A Health Care "I Told You So"

I normally do not post these sort of things, but there is some degree of satisfaction when you are proven right.  And so this is bittersweet since the prediction was for the worse.

In June 1st edition of the Raleigh News & Observer, an article states the following:

"McCoy Faulkner collects $81 a day as a substitute teacher in the Wake County Public School System. A mere sub, he has no benefits.  

"The 62-year-old former Raleigh police officer shells out $580 a month for an individual insurance policy, more than half his monthly pay. The full-time teachers for whom Faulkner fills in, however, are eligible for free health insurance, with no monthly premiums, through their employer. 

"That’s why Faulkner was looking forward to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, figuring he was the kind of person that the health care reform law was designed to help. Under the new law, anyone who works 30 hours or more a week for a large business will be eligible for employer-sponsored health care. 

"But instead of adding subs like Faulkner to its health care plan, the school system is looking for ways to avoid doing so. Wake is considering restricting its 3,300-plus substitutes to working less than 30 hours a week, effective July 1. 

"The reason: If just a third of the system’s subs were to qualify for employer-sponsored insurance, it would cost Wake schools about $5.2 million, chief business officer David Neter said."

The lesson is to think about the secondary consequences of a policy.  To evaluate any policy, we always must ask, "What are the incentives that are faced by the decision makers?"  Clearly this substitute teacher did not manage to think beyond "step one."  And so now his position goes from bad to worse. 

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/01/2932880/some-nc-employers-cut-worker-hours.html#storylink=cpy

Government's Cold Reality -- Part 2

A really good article by Jon Sanders has appeared on the John Locke web site.  It follows up on the ridiculous new proposed policy to make cold medicine that contains pseudoephedrine accessible only with a prescription.  

The amazing thing pointed out in this article is that for each move the government makes, the drug-makers make counter-moves.  They stay a step or two ahead of the law.  Each time they do, the meth that they cook up is more dangerous and deadly.  Each time they revise their formula, they use less pseudoephedrine.  In fact, now they can make meth without any at all.  Here is the link.

Government's "Cold" Reality

Warning: You may be reading the words of a criminal.  The rate at which the government is eroding our liberties is striking and by the time you read this post, you may be breaking the law.  You have been warned...

There may be some of you who have noticed that my postings are done this semester.  (If you haven't, that's not a big deal.)  The reason why my postings have dropped off is because I have been ill for most of the semester.  I think that I may have been well for 2 -- 2.5 weeks  over the past 15 weeks.  I think that there are several factors, like the children going to a school for the first time.  (Last year, we home schooled.)  Nevertheless, when one in the family is starting to begin the path of recovery, another of one picks up something new and then I catch it.  

Today, I have a nasty cough.  My son also has a persistent cough.  This weekend my wife has come down with something new--a sore throat and a fever.  (I am looking forward to getting that one next!)

As the least sick driver in the house, it is my duty to go out and get the medicine.  And here we come to it.  My state, North Carolina, has decided that we are not to be trusted to buy pseudophedrine HCL.  First, we must show IDENTIFICATION to be registered in a statewide system.  We don't have to show ID in Presidential elections where we choose who will be the most powerful man on the planet, but we have to present ID for a stuffy nose!  Second, the amount we are allowed to buy is limited.  There were two boxes I was considering.  The first was just straight up pseudophedrine.  The other box was a mix of pseudophedrine and a sinus pain reliever.  My wife frequently has sinus troubles and I thought that she might like that.  So I, as a normal consumer, chose both.  

And then the machine chimed.

I would be breaking the law to buy two boxes!  Oh heavens!  How dare I want something that deals with multiple symptoms and something else that only deals with a stuffy nose.  I know!  How dare I think that I shouldn't over-medicate myself while providing multi-symptom relief for my wife!

The government can explain how they are just looking out for me.  They can explain how through this law they are cracking down on Meth makers and users.

All of these reasons are really irrelevant.  What it comes down to is the relation between the individual and the state.  Who owns my body?  Am I sovereign over myself?  The Classical Liberal/Modern Libertarian says that as long as I am not violating another's rights, then I should be free.  I should have control over what I put into my own body.

