 Thank you everyone for being here. Thank you very much to Dr. Salano and Dr. Thornton for giving me the opportunity To speak to you today about a topic That a growing number of modern economists is interested in or concerned with these days namely inequality Who of you has heard about Thomas Piketty and his book capital in the 21st century? So you all know this book has been a great success everybody has boarded and supposedly everybody has read it and Everybody who has talked about this book in public praised it from the American president to the Pope Everybody lost this book But thanks to Kindle statistics We now know that only a very small fraction of readers has actually ventured beyond page 27 Okay out of out of 700 pages So they have basically read the introduction Not the whole book, but that's really not what is important What is important is that they are all very concerned with the issue that is raised in the book and that is increasing inequality in terms of income and wealth over the past 50 years Okay and in my opinion This is a topic a research topic that Austrian economists in particular are very suited to to make Contributions to because many of modern day Austrians have specialized In the field of economics that one of the main causes of this phenomenon falls into namely monetary economics And today in this lecture I want to talk about the causal relationship between monetary policy and inequality Okay, so As a start I want to give you two papers as suggested readings The first one is a short paper by Gito Hülsmann published in a book edited by dr. Solano and dr. Howden In 2014 it was published the title of the book is the Fed at 100 So the book is published by Springer and and accordingly is very expensive so I recommend to look for the Working paper version of this paper which is available for free online Okay, the second paper that I recommend to all those who are interested in in this topic is Is a working paper by two economists from the University of Leipzig in Germany? Pablo Duarte and Gunther Schnabel. They have recently in 2017 published a working paper that Deals with these issues and this is also available for free online So most of the ideas that I am going to present today are from those two papers Okay The lecture plan is as follows So we will start with some empirical analysis So we will just look at different measures of inequality and how they have developed over time in the past 60 years, so we will look at income. We will look at wealth We will look at sector inequality. In particular, we will look at the financial sector and manufacturing And we will look at intergenerational inequality specifically at the inequality between young and old generations and In the next part of the lecture we're going to do the theoretical Explanation for this phenomenon. So we will talk about the role or the impact of monetary policy here We will first of all talk about monetary expansion. That's what monetary policy is all about and it's Most immediate effect price inflation then we will Again reiterate and explain The notion of Kantian effects that has already been mentioned this week and we will talk about Monetary expansion when it occurs in the form of credit expansion specifically and If we have time we might have a conclusion at the end Okay, so first part empirical analysis First we have to define our terms First type of inequality that is often looked at in the empirical research is income inequality So what is income? A very broad and general definition of income is this one here Income is just a gain in the ability to consume or save Over a specified period of time. What is important here is the last part over a specified Period of time. So income is what economists call a flow variable We can measure income only with with respect to a certain period of time We cannot measure it for one point in time specifically But of course for empirical research this definition is too broad As one of the main drawbacks of empirical research, we always have to narrow down our definitions to something that is measurable so a Measurable definition of income is of course monetary income. So we will look at Monetary income defined as the sum of money received over a specified period of time and This period of time is usually a year. So we will look at annual income and this includes wages, which is the income from labor It includes interest which is income from capital It includes rents Which is income from land and what's the last one? Profits. Income from entrepreneurship or from uncertainty bearing So this is the classical taxonomy of income according to the different sources, but of course we have to add Gifts and inheritance. That's also a source of income It's of particular importance in developed countries like the US Okay, so the next type of inequality is inequality with respect to wealth wealth inequality and Wealth is a very different variable it can again generally define just as all The tangible and intangible things that make an individual a group family or a nation Some collective whatever better off Okay, that's again much too broad Slightly more narrow version or narrow definition is the amounts of Saved income at a given moment in time Okay, and here you see one difference between the two variables wealth is a stock variable as economists call it because we can measure Wealth at any given moment in time. We don't have to have a reference period So but again, this is not narrow enough Of course, we will look in empirical research at economic wealth, which is defined as the monetary exchange value of All the owned assets capital goods and long-term consumer goods of an individual or a group in society and Those assets include financial assets bonds stocks cash deposits etc and It includes Non-financial assets such as real estate land commodities precious metals you name it Okay Now how do we measure inequality? well total income or total wealth