About

Personal Info

“Monty Pelerin” is a pseudonym derived from The Mont Pelerin Society.

The image on the left is that of Friedrich Hayek, Nobel laureate in Economics in 1974. He was the founding force of the Mont Pelerin Society. The image on the right is Ludwig von Mises who was Hayek’s mentor and considered the dean of the modern Austrian School of Economics. For background on the Society, see below.

I retired to Asheville, NC from primarily a corporate but also an academic background. The corporate experience was primarily in the corporate financial field in several CFO positions. My academic background includes AB, MBA and PhD degrees from Duke University, the University of Chicago and Syracuse University in finance and economics. College and graduate level teaching lasted about 10 years.

My love of country and concern for its future prompted this website. I have children and grandchildren. These are the people who will have to live with the mess we have allowed. In some small way, it is hoped that this effort can have a positive effect on their and others’ futures.

My interests include reading, investing, sports and now blogging. I am an avid golfer and a devoted fan of Duke basketball.

Aims of Site

The site deals primarily with Finance, Economics and Politics. It is not an investment advice site, but thoughts beneficial to investors might occasionally appear. Any and all thoughts regarding the site are considered, especially in areas as to how the site might be improved, be more useful to readers, choice of topics of interest, etc. Feel free to email on these or other issues at montypelerin@gmail.com

Many concerns shape the content of this site, but the following three underlie much of my motivation:

1. The nonsense that passes for wisdom in both the political and economic arenas is troubling. Thus, many posts will show a certain amount of (deserved) disrespect for what masquerades as conventional wisdom. When one sees one’s country disintegrating, it is difficult and inappropriate to remain dispassionate.
2. Inter-generational equity is a concern. Those called Grandfather or Grandmother have personal as well as philosophical concerns.
3. There are no economic problems, only political ones.

I am willing to have a polite intellectual exchange on all topics related to the blog so long as the writer reciprocates. I undoubtedly will make mistakes and expect to be told about them. For any, I apologize in advance and will again do so when appropriate.

I have no team in the sense that many of you might. That is, I neither root for or against the Democrats or the Republicans. If anything, I see little difference between them and can be considered an equal-opportunity political hater. Politicians today are akin to parasites feeding off the public. There is no way to reform them. It is the structure of government that must be changed or returned to original principles.

Government, in limited form, is both necessary and good. However, government that grows beyond these limits becomes a State, infringing on liberty and property. Our Founders recognized this and designed a Constitution that was intended to constrain government. Unfortunately, the constraints of the Constitution have been nearly nullified over the years, leaving government and a majority vote to decide on what is proper. Naturally, this lack of rules produces unlimited growth in government and entitlements.

Most of us can probably agree on the generality of  ”limited government.” We may have different opinions regarding what size or functions are appropriate for such a government. My view tends toward the Lockean position, whereby government protects citizens and their property in the narrowest sense. Beyond that, the ground becomes shaky.

Our government and most others around the world are States preying on their citizens. While governments can be good, States are evil, always subject to Lord Acton’s law: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Mont Pelerin Society

As expressed on the official Mont Pelerin Society site (with emphasis added by me):

After World War II, in 1947, when many of the values of Western civilization were imperiled, 36 scholars, mostly economists, with some historians and philosophers, were invited by Professor Friedrich von Hayek to meet at Mont Pelerin, near Montreux, Switzerland, to discuss the state and the possible fate of liberalism (in its classical sense) in thinking and practice.

The group described itself as the Mont Pelerin Society, after the place of the first meeting. It emphasized that it did not intend to create an orthodoxy, to form or align itself with any political party or parties, or to conduct propaganda. Its sole objective was to facilitate an exchange of ideas between like-minded scholars in the hope of strengthening the principles and practice of a free society and to study the workings, virtues, and defects of market-oriented economic systems.

It was in this context that I chose my pseudonym. The writer has no connection with the Society (other than coincidence of philosophy). Nothing said by me should be considered to be representative of the views of the Mont Pelerin Society or any of its members.

Economic Philosophy

My political and economic philosophy is oriented toward freedom and free markets. This orientation is based on much study and thought. My beliefs are based on what I believe works and what doesn’t. This approach seems most beneficial to all, not specific segments of society.

This utilitarian approach is apolitical. My father was highly educated and was a Democrat. He was raised that way. I was never influenced in my political beliefs. Indeed, I would say I was likely ignorant of politics, probably until after undergraduate school.

I respect neither party because, other than on a few issues, they are one and the same. Both parties grow government. Both engage in unnecessary military adventures. Both exploit citizens to feather their own nests. Both pander to voters rather than adhere to principles. Both routinely ignore the Constitution. Both raise taxes. Both expand programs. They differ only by degree and the rate at which they are destroying the country.

My economic philosophy is Austrian. I know the “Chicago” school well, having taken courses from Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Ronald Coase, all Nobel laureates. Their free market conclusions match up well with Austrian conclusions although their methodology is quite different.

The “Chicago” school is “Monetarist”  and not too dissimilar in methodology from Keynesian economics. Both are aggregate approaches to macroeconomics. Keynesian economics never made any sense to me, even in my first economics courses. Microeconomics has a logical consistency to it that is believable. The bridge from micro to macro is just not there.

Human beings, not aggregates, make decisions. Economics is about human beings. It is not some physics model where outputs can be changed by altering aggregate inputs.

Both the Chicago and Keynesian schools at the macroeconomic level are based on aggregates, although Chicago has a great tradition in microeconomics. The Austrian school recognizes that economics is a social science and the individual is the key to understanding.  Actions taken by individuals are the fundamental building block of economics. Aggregation is appropriate and relevant only for summary and historical purposes. Aggregates do not act. Aggregated study (traditional macroeconomics) makes no sense.