The political landscape is changing.   For the past several years, it was argued that the U.S. is a Center-Right country.  I think that most people live their lives conservatively.  I think that most people want the national government to be fiscally responsible and fiscally sound.  I also think the perception on individual rights is on the rise.  In the last election (Nov. 2012), marijuana for recreational use has passed in a few states.  The traditional American position was a fairly Libertarian one.  Historically, we don't see government interfering with personal choices until the Progressive Movement joined with the Prohibitionists. 

The lesson learned in the 1920s was that while alcoholism is bad, making alcohol illegal was worse.  Being addicted to drugs is bad, but drug war is worse.  It is time to stop the Nanny State.

It is time to have a serious discussion on the fundamental nature of the relationship between the individual and the State.  Does the state derive its powers from the people?  Or do people derive their rights from the State?  Are individuals sovereign to be masters of their own lives?  Or is the State the master of us all?

The cold reality is that the state is force.  Before a government can ever do, it must first take.  It is either force in action or it is the threat of force.  It cannot make us better people.  It cannot make us a more moral people.  It cannot make us thrifty, hard-working and generous.  

The choice that every generation must answer is how much government shall we have.  To sit on the sidelines is to make a choice.  To not think about it, is to make a choice.  To not read and engage is to make a choice.  To conclude, I turn to the words of the great Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises:

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others.  And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction.  Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle.  No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result.  Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.

Secondary Consequences--Blackmailing Batman

One of the most important concepts that we stress in economics is that of secondary consequences.  Too often, we simply focus on the immediate, on the short-term, on what happens to a particular group.  Economics teaches us that we need to go beyond a narrow focus.  In the movie "Batman: The Dark Knight," an employee discovers Batman's secret identity and thinks that he should be paid $10 million a year for the rest of his life to keep quiet.  Here is the scene:

The reason why this scene is funny is because the extortionist has not thought his proposition through.  He hasn't looked beyond the immediate.  What will Batman's reaction be to someone who wants to release his secret?  What will happen to him?  Will he ever be able to enjoy that money?

Earlier this week I attended my Town's Council Meeting.  There was a proposition to limit Electronic Gaming Businesses by saying that these businesses had to stay at least a quarter mile away from each other.  What they are failing to do is think about the secondary consequences.  Let's set aside the issue of whether such a rule will achieve its purpose--to frighten away such businesses from the Town of Garner.  (It won't.  It's like preventing Burger King from locating near a McDonald's because we fear that people are getting too fat.) 

The secondary consequences of creating these spacial regulations is that the town is carving out islands of monopoly.  Each business gets its own territory and all competitors are prevented from encroaching on your business.  The cost of enforcing this rule is picked up by the government.  It's a sweet deal for those already in business.  As an island of monopoly, the business doesn't have to compete as hard and so the product to the consumers is inferior and at a higher price.

So if the Town Council hates competition and wants to stick it to the consumers, then by all means let's pass this rule.  Or perhaps, we should think it through before we go up against Batman.

Failure is a Necessary Option

An often repeated and overused phrase is, "Failure is not an option."  How ridiculous!  In fact, the reverse is not only true, but it is a necessity.

One major problem with the public school system is that failing schools do not close.  In fact, a failing school usually gets more funding the next year in order to "turn it around."  Ask yourself if this policy really makes long-term sense.  What sort of incentives are being created when failing schools are given expanded budgets?  An axiom in economics is that people respond to incentives.  If we pay people more for failing schools is it any wonder that we get failing schools?

In the private sector, the customer is sovereign.  The customer chooses what to buy (or not buy) and no one can force such a decision on another.  An entrepreneur who is able to please his customers receives continued business as his reward.  Hopefully, with proper management, profits also accrue to the entrepreneur.  However, if the company does not please the customer, regardless of reason, the business suffers.  Maybe there was rudeness, maybe the product was shoddy, or maybe the price was too high, the reason doesn't matter because the end result is the same: the loss of business.  When the customer is not pleased with the entrepreneur, he takes his business elsewhere.  The entrepreneur had better shape up quickly or the venture will close its doors and the resources will be transferred to others who are better at satisfying customers. 

The continuous process of pleasing customers continually shifts resources to those who are the most efficient users and most effective satisfiers.  This phenomenon is relatively new; it has only been around for the last couple of hundred years.  During this short period of history, we have achieved higher living standards for more people than at any other point in recorded human history.

