[BOOKS] ✫ Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market Author Murray N. Rothbard – Saudionline.co.uk

  • Hardcover
  • 1441 pages
  • Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market
  • Murray N. Rothbard
  • English
  • 09 May 2019
  • 9780945466307

10 thoughts on “Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market

  1. says:

    A masterpiece on economics presented in a logical, well-organized format that establishes basic foundational principals, then builds to define more progressively complex ideas. While much of the work follows the principles of Mises and Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, this work is far more readable and better organized. If you have read Human Action, you must read Man, Economy & State to complete the picture. If you have not read Human Action, you may want to read Rothbard’s work first, then go to Human Action as a deeper dive.

    Rothbard presents a comprehensive guide to economics and praxeology. He provides strong arguments against many of the more popular economic theories exposing their fallacies in easy to understand language. Unlike your typical economics text book, you won’t find a lot of detailed mathematical formulas here and the ones you do find are often illustrations of fallacious thinking by other economists.

    While I highly recommend this book for anyone who want a better understanding of money, banking, economics and political thought, I can’t agree with everything presented in the book. I think there are a few areas where Rothbard slips off his usually sound foundations:

    1. “Selling Costs” (Chapter 10.5-C): Rothbard challenges Professor Chamberlin’s ideas on the value of distinguishing selling costs from production costs. He makes the case that the “distinction is completely spurious” and goes on to cite Human Action p319, yet this page from Human Action including nothing relevant to the discussion of selling costs. He goes on say the cost of sales are unnecessary from a point of economic analysis and should simply be considered part of the cost of production. He misses the point and value of such separate analysis in this regard. While I am not directly familiar with Chamberlin’s teaching on this subject, I do have some personal business experience in this area.

    There are many cases in business where a decision is needed whether to scrap excess production or to sell it. Rothbard seems to assume that some sale no matter how deep the discount will always be taken because some revenue from the sale will always be better than no revenue at all and such decisions need to be made without regard to sunk costs. However, an economic analysis is necessary to make such a decision. Simply stated, a comparison needs to be made between the potential net revenue of moving excess inventory through the sales channel or simply scrapping that inventory. Cost of sales can include the cost of transportation to the sales location, the costs of promotions, advertising, commissions and financing of the sales as well as the customer support costs directly associated with after-sale support. These costs are incurred only if the excess inventory is moved through the sales channel. If the sum of these costs exceeds the potential gross revenue from the discounted sale, the net proceeds will be negative (a cost). With such a financial analysis, the owner of this inventory can easily see that the cost of scrapping the inventory is lower than the cost of selling it – this decision better maximizes overall profit for the entrepreneur.

    If the selling costs are simply lumped into the production costs, such an analysis is always impossible to make. In this case the entrepreneur will mistakenly choose to sell the excess inventory, judging only on potential revenue from the sale. But measured from this decision point, the cost of sales are future expenditures while cost of production are in the past. To be consistent with Rothbard’s own reasoning for making such decision based only looking forward, he must be able measure these costs of sales. He is inconsistent and illogical in this regard.

    2. “Patents & Trademarks” (Chapter 10.7): In this section, Rothbard takes a decided turn from his consistent logic of economic evaluation based on human action and seems to circumvent his own implied ethic by starting his entire argument based on the way courts decide infringement in the cases of copyrights and patents. He uses the distinctions between these two cases as the basis and foundation for disparate treatment with regard to copyrights and patents. He is now employing the fallacy of arguing from history or from authority to support his position. He makes the case that patents are illegitimate and should not be considered a genuine property right, while he argues that copyrights should be. His basis is this arbitrary distinction made in the government prosecution of infringement cases and on the implied contract established by the notification of a copyrighted work.

    Instead, he should begin with a review of the history and basis for copyrights and patents and an analysis of the principals of property ownership of ideas. The historical review would clearly review that both patents and copyrights began with a government grant of monopoly to the holder through the force of the state as a form of mercantilism. This perspective leads to questions of why it may be necessary to use government force and whether such “intellectual property” is actually property at all. These questions have been answered in works by libertarian writers since Rothbard including N. N. Stephan Kinsella, Daniel Krawisz and Jacob Huebert among others.

    (It was a long book, so it deserved a long review.)

  2. says:

    This book essentially contains the entire discipline of economics, the way it would be taught in a sane and rational world. In Man, Economy, and State, Rothbard builds an impenetrable case for the market economy, from the most basic axiom of purposeful human action to its furthest implications in all types of human interaction. In the appended Power and Market, he demonstrates the destructive nature of political power, and delivers a crushing blow to statism in all its forms.

