-
Boettke says that the best way to read Mises is a Hayekian one and the best way to read Hayek is a Misesian one. I agree with the second part of it: when I read Hayek the first time, parts of it were hard to comprehend, but when I learned the Misesian framework better, things started to become much clearer. I don't agree with the first part though;
-
Smith is awesome: mandatory reading for everyone who takes his philosophical side serious.
-
[quote user="Lyle"] Praetyre: But I thought capitalism represented the constrained vision, not the unconstrained vision. And I thought socialism represented the unconstrained vision, not the constrained vision. (According to Thomas Sowell's exposition of the two camps in "A Conflict of Visions.") Is there something wrong with
-
[quote user="Daniel James Sanchez"] You can try to argue that Rothbard should regard labor as a capital good by his definition of the latter, but the fact of the matter is that he does not . [/quote] ...nobody is saying that he is. But I don't think the point of arguing is to repeat what others have said per se.
-
[quote user="DD5"] [quote user="justinx0r"] The only way to eliminate economic profit (meaning revenue minus opportunity cost equals zero) is through free and competitive markets. This implies that capitalism is more efficient (remember, the defintiion of efficiency is the point at which you can't be made better off by making
-
True; but Rothbard defines Capital good as a 'reproducable means of production'; labor seems to be reproducable; so you might make the argument that the distinction needs something else. It also doesn't invade the theory that capital goods are reducible to labor and land and earn no net profit. Let me think about this so more.
-
I get your point; but I don't think I'm making a whole new theory. I'm trying to 'solve' as it were the riddle between the two branches. I don't think there is a distinction and I don't think saying that it's two sides of the same coin is saying that I differ from their view. I think Rothbard, as always, was too fast
-
[quote user="Daniel James Sanchez"] [quote user="AdrianHealey"] I don't want to be biatch, but I think my classification 'solves' this (basically semantical) problem. I'm open to comments, though. [/quote] It's not a merely semantic issue. Again, if you can reconstitute production/distribution theory with your
-
I don't like the term 'entrepreneur'; I prefer 'entrepreneurial element', with specific kinds of entrepreneurship. And the capitalist entrepreneur - to be sure - fullfills a particular role, that the 'labor-entrepreneur' doesn't fullfill.
-
Entrepreneurial action is very all pervasive, yes. Capitalist-entrepreneur is a specific kind of entrepreneurship.