I hope my wife doesn't see this - she will be even mre worried.

I am willing to take risks, but not suicidal. Life is good. Still, very nice obituary, hope we don't need it for another half-century.

Yes Guido. The suicide bomb thing is wrong and I've taken the liberty of correcting the original before rushing off to lunch. That's certain death, unless you chicken out. But, taking hair-raising risks, yes.

On the plus side, I'm very glad you got to read a very admiring obituary of yourself. You thoroughly deserve to enjoy this rare pleasure. As you say, hope it isn't needed any time soon. Happy Easter to you and to all.

Brian: You brute. Lunch is important, particularly when it is at my place.

Brian, you magnificent bastard! This is the best blog post I've seen in a long time! And Guido, don't worry, they won't bury you; remembering the scene from the V for Vendetta film; today, after the greatest blow against the political establishment by a libertarian thus far, we are all Guido Fawkes.

IEA is a waste of space these days and deserves all the grief they get for exactly the reasons stated. They have become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

We have the Adam Smith Institute, quite what purpose the IEA serves now is unclear to me. If they do not understand what is wrong with the correct global Keynsian suicide pact, they are worthless.

I don't think Guido is in much danger. He is surely way too visible to just crudely have bumped off, even in the most fevered of tinfoil hat considerations.

I am genuinely excited after reading this post though; maybe the severity of the coming depression may cause some genuine new thinking in Britain and around the world on the part of the (self-?) oppressed masses.

It's far from assured though. So keep up the pressure, folks. Kudos to you all. And a very Happy Easter.

Brian - If you examine what the IEA has published recently you will see that we have been doing a great deal to promote the Austrian perspective on the financial crisis. We have published several Austrian articles in Economic Affairs, web versions of "Free Banking in Britain","Denationalisation of Money" and "Choice in Currency", as well as several posts on the IEA blog (for example, "Why central banking doesn't work" by Terry Arthur). In the next few weeks we will be publishing a new version of Hayek's "A Tiger by the Tail" (in association with the Mises Institute) and a credit crunch reader featuring dozens of Austrian articles. Kevin Dowd has also contributed a chapter to a forthcoming book on the crash.

The SMPC meets under the auspices of the IEA but it does not speak for the IEA. Different IEA authors have different views about quantitative easing and clearly monetarists and Austrians tend not to agree on this issue, even though both camps are generally supportive of free markets. Given that the banking crisis has (unfairly) given socialism a new lease of life, I don't think it's wise from a strategic perspective for libertarians to focus on this divisive issue.

Guido should take care - we need him. We don't need him to have an encounter with a 'deranged animal rights activist' or 'enraged Islamist'.

God Bless Guido!

Here's a further example of how people, including me this time, underestimated Guido, namely: Guido's handling of the hapless Derek Draper. Why are you wasting time and space on this obviously tenth rate twat? So, he's not a real therapist? Who cares? LabourList is ridiculous? Tell us something not everyone knows. Those were the cries from half of Guido's commentariat, and I often felt like joining in, here or there or somewhere. Yet, Guido kept on with the Draper postings, and even spending time with him in TV studios, in a way that could only make sense if Draper was somehow almost as important as he thinks he is.

And now, it is clear that Draper is quite important. He is indeed a tenth rate twat, but he is a tenth rate twat who is, via Damian McBride, strongly connected at just one remove to the Prime Minister, and has a more than passing acquaintance with the Prime Minister directly, as Guido is now emphasising. That important enough for you? It works for me.

I must confess to initially sharing Brian's reservations on why a piece of under-the-rock crud such as Draper is worth worrying about. But to be honest, we, as libertarians, should understand more than most the benefits of a division of labour.

Guido focuses on shafting NuLab creatures like Draper, Peter Hain or whomever, and lil' ol me writes long screeds about the case for or against free banking, or why the credit crisis does not prove what the conventional wisdom says it does, or whatever. Guido's stuff is racier and gets more hits; I have no idea how many people I influence. But that should not matter. I do what I do for fun and intellectual stimulation and value the feedback this generates *(well, most of the time).

