[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.]
Not only were the physiocrats generally consistent advocates of laissez-faire, but they also supported the operation of a free market and the natural rights of person and property. John Locke and the Levellers in England had transformed the rather vague and holistic notions of natural law into the clear-cut, firmly individualistic concepts of the natural rights of every individual human being. But the physiocrats were the first to apply natural rights and property rights concepts fully to the free market economy.
This week’s episode of 60 Minutes featured a 13-minute segment on “taxing the rich” in order to cure the government’s debt problem. In addition to being an outrageously biased story, the coverage was filled with more economic fallacies than I can address in a single article.
To be sure, Matt Taibbi is wrong about a lot of things. He is dead on with respect to Quantitative Easing. Writes Taibbi in his RS blog post The Fed’s Magic Money-Printing Machine :
Shocking news. A representative from the banking industry praises the looting of the taxpayers to benefit his industry. The Chief Economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association (who’s a former Federal Reserve governor) has announced that “without TARP money, without the Federal Reserve program, without the fiscal stimulus programs, the unemployment rate would not be 9.6 percent, but 19.6 percent,” Really? And what computer modeling is this based on?
“What’s with all the teenagers without costumes coming to my front door and expecting candy?!” This was the gist of several Facebook status updates I saw last night. I don’t discriminate against the uncostumed because it isn’t worth ruining someone’s evening to save a dollar or so worth of candy, but at least one friend has a “no costume, no candy” policy that’s not always popular.
In Adam Mossoff in the WSJ, Objectivist Diana Hsieh admits IP is a “thorny” issue. Progress! The WSJ piece citing Mossoff notes:
