 This weekend we wanted to bring you another one of our great talks from our Austrian Economics Research Conference that just wrapped up last week. Now this speaker is perhaps not as famous as Patrick Byrne from Overstock.com, or as famous as Hans-Haran Hoppe, but he's a really unusual and interesting guy. And one of the things we like to do at the Mises Institute is introduce you to new names and new thinkers that you may not have met before. So Professor William Boyz is at Arizona State University. He heads the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty. And what's so great about Professor Boyz is that this is a gentleman who never came to Austrian Economics or Libertarianism until much later in his career, really until mid-life. And his speech is entitled When I Was Six, which is a reference to Murray Rothbard already displaying an anti-authoritarian streak when he was still in grade school. And this speech is really dynamite. In it William Boyz gives us the perspective of someone who's been on the other side, who's been a Keynesian, who's been on the macro side, who's been in mainstream academia really until just the last couple decades. So he demolishes mathematical economics and econometrics, the use of math models. He really demolishes the whole concept of macroeconomics and he really gives you a good take on what modern economic academia is like. This is a bit longer than most of our weekend shows in about 45 minutes, but it's well worth your time to get to know a little bit more about William Boyz. It's a terrific speech and he's an unrepentant Rothbardian Austrian. I hope you enjoy it. Stay tuned. Thanks to the Mises Institute. Pat, I appreciate all your energy and arranging everything. And especially Joe inviting me. I don't know why he did it. For the life of me, I can't understand it. I thought maybe it might be because he published a recent paper of mine. Then I thought maybe it was because Murray and I were both from desert universities. And then I thought no, it's because Murray and I are both short and bald. But I am just unbelievably honored to be here. Mises is part of my daily life. My wife and I wake up early, you know, like old people do. And we get our coffee and we open our notebooks. Okay, now I start reading Mises and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages and looking at the financial pages. My wife opens up the New York Times opinion pages. Now, I cannot sometimes even concentrate because she's swearing so much, she's defying, she's laughing. She says, you got to read Collins, you got to read Blow, you got to read Krugman. Why do you torture yourself like that? Oh, I just want to see what the other side has to say. So Mises is a very important part of my life. This is great to be here. The other lectures were really good. I'm embarrassed that mine won't be anywhere near that good. And the title, it seems to make no sense. But I looked at the other titles and they were all pretty heavy. So I thought, I'll make mine light. Okay. So when I was six, I think it will make a little sense later on, maybe, maybe. But I wasn't really embarrassed at that title. I want you to know. Murray Rothbard told us that liberty is what allows human flourishing. And that human flourishing requires private property rights and behavior according to the non-aggression principle. And that this nation was conceived in liberty. What do mainstream economists tell us today? Well, I'll give you a couple examples. A few weeks ago, I went to a seminar in my department. And I walk in and the fellow has his PowerPoint deal up with just a hairy equation. And so when it gets started, he says, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to calibrate this model. Now, I don't know if you've run across that, but that means make up numbers for the parameters. And then simulate it. And if it doesn't match real life, then change the parameter values and run it again. Well, before he barely got that out of his mind, the rest of the department saying, oh, that should be a Cobb-Douglas function. No, it should be a CES function. What's that parameter? It ought to be lambda minus delta. Oh, no, that ought to be alpha. The whole seminar was that. That's mainstream economics for you. That's what passes for economics these days. Another illustration, if you run across mainstream macroeconomics these days, they talk about the overlapping generations model. OK, it is incredibly insightful. I'll put it up here so you can read how insightful it is. It's one generation, does some stuff, and then it dies, and a new generation comes out. You see, they barely overlap. That's where its name comes from. So I asked this well-known macroeconomist what the value of this model is, and he tells me it gives you really good insights on social security and pensions. So I asked him what the insights were, and when he finished, what do you need a model for? Oh, he didn't like that. And speaking of overlapping generations, I just read a paper by Larry Kotlakov and Jeff Sacks, just out of the MBER, where they use an overlapping generations model to come to the result that technology is going to take over the world and drive people out of jobs. OK, the worst part of that isn't the conclusion, it's that they then make policy suggestions on the basis of that. OK, this overlapping generations model they had had two sectors, high tech and low tech. So the high tech's just going to be growing too fast. So they say what you need to do is have a redistributive tax, impose it on the high tech sector and transfer the money to the low tech, and then that will slow everything down. Much of what's being taught in mainstream economics departments around the country these days is just nonsense. Mises dismissed academic economists as a collection of charlatans. The fact that the majority