All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, check it out, man.
On the line, I've got the great Bob Murphy, Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute.
And of course, he's the author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, both of which are so good.
They're so much better than you think that they might be.
They really are great.
And he's got this new thing that they're serializing at the Mises Institute right now called Understanding Money Mechanics.
And they're putting the chapters out one at a time.
They're almost done.
They're going to put the whole thing out as a single book here before too long.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing, Bob?
Thanks for having me, Scott.
Glad to be here.
Yeah, man.
It's been way too long since we spoke.
Happy New Year and Merry Christmas and all that.
Hope you're doing well.
We are, and thank you.
Same to you.
Great.
Yeah, so listen, here's my thing.
To paraphrase Lou talking about someone else in an entirely different context, as an economist, I'm a great anti-war guy.
And I don't know what's going on, but I'm trying to keep up.
And I know that, jeez, it must be, you must kind of consider in a sort of amoral, dispassionate, half evil kind of a way.
You must kind of look at this, or the government lockdown, as some kind of controlled experiment to see all kinds of economic effects and the way that they play out and all of that kind of thing.
And then, of course, with the crashes come the bailouts to make sure that the people who are already the richest stay whole at the expense of everybody else.
But I was just wondering, I don't know if we could start, if you could just kind of give us a little bit of a thumbnail of your view of what's taken place with the economy over the last year, where we are now, and what you expect for the coming year and that kind of thing.
Sure.
So just to throw out some numbers of people, because I think, yeah, with the COVID crisis, that people obviously were focused on that in the lockdown aspect, just in terms of how it affects civil liberties.
But yeah, what the government, the fiscal authorities, and the Federal Reserve have done in 2020 is just really astonishing.
Just to give just some numbers.
So from the third quarter of 2019 through the third quarter of 2020, so that one year period that ended recently, the federal debt held by the public went up by $4.2 trillion.
So I mean, that's just to give you, again, so that's not how much the government spent, that's how much the government spent over and above what they took in in taxes.
I mean, that's numbers way bigger than most countries' GDP, and yet that's just how much they added to the debt in a 12-month period.
The Federal Reserve, I mean, if you look at charts of like the Fed's balance sheet, meaning how many assets does the Fed hold, that stuff went up from December, so like December of 2019 through December of 2020, that went up by $3.2 trillion.
Which just, for people who don't know the chart, I mean, that just dwarfs what they did in the wake of 2008.
So there's a big financial crisis, remember all the rounds of QE and everything, and people were freaking out.
Glenn Beck was going on his show, showing the chart, and they had a forklift lifting him up to a point.
What they've just done is, I'm just eyeballing here, it's easily twice, maybe three times as big as what they did back then.
And so, but again, understand, we don't really talk about it, but that's just kind of an asterisk because people are so focused on, hey, when can I go see people at Thanksgiving, that kind of thing.
Well, now let me, help me understand what that means added to their balance sheet.
That means they created $3.2 trillion of new money to buy up debt?
Is that what that means?
Yes, exactly.
Right.
Jesus.
Yeah, so the very act of, when the Federal Reserve buys assets, this is all true since they went off the gold standard, they just, if Chase Bank or somebody has a million dollars in treasuries that they want to sell to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve just writes them a check, as it were, for a million dollars.
And that check necessarily clears, right?
The Fed can't bounce a check because that just automatically, when the Fed gives you a check, that money gets added to your bank account because the Fed's good for it.
And so, yes, that is the way, that's where most of the new money creation comes from.
It's called high-powered money or base money.
And then, you know, commercial banks then can piggyback on top of that if they want to.
Let me see if I understand this right, because, I mean, it seems obvious enough, but then again, it seems wrong enough that maybe it couldn't possibly be what I think it is.
But I keep seeing people do the math and say, well, Congress passed their, you know, first relief act, what, back last summer.
They passed the second relief act and these acts are for X billion dollars each, or, you know, hundreds of billions or trillion, whatever it is.
And then people do the math and they go, well, if you divide that by 300 million Americans, that's only, you know, 600 bucks each or a thousand bucks each or whatever it is.
And yet there's still all of this other money left over that apparently is going to bail out major corporations and banks and things like that now.
And I don't know the numbers on that.