Somehow distributed among the population and what we do is We rank our population from the top income receivers or top wealth holders to the bottom Income receivers or wealth holders. Okay, so we have a population 10 individuals and we rank them from number one to down to the last one in the ranking Okay, so we have here in our little example 10 individuals that constitute the population the one in the front There's a top 10% of the income distribution Let's say and the poor guy at the end is The bottom 10% of the income distribution. He's so poor there wasn't even enough color to paint him all over Okay And now what we do is in order to get an idea of how in unequal the distribution is We calculate total income for the whole population Okay, let's say this population Receives five million dollars per year and then we look at The income of different segments of the distribution. For example, let's say that the guy at the end the bottom 10% Receive 50,000 US dollars per year now We can calculate the income share which corresponds to one percent. Okay, the calculation is very simple It's fifty thousand dollars divided by total income. It's one percent We can do the same for example for the top ten percent Let's say the top ten percent Two million US dollars that would mean that their income share is 40% okay, so the top ten percent of the income distribution here receive 40% of total income The calculation is is identical. It's the income of the segment divided by total income Of course We do not only look at bottom 10% and top 10% we look at as I said different segments One very important segment that is often looked at is the bottom 50% So the lower half of the income distribution how much do they earn? What is their income share? What is their wealth share? or We often look at the middle 40% Which are the 40% in the distribution that separate the bottom 50 and the top 10 So the middle 40% is what this often referred to as the middle class Okay, they are in the upper half of the income distribution, but not quite the most not quite the richest in society Okay, so now let's look at some real data for the US Okay, here we have the income shares For the top 1% and the bottom 50% in the US from 1970 to 2040 This is basically the signature chart for the Occupy Wall Street movement Okay, we see that the income share of the top 1% has Almost doubled in that period from roughly 10% to almost 20% While the income share of the bottom 50% in red has fallen accordingly Okay, so we see here that over time inequality in terms of income has increased This figure is very interesting, but I find this one even more intriguing here We have the top 10% plotted against the bottom 60% And when I saw this I was playing with the data That's what you do when you have some data you play around see what looks best and And I saw this and I was intrigued the symmetry is astonishing, right? I mean the the share that is gained by the top 10% is exactly the share that is lost by the bottom 60% and And and I had an association when I saw this does it remind you of anything? Yes It's the sizzle. It's the scissors of inequality cutting through society Okay, here's another one Here we have again the top 10% This time plotted against the middle 40 So the middle 40 as I said earlier are still part of the upper half of the income distribution But their income share has decreased, okay So also here We see that inequality in terms of income seems to have increased Now let's look at some wealth data This is the plot for exactly the same segments of the distribution as the first one we saw for income this time for wealth we have The top 1% plotted against the bottom 50% and we see The two shares are much further apart Than the two shares we saw earlier for income so that we see directly that inequality is Much bigger in terms of wealth than it is in terms of income Okay, and we see again that while the wealth share for the top 1% Has decreased initially in the late 60s and early 70s it starts to increase Since the early 80s or end of the 70s Okay, so here also inequality has increased This is another plot here. We have the top 1% Plotted against the middle 40% Okay, so again Earlier we for income we have seen the top 10% plotted against the middle 40 and it was roughly in the same range This time we can take the top 1% which is only a subgroup of the top 10% and it is in the same range So again inequality in terms of wealth Is stronger than it is in terms of income Okay, another interesting Variable that is often looked at is the wealth to income ratio Okay, so here we take total wealth and divided by total income Let's see how this has developed over time We see that in the in the 1970s it was below 400% meaning that total wealth was less than four times total annual income and Since then it has increased of course we can see the impact of the dot-com bubble for example This is one peak over there. We see the impact of the housing bubble Okay, of course they have aggravated or amplified the phenomenon quite a bit But what is interesting in the plot is still like the general positive trend of this development The wealth-to-income ratio has increased and this is an indicator for diminished upward social mobility Okay, given given Certain level of income it becomes relatively more difficult to attain a Relative level of wealth it takes more years of income to attain a certain level of wealth So that's an interesting development Now an important question is of course What are the relevant segments? Is there any way to? To aggregate inequality can we reduce it to one number ideally and Yes, one proposition has been the genie coefficient. Who of you has heard about the genie coefficient? Who of you is able to define it? Okay, I will I will try to explain that very briefly. It's a bit technical But yeah, just interrupt me if it's too boring. Okay, so the genie coefficient is is Defined graphically. Okay, we have a diagram