier confrontation with the SEC man.

The new “whistleblower” program of the SEC — in direct response to the Madoff scandal — awards up to 30% of the fines to anyone who directly leads to the conviction of anyone engaging in insider trading or other financial fraud, with a minimum payment of $1 million. I fear this new aggressive whistleblower program at the SEC will be abused and will create spy networks throughout corporate America and Wall Street, thus hampering more the long-term recovery of the economy.

All in all, I was surprised at how defensive the accounting profession has become. I may be misjudging the profession based on just one conference, but it seemed to me that the accountants focused primarily on compliance, auditing, detecting fraud, etc., rather than ways to make companies more profitable and fiscally sound.

Your in (Financial) Liberty, AEIOU,

Mark Skousen

Amazing Holiday Gift Offer for “Maxims of Wall Street”

Mark Skousen — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:29:14 +0000

Dear Investors,

We have an amazing offer for my newly popular “Maxims of Wall Street” just in time for the holiday season!

You can order one of these limited edition, beautifully bound in green and gold books for any young investor, investing friend, colleague or family member, and received it signed by the author (me!) and numbered. See the pricing below:

1 copy is $24.95 plus $5 S&H ($29.95)
2-4 copies, $24.95 each, free shipping (within US)
5-24 copies, $20 each, free shipping (within US)

These books are the ideal holiday gifts for clients of your brokerage, financial planning firm or wealth planning organization. “Maxims” is also perfect for young investors, investing afficionados, business colleagues and family members.

Now available through Amazon (no pricing discounts available through Amazon) or by contacting Eagle Publishing: 1-800-211-7661 or www.markskousen.com.

Don’t delay! If you want your copy of “Maxims of Wall Street” in time for Christmas you must order by December 18! Feel free to share this offer with your investment professional colleagues and friends as well.

Click here for more information on “Maxims of Wall Street.”

New Interview with Mark Skousen and His Major Works

Mark Skousen — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:16:25 +0000

Adrián Ravier, a professor of economics at Francisco Marroquin University in Guatemala and the National University of La Pampa in Argentina, has just completed a major interview with me on my life and contributions to economics, finance and the freedom movement. It will appear in the third volume of “LA ESCUELA AUSTRIACA DESDE ADENTRO: Historias e ideas de sus pensadores,” edited by Adrián Ravier and to be published later this year by Union Editorial in Spain.

Please click here for the entire interview.

Update on FreedomFest 2011

Mark Skousen — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:11:31 +0000

Dear Friends of Freedom,

I’m happy to report that FreedomFest 2011 was another rip-roaring success. With highlights featuring Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, John Mackey (CEO, Whole Foods) and Peter Thiel (founder, PayPal), among many others, the nearly 3,000 attendees had non-stop opportunities to learn, discuss and generate new ideas on liberty and freedom.

We also had the premiere of the Anthem Film Festival, with over 30 films screened. Winners and awards are listed on the Anthem Film Festival website. These narrative and documentary films had terrific messages, strong storylines and interesting concepts that you don’t want to miss. Check out the website. And be sure to part of the Anthem Film Festival next year!

Please see this youtube video, produced by Reason.tv (which was there for the entire conference, conducting fascinating interviews), entitled “What We Saw at FreedomFest” for a nice recap of the conference.

Likewise, you’ll have a chance to view several of the exciting sessions, thanks to C-SPAN’s Book TV. Starting this Saturday, July 30, you can see FreedomFest on C-SPAN Book TV! For more information, go to http://www.booktv.org/Schedule.aspx

If you have never attended FreedomFest before, please consider joining us next year, when we celebrate the Wild West at FreedomFest 2012, July 11-14, at Bally’s in Las Vegas. (Just think 7-11 in Vegas!) And to all our regular attendees, we look forward to meeting up with you once again in Vegas for FreedomFest. Meanwhile, keep protecting our liberties…stay free!

Cheers, AEIOU,
Mark Skousen
Producer, FreedomFest
www.freedomfest.com

Major Interview with Mark Skousen on His Life and Works in Economics, Finance and the Freedom Movement

Mark Skousen — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:53:42 +0000

BETWEEN CHICAGO AND VIENNA: INTERVIEW WITH MARK SKOUSEN

Mark Skousen is an American economist, investment analyst, newsletter editor, college professor and author of more than 25 non-fiction books.

AR: Professor Skousen… Thank you for this opportunity to let us know a little more about yourself. Please, explain the context in which you grew up in Portland, Oregon.

Yes, I grew up in Portland, a great intellectual environment (Reed College, a hotbed of radical thinking, was nearby). It forced me to always be informed and ready to defend my beliefs in economics, politics and religion. My two older brothers, Royal and Joel, as well as my high school friends, constantly challenged me to debate and learn new things.

AR: I have read that your father was an FBI agent. Is this a key to understand why you have been interested in economics and politics since such a young age?

Primarily politics. Like my better-known uncle, W. Cleon Skousen, my father was an FBI agent and a lawyer involved in the anti-Communist movement and gave speeches through the Northwest on politics and the communist threat. We subscribed to publications such as “National Review” and “The Freeman” and attended events and anti-communist rallies.

AR: Was your father a libertarian? Did he introduce you to the Austrian tradition of ideas?

No, he was a strict social conservative, and most of his books in his library were written by William F. Buckley, Jr., Barry Goldwater, Fred Schwartz, Phyllis Schlafly, J. Edgar Hoover, and the like. He did have a copy of Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action” on his shelf, so I was familiar with his name, although Austrian economics did not really capture my imagination until I read Murray Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression,” “Man, Economy and State,” and “What Has the Government Done to Our Money?”

Economics did not become a topic of focus until I took a class in the subject in my senior year in high school. It was taught so badly that I knew I could do better and suddenly I could think of little else. My interests have always been eclectic, and economics interested me intensely because it covers my other interests in mathematics, history, finance, politics and writing. My interest was so intense that I got a B. A., M. S., and Ph.D., all in economics.

AR: Some authors do not like to be called “Austrian”, “Monetarist”, “Keynesian” or “Marxist”. Are we right if we say that you are an Austrian Economist?

I used to be of the opinion that we should all be simply “good economists” as Milton Friedman and Lionel Robbins preached, and not compartmentalize ourselves into various schools. If economics is an objective science, we shouldn’t divide ourselves in various camps, or even “left“ or “right,” terms that create more heat than light. We should all be searching for the truth, no matter what the source. Nevertheless, over time I’ve come to appreciate the biases and advantages of each school. Monetarists focus on the importance of money and the competitive marketplace; Keynesians on consumption, government spending, and institutions; Marxists on labor and management relations; and Austrians on capital and the structure of production. One can learn a great deal by studying the focal points of various schools that otherwise would be missed. But of all the schools, I’ve always found Austrian school to be the most rewarding.

AR: You have been working in the Austrian tradition for a long time, writing books and articles, teaching and giving conferences everywhere. You have even organized FreedomFest. Why? What have you found in this tradition that was absent in other schools of thought?

My first introduction to economics in college was through the popular Keynesian textbook written by Paul Samuelson, and his defense of deficit spending, the welfare state, and his anti-saving mentality (“paradox of thrift”) was a turnoff, contradicting everything I had been taught as a social conservative Mormon, and so I was immediately looking for alternative models.