Surely, given that libertarian strategy is a contradiction in terms - it "is like herding cats" - then let a thousand flowers bloom.

I wish Chris Tame was around now. He'd be having the time of his life.

On the IEA thing, I would point out that that think tank did actually publish, or republish, stuff about free banking. And remember that while the Austrian school of free marketeers abhors the nonsense of "quantitative easing", that the Chicagoite school is more relaxed about it. Mind you, in his later life, I think Friedman came more and more around to the Austrian perspective.

Johnathan: on his cloud somewhere, the late Chris Tame is no doubt having the time of his afterlife today

Richard Wellings.

I have been told the I.E.A. supports the policy of "quantative easing" - is that true?

If it is true then your comment is somewhat misleading - as this policy is about as unAustrian as one can get.

As for choice of currency - all very well till the government says "and you are going to pay taxes in this currency - and, by the way, this is the currency we are debauching".

Perhaps you see Perry's point now.

Oh J.P. already touched on the quantative easing thing.

On Milton Friedman:

He was in two minds for most of his life - sometime saying "we can not spend our way out of a recession" and sometimes saying "we will throw money from helecopters if we need to".

However, it is true that for some years (i.e. before the stroke) he had come to the opinion that the "monetary base" should be frozen (rather than increased by X per cent).

But this may not have been a matter of conversion to the Austrian School - Milton Friedman himself said it was an epirical matter.

He had observed the antics of the Fed and other Central Banks for decades (under many different managers) and come to the conculsion that they could not be trusted to increase the money supply in any orderly way.

So he held that they should have their power taken away from them.

A rare example of someone who said he was "empirical" actually being empirical.

Milton Friedman (in this respect) reminds of Karl Popper - who always detested by called a "positivist", partly (there were other reasons) because the Vienna Circle of Postitivist philosophers were not empirical (they were dogmatic collectivists in their politics).

Almost needless to say Popper was not a positivist anyway as he had a long list of metaphysical beliefs (which he listed sometimes - when someone was stupid enough to call him a positivist) and Postivism puts a ban on the serious consideration of such things.

Paul Marks - I think it's fair to say that no think tank outside North America is doing more to disseminate high-quality Austrian scholarship than the IEA, so I don't agree that my comment is misleading at all. The IEA has no "corporate view" on quantitative easing (QE) and different economists associated with the IEA have different views on this policy. The Shadow Monetary Policy Committee has indeed advocated QE in the context of the government's inflation target. Its members are well aware of the risks involved and it is well worth reading the minutes of their latest meeting, available here: http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=minutes&ID=309

"Its members are well aware of the risks involved".

Sadly (and I mean no offence) that comment tells me all I need to know about this area.

Firstly it is not a question of "risk" - the new money distorts the capital structure (on top of all the existing distortions).

"Inflation target".

Our friend the "price level" again?

However, you may be correct in saying that no think tank outside North America (and few inside it) are better than the I.E.A.

I am not exactly a happy bunny when it comes to my view of the state of such things in the modern world.

However, there is hope.

I dare say that (for example) even the average undergradute at Francisco Marroquin University in Guatemala (yes I know that is inside North American continent) has a better understanding of these matters than most of the members of your Shadow Monetary Policy Commttee.

And, to be fair, several I.E.A. publications have made this point themselves (although in less direct language).

Of course an "uneducated" man like Glenn Beck would ask "where is the left?"

Asking why they do not come out and attack the corporate welfare of governments (or central banks) comming out and buying corporate debt paper.

But that would taking a "micro"view of these "macro" matters (for those who make such foolish divisions in their heads).

As for a Central Bank buying government debt paper.

Firstly government should not be borrowing money, but if it does borrow money it should be real savings (income that people have chosen not to consume) not made up money.

All rather basic stuff.