here and on the x-axis I want you to imagine that we have the cumulated Share of the rank order population. Okay, so 0.1 corresponds to the bottom 10 percent 0.2 to the bottom 20 percent 0.3 to the bottom 30 percent etc one over there corresponds to the entire population on The other axis we have the income share Okay, and now the entire distribution in Terms of income this in this example in terms of income Can be represented by one curve, which is called the Lawrence curve and in the hypothetical World of perfect equality the curve is actually a straight line. It's exactly the 45 degree line Okay, that means that for example the bottom 50 percent earn exactly 50 percent of total income The bottom 60 percent earn exactly 60 percent that means that everybody in the population Receives the same amount of money every year Okay, this is not how it looks like in reality, but this is the benchmark case Okay, this is the case where the genie coefficient is zero zero inequality In practice when we have some empirical distribution The curve looks very different it it always starts here at the origin at the point zero zero because the bottom zero percent Receive zero percent of total income that's clear and it always ends on top there at the point one one The total population put together receives 100 percent of total income But the curve is always somewhere below the perfect equality line Okay, and it is Convex like this. It is below the perfect equality line because for example the bottom 50 percent of the population Can never receive more than 50 percent of total income because if that was the case They wouldn't be the bottom 50 percent Okay, so it has to be below the perfect equality line and it has to be convex because we have a rank order here The the relative income share or the income share of the segments increases as we go along along the x-axis all right, so let's now take a simple example, let's Think let's think about a two-class society. Okay, we have the bottom 90 percent That receives 10 percent of total income Accordingly the upper 10 percent the top 10 percent received the rest of income 90 percent of total income and within those two classes Income is evenly distributed. That's why the curve for those two segments is a straight line Okay, now the genie coefficient is simply Defined in terms of the surface area between the benchmark case of perfect equality and the actual distribution that we observe Okay, let's say the surface area is a the genie coefficient is then formally defined as twice a Okay, I spare you the math, but in that case the genie coefficient is 0.8 Okay, if you have a distribution that is closer to the perfect equality line The genie coefficient becomes Accordingly smaller in this case. It would be 0.6 and in the most extreme case of Perfect inequality where nobody receives any income except one guy at the end who receives it all We have a genie coefficient of one and that's the maximum value for the genie coefficient and in practice we always observe some Value between zero and one the closer this to one the more inequality we have Okay, so let's look at the genie coefficient in terms of income and wealth in the US here We have the genie coefficient in terms of income and we see that it has increased Quite a bit since the early 1970s Okay, initially it looks as if it has fallen in the early 1970s. It starts rising You know what happened in the 1970s? Yeah, yeah, that was the Nixon shock in 71 So it was basically the introduction of a global fiat money system Okay, and and Piketty in his book points that out and says oh since the early 1970s inequality seems to skyrocket I wonder what happened there He doesn't elaborate on it at all, but he just sees it. Okay. It's in the early 1970s that it starts Okay, if we look at the genie coefficient for wealth, it's a bit more complicated. It's not as clear-cut. Okay, we see First of all that the genie coefficient is much higher to begin with than it was for income so it is Somewhere below 0.85 Initially in the 1960s, then it goes down and it starts to increase only in the in the 1980s and of course We have again this bump over there Which nicely coincides with the most recent financial crisis of the housing bubble the Great Recession as it is called and if you accept the Austrian business cycle theory that identifies a root cause of business cycles in monetary policy as explained earlier today by Roger Garrison Then it's not actually a big step to assume that there might also be a relationship between monetary policy and this Phenomenon that we observe over there namely Increased inequality in terms of wealth Okay, we have other types of inequality that we can briefly look at For example, we have sector inequality. Okay We can ask ourselves. How does the income or in particular how do wages? develop over time in different sectors of the economy and I have looked specifically at the financial industry and manufacturing other possibilities would be To look at the public sector versus the private sector my working hypothesis would be that wage developments in the public sector Are much better than they are in the private sector, but I might be wrong So this is an interesting graph from the paper by Duarte and Schnabel plotting the percentage change of real wages in the financial industry and in manufacturing From 1965 onwards And what we see is that initially in the 1970s Wages real wages in the financial industry decreased more sharply It looks as if the great inflation that occurred in the 1970s Was more harmful for wages in the financial sector. That's that's their rationale in the paper I'm not sure whether that's the actual and the the right explanation for this But we see that wages in both sectors have decreased and then in the 1980s They start to increase again and wages in the financial sector increase more than wages in manufacturing in Fact since the 1980s The percentage change of real wages in