Great insight by Jörg Guido Hülsmann on the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics: "Modern macroeconomics began with Böhm-Bawerk’s seminal Capital and Interest. The epithet “modern” is shorthand for “post-Ricardian” and refers most notably to the application of methodological individualism in explanations of phenomena such as the production structure, capital, and money interest. Böhm-Bawerk showed that and how these phenomena, which affect more or less all members of society (“the economy as a whole”), result from individual human action and interaction. Menger had pioneered this method. He had shown how prices on individual markets spring from the acting person’s evaluation of marginal quantities of economic goods. Böhm-Bawerk did nothing but extend the application of this method to explain how the various markets interrelate, what costs are, and how and why interest comes into existence. Later, Mises applied the very same method to explain the impact of money on the economy, and to analyze the business cycle. With Mises’s 1912 treatise on money, Austrian economics had come full circle, giving a coherent and encompassing explanation of all economic phenomena (see Mises 1980). It is therefore of little surprise that the early Austrian economists did not distinguish between microeconomics and macroeconomics. There was in their eyes only one type of economic analysis, which was based on certain invariable facts of human action—such as “only individual persons act,” “acting involves choosing,” “choice refers to marginal units of economic goods”— and which was able to give a satisfactory explanation of all economic phenomena. From this point of view, one might call certain phenomena “macroeconomic” because they are virtually immune from the choices of any given person, but result from the combined effect of the choices of great masses of people; and one might call other phenomena “microeconomic” because here the impact of individuals is perceptible and important. But this distinction is entirely nominal—it is an artificial convention without foundation in real differences. The fact is that all economic phenomena result from individual choices; hence, Menger’s method can be applied universally; and ultimately there can be only one unified economic science, just as there is only one real world that this science describes."

"Libertarians are opposed to every State. But the State of Israel is uniquely pernicious, because its entire existence rests and continues to rest on a massive expropriation of property and expulsion from the land." - Murray N Rothbard

That said, the question of Brexit it seems to me is a different one. I was leery of Brexit because one thing I like about being in the US is any young person in any state has the whole country open to him--to move to to work—and this was what a young British person had with the EU. He could move to and work in Spain or France or Amsterdam whatever if he wanted to. Sort of like in the US. So if I was a young person in Britain I would have opposed Brexit. Yes, yes, despite all the problems with centralization and Brussells. nb @GabbSean See stephankinsella.com/2026/10/…

Another Hoppe W 👇🏼

On Peter Thiel and Palantir

I was not convinced by @ProfessorWerner's attempt to "empirically prove" that banks create money by way of credit @NewmanJ_R' wrote an excellent critique: mises.org/mises-wire/richard… I added a few epistemological considerations in this paper: granem.univ-angers.fr/_attac…