Maybe you can help me out with the proportions there, but I'm pretty sure that's already a thing.
Like, hey, where is all this money going?
I guess they're bailing out state governments as part of it, right?
But then you're telling me, no, no, no, never even mind that.
The Fed created a brand new extra $3.2 trillion to buy stuff with, to bail out, again, not to send checks to grandma or to poor people, but to send checks to Goldman Sachs and any giant corporations that might be risking bankruptcy because of the lockdown, you know, ripple effects and so forth.
Is that correct?
Right.
So, I mean, they're related.
In other words, what the Fed is buying with that money that it created was a mixture of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities.
So, I mean, the two, I mean, kind of like, you know, as you know, Scott, when they entered the world wars or other major wars, you know, that you can just, you can, you can look at it.
I used to do this with my students.
You can show a chart of the Fed's balance sheet and say, who can tell me when there were major wars in U.S. history?
And at least for a few decades, that was a really good proxy.
Because what happened is, you know, when the federal government borrows money to, you know, to pay for stuff that it can't, it's too expensive, they couldn't just raise taxes that would be too onerous, people would flip out.
And then people in the private sector lend the government the money, and then the Fed creates new money to basically, you know, take that debt off the hands of the private sector people.
So, it's a shell game to avoid just the government literally running the printing press to pay for stuff.
So, they're effectively doing it, but they have like an intermediate, you know, a middleman step where the private sector technically is the one that lends the money to Uncle Sam, and then the Fed buys those IOUs off of the people in the private sector.
So it's ultimate.
So, I'm saying what, you're right, that this is a separate thing conceptually, but why is the Fed choosing to do it now rather than before?
I don't think it's a coincidence that when the federal government has a record deficit, that's when the Federal Reserve also decides, you know, in terms of monetary policy objectives, we think it's appropriate to absorb a much higher amount of Treasury debt than we ever had before.
I see.
So, I don't know if I'm answering your question, but that's- I think, yeah, no, that makes sense.
I mean, I'm harping more on the richest people who are already at the very top are the ones who seem to get all the money while everybody else gets bribed $1,800 to not tear the Capitol building down brick by brick.
Yes, and you're right that I have seen some of those statistics, and they at least, some of the ones I've seen are correct in terms of, you know, the relief bill is this much.
They could have just sent a check to every household for, you know, this much more, and yet they're only giving them $600.
So, yes, that's certainly true.
Just like- And the rest of that money is going to whoever, some giant corporation that ought to be able to take the hit.
Right.
Or like you say, like state and local governments, things like that.
Yeah, absolutely.
And just like during the, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, if you had, you know, they were saying, oh, we're doing all this stuff to bail out the mortgage market or whatever to keep home buyers safe, they could have, you know, people ran the numbers back there for the amount of money that the federal government spent, or if you looked at how much the Fed created in their emergency loan programs, yeah, they could have just sent everybody who was delinquent in their home payments enough to get them back on track, and that would have been cheaper.
Hey, y'all, check it out.
The Libertarian Institute, that's me and my friends, have published three great books this year.
The first is No Quarter, The Ravings of William Norman Grigg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone, but this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is The Great Ron Paul, The Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.
Interview transcripts of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years on all the wars, money, taxes, the police state, and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
You can find them all at LibertarianInstitute.org slash books.
Hey guys, here's how to support this show.
You can donate in various amounts at ScottHorton.org slash donate.
We've got some great kickbacks for you there.
Shop Amazon.com by way of my link at ScottHorton.org.
Leave a good review for the show at iTunes and Stitcher.
Tell a friend.
I don't know.
Oh yeah, and buy my books, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and The Great Ron Paul, The Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.
And thanks.
All right.
So now, famously, Bob, you and some other Austrians said that we're going to have really bad price inflation across the board from all the QE bailout stuff the last time around, and then it turned out that they came up with a really great bookkeeping trick to keep that from happening, right?
They create enough money, if I understand it right, they create enough money to keep all the banks whole, but then they paid them a premium on the interest rate there to keep all that new money at the Fed and not loan it all out into circulation, which would have caused widespread price inflation kind of thing.
But so now you're telling me that this is three times that amount of money?
