[pacopasa]

I’m guessing in a barter economy everyone is a trader. Once you have money the terms buyers and sellers are used. In reality is it not still trading, and both parties are buyers and sellers? A person sells his money to buy bread, the other sells his bread to buy money. Therefore ” let the buyer beware” should be “let the buyer/seller” or the “trader” beware. But it isn’t. Why is it that ” a fool and his money is soon parted?” But not a “fool and his toaster oven is soon parted”?

[jmherbener]

You are correct, the terms “buyer” and “seller” apply regardless of the use of money.

I suppose the reason is that none of us live in a world of barter. Also, the phrase “let the buyer beware” can be meant as a slur against entrepreneurs and commercial activity. On whether or not people were happier in times of a less developed commercial economy and its primitive division of labor, take a look at Rothbard’s article:

https://mises.org/library/freedom-inequality-primitivism-and-division-labor

[pacopasa]

Thank you for the article by Rothbard. I teach a high school course on World Religions and it seems that the distinction between the Romantic Movement and its opposite (?ism) is similar to the difference in emphasis between Confucianism (pro human institutions) and Taoism (anti). I have listened to the US History lectures, almost done with History of Political Thought and almost done with your lectures. Due to all of this I will spend my summer working through Man, Economy and State. Tried Human Action, got through about a third, will try it again next year. This article from 1970 seems timeless, like it could have been written yesterday.

[Author]

Posts