A basic principle of Austrian economics is that the originary rate of interest (the rate of discount of future goods compared to present, otherwise identical, goods) can never be negative. The reason for this arises not because capital is productive, nor out of man’s psychology. Nevertheless, in spite of the foregoing, there are many benighted souls who insist upon the possibility of a negative rate of originary interest. They are continually discovering cases which “prove” their conclusion.

The works of Shackle are a mixed bag. There is no better critique of the modern Neoclassical orthodoxy than his Epistemics and Economics and few worse analyses of Keynes than his essay “Keynes and the Nature of Human Affairs”. We do not have a unified coherent body of thought but rather scattered insights, flashes of brilliance, moments of confusion.

Volume 2, Number 2 (1978)

The period which encompasses, roughly, the years from 1836 to 1870, was the critical one for political economy as conceived by Adam Smith. It was at this juncture that some of the inconsistencies in the doctrine of the Classical Economists of the earlier years came to be questioned, that certain tendencies in the old position which were opposed to laissez-faire came to full fruition, and that the old notions of the nature of political economy as a discipline came under close scrutiny and were, ultimately, transformed.

Volume 2, Number 2 (1978)

Volume 2, Number 2 (1978)

Andrew Jackson’s war upon the Second Bank of the United States and the economic consequences stemming from it badly need a new historical interpretation. The traditional interpretation asserts that Jackson’s veto of the Bank re-charter and withdrawal of government deposits caused an inflation; Jackson’s Specie Circular and the distribution of the surplus caused a panic and depression. Recent research has included much evidence that indicates that this traditional interpretation requires economic, and also political, revision.

One sign of the lengthy distance we have traveled away from the liberal, individualist origins of the American political order is the surprising prevalence of that visualization of social discrimination which sees it more as a problem of attaining the proper ratios between groups than of attaining justice for the individuals that compose them.

Various members of the academic community have attempted to attack Murray Rothbard’s political and economic theories. One attempt made by H. E. Frech III in “The Public Choice Theory of Murray N. Rothbard, A Modern Anarchist” is quite disappointing in that it deals very superficially with many important areas of Rothbard’s work. This paper, however, will examine only one of Frech’s perfunctory criticisms — his charge that Rothbard’s theory of the stateless society is self-contradictory. The reasonableness of Frech’s arguments will be determined.

In a provocative book recently published”’. Peter F. Drucker undertakes to show how the generalization of pension funds in the last 25 years has brought about profound changes in the American economy and society. One of the theses developed in the hook has in the past received a good deal of attention from economists. It has to do with the problem of separation of ownership from control in the corporate economy.

Volume 2, Number 2 (1978)

The municipal reform movement of the progressive era succeeded throughout America in establishing local government monopoly in the provision of urban services. Competitive markets in such services as fire-fighting, street lighting, refuse removal, transit, and even policing, gave way to municipal bureaus and departments. That these reforms have resulted in unresponsive and inefficient service delivery systems should occasion no great surprise.

The concepts of Pareto optimality and Pareto- optimal change continue appearing in academic discussions as supposed criteria of policy and keys to a positive science of political economy. Much has been said against this idea, but the criticisms have been partial and scattered. The present paper seeks to systematize and extend them.

In the pages of an obscure book first published in 1722, there lurks one of the finest essays on property rights ever penned. The book is The Religion of Nature Delineated, by William Wollaston.

Since Wollaston’s property theory is an extension of his ethical theory, it is necessary to survey his theory of ethics and the general tradition to which it belongs. This paper is expository, not critical; its purpose is to introduce the reader to an unjustly neglected philosopher.

Volume 2, Number 3 (1978)