 This is Jeff Deist and you're listening to the Human Action Podcast. Hey ladies and gentlemen, welcome once again to the Human Action Podcast where we are not afraid to read and discuss actual books. And of course, if you've been listening along, you'll know that we recently finished Up Man Economy and State, which was a whole series of episodes that we finished with Professor Patrick Newman talking about the power and market chapters at the end of that book. So that was a really fun sort of finale to that series. And then more recently, we spoke with Jeff Booth, who is the author of a really fascinating book that came out earlier this year called The Price of Tomorrow. And so continuing in that vein of working our way through some great books, we're going to do something a little different today because I don't believe we have ever discussed a book which is not yet finished. But that's in fact just what we are going to do and we're going to do so with our great friend, Dr. Safedin Amus. Many of you know him, of course, from his Bitcoin standard book, but he is in fact writing a textbook, an Austrian textbook, which is based on two lectures, Principles of Economics 1 and 2, which he gave as his own courses through his own Academy Insight, which you can find at safedin.com. So all that said, by way of Prologue Safe, welcome. It's great to hear from you once again. Always a pleasure to talk to you, Jeff. Thank you for having me. Well, I have had the advantage of reading the Prologue to your book. And for our listeners, the book is a project where Safedin is making available to his subscribers so that they can see it in proto-development form as he writes it and as he edits it. So it is a work in progress and a fascinating one. So I guess I'll start with, you know, I have the advantage of having read the Prologue so I understand some things, but for our audience, give us just a little bit of background in as to what compelled you to take on a project like this. Basically, you know, as they say, need is the mother of invention. And when I was teaching economics at university, it was pretty frustrating not to have a go-to textbook that you could give to students when they first enter so that they could read it and understand what economics is about. And, you know, it would be something definitive that you could get and and introductory look on the topic of economics that was reliable and coherent. And it's very difficult to have something like this because, you know, as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of textbooks that are taught at universities today are, to put it politely, garbage. It's macroeconomic in the Keynesian tradition and so it's full of confusions and it's generally a waste of time if you're trying to read and understand economics to go through most of the rituals, mathematical rituals that they teach in introductory macro and microeconomics in university these days because the important concepts that you would like to communicate to students in economics are essentially skipped over in the first couple of lectures. They go over them very quickly. They talk about prices and, you know, the market system and capitalism and ownership of production, ownership of capital being private, how the market system works. That stuff is skipped over quite briefly in the textbook. And then we move on to the assembly line kind of education, the industrial education wherein, you know, you can drive a way of asking mathematical questions about things that purport to be related to economics. But really it's just, it's essentially high school level math being adjusted and college level math, to be fair, being adjusted to somehow pretend to be related to economics. And then that's really what you spend most of the course doing and that's what the grading is about. And on the other hand, teaching human action to undergraduates or man economy and state as a start is a little bit difficult. I think most freshmen coming into college these days will have difficulty being interested in reading this and being able to understand it. And then of course it's not easy to test them and produce grades from it. And so I thought, and this is an idea that I'd had for quite a while, but it's a pretty big undertaking. It's something that I hadn't really had the courage to undertake until after I wrote the Bitcoin standard. And a lot of people told me they really liked my way of explaining things. That's really when I thought now is the time to do this. I need to sit down and ask myself what is the best economics textbook that I would have liked to have to give to an undergraduate and just write it. And that's what I've been doing for about, I can't even remember now, I think it's been a year that I've started. I haven't been exclusively focused on this book, but I've been plugging along at it. Well, it's going to be a huge interest to our professors because a lot of them are out there cobbling together courses using a variety of different sources, different articles, Mises.org, and it's not just contained in one book, if you know what I mean. Yes, exactly. This is the thing. I'd end up assigning a syllabus which contained a lot of articles and different chapters from different books, just because most of the Austrian economists have not written university textbooks. They've not written this because the university textbooks have been written by the Keynesians, unfortunately. Well, I was talking to Joe Salerno the other day and I looked this up, Paul Samuelson's textbook. It went through 1948 to 2009. It went through 19 different editions. And we were thinking how many million Samuelson probably made up that thing. Yeah, and it's an absolute embarrassment of load of nonsense. It's astonishing that that book is still in circulation, let alone being taught. I think my favorite story about that textbook is, I forget the name of the authors, but a couple of authors