StephanKinsella.com

It’s a tragedy Rothbard died in 1995, before he could finish his History of Economic Thought series. At the time of his death, he had only published volumes I and II (epub and PDF files available here). However, as noted in the Mises store entry for Vol. III, The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek, although he “died before he could write his third volume of his famous History of Economic Thought that would cover the birth and development of the Austrian School, through the Keynesian Revolution and Chicago School,” “he had already mapped out the entire project.” And, it turns out: it’s on tape! “Fortunately, the Mises Institute had Rothbard lecture on his discoveries and analysis of this period while he was researching the topic. The tapes were only recently discovered. We re-mastered them, and put them on a single MP3-CD: nearly seven hours of lectures.”

See links in The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek, with links below; see also these youtube playlists: 1, 2.

***

Note:  The links below now also contain transcriptions of the lectures (thanks to a donation from Thomas Topp), which I have stitched together as a single file (PDF).

Update: Many of these links are now broken by mises.org. See above links for current media.

[continue reading…]

Podcast: Play in new window | Download ()

Subscribe: RSS

[From my Webnote series]

Related:

• The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld 
• Libertarian Answer Man: Libertarian Liability Theory, Behavior, and Intentional Action
• Libertarian Answer Man: Strict Liability; and Tracing Title Back to Adam
• Libertarian Answer Man: Strict Liability; Negligence as “Partially Intentional”
• Libertarian Answer Man: Intent in Action, Strict Liability

From Mises blog. Archived comments below.

The question of how to objectively determine damages for negligence (tort) in a libertarian system often arises. There is not much solid, libertarian analysis out there on this issue–the answers are usually either positivistic and assume some presumptive validity of common law rules; or they are libertarian but without much mooring in any coherent libertarian legal theory.

I don’t have a fully-developed view of this but I have touched on these matters in some publications and have always meant to return to this issue. I haven’t done so yet, but given the lack of much systematic libertarian treatment of this I will set forth below some tentative thoughts on how to approach this issue. [continue reading…]

At Recovery or Stagnation?, a Mises Circle held in San Francisco on August 29, 2009, there was a great Speakers’ Panel featuring Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Douglas French, and Robert Murphy. Great comments on the current financial mess.

One thing that especially interested me were Walter Block’s comments from about 12:45 to 13:35, where he distinguishes between economic theory and one’s ability to predict or forecast. Sure, having a sound understanding of theory can help, but it cannot make your predictions foolproof. For example one’s understanding of the business cycle might lead you to recommend buying gold; but then the state might confiscate gold soon after that.

This brings to mind some discussions I’ve had about the nature of economics and its role in investing or forecasting. My view is the Misesian-Rothbardian-Hoppean one, which I understand to be that the future is uncertain, but not radically so; that knowledge of economics laws can help, ceteris paribus–but that usually other factors are dominant. The skill of forecasting is called the understanding, or verstehen; but it is not merely “luck,” as some in thrall to monism-scientism are wont to deride it. Peter Klein mentioned to me that the question of why or how someone has the better skill at forecasting is really meta-economics—more of a psychological field, which is studied at Effectuation, from a Kirznerian perspective. It could be that one reason Austrian investors don’t dominate is that economic understanding only gives you a second order marginal advantage over others, that psychological or other factors are more important.

In other words, the better your economic understanding, the better a forecaster you can be. The future, while uncertain, is not radically so, and knowledge of economics helps constrain the possibilities. So ceteris paribus someone with a better understanding of economics would be a better investor. The problem is the ceteris is not usually that paribus; that economic knowledge is only a small factor of investing success, since it depends also on other factors, which apparently usually tend to dominate-other factors such as the possession of capital to invest; your access to certain knowledge or data; and your investing ability or knack, the leftover part that is more art, that Mises called verstehen. Possible, in times of a typical Austrian business cycle bust, sound economics could play a bigger role in one’s ability to forecast, which could explain why Austrians like Schiff and others are standing out right now.
[continue reading…]

Podcast: Play in new window | Download ()

Subscribe: RSS

Boudewijn Bouckaert‘s great article, What Is Property? (Summer 1990 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy) has a nice comment on the need for property rules:

The notion of scarcity serves at the same time as the most important explanation and justification of property rights arrangements. Scarcity is explicitly the rationale for modern “law and economics,”[48] and it is implicit in several older works of other legal philosophers and theorists.[49] It is argued that scarcity will involve a dimension beyond mere allocation when two or more persons consider one good as a means for the satisfaction of their wants and when the use they intend to make of it is incompatible. One cannot reduce this distributive scarcity to mere allocative scarcity because this would require the possibility of weighing utilities by a super-individual authority. Because distributive scarcity is unavoidable, only three outcomes are possible: (1) permanent conflict–the assignments of scarce means are the result of the use of violence, ruse, and tactical games;[50] (2) resignation–a resource becomes the object of competition, both parties withdraw, and such withdrawal means isolation and a massive drop in world population; (3) rules–assignments of power over scarce resources to individuals, groups, families, the government, and so forth. Not only is it difficult to imagine how one might provide reasonable arguments for the two first solutions, but these solutions also would imply tremendous costs to the working of society. As a consequence, distributive scarcity can be considered a probable explanation and a compelling justification for some arrangements of property rights in society.

Update: Boudewijn Bouckaert, “From Property Rights to Property Order,” Encyclopedia of Law and Economics (Springer, forthcoming 2023).

Disney to buy Marvel Comics for $4B. Disney “will acquire ownership more than 5,000 Marvel characters.” The most popular ones, such as Spider-Man (who used to be my favorite until he swooned over Obama, revealing his fascist mindset), are not that old–Spider-Man was created in 1962. One can only imagine the Disney lobbying that we can expect when Spider-Man’s term nears expiration…

[Against Monopoly cross-post]

My question to Roderick Long, in this thread:

Roderick, a better question is: why aren’t more libertarians women? I mean if we are mostly male, then 40% of us should just have an operation. Why don’t we?

Matthew “Yglesias” says that parents who send their children to private schools should be taxed and charged even more, to penalize them for harming public schools by withdrawing their “resources and social capital out of the public school system and contributing to its neglect.”

So not only should they pay public school taxes. Plus private school tuition. But they should be taxed even more by the state for not participating in the state’s propaganda farms. For not harming their kids by subjecting them to indoctrination, danger, and inferior education. I am not kidding. This is sickeningly evil. And look at his cackling fiendish friends, saying “Countdown to tiresome idiot smarmily suggesting Matt’s a hypocrite for having this opinion…3…2…” and “Matt’s a hypocrite! Just kidding.”

This is the most evil proposition I’ve heard in some time. A person like this would not last long in a free society. What scum.

Latest pretentious terms from today’s Slate Political Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page):

• banal
• imprimatur [and Emily mispronounces it as im-PREE-muh-tyure–at 24:00]

I’ve seen a lot of weak and pathetic arguments for IP, but this one takes the cake. (With reference to David Koepsell: Another Austrian-Influenced IP Opponent, Comment on Koepsell’s “A methodical response to Chris Holman’s ‘review’”, Are Libertarians For Intellectual Property?: Comment on David Koepsell’s “Why I Believe Gene Patenting is Wrong”.) See the comment by one David Mayes to Are Libertarians for Intellectual Property? (I believe he is responding to my comment: “I’m also affiliated with the Mises Institute, so I suppose Mr. Mayes has my work in mind when he unfairly, uncharitably, and falsely disparages and dismisses us as ‘idealogues.'”):

Stephan, I am not familiar with you or your work at all.

I believe we have different psychological perspectives on approaching patenting DNA. I feel connected to the history that has led to the current biotechnology infrastructure. Also, I feel connected to the type of libertarianism advocated by CEI and Cato embracing limited government which is practiced ubiquitously in the US at the municipal, state and federal levels. Since no government entity in the US, that I am aware of anyway, practices the von Mises ideal of political economy, ther must be a disconnect with what is going on and possibly some feeling of alienation.

I do not think that Tom Palmer is an idealogue. Upon reading about his background, I discovered he has affiliations with the Institute for Humane Studies. This would explain his conservative and moral objections to patenting DNA. Obviously, Cato respects his individuality on this issue which contrasts their official position and that is what their brand of libertarianism is all about. In contrast, I would imagine that a Mises scholar would have to quote Rothbard, Mises , or Hayek to give an official position which is my interpretation of an ideologue.