    Rothbard's style is straightforward, imaginative, and clear; a refreshing change from the dryly academic style in which the science of economics is generally presented. In writing this treatise the author assumes nothing of the reader, except that he or she is intellegent and eager to learn.

    This book is essential for anyone who is interested in the pursuit of truth, particularly within the study of economics; but most of all to those who want to know the nature of freedom, and who oppose the engines of political tyranny that have for so long dominated academia.

  3. says:

    A must read. One of few works in the 20th century covering economic theory with such an ambitious scope and scale, and doing so with admirable clarity and relative brevity. Much of the work will be non-controversial for those with a minimum understanding of economics. Rothbard describes himself as a disciple of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and as such, he expands, explores, and improves on many Austrian economic ideas.

    Rothbard largely divides his work into his main portion, economics in a pretend (historically speaking) completely free and unhampered market, and in much of that he explores the theoretical-only model of the evenly rotating economy (ERE) where there are no unknowns and all people receive, after the fact, what they expect beforehand.

    Curiously, Rothbard takes up the idea of property ownership in his mythical completely free society. At first blush, it seems reasonable enough, but it does not stand close scrutiny. He states the first "user" of any heretofore unoccupied territory becomes its owner and may claim all produce therefrom. For claiming empty lands, this does seem reasonable. However, what constitutes "first use?" If I fence in five acres of empty land, even though I never set foot on any of it, do I own all five acres, or merely the perimeter supporting my fence and fence posts? What if it's 1,000 or 1,000,000 acres fenced in? Is walking over ground enough to claim it, or must I do more work to it? How much, what kind? If I run my plough through the earth, may I claim only the trough, or also the area to which the earth moved? How much else may I claim? Six inches to either side? Six feet? What happens when my trough runs next to my neighbor's, where exactly do we draw the line? What about subterranean mineral rights? He makes this principle more absurd by extending it to water and air. So if I buzz inches above my neighbor's roof with a remote control airplane, I now own the air above his home, and can buzz my loud drone over his home, film and photograph him and his family in their backyard all I wish. I would not tolerate this from a neighbor and I doubt you would either. So now that I've buzzed my neighbor's rooftop, how much airspace exactly do I own? Only the exact paths my aircraft took? Or some space around and in between? How much above and below? How is this to be documented and recorded for future dispute resolution? (Land is one thing, water and air become a little trickier for cadastral surveys.)

    The advantage of Rothbard's method is that is does solve many, if not most, of the current "market externality" disputes. If every bit of land, water, and air has a private owner, then anyone damaging or poisoning it with pollution, for instance, can be sued for damages, therefore the polluter can be made to bear the costs and consequences of his pollution. However, it completely neglects the problem of how this would devastate, and likely altogether prohibit, anything resembling long-distance trade by land, sea, or air. If every stretch of land, river, coastline, open ocean, and airspace were owned by literally billions of separate owners in various-sized parcels, anyone wishing to construct a road, railroad, or use such infrastructure, or simply pass over the river, lake, ocean, through the air, etc., will have to negotiate separately with potentially thousands of owners for even a relatively short route. Rothbard passes over this with a imperious wave of his hand in a footnote! "Inevitably, someone will point to the plight of the railroad or highway company that must pay 'extortionate rates' to the man who 'merely' owns the property along the way..." (footnote 72, p 1140) Never mind the actual rent or sale price of such patches and parcels, the cost of having to separately contract with thousands (or more) of separate owners, added to the risk of holdouts (those who will not sell/rent at any price), it is difficult to see any trade or travel over any but the shortest distances being possible. In the past there was private infrastructure (toll roads, bridges, river gates, etc.), but these were not built on Rothbard's parcelized principle of first use ownership. The first Assyrian "empire" was less an empire than an unprecedented trading network. The great empires had not yet arisen and the Near East was divided into countless small kingdoms, city states, etc., with each charging its own tolls, customs, etc., and often localities within each polity also had their own local fees and regulations. Long-distance trade was difficult for all and any products brought from afar were exceptionally expensive. The Assyrians established trading colonies called Karums, which were used to negotiate discounts in tolls, exceptions to regulations/prohibitions, and such, so as to facilitate long-distance trade with some success. Yet Rothbard's method would subdivide all of the world into many more bits and pieces than the Assyrians had to deal with.