have done an analysis of how the different versions of Samuelson's textbook have treated the question of the Soviet Union's economic growth. And I'll show you all the versions from the earliest one. I don't know if it was in the first edition when they start talking about it, but at some point in the 40s or the 50s, Samuelson begins with what you would expect from somebody who really knows his Keynesian economics, which is that he makes projections for the Soviet economy and starts projecting dates for when the Soviet Central Planning is going to overtake the U.S. economy. And they show you that that delusion continued in this textbook all the way until 1989 when the textbook was published after the Soviet Union had collapsed, and yet still it had projected economic growth for the Soviet Union to overtake the U.S. sometime in the future. And so the editions in the 40s and 50s had predicted that the takeover would come in the 60s and 70s. It didn't come, and the new editions didn't question the assumption that the takeover will happen, but they just continued to delay the date for it, and that continues until after the Soviet Union collapsed. So in 1991 and 1992, American students at American universities were reading Samuelson's textbook that was explaining to them, based on modern macroeconomics, how the Soviet Union is about to overtake the U.S. when the Soviet Union had not existed anymore. Yeah, is it too much to ask that our econ 101 texts not be written by people who think the Soviet Union is the model? I mean, this seems like a pretty small, but you know, something struck me as I was going through the first five or six sections of this book, which you were kind of to provide to me, which is that, you know, books take a long time to write. So why not serialize them and update them and make them available as you go along, almost sort of like a, almost like open source software? Well, this is kind of what I'm doing. Once I felt that I had a structure for the book that I was going to be settling on and had done, you know, I decided on which topics I was going to include. Then I decided, you know, instead of going to a publisher and getting in advance and instead of doing this as part of my university publication, you know, I'm not at the university anymore. I left my university job and now I'm completely independent. And so instead of doing this for a university, I can do it for myself. And I think, you know, the amazing thing about what the Internet allows us is that I can do it directly to the people who want to read it, the people who enjoyed reading my previous book and would like to read this. You know, they can finance my, they can pay me the advance, essentially, by buying access to the book. And what I'm doing is that you buy access to the draft right now and then you get a signed hard cover of the book when it's published next year. That will be sent to you. And, you know, in this way, I'm getting a lot of the people who are most interested in my work to read it at an early stage. And they provided me with very useful and valuable feedback about the book. And I'm also thinking over the next few weeks, what I'm going to be doing is that I'm going to allow you to subscribe to start receiving the chapters of the book by email. As I make more progress in writing it, and I'm ready about it, I'm ready to start sharing it more publicly. I'm going to set up a subscriber account where you set up a subscription service where you'll be getting a new chapter every two weeks or so. And, you know, I think this is really an excellent way to be publishing, and it's much better than the traditional way. And it's, the internet allows us these possibilities where we can tap into the reader's opinion of the book before it gets committed to paper, which is amazing. And I'm imagining different ways of taking advantage of that and sharing it with my readers as I write it. Well, for our listeners out there, if you're not familiar with academic publishing, it is an absolute racket. And what goes on is shocking. And that's why, of course, we get Paul Samuelson's textbook for 50 years. I mean, that's an example of a non-market institution of sorts. But I wanted to just mention, before we move into the body of the book safe, is that you say in the prologue, this is an expressly Austrian text. You're not pretending to present Keynesian or Marxist perspectives other than as required to understand what you are presenting. Yeah, absolutely. I'm completely unapologetic about the fact that, you know, this is not going to present both sides of the story. You know, Paul Samuelson's textbook doesn't do anything to present the Austrian view. And I don't see why all of their garbage needs to be presented in a book about economics. There are a lot of fantasies in the world and there are a lot of wrong mental models. And if you're trying to communicate to a student in a foundational text, you want to focus on what's correct and what matters. You want to focus on things that help them. And so I deliberately tried to do this from scratch and to try and present it, not with the perspective of countering the Keynesian narrative. And so, you know, the mention of Keynesian and Marxist economists or their viewpoints is only brought up very, very sparingly when just contrasting. You know, after I've laid out the Austrian perspective on, say, money's emergence, since these happen to be the most popular perceptions that people have about that topic, I'll lay it out and, you know, explain what is wrong with it. But yeah, the plan is not to engage the mainstream in any way and start a dialogue or a conversation or, you know, attempt to produce a synthesis. And I think that there's no point in that. There's no real honest academic debate that takes place in Fiat academia, as I like to call it. Fiat academia and Fiat research and Fiat publication is, it's an industry of insiders and it's