Those who speak of "commodification," which apparently has become a buzzword in socialist circles, actually have things backwards. The presence of a price upon a good does not make it scarce; rather, it is the scarcity that creates the price. To put it another way, the very nature of scarcity means that a good must be rationed, as it cannot be given freely to everyone who wants it.
Bryan Caplan, in his widely circulated article, "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist," seemingly has questioned the Austrian contention that choice implies preference. If it can be shown that we choose based on indifference and not preference, the Austrians be shown to be wrong. But can this be shown?
The classical economists were opponents of paper money. And yet in their positive case for commodity money, they made two great errors: believing that an additional supply of notes on the market confers some social benefit and believing that money's value needs to be stable in order to meet the needs of trade. These errors inadvertantly paved the way for political intervention.
With the dollar down and gold up, both trends obviously related to growing fear of economic troubles ahead, the question again arises: why shouldn't the dollar itself be good as gold? It would be if the views of the classical-liberal tradition held sway. This tradition stands solidly behind a commodity money standard, like silver or gold, as the very definition of sound money.
Does the phenomenon of "reswitching" refute the Austrian theory of capital and interest? Contra Samuelson, no Austrian ever claimed that reswitching was mathematically impossible, writes Robert Murphy. Indeed, Austrians do not normally think in those terms at all, except when forced to in response to mainstream challenges.
Contrary to Keynesian dreams, there are several undeniable realities of a recessionary environment, writes Lew Rockwell. Wages tend to fall. Businesses tend to be liquidated. Resources are withdrawn from investment and put into savings. Consumers spend less. Stock prices fall. All of these tendencies may seem regrettable but they are necessary to bring all sectors back into realistic balance with each other.
Coercive transfers are wasteful, inefficient, and inequitable. The Left uses Demand-Side Dogma to instill false legitimacy into these policies, writes D.W. MacKenzie. The Right, including the Bush administration, plays along with this rhetoric all too often.
Noam Chomsky is an outstanding critic. But figuring out what he is for in the realm of economics is not easy. He doesn't like what we have now. He disfavors Stalinism and fascism. He despises the libertarian alternative to the present regime. That leaves him with a hazy and unworkable syndicalism.
When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union ceased to exist two years later, many western commentators optimistically declared that socialism had fallen with those two entities. However, as we limp from one economic morass into another, it has become clear that the dream of socialism is far from dead.