of our contemporaries, the masses of semi-barbarians led by self-styled intellectuals entirely ignore everything that economics has brought forward. Well, that's exactly what's going on today. There are some talented people who use the positive vist methodology, but most of the time it's just garbage. And the training results in a particular kind of economist. I conducted a survey with another fellow where we measured student attitudes toward free markets based on how much economics trainings they had had. We found that the more training they have, the less they support the free market. We also found, and this is kind of interesting, that the positive attitude toward the free market is an inferior good. Lower income people have a better attitude than the higher income people as econ students. The survey I've got up here is another type of survey. I just wanted to show you some results. I have carried out this survey non-scientifically for about 15 years all over the country and in China when I was there in Mexico and in Europe. This is just an average of the results. They all look fairly the same, although there are cultural differences. But this measures the percent of people strongly supporting or supporting a particular allocation mechanism. What we do is create these scenarios where there's a scarcity involved, like kidneys or something. And how do you propose solving that scarcity? So they have four choices here, the price system, first come, first serve, let the government do it or have a lottery, the random. Okay, so after giving them all these scenarios and averaging everything, these are the results and the red bars are the general public, the people that have no economics degree or have no MBA. And then there's the economists and that's the black and the blue is the MBA, people have MBAs. You can see the results of the public support for the price system. It's very low, about 20%, okay? You can see that the public support for first come, first serve is much higher, about 75%. You can see that their support of the government is even higher than that. Oh no, no, no, yeah, even higher than that. And I need to differentiate something here. You see the crosshatch and the solid. The crosshatch refers to non-health questions and the solid refers to questions that deal with health, the kidney transplants, kidney shortages, things like that, life and death decisions. So you'll see in this diagram that as the decisions move from things like a scarcity of strawberries at the grocery store to life and death decisions, people tend to want the government to do the allocating. And you'll see even the economists looking at the black, when it comes to the life and death decision, choose more government than they did before, almost as much as they choose the price system. Now, how's that even possible? I looked for other surveys out there and I found one by Dan Klein and Charlotte Stern that most economists favor government intervention in a wide range of areas. Income redistribution, minimum wage laws, environmental regulation, anti-discrimination laws and others, they found that a strong percentage, 80-some percent, support intervention in those areas. And they found a little difference between economists that voted Democratic and economists that voted Republican, but even the Republicans supported government intervention. These attitudes are created in classes. By the way, classes are taught and there's two viewpoints that have come together to create this anti-liberty perspective. One is, follows from Varad, Pugu, Marshall and Mill, and that's the market failure paradigm. From those guys till now, it's like a cottage industry to find something you could call a market failure. And several Nobel Prizes have been won by discovering market failures, quote unquote. This is one that Robert Frank uses, Frank at Cornell. This is a, I believe it's an elk, I ought to know this, I grew up in that country, but I think it's an elk. He says the elk, the bigger horns, the more sex they get. So the horns just keep getting bigger and bigger and attracting the females until, so heavy they can't lift their head. Now wait a minute, how much sense does that make? If they couldn't lift their head, then they can't go have sex. Then some smaller elk will run around getting all the sex. And there's the gene, it's gone. Now how can that be a market failure? He says that's just like what goes on, we start to win with something and then we do too much of it. He says for instance, income. You start earning income and if you're earning too much of it, you're just wasting your time so we ought to have a 100% capture of income after $50,000. Then you don't have to worry about keeping up with the Joneses. This is another famous market failure. You've probably all run across this, the QWERTY keyboard as a market failure. The argument is that the QWERTY keyboard, whoops, sorry, QWERTY keyboard is inefficient, but we still use it. It was built at a time when typewriter keys had to go one by one and if you went too fast, they'd get stuck. So they developed this keyboard to slow people's typing down, okay? But we use it today when there's no letters being typed. Computers go fast as you wanna go. That's inefficient. We are stuck on a technology due to networks, due to the fact that nobody wants to get out of it. It's been shown that that's not true. They're looking at the history. They did races between this one and the Dvorak and others and this one won. It was efficient, not inefficient. They make up things they call market failures. There are no such things as market failures. I really have a hard time understanding this. I don't know how anyone who studies markets understands the market process can be a statist. I mean, that's what economics is, studying markets. Yet in 2010, I was on the stage