I was first attracted to writings of Milton Friedman, having been introduced to the Chicago school by Professor Larry Wimmer at Brigham Young University (my alma mater) in the 1960s. Wimmer got his Ph. D. under Friedman. I was especially interested in “Capitalism and Freedom.” While I found Friedman’s writings refreshing and convincing, he could not answer all my questions and doubts about Keynesian macroeconomics and the business cycle.

It was then that I discovered Murray Rothbard in the early 1970s, and was smitten by “America’s Great Depression” and his magnum opus, “Man, Economy and State.” I even read the latter on my honeymoon in 1973 (though I didn’t get far). Here were all the answers about economic theory and policy. I was also quite taken with his booklet, “What Has the Government Done to Our Money?” It finally revealed the mystery of money. To this day, I consider Rothbard’s booklet as powerful a polemic as Marx’s and Engel’s “Communist Manifesto.”

The Austrians definitely have the upper hand when it comes to discussions of money and banking, the business cycle, the structure of production, and how the economy works. I found their macroeconomics far more sophisticated and satisfying than the standard Keynesian and Monetarist models.

However, I should add that since the Seventies, I have regained a great deal of respect for the Chicago tradition, especially their approach of looking at the data and testing various theories in micro and macro economics. Today I consider myself having one foot in the Austrian school and one foot in the Chicago school. But if I lean toward any one school, it is Austrian.

AR: You have received your Ph.D. in Economics and Monetary History from the George Washington University. How was that experience? What have you learned from mainstream economics?

It was a traditional mainstream Ph.D. program, although it did not emphasize advanced mathematics as much as other schools at the time. The professors focused more on theory, history and statistics than mathematical modeling, which I found attractive. I learned a great deal from John W. Kendrick, Arthur E. Burns, and Robert Grossfarb, among others.

They gave me plenty of leeway, and in fact, they let me chose as my dissertation “The Economics of a Pure Gold Standard,” which was heavily Rothbardian — and it sailed through with few changes. I believe I’m the only economist to write a “no compromise” Ph.D. dissertation on the 100% gold standard. At the end of my dissertation committee oral, I was asked, “You don’t really believe in a pure gold standard, do you?” Not surprisingly, Rothbard always loved my dissertation, which has been published and gone through four editions so far (published currently by the Foundation for Economic Education).

AR: And what was your contribution in that dissertation?

It was a history of economic thought about the pure gold standard, as well as a discussion of a silver standard, and its role in society. I tried to show there were strong economic arguments for gold, that monetary gold increased at a rate similar to the monetary rule and that a commodity-based system was not a burden. I was surprised to read that even Mises and Hayek rejected the economic arguments for gold, and only favored gold for political reasons. I also did a comparative study between the gold standard, a monetary rule, free banking, and the current model of central banking under fiat money, pointing out the pros and cons of each.

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the search for a monetary nirvana, an ideal or perfect monetary system, remains elusive. Each monetary program has its pluses and minuses. Economists have solved so many problems, but the ideal monetary system has eluded us. On a purely theoretical level, the international gold standard is probably the best of the lot. On a practical level at this point, the best we can hope for is a monetary system that minimizes structural imbalances, and I think it must include gold in some way as a monitoring device and discipline.

AR: You have been connected with most of the great Austrian economists such as Friedrich Hayek or Murray Rothbard. Any experience you would like to share with us?

I knew both of them. I met Hayek two or three times, and was one of the last people to interview him. In 1985, Gary North and I spent three hours with Hayek at his summer home in the Austrian Alps and peppered him with questions about philosophy, history of the early Austrian school in Vienna, and economics. Much of the interview showed up in “Hayek on Hayek,” in the collected works of Hayek (without attribution, strangely enough). Hayek was in delicate health, but loved every minute of the interview. Afterwards, his wife yelled at us for taking so much of his time. “He won’t be able to do any work for weeks! Get out!” she shouted as she shooed us out the door.

I spent more time with Rothbard in New York, and at conferences sponsored by the Mises Institute, back in the 1980s and early 1990s. He was one of those people who could talk for hours on any subject. It’s like you could never reach the depth of his knowledge.

Around 1980, I commissioned and paid him a handsome sum to write an alternative popular history to Robert Heilbroner’s “Worldly Philosophers.” Heilbroner had an unforgettable title, but his favorite economists were Marx, Keynes and Veblen. We deserved better, so I asked Murray to write the definitive history from an Austrian perspective. He was supposed to write around 12 chapters in 1-2 years, starting with Adam Smith. It turned out to be a much bigger project, a Schumpeterian tome, beginning with the Greeks. I kept encouraging him, but ultimately gave up. The running joke was “Are you to Marx yet?” Adam Smith was supposed to be the subject of chapter 1. Instead it was chapter 16. He finally got to Marx, but then suddenly died of a heart attack in 1995, and the publisher Edward Elgar published two volumes posthumously. Murray planned on writing two more volumes in his exhaustive history, but sadly never got to them.

A few years later, I decided to write the one-volume Heilbroner alternative myself, calling it “The Making of Modern Economics” (ME Sharpe, 2001).

AR: “The Structure of Production” (New York University Press, 1990) was your first academic book, and sometimes is described as a classic of modern Austrian macroeconomics. What can the reader find in that book?

“Structure of Production” has been viewed an the underground bible of supply-side economics; a revival of Say’s law; a tool for financial analysis; and most importantly, as an Austrian advance over the standard Keynesian and monetarist Weltanschauung.

I firmly believe that during our short sojourn in life, we should concentrate on advancing and improving upon the works of others. Why spend time in an activity that others are already carrying on satisfactorily? I saw a need to improve upon Hayek’s masterful macroeconomic model found in “Prices and Production” (1931). The Austrians needed an up-to-date macro model that countered the Keynesian and Monetary models in vogue today. I thought that Hayek’s triangles were a good starting place, but they were entirely theoretical, which was one reason it didn’t catch on. In my work, “The Structure of Production” (NYU Press, 1990), I attempted to modernize Hayek’s triangles into a universal four-stage model of the economy (resources, production, distribution, and final output) that could be integrated into national income statistics and could be tested empirically.

In addition to the universal four-stage model of the economy, the book introduces a new aggregate statistic, Gross Domestic Expenditures (GDE), which attempts to measure total spending in the economy. I show that GDE can easily be integrated into textbook national income statistics such as GDP. See below for the diagram 4-stage model of the economy, and the relationship between GDE and GDP.

The current macro model is Keynesian in nature and starts with final output (GDP), which creates distortions about the economy, overemphasizing consumption at the expense of saving and investment. My “Austrian” model creates the proper balance between the “make” economy and the “use” economy. Using GDE, I discovered that consumer spending represents only about 30% of the US economy, not 70% as is commonly reported. For more detail, see my recent article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/consumer-spending/

I’ve incorporated the 4-stage model and GDE in my own textbook, “Economic Logic” (Capital Press, 2000, 2010), and hopefully it will be adopted eventually in all textbooks. But as Max Planck once said, “science progresses funeral by funeral.”

I also seek to advance the Austrian theory of the business cycle with my introduction of Aggregate Demand Vectors (ADV) and Aggregate Supply Vectors (ASV).

It took me nearly 10 years to write the book, and it’s only now getting some recognition. New York University Press recently released a paperback edition, with a new introduction (2007). I see it was recently translated into Polish.

