When it comes to Milei, the writing was on the wall: Anyone who has followed his short but disastrous time in power won’t be surprised by the recent images circulating on social media, of a shared press conference with Netanyahu in 2025.1 More important than the images, was the announcement the boss and his hireling gave to Argentina and the international community: A public agreement that the whole of Argentina (1,073,518 square miles) would become a retirement home for Israeli “citizens.” Many were shocked to see this, it seemed straight out of a conspiracy theory about the Andinia Plan — according to which there is or was a plan to establish a Jewish state in Chile and Argentina — for those of us who had kept our eyes open, this invasion did not come as a surprise. But to the rest, it meant that they finally got to see with their own eyes what Milei’s true program has been, since the moment he set his eyes on the presidency, or even before. [continue reading…]
Remember that in a previous paper, I introduced my beloved “economyth”? Worthy of the name are our numerous pseudo-Austrian friends. In France, we have a good share of such friends. Let me tell the story of another talented one.
I am not sure if many of you reading this note will have already heard his name, yet within the narrow French “libéral” economics circles, Pierre Garello is a fairly influential scholar. What’s more, being a university senior professor, there are many places where he displays that his heart belongs to the Austrian School. Here are a few (1, 2, 3, 4). [continue reading…]
Someone forwarded to me the email below from one Martin Gundinger of the Austrian Economics Center to one Britt Schier of the Friedrich A. v. Hayek Institute urging support of World IP Day. Both organizations are headquartered in Vienna; Barbara Kolm is Founding Director of the former and President of the latter, and is heralded as being “renowned for promoting free market policies.” (Kolm is also co-founder of the Javier Milei Institut für Deregulierung in Europa (Javier Milei Institute for Deregulation in Europe), and also Vice-President of the Central Bank of Austria (Oesterreichische Nationalbank) from 2018 to 2023.)
Institutes that are supposed to promote free market policies should not be promoting IP socialism! I guess we should not be surprised—Hayek was wobbly on IP1 and on libertarian and free market property rights principles in general.2 [continue reading…]
- Hayek’s Views on Intellectual Property; Tucker, “Misesian vs. Marxian vs. IP Views of Innovation“; Tucker, “Hayek on Patents and Copyrights“; Salerno, Hayek Contra Copyright Laws. [↩]
- Hoppe on Hayek; Hoppe, “The Hayek Myth” (PFS 2012); Hoppe, F.A. Hayek on Government and Social Evolution: A Critique, in The Great Fiction); Hoppe, Murray N. Rothbard and the Ethics of Liberty; Hoppe, Why Mises (and not Hayek)?; Block, “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom”. [↩]
Cross-posted at StephanKinsella.com.
See Ludovico Lumicisi, “Rothbardian Property Rights in a Dangerous Digital World,” Mises Wire (04/11/2026) (reprinted below). This article won First Place in the Mises Institute’s annual Kenneth Garschina Undergraduate Student Essay Contest. I had corresponded previously with the author of this excellent paper. It cites and relies heavily on work by Hoppe and myself. [continue reading…]
Jeffrey Tucker, “A Half-Century of Household Income,” The Epoch Times (April 15, 2026). Reprinted with permission.
A Half-Century of Household Income
A family of four and their dog enjoy a day outdoors during a picnic in Agoura, Calif., in a file photo. (Tom Kelley/Getty Images)
Commentary
A few months back, I wrote a piece that touched on a taboo topic, though I did not know it at the time. It generated empirical evidence that confirms an intuition we all have that all is not well for American prosperity. I don’t mean just since the great inflation of the last six years.
I extended the analysis back 50 years to show just how devastating the two-income trap has been for household income. Yes, we have more toys and digital media, carry surveillance devices in our pockets, and can turn on our lights with a voice command.
Beyond that, medical care is unaffordable, home ownership out of reach, and real income is struggling despite all new technologies. Most extraordinarily, it now takes two incomes in a household to achieve a living standard that was easily met with one in the past.
I was genuinely stunned at the results of my study but equally amazed at the blowback. People said this is untrue. It was like I had committed some heresy in doubting the doctrine of progress itself, and done something even worse by generating actual evidence.
This is a topic I’ve thought about for decades and always wondered how it could be that people so strongly disagree about the basic facts. Then I hit on the answer. Economists too often look at wealth and income data based on the individual and the household, without actually considering the effective hourly pay per household unit of work.
That sounds overly technical but it matters a great deal. A think tank in Washington has been promoting a graph that seems to reveal wonderful increases in median family income. It hit a high of $106,000 in 2024, three times what it was in 1947. This is from data from the Federal Reserve. It looks very pretty, so stop complaining.
Really? Is the typical member of Gen Z so much better off than their grandparents? That’s not at all obvious.
There’s something wrong here. People of my generation know it. My father, before he went back to university and became a professor in history, made a modest income as a teacher in public school. My mother did not work. We had a home, two cars, and had plenty of clothes and food—all on one income.
When the inflation of the 1970s hit, they felt behind and my mother went to work to make up the difference.