with Alan Blinder talking about the global economy and during his presentation, Blinder said, he was really happy about the events of 2008 to 2009 because it just showed that he was right. His Keynesian textbook, he was so proud that he had written that and he was so proud that he's a Keynesian. I fell off the stage. How can anybody claim to be a Keynesian? It makes no sense. It is not economics. Macroeconomics is not economics. If you're asked to teach macroeconomics, refuse on principle. Economics has been waylaid by these two things, market failures and Keynesian economics and our training of our students leads them to accept this. Most mainstream work today does not even acknowledge that markets require private property. They never refer to the non-aggression principle and often not even the price system. It's not widely understood that private property along with the non-aggression principle guided by price signals and disciplined by profit and loss accounting will steer self-interested behavior in the direction of social cooperation. Murray Rothbard recognized what was important. Rothbard was a remarkable economist, historian, philosopher, and so on. And he's had a lasting effect on thought leaders and liberty and it will continue. I'm amazed and very humbled that I would be invited to present this lecture in honor of him. Unfortunately, I never met Murray. You know, in lectures like this, you're supposed to find some dirt, some secret information about the person you're talking about. So I called people that I thought knew Murray and I've actually learned more here in the last few days about Murray, but you've probably heard all those stories. Well, a friend of mine was at UNLV when Murray and Hans first went there. So I called him and asked to see if he could give me any information. So he came up with something. Now, this is not very exciting, but it's all I got. I was told when he was hired, his office had brown chairs, but he wanted to have blue chairs like we're in the dean's office. So he said to the assistant dean or associate dean, he'd like to change chairs. And the associate dean thinking he was really cute, told him it took two brown chairs to equal one blue chair. So the next morning, the associate dean comes in the office and there's Murray with two brown chairs in tow. When confronted on the apparent contradiction that he wanted to dismantle the state, but he worked for a state institution, Murray said, I told you the state was decrepit and failing. He wrote editorials in the LA Times and once in a while, they really irritated the administration. Which Murray liked to do, I am told. He wrote movie reviews. And one of his favorite movies, the best kind of movie from Murray is a tightly woven story like Dirty Harry. Now the next generation of Austrians might not have seen that, but if not, go look at it. You'll see why Murray liked that. He was, every single person told me he was a great guy. He was exactly the kind of guy you want to go have a martini with or a beer summit with, whatever the case may be. Another friend of mine told me of a time he was talking with Murray and they were arguing about something. And my friend said, Murray, why are you so nice to me? I've seen you tear others apart on these issues. And Murray replied back, you are a civilian. If you were a goddamn academic, I'd tear you to shreds. I am astounded at Rothbard's achievements. I mean, look at it, the accurate account of America's Great Depression, the most systematic defense of anarcho-capitalism, contributions to economic methodology, philosophy, ethics, history, and everything else he focused on. Because of his wide-ranging and intellectually powerful work, I had no idea what I was gonna talk about today. But I did see a video of Murray explaining how he became a libertarian. And I thought, ha, I'll talk about that. You won't be interested in why I became a libertarian, but it gives me something to talk about. So I chose that topic. But my intention isn't to be narcissistic about it. My intention is to provide a little bit of a history lesson and a look ahead. Murray called himself a lone nut out there in the wilderness. But he also said he rebelled against the state when he was six. He was a libertarian when he was six. But he was happy when he did it. Roderick Long's lecture a few years back, he says, a fourth grade teacher's report on Murray said, Murray is so exceedingly happy that it's sometimes difficult for him to control his activities. He must develop a more controlled behavior. You know, today they would call him ADHD and give him Ritalin. When I was six, my favorite game was Cowboys and Indians. I had a six shooter, a couple of six shooters, holster, a friend of mine and I would have quick draw contests. One day I wouldn't let my friend use my six shooter. My mother overheard me. She said, Billy, you need to share. Now I'd love to be able to tell you that I turned around to her and said, Mom, you're not gonna make me a socialist. You don't share your car or your house. Why should I share my property? I'd really like to tell you, I said this, but I can't. I am definitely not Murray Rothberg. You know, what I was thinking about in early grades was playing baseball and lusting after my seventh grade teacher. Neither of my parents attended college, so it was a given I would attend. I got interested in economics and I don't know why because my two professors were a Keynesian and a Marxist. Then I went to graduate school. There I learned very little economics. The only thing I remember about my first micro-course was proving Cacatani's fixed point theorem and deriving first and second order conditions of optimization. Our text was Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis. Micro-Tube was linear and dynamic programming. And in macro, we covered