AR: If I am not wrong, Rothbard had read that book. Did he give you any comments? What does he thinks about so many graphs?

Murray read the entire manuscript and offered numerous suggestions. I think he recognized the breakthrough nature of my work as an Austrian advance in macroeconomics. He has some doubts about my use of graphs, but ultimately endorsed the book, and it was carried for many years by the Mises Institute.

I firmly believe that if we don’t encourage graphics and statistical work in Austrian economics, we will never get accepted by the mainstream textbook community. I wrote my textbook “Economic Logic” in order to demonstrate how it could be done without sacrificing theoretical purity. I was amazed that it could be done. And yes, there are lots of graphs and statistics in my textbook.

I remember the story Larry Wimmer told me. In the 1960s he attended a FEE seminar in New York, and when he tried to draw a supply and demand curve on the blackboard, he was severely reprimanded by the hard-core Misesians. I hope we’ve gotten beyond that kind of Misesian Puritanism. (As far as I’m aware, Mises drew only one graph in all his books, one in “Socialism”).

AR: What do you think about Capital Based Macroeconomics developed in “Time and Money” by Roger W. Garrison?

Professor Garrison is a creative genius and his book offers a significant advancement in Austrian macroeconomics. He has lots of graphs! I especially like the way he integrates and contrasts the Austrian triangles with the Keynesian cross. Absolutely brilliant. I’ve used his book in my classes at Columbia University.

AR: Why do you think that most of the mainstream economists do not pay attention to the Austrian Theory of Capital and the Austrian Theory of Business Cycles?

They are still caught up in Keynes’s law (demand-side management) rather than Say’s law (supply-side management). Until the most recent financial crisis (2008), the mainstream macro models were deemed sufficient to explain the business cycle. For Keynesians, it was the deficiency in either aggregate demand (like the Great Depression) or aggregate supply (as in the case of the Stagflation of the 1970s); for the Monetarists, it was monetary disequilibrium (tight money in the Great Depression or easy money in the 1970s). Both the Keynesian and Monetary models downplayed the impact of asset bubbles because when these asset bubbles collapsed, they only had a micro effect on the economy. So for years, the Austrian model of structural imbalances was ignored.

Then along came the real estate bubble and collapse in the most recent financial crisis, and for the first time, economists had to pay attention to the macro effects of an asset bubble (real estate and mortgage securitization) that collapsed and impacted the entire monetary system. So now the profession cannot ignore asset bubbles any longer, and the Austrian theory of the business cycle can no longer be ignored. The Austrian theory is the only macro model that focuses on the structural imbalances created by below-natural interest rates and easy money, so I expect more and more economists will pay attention to it.

AR: Am I wrong if I say that even today most of the Austrian Economists still do not understand the meaning and the complexity of the structure of production?

Austrian macroeconomics is a sophisticated theory that has challenged even the best economists. Most economists desire simple, predictable models, and that’s difficult to achieve in the Austrian model with various stages of production and consumption, the structure of interest rates, and changes in savings rates, monetary policy, and technological development. I discuss a variety of scenarios using the Austrian model in “The Structure of Production” (see chapters 7-9).

I must admit I was shocked and disappointed that an Austrian economist of such stature as Walter Block would question the value of Hayek’s triangles in a recent article. It’s bad enough that Friedman and the Chicago school consider Hayek’s capital theory “obtuse and confusing,” but for Austrian economists to question it is a sad commentary on the state of Austrian economics today. Hopefully, these criticisms won’t undermine the good work that Roger Garrison and others have done to advance Hayek’s macroeconomics.

AR: Your second academic book was “Economics on Trial” (Irwin McGraw Hill, 1991). What was your contribution there? What were the lies, myths and realities?

Here again I tried to do something new, i.e., review the top ten textbooks in economics at the time, including Samuelson’s “Economics,” and categorize their sins of omission and commission. I noted how they were all pretty much Keynesian in their approach, using Aggregate Supply and Demand, perfect competition, etc. They were largely anti-saving, pro-progressive taxation, and pro-government/welfare state in their macroeconomics.

I uncovered some pretty dumb statements by textbook writers, which got some publicity, such as:

“While savings may pave the road to riches for an individual, if the nation as a whole decides to save more, the result may be a recession and poverty for all.” — William Baumol and Alan Blinder (1988)

“It is difficult to conceive of government bankruptcy when government has the power to create new money by running the printing presses!” — Campbell McConnell and Stanley Brue (1990)

“The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.” — Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus (1989)

The latter statement came out right before the Berlin Wall collapsed and was especially embarrassing to the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson.

But my book isn’t entirely about sins of commission. I urged the profession to focus more on savings and economic growth (using the Asian boom as a good example) rather than the business cycle and distribution of wealth and income, and that it should look to the “next economics,” one that focuses on capital and growth — i.e., the Austrian model of Mises, Hayek, and Schumpeter. I also championed the return of Say’s law, with its emphasis on saving, investment, productivity, entrepreneurship and other aspects of the supply side as the keys to economic growth and higher living standards.

I’ve received a number of letters from readers suggesting I update “Economics on Trial.” I do think the profession has made some improvements, especially by focusing on the classical model more than the Keynesian model in the most recent textbooks (Mankiw’s textbook leads the way in this respect), but it still needs to replace the defective AS-AD in macro and the perfect competition model in micro. I’ve replaced both with better Austrian-style models in “Economic Logic,” and I encourage economists of all stripes to look at my new approach in pedagogy.

AR: Some of your books deal with the History of Economic Thought. If you have to make a list of the five most important books that have influence your own thinking on the field, what would they be?

The reason I commissioned Murray Rothbard to write a contra-Heilbroner history was out of frustration with all previous histories of thought. They were all written by either Keynesians, Marxists or socialists. One exceptional work was “The Enterprising Americans,” by John Chamberlain, an economic journalist, but it was far from complete.

In writing my on one-volume history, I benefited significantly from several recent “tell all” biographies on John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall, Thorstein Veblen, Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, among others.

I also like Albert Hirschman’s “The Passions and the Interests” and Mark Blaug’s “Not Only an Economist,” and his two volume work “Great Economists Before Keynes” and “Great Economists After Keynes.” Blaug is the foremost historian of economic thought, and he has recently said some positive things about the Austrians.

Of course, I found Rothbard’s two volume history of economics useful. Another helpful textbook is Ekelund’s and Hebert’s “History of Economic Theory and Method” (1990) — a graduate level text that is comprehensive, fair and balanced.

AR: Let me jump for a moment to your “The Making of Modern Economics” (M. E. Sharpe Publishers, 2001, 2009). Let´s start with your first chapter. Is it correct to conclude that “All started with Adam” Smith? What about Cantillon or Turgot?

Obviously, there were “pre-Adamites,” as I call them. But Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” was the first real “fat” book that attempted to bring together the full body of theory and history of economic life, far more than any theoretical treatises of Cantillon, Turgot, or even Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and the Spanish scholastics. In many ways, Smith’s two-volume tome was the beginning of modern political economy. As George Stigler said, “You can find it all in Adam Smith.” Well, not quite, but it was the start of something big.

AR: By the way, what do you think of Rothbard´s criticism to Adam Smith?

