ludwiglaborda / Ludwig Laborda is on Nostr

I am a voluntarist living in Venezuela. Everything related to human action and relationships draws my attention. Big fan of Austrian Economics and Ludwig von Mises in particular.

#anime #austrianEconomics #bitcoin #oldNorse

Last Notes

2023-04-22 00:42:52

Positivist be like:
"I stopped using #Nostr for a while and it has changed a lot. I should do that from time to time to see more changes to the platform"

2023-03-26 14:11:33

- reply

So, I will wait for them to do something with the web client.

2023-03-26 13:41:39

Is #nostr buggy? #nostr? It takes ages to load content which discourages me to use it. It always challenge my patience.
https://void.cat/d/2tJKdGwm8m3n89vPURXd3h.webp

2023-03-20 19:57:43

- reply

Oye #[1]
¿Sí te abre usando el enlace? Yo intento hacerlo, me manda a blogstack.io, pero no me muestra nada.
¿A ti sí?

2023-03-20 18:45:51

Alguien dijo por ahí que "el dinero no compra la felicidad."
A partir de esa idea, vi una oportunidad para hablar de la #subjetividad y la #felicidad en relación con el #dinero desde la #escuelaAustriaca
https://blogstack.io/naddr1qqyrwery89jrvdecqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hsygq4l68vzhla7dg4sj0p29ddmugjjav2acrdjkf62u8uczffrj8sggpsgqqqw4rs900uml

2023-03-20 02:18:40

- reply

No way!!!
Awesome! Thank you so much for introducing me to it!
I love #WoS

2023-03-19 16:26:46

- reply

Well, people refuse to let it go.
I am the people, btw. So are you!

2023-03-17 21:31:34

- reply

What is kushti?

2023-03-17 20:36:47

Why would brave flag #nostr as a dangerous place? 🤔
https://void.cat/d/6xzsHpJvvVQwySCT1psF6r.webp

2023-03-17 20:21:41

- reply

Thank you so much!

2023-03-17 18:49:06

- reply

#[1] #[2]
Can you help? #[3] suggested me asking you.
Thanks.

2023-03-10 16:18:09

- reply

It is too late. The damage is already done. Stopping people from producing because muh viruses and issuing lots of currency have consequences.
The problem is they are not the ones who will suffer those consequences but people, especially those not engaged with #bitcoin.

2023-03-07 18:38:40

- reply

I can't tell if it is the salvation on Earth, but at least it helped me to protect myself against the local gov't (Venezuela | Bolivar devaluation) and from the US (sanctions and dollar devaluation).
It is hard not to feel love toward everyone making #bitcoin possible. They might not know the impact they are doing, but they are, and I am so grateful to those anonymous lovers making bitcoin a real thing.
That's why I am hopeful about the future even though the world looks like a mess right now.

2023-03-02 00:47:43

Can you send #bitcoin from a lightning wallet to an on-chain wallet?
That might be obvious to you, but it is not to me. Hence, the question.
Thanks.

2023-02-26 17:55:11

- reply

That's the real legacy. The best part? They won't have to pay any taxes to inherence the bitcoins.

2023-02-26 03:50:59

- reply

Tried it and I like it a lot!

2023-02-25 13:55:17

https://void.cat/d/8t6MZj2HqfnjBWGjJjKYK1.webp
When I read Menger's Principles of Political Economy, I had already read Mises's Human Action. Of course, the differences in style were obvious.
Mises was more challenging to read, especially for someone who had not delved into epistemology. Menger, on the other hand, was very easy to digest.
While Mises takes the ideas that socialists usually air and counterargues, Menger raises blocks of ideas and connects them.
I was especially struck by what he says on the subject of use value and exchange value. By then I had already read what Rothbard says on the subject and his disdain for Smith.
Menger approaches the matter differently. This is how Menger explains the matter:
"For a good to acquire value, it must ensure the satisfaction of needs [desires] that would not be so if we did not have said good. But it must do so directly [use value] or indirectly [change value] is a secondary issue where what is analyzed is the general phenomenon of value"
And then he adds:
"This is a sufficiently important difference, both in practical life and in our science, to give rise to the need to look for two specific denominations for these two forms of the same general phenomenon of value. And thus, we call the first forms [direct exchange] use value and in the second [indirect exchange] exchange value".
Without a doubt, I can commune with Rotbhard that this distinction that Smith brought did a lot of damage to economic thought. Now, rather than throw bitter comments at Smith, I think it's better to stay with the way Menger addresses him.
I do not mean by this that it is convenient to use the terms "use value" and "exchange value". For them, we already have two and they are adequate: utility and price, respectively, which could well be taken as a reflection of two aspects of value.
I like what Menger does because he gives rise to rejecting Smith's categorization and, at the same time, validates what he said on the subject. It's like he patched it up to make it make sense. He incorporates it.
Well, these two characteristics of Menger's style (creating blocks of ideas and then putting them together like puzzle pieces that fit together) plus the incorporation of different visions, in principle contrary, is what I like about Menger.
I've just spit all this out to give context why I liked @perbylund's work on Entrepreneurship and the Market Process. I feel like he achieves something similar to what Menger does.
He not only presents ideas as blocks of thought that are assembled but also offer a harmonious explanation that integrates the Hayekian, and Kirznerian vision of the entrepreneur within the more general and assertive vision of Ludwig von Mises.
Namely, the entrepreneur, or rather, the promoter-entrepreneur is the key piece, the cornerstone, of the market process because it is he who, with his innovations, disrupts the market by creating new production structures.
While the other visions see the entrepreneur within a given system, Mises sees the entrepreneur as the actor challenging the current system with a unique value proposition, irresistible to those who value that proposition.
I find it sensational because, in addition to offering an opportunity to end the discussion of who properly sees the entrepreneur, he responds to the way in which the Neoclassical and Keynesian Schools see the market.
In other words, there is a single price in the market through which both bidders and applicants are satisfied. They can say that because, like Hayek and Kirzner, everything happens within a given system.
Now, there is an additional matter. In Hayek, Kirzner, Neoclassicals, and Keynesians, the entrepreneur is a passive entity that responds to external stimuli.
In Mises, rather, it is someone actively exercising his creative capacity to find new solutions to existing problems in the marketplace.
Without a doubt, I was very satisfied with the work of @perbylund and I highly recommend reading it, especially if there is an interest in understanding the market process and how it works.
I read the document through this tweet:
https://twitter.com/PerBylund/status/1596218491111346176?s=20
Thank you very much for such a great job @perbylund. I am very grateful for the opportunity to read it.