Keynesian growth theory. Somehow I was awarded a PhD in economics. I knew very little economics. And after grad school, my initial position was investment banking. And in the first meeting we had, we were supposed to relate the economy and what's going on to the trust department and where their investments were going. The first meeting I panicked when I realized I couldn't even discuss current events. So I began reading anything to try to get up to speed. And what I chose, of course, was Keynesian. I read the Brookings papers. I did get up to speed on economic outlook and I could discuss what was going on and I could call Allen Greenspan on the phone and when he had his consulting company and talk with him. But of course, I didn't know what I was talking about. And my dissertation was focused on industrial organization and I had the usually conometric bells and whistles. In the years after my dissertation, I gained some distance and I began to wonder what sense do these market models make? Monopoly, monopolistic competition, perfect competition, they don't make any sense. But one thing you should note here, and it's very sad for me, I had not heard of Mises or Hayek or any other Austrians to this point. It was not until some time later when I became convinced of the benefits of market allocation and a decentralized system. Murray Rothbard used to live by his principles. Now sometimes that caused conflict with others, like I understand with Ein Rand or the Kochs perhaps, but he lived his principles. I find interesting how few economists actually live by what they preach or teach. Let me give you a couple of examples. Our business school built a new building and they wanted to move the economics department forward to the new building. And the new building had offices that were quite different. There were some with big windows and some with little windows and some with no windows. So of course every faculty member wanted big windows. So how do you decide who gets what? Office. Well, I asked the department what they'd like to do and the tallest guy said, we do it by height. And the oldest guy said by seniority and the most productive guy by productivity. And we had a former college wrestler in the department at the time and he said, we'll have fights. So I decided we'd auction off the market or the offices. So we did. And people bid on what office they wanted, raised some money and I got a call from the provost, get over here. He said, you can't sell state property. I said, I'm not selling and I'm renting it. I did get away with it because I put it into a scholarship fund for the students. But I also tried to decentralize everything else in the department. Most of you who have had experience with academic departments know it's generally sort of egalitarian. There's a budget that's allocated somewhat equally. Classes are assigned. Even salary increases in many cases are egalitarian. Typically it's more difficult to get travel money than it is to use a phone. Now these days with phone calls being free, it doesn't matter, but in those days, long distance calls were expensive. But at our university, copying and paper and supplies and phones were free. But there wasn't much travel money. So I decided I would decentralize the budget and I allocated the budget to the faculty and they could spend it on anything they wanted. And so you saw phone usage go way down and travel go up, just what you'd predict. I allowed them to bid on classes, class times, class sizes, the classes they wanted. I got a relative price for like a big principles class to a graduate class. So it was a really interesting experiment. Another episode of economists not living what they preach was I attended a Henry Manny law and economics seminar. It was two week long in Miami. And at the end of the two weeks, the students gathered to discuss the speakers and we had one that was excellent and one that was horrible and the rest were about the same. The students decided we would all chip in $25 and split the money equally. And these are economists. Faculty meetings give another great example of economists not living economics. These are typically egalitarian gabfests with no productive output and no recognition of opportunity costs. Fairness is often a focal point. Faculty meetings were very frustrating. I used to, they'd go on for an hour or so and they should have gone on for two minutes. And so I'd add up the hourly salaries of the people there and I'd make an announcement that the opportunity costs of this past hour is $10,000 or whatever. It really irritated people. But I was still put on committee so I decided, okay, I'll pull the MISA strategy and I kept calling other committee members socialists. And pretty soon I didn't get put on committees anymore. Rothbard recognized he was libertarian when he was six. As I tell you, I was much older. So there's an indication of our relative intelligences. The issues I was thinking about when I was 30 or 40 had already been written about by MISA's, Rothbard and others in the Austrian tradition but I didn't know this. Let me give you some of those ideas for instance. Aggregation makes no sense. GDP, national income accounting, unemployment, inflation, what do these really mean? To explain that the total measure of output in the economy is C plus I plus G plus X minus M. Not only implies that these categories are fungible but the more and more G obviously leads to more and more national income. Now Rothbard pointed out the idea of private product to maybe offset that a little bit but more importantly, he destroyed the Keynesian multiplier with his reductio ad absurdum and if you haven't read that you ought to go read it in man economy and state. It's funny. Hayek noted in the use of knowledge in society that aggregation throws away a great deal of valuable information. If