When I first started writing “The Making of Modern Economics” in the late 1990s, I was still quite infatuated with everything Rothbardian, including his surprising critique of Adam Smith. According to Rothbard, Smith was a plagiarist who “originated nothing that was true, and whatever he originated was wrong.” That’s quite an indictment of the Scottish philosopher celebrated by almost all free-market economists, including Rothbard’s teacher Ludwig von Mises. Mises wrote a glowing introduction to “The Wealth of Nations” edition published by Regnery, calling it a “marvelous” and “great” book that brought together “the ideology of freedom, individualism, and prosperity, with admirable logical clarity and in an impeccable literary form.”

Who was right, Rothbard or Mises? There was only one way to find out. I decided to read the entire 1,000-page “Wealth of Nations,” page by page and cover to cover, and come to my own conclusion. Two months later, I put the book down and said to myself: “Murray Rothbard is wrong and Mises is right.” Adam Smith has written a grand defense of the invisible hand and economic liberalism.

My change of heart completely transformed my history. Suddenly, “The Making of Modern Economics” had a plot, an heroic figure, and a bold storyline. Adam Smith and his system of natural liberty became the focal point from which all economists could be judged, either adding to or distracting from his system of natural liberty. After coming under attrack by socialists, Marxists and Keynesians, the invisible-hand model of Adam Smith was often left for dead but revived from time to time and revised and improved upon by the French, Austrian, British, and Chicago schools, and ultimately triumphed with the collapse of the socialist central planning model in the early 1990s (although it is again being tested by the ongoing financial crisis).

Granted, Smith made numerous mistakes in his classic work, such as his crude labor theory of value, his attack on landlords, and his failure to recognize marginal subjective values, but French, British, Austrian and Chicago economists have done a great job improving upon the House that Adam Smith Built without destroying his fundamental system of natural liberty, and his policy prescriptions, which were largely libertarian (the classical model of limited government, free trade, balanced budgets, and sound money).

I noticed that Murray Rothbard largely ignored the strong libertarian language found in “The Wealth of Nations” and overemphasized marginal statements by Smith that were pro-government or anti-market. His attack on Smith reminds me of free-market critics who take the same parenthetical statements in Smith’s writings and make him into some kind
of social democrat. Both are wrong. Mises had the right attitude when it came to Adam Smith. Smith established the “keystone” of the market economy.

By the way, “The Making of Modern Economics” has been my most successful academic book, having been translated into five languages, including most recently a fine Spanish volume published by Union Editorial through the good support of Professor Jesus Huerta de Soto. It also won the Choice Book Award for Outstanding Academic Title in 2009. Choice is the official organ of the academic libraries in the United States. It has been adopted by dozens of history of thought classes around the United States and the world. Roger Garrison uses it at Auburn, and he tells me that the students love it. I do hope your readers will check it out either the English or Spanish edition.

AR: What do you mean saying that “Marx madness plunges economics into a New Dark Age”? Can we see in the future a revival of Socialism?

That’s my famous chapter 6 in “The Making of Modern Economics.” Marxism-Leninism has done so much harm in the world that I wanted my views unmistakably clear about Marxist doctrine and policies. This chapter has been translated into many languages and has converted many Marxists around the world into free-market advocates. The latest edition has a section of “liberation theology” that has been so popular in Latin America.

AR: In “The Big Three in Economics” (M. E. Sharpe, 2007) you talk about Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. Was Keynes the saver of capitalism?

During the 1930s and the Great Depression, Marxism was all the rage on campuses, threatening to undermine democracies around the world. Students, academics and government officials were searching for a more moderate alternative, and rejecting laissez faire, they discovered in Keynes a “middle of the road” alternative in big government and the welfare state. If Keynes hadn’t come along, the West might have fallen into a Marxist state. Now our challenge is to dig out of the pit that Keynes has put us into.

In “The Big Three,” I came up with the idea of the totem pole of economics, ranking economists from top to bottom, rather than the pendulum approach, where economists are linked to the left, middle and right. As Ronald Reagan once said, “There’s no left or right, only up or down.” Of the big three, I rank Adam Smith on top, Keynes below him, and Marx is low man on the totem pole. I commissioned a Florida woodcarver to create the Totem Pole of Economics, which I display in my home.

AR: Are we living today a Return of the Master?

Sadly, yes. Whenever the world faces a financial crisis or downturn in the economy, the political leaders turn to the Keynesian policies of activist deficit spending, easy money, and the welfare state. As a result, we are facing an unprecedented sea of red ink in the fiscal budgets of the West. As Mises said years ago, “We have outlived the short-run and are suffering the long-run consequences of [Keynesian] policies.”

AR: Let´s talk about “Vienna and Chicago: Friends or Foes?” (Capital Press, 2005). What do you think are the four areas where both schools dissent?

You mean dissent from each other? My book looks primarily at their major differences in methodology, monetary policy, the business cycle, and antitrust.

But they also agree on many points. Both the Austrian and Chicago schools see no value in heavy deficit spending to stimulate a typical recovery. Milton Friedman demonstrated years ago (and most recently confirmed by Harvard’s Robert Barro) that the deficit spending multiplier is close to zero. The two schools also oppose any tax increases during a recession.

One area they likely disagree is in monetary policy during a recession: Chicago economists argue that the money multiplier is significantly positive and can generate a faster recovery than doing nothing. The Austrian school is opposed to any effort to reduce interest rates below the natural rate or to artificially pump up the economy through easy money during a downturn. That can only have negative consequences down the road.

AR: The first big question is why do you think that Chicago has an advantage on methodology versus the Austrians? What about the Austrian traditional criticisms?

Chapter 4 of “Vienna and Chicago” deals with the debates over methodenstreit. Like most economists and, I might add, more and more Austrians, I reject the Misesian a priori view that theories can’t be confirmed or tested looking at historical data. One must always be cautious, but I found that one can learn a great about the value of a theory by looking at the evidence, and often studying history can reveal new theories that were previously overlooked. Stagflation is a case point. It was discovered in Austrian business cycle theory only after it appeared historically.

I reject both the “theory only” approach of the hard-core Misesians and the “history only” approach of the hard-core institutionalists. We need both theory and history to find out the truth. I’m glad to see more empirical testing of theories in the Austrian academic journals. It’s the only way Austrian economics is going to get any attention by the profession.

AR: The second big question is why do you think that Chicago has an advantage on sound money versus the Austrians? Why would a central bank system with a monetary rule be better than a free banking system?

It’s a matter of practical policy. I’m willing to give free banking a try, because I have a great deal of faith in free markets, but I doubt if the public or the legislatures are willing to take such risks. Name me a country in the world who is willing to give up central banking and adopt a free-banking regime? Even Hong Kong has a central bank or monetary authority (the Hongkong Bank). A return to the classical gold standard is also unlikely at this stage. Gold is playing a more important role, but only as a reserve asset and monitoring device. I think it’s much more likely that a central bank will adopt a monetarist rule of increasing the money supply (M2) at a steady rate than adopting free banking (no reserve requirements, giving banks the right to print their own money, etc.).

AR: What were those friendly debates you had with Professor Friedman?