When we step away from the market and into the world of public provision of goods and services, we see that it operates by a whole different set of rules.  In the public sector, the government collects the revenue to operate the institution.  However, it can't simply hand someone billions of dollars and say, "Go educate some kids."  Along with the dollars come the rules and regulations.  These reorient the focus of the employees and managers away from "customer" and toward the rulebook.  Additionally the same system strips away all vestiges of competition between providers of education.  The children are assigned schools; the parents are not allowed to choose.  Imagine if such were the case with phone and Internet providers.  (Actually I can imagine it, because it was the law of the land for decades.  What was the result?  Poor quality, high costs, lack of convenience, ugly phones, and attaching an answering machine was considered illegal because it was "installing a foreign device.")

Our public education problems are far too complex to simply say that the answer is competition between our schools, but don't discount that simple phrase too quickly.  Imagine the impact the following three changes would have on our public schools:

1. allow parents to choose which school to send their child to;
2. attach the dollars to the child so that a school's budget is based upon the number of students that enroll at their location; and
3. allow schools that cannot cover its costs to close and be sold.

Such a proposal will cause the teachers' and administrators' unions to howl, but I am not concerned with protecting their jobs any more than I am concerned about protecting McDonald's workers' jobs when I go to Burger King.  In fact, our university system has this feature and it seems that we have a large and diverse set of higher educational institutions.

Competition will weed out the bad teachers and they should lose their jobs.  Competition will weed out the bad administrators and they should lose their jobs.  Competition will weed out the unnecessary overhead and reward quality.  It will reward good schools, good teachers and good administrators.  

Many think that competition is scary because some producers are winners and some are losers.  Unfortunately, too many people think this way.  I say "unfortunately," because this thinking is backwards.  There is too much focus on the providers and too little attention paid to the customers, the children.  When there is competition, the customers are the big winners.  And, paradoxically, the only way that we can guarantee a successful school system is if we make failure not only an option, but a necessity.

Moore Nonsense on Taking and Giving

To start the new year, I have been receiving free movie channels through a promotion.  On one of them, Michael Moore's movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story" came on.  Since there is no way that I'd ever pay to watch one of his movies, free was about the right price.  I soon discovered that even free was too much.

Either the first or second sentence out of Moore's mouth was this, "[Capitalism] is a system of taking and giving."  It is mind-numbing how completely wrong this is.  Capitalism, or rather the free market, is a system of giving and giving.

Suppose you go to the store because you want to buy a snack for a dollar.  In order for you to give up the dollar, which do you have to value more: the snack or the dollar?  The answer is the snack.  In order for a trade to occur, what does the guy behind the counter have to value more: the snack or the dollar?  His answer has to be the dollar.  If both sides of the exchange value the dollar more, there would be no trade.  Also if both sides value the snack more, again there would be no trade.  We trade because each side values what they gain more than what they are giving.  Trade requires unequal valuations.  Since value is in the eye of the beholder, meeting this requirement is not difficult.

When we trade both sides say, "Thank You" because both sides are giving and benefiting. 

A system where one side gives while the other side takes also has a name: it is called stealing.  It is a system where one side has no choice in the matter while the other side has all the power.  An example of this relationship is the one between the individual and the state.  The individual must give whenever the state decides to take.  Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. 

The relationship of giving and taking is between unequal parties.  The relationship between giving and giving is necessarily between equals, since both sides can walk away from the trade at any time.  The ability to refuse and say, "No" is the most fundamental power that an individual has in expressing one's individuality.

In his movie, it's clear that Michael Moore thinks that we were harmed by the national bail-outs of the large banks and corporations.  I completely agree that this was a disgrace and that it never should have happened.  These banks and corporations should have been left to fail.  However, the bail-outs weren't market phenomena, rather they were the actions of the state repeatedly intervening in the economy.  The government took tax money and gave it to these institutions. 

Furthermore, the underlying cause of the economic crisis wasn't too little government, it was that there was too much.  The free market has a system of natural checks and balances that prevent massive business cycles.  It is when the government disrupts this system, that bubbles form and burst.  Those that cannot see the past the immediate and are unable to look at deeper causes blame "capitalism" in a knee-jerk reaction. 