    Rothbard's master, von Mises, seems to have taken a much more pragmatic approach. Mises recognized that there was no truly unowned land property. As he noted, "All ownership derives from occupation and violence...That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable or morally justified...This the doctrine of natural law has called the war of all against all. The war ends when the actual relation is recognized as one worthy to be maintained. Out of violence emerges law." (Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, location 689-697) Rothbard's agenda in creating this unnecessary as well as unworkable "first use" system seem to be to disinherit the governments of the world of claimed "unused" land, and also to open up all "unowned" water and air resources to private owners. While having the benefit of eliminating land/water/air-related market externalities, it would be at the cost of destroying most of the world's trade, and thus, as Rothbard himself relates in his critique of other trade-reducing measures, tending to reduce humankind toward starvation and barbarism. Since the ownership question on planet Earth has already been (effectively) resolved, it seems better to take Mises' approach of recognizing and accepting current enforced claims at face value in an effort to steer clear of the war of all against all.

    On the question of land, Rothbard seems to insist land has intrinsic value, without being able to define or defend it; he ignores Frédéric Bastiat's repeated demonstrations that land only has value insofar as labor is applied to it. In fact, Rothbard reduces toward this argument himself in places, without openly accepting it. Bastiat is only mentioned twice in Rothbard's text, a sign that maybe he could broaden his base from more than just Austrians.

    One of the perennial questions of liberty is, to whom does it apply? Rothbard refers to Ernst Barker and gives one of the clearest and most succinct solutions to the problem of children in a free society (see Rothbard's footnote 12, p 93), a question Ayn Rand unfortunately failed to address in her otherwise brilliant Atlas Shrugged.

    Unfortunately, Rothbard neglects to address the question of mental incapacity. What is defined as incapacity or incompetence to reason, and who gets to decide? Must we wait till a violently insane person freely buys a gun, freely walks into a school, and freely guns down 20 children and their teachers prior to killing or restraining the person? Or can anyone determine a person's inability to reason sufficient to restrict his/her liberty to some extent, or even completely? In light of today's epidemic of mass shooting (among other examples), it would be beneficial to explore or debate free market ideas on this topic.

    Rothbard is sadly a gold-bug. He insists that anything used as currency must, once upon a time, have had its own barter value, or be imposed by force by a State or similar hegemon. He appears to duck the "intrinsic value" problem of other gold bugs, by regressing to its historical fact of once having had intrinsic value, but not depending on that in the present tense. After all, gold only has intrinsic value because of the faith and confidence of people's belief in its intrinsic value. Should people, en masse, decide tomorrow that they no longer wish to adorn themselves and their valuables in gold, gold's industrial uses are not sufficient to maintain its current price or anything near to it, and it would therefore become worth a small fraction of its value. More to the point, imagine the practical difficulties in using actual gold in exchange, yet another point Rothbard dismisses with an imperious wave of the hand. Adam Smith devotes considerable space to the difficulties in maintaining gold currency in the face of inevitable wear and tear, not to mention deliberate clipping. Should every consumer be expected to keep an exact scale upon his/her person to measure all currency provided, to ensure the total weight is correct? Imagine supermarket checkout lines! And how easy is it to forge currency, adulterating its purity, replacing its core, etc. Paper currency today contains many difficult-to-counterfeit safety features. While RFIDs or similar technology could be implanted in all real gold currency, so they could be installed in counterfeits. And is every consumer expected to keep a RFID reader in his/her pocket for every exchange? Imagine people fishing around in their pockets for every last fraction of an ounce of gold powder to make the right amount... It would seem depositing gold in gold warehouses and exchanging paper vouchers would be the only sensible solution, though imagine the truckloads of gold going to and fro as these vouchers were redeemed! Not to mention the temptation toward robbery! This could become an expensive drain on commerce.

    More to the point, the advent of Bitcoin and similar modern private currencies blows every bit of Rothbard's gold/paper money theories clean out of the water. Bitcoin never had an intrinsic value that can be regressed to, nor is it hegemonically imposed. In fact, it is used in the face of monopoly laws against its existence and is most popular with the very Libertarians who Rothbard assumes will only accept currency that can regress to intrinsic value. The fact of the matter is that currency can be anything widely accepted in the marketplace, and in a free society, anything that is voluntarily and widely accepted. One finds Milton Friedman's analysis of money in the real world much more useful.