Over a twenty year period, up until the time of his death (2006), I engaged in quite a few friendly fights with Milton Friedman, primarily over paper money vs. the gold standard and Austrian theory of capital and the business cycle. I keep in my wallet Milton Friedman’s torn up $20 bill as proof of one such incident in New Orleans in the late 1990s. I also challenged Friedman at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting in Vancouver on his cure (“print more money”) for Japan’s economic ills. I tell these stories and more in an article I wrote on the subject for “Liberty” magazine in late 2007: http://www.mskousen.com/2007/09/my-friendly-fights-with-dr-friedman/

AR: In the annual meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society that took place in Guatemala in 2006 I remember you gave a lecture. At the end I was allow to ask a question, and that was, “Would you accept an end to the Fed?” I thought your answer would be, Yes, but it wasn´t. Can you explain why?

I’d like to see the Fed replaced by either a computer (Friedman’s monetarist rule) or an international gold standard, or a competitive free-banking system, but it’s not likely to happen in our lifetimes. The humorist Will Rogers once said, “There have been three great inventions since the beginning of time: the fire, the wheel, and central banking.” Every developed nation has a central bank, and every developing country is adding one. Public choice economics suggests that having a monetary authority is simply too seductive and powerful to give up. Even Friedman’s simple proposal of replacing the Fed with a computer that automatically increases the money supply equal to real GDP hasn’t been adopted, because the governments want to be able to intervene at times during a crisis and inject liquidity at a faster pace than real GDP. They don’t have the faith that you and I have that capitalism will right itself and overcome these unpredictable crises. They want to maintain the power to manipulate interest rates and the supply of money and credit. They are too power hungry to give it up. They aren’t willing to accept the discipline of an international gold standard. Nor are they willing to try free banking. It’s too risky for them. So we talk all we want about what ideally we’d like to see, but it’s not likely to happen any time soon.

AR: I always remember Joseph Schumpeter starting his “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” (1942, p. 61) with a profound insight: “What counts in any attempt at social prognosis is not the Yes or No that sums up the facts and arguments which lead up to it but those facts and arguments themselves. They contain all that is scientific in the final result.” Are we wrong if we conclude that Chicago´s arguments are not scientific?

The Chicago school has definitely adopted a more pragmatic approach to economics, i.e., what works or what is predictable, as described in Friedman’s famous and controversial article on methodology. I think we need to use more logic and empirical studies to test our theories and knowledge. We can learn from both. For example, for years technical chartists used “guaranteed” formulas for making money in the stock market, but I was always skeptical of their logic. Eventually, they collapsed.

An old Wall Street saying applies to these fights between the Austrian and Chicago schools on theory and history: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king.”

AR: What about Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent, Robert Barro and “Rational Expectations?” Why did you ignore this New Classical Economists in your history of economic thought book?

I don’t think I did ignore them. I cover them in several chapters of my book, although not in any detail. See chapters 13, 15 and 17, inter alis.

AR: In your “EconoPower” (Wiley & Sons, 2008), you explained “How a New Generation of Economists Is Transforming the World”. Can you make a summarize of your arguments for the reader?

My main argument is that economics has moved from the “dismal science” to the “imperial” science, with economists making inroads into finance (modern portfolio theory, defined contributions plans), business (economic value added, auctions), law (capital punishment), politics (public choice and forecasting elections), history (cliometrics), environmentalism, religion, and even sports. It’s a fascinating broadening of the discipline in the past generation. I’m glad to be a part of it.

AR: There are two other academic books that I would like to talk about here. The first one is “Economic Logic” (Capital Press, 2000, 2010), which includes chapters on macroeconomics and government policy. Is this a new treatise on economics? Is this book better than Mises´s “Human Action,” Rothbard´s “Man, Economy and State” or Reisman´s “Capitalism?”

“Economic Logic” is not a treatise, but a modern-day textbook. I don’t think I can improve upon Mises’s or Rothbard’s magnum opuses, although Reisman’s captivating “Capitalism” is flawed in its defense of the Ricardian cost-of-production theory of value.

I wanted to create an Austrian-style “no compromise” textbook that could be integrated into mainstream economics and be adopted by the profession generally. So it is divided into micro and macro chapters, similar to other textbooks, but there are important additions — in micro, I start with the profit-and-loss income statement and Menger’s theory of the good, which business students can relate to and an important “missing link” in microeconomics. But my textbook is not so radical that it ignores standard microeconomics. By chapter six, I introduce supply and demand, cost analysis, the factors of production (land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship), and the financial markets.

My macro chapters start with the Austrian 4-stage model of the economy, integrating GDE with GDP and other national aggregate statistics. In my money and banking chapter, I introduce the history of money and the international gold standard before I discuss monetary policy. I also include the pros and cons of Keynesian economics, so students become familiar with this defective macro model, AS-AD, etc.

“Economic Logic” also has a test bank, and we are working on a student manual, so it has everything a professor would want to teaching sound economics at a college level. It has been adopted by a half dozen institutions, including the business school at Universidad Francisco Marroquin, the free-market university in Guatemala.

AR: The second is “The Power of Economic Thinking” (Foundation for Economic Education, 2002). How has economics invaded and transformed politics, finance, history, law, religion and other social sciences?

This book is an earlier version of “EconoPower,” discussed above, a compilation of columns I wrote for “The Freeman” during the 1990s.

AR: What about your “Investing in One Lesson” (Regnery Publishing, 2007). Is that book as clear as Hazlitt lessons were on economics?

I have always been envious of Henry Hazlitt’s classic title, “Economics in One Lesson,” and wanted to create a similar title in finance if I could come up with the “one lesson.” I finally did in 2007 — the one lesson being “Wall Street exaggerates everything: The business of investing is not the same as investing in a business.” I explain why stocks are inherently more volatile than the underlining businesses they represent, and then in the rest of the book, I offer ways to minimize the risks of stock-market investment while increasing the chances of making money.

One reason Wall Street is not the same as Main Street is based on the Austrian concept of stages of production — the stock market is a capital good further removed from final consumption. I’ve written extensively on Austrian theory of finance in “The Structure of Production,” “Economics on Trial,” “Economic Logic,” and an essay for “The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics,” edited by Peter Boettke.

AR: Can you say a word on Ayn Rand and the fifty years of “Atlas Shrugged?”

I’m both an admirer and critic of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. She articulated better than any other novelist the evils of totalitarianism, interventionism, corporate welfarism, and the socialist mindset. “Atlas Shrugged” describes in wretched detail how collective “we” thinking and middle-of-the-road interventionism leads a nation down a road to serfdom. No one has written more persuasively about property rights, honest money (a gold-backed dollar), and the right of an individual to safeguard his wealth and property from the agents of coercion (“taxation is theft”).

Yet her dogmatic defense of greed and selfishness hurts her cause and has created an apologetic brand of capitalism that is still viewed negatively by the general public. John Mackey, the brilliant CEO of Whole Foods Markets, offers an improved brand of “conscious” capitalism that hopefully will convert business leaders and the general public to a more positive view of free enterprise.

I’ve written an extensive review of “Atlas Shrugged” for the “Christian Science Monitor”:
http://www.mskousen.com/2007/03/atlas-shrugged-50-years-later/

AR: What about Peter Drucker? Is he an Austrian?

