I’ve decided I just don’t like Hulsmann’s chapter on Mises and money. The problem isn’t scholarship, there’s enormously impressive scholarship here. The problem for me is that there is a bit too much “cart before the horse” theoretical exposition, often at a very abstract level and somewhat disconnected from a narrative over time concerning Mises’ own research problems and evolving insights.

The principal criticism of “scientific” socialists of capitalism is that it, in addition to being allegedly the most oppressive and exploitative system in the history of mankind, is an inherently irrational, “anarchic” system of economic organization invariably susceptible to recurring outbursts of overproduction leading to economic crisis, unemployment, and misery amidst obviously unprecedented development of productive powers and plenty in modern societies.Rosa Luxemburg, a major Marxist economist, in her classic

Mises, Hayek, and Isabel Paterson write for the newly posted issue of American Affairs from 1945. Garrett himself warns of a growing “American Menace”: “If only the American power were apparitional— if it would appear only when needed to trample the aggressor down, and then, having raised the aggressor’s victims to their feet again, if it would retire upon itself instead of forcing the economic rivalries of peace to new extremes, Europe would be greatly obliged.”

Can we capture the error of “scientism” in a single reminder? Let’s give it a try. Here’s the reminder: the error of “scientism” arises when a scientist practices “explanation” by the elimination or the forgetting of non-eliminable components of the problem which gave rise to the theoretical constructions of his discipline.

With the almost constant statist apologetics we hear from many government and academic economists, writes Ben O’Neill, it is hard to believe that the discipline of economics was once a thorn in the side of the state and its political elite. So commonplace are fallacious economic arguments advocating state control that it sometimes seems that refutation of all of these arguments has become a case of cutting the heads off the Hydra — a tiring and fruitless endeavor.

In the newest issue of American Affairs to see the light of day after 60 years, Garet Garrett once again carries the day:

From National Review Online’s David Frum:

A vacant home in a decent neighborhood used to be a rarity. But in cities around the country, homeowners and investors — unable to afford the homes they bought — are abandoning their properties, marring the neighborhoods they leave behind.

H.R. 1955 is an absolute attack on the freedom of speech. Not only does it assault my right to question government, it also assaults the right of ardent Marxists to speak their minds. So, I am at a loss at both ends. You see, I value the ability to speak as much as the ability to read nonsense from those such as the writers and curators over at Marxists.org. Should H.R.