the financial industry is always higher than in manufacturing and it's Almost never negative. There's one exception over here. Okay, real wage growth in manufacturing is often negative in this period since the 1980s Of particular interest again is this period of the Great Recession Where we see that percentage change of real wages in manufacturing Is much more severe the fall in wages is much stronger for the manufacturing sector than it is for the financial industry Which is surprising when you think about that the Great Recession started out as a financial crisis As a crisis in the financial industry you would assume that wage is there for more sharply than in other sectors of the economy Again my working hypothesis here is that it has to do with bailout programs Okay, I have another type of inequality for you that might be of particular interest For you because it is about intergenerational inequality. So Inequality between different age groups in the population Okay, we will look at the medium income of different wage groups and how they have developed over time It is important to note at this point that this is not an absolute comparison It is quite normal that there are differences in terms of wages between young and older generations That's that's very natural because older generations have more working experience Okay, so the fact that Peter Klein earns a bit more money than I do Is probably justified Okay So what we do is we we look at index numbers, okay, we have a base year and Then we look at the relative developments Of the medium wage in those different age groups and here they are Okay, we have four age groups age 15 to 24 25 to 34, 45 to 54, 55 to 64 The older generations are in gray the younger generations are in black. Okay, so since 1979 which is the base year Medium Wages which are here deflated by the consumer price index. So it's it's the medium real wage medium real wage Has declined for all age groups and then the divergence occurs in the early 1980s Okay, the wages the median wage for the older generations increases The median wage for the younger generations Keeps decreasing So at the end of the period that we are looking at here. We have a nice spread between Younger and older generations have a nice depends on your perspective but if there was No change in terms of the relative inequality between the age groups and all of the four time series would have Have the same path. Okay, the fact that they don't have the same path indicates that inequality No matter what it was at the beginning. We don't know but that inequality has increased between the age groups Okay, and obviously the youngest generation 15 to 24 year olds For them the the wage development has been the worst Again the great recession Okay, if you look at only what happened after the great recession or during the great recession You see that the decline in the median wage for the youngest generation is the strongest Okay, and in this graphical representation if The relative change in the median wage was the same for every age group then actually The graphical representation for the top time series for the oldest graph that the decrease should be the strongest Because we are looking at this in relative terms, but Not very important now That's another graph where we have to tame the same time series the same median wage for the different age groups at this time We deflated by housing prices That's very interesting for young generations because young people usually don't have houses yet It might want to acquire one in the future and we see that The wages deflated by housing prices for young generations have really declined quite severely and again Of course we have the impact of the housing bubble at the peak of the housing bubble the index for the youngest was down to 50 Okay, so a house of the same quality has become 50 percent more expensive if you like There was a slight correction in housing prices obviously after the bubble burst But so the overall trend is visible. It's not a big problem for all those who already possess houses Okay, when houses housing prices go up. It's good for house owners when housing prices go up It's very bad for those who might want to buy a house and have not done so yet okay, so Now let's summarize the empirical results The available empirical data suggests that there has been an increase in income inequality and wealth inequality an increase in the wealth-to-income ratio which indicates that there is a diminished upward social mobility and There has been an increase in sector income inequality specifically for the financial sector and Manufacturing as compared to manufacturing and an increase in intergenerational inequality Looks as if older generations have had much more favorable wage developments than younger generations Now we want to explain this phenomenon in terms of monetary policy and at this point I want to give you a little disclaimer here. I do not argue that monetary policy is the only cause for this Phenomenon there's there are many other causes that that play a role, but we isolate the impact of Monetary policy in this lecture Before you go into the theory section, I just want to clarify and ask a question. Yes, all of the measures that we've discussed so far are Static measures in the sense that they look at a snapshot of how things are in one time And they compare them to a snapshot of how things aren't some other time I've also seen some studies that look at You know mobility like what's the likelihood that a person who was in the bottom quintile Oh, yeah, I period it moves into another quintile later or the likelihood that you will be in a different Wealth quintile from your parents. Yes, you want to summarize that concisely and what well, yeah I mean the the relevant work on that topic has been done by Thomas soul, right? Thomas soul has shown that of course there is some Change in what income bracket you are at any given moment in