Like Joseph Schumpeter, Peter Drucker grew up in Austria along with Mises and Hayek, but is considered an enfant terrible of the Austrian school. He became the world’s most celebrated management guru, and his management style was definitely Austrian, with his emphasis on economy, thrift, creative destruction, and entrepreneurship. He was critical of Keynesian economics, but was not a true believer like Mises. He thought that laissez faire capitalism was defective. But rather than endorse big government, he endorsed big business as the ideal social institution.

AR: You have been the President of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) between 2001 and 2002. How was that experience?

It was a great experience that ended too quickly. My goal was to bring back the glory days of FEE and make it a household name like Cato or Heritage. I planned a series of events, including FEE’s first national convention in Las Vegas, which attracted over 850 attendees, and a promotional campaign to increase ten fold the circulation of “The Freeman.” I also engineered the acquisition of Laissez Faire Books. Lastly, I invited America’s mayor Rudy Giuliani to speak at our annual Liberty Ball and leased the large Hilton Hotel ballroom in New York that holds more than 2000 people.

But my plans were cut short when Rudy Giuliani proved to be a controversial choice, and I wasn’t especially adept at fundraising in my first year. I guess the board wanted someone who didn’t rock the boat and spent more time quietly raising money than creating new programs and expanding old ones. Alas, I lasted only a year as president. I’ve had a successful career in marketing, but I don’t think I was cut out to be a fundraiser, and I don’t envy those who have to do it every day.

Still, it was a thrilling time, and I continue to be a supporter of FEE and other free-market think tanks, and invite them to participate in my annual show, FreedomFest, in Vegas. (FreedomFest is a for-profit event — we don’t fundraise.)

AR: If we take your more than 25 books and all your papers, and ask which is your most important contribution to economics and finance. What would you say?

I can boil down my primary goals to three, all admittedly ambitious:

First, replace Keynes’s macro model with the universal four-stage model of the economy. This my work, “The Structure of Production;” It has application to the financial markets.

Second, write an alternative one-volume history of thought to Robert Heilbroner’s “Worldly Philosophers.” This is my book “The Making of Modern Economics,” which has now gone through two editions.

And third, develop a “no compromise” college-level textbook in economics that rivals Paul Samuelson’s “Economics.” “Economic Logic” seeks to integrate Austrian economics into the mainstream textbooks.

Professor Ken Schoolland has written a paper detailing my attempt to achieve this triathlon, published by the Cobden Centre in the UK: http://www.cobdencentre.org/?s=mark+skousen

Of the three, #2 has been the most successful so far.

AR: Please, tell us the story behind “The Mark Skousen School of Business,” in the Grantham University.

I was surprised as much as anyone when I was told in 2005 that Grantham University, an online university with headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, was naming their business school after me. Usually you have to be a billionaire or dead to have a school named after you. They want to create a free-market brand of business, finance and management based on my free-market views, since I’ve had experience in all three fields. I have just completed a personal finance course, “Dollars and Sense,” for all the students (15,000 and growing, mainly in the US military), and will be using my “Economic Logic” textbook as the main book for their business students. I’m working closely with them to develop a new business school program for Grantham, and they have high hopes of expanding aggressively around the world.

AR: We can´t finish this interview without comments on FreedomFest.

Thanks for asking. FreedomFest has been a surprising success, rivaling my success as an investment newsletter writer (“Forecasts & Strategies,” which I’ve been writing since 1980).

For years, I thought that the freedom movement, broadly defined, needs to gather together once a year to learn, network, socialize and celebrate liberty, or what’s left of it. But we’ve always been too individualistic, too much like a herd of cats, and we need to come together more to show and feel a unity of support. So when I was president of FEE, we had our first national convention, and it was a big success with 850 attendees.

When I left FEE, I continued the idea by producing FreedomFest, “the world’s largest gathering of free minds.” We meet every July, a week after the 4th, in Las Vegas, the world’s most laissez faire city. It’s a “hot” conference, and we continue to set records every year. This year we had nearly 2400 attendees, with over 200 speakers and exhibitors. All the major think tanks and freedom organizations — Cato, Reason, Heritage, FEE, Goldwater, Adam Smith, PRI, Heartland, ISI, Eagle, etc. — come from around the world, and it’s quite an affair. Steve Forbes and John Mackey (CEO, Whole Foods Market) attend all three days every year and are now our official ambassadors.

I encourage everyone from around the world to join us: www.freedomfest.com.

AR: Can you conclude with some reflections or suggestions to the young students that are reading this interview?

Let me say something controversial. If you want to change the world and the economics profession, learn from the great Austrians at Hillsdale, GMU, Grove City, etc., as an undergraduate, and then apply to the top ivy-league graduate schools (Harvard, Chicago, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, etc.). With your Ph.D. in hand, apply to teach at these top ivy league schools, and if you get a position, start teaching Austrian economics to the next generation of students. Don’t write academic articles for Austrian journals. Write for the top economic journals — AER, JEP, etc. That way the best and the brightest will finally know about Mises and Hayek.

One of my regrets is that I got my Ph.D. at George Washington University, a second-tier graduate program. As a result, I found it difficult to teach at the top schools. I taught two years at Columbia, but that was it.

When I wrote “The Making of Modern Economics,” I decided to have it published by a non-market publisher, M. E. Sharpe. It proved to be a good move, because it has exposed a large group of social democrats to Austrian and Chicago economics.

Back when I got started as a student in the 1960s, there were virtually no free-market textbooks, few free-market economics departments, and only a handful of treatises and publications you could read that introduced your to market principles — Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hazlitt, and the like. Now there are hundreds of professors, books, think tanks, organizations and conferences to teach free-market principles and the heroes behind the marketplace. I encourage you at attend these seminars and become involved with the various think tanks and websites.

Be sure to check out several resources and think tanks in free-market economics. Every institution has its biases and its favorite writers, and sometimes even suppresses scholars they don’t like. It’s unfortunate but a fact of life in the freedom movement.

I invite you to visit my website at www.mskousen.com and check out my articles and books that may advance your knowledge of free-market economics and finance. I’m also starting an Austrian-oriented business undergraduate and MBA program online at Grantham University, if you are so inclined to pursue a business degree.

AR: Professor Skousen, thank you so much for your time and effort!

Un placer! It was a honor, and I wish you the best of luck in your work and your interviews. And remember, A. E. I. O. U.

Maxims of Wall Street — New Book Now Available!

Mark Skousen — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:25:24 +0000

AFTER 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING, ANNOUNCING AN HISTORIC FIRST…

Mark Skousen with the bull and bear

THE MAXIMS OF WALL STREET
A Compilation of Financial Adages, Ancient Proverbs, and Worldly Wisdom

By Mark Skousen

“Bears Make Headlines, Bulls Make Money”

Attention all investors, subscribers, stockbrokers and money managers!

For nearly 30 years, I have been collecting all the old wise adages, proverbs, and legends on Wall Street, based on in-depth interviews with old timers, reading rare financial books, and my own experiences in the financial markets. (I’ve been writing Forecasts & Strategies since 1980, when President Reagan was elected.)

“Maxims” is destined to be a classic reference that you will read with delight for years to come, and an ideal gift to investors, stockbrokers and money managers.

