Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue Dec 26 17:01:43 2006 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Fred Foldvary writes:
"In discussing war in Human Action, Mises states that
war-time price controls are not necessary, as the
state can obtain resources by taxation. Thus, Mises
did not absolutely oppose taxation."
Thank you for clarifying. I would add that a central tenet of all
"Austrians" has long been that "forced saving" by deposit expansion is
harmful. If we do not finance wars by taxation we finance them by selling
bonds, which generally leads to deposit expansion (unless you have the
incredible luck of being able to sell them to foreigners ad infinitum, as
Bernanke seems to think possible). Thus, for consistency, Mises would have
to admit of some taxation, as you tell us he did.
You and Medaille are right that J.B. Clark trained his guns on Henry George.
At the same time he ignored Karl Marx and instead attacked the Austrian
anti-Marxist Boehm-Bawerk. Knight followed suit. Clark and Knight both
found the idea that capital has a period of production (i.e. turns over)
more threatening than they found Marx. I continue to hope that historians of
economic thought will make this point more central to their understanding of
the origins and evolution of what today we call neo-classical economics.
It also should help explain why Austrians, who equal or surpass Chicagoans
in their apotheosis of the market mechanism, are not welcomed with open arms
into the Chicago-dominated clerisy.
Mason Gaffney
|
|
|