Mises Review

I approached this book with considerable sympathy. Murray Rothbard rested much of his Ethics of Liberty on the foundation of Thomist natural law. 

In the course of a largely appreciative review of Murray Rothbard's An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, David Prychitko, who has long positioned himself as an anti-Rothbardian, makes a few mistakes worthy of attention. 

There are two ways to read Mises's great treatise. Most readers will, I fear, find the book too much to attempt to grasp systematically. Not everyone feels like reading a nine-hundred-page book straight through.

There is nothing like a good target to get a writer going, and the contributors to this excellent symposium have found a very worthy target indeed. 

Usually I review a book by getting into the swing of things at once. What is the book's central thesis? and (if possible) How is that thesis mistaken? are the questions that occupy me. 

 Austrians have sometimes been very hard on Lord Robbins. He at one time embraced the views of Mises and Hayek; and in The Great Depression, he presented a resolutely Austrian theory of the business-cycle.

In the 1930s, a coalescence took place between the Old Right and certain elements of the left. Some intellectuals in the "progressive" camp, such as the historians Charles A. Beard and Harry Elmer Barnes

Sanford Lakoff admires Max Lerner greatly. As a student of Lerner's at Brandeis University in 1949, his "adulation soon became obvious and made me the butt of jokes." 

The key to Paul Gottfried's brilliant book may be found in note 44 of Chapter 4. Here he remarks: "This original Weberian notion [of a tyranny of values] is most fully developed in Carl Schmitt's controversial essay Die Tyrannei der Werte.

Edmund S. Phelps is no right-wing extremist. Quite the contrary, he stands at the center of Keynesian orthodoxy in economics.