“Maxims” is the closest thing to Wall Street scripture ever created. The work contains:

Over 800 adages, by such notables as Warren Buffett (“If you wait to see the Robin sing, Spring may be over”)….J. P. Morgan (“Troubled waters make for good fishing”)….Humphrey Neill (“The public is right during the trends but wrong at both ends”)….Richard Russell (“In a bear market, the winner is he who loses the least”)….and Steve Forbes (“Everybody is a long-term investor until the market goes down”).

Old Timer’s stories like the “trading sardines”…..where are the customer’s yachts?…..the gold bugs…..commodity traders…..The origin of “blue sky”…

Famous lines from Baron Rothschild, Ben Franklin, John D. Rockefeller, Joe Kennedy, J. P. Morgan, Bernard Baruch, John Templeton, Jesse Livermore, John Maynard Keynes, Ben Graham….

Sage advice on beating the market, diversification vs. concentration, value vs. growth, bulls vs. bears…..black swan events…..day traders…. doomsdayers and casandras….plungers and the peakcocks….hot tips and insider information….Losing money and missed opportunities…Wall Street vs. Main Street…chartists vs. fundamentalists….leverage and debt….privacy and government….taxes and tax havens….inspiring “Rich Man’s Pearls of Wisdom”…and intriguing short stories such as “The Extra-Ordinary Life of Warren G. Hardaway.”

Quotes from the profound to the profane: “Nobody is more bearish than a sold-out bull” and “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king”….“To err is human, but to be paid for it divine” and “Definition of obscene profits — something you always hear about but never experience yourself.”

How to Order Your Special Numbered Copy

“Maxims” is nearly 300 pages long, published handsomely in a special limited edition in leather and gold lettering. Only 1,000 copies were printed in this first edition. Each copy is numbered and autographed. Choose your favorite number (anywhere from 10 to 1000; the first ten are already taken). Price is only $24.95 plus $5 S&H, or a total of $29.95. Once the 1,000 copies are sold, the first edition will no longer be available. To order, call or send to:

Eagle Publishing, 1-800-211-7661
One Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001

When you call, mention code MAXIMH. And be sure to mention your favorite number.

IMPORTANT NOTE: “MAXIMS” IS NOT AVAILABLE IN BOOKSTORES OR AMAZON.COM. You can only order this book through my publisher, Eagle Publishing, 1-800-211-7661.

I’ll end with an appropriate quote from Ben Franklin: “Genius without education is like silver in the mine.”

I guarantee you’ll be a better investor by frequently reading “Maxims of Wall Street.”

Bullishly yours, AEIOU,

Mark
Mark Skousen
Producer, FreedomFest
“The world’s largest gathering of free minds”
www.freedomfest.com
July 14-16, 2011, Las Vegas

P. S. I will be giving my first talk on “Maxims of Wall Street” at FreedomFest, followed by an autograph session. We are expecting over 2,000 attendees, so I urge you to join us now by going to www.freedomfest.com or calling 1-866-266-5101.

“Ten Tennis, Anyone?”

Mark Skousen — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:26:39 +0000

THE NEW FUN GAME OF “TEN TENNIS”

By Mark Skousen

My daughter Hayley and I playing….

Traditional Competitive Tennis versus Collaborative "Ten Tennis"

For over 25 years now, my family has been playing a game we call “Ten Tennis.” My wife Jo Ann came up with the idea of “cooperative” tennis when we were playing the game with our young kids as they were growing up. Tennis can be awfully frustrating when two players have vastly different abilities. Hearing “40 – Love” over and over again is no fun for anyone. Most of the time is spent running around picking up tennis balls.

So we came up with the idea of a cooperative form of tennis called “Ten Tennis.” Basically, you start off the same way as the traditional tennis game, serving the ball. After the ball lands in the opponent’s square for a legitimate serve, your opponent suddenly becomes your ally as the two of you work together to hit ten volleys back and forth across the net. Once you have worked together to achieve the goal of ten volleys, the game then becomes competitive to see who wins. If the ball goes astray before ten volleys (frequently the case), you just start over.

There are several advantages: First, you spend more times playing than picking up tennis balls. Second, it helps improve the ability of the novice player. Third, it is just as challenging for the better player to place the ball where the opponent can return it as it is slamming it in an unreachable corner, and you get just as much exercise running around the court trying to return the volley. Once you work hard to get to ten volleys, you can then have a competitive round. Both the cooperative part at the beginning and the competitive part at the end are lots of fun, and nobody seems to get angry or frustrated.

Try “Ten Tennis” – you’ll like it!

Weekend Update

Mark Skousen — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:26:09 +0000

This weekend I attended a very unusual college graduation ceremony. It isn’t often when the valedictorian is a man convicted of murder! But that is the case at Sing Sing penitentiary, where 24 students graduated last night from Mercy College’s four-year degree program, Hudson Link. My wife Jo Ann and I have been involved in this highly successful program for the past three years — she teaching English lit and I teaching economics. The most amazing results have come from this all-privately funded college program: Of the 50 graduates who have left prison life, NONE have returned. The recidivism rate nationwide is over 60%, but Hudson Link boasts a rate of an unbelievable 0%. Many celebrities have gotten involved because of the success. Warren Buffett showed up at last year’s graduation ceremony to find out more.

This year my wife and I arranged for Steve Forbes to give the commencement address. He told the graduates, “Wealth is not in material goods. Wealth is in the mind.” He explained, “Oil is just glop. You can’t drink it, eat it, or feed it to a camel. But a human mind figured out how to turn that glop into energy.” He offered another example. “Silicon is just sand. You find tons of it on every beach. But a human mind figured out how to turn that sand into a micro chip, and completely transformed our world.” He regaled the men with numerous stories, and encouraged them to use their minds to see things differently and make a difference in the world. For more on last night’s graduation ceremony, see my wife’s review in the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/02/sing-sings-scholars/

My son, Tim, has made a documentary on this success story called “Zero Percent.” It won the first Silver Spirit Award at the Dallas Film Festival, and will be showing at several more film festivals soon. To see the 3-minute trailer, go to https://www.facebook.com/ZeroPercentMovie

“Zero Percent” Wins First Ever Silver Heart Award

Mark Skousen — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:12:19 +0000

The Hudson Link Documentary ”Zero Percent,” which focuses on Hudson Link’s college program inside the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, just won the first ever Silver Heart Award at the Dallas International Film Festival. The award, which is a tremendous honor, was granted by Embrey Family Foundation and rewards “a film for their dedication to fighting injustices and creating social change for the improvement of humanity.” Prior to announcing the award, the presenter gave “Zero Percent” high praise and talked about the resonating themes of redemption and the power of education throughout the film. It was an amazing evening.

“Zero Percent” has also been accepted to the “Waterfront Film Festival” in Michigan being held June 9th-12th.

My son Tim Skousen was the director and producer for “Zero Percent,” with producer Robert Fernandez and Moxie Pictures, working to make this vision a reality. Tim was inspired to take on this project upon hearing on the moving stories and experiences his mother, my wife, Jo Ann Skousen, shared. Jo Ann teaches English and literature as part of the Hudson Link program. (Yours truly also teaches economics.) And thank you to all who support Hudson Link in its efforts to help transform lives through education.

Hudson Link will be scheduling screenings of “Zero Percent” in New York City and Westchester this summer. Please visit the Hudson Link website to stay updated on scheduled dates.

Hot New Video! ObamaCare – Live Your Carefree Lifestyle!