we believe the aggregation, then we could make GDP rise by simple actions such as burning down your house, having your kids be juvenile delinquents, getting a divorce and so on destructive behaviors. These were pointed out by Lawrence Parks in the Freeman back in 1998 but it's a real interesting piece. Keynes is suggesting to hire unemployed to dig holes and then more unemployed to fill them up. Echoed by Krugman and the Keynesians worldwide completely ignore Sey's law. Unemployed resources put pressure on resource costs which lead to market adjustment. If those resources are employed by government in non-valuable activities, they no longer put pressure on resource prices to adjust and in the meantime they produce nothing. So we lose from the fact that those people aren't putting pressure and the market's not adjusting and we lose from the fact that those people are not producing anything. And when you put that into the Keynesian framework, you find out that there is no such thing as a multiplier. And like I said, market fairs make no sense in a system of private property rights and non-aggression. There are no such things as market fairs. Market fairs as several have pointed out are an equilibrium concept and in reality are profit opportunities. I don't know if you can read that or not but if one begins the slippery slope and this is about slippery slopes by allowing one violation of the non-aggression principle then we are left with a continually growing government. The logic dictates anarchism. All these areas Murray Rothbard was undoubtedly brilliant and yet he had two academic positions at relatively low level universities. And I know this has been talked about a lot but I always found it curious. And I believe there's an analogy with the climate change debate. There's a paper published in the Journal of Agricultural Economics in 2014 that provides a rationale for global warming proponents to lie, cheat, fix data, falsify results and these are considered ethical strategies according to this article because the end result's so important. Now this is probably due to an attempt to protect one's human capital. I mean we can all agree that devoting resources to protect our human capital makes some sense. You wanna avoid depreciation of that capital and so often cartels are formed and hiring is limited to like thinkers. This is what climate science is all about. All scientists support man-made climate change. Similarly, if you spend 10 years in economics programs developing a specific kind of human capital you don't wanna see that depreciator become obsolete and since Samuelson's foundations the capital developed by economists has been what Mises called physics envy and the methodology has led to an emphasis on market failure. In a paper in the Cato journal Dan Klein refers to the mainstream as a club and Gary North essentially agrees with that. He says because of Rothbard's commitment to the application of Mises's theory to virtually every area of modern politics he has earned the respect of intelligent people who are outside of academia and see through the delusions of grandeur and independence that tend to reflect those that are inside academia. In contrast, those who are inside academia and who gain their sense of importance from peers in academia regard Rothbard as a turd in the punch bowl. If Rothbard was right then almost everything they are doing is either irrelevant or worse. Now I think there is definitely a club and the club's maintained by a rent seeking society supported by the growth of the state. One of my environmental economists colleagues tells me that the EPA is a full employment agency for environmental economists. In mainstream economics government grants come from several agencies NSF, NIH, DOD, EPA, et cetera. But I just on the back of an envelope glanced at NSF for 2014 and I could have this number wrong but it looked like it totaled over seven billion and something like 400 had something to do with market failure and one had Hyatt's name in the title. Now I didn't look at it closely but it's probably critical of Hyatt. As the intervention of state expands it reinforces the need for trained experts who are conducive to furthering the growth of the state. The university system obtains subsidies for supporting graduate education that will provide people to employ in the government. Government in general is very good for economists. So wouldn't it make sense that economists would see a role for government and isn't there an incentive for scientists or economists to mimic each other in technique and thought? According to a recent paper, November 2014 by Marion Foucaud and others called the superiority of economists. She says, or they say, economists want to fix things. They've developed a precise theoretical framework for evaluating when markets are efficient and when market failures can occur. If things don't work the way they should then a smart intervention, a nudge, may be called for, the Thaler and Sunstein thing, a nudge, unbelievable. The study finds economics departments at the very top of the pecking order exchange students among themselves in higher proportions than in other fields, including mathematics. Hierarchy is much more clearly defined in economics. Hiring practice sustain and foster a strong temporal persistence of the prestige rankings. The top five sociology departments account for 22% of all authors published in the primary journal, but the top five economics departments account for 28% of all authors in the JPE and 37% in the QJE. Those with PhDs in the top five sociology departments published 35.4% of the articles. In Econ it is 45% and a sky high 57% in the QJE. The AEA compared to other professional organizations is much more centralized. AEA leaders are drawn primarily from the disciplines elite department. 