And already, of course, because of the germ and patterns of people moving out of the cities and things like this, but also, obviously, because of the money, there's huge spikes in the value of housing.
I don't know what's happening in commercial real estate right now, but I know in Austin, Texas, prices of houses are going up 10 and 15% in the space of half a year, something like that, maybe less.
So I just wonder what you think is going to be the effect of all of this new money.
And maybe it'll help a lot of people.
They need some free money because the government put them out of work.
I don't know.
Yeah.
So you're right.
I forget when I did, but yeah, 2009, 2010, I was worried about, hey, look at all the money the Fed's creating, and then banks are able to create more on top of that if they choose to.
And this could really lead to significant price inflation, just like the late 70s, it happened.
And I was wrong about that.
And so you're right.
There's different factors as to why was I wrong about that.
One thing is, but I don't want to hide just behind this to make it look like, oh, it wasn't my fault, but no, I didn't call that wrong.
But yes, one institutional factor, partly because I knew this was happening when I made that prediction.
So I can't say, oh, this happened.
But yes, just so people understand.
Also because I think it's beautiful to illustrate how much the official story of what they were doing in 2008, 2009 was not at all what their policies were.
So it was a brand new thing they started in the fall of 2008, like November, I think it was either October, I think it was October, actually.
So remember, September 08 was when the world was ending, when everything crashed, Lehman and so on.
Then a month later, the Fed pushed through a new policy that they had already gotten statutory approval for, but they accelerated the roll in date or the phase in date, where the Fed paid commercial banks interest to keep their reserves parked at the Fed.
So just like a regular bank, Scott, if you deposit your money there, at least they used to pay you interest on it.
Now it's basically nothing, but back in the day.
So the Fed up till that moment hadn't paid interest to commercial banks if they kept their money parked at the Fed instead of lending it out to customers.
So it's a true statement.
This isn't the way they would describe it, but it's a true statement.
The beginning, right when all the bailouts started, the Fed began paying banks to not make loans to customers.
That's one way of thinking of it.
And so when you see how all those rescue measures were sold to the public as, oh, we've got to keep credit flowing to Main Street, yes, we've got to hold our nose.
We hate bailing out these bankers who made such bad loans during the housing bubble, but it's the only way to keep credit flowing.
That was also when the Fed started paying banks to not make loans to people.
So you realize this is not what they're doing.
It's not lining up with the rhetoric.
So yes, that is one of the things they began doing.
What was happening big picture, like in terms of why did they do that, because, yeah, they knew if they kept pumping in money to buy up assets, remember there were the so-called toxic assets, those mortgage-backed securities.
So that was part of what was going on is the Fed had to create money out of thin air to buy up mortgage-backed securities to resuscitate that market, but they didn't want all those new dollars they created to also then flow into the economy.
They wanted to keep a lid on it.
So that's why they introduced this new measure to be able to decouple those things.
They wanted to buy assets on the one hand and separately control the money supply on the other hand, because normally those two things go hand in glove.
Some of your listeners might remember that from a college class or something on how does the central bank work.
So that was the reason they had an institutional switch.
And then, so now what about this time?
Okay, so yes, they are, I mean, you can see it in asset prices, right?
So it's every time the QE happened, the stock market would zoom, gold went up.
Right now, of course, people watching Bitcoin, Bitcoin's going through the roof.
So these things are not coincidental.
It makes sense when the Fed creates a bunch of new money and pumps it in that certain financial asset prices rise.
And also it makes sense that, oh, you know, gasoline and bread's not going to go through the roof when people are unemployed and, you know, everybody's on lockdown and they can't go to work.
So, so I think that's partly why this situation has played out differently from like the 70s.
I see.
So in other words, I mean, that's kind of a big paradox of the thing, right?
Just at the time that they're creating all of this money, they can't really loan it out because they have such a stranglehold on business activity, especially at the lower end.
Right.
So, yeah, it's like they're pushing money in one end of the pipeline and then, you know, it's really tight on the other end.
So it can't flow.
Right.
If that's, you know, one way to think about it.
So that's certainly all true.
And also, too, I mean, again, I hesitate to say because it looks like I'm making excuses, Scott, for, hey, how come, you know, regular prices didn't go up as much as Murphy warned about 10 years ago?