    On a related note, Rothbard attempts to torpedo fractional banking through deception: "It should be clear that this practice is outright fraud. Someone else's property is taken by the warehouse and used for its own money-making purposes. It is not borrowed, since no interest is paid for the use of the money." (p 802) In fact, where it is practiced, people are paid a fraction of the interest earned on the loans made with their deposits; nor is it fraud, the banks declaring to their customers that their deposits will in fact be loaned back out. Fraud requires misrepresentation at a loss, a point Rothbard is quite clear about elsewhere.

    Rothbard correctly and brilliantly tackles the "problem" of income inequality, redistribution of wealth, etc.: "In the free market process, therefore, there is no separation between production and 'distribution.' There is no heap somewhere on which 'products' are arbitrarily thrown and from which someone does or can arbitrarily 'distribute' them among various people. On the contrary, individuals produce goods and sell them to consumers for money, which they in turn spend on consumption or on investment in order to increase future consumption. There is no separate "distribution"; there is only production and its corollary, exchange." (p 477)

    While Rothbard's criticism of closed-shop unions is thorough and convincing, his criticism of open-shop unions rely on generalizations drawn from empirical data, not theory: "Empirically, on the other hand, almost all cases of effective unionism are imposed through coercion exercised by unions." (p 897) Rothbard (and the reader) would be better referred to Henry Hazlitt's more thoughtful and nuanced treatment of open-shop unions in Economics in one lesson.

    Rothbard's theory of price is often regarded as the center-piece of the work. Indeed, it is clear and penetrating. However, Rothbard makes one point unnecessarily muddy. In the beginning of the work, Rothbard shows that the price that clears the market is decided by the preferences of both consumer and producer. Yet later he keeps insisting that price is finally and unilaterally set by the consumer, as if I could insist Aston Martin sell me one of their new cars for a dollar, and then it would be up to them to downgrade the prices paid back to higher-order capital goods producers and other factors (labor, land) to meet my demand. In fact, the current cost structure of any seller will, most likely, factor into that seller's preferences and what price he/she is willing to sell or not sell. This leaves the matter where Rothbard first defined it, as a meeting of buyers and sellers, not consumers "dictating" as he later characterizes it.

    Rothbard claims that "No tax can be shifted forward." (p 1156) He gives all kinds of reasoning and shows that sales or excise taxes tend to shift production to untaxed lines of production and/or, in general, shift demand downward and thereby in any event reduce the prices charged not only by the final seller but all contributing factors, impacting specific factors most. Undoubtedly some of this occurs (consumers have only so much disposable income), however, empirically, his theory can be easily disproved. A glance at http://www.ibtimes.com/price-cigarett... shows how cigarette pack prices correlate very strongly with taxes on cigarettes, showing that cigarettes are not the same price (or even close!) in New York as in Kentucky. Rothbard could try to evade this through a "psychic benefit" argument, that a person is willing to pay more for cigarettes in Manhattan than Louisville, because of Manhattan's other benefits over and above Louisville's, but then how does he explain the price of cigarettes in New Jersey?!

    In the second included work, Power and Market, Rothbard reprises (or even verbatim restates) many sections of his preceding work. He does intermix some new material, and towards the end gives very thoughtful treatment of taxation and coercion specifically. In fact, he goes so far as to demand the abolition of all government and its replacement by privately contracted services, to include private defense services. David Friedman gave a much better discussion of private "justice" and defense in his The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Still, even Friedman was unable to overcome the most urgent objections to such a system of competing private "justice." If I contract a firm to provide me police and court services, and which therefore has its own law, it will clearly favor me over a person paying a competing firm. Therefore, regardless of the merits of any dispute, if I bring a person to my court who does not subscribe to it, my court must decide in my favor, or other customers would flee from it. If we take our case to both our courts, we can expect either A) a draw, or B) they might settle it amongst themselves in favor of which of us pays more, with the "losing" court being paid some of my (or his) extra subscription in compensation. Conceivably, in the case of draws, they can be sent to a separate appeals court that the defense firms hire, but again, the more well-funded customer ought to expect a favorable decision (as he could in a dispute within one company's jurisdiction). And the poor, unable to afford any defense contract at all, can expect to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc., with impunity. While Rothbard recognizes there is some risk that one or more armed agencies might just become violent, aggressive, de facto governments, he again dismisses it with more of a shrug than an argument.