72% of the AEA non-appointed council members are from the five top departments. In contrast to only 12 or 20% for political science and sociology. The president elected program committee run the program for the annual meetings which involves selecting the sessions to be conducted and the papers to be included in the papers and proceedings. A paper in 2012 called mainstream economists on a defense interviews several mainstream economists on why only the neoclassical view is provided in their classes. Most answer that neoclassical economists are diverse. Nothing else needs to be considered. Several said that edural docs perspectives were akin to unscientific theories like astrology. Harold Eulig of the University of Chicago said he had not seen anything that our models can't handle. Deidre McCloskey referred to this tendency for homogeneity in the midst of specialization and comparative advantage in her little note on Kelly Green golf shoes called the Samuelson. And if you look carefully you'll see I put an S on the side. But given all this, we especially recognize that thanks to the work of Lou Rockwell and the Mises Institute and all of you students have more chance of being exposed to Austrian economics than ever before. And surely much more than I did. For many years I never had a student who had heard of Mises or Rothbard. Lately in the last few years I've always had at least one in every class. And they hadn't been assigned any readings because I'm the only one in the department that ever assigned them. But this does not mean mainstream economists are welcomed in so-called, I mean Austrian economists are welcomed in so-called mainstream apartments. Several foundations decided they would set up a Center for Economic Liberty at Arizona State University to try to change the trend in student education from the left a little more to the libertarian side. And it was started December 2014. And part of our task is to hire academics to put into departments that will handle graduate students that will teach Austrian economics. But because of the club with the cartels formed by the department it's very difficult to overcome their barriers. We give them really good candidates and they say, oh they don't do what we do. Now some people in the literature have said the exclusion of Austrian economists from the mainstream departments is a market failure. Others point to mathematical technique or Austrian methodology, whatever the reason I think those are old arguments. I don't think there'll be an important question in the future. We know that the real battle is a battle of ideas, not esoteric academic journals or even tenured positions in mainstream departments. Now having those today might make the battles a little easier, but it's really the public and the thought leaders who have to learn the value of liberty. And this is what the Austrians are doing so well. And the Austrians with the help of technology are going to make a huge difference in the future. Patrick Byrne talked about particular technology he's using in his company, which is to try to use the Hayekian diffuse information idea, collecting that information. Now several companies have done the same thing with creating markets internal to the company and having auctions and having the prices actually do the waiting instead of some logarithm. But irrespective, more and more this is going to occur and with the internet having destroyed print media and having changed the world, and today we have blogged social media podcasts, online journals, and tomorrow we'll be able to provide information and experiences much more easily and rapidly. I mean today we have a personal assistance like Apple Siri and Samsung's S-voice and we can input with voice commands. With Kinect and weed like technologies we can control devices by using gestures, rain computer interfaces which read our thoughts are also in the markets. We can take Lyft or Uber downtown bypassing obsolete local ordinances such as regulations. And these are just the beginnings. These are the beginnings of social coordination in which technology itself makes it possible to communicate with people. Blockchain technology is decentralized everything and it will decentralize the university. The university as it exists today won't exist in two decades. Even now the Austrian school is growing and becoming more and more accepted outside of academia. Baron's Magazine was one of the few said Austrian School of Economics was right, talking about the crash. In the latest Gallup poll 25% of respondents say they're libertarian up from 17% in 2004 and still there's a lot of work ahead. The basic intuition of the general public is to reject free markets. We know that anti-liberty and anti-market attitude is an emotional reaction. To the general public freedom can be a scary thing. It requires personal responsibility. It's frightening to many to be responsible for all their decisions. Now those that are don't recognize the morality of voluntary association and freedom of exchange under which violence and coercion are removed. It is not recognized that life need not be a negative sum game. But to the intellectual in academia, according to Jonathan Gruber the public is dumb. Thus the general public needs the intellectuals to guide them and to fix things. What we want to do is educate the general public as to the value of thinking like the Austrians. A world, Rothbard would call on us to say there's a world in which free men and women may use their creative potentials in any way they desire is a world full of opportunities. A world where humans flourish. And a world where improvements in the human condition take place. This is what Murray Rothbard understood and what he communicated. He might have been a lone nut, but look where he brought us. Thank you very much for listening to this.