But this is certainly true.
If you go to the grocery store, I mean, the cereal box, you know, the thickness of the cardboard is way thinner than it used to be.
Like the toilet paper and paper towels are one ply, whereas they used to be bigger.
There's no employee anywhere in sight.
You've got to do your own checkout.
So, I mean, there's all these ways that stores have been cutting their costs.
Right.
Oh, but that doesn't count because, no, I read that.
What happens is when beef is too expensive, people just eat hot dogs.
And so you don't have to adjust the CPI.
Right.
So, yeah, that's a good point.
So, it's true, the way they calculate CPI understates, you know, what normal people would think of as, geez, it's more expensive now for me to feed my family when I go to the grocery store.
And anybody with a long term memory just knows that, you know, when you go to, I mean, it's my, you know, we would go to Aldi more often.
And even there, it's like, geez, it used to be we could get out of here paying 60 bucks and now it's like 200.
And what the heck?
We're not buying that much more.
So, you can see that sort of thing happening.
Right.
And, you know, as you say, the conventional ways they measure it and report it, they do tricks like that where just for- Well, and look, if you own a house, I guess you're set because the value of your house is just going to go up and up and up.
But meanwhile, we've got a worse homeless crisis than ever before.
And how are these people ever going to be able to afford homes now?
Yeah.
Right.
So, yeah, that is one of the paradox.
You would have thought at least one of the relief measures would be or areas of relief would be that it would be cheaper for people to get into other things.
And no, it's you got the worst of both worlds where, yes, it's harder to get into homes.
It's true.
I was surprised by that until people pointed out, no, it's because certain, as you said, it's got people fleeing certain jurisdictions and going elsewhere.
Right.
So, certainly certain local real estate markets are booming just because, yeah, a lot of people are fleeing the COVID lockdowns.
You know, I read this thing by Matt Taibbi, he's a progressive, of course, everybody knows on the left, but a great writer and good on important things.
And he wrote this thing about Larry Summers.
And it was about how Larry Summers wrote a thing saying it would be a terrible thing to send out two thousand dollar checks to the people.
And this is a guy who, of course, is a multimillionaire and all of this stuff and, you know, very connected to the government his whole career.
And but, you know, he has these statistics that say that the overall employment something something is right around where it's supposed to be.
And so it would just totally be a bad idea to bail out all these people who are getting kicked out of their homes and this kind of deal.
And then so Taibbi wrote that, look, I mean, I don't know if he phrased it this way, but essentially, it's not like Larry Summers is a laissez faire guy.
Right.
Like this is a guy who his entire career is not just accepting taxpayer money, but it's also advising the government to bail out all the most powerful people at the expense of the little guy.
That's why he's a powerful person, because that's the kind of advice that he gives.
And so here he is, you know, sitting on like Scrooge McDuck or something, sitting on a pile of gold coins while the government is forcing people out of work and saying, oh, yeah, no, you wouldn't want to do something that'd be like socialism or something to give a bailout to the little guy.
When the point being here, not that I'm taking the side of the socialists, but the point being here is the hypocrisy of a guy like Larry Summers and the hypocrisy of, in fact, the entire American economic system, that no wonder people are moving towards socialism and nationalism when this is liberalism, is this completely corrupt, quasi free market where the most powerful people who can afford to take the hit, all other things being equal, they're the ones who get made whole no matter what, because they have an iron grip on the political system and everybody else can just lay down and die.
And that's why people are so upset.
You know, they might, you know, go off on whichever QAnon tangents or whatever it is.
But the fact is, they know that this system is not for us.
It is against us.
As even like Chomsky would say, there's a class war going on.
It's the 0.1% of the top rulers of American big business at war against the rest of us.
It's kind of hard to deny it, ain't it?
Yeah, exactly.
And you're right.
That certainly serves a discredit free markets when people pose for, you know, certain Republican legislators or wherever, and yeah, intellectuals who are all citing laissez faire and the virtues of non-government interference with business, but then they don't do it when it helps their buddies.
You know, that's not their stance.
So yeah, you're totally right about that.
And just to show the weakness in that approach.