your life You might be you might start off at the bottom, but might work your way up to the top. That's certainly possible But that's a very different question Right as in the questions. Is there any evidence that the degree of mobility has changed over time? Yeah That I'm not aware of and I'm not aware Okay, if I do not manage to finish my lecture in time, it's his fault Okay, so theory Let's talk about the impact of monetary policy again We have to define our terms. What is monetary policy and here? I give you a very general and broad definition of monetary policy it refers to all the actions of central banks and similar public and semi-public institutions that are in control of the printing press Hence all the institutions in the economy that are involved in the production of fiat money Oh, that's a suitable definition for the financial system that we live in So as I said, it's a broad notion of monetary policy. It includes central banks, of course But it also includes commercial banks because as was explained yesterday by Robert Murphy In a fractional reserve banking system Commercial banks are also involved in the production of fiat money And In essence what we are talking about is simply the expansion of the money supply Okay, we have a fiat money system because this renders the production of Money much more easily much more easy so in essence when we talk about monetary policy we talk about the expansion of the money supply and we want to analyze the effect of that Okay, first of all again a little graph just to illustrate the fact that the money stock in the economy has actually Increased over the past decades So here you have the money supply or money stock M1 for the US from 1960 to 2018 and yes, there was quite a bit of an increase From 1960 to 2017 the money stock M1 has multiplied by a factor of 25 Okay, this corresponds to an annual growth rate of 5.8 percent But the most interesting segment is of course this one here at the end For this segment alone from 2008 to 2017 the money stock has multiplied by 2.4 Which corresponds to an annual growth rate of 11.8 percent So the expansion of the money stock has accelerated of course This is justified by the Great Recession and so on and so forth you all know the story But it's still interesting just to look at what the development was Okay, the most immediate effect the most direct effect of monetary expansion is of course price inflation Okay, this means that Citrus Paribus money prices for goods and services will be higher than before Of course in reality the Citrus Paribus clause never holds so there are offsetting effects And when the offsetting effects are strong enough such as economic growth real economic growth Then we might not actually observe price inflation increasing prices for goods and services Even though there might have been monetary expansion Okay, so so Guido Hülsmann talked about this in his lecture yesterday about price inflation Okay, but luckily Monetary expansion for our purposes was strong enough and we have really observed price inflation So $1 in June 2018 has the purchasing power of Something in August 1971. What do you think it is? 15 cents is pretty good it's 16 16 cents If you want to go even further back in history The year that the Federal Reserve was founded it's 4% okay So the US dollar has lost 84% of its purchasing power since 1971 and 96% since 1930 it's quite impressive so since 1971 the average annual price inflation rate was around 4% And this of course includes the great Stackflation the great inflation of the 1970s In later decades the price inflation rate was a bit more moderate But of course as most of you know modern central banks explicitly aim at having a positive price inflation rate Okay, they have to find price stability as being a price inflation rate an annual price inflation rate of around 2% That's the policy goal. So it's the explicit goal of monetary policy to create an environment where The purchasing power of money constantly decreases and this has of course Implications how do people save in such an environment? Well You don't leave your money or your savings in cash under the pillow in your bed And not for the purpose of saving there might be other good reasons to hold some cash at home, but not for saving You you would be a moron to do that. So price inflation Discourages money hoarding Again something that Gido Hulsman has talked about yesterday. That's very important. Discourages money hoarding and It's important to note that money hoarding is of course the easiest way to save and historically It's the preferred way of saving of low-income groups They prefer to save part of their income in cash because it's so easy It does not require any expert knowledge about financial markets and different asset classes Classes and investment strategies. You can just do it. You know your grant mark can do it. It's very easy But your discourage to do it what instead you do is you redirect your savings into asset and financial markets Okay, so this implies of course an increased demand for financial assets for stocks bonds derivatives, etc and This in turn entails a growth of the financial sector from the demand side Okay, this in part explains The increased inequality In terms of different sectors when we look at the financial sector as compared to other sectors of the economy And there's an increased demand for real assets or non financial assets such as real estate right so part of the housing bubble and increased real estate prices in general is explained by the price inflationary environment that central banks and other financial institutions institutions have created so What this means is that generally when we have a price inflationary environment where all prices and wages Increase over time money loses its purchasing power We have a disproportionate asset price inflation if we only look asset prices they tend to increase faster than other prices because a price