protected from competition. And it's not a place where the truth has much value. So fans of the show should understand that there's a lot of Menger and Bamberwerk and Rothbard and Mises and even Hoppe in this book. I mean, it's really rooted in Austrian thinkers. Yeah, absolutely. It's fully Austrian. And I think what I, perhaps what the internet has allowed me to do because it allows us and over the last few years as interest in Austrian economics has grown. We've developed a much richer understanding and a much richer command of texts and foundational books in this that. We don't need to discuss economics from the mainstream perspective and spend a lot of time on it. And I think this might be the fatal flaw for me in a man economy and state in the sense that you there's a little bit too much focus on trying to do economics in the way of the mainstream in the 20th century. And it's understandable because in that time and place, you know, this was what the economic academic dialogue was about. There was no internet. There was no Mises Institute in the 1950s and 60s where like-minded people could discuss these ideas. And so you have to talk to the mainstream and you have to get published in mainstream publishing houses. And so, you know, a lot of them, a lot of man economy and state, I think that's the biggest problem with the book is that a lot of it is dedicated towards debunking some Keynesians from the 40s and the 50s and the 30s. And people by now that nobody nobody has heard about since then because, you know, they're just interchangeable government economists that are just there to produce, you know, they don't produce their academic work. You can't evaluate it in terms of its content. It's just there like filler text, basically. There's always going to have to be a professor at all of these universities churning out new books and textbooks to explain economics. But, you know, when these people die, their books and all of their contributions and their theories are forgotten and then they're replaced with new fiat economists. And so, you know, people still read Rothbard and Mises and, you know, books written 100 years ago by these people are still being read today. But very, very, very, very few people are actually reading mainstream economists from the 1920s and 30s and even 60s and 70s or even today. Let's face it, but, you know, some of them are read today, but they're not going to be read in 50 years. And the ones that were being read 50 years ago, nobody reads them today. You know, nobody actually reads Paul Samuelsen anymore. Then he's got a whole bunch of theories, which if you were living in the 1950s, you would have been anywhere in economists you would have been familiar with. But now we have new theories and new math and new models and all the economists are focusing on that. And so limiting oneself to trying to talk to the mainstream will create a lot of, in my mind, stuff that is rigorous and essential toward establishing the case for the Austrian perspective as opposed to the Keynesian or mainstream perspective. But ultimately, if you're not, you know, if you just want to communicate it to the freshmen, you don't want to even get into all of that confusion. You know, there's no need to spend half the book, in my mind, confusing the student by introducing Keynesian economics to them and then debunking it. I understand why Rothbard did it because back then everybody was immersed in that discourse. But now, you know, the internet is freeing people from that. And so I think the fact that I already have a little bit of a readership in the Bitcoin space and a lot of Bitcoiners liked my book provides me. And of course, you know, the Demises Institute and all the great work that the Demises Institute has made and the audience that it has provides me with a starting base where I don't need to go and engage the mainstream. I'm just going to communicate these ideas in the best way to get them through to the freshmen so that they know exactly what capital is and what we mean when we use the word capital and why capital is important and what happens, you know, what you need in order to have capital saving and what happens if you finance capital from credit expansion. These extremely important concepts are much better explained just purely from the Austrian perspective without getting into all of the confusions of the Keynesians. Well, one of the problems you identify with Mannequin Musee, of course, is just the sheer length of the book and getting through it. Do you have a sense as to how long your principles of economics book will be when completed? I'm planning for around 100,000 words, I think it's it may go to 120 but I'm trying to keep it in that range 100 to 120,000 words, I think, which is around about 300 to 350 pages or so. I think I don't want it to be very in-depth. I'm trying to make it more broad in covering more and more concepts and may not necessarily dig very deep into them. Right. And of course, this is an economics textbook aimed at, let's say, a freshman college audience or that sort of level. One of the things for me that both in human action, which is more of a treatise and man economy and state, which in a sense maybe straddles treatise and textbook is that the organization of both books, from my perspective anyway, is unsatisfying. So give us your thoughts about how you approached organizing this book. In other words, the various silos. The way that I started it is I had effectively, I placed two foundational chapters at the beginning. So the first one is explaining subjective value and marginal analysis. And essentially, you know, the Hungarian foundations for the course is laid out in chapter one. I think these are extremely important concepts. And then the second chapter is explaining human action. I thought this would also be a very useful way to just establish the topic in that what we're dealing with in this course