So I probably, it sounds like, I didn't read Tybee's piece, but it sounds like Summers was probably saying, well, I mean, given the unemployment rate is actually trending down and you know, at this point there's not that much slack left in the labor market and you wouldn't want to pump in new money because then you'd get inflation.
Just like that.
Yeah.
So just to give, so I know your listeners know this, but just to confirm what they've been hearing, the unemployment or the official unemployment rate is very misleading right now because so many people have stopped looking for work.
Right?
So like my parents are retired in Florida.
They're not seeking, they're not, they don't have a job, but they're not, we mean by unemployed, right?
So that, so that's where this definition comes from.
It's not like it's a crazy definition, but just people need to realize the implications of it in a time like now where so many people just have stopped looking.
So I looked at a thing, if you, if you, instead of asking what's the official unemployment rate, if instead you say, look at all the males age 25 to 54, cause that's like a demographic that they keep statistics on what percentage of that demographic is employed, that number right now is almost the lowest it's ever been in history for the U S except for the dark days of like late 2009.
And so if you look at the chart, you can see from every recession from 1980 forward, that number just keeps going to it.
So it'll go up during the good times, then crash during the next recession and then it'll start rising, but it will never get back to its previous peak.
So I'm just saying the proportion of working age men who can get a job or have a job has just been trending down over the last 40 years.
And so that's just showing something.
And I don't think that's because, Oh, we're just so rich and whatever.
And now everyone's, you know, PhDs, you know what I mean?
Like it's, it's so in technically, you know, that could be a sign of progress, but I don't think that's, what's going on.
I think it's a combination of, you know, bad job prospects and people realizing, you know, it's better for me not to get a, not to go get a job and so on.
Well, it also goes as, as Taibi says it for the people on the high end who get all the bailouts, it means that they are just completely immune from the economic pain that everyone else has to go through due to their crappy economic policies.
For example, they're extremely low interest rates and therefore massive boom, bust cycle every 10 years like they do.
And because it doesn't hurt them, they don't know why everybody hates them.
Why would we hate them?
We get the news from Alan Greenspan's wife on MSNBC every afternoon.
She tells us everything's fine now that Trump's on his way out.
Yeah.
There's that element as well, as you say, and it's, it is true that they're, you know, they will say, oh, we can't let the whole financial sector collapse.
That would be Armageddon.
But yet, okay, well then let's, you know, bail out all the homeowners behind on their mortgage.
Well, no, that would be socialism.
You know, so you're right.
It is very selective in terms of their priorities and what's necessary and what's, what capitalism means when they talk like that.
The other thing too is yes, because if they really had been consistent, then you would have let all these big players go down in the fall of 2008.
And David Stockman, as I'm sure you know, Scott, he has a great thing in his book, The Great Deformation, where he walks through all of the scare story.
You know, people saying, oh, if we hadn't intervened in, you know, George Bush, the hero of capitalism, hadn't nationalized the banks partially in the fall of 2008 or let the Fed do it, then there, you know, there would have, ATMs would have stopped working and your life insurance policies would have been canceled.
And so Stockman goes through and just debunks all that, that yes, there would have been some big companies that went under and some major shareholders would have lost all their equity.
But no, your ATM card would have still worked in your normal life insurance policy.
Those were completely separate things from what AIG was doing.
And that first thing you said, that's what's supposed to happen.
Big companies fail and shareholders lose it.
You made a bad bet.
You lose your money.
Otherwise the system doesn't work, right?
Exactly.
Because it's the profit and loss system is what capitalism is supposed to be.
And so during the bubble period, the normal mechanisms by which, you know, so what was happening when the housing boom was really underway in the mid 2000s, there were some companies that were real leverage and they were betting on housing and making money hand over fist, whereas the more conservative ones were, you know, realizing, whoa, this is kind of frothy.
We're going to, we're going to step back.
And so in a normal system where there weren't government bailouts, at worst, those people that made the really reckless bets, yeah, they would go under, then they would be wiped out.
They wouldn't have market share.
The ratings agencies like Moody's and whatever that slap AAA labels on stuff that was actually later considered toxic, they would have gone out of business and so on.
And so the people would have been chastened and then the ones who were conservative would have captured market share.
But that none of that happened because like we said, in the fall of 2008, the Fed and the federal government came in and bailed everybody out.
