It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
Dustin S. Jussila: It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
No.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
scineram:How is economic analysis of law value ridden?
Normative law is not the economic analysis of law. I don't see what you're getting at.
nirgrahamUK: Wilmot of Rochester:Which is why I imagine Peter Boettke defined Rothbard as a property rights economist and not as an "Austrian" one. would he not have to say the same about Mises, who was pretty jumped up about property rights? (in a good way)
Wilmot of Rochester:Which is why I imagine Peter Boettke defined Rothbard as a property rights economist and not as an "Austrian" one.
No, because Mises didn't scream to the top of his lungs about it like Rothbard did.
existence is elsewhere
INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian -- people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself -- Mises got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists," and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.
there is good tolerance and bad tolerance. i hope that story about Mises and Friedman is true.
Propertarianism is where its @ . yo.
nirgrahamUK: INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out. MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian -- people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself -- Mises got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists," and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.
It isn't really comparable.
I think Boettke is flat out wrong in pretending that rothbard is somehow 'more propertarian' than Mises... (aside from the obvious case whcih he does not mention, which is in the market for law and security... but anyhow more generally...)
were statements like these made by Rothbard or Mises?
Private property of the material factors of production is not a restriction of the freedom of all other people to choose what suits them best. It is, on the contrary, the means that assigns to the common man, in his capacity as a buyer, supremacy in all economic affairs. It is the means to stimulate a nation's most enterprising men to exert themselves to the best of their abilities in the service of all of the people.
"A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption.
The foundation of any and every civilization, including our own, is private ownership of the means of production. Whoever wishes to criticize modern civilization, therefore, begins with private property.
The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production. . . . All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.
The essential teaching of liberalism is that social cooperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production, i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. All the other principles of liberalismdemocracy, personal freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and of the press, religious tolerance, peace among the nationsare consequences of this basic postulate. They can be realized only within a society based on private property
and on and on
nirgrahamUK: I think Boettke is flat out wrong in pretending that rothbard is somehow 'more propertarian' than Mises... (aside from the obvious case whcih he does not mention, which is in the market for law and security... but anyhow more generally...) were statements like these made by Rothbard or Mises? Private property of the material factors of production is not a restriction of the freedom of all other people to choose what suits them best. It is, on the contrary, the means that assigns to the common man, in his capacity as a buyer, supremacy in all economic affairs. It is the means to stimulate a nation's most enterprising men to exert themselves to the best of their abilities in the service of all of the people. "A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption.
I think you're confusing the public policy Mises with the economics Mises. The Theory of Money and Credit had both in it, but the better part was dominated by the economics Mises.
EDIT: In contrast Rothbard really doesn't have that distinguishment. Everything for Rothbard is public policy and you shouldn't do this or you should do that. The differences are subtle, of course, but there nonetheless.
Though I get that you'll defend Rothbard to the death, this is just how I and many others not taken in by the man see it.
I think you are ignoring the fact that private property was as central to Mises understanding as to Rothbards.
banned: Spideynw:Economics and law are intertwined. What part of law is wertfrei?
Spideynw:Economics and law are intertwined.
What part of law is wertfrei?
Economics is the study of human action. Human action is based on both natural and man-made law.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: banned: Spideynw:Economics and law are intertwined. What part of law is wertfrei? Economics is the study of human action. Human action is based on both natural and man-made law.
Natural law is nothing more than hard science in relation to biology, physics, chemistry, etc.
Man-made law is a fairly arbitrary concept that changes and interacts differently. You could say economics incorporates that, but that isn't economics in its own right.
Wilmot of Rochester:I think you're confusing the public policy Mises with the economics Mises. The Theory of Money and Credit had both in it, but the better part was dominated by the economics Mises.
You never read the theory of money and credit.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Wilmot of Rochester: Natural law is nothing more than hard science in relation to biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Man-made law is a fairly arbitrary concept that changes and interacts differently. You could say economics incorporates that, but that isn't economics in its own right.
Neither of those changes the fact that human action is based on natural and man-made laws.