is that humans act. And Mises has written a whole book about this. Here's what we mean by human action and here's what it means to use this as an analytic lens for understanding economics. And then the third chapter is also somewhat of a foundational chapter wherein I explain, I focus on understanding time in economics. And I think this is extremely important because the way that I structure the book is that after discussing, I explained time and Mises says time is a unique economic good because it is irreversible. And then I posit that all economizing is economizing of time. And then when we think about it, you know, once I think of the economic problem is ultimately flowing from the economizing of time. And here this is where I bring in the work of Julian Simon. This is where it will go a little bit off the Austrian reservation and bring in Julian Simon, who was more of a Chicago economist. I mean, he was in Chicago, but I would say he was pretty Austrian in his approach. And he wrote a very important book for me, which is called the ultimate resource. And in this book, Simon explains that the ultimate resource is human time because the only thing that's really scarce because all other material things on Earth, all material things on Earth, can make more of them with more human time. And I think this is an enormously profound point in that the magnitude of anything or the quantity of anything, whether it's a final good or a raw material in Earth for all practical intents and purposes is subject to just how much time we dedicate to it. We think of the Earth as being scarce, we think of the Earth as limited, the size of the Earth as fixed. And so there's only so much oil and there's only so much nickel and there's only so much gold and there's only so much silver. And while that is true, I think what Simon makes clear is that the only scarcity that really matters here is not the total quantity that exists in the planet because the planet is absolutely enormous. And so whether it's gold or oil or any of those things, the limit on how much we can make of those is about how much time we dedicate to it. We always make more gold. We can always dig deeper and find more gold. But the reason we don't make more gold than we do is because the opportunity cost of gold rises in terms of our time and in terms of the other goods and services to which we could dedicate our time. In other words, we could triple global gold production, but it would require us to give up on a lot of other essentials, other economic goods. So the limit, the only thing that is really scarce is human time. And I think I like to use this as the motivation for the economic question because then I introduced the different techniques which humans use for economizing their time. And these are the, these are the, this is, I could say, you know, the meat of the book in that these are the, these are the topics usually that the economics textbooks of all fields focus on. So the first one is property and well, labor property, you know, labor is an idea. So we economize between, we can economize our time between leisure and labor. And one way we economize is that we take property so we start owning things and we start investing in maintaining them and keeping them so first durable goods. And then, you know, one special kind of property is property that is used for the production of goods, which is capital. So then we explain capital. And so each one of these gets a chapter where we're talking about this concept using mainly Mises as a human action and Rothbard's man economy and state, I would say. So we explain these concepts and then after capital we look at trade and then money and then, and then another one that I introduced, which is a little bit different from the Austrian analysis usually is energy. I thought that we should, that I should just dedicate a specific chapter to the study of the question of energy because for me, I think it's an essential part of how we economize our time that we apply, we use sources of energy to do the things that we want to do. And I think that's a very useful way of understanding energy and I think it's very topical today because as we can see in places like California, people really don't understand what they're doing with their energy and it's causing all kinds of problems. So, well, there's this part of the book and then I move on to studying monetary economics. So I focus on monetary economics in depth and Austrian business cycle theory and money and credit and banking based on mainly I would say theory of money and credit of Mises and Rothbard as well. And then I end with the kind of political economy questions of central planning and socialist calculation. Well, no central planning social calculation comes in a little bit earlier, but we discussed the socialist calculation debate and the spontaneous order and the concept of emerging order a little bit of Hayek and then we end with more of a political questions, political economy questions and the power and state, power and market section of man economy and state. Well, I, from what I've seen, I love the organization because given the benefit of hindsight, we can go back and look at Rothbard and Mises and say, well, how would I pull all that together in maybe a more digestible or comprehensive format, especially for someone who's somewhat of a beginner and just reading this stuff for the first time. So I love the organization. I'll say that also your definitions, which are sort of heavier towards the beginning of the book as you would probably imagine, you know, safe definitions are short. They're generally just a sentence or two. And, you know, they get to the meat of things early on. So, you know, I love all that, but I want to touch on, especially your part five, your monetary economics, because I think so much of this is going to be radically different from what we think of as any treatment of, I