to inflationary environment creates incentives for savers to go into financial and asset markets to redirect their savings into those markets and This of course is a main driver of the wealth to income ratio This explains in part why the wealth to income ratio has increased over time and why upward social mobility Has has decreased Okay, asset price inflation is again good for everyone who owns assets already It's bad for all those who don't have assets yet, but want to acquire them All right, so here's a plot that illustrates this claim very nicely We have here share prices or stock prices and the consumer price index Plotted against each other since 1960. Okay, we see that in the 1980s the divergence occurs where the stock prices go up much faster than the consumer prices and this just Yeah illustrates this theoretical claim very nicely Okay, I've prepared a nice quote for you that explains The problem of price inflation when it comes to inequality here it is Okay, I want you to guess who has written this and Louis Rouen is not allowed to speak Okay, so but when inflation remains high For a considerable period of time investors will try to protect themselves by investing in real assets There's every reason to believe That the largest fortunes are often those that are best indexed and most diversified over the long run While smaller fortunes typically Checking or savings accounts are the most seriously affected by inflation Who is the great austral libertarian thinker who said this Right pickety Stomers pickety as you can see I ventured beyond page 27 So I read the whole book and this is the best part of it So you don't have to read it actually this is this is the best part pickety does not develop this idea further But he is obviously right For once Okay Here again is another interesting correlation Very interesting plot We have the New York stock exchange index plotted against the top 1% income share in the US Okay, every social scientist every empirical social scientist who finds something like this Should be jumping for joy This is a correlation that is pretty strong yet Not many people are talking about it Okay, now we come to Cantillon effects we make that very quickly it's named after Richard Cantillon the relevant work is this one This is the cover of the book that is downstairs in the book store if you have not yet bought your copy do it after the lecture So Cantillon effects refer to the redistributive effects of money production or money creation This is most likely how Richard Cantillon looks like but we are not sure about this. Nobody knows for sure This is Mark Thornton's theory you should ask him about this So the general idea is of course that money is not given equally To every participant in the economy if that was the case then inequality would diminish over time as money supply expands Nor is it the case that newly created money is given an exact proportion To the existing income distribution if that was the case then The absolute inequalities would be amplified, but in relative terms the inequalities would remain the same Okay So it's always the case that some actors in the economy receive a disproportionate share of the of the money earlier than others so the general Idea of Cantillon effects is that first receivers of the newly created money are benefited at the expense of late receivers Somewhere in the economy the new money enters Some some people a group of people receive the new money and gets to spend the new money At still relatively low prices and the money ripples through the economy gradually bits up prices Those who in this process receive a share of the new money last or late are disadvantaged Okay Now can we use this for our analysis of monetary expansion? Yes, if we think about what is often called the transmission mechanism How does the new money actually enter the economy? So we look at money Terry expansion As credit expansion. Okay, money enters the economy always in the form of credit And does this have any structural effects? My answer is yes. So first of all It's of course great for commercial banks who are the institutions that grant the credit to businesses private individuals or public institutions Okay, so there they their revenues increase Okay So this the fact that The new money enters the economy in the form of credit granted by commercial banks and tails again an increase of the financial sector From the demand and the supply side. Okay, so this explains partly the sector inequality we observed We observed and now if we go further and Take the position of a commercial banker who is about to grant a credit The question that you have to ask is who will receive the credit who are after the commercial banks the individuals or institutions That receive the new money in the form of credit Well, that's a relatively easy to answer from the perspective of a commercial banker if he has a choice He will give it always to someone who is relatively well off who already Earns or receives a stable stream of income and who already possesses wealth that he or she Could use as collateral in the credit transaction So this means that the haves are Benefited at the expense of the have nots or the have not yet in particular the young people so this experience part of the intergenerational inequality and in general this Mechanism tends to widen the gap between rich and poor have another quote here and this is not Piketty but in fact an austral libertarian thinker who Corrects Yeah, an important misconception there's a lot of people think that the Sheep credit benefits poor people or people who are relatively Relatively poor But this is not the case cheap credit Always has disproportionately benefited rich businessmen such as the Donald Trump's and the Robert Maxwell's of this world and This is of course from Rothbard's 1992 essay repudiating the national debt and I'll stop here and I'm available to answer any questions later today in my office