Mark Skousen — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:49:24 +0000

Dear Friends of Liberty,

Be one of the first to watch this new video, ObamaCare – Live Your Carefree Lifestyle at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkH_aaaSOP0. This video is brought to you by FreedomFest, the World’s Largest Gathering of Free Minds, happening this July 13-16, 2011 at Paris/Bally’s in Las Vegas, the country’s most libertarian city.

This year’s conference will feature speakers such as: John Mackey, CEO Whole Foods, Stephen Moore, editor, Wall Street Journal, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News, libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel, co-founder of Pay Pal and Steve Forbes, publisher of Forbes Magazine. You don’t want to miss it! Plus see the first ever Anthem Film Festival — a libertarian celebration of film.

With so much at stake, and with so much excitement at FreedomFest, I hope you’ll join us! And watch the new video. Let us know what you think!

Yours in liberty, AEIOU,

MSkousen

Crazy Economist Defies Gravity and Generates Infinite Returns!

Mark Skousen — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:05:56 +0000

"You should buy Lubrizol. It's in my Hedge Fund Trader....."

The Skousen Hedge Fund Trader (www.markskousen.com) may now hold the world’s record for best return in one day: 9,100%! When Warren Buffett announced Monday morning that Berkshire Hathaway bought out chemical company Lubrizol (LZ) for $135 a share, our March $120 call options went from 15 cents to $13.80 almost immediately.
If you annualize it, the calculator can’t handle it; it says the return is “infinite”!

Here’s the full story: We recommended Lubrizol last October, and were underwater on both the stock and the call options. The stock was down 7%, and the March $120 calls had lost 97% of their value when Buffett bailed us out. Subscribers who initially bought back in October made 20% on the stock, and 150% on the calls. Not bad.

I don’t know if any subscribers bought the March calls (which were due to expire this Friday!) for 15 cents a week before, but if they did, they made 9,100% in one day!

Cheers, AEIOU,
MSkousen

Adam Smith Reveals His (Invisible) Hand!

Mark Skousen — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:16:35 +0000

Today is the anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith’s most famous work, ”The Wealth of Nations” (March 9, 1776).

To celebrate this important day, I’ve written an article for FEE on Dan Klein’s discovery about the “deliberate centrality” of the invisible hand in Smith’s work, and what it all means: www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/invisible-hand-middle/ It will appear in print in the June issue of “The Freeman.”

For some time now, there’s been a controversy brewing about Adam Smith’s famous metaphor of the free market, “the invisible hand.” Critics point out that it is used only once in each of Smith’s two major works, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1759) and “The Wealth of Nations” (1776). Therefore, they conclude, the much touted symbol of free-market capitalism (the invisible hand) was in reality a marginal concept to Smith.

But now Daniel B. Klein (GMU) has made a fascinating discovery: The invisible hand is located in the dead center of the middle of both books. Prof. Klein argues for deliberate centrality by Adam Smith: that the invisible hand doctrine of “the system of natural liberty,” was central to his work. Adam Smith has finally revealed his (invisible) hand!

On a personal note, March 9 is also the pub date of ”The Making of Modern Economics” (March 9, 2001). It is not a coincidence. Adam Smith is the heroic figure of the book. It is now in its 2nd edition: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Modern-Economics-Lives-Thinkers/dp/0765622270/ref=tmm_pap_title_popover Last year it won the Choice Book Award for Outstanding Academic Title. The book is available in hardback, paperback, Kindle, and audio book — and translated into five languages.

I’m happy to announce that Prof. Klein has accepted my invitation to participate in a debate at this year’s www.freedomfest.com (July 14-16, Las Vegas), on the subject: “Libertarian, Conservative, or Radical Egalitarian: Will the Real Adam Smith Please Stand Up?” Hope you will join us for this annual event.

In liberty, AEIOU,

Mark

Three Uses for “The Making of Modern Economics”

Mark Skousen — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:22:02 +0000

Three uses for my award-winning book, The Making of Modern Economics:

Since winning the Choice Book Award for Outstanding Academic Title, my book has been translated into Spanish, given away to all the board members of a major Russian corporation, and read as a main selection of the Boulder Book Club and the Show-Me Institute (Missouri think tank).

Why all the buzz?

The book is about the great economic thinkers, fully illustrated with lots of pictures, stories, and a cunning plot with Adam Smith as the heroic figure. Smith and his free-market theories are attacked by the Marxists and Keynesians, but he triumphs in the end.

As Roger Garrison, Auburn professor, states, “My students love The Making of Modern Economics! Mark Skousen makes the history of economics come alive like no other textbook.”

Available at Amazon.com.

World Economic Summit with Peter Schiff

Mark Skousen — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:03:45 +0000

Come join us at the World Economic Summit, Nassau, the Bahamas, February 16-19: We have just confirmed Peter Schiff, author of “Crash Proof” for our anti-Davos conference. Plus Steve Moore, the country’s #1 economic analyst and board member of the Wall Street Journal, will be there. I will also be presenting a special “one-on-one” session with billionaire Ken Fisher, columnist for Forbes magazine and a member of the Forbes 400 list, on “Famous and Infamous Financial Gurus: Lessons from Wall Street.”

We plan special sessions on international taxes and living abroad, with Vernon K. Jacobs, Jeffrey Verdon, Richard Rahn (Cato Institute), and Ron Holland. Other speakers include Tom Hudson (PBS’s host, Nightly Business Report), money manager Adrian Day, Swiss banker Frank Seuss and Fox Business host Dan Mangru. Limited to 300 people. To register, go to www.freedomfest.com or call Tami Holland, 1-866-266-5101.

Note: This is a private conference. None of the speeches will be recorded, so that speakers can speak their mind.

Cobden Centre on Skousen Economics Contributions

Mark Skousen — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:42:39 +0000

The Cobden Centre is the world’s largest international website devoted to “honest money and social progress” based in London and founded by Toby Baxendale, the libertarian businessman who funds the annual Hayek chair at the London School of Economics.

They have just published a paper by Prof. Ken Schoolland (Hawaii Pacific University) on my contributions to economics: ”http://www.cobdencentre.org/2011/02/mark-skousens-contributions-to-economics/" target="_blank">Mark Skousen’s Contributions to Economics.”

And on my mother’s birthday!

Cheers, AEIOU,
MSkousen

The Super Bowl, Ronald Reagan and Ben Franklin

Mark Skousen — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 02:36:39 +0000

It’s SuperBowl Sunday…..
It’s Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday…..
….and I just returned from a triumphal appearance at Ben Franklin at the CNP (Council for National Policy) meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.

I was afraid it could bomb because I had to stay in character for three hours, including an hour at the cocktail reception, where I entertained some 300 guests with quizzes, anecdotes, giving away Franklin half dollars, etc. I worked long and hard to develop some funny questions, quotes and stories.

For example, I approached several people this way: ”I have heard a rumor that my image is on the face of a dollar bill. This surely flatters my vanity. Does anyone have such a dollar bill to prove this rumor to be true?”

A few times a man would reach into his pocket and pulled out a $100 bill and show it to me. I took it in my hand, and then placed it in my pocket, and said, “I just want to see if Poor Richard is still right when it says, ‘A fool and his money are soon parted’!” Then of course I would return the $100 bill….but it got a lot of laughs.

Be free, AEIOU,
Mskousen