Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Mon Dec 11 19:13:15 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Regarding the logic of Mises discussion of interventionism, it seems to
me that Sanford Ikeda has made a pretty solid case supporting it. What
is often missed is that Mises asked about intervention from the point of
view of the person proposing an intervention. To what outcome, he asked,
would the intervention proposed by a particular interventionist lead? If
it did not achieve the outcome intended, then what would the
interventionist suggest next in order to achieve the intended outcome?
Ikeda, Sanford (1997). Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of
Interventionism. London: Routledge.
"This book is an effort, at what appears to be a timely moment in
history, to reintroduce a revised version of Mises's analysis of the
mixed economy into the current conversation on public policy. Its point
of departure is Mises's critique of interventionism, the development of
which spans a number of writings over several decades, beginning in 1912
with a short appraisal of price controls in The Theory of Money and
Credit (1971: 254-9) and culminating in a lengthy discourse in his Human
Action (1966: 716-861) in 1949." (Ikeda, p.2)
Pat Gunning
|
|
|