Main Entry: ideo·logue
Variant(s): also idea·logue
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
Date: 1815
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

A number of psycholigists refer to the ability to form a sense of self as the final stage of cognitive develoment. Unfortunately, not everyone reaches this stage. I have the highest respect for IHS since Leornard Liggio taught me classical liberalism and I consider him my favorite teacher of all. No one has influenced my politics as much as he has.

Here is an article titled “The FTC’s Suit Against Intel Is an Attempt to Steal Intellectual Property” by: Robert S. Getman on Ayn Rand’s official website regarding monopoly caused by IP. Rand actually feels there is a moral obligation to protect our intellectal capital.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5275

But, actually my quote is referring to David Koepsell’s confusion with how libertarians justify a temporary monopoly. My discussions with other pragmatic liberatian scholars informed me of the heirarchy of core values.

Ain’t that somethin’?

My reply:

Dear Mr. Mayes, Strain as I might, I am confess that unable to discern even a hint of coherent argument in your no doubt higher level take on things. No doubt this is my own limitation due to being a “von Mises ideologue.” As best I can tell, you feel “connected” to something or another, and that settles it for you. How nice for you. Us lowly “von Mises ideologues” can only strive in vain to reach such lofty heights.

A friend on an email discussion mentioned Carl Sagan and noted he was good on skepticism of pseudoscience and mused about whether he was good on politics. Alas, no. As is typically the case of engineers and scientists brainwashed with scientism (The Trouble with Libertarian Activism, Libertarian Activism-comments, Yet More on Galambos, Engineers’ Syndrome and C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” and Misesian Dualism), he was a clod on this issue. From a review of one of his books:

My second critique is with regard to Sagan’s contradictory political views. On the one hand, he argues against authoritarianism of any sort, he points out government waste, discusses how the government shouldn’t be anti-choice, and is upset that politicians only work for the short term since they are only working to get elected again. I agree with his assessment to this point. However, then he seems to argue out of the other side of his mouth that the government should be there to provide ever larger social safety nets (i.e., welfare, social security, entitlements, etc.), collect more taxes in some cases, give U.S. tax dollars to other countries, and fund projects that don’t justly benefit those doing the funding (taxpayers). I don’t understand how someone can reconcile the seemingly opposed views. If the government can’t do its current jobs well, why give it more to do inefficiently and ineffectively? If individuals should be the responsible party, why shift all the burdens (in the form of more tax dollars and more government spending) to governments?

And another friend stumbled across this amusing anecdote, which illustrates what a statist and/or arrogant jerk he was. From the Wikipedia entry on Sagan:

In 1994, Apple Computer began developing the Power Macintosh 7100. They chose the internal code name “Carl Sagan”, the reference being that the mid-range PowerMac 7100 should make Apple “billions and billions.” Though the internal project name was never used in public marketing, it did come up in Usenet postings and news of the name grew from there. When Sagan learned of this he sued Apple Computer to force the use of a different project name. Other models released conjointly had code names such as “Cold fusion” and “Piltdown Man“, and Sagan was displeased at being associated with what he considered pseudoscience. (He was at the time writing a book discrediting pseudoscience.) Though Sagan lost the lawsuit Apple engineers complied with his demands anyway and renamed the project “BHA” (for Butt-Head Astronomer). Sagan promptly sued Apple for libel over the new name, claiming that it subjected him to contempt and ridicule, but he lost this lawsuit as well. Still, the 7100 saw another name change: it was finally referred to internally as “LAW” (Lawyers Are Wimps).

This reminds a bit of the story in Shades of Galambos!

As Pete Boettke notes, “Tyler Cowen argues that in hindsight, we should consider the bailout to have been successful in averting a financial meltdown of the US economy.  He specifically asks me whether I can bring myself to admitting this.”