    His treatment of patents it overall very good, but in reducing them to only copyright protection, while permitting "independent discovery," he obviously overlooks how easy it would be to fraudulently claim independent discovery and thereby go direct to mass production without any R&D costs, and how hard it would be to disprove such. While current patent laws are abominable and need significant reform, it is hard to see how someone who labors with his mind could secure his property as well as someone who works with his hands. In Rothbard's case, copyright is sufficient anyway as he is a writer, not an inventor of incredibly expensive new drugs, for instance.

    Rothbard rightly attacks the idea of a neutral tax (I accept from his arguments it would be impossible in practice), but he throws the baby out with the bath water in not bothering to at least avoid deliberately non-neutral taxes (likely because he opposes all government and taxation anyway). He dismisses a great deal of other goals because they are "conceptually impossible of fulfillment." (p 1297) One can easily conceive of a unicorn, but not a 10,000-sided figure; the first, nonetheless, is not real, while the latter is. Rothbard's non-governmental utopia has never been realized in history (especially when one considers informal governments still capable of coercion), while some form of coercion has always been with us. I cannot accept throwing out justice and defense without more solid convincing. Bastiat's The Law gives a more workable solution; while taxation itself may seem a violation, it perhaps really is a burden necessarily borne in light of reality.

    Even with its flaws, Rothbard's fundamental arguments on economics hold; his arguments against government need considerably more support and refinement. Read it!

  4. says:

    After 100 pages, we are still in what is usually called the introduction. Golly if this guy isn't thorough.

  5. says:

    The bottom line: A complete and well-developed discourse on Austrian economics.

    Murray N. Rothbard’s Man Economy and State is a sweeping presentation of Austrian economic theory. In fact, one could call this the “Bible” of Austrian economics given the books breadth, complexity, and no-stone-left-unturned philosophy.

    Rothbard essentially deduces the theory behind ... http://www.chesadaphal.com/man-econom...

  6. says:

    Murray Rothbard is fantastic!

    It is because of Murray Rothbard's passionate writing that I became a Libertarian. It is because of Rothbard's arguments that I became an anarchist. It is because of Rothbard's philosophy that I stayed one through out the years. Do not read this book unless you are prepared for the possibility of losing your faith in the State and becoming to an Anarchist.

  7. says:

    If you're only going to read one economics book in your lifetime, this is the one.

  8. says:

    Interesting Quotes:

    "Every individual...is constantly engaged in planning. This planning may range from an impressive investment in a new steel plant to a small boy's decision to spend two cents on candy, but it is planning nevertheless. It is erroneous, therefore, to assert that a free market society is 'unplanned'; on the contrary, each individual plans for himself."

    -Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State

    "[W]hile knowledge is a limit, capital is a narrower limit...[W]hile capital cannot engage in production beyond the limits of existing available knowledge, knowledge can and does exist without the capital necessary to put it to use...The relative unimportance of technology in production as compared to the supply of saved capital becomes evident...simply by looking at the 'backward' or 'underdeveloped' countries. What is lacking in these countries is not knowledge of Western technological methods...[but rather] the supply of saved capital needed to put the advanced methods into effect. The African peasant will gain little from looking at pictures of American tractors; what he lacks is the saved capital needed to purchase them."

    -Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State

    "Most current critics of patents direct their fire not at the patents themselves, but at alleged 'monopolistic abuses' in their use. They fail to realize that the patent itself is the monopoly and that, when someone is granted a monopoly privilege, it should occasion neither surprise nor indignation when he makes full use of it."

    -Murray Rothbard, Power and Market

    "[E]ven if we adopt an altruistic ethic, we must applaud maximization of monetary income...For market earnings are a social index of one's services to others, at least in the sense that any services are exchangeable. The greater a man's income, the greater has been his service to others. Indeed, it should be far easier for the altruist to applaud the maximization of a man's MONETARY income that that of his PSYCHIC income when this is in conflict with the former goal. Thus, the consistent altruist must condemn the refusal of a man to work at a job paying high wages and his preference for a lower-paying job somewhere else. This man, whatever his reason, is defying the signaled wishes of the consumers, his fellows in society...

    "If, then, a coal miner shifts to a more pleasant, but lower-paying job as a grocery clerk, the consistent altruist must castigate him for depriving his fellowman of needed benefits. For the consistent altruist must face the fact that MONETARY income on the market reflects services to others, whereas psychic income is a purely personal, or 'selfish,' gain...

    "Rather than scorn the pursuit of monetary gain, the consistent altruist should praise the pursuit of money on the market and condemn any conflicting nonmonetary goals a producer may have--whether it be dislike for certain work, enthusiasm for work that pays less, or a desire for leisure. Altrusists who criticize monetary aims on the market, therefore, are wrong ON THEIR OWN TERMS."

