Michael, I have a brief reply and a somewhat longer discussion of more
specific issues. The brief reply is along the same lines as my reply to
John M. To criticize Mises's economics without understanding his purpose
and how he sought to achieve it is not an appropriate way to deal with
Mises or, in my opinion, with any other writer in the history of
economic thought. I believe that Mises would agree with most of your
observations, except those that are critical of him.
You write that "categories like 'private property, free enterprise, the
use of money -- and individuals acting in markets' are, in my view, too
abstract to be useful descriptions of modern institutions." If Mises's
aim was to "describe modern institutions," such a criticism would be on
target. But it was not. You want something from Mises that is not there
because Mises did not intend for it to be there. Maybe your concerns are
important, but they are not the same as Mises's concerns.
Steve, it seems to me, did not express Mises's ideas on money, market
and prices as clearly as I would have liked. Money and prices exist and
if we want to deal with arguments relating to market intervention we
must assume their existence. We use the term "market" to express (a) the
sending and receipt of messages about willingnesses (i.e., offers) to
buy and sell and (b) the making and acceptance of offers. A price is the
medium that is used to make such offers. And prices could not be media
without a generally accepted medium of exchange. Economics assumes a
generally accepted medium of exchange. If, in addition, there is a
system of private property rights and free enterprise; reasonable people
would expect distinctly human actions to exhibit certain patterns that
would not be reasonable to expect under different circumstances. Such
patterns must be taken into account by those who promote market
intervention.
The "social consensus" that Steve described is, I presume, not a matter
of faith; it is an assumption that (1) reflects the reality of economic
life, (2) that is made by advocates of a particular market intervention
(such as a minimum wage law), and (3) that must be assumed in evaluating
the advocates' arguments. You use the term "social consensus" in a very
different way.
"Human action" and "economic science", are two terms used by Mises that
seem to have attracted your attention. These terms have very specific
meanings that are inextricably connected with Mises's goals. If you give
them different meanings or of you claim that Mises should define them
differently, all you are really saying is that you reject Mises's goals.
Yet, although I do not know you personally, I doubt that you reject his
goal of evaluating interventionist arguments and socialism with as
compared with the market economy..
Ultimately, the issues you raise reflect an unwillingness to accept
Mises's purpose. Mises remarks about the benefits of capitalism (the
market economy) are part of his efforts to defend capitalism against
interventionism and socialism. If you regard them as a "world view"
(look up the reference in Chapter Nine of Human Action), you are simply
misunderstanding Mises.
The bias you have in mind is based on your desire to achieve a goal that
Mises did not aim to achieve in the passages to which you make reference.
In fact, you probably have not thought very much about Mises's goals.
More likely, you, like John M., are using an unwarranted criticism of
Mises as a springboard to express your own views. I suppose that it is
this aspect of both of your posts that disturbs me most. HES should not
be forum for the expression of such ideas. On the other hand, a
misinterpretation of an important writer in the history of economic
thought should be a proper subject for HES.
If Bruce understood this difference and accepted it, he would have
commented differently on this discussion.
With respect,
Pat Gunning
|