guess, hey, I don't even like this term, monetary policy in traditional texts, because you're really getting into the idea of how it is. So my interest is derived from time preference, the typology of money, fiduciary media, business cycles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of this stuff is even really discussed in textbooks. Yeah, definitely not in the mainstream textbooks for sure. Time preference is not a word that you come across in mainstream textbooks. And if you do, it's usually just a quick mention of it determining the discount. And then for all intents and purposes, you know, you're just the discounting rate is just a number that you plug into all the calculations. But there's very little reflection or understanding of why time preference is important. And for me, I really thought very long and hard about the monetary part and how to structure it. And I came to the conclusion that, you know, this is this is the Austrian story and we're going to tell the Austrian story from the bottom up. We're going to lay the foundation properly. And so we're not going to begin with money. We're going to begin with time preference. This is what time preference is. And once you've established time preference, then based on that we can see how interest emerges and explain the Austrian theory, the Austrian theory of interest rate, which is the time preference, the pure time preference theory. And then based on that, then I take Mises's typology and explanation of money of the theory of money and credit. And then I use that with that background, I then explain how the business cycle happens. So it's not like we start with the business cycle and then we show the manipulation of the interest rate as being the cause. First, we show how the interest rates work, time preference, interest rate, and then money banking credit. And then what happens when you expand the credit and distort the interest rate and then how that leads to the business cycle. Yeah, it's really an excellent little summation, I think, for most people. Those of us who are not economists can really benefit from how all this is brought together. The other thing I know to safe is that some of the poll quotes you have, again, Rothbard, Mises, Hapa, Manger, etc. They tend to be the kind of quotes that punch the reader in the face. They're not to put you to sleep stuff. No, definitely. I mean, I try and punch the reader as much as I can in my writings. Definitely something to aim for. So if I can bring these heavy weights to do some punching on my part, I will not hesitate. Well, one thing I wanted to mention in particular was early on in the book, you introduce money and the concept of it, but then later on in your larger section on monetary economics, you really bring in a deeper discussion of interest rates and originary interest in that concept and everything. And one of the things I think that was, I've got to say, strange about meta-economy and state was that Rothbard introduces interest rates in his production section, which is that big, meaty middle part of the book, hundreds and hundreds of pages. And I thought it made more sense here. Yeah, I thought it would make sense to introduce money conceptually in the earlier part and the part about the economizing acts and then continue with explaining the economizing acts. I should have mentioned in my summary, I skipped over actually, I skipped over the part where after bringing all these up, you know, the economizing acts of labor, property, capital, trade, money. After bringing these up, I explain how this leads to the, how this, and then I bring up entrepreneurship and economic calculation, profit and loss. And then explain how under an entrepreneurial system where all of these things are undertaken by people where people are working and owning property and trading and accumulating capital, then economic calculation in the market order becomes possible and you have the market order. And so that's the kind of punchline to the first half of the book. And ideally, I think this book would be taught over two courses and it was based on the two courses that I taught in my website. So this would be the punchline for the first part of the, for the first course, which is you explain those economizing acts and then you move on to explaining how they all come together to build a market system and how the market system functions with and how the role the prices play and economic calculation. And so I thought getting into the monetary stuff before establishing profit and loss and calculation and so on would not do it justice and also would completely deflect from the sequence that we had been following at the beginning of the book of, you know, laying out these economizing acts after establishing the foundations. So and also, you know, it would allow me to after I explain the market order then get into money in depth. So then, you know, this would be the second course based on the book. In the second part, it would center on the monetary economics and the political economy questions. Well, we're almost out of time. I just want to bring up one thing here to conclude, which is a lot of people know you as a Bitcoin guy. They think of you as a Bitcoin guy. However, if they go back and read the Bitcoin standard, they will recall quickly that really the first two thirds of that book is about money and economics, not about crypto per se. I've noticed just a couple of small references to Bitcoin in your text. Do you plan on elucidating on that? Having more is this going to just treat Bitcoin in a passing matter? Passing matter, but not very passing because, you know, Bitcoin is interesting as an economic invention, as an economic technology. So I will be discussing it in the chapter on money conceptually just how incredible it is that we have a new form of money whose supply is completely a responsive to demand. And I will be discussing it in the final section. The book is generally just recycling the ideas of Mises Rothbard and Manger and all of these economic crates. But in the final part, I'm going to, you know, after having done 20 chapters of that, I'm going to give myself a little bit of freedom to speculate. It's something that I think they might disagree with. But I think in the final chapter, I'm going to bring in the discussion of, and I haven't written this yet, but how a completely free market would treat money. You know, the gold standard was not an entirely free market and it never existed in its pure theoretical form because of various problems with banks and governments interfering in it. And I think my contention that I want to bring in that chapter is that if we have a money whose supply is fixed or a money whose supply grows at a very, very slow rate, or something similar to what was happening with the gold standard, we'll see the process of the lowering of time preference, which is really the process of civilization in that with time people start accumulating more and more capital. So there's more capital available to lend and so interest rates continue to drop. And really, you know, and I think Hopper says this in his book, Democracy. And I think it's also written in the book by, it's called a history of interest rates by Homer and Silla. The really history is the decline in interest rates as we accumulate more capital as we progress. That book looks at 5000 years of data on interest rates. And you see that it is constantly declining. Obviously it keeps rising in times of war and crisis and civilizational collapse. Interest rates rise up and they go back down. But on, you know, with all of the rises and falls, it seems that we are heading downward overall. And by the turn of the 20th century and the beginning of the 20th century, there was the interest rate on English on the back of England's bonds where I think at around 2% or something like that. So it was continuing to drop. And then World War One happened and the world went crazy and interest rates just continued to rise. And really, humanity was derailed off of its tracks in that sense. But I think if we had continued on the gold standard for another 100 years of largely peaceful and prosperous economic development, I'm willing to argue that maybe we would end up with no interest rates. We'd end up with an interest rate of zero. And that would be the free market outcome that we accumulate more and more capital. Time preference continues to drop. People's capital stocks continue to increase and capital continues to get cheaper that at some point, you no longer care about charging an interest on your capital because the interest that you would get is so inconsequential. The only thing that matters is whether you will get the money back if you trust somebody. And then if you're trusting somebody, then there's no point in lending them for a very tiny interest or for no interest. And so I think what would emerge is that equity investing would be what would make sense. And I think this is where Bitcoin comes in because I think in the Bitcoin economy, I think we'd get much more equity investing rather than debt and credit. And banking would essentially bifurcate into two functions that make sense, which is deposit banking and investment banking. So you either give the bank your money and you pay them so that they keep it safe and so that they make payments on your behalf through whatever technology is most convenient. But that's a service that has a lot of value because you no longer have to worry about securing your own money. You're putting it in the most secure vault in town. And you don't have to go into the vault and take your money out every time you want to buy lunch. You have the money there and they do the settlement with the restaurants through your credit card or whatever. So that's a service that you pay for, which is deposit banking. And then if we have a form of money where central banks can't interfere, I don't see how banks can offer interest rates to depositors. I don't see how they would offer fixed interest rates to depositors. I think they would only function as intermediaries where they would take capital from depositors and give it to investors, sorry, give it to entrepreneurs, take it from investors and give it to entrepreneurs and they take a cut. And so I think those two functions would make sense. And I think we'd get, you know, maybe the end state of economics is that we go to a world of zero interest rates of obviously not this world of zero interest rates where the money is constantly losing value. But in the money that appreciates, I think it would make sense because the money appreciates. So holding it in the bank, you know, maybe you pay 1% storage per year, but the money appreciates it's something like 2%. Well, let's hope that we live to see that system you're describing. So all that said, Dr. Saifidi, now I want to thank you for your time. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're interested in seeing this textbook as it's being created, if you're interested in buying the Bitcoin standard, which I believe is now in about 10 languages, if you're interested in accessing some of Dr. Amos's courses at his website, just go to Saifidi.com, S-A-I-F-E-D-E-A-N.com and you can find out about this project we've been discussing. And I'll ask you now if when the book is completed, you'll promise to come back on the show and talk about it again. Absolutely. I'm always happy to come and talk to you, Jeff. Just let me know anytime. Thank you so much for having me. All right, ladies and gentlemen, check out Saifidi and Amos and have a great weekend. Thanks so much for joining us. The Human Action Podcast is available on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, Spotify, Google Play and on Mises.org. Subscribe to get new episodes every week and find more content like this on Mises.org.