I started thinking through the logic here. To compare before and after, we have to consider the total hours of labor per household. To find effective real income per household, we have to consider just how many spouses actually were put to work, and adjust that new income accordingly.
Here is where matters don’t look good at all. From 1984 to 2024, real median household income rose 40 percent. But during these years, it became more typical than not that a single household would have two income streams (at least) rather than just one.
On paper, it looks like we are richer. In reality, your household income is lower considering all factors. Moreover, the additional income comes with new expenses and does come close to a doubling.
What the chart does not tell you is that the main reason for the rise in real household income is the shift toward more dual-income households mostly driven by increased female labor force participation when kids are younger than 18.
How can we sum this up? Adding another income stream to the household is a 100 percent rise in work expectations but it has yielded only a 20-plus percent rise in material income. The effective pay per hour of work for the household has fallen by as much as 40 to 50 percent.
In other words, the household is not richer but shockingly poorer. At what cost? They are huge. The unpaid work my mother did caring for the household and kids now has to be crammed in on nights and weekends, leading to impossible stress. The luxurious weekends with my father have turned into a massive scramble to manage the household on Saturday and Sunday, leaving no time for anything else.
What’s more, this push to add an income to the household has largely tapped out possible gains. From 1976 to the peak, much of the household income rise came from this added labor input rather than big per-worker pay hikes. Post-2000, participation stabilized/declined somewhat (especially for men), and household income growth slowed. The “easy” gains from more dual earners are largely gone.
We are left with frenzied families struggling to pay the bills, which include the taxes plus child care, lawn services, and whatever other third parties we pay to do what husbands and wives used to do because they had time to do them. We have two people dealing with job stress rather than just one.
Just how many households have taken this route from 75 years ago to today? Vast numbers.
In 1950, 80 percent of mothers with children 18 or younger did not take a wage or salary with work outside the home. Among those with children under 6, 88 percent did not forgo raising kids for a paying job. One income was enough to support the entire family in a middle-class lifestyle.
This was not about discrimination against women. Even back to the 1920s, women before marriage and children worked. Empty nesters did too, even if in community activities such as church and civic organizations.
Child care was a thing but it was intermittently used and not full time. This is not because women were not “liberated” but because it was possible for the family to have a solid middle-class lifestyle without it (think of the show “Happy Days”).
By 1960, this had begun to change somewhat as families sought more earnings, with 70 percent of moms staying home and 80 percent with kids under 6. The number of moms in 1970 with jobs outside the home rose to 40 percent (with only 60 percent as stay-home moms). When the inflation hit, everything changed. By 1985, 60 percent of families already had two incomes. Today 65 percent of households have to bring in two incomes to keep up.
In short, in the span of 75 years, we went from 10-20 percent to 65 percent of households moving from one income to two. Propaganda at the time put the best-possible spin on this but it is actually a sign of declining living standards.
That is the main source of the supposed increase in household income. If you consider the effective hourly wage per household adjusted for inflation, this is effectively a drop in income not an increase.
All data aside, this trend has had a devastating effect on household well-being. You can understand this if you imagine matters from an individual point of view. If you work 40 hours a week for $50 an hour but now your boss makes you work an extra 20 hours at half that rate, your effective wage has fallen by 17 percent. You have more income in your pocket but you have actually experienced a cut in pay.
Expand this out toward two-thirds of American households and adjust for inflation, and you can see the point. More income, yes, but a lower income per hour worked. The real cost is the neglect of children, home life, and an overall lower standard of living. They call this incredible decay progress.
The effect on family formation has been devastating. From time immemorial, women sought marriage for children and financial security. The financial security benefit is taken away while children are pure expense. Don’t wonder what has happened to the birth rate and why women are waiting so late in life to marry and why men see no particular advantage either.
The changes detailed above are enough of an explanation.
No question that the government has benefited from all these changes. Not just the inflation, which lowers the burden of debt, of which government is the most indebted; it also has a whole new crop of people who pay taxes. On top of that, medical care insurance and services have soared in cost as have taxes of all sorts.
As for the household and family, it is another matter entirely. We have lost so much. Which would you choose? Marginal gains in household income (which is really a cut in pay per hour worked) or secure families and domestic peace? This is not a question of data but a question of values.
The worst blow is to Gen Z. Not only did they find themselves robbed of a year or two of education but they face an extremely tough job market, an unaffordable housing market, and declining prospects for living a normal and happy life that their grandparents put together. This is hardly the Golden Age. You know it intuitively. You just have to look beneath the surface to find out why.
Originally published as Sean Ring, “Peace!Fire!,” The Rude Awakening (April 9, 2026)
Peace!Fire!
I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.
And since I sit here exasperated as I’ve been since this ill-conceived mess began, I thought I’d check the scoreboard.
What amazes me isn’t the unintended consequences. I didn’t know what they’d be, but I knew they were coming.
What blows my mind is that everything doom merchants have been selling for the past 25 years is coming to pass, in real time. Real de-dollarization. An empire breaking apart because it can neither bribe nor protect its periphery as promised. The empire’s metropole is blind to the consequences of its actions. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s blue ocean world is fading into history. Halford Mackinder’s world island is becoming a reality.
