Doug Mackenzie wrote:
>Modern orthodoxy is Walrasian and Mises, as a true
>evolutionary thinker, was absolutely opposed to such
>static equilibrium theorizing.
I certainly agree that Mises rejected
equilibrium, and many other particular doctrines
as well. Of course, one can ask, if equilibrium
(and hence equity) is not possible even in
principle, than what rationale remains for the
system? But laying that question aside, the
reason for regarding Mises as the purest form of
neoclassicism involves the basic assumptions of
neoclassicism, namely the self-interest
maximizing, autonomous individual. Now, the
existence of such an individual is doubtful, and
cannot be confirmed from psychology, from
anthropology, or from introspection. Hence it
must be, logically, a pure a priori without any
empirical foundation. While this is implicit in
all of neoclassicism, it is explicit in Mises,
and therein lies both Mises's greatness and his
greatest error. He had the courage to treat them
as a priori and to reject the fiction that they
are based on empirical data. That is a courageous
act and deserves to be recognized as such.
I do believe that Mises is absolutely right about
capitalist equilibrium; the system cannot (and
certainly has not) delivered what it promises. In
order to reach any semblance of equilibrium,
distributional issues will have to be taken into
account, and distribution not merely of incomes
but of wealth-producing assets, such as land,
tools and education. Neoclassicism therefore
promises what it cannot deliver, and the
steroidal neoclassicism of Mises honestly
discards the promise. And while I disagree with
the system, I must admire the honesty.
John C. Medaille
|