A socialist comments on Hulsmann
The following arrived in my inbox:
The following arrived in my inbox:
Like Anthony Gregory, I agree with many of the nominees for the “Free Market Hall of Fame.“ Unfortunately, as Gregory notes, too many good guys are missing, and not all candidates are exactly “free market.” This is especially true of the “(past) free market business leader” category. My own nominee would be James J. Hill, a true market entrepreneur.
I’ve always viewed Schumpeter as the bogeyman of economics. Not Keynes. Not Samuelson. Not Frank Knight. More than anyone I’ve blamed Schumpeter for making a positivist approach to economics the de facto “scientific” conception of the discipline and for making Walrasian economics the paradigm for how to model economic phenomena “scientifically”. Schumpeter is the Austrian who rejected Menger’s explanatory strategy and embraced Mach’s vision of science. Schumpeter is the Austrian who brought Mach with him to Harvard, and derided “old fashioned” Austrian economists among his grad students.
Is that a verb or a noun? Some recent examples:
I’m trying to find out if there are any recent estimates as to the cost of the patent system--e.g., what the annual dollar cost is in the US that would not be borne if not for the patent system.
I’m trying to find out if there are any recent estimates as to the cost of the patent system--e.g., what the annual dollar cost is in the US that would not be borne if not for the patent system.
David Weild, former vice chairman and executive vice president of The NASDAQ Stock Market, speaks out on SOX. He makes some sober remarks, but at the same time he walks on coals, unwilling to admit that Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was wrong, evil, and ill-intentioned from the start.
Mises and Rothbard created a very strong following of fine scholars and brilliant minds. But critiques are always a feature that a very much alive tradition such as the Austrian School needs to have and use for improvement. And sometimes improvement implies bringing back forgotten doctrines of previous generations. In this case, I am referring to the cost-price doctrine for reproducible goods that Eugen Böhm-Bawerk developed but was dismissed entirely by most Misesians and certainly most Rothbardians.
On September 18 the Fed cut its target for the fed funds rate by 50 basis points (0.5 percentage points), from 5.25% to 4.75%. The move surprised many analysts who had been expecting a more modest cut of 25 basis points. For those versed in the Austrian theory of the business cycle, as developed by Ludwig von Mises and elaborated by Friedrich Hayek, the aggressive Fed “stimulus” is ominous indeed. Not only will it pave the way for much higher price inflation than Americans have seen in decades, but it will also exacerbate what could be the worst recession in twenty-five years.