The Rise of the Mises Caucus

Source: Bacon’s Rebellion.

As one who often shares Mises Institute articles here in the Forum, I’m fascinated by the prospect of a “Mises Caucus” in Virginia and national politics. From what I have seen the “Mises people” are the only political faction in America that actively seeks to educate the public on basic principles of economics. Republicans don’t try very hard to teach the economics they believe in, and Democrats don’t know enough economics to teach. So, we are fortunate that someone is making an effort.

My only caveat to approval of a Mises caucus would be that economics itself is changing beneath our feet. I wrote recently in the Forum, for example, that the laws of supply and demand are completely invalidated in light of current knowledge.

Something new will take the place of supply-and-demand theory in economics. Let us hope that the Austrian school libertarians have the agility to bring the new science to the public as they have done with the old.

20 thoughts on “The Rise of the Mises Caucus

    1. Brandolini, or Murphy?

      Reminder: The source article contains a wealth of opportunities for commentary. I exploited one such opportunity that interests me and in the process provided a topic for discussion. But the focus I chose is not the only one. Every participant here has the power to make the Forum what they want it to be.


      1. That “wealth of opportunities” you refer to is exactly why Brandolini’s Law applies.

        If you were seriously seeking an adult conversation on a real subject you would not tee it up with utter nonsense.

        For example . . . “Democrats don’t know enough economics to teach”

        And then there is this doozy . . . “the laws of supply and demand are completely invalidated in light of current knowledge.”

        And who is your source for this last fantastical statement? That would be you.

        Finally, economics is a science subject to empirical testing. Your reference to the economics that Republicans “believe in” shows that you just do not get that. You seem to be using “economics” as a surrogate for – maybe – the values that people believe in.

        As indicated the other day I will be posting less and avoiding the wasted effort of constant back and forth over baloney like this, so this is my final word on this subject.


        1. RE: “And who is your source for this last fantastical statement? That would be you.”

          No. That would be the economist Steve Keen and chapter 1 of his book, Debunking Economics.


        2. RE: “As indicated the other day I will be posting less and avoiding the wasted effort of constant back and forth over baloney like this.”

          Good for you. It is certainly a waste of time to just criticize others.


          1. RE: “The need for constant rebuttals to drooling nonsense is not ‘criticism.'”

            So you say, but the “need” appears to be yours, no one else’s. You have other options.


          2. I will see your my “need” to respond drooling nonsense and raise it to your “need” to post it. You have other options. BTW, I am living in the world that is. You, apparently, are not.


          3. Funny. I stopped commenting on Kerry’s site because I was the only non-cheerleader that challenged the articles. Not a big deal until I realized that responses were not about the subject, but rather “why are you here when nobody wants you” or words to that effect. Insults flew from other commenters, and Kerry for that matter, but few, if any, challenges or rebuttals. No fun and certainly no challenges.

            Another commenter has come along, Rosie, and she is also insulted and, again, why are you here.

            Her response put it in perspective:

            “… what are you here for? The comfort of an echo chamber? Not that there isn’t appeal in shaking your fist at your political enemies, but I prefer to engage with people.”

            So, I seems we are headed that way too. Engagement and contradicting ideas are what this country is all about.

            Or used to. Silos are the comfort zones, particularly among those who wallow in conspiracies. After all, why risk being wrong in public when you can be wrong in private.

            This site is not as bad as the other may be, but it won’t be long. In my opinion, anyway.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “Engagement and contradicting ideas are what this country is all about.”

            I agree with that up to a point. There’s something else I notice that I would bring to your attention. That is, incompetent or arbitrary challenges to ideas.

            I am often flabbergasted by the strategies people use to contradict my statements. I point this out only to convey the view that contradiction itself is not a virtue.


          5. …”incompetent or arbitrary challenges to ideas.”

            You tend to say things about those who contradict YOUR post and comments that are said about your original comments. Mostly when YOU disagree with someone, you are brilliant. But those who disagree with you are ignorant, misinformed, or, maybe just maybe, a lot smarter than what you would like to give credit for.

            Vicious circle you’re living in.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. “Democrats don’t know enough economics to teach”

          That is the most generous assessment. The alternative is that Democrats know better but put demagoguery ahead of rational economic policy.

          Is it not better they be fools than monsters?


          1. You talk about “rational economic policy” as if you and only you know what that is. Your repeated claims to intellectual superiority are both unseemly and laughable. You cheerlead for the simple-minded economic ideas that have been eating away at the foundations of our economy and society since 1981. It is not rational to keep repeating failed ideas and that is what the Republicans do whenever they can – cut taxes on the wealthy and wait for the magic to begin. Still waiting.

            Monsters? Not worth responding to except to note that such name-calling is simply childish and that most people in every day use of the word would – maybe – apply “monster” to people whose only morality is based on pure self interest.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” Adam Smith

            Still true.


          3. No, that would be Bastiat

            “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

            Private charity is, of course, a good thing, plunder by proxy is not.


          4. “Plunder”

            Yeah, right. As always for you, having to pay your taxes is “plunder.” And you want to label Democrats as “monsters” while you are perfectly willing to sit in your compound and let the people around you go hungry, unhoused, unclothed and uncared for when ill. “Monsters” indeed.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. A side note in the article is the there was a “rout” in VA. That seems to be the GOP talking point.

    Youngkin won 50.6% of the vote. That was 2% over McAullife, not a squeaker, but hardly a rout.

    The House may have flipped, giving the GOP maybe 52-48. But two are very close, so it is possible for a split House and a Democratic Senate.

    McDonnell won by 17+ points. Now that’s a rout.

    Seeing descriptors that inflate the swing makes the shift more dramatic I suppose. But an election that shifts on a gaffe is less of a sign than the more likely tendency to elect the party not in the White House. And Biden’s number are low right now. Yet, there are indicators that with the infrastructure bill and a loosening of the supply chains and continued good hiring numbers, this could be very good for Democrats in 2022.

    Back to your regularly schedule programming.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s not bad enough that Trump can keep the Big Lie going through hacks like the Gateway, but that people read and believe it.

        If there were any real journalistic chops among the right wing media, an investigation into the thousands, nay 10’s of thousands, of people sworn to secrecy nationwide to pull off the voting fraud. People who were appointed by Republicans in many cases. Even Trump.

        And ballots that switched Trump for Biden, but not down ballot choices.

        That being said, the reasoning is unimportant. Just like witnesses at a crime, they will believe what they will no matter the evidence.

        So now Republicans winning is evidence that Democrats control outcomes as suits their agenda years down the road.

        You just can’t fix stupid, but do we all have to go the same route?


        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s