Or not everybody.
They bailed out the, you know, the people that had golden sacks connections, right?
And then, you know, so this is the thing, I mean, I know that Austrians, I think he debunked this probably in the politically incorrect guide to capitalism.
People point to inequality and the point is not just inequality, but it's how everybody's doing overall.
If everybody's doing fine and the very richest are doing even better, well, whatever.
But the inequality, when it's all a rigged game against the little guy and even, you know, the kind of big guy for the very biggest and most powerful against everybody else, that's what seems to really drive destabilization in societies.
And of course, with the lockdown policies over this germ, from the very beginning of this thing, if you own a small hardware store, you have to be closed.
But if you're Lowe's or Home Depot, you can stay open.
And we've just had, you know, I have no idea the statistics.
I don't want to know how many small and medium sized businesses have been absolutely decimated.
And I think this is, you know, of course, why the big businesses don't mind the boom in the bus cycle, lockdowns and COVID germs and everything notwithstanding, is because then they get to buy up every, all the little guys property for pennies on the dollar when they go bankrupt and that kind of deal.
It seems like we're about to see over this next year, just a tremendous transfer of wealth from all the smaller businesses going out and all of their best stuff getting bought up by the biggest businesses.
And of course, you know, all the customers going to the biggest businesses and all that.
I wonder if you think that this is, is there a way that you could describe like the shape of this, how bad you think it might be or how much change we might be seeing in front of us in just in those terms, not necessarily the consequences of the social consequences of the change, but just to what degree the power and wealth is going to be consolidated upwards during all of this?
Right.
So what you just said is exactly the kind of thing like, I don't know, maybe last summer is when I started really seeing what you're talking about there.
And that's the, you know, that was my take back then was to say, what's going on one way of looking at what's going on is that they are using, you know, the COVID and I'm sure you've alluded to Scott, like, I'm not somebody who's saying, Oh, COVID is a hoax.
Like, that's a real thing.
And, you know, I have people in my household who have lung condition, you know, so we're taking it very seriously, but the authorities can exploit a real, you know, health emergency in order to ram through all kinds of other stuff that has nothing to do with, you know, that the authorities aren't losing sleep over people getting COVID.
So yes, what they are, clearly one aspect of what's going on is the lockdown measures punish small business owners and allow the bigger ones to stay open, you know, albeit with, Oh, you got to have social distancing and you got to have masks and whatever, but you can still be open at least.
And so, yeah, that's, that's what another group of people that are getting crushed are smaller landlords, right?
Like in other words, you know, people who own just a few commercial properties that they were renting out to tenants.
So if their tenants can't open their, you know, someone has a, runs a hair salon or something and they made monthly rental payments to the owner of the property, if the hair salons closed, they can't pay the landlord and then the landlord, if he has a mortgage on it, he can't pay the bank, right?
So there's lots of things like that where you're right through foreclosure and so on over time, a lot of the commercial real estate, yes, is going to be transferred into the hands of much bigger owners.
And so, yeah, among other things, I would say Scott is a lot of small business owners are getting crushed and then they're not going to just be able to reopen their businesses.
Once you know, the vaccine measures are implemented, that they're going to permanently either just be unemployed or they're going to have to become a salaried employee, just further concentrating the fact that the people running the big businesses, there's a select few and everybody else is just working, you know, getting a paycheck and surviving paycheck to paycheck or hoping for another government relief check.
And that's, you know, a really bleak vision.
I'll tell you what, I'm so sorry that we are out of time.
I could sit here and ask you these half-baked questions all day.
But I really appreciate you, Bob.
I hope we can do this again soon.
Yeah.
And thanks for having me, Scott.
And thanks for getting the word out to everybody.
What word?
Your beacon of anti-war freedom.
Oh, the freedom in the war stuff.
Yeah, great.
Thanks, man.
All right, you guys, that's a great Bob Murphy, Mises.org.
He's a senior fellow there.
And check out, they got this new thing, Understanding Money Mechanics.
They're serializing the chapters and then the whole book will be published there soon.
Mises.org.
The Scott Horton Show, Anti-War Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A., APSradio.com, AntiWar.com, ScottHorton.org, and LibertarianInstitute.org.
