Most critics of Austrian economics have little or no clue about the theory or what it explains. But it happens, albeit not often, that critics have at least cursory knowledge of the Austrian corpus. Such critics, far and wide between, tend to target Mises’s praxeology rather than the economic theory per se. They obviously consider the logic of action a low-hanging fruit. The problem is that they pick it from the wrong tree.

[Gerontocracy In America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It by Samuel Moyn. (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2026; 299 pp.)]

In an economy, value is created from a substitution of less-preferable circumstances for more preferable circumstances. Individuals structure their actions and organize amongst themselves in a manner by which they can achieve desired goals. The free market often leads to prosperity precisely because it facilitates the value creation process rather than impeding it.

For many Americans, even lovers of American history, myself included, there are certain blank spots and gaps in knowledge. While we can appreciate that history can be and is used propagandistically to affirm certain narratives—usually by emphasis and deemphasis—it is also often the case that time constraints and desire to focus on other events helps create these gaps. One common gap is the period between the American Revolution and the Philadelphia Convention.