It seems to me, there are nuance difference between Reisman's economics and Austrian economics.
In Capitalism, Reisman suggests the Uniformity of Profit principle, "There is a tendency in a free market toward the establishment of a uniform rate of profit on capital invested in all the different branches of industry. In other words, there is a tendency for capital invested to yield the same percentage rate of profit." From my understanding, Reisman blends the insights of the Austrians and the Classicals.
1) Is the Uniformity of Profit an Austrian insight or Classical? It is the first I heard of this concept.
2) IMHO, this principle may be in conflict with the Austrian concept of profit, because profit is not necessarily monetary, but could be psychic profit?(Perhaps I just answered my Q1?).
3) On the same train of thought, what are the substantive differences in economics between Reisman, and the whole of the Austrians?
Sorry for the blank post earlier. I am having some editor problems on my end.
Don't mistake me for an expert, though from a casual reading that does seem very much at odds with what Mises had to say on profit, in a sense the return from successful appraisement of an uncertain outcome following an action. With monetary profit there is essentially no difference, except for the sphere and context in which the actions take place allowing for economic calculation and appraisement, as well as the fact that to bear uncertainty is essentially his definition of the entrepreneur.
As a general empirical observation a it seems to me a "rate of profit" might be a justified concept, but I cannot see how it necessarily follows praxeologically.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Thanks for your insight.
I am curious if it does follow praxeologically?
While I won't comment on whether or not Reisman's conclusions can be found through a priorism, I just want to note that it doesn't seem that Reisman is a praxeologist. He disagrees with Mises that economics is a part of praxeology. From Capitalism,
To claim that economics is on this account a science of human chouces rather than of wealth is to confuse an aspect of the science with its totality. To adopt this view is to be led to ignore all the really crucial matters that economics deals with and to seek esoteric extensions of the subject that have nothing whatever to do with its actual nature. (p. 12)
That particular paragraph has a footnote, which reads,
Regrettably, this criticism applies to the great von Mises and his efforts to portray economics as merely the "hitherto best developed part" of an alledgedly wide science of human action known as praxeology.
In this case I think Reisman is wrong. I think he misses the point of Mises' methodology. Ludwig von Mises obviously understood the pertinent areas of study of economics, which is why he focused on such topics (like money, capital, calculation, et cetera). But, Mises also understood that at its most basic element economics was about human action. In other words, he understood that a market was nothing more than a number of individuals acting and cooperating to meet certain ends. As such, the actions which led to the topics Reisman believes makes up the science of economics are all part of the broader scope of human action.
I'm not sure what methodology Reisman employs, but I find it difficult to accept his belief in an a priori approach to economics if he doesn't recognize that what he calls economics - or better termed 'political economy' - is a part of the broader scope of human action.
Capitalism tends toward uniform profit inasmuch as it tends toward the abolition of all profit, and 0 = 0.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I'm not sure what methodology Reisman employs, but I find it difficult to accept his belief in an a priori approach to economics if he doesn't recognize that what he calls economics - or better termed 'political economy' - is a part of the broader scope of human action.
From Capitalism: "Economic life under a system of division of labor can be compre- hended only by means of an organized body of knowledge that proceeds by deductive reasoning from ele- mentary principles. This, of course, is the work of the science of economics. The division of labor is thus the essential fact that necessitates the existence of the subject of economics." (p.16)
It appears he uses a similar method/methodology* to praxeology and deductive reasoning, but perhaps not specifically the action axiom. It appears to me that the freedom and the division of labor is one of the elementary principles for Reisman.
*Bob Murphy talked about the nuance of difference between these two words, of which I don't remember which is which)