Boettke heroically says no. And Cowen is getting a good and well-deserved austro-libertarian smackdown on the Internets: a sampling:

• Can I bring myself to utter THOSE words?, the afore-mentioned piece by Pete Boettke
• Tyrone on the Bailouts, by Arnold Kling
• Scale, Scope, and What to do with Failing Banks (or: Has Cowen Forgotten his Higgs?), by Steve Horwitz
• This Is a Libertarian Economist?
• Libertarian, Free-Market Blog “MarginalRevolution” In Support of White House Torture, Bob Murphy
• Tyler Cowen’s Response, by David Henderson
• A Cowen reply: A second-best theory of libertarian bailouts
• see also Tyler Cowen Is So 1914ish

My own previous comments on Cowen include Comment on Tyler Cowen’s “Kindle and DRM and Netflix too” (about his pro-copyright views); Wirkman Virkkala, the “Locofoco Agnarchist,” on the confused Tyler Cowen; What Kind of Libertarian Are You? (rebutting Cowen’s absurd smears of Mises Institutes as “nationalists”); and Things Go Better With Koch … ? (noting Charles Burris’s observations about “Kochtopus minions such as Tom G. Palmer [and] Tyler Cowen,” and “The precocious Tyler Cowen has gone on to be one of the most pliable instruments in the Kochtopus toolbox, especially when it comes to denigrating Austrian economics and the work of Ludwig Von Mises”).

For some other web commentary on Cowen, see Tyler Cowen: Statist, anti-Rothbardian agent of the Kochtopus; and David Gordon’s The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard, Part II, which states, in part:

Grinder placed particular emphasis on Tyler Cowen, a brilliant student who had been interested in Austrian economics since his high school days. Cowen enrolled in an Austrian economics program at Rutgers, where he impressed both Joe Salerno and Richard Fink with his extraordinary erudition. When Fink moved to George Mason University, Cowen moved with him; and he completed his undergraduate degree there in 1983. Grinder considered him the next Hayek, the hope of Austrian economics.In accord with the elite universities policy, Cowen went to Harvard for his graduate degree. There he came under the influence of Thomas Schelling and gave up his belief in Austrian economics.

After he finished his PhD in 1987, Cowen was for a time a professor at the University of California at Irvine, and he used to visit me sometimes in Los Angeles. I was impressed with his remarkable intelligence and enjoyed talking with him. But I remember how surprised I was one day when he told me that he did not regard Ludwig von Mises very highly. Here he fitted in all-too-well with another policy of Richard Fink and the Kochtopus leadership. They regarded Mises as a controversial figure: his “extremism” would interfere with the mission of arousing mainstream interest in the Austrian School. Accordingly, Hayek should be stressed and Mises downplayed. (After the collapse of the Soviet Union, which led to new interest in Mises’s socialist calculation argument, this policy changed. The mainstream, though of course continuing to reject Mises, now recognized him as a great economist.) The policy was strategic, but Cowen went further – he really didn’t rate Mises highly.

Cowen eventually returned to George Mason University as a Professor of Economics. He is said to be the dominant figure in the department. Because of his close friendship with Richard Fink, who left academic work to become a major executive with Koch Industries and the principal disburser of Koch Foundation funding, Cowen exerts a major influence on grants to his department.

Although he is largely favorable to the free market and believes that the Austrian school has contributed insights, Cowen remains a strong critic of Austrian and Rothbardian views. He has published a book that sharply attacks Austrian business cycle theory, Risk and Business Cycles: New and Old Austrian Perspectives (Routledge, 1997); and in an article written with Fink, “Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard” (American Economic Review, Volume 75, Number 4, September 1985), he argued that a key feature in the economic theory of Mises and Rothbard, the evenly rotating economy, is fundamentally flawed. It was ironic that the hope of Austrian economics, according to Grinder, and the prime ornament of his stress on elite universities, wrote an article for the most prestigious economic journal in the United States critical of the theory Grinder wished to propagate. Cowen has also criticized libertarian anarchism, another fundamental plank in Rothbard’s thought. He has defended government funding of the space program and limited government subsidies for the arts.

One might object to what I have said so far. Although the heavy Koch support for Cowen did not advance Austrian economics, was not a flourishing Austrian program established at George Mason? If so, did not the generous fellowships offered by Koch organizations, such as the Claude Lambe Foundation, play a major role in this happy development? Fellowships were also given to those studying in the Austrian program at NYU.