-
[quote user="Laughing Man"] Question: I have not read Keynes General theory but I am told that it is confused and muddled. Does one need to read the General Theory in order to understand Hazlitt's criticisms? [/quote] Yes, Keynes' GT is confusing. Hazlitt points this out in his intro. But don't worry - Hazlitt quotes extensively
-
[quote user="Christophe"]Does one own water or air? How far does property extend above and below the surface of land or water? What about genetic codes (I hear there are patents being taken out on unmodified genetic codes, which seems a strange thing to me since they're in everybody's body so basicly everybody already owns a set).
-
[quote user="ZeroPoint"] scepticus says: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 2:20:38 PM “ mish blogged: "Expansion for expansion's sake failed miserably, as it always does. And the Fed forever blowing bubbles of increasing amplitude is the primary reason." Nope, the fed's shennanigans are a symptom. The real cause is increasing
-
There's this from the Praxeology reading list : [quote] Business Cycles Rockwell, Business Cycle Primer Thornton, Skyscrapers and Business Cycles Garrison, The Austrian Business Cycle Theory in Light of modern macroeconomics New Classical and Old Austrian Economics: Equilibrium Business Cycle Theory in perspective Rothbard, Why the business cycle
-
Cheers for this...I've glanced through it...pretty lengthy. I'd still like to know a precise source if anyone knows. Also, Murray wrote: [quote]Keynesians and Friedmanites alike maintained that the gold bugs were dinosaurs. Whereas Mises and his followers held that gold was giving backing to paper money, both the Keynesian and Friedmanite wings
-
Found it: http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.lasso?id=1223 (It's only £61 when purchased from Elgar!) Also this site might be useful to you, Conza: http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9781858985701
-
[quote user="Sukrit Sabhlok"] I'm not particularly well-informed about the Austrian school, compared to the other people on this forum, but does anyone know why Hayek was able to publish in mainstream journals? Why did he become more prominent among the mainstream than Mises or Rothbard? [/quote] That's a good question. Hoppe mentions
-
Surely the terms "aggression", "theft" and "force" are given their meanings only when set on a background of private property.
-
Here , Mises discusses Smith, Say and recession: "Whenever business turned bad, the average merchant had two explanations at hand: the evil was caused by a scarcity of money and by general overproduction. Adam Smith, in a famous passage in "The Wealth of Nations," exploded the first of these myths. Say devoted himself predominantly to
-
[quote user="MountainGoat"]" y the middle of 1920 the downturn in production had become severe, falling by 21 percent over the following twelve months" [/quote] Why would Woods print a picture of a beer glass...?