Throughout almost the entire span of human history, material privation and chronic insecurity were the norm. Not even those at the peaks of social status and political power could enjoy the creature comforts and consumer delights that “poor” people take for granted in the West today. At times, certain populations fared somewhat better — in ancient Greece and Rome, perhaps, and in China during the Sung Dynasty (960–1279) — but those cases were exceptional.
[Excerpted from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith (1995). An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.]
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault.
Paul A. Cleveland is a Professor of Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Texas A&M University and began his career at SUNY-Geneseo in 1985. He spent one year as a Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Central Florida in Orlando before joining the faculty at BSC in 1990. His principal academic research is focused on the study of free enterprise and political economy. In pursuing his studies, he reads extensively in the areas of philosophy, theology, and history which are helpful in exploring the morality of free markets.
Steve Landsburg is an economics professor at the University of Rochester, and author of some great books on free-market thinking. However, in a recent blog post he gave a misleading explanation of option pricing. It’s worth going over the episode because it beautifully illustrates the tendency of economists to overlook the assumptions they sneak into their arguments, particularly when it comes to discussions of the financial markets.
I’m in Florida for an event sponsored by the Mises Institute, and flying into Fort Myers meant walking through the glorious micro-civilization that airports have become, little utopias of commerce and plenty.
All readings are free and online. Sign up to have Tom DiLorenzo personally guide you through this fascinating literature!
Week 1: Hayekian vs. Neoclassical Theories of Competition
F.A. Hayek, “The Meaning of Competition,” in his book, Individualism and Economic Order.
F.A. Hayek, “Competition as a Discovery Procedure”
Week 2: Rothbard and Kirzner on Monopoly and Competition
This paper by Thomas C. Leonard is making the rounds on Facebook (HT to Steve Horwitz, who started this fire); I don’t know how I missed it when it was published in 2005. It is making me revise my understanding of the debate over minimum wages, for example. I have always thought that it’s a question of understanding economics versus not understanding economics. As Leonard argues, however, many eugencists understood that minimum wages would cause unemployment but saw this as a feature of the policy rather than a bug.
I’m pleased that we have run Frank Shostak’s piece this morning on inflation data, and it’s pretty alarming but it strikes me that the piece still understates the threat and the reality.
