Bob Murphy Show

Bob goes solo to explain why the common practice of "offering a plea deal" is a horrible practice, which gives us little reason to trust that those convicted are actually guilty of the crimes to which they confess.

Bob brings on Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to primarily discuss Lew's article in defense of Lori Loughlin. Why is the FBI involved in a college admission scandal in the first place? And why is Lori Loughlin's behavior so much worse than all the other cheating that happens systematically? Bob and Lew then discuss the chilling role of the FBI in American life, as well as various methods by which the CIA takes care of business. Bob also asks Lew questions submitted in the BMS Facebook group.

Bob finishes his 3-part series by first reviewing the contributions of Bohm-Bawerk, Fetter, and Mises to the modern Austrian explanation of interest, namely the "pure time preference theory" (PTPT). Then Bob explains some of the problems for the PTPT, especially for Austrian economists. Instead Murphy offers a much more straightforward--and Austrian!--approach, which explains interest as the premium placed on present vs. future units of money.

Bob brings on Robbie "the Fire" Bernstein, host of Run Your Mouth and junior host to Dave Smith on the popular libertarian podcast Part of the Problem. Bob and Robbie discuss the NYC stand-up comedy scene, and give a tutorial on jokes using some examples. Bob asks Robbie whether the mocking campaign against AOC might backfire, and then Robbie turns the tables by asking Bob about the coming economic crash.

Bob critiques an article by Conor Friedersdorf, in which he mocks the right-wing outrage over Rep. Ilhan Omar's 9/11 remarks as a tempest in a teapot. Why, if someone on the right made a similar slip of the tongue, Friedersdorf would expect the right-winger to be forgiven. This is of course ludicrous nonsense, as Bob explains.

Bob goes solo in his continuation of his series on Capital & Interest Theory. In this episode he explains Bohm-Bawerk's solution to the problem of interest, namely that present goods are more valuable than future goods. Bob also explains Bohm-Bawerk's three separate causes for the higher valuation of present over future goods, including the notorious third cause, which is the higher physical productivity of more roundabout processes. Finally, Bob addresses the criticism of Bohm-Bawerk's theory coming from Keynes, Fisher, Frank Fetter, and Mises.

This episode is a re-broadcast of a recent episode of the Lara-Murphy Show. Bob and his co-author Carlos Lara discuss the yield curve from an Austrian perspective. Then Carlos explains why a business owner who practices the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC) would want to retain ownership of the life insurance policy in his or her own name (rather than the company owning it). Their discussion is part of a series, which is tied to the upcoming seminar in Nashville, TN on May 10, 2019.

Bob goes solo by beginning his 3-part series devoted to Capital & Interest Theory in the tradition of the Austrian School. (This is his area of expertise and the focus of his doctoral dissertation.) In this episode, Part 1, Bob explains Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the "naive productivity theory" of interest, and also reconciles it with the standard approach in modern economics models of equating the real rate of interest to the "marginal product of capital."

Bob shares an interview he did on C. Jay Engel's podcast, "Austro-Libertarian," where they discussed Doug Henwood's critique of MMT that ran in the socialist publication, Jacobin magazine. Henwood's article was an excellent summary of the academic roots of MMT, and thus supplements the pragmatic discussions (from the perspective of Warren Mosler) that have recently been featured on the Bob Murphy Show.

By popular demand, Bob goes solo and explains some of the major disagreements he had with the views Warren Mosler expressed back in episode 18. At that time, Bob was just having a friendly discussion, not a debate, but in this episode, Bob explains where he thinks Mosler went wrong.

Austrian economist Peter Klein talks with Bob about his unusual (for a Rothbardian) career path, including his time working for the Council of Economic Advisors to Bill Clinton. They discuss Klein's work on entrepreneurship, and how his views differ from those of Israel Kirzner.

Liberty musician Jordan Page discusses the plight of Schaeffer Cox, an Alaska liberty activist and militia leader who is being held by the federal authorities in a high-security prison. There were many irregularities in the case, with the original verdict having been vacated and the case sent to a lower court for re-sentencing. Cox's supporters argue that he was targeted for his political views.

Bob goes solo to discuss a particular aspect of outrage mobs on social media, in which people intentionally spread misleading or outright false smears against their opponents. He covers the fate of Scott Alexander (who had to shut down a subreddit thread because of online harassment accusing him of supporting Nazis), Nick Sarwark's latest (feigned) ignorance of Tom Woods' views on prostitution, the hatchet job on Bob's Wikipedia entry, the smears of Jordan Peterson, and--in the interest of fairness--some examples of overreach by "his side" too. Bob wraps up by explaining the harm of this behavior, and how comedians are the only ones left who can speak the truth.

Nelson Nash is the developer of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC), which uses properly designed whole life insurance policies as a cashflow management vehicle. Although Bob (along with Carlos Lara and David Stearns) has worked closely with Nelson over the years in building the Nelson Nash Institute, this interview focuses on some of Nelson's charming stories about learning to fly and being mentored by FEE's founder, Leonard Read. The conversation then turns to the pernicious role that commercial bankers have played in history, and how IBC allows individuals to secede from that evil system.

In order to motivate his upcoming debate on the Contra Cruise against Tom Woods, Bob goes solo in describing his vision of a Rothbardian society. Without taking a stand on the morality involved, Bob simply explains as an economist why he predicts that the major companies and property owners in an anarcho-capitalist framework would quickly adopt policies that minimized violence, even against criminals.