Michael Moore's movie was just that—a classic case of haphazard economics and laziness.  He could learn much from Henry Hazlitt's single lesson:

[T]he whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

The Terrible Red Line

I live in a town next to Raleigh: Garner, North Carolina.  For several decades the highway has looped around Raleigh and not unlike other growing cities, another loop has been planned for.  This outer loop has been planned for the past 20 years.  As a result, land has been set aside and businesses have planned for future traffic over these past decades.

It was much to everyone's surprise that at the beginning of September several other routes were added to the map for consideration.  These additional routes are known as the Red, Blue and Purple Lines.  Within a period of six weeks, the transit authorities met with communities and an overwhelming number of citizens stated that the original Orange Line was the one everybody preferred.  At the end of the initial six-week period, the Blue and Purple Lines were removed from the map.

The Red Line, the route that literally passes through my neighborhood, the route that will be about six or seven houses away from my house, was not removed as an alternate to the original Orange Route.

Why?

There is a mussel that lives in a river on the south side of the nearby lake.  It is on the endangered species list.  There is no sign of it on the streams and creeks on the north side of the lake.  (Nevermind that the mussel is found all along the eastern seaboard of the U.S.; where North Carolina is just the southern most edge of its habitat.)  As a result, thousands of homes could be destroyed so that the mussel isn't disturbed.

There are many things that an economist could use here for comment: the value of unowned mussels, the competing interests of dividing a town, the destruction of many, many homes and businesses, the diminution of private property rights and the ascension of "community/environmental" standards, the economics of urban planning, etc.

Instead of recapping any of those subjects, I want to describe last night's meeting. 

Last night there was a meeting with the Mayor, the engineering firm and my neighborhood.  (This was just one of a series of such meetings.)  What struck me was the absolute helplessness that my neighbors and I felt.  We were up against raw, naked power and there was nothing that we could do but talk, be upset and grow angry.

The people who have the ultimate authority in the decision were nowhere around.  We could only question the engineering firm that has no power or authority whatsoever.  The ultimate decision will be made be a small group of people, who I will never know.  The decision will be made without my knowledge.  The location will be unknown to me.  I am merely a pawn, and an inconvenient one at that.

This is the fate that happens whenever we place our faith and our fate into the hands of the government.  The bureaucrats have their rules and regulations and, to them, I am no longer a citizen or an individual.  I am merely something to be dealt with.

Such a dehumanizing system is not "bad" or "evil."  It is simply the nature of bureaucracy.  Mises wrote one of the best books on this subject, simply titled Bureaucracy.  It is found here.  I highly recommend chapter 2, "Bureaucratic Management."

The relationships between individuals is distinctly different between the market system and a system of bureaucracy.  In a market system of private property, I must treat the person with whom I wish to trade with respect, as an equal.  If I do not, there will be no trade. 

In a system of bureaucracy, there is no such relationship.  It is not a relationship between equals.  A bureaucratic relationship is one of power and powerlessness.  As we move toward National Health Care, as we move toward a increasing regulation over our finances, as we move toward the centralization of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, we move away from a nation of equals.  We move toward a nation comprised of those who have power and those who do not.

I hope that we can recover our lost Liberty.  It was not too long ago that private property was at the top of the list of protected rights.  Now with the Kelo case, and other eminent domain cases giving power to governments, our Liberty is in increasing jeopardy.  

Finally, I am reminded of the Bugs Bunny cartoon, "No Parking Hare."  It is about building a freeway through Bugs Bunny's home.  After a series of fights, the road is moved because, as Bugs says, 'The sanctity of the American home must be preserved!'"

The Real Thanksgiving Story

The first Thanksgiving is not a story of dumb whites who came to the New World to conquer and spread disease amongst the idyllic, nature-loving natives.

It is, instead, a story of the triumph of Capitalism over Socialism.

There have been several retellings of the first Thanksgiving, I have linked to Richard Ebeling's recounting last year.  Thomas DiLorenzo writes an excellent account in the third chapter of his book, How Capitalism Saved America.

This year I found a nice YouTube version that does a good job.  It explains why private property rights saved the pilgrims and triumphed over the collectivist ideal.