Am I an alarmist? You be the judge of that.
Here’s the damage report so far, region by region. [continue reading…]
Unfortunately, there are Austrian-School economists—most of them—and there are pseudo Austrian ones—enough to spoil the whole. It seems that many of that kind can be observed, lately. In France, where I do my best to promote Murray Rothbard’s legacy, we have our share of pseudos. Quite a share, actually. I like to call them “economyths”. Consider.
A few weeks ago, François Facchini published a book with the following title: “Quelle fiscalité pour demain ?”—“What taxation for tomorrow?”1 The tone is already set, isn’t it? As I am sure you had guessed, this book is not meant to explain that “Taxation is Theft”, but rather that taxation is a necessary evil that we can at least try to keep below 100%. [continue reading…]
PFP321 | Lee I. Iglody, “The Man Across the Hall: My Time with Professor Rothbard” (Rothbard at 100)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 20:21 — 7.0MB)
Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 321.
AI-assisted audio narration of the main chapters of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026) is available at this PFS Youtube Playlist; the mp3 files may also be downloaded in this zip file.
The first two chapters—my “Preface” and Hans’s “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard’s birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue:
6. Lee I. Iglody, “The Man Across the Hall: My Time with Professor Rothbard”
An exciting event celebrating Rothbard, in commemoration of his 100th year, “100 Years with Rothbard,” will be held in Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026.
This event, being organized by PFS member Manuel Ogando, is sponsored by several Portuguese libertarian groups: Mises Portugal, Catalaxia, Don’t Trust Verify (bitcoin podcast), ZugaTV (libertarian podcast), and Golpe de Estado Podcast (ancap podcasters). [continue reading…]
From the “never trust a politician” files (see Milei and his reversion to the mean with his political rhetoric) we now have the latest edition of “never trust a celebrity.” Our latest victim (or shall we say perpetrator) is Rob Schneider’s X post (March 27, 2026) .
Briefly, Scheider is now promoting (non-ironically) the idea of reinstating the draft in the US (a sadly “new” idea re-emerging). Upon publishing his unsolicited opinion he received a tidal wave of backlash (or “ratio” in X-posting parlance). He soon doubled down to “explain” it was meant to be a legal instrument to de-incentivize politicians from sending other kids off to war if they know their own children might get called up. The most charitable interpretation of this stance is that he is incredibly naïve, not only about politics but likewise American history (e.g. the recent wars where there has been no congressional approval of military incursions along with well-publicized Vietnam era draft dodging by politically connected youth).
In a recent article for Die Weltwoche, Phillip Gut discusses the “triumph of the chainsaw,” citing specific praise for Javier Milei in The Washington Post.
“The rapid transition from nearly a century of socialism to free-market capitalism continues to demonstrate the superiority of the latter,” says Gut. However, the Milei administration, which took office in December 2023, is actually just as socialist as its predecessors. So what free-market capitalism is Gut talking about? Indeed, beyond a few half-hearted steps toward deregulation—which in no way challenge the most cherished interests of the business classes most closely tied to power—Mileism is more of the same, even in Argentina’s statism standards: high taxes, money printing, indebtedness, and so on. There is certainly no clear improvement whatsoever.
Fernando Chiocca, “How to win the economic debate,” Instituto Rothbard (Jan. 29, 2013), regarding PFS 2012 (PFS 2012 Youtube Playlist; PFS 2012 Annual Meeting—Speakers and Presentations). I was just made aware of this so have added it to our Press & Offsite Material page. The automatic English translation is below.
How to win the economic debate
Put Fernando Chiocca-29/01/2013
“We won!”
This is how writer and economist Andy Duncan began the opening lecture at the annual meeting of the Property & Freedom Society (PFS), held in September 2012 in Bodrum, Turkey. [continue reading…]
That’s “a categoric no” said Daniel McAdams, director of the Ron Paul Institute. Ron Paul “would never say the things” that Milei says about foreign policy. Neither would any real libertarian.
ISRAEL 3/30/2026: Death Penalty for Terrorists Law:
The Death Penalty for Terrorists Law (Hebrew: חוק עונש מוות למחבלים, romanized: Hok Onish Mevot leMachavlim) is a 2026 Israeli law. It prescribes execution by hanging for certain terrorist offences, and in practice applies only to Palestinians and not Jewish Israelis.[1][2][3] The bill was passed 62–48 by the Knesset on 30 March 2026.
See also the Grok summary.
Still awaiting Javier Milei’s approval…..
HHH
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:07:56 — 23.3MB)
Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 320.
AI-assisted audio narration of the main chapters of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026) is available at this PFS Youtube Playlist; the mp3 files may also be downloaded in this zip file.
The first two chapters—my “Preface” and Hans’s “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard’s birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue:
Alessandro Fusillo
Doug French
Fernando Chiocca
Greg Morin
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Jay Baykal
Juan Fernando Carpio
León Isidoro
Martin Cabrera
Oscar Grau
PFS
Sean Ring
Stephan Kinsella
Stéphane Geyres
Tom DiLorenzo
Follow Us!