Forum Replies Created
Thanks again Professor,
I understand the points made in your first two paragraphs above.
What if I sell my stocks to hold the money (inter-temporal trade) for a year because I believe interest rates will go up the following year and I am planning to lend the money then? Is that still just holding money or saving money or both?
Thank you very much for your informative answer.
If I hold gold because I believe the future is uncertain and that the dollar’s purchasing power is going to decrease am I being entrepreneurial?
Is the answer the same if I hold dollars because I believe their value will rise?
I don’t understand why Rothbard denies that money holding is savings, am I not sacrificing the present subjective value of something like a cruise?
and also readings on the role of virtue in republican governments.August 10, 2019 at 6:15 pm in reply to: Economics relation to material and social sciences #18973
Came across the following in the Rothbard Reader, end of chapter 27.
It seems that Mill sees economics as not a social or behavioral science but a moral one, yet without value judgements. Yet I suspect liberty would be the value.
“It should be noted that economics is profoundly different from all other social or “behavioral” sciences. The latter, which try to develop sci- entific laws of the content of men’s actions, are determinist, mechanistic, and therefore behaviorist: men are treated like stones to be “observed,” charted, and “predicted.” Genuine economics, especially economics as it has emerged in praxeology and as shown by Dr. Kirzner, is quite the oppo- site; instead of mechanistically substituting behavior for action, it grounds its deductions squarely on the axiom of action, which means in essence on the axiom of man’s purposiveness and freedom of will. The conserva- tive, properly suspicious of the anti-human essence of the “social science,” should recognize that in economics, particularly economics in its most developed praxeological form, he has a staunch and extremely important ally. Praxeological economics rests squarely on the reality of the individual person, not on the collective; and instead of burying values and purpose, it portrays the individual as striving purposively to achieve his cherished ends. While, therefore, the actual construction of the edifice of economic law is strictly Wertfrei, in the deepest sense economics is not a “behav- ioral” nor even a “social” but—what Mill this time correctly called it—a moral science.”
While I didn’t understand all the arguments Jefferson made it is enlightening to see how articulate and meticulous he was. From my novice understanding of US History it seems almost no matter how logical the Constitutional arguments are against Federal Government growth and intrusion they generally lose. In the Rothbard article it is interesting to note the tension between being self sufficient and the benefits of the division of labor. I think this tension is played out in so many fields, local versus global, independence versus interdependence, Taoism versus Confucianism, solo artist versus symphony. But I think in the end a Jack of all trades doesn’t even beat a pair of deuces.
Do you know whether it was different cargo than what was being shipped to England or was it the same cargo but had less monetary value in the colonies?
Thanks, looks like low taxes and tax evasion are part of early American history. The only thing that has changed is the low taxes.
I just finished the “Say’s Law of Markets” section from Rothbard’s vol 2 History of Economic Thought. I think I have a better understanding now.
Professor Murphy and DJ,
I agree with your hunch but what would be an explanation of Say’s law for a beginner that’s not too simplistic.
Below is what comes from Investopedia:
The Say’s law of markets is an economic rule that says that production is the source of demand. According to Say’s Law, when an individual produces a product or service, he or she gets paid for that work, and is then able to use that pay to demand other goods and services.
Is there anything in the above explanation that could be tweaked to help me understand it better?
I am a beginner and I think your points are above my level of understanding. Now I’m not really sure what Say’s Law is. Putting that aside for a moment are the following statements true?
Production must precede exchange.
Production does not cause demand.
Demand may not cause production.
For an exchange to take place at least two people must be productive in a way that the other demands.
Does any of the above relate to Say’s Law?
Thank you very much, just finished this course yesterday. A few episodes were over my head, particularly that impossibility theory. I am going to start over with Part 1 and then part 2 again. Really enjoye Contra Krugman and I benefited greatly from your Lessons for the Young Economist book (although I’m in my 60’s). Hoping to meet you at the Soho Forum next year.