I find Thanksgiving to be one of the best holidays for exactly that reason.




Since the posting of this video, I have found Reason.TV's version.  Very funny.

30-second Spots

Many of my students have approached me and have said something like, "Why don't you run for political office since you know all this stuff?"  (Usually, it is not said too sarcastically.)

My comment back is that I do not think there is any way to explain a complex economic topic in a 30-second commercial.  Nevertheless, I am curious about what could be condensed into a 30-second ad.  I am not thinking about political ads.  What I am most curious about is an economic ad.

I would like to ask for recommendations of ideas, topics, etc. that should be done.  Have you seen anything like on YouTube (or any other site) that achieves this goal?  Please send me the links.  If I find some good ones, I'll post them.

Austrian Economics Forum Fall 2010 #3

The last readings group covered Hayek's articles "The Meaning of Competition" and "'Free' Enterprise and Competitive Order."  In my opinion the first is brilliant and the second, well, maybe it should not have been published.  The group also seemed to be of the same opinion--the second article made too many concessions. 

The first article, "The Meaning of Competition," was originally a lecture presented in 1946 at Princeton University.  If I am recalling correctly, in the late 1940s, Hayek was on a lecture tour of the United States for two reasons.  First, he was very popular due to his book The Road to Serfdom.  Based on the popularity of this book, he was asked to go on a speaking tour to promote it.  Also at this time, his home life was becoming increasingly unhappy.  He was moving towards a divorce and, as a result, he was looking for a new position outside of the LSE.  (He eventually moved to the University of Chicago, 1950-1962.)

"The Meaning of Competition" takes the model of perfect competition to task.  In fact, he completely trashes it.  He starts by examining the perfectly competitive model's assumptions.  He, of course, focuses his attention on the assumption of perfect or "complete" knowledge.  Hayek argues that by making this assumption, the economist has assumed away the very problem that he is to answer.  It is only through the competitive order that relative scarcities can be discovered.  It is only through a market price system that this knowledge can be communicated.  It is the price system that economizes on what and how much needs to be communicated to create a efficient economic system.

Hayek argues,
"The function of competition is here precisely to teach us who will serve us well: which grocer or travel agency, which department store or hotel, which doctor or solicitor, we can expect to provide the most satisfactory solution for whatever particular personal problem we may have to face."

During the group discussion, I presented the following argument.  For the economist, the relevant cost of any decision is always the opportunity cost.  In a world of perfect knowledge, the marginal cost is the opportunity cost of the resource.  When we remove the idea of perfect knowledge, opportunity cost and marginal cost are no longer the same.  In fact, the entrepreneur should completely set aside the Average Variable Cost curve, the Average Fixed Cost curve and the Marginal Cost curve, because they are not the relevant basis of decision. 

For example, suppose an entrepreneur is faced with the choice of project A and project B.  Suppose further that the expenditures for both projects are $100.  The revenue for project A is $150 and the revenue for project B is $120.  Since the rate of profit for A is higher (50% versus 20%), the entrepreneur will obviously pick project A.  What is the cost of this decision?  It's not the $100.  The cost, the opportunity cost, of his decision is not being able to get the 20% return from project B.  Now suppose that the expenses for project A climbs from $100 to $110.  The rate of profit falls to about 36%.  Now even though the entrepreneur's expenses have risen, the cost of the project (the opportunity cost) has remained exactly the same!  The cost is still the 20% that the entrepreneur is unable to get when he chooses project A.

(I'm not sure if everyone agreed with this line of thought or not, because they were fairly quiet.  I suppose that it might be something that people need to sit with and think through.)

Hayek then drops the assumption of homogeneous goods and states the obvious--we live in a world with a spectrum of unalike products.  For Austrians, products are substitutes or complements not because they look a certain way or have a certain physical similarities.  For example, helicopters and closed-circuit cameras can be substitutes.  How so?  When a news station wants traffic updates, it can either send out a helicopter to monitor the traffic or it can use the cameras that now watch traffic flow.  They are substitutes, not because cameras and helicopters look like each other, but because they are able to yield the same result.  In a world where goods are not homogeneous, in a world where cameras and helicopters can be substitutes, the perfectly competitive model is completely inadequate.

Hayek concludes the article with:
"Competition is essentially a process of the formation of opinion: by spreading information, it creates that unity and coherence of the economic system which we presuppose when we think of it as one market.  It creates the views that people have about what is best and cheapest, and it is because of it that people know at least as much about possibilities and opportunities as they in fact do.  It is thus a process which involves a continuous change in the data and whose significance must therefore be completely missed by any theory which treats these data as constant."

The second article was the last one written for this book.  It was written for the 1947 Mont-Pélerin conference and it was presented as the beginning of a discussion group.  As a result, it raises many questions and answers very few.  The conference was the first for what is now called the Mont-Pélerin Society.  The purpose of the group was to gather the few remaining classical liberals, draw a line in the sand and determine the best course of action to promote liberty and oppose collectivism.

I confess that I like the beginning of the article.  Hayek illustrates how there is this tendency for popular governments to cater to special interest groups, take over certain "responsibilities" of the citizens, gather power and control the masses.  Hayek argues that we need to take a long-term perspective.  A free society cannot be built overnight; people must be educated about liberty, responsibility and the importance of private property.  Hayek then argues that we cannot simply chant mantras of private property and liberty.  There needs to be more. 

It is after this point that the wheels fall off.

Hayek argues that we need to think about the extension of the traditional concept of property to areas such as patents, copyright, trade-marks "and the like."  Hayek then argues that maybe we shouldn't have patents and trade-marks.  At first, I thought that this is similar to today's controversy in Austrian circles on the topic of Intellectual Property (IP) Rights.  However, Hayek continues further along this line of reasoning.  By questioning the "blind" extension of property rights to areas such as IP, we should further question the "blind" extension of property rights and "freedom of contract" to other areas such as corporations and limited liability organizations.  Hayek then argues that it is the proper role of government to step in and limit corporations.  In fact, it is "the duty of government to protect the individual against organized groups [corporations]."  Hayek further states, "There may be valid arguments for so designing corporation law as to impede the indefinite growth of individual corporations...."  Hayek then argues that we should also scrutinize labor unions and their collective power.

In the final section, Hayek opens the discussion to taxation.  While he warns against the negative incentives that taxes cause, he also says, "I ought to add that inheritance taxes could, of course, be made an instrument toward greater social mobility and greater dispersion of property and, consequently, may have to be regarded as important tools of a truly liberal policy which ought not to stand condemned by the abuse which has been made of it."

I find these passages astonishing.  Maybe Hayek is attempting to be thought provoking to generate a discussion for a panel, but I doubt it.  Hayek is making these claims in front of the first Mont-Pélerin meeting, a meeting to stem the tide of collectivism, a meeting attended by the leading classical liberal thinkers.  I wonder what Mises thought of this paper.  I think that passages such as these may have been the cause for some to split Hayek into Hayek I (the good one) and Hayek II (the not-so-good one).

There is no question that Hayek was a champion for liberty.  His writings have done much for the promotion of free markets.  However, Hayek was only human and could make mistakes.  He regretted not reviewing Keynes' General Theory.  I suspect that he wouldn't place this article on a pedestal either.

A License for what...?

Here was a nice story about a lady who has decided to feed many Hummingbirds. However, during the story, my jaw hit the floor. It's at about 1:13. See if you can catch it.

It's where she says, "Of course, you know, I have to have a license to buy sugar. They think I'm bootlegging or something."
What?!?! The State of North Carolina says that you have to get a license to buy sugar?!?! Are you kidding me?
The erosion and loss of Liberty...

Leonard Read and the Love of Liberty - Jeff Riggenbach - Mises Media(Audio File)

For the past two weeks, I have had the priveledge to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Coming soon, there will be the posts of my eight lectures and the accompanying PowerPoints.

In the mean time, please listen to this less than 20 minute overview of FEE.

Leonard Read and the Love of Liberty - Jeff Riggenbach - Mises Media(Audio File)

Is Cwik Finnished?

Last year I presented a lecture on Freedom Basics at FEE. Here is the video with Finnish Subtitles!

Vapauden perusteet from observant on Vimeo.
I need to thank Petri Kajander for making this possible. Here is the video with the transcript below (in English).