Ironically, an acatallactic pseudo-theory of money that emerged from a school of thought that rejected theory in favor of an empirico-realistic, historical theory of money now finds it intellectually acceptable, not only to reject catallactic economic theory, but also empirical history.
A. Mitchell Innes—a chartalist pioneer—wrote a pamphlet “What Is Money?” (1913) which found a credulous and ideologically sympathetic audience in J. M. Keynes.
The Austrian economics framework shows that subjective valuation is not shown to be arbitrary, but rather purposeful, as people place values on things via a means-end framework.
Consumer spending does not drive the economy. On the contrary, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship are the critical components of economic growth.
Connor O’Keeffe explains why the New Right’s economic populists have adopted a progressive myth of “laissez-faire gone wrong,” and instead shows how a century of inflation, bailouts, regulation, and managed trade has rigged the system against younger Americans.
Equilibrium is an imaginary construct that should be used only for analytical purposes. Unfortunately, mainstream economists have claimed it should represent a desired state of economic affairs.
Mainstream economics is obsessed with “maximizing” so-called utility functions and discovering the ubiquitous “social utility curve.” In this week’s Friday Philosophy, Dr. David Gordon takes apart this “utility” fixation.
We must realize that the two most powerful motivations in human history have always been ideology and economic interest, and that a joining of these two motivations can be downright irresistible.
In 2004, Ralph Raico, presented a 10-hour lecture series on the history of political thought. “History: The Struggle for Liberty” presented a concise summary of the more than 400 years of political thought that underlies the political ideology of laissez-faire.
While some economists are celebrating the awarding of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics to three economists who are relatively friendly to free markets, we should not forget that most Nobel winners have been unrepentant statists and socialists.