    (Caps are italics)

    -Murray Rothbard, Power and Market

    [Note for timeline: I finished reading Man Economy and State in early April, read several other books for a month or so, and then came back to read Power and Market. I didn't read this massive book in just a few days.]

  9. says:

    Starts somewhat slow. He really hammers on simple points and seems somewhat emotional about what should be a scientific topic.
    He also seems to spend a lot of time taking opposing viewpoints to their extreme in order to refute them as, therefore, nonsensical.

  10. says:

    «Such are the laws that praxeology presents to the human race. They are a binary set of consequences: the workings of the market principle and of the hegemonic principle. The former breeds harmony, freedom, prosperity, and order; the latter produces conflict, coercion, poverty, and chaos. Such are the consequences between which mankind must choose. In effect, it must choose between the “society of contract” and the “society of status.” At this point, the praxeologist as such retires from the scene; the citizen—the ethicist—must now choose according to the set of values or ethical principles he holds dear.»

    Assim termina uma leitura épica – Rothbard compila a sua análise praxeológica da economia em 1500 páginas. No início da leitura, aparentava ser uma cópia do Human Action de Mises, mas após as primeiras centenas de páginas a leitura adentra os avanços que Rothbard permitiu ao tema. Este tratado é economicamente superior ao de Mises – que terá sempre o incontornável mérito de ter sido o primeiro a estabelecer os fundamentos que serviram de base a este livro. É também mais detalhado e profundo.

    Rothbard atinge momentos de puro brilhantismo durante o livro, em destaque:
    1. Capítulo de monopólios - apresenta um avanço significativo no conceito bem como na análise económica de “preços monopolísticos” (avanço em relação à posição de Mises). Qualquer pessoa que interesse pelo tema económico dos monopólios não pode deixar de ler a perspectiva (que passarei a subscrever) de Rothbard no capítulo 10.
    2. Voluntarismo (ao longo de todo o livro) – apresentação do livre-mercado como acção humana de liberdade; e do estado como elemento coercivo e agressor mesmo que em ambiente democrático.

    Alguns momentos que achei incompletos ou por explorar:
    1. Em relação aos direitos de propriedade original sobre terrenos - com o objectivo de criar uma metáfora de propriedade, Rothbard compara os direitos de propriedade de uma terra sem dono (posteriormente misturada com o trabalho do proprietário) com a propriedade privada de um animal, dando o exemplo de uma vaca (que também seria propriedade de alguém devido à utilização da mesma em trabalho). É francamente insuficiente para justificar a origem da propriedade de terra. Sobre este tema quero-me aprofundar com o livro “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy” de Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
    2. A crítica ao sistema bancário de moeda fiduciária é toda ela válida, mas Rothbard diz que qualquer sistema de moeda fiduciária será fraudulento para com os clientes/utilizadores desse sistema bancário. Parece-me redutor: poder-se-ia dar o caso de todos os clientes de determinado banco ou dentro de determinada zona económica de trocas aceitarem moeda fiduciária como forma de troca. A moeda fiduciária, quando imposta por um banco central com monopólio monetário protegido pelo governo, é uma fraude mas no caso de todos os agentes serem utilizadores voluntários não o será. Dou o exemplo do Bitcoins que é uma criação voluntária do mercado e é moeda fiduciária.
    3. Incompleto na abordagem ao tema da Propriedade Intelectual, que parece evitar...

    Recomendo para os que já são proficientes na leitura liberal/libertária. Para os que agora começaram será ainda pesado e intangível. Em conclusão é um livro brilhante!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market characters Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market , audiobook Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market , files book Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market , today Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market , Man, Economy, and State / Power and Market 75a4e Man, Economy, And State Entrepreneurship And The Human Action Podcast With Jeff Deist Continues Tracking Rothbard S Man, Economy, And State, This Time Focusing On The Role Of Entrepreneurs In The Production Process Hunter Hastings Joins The Show With Great Insights Into The Social Benefits Of Profit Vs Interest, Entrepreneurial Risk, Progressing And Retrogressing Economies, And The Bunkum Known As The Paradox Of Saving Man, Economy, And State Interest Rates Mises Kristoffer Hansen Joins The Show To Discuss Everything About Interest Rates, As Detailed By Rothbard In Chapterof Man, Economy, And State Hansen And Jeff Deist Cover The Pure Rate Of Interