The “loss of China” to communism in 1949 was a pivotal moment in American foreign policy, for the fall of the Nationalist government (Kuomintang, KMT) led by Chiang Kai-shek to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Mao Zedong marked a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape of Asia.

Writing pseudonymously in a series of articles for Faith and Freedom in the 1950s, Murray Rothbard took on the question of whether or not the United States should defend Formosa (Taiwan) from attack by mainland China. While his conclusions will surprise no one familiar with his work (that war is the health of the state, that individuals concerned with the fate of Taiwan should do as they will privately, but that their lives and property are not for the government to command), a review of the articles’ contents are worthwhile, nonetheless. For apart from such typically memorably Rothbardian lines as “only those who want to socialize America really look forward to the third and perhaps last World War,” we find many of the same ludicrous rationales for war with China used today excoriated

One excuse that political elites give when they drag nations into war is that the conflict was "inevitable" or "unavoidable." Ralph Raico knew better.

Original Article: "The Outbreak of World War I: A Libertarian Realist Rebuttal"
This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

As you may have noticed, those dreaded “forces” seem to have rematerialized—in the headlines, in the journals, in the pages of bestsellers: those historical, material, political, or ideological forces that supposedly make conflict between some set of groups, classes, or states “inevitable.”
But as the great libertarian historian Ralph Raico never tired of telling, such collectivist narratives are often little more than convenient scapegoats or outright inventions to cover for bad decisions made by powerfully situated individuals who could and should have done otherwise.
To illustrate the point, take the most typical of those terrible and “inevitable” conflicts so frequently invoked by the interventionists as the justification for their continued efforts toward US hegemony under the guise

President Biden’s call for more protectionism isn’t aimed improving the US economy. Instead, it is about creating a war-footing autarky.

Original Article: "Readying the War State: Biden Recommits to Protectionism in the SOTU"
This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

As it always does, the State of the Union (SOTU) address dominated the media cycle for several days before and after. Now that the period has (gratefully) passed, and the issues raised have faded from the headlines into the background, it is worth taking a look at some of the policies that featured heavily in Biden’s speech, and which have reemerged to become so vogue among both Democrats and Republicans.
Specifically, protectionism.
Indeed, with practically the only bipartisan moments of applause during Biden’s SOTU coming after the predictable paeans to the great moral virtues of “Buying American,” the protectionism made mainstream by Trump looks set to continue.
So how are these efforts faring?
Further, why have the policy, business, and political establishment suddenly climbed on

American and European political elites seem to be wanting the Russia-Ukraine war to be fought to the last Ukranian and have done nothing to bring peace. It’s time for a change.

Original Article: "Just Say No to the New Forever War"
This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Can private markets only be regulated by government? Hindenburg Research’s successes against corporate corruption suggest otherwise.

Original Article: "How Markets Are Better than Government Regulators at Fighting Corporate Corruption"
This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Between 2019 and 2022, the fortune of India’s Gautam Adani swelled from $9 billion to $127 billion. As the value of his seven publicly traded companies—providers of everything from natural gas to digital services—soared, he was briefly the world’s second-richest person.

In a piece of news that shocked the mainstream media, but which shocked no one familiar with the academic industry writ large, retired US Army general John Allen was forced to resign as president of the Brookings Institution after it was revealed the FBI was investigating him for lobbying on behalf of the Qatari monarchy.

With the acknowledged national debt now a politically and economically unpayable $30 trillion (in reality, its unfunded liabilities are far greater), Americans should start to become acclimated to the realities of the United States’ eventual, inevitable default.

It has become a familiar sight over the past decade and a half: a supposedly venerable member of the financial elite tells us with utmost calm that what we think we are seeing isn’t really all that bad. The Fed already knows all about it and has already taken all necessary steps. Further, they are monitoring the situation closely and are ready to make any necessary adjustments with ease and alacrity.

While it is sometimes portrayed as a trivial assortment of anecdotes and odd or mistaken experiments, stripped of its hyperbole and properly contextualized, behavioral economics can offer insights to Austrians seeking to optimize their own outcomes.

Over the years observers of Turkish politics have become somewhat inured to erratic swings in policy coming out of Ankara. Particularly since the political reforms of 2017, his high degree of control over the primary functions of the state mean President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan faces few hurdles to executing abrupt changes he views as correct or necessary. This lack of any effective institutional check to his authority is, at present, leading the country off an economic cliff.