It is easy to think of supply and demand curves as being key to economic analysis. In reality, they can't tell us much, and emphasizing them actually stands in the way of better understanding economic processes.
Another Marxist intellectual takes a shot at Mises. Like the other critics on the left, he understands little of what Mises wrote or believed.
Being right is not enough. Economics must appeal both to truth and beauty, which are inescapably linked.
Standard neoclassical definitions of money call it a means of exchange and a store of value. But is this correct?
Standard neoclassical definitions of money call it a means of exchange and a store of value. But is this correct?
What has happened here, and elsewhere, is that Mises has strayed off his great stomping ground, praxeology, and into ethics, where he is, Rothbard believes, tragically wrong.
"In order to succeed, human action must comply not only with what are called the laws of nature, but also with specific laws of human action."
Logical positivism holds that theory is irrelevant to the empirical results. It is the other way around; One cannot understand or interpret economic data until one has a working economic theory in place.
In Human Action, Mises had shown that economic analysis leads directly to laissez faire conclusions. He demonstrated that government intervention entails consequences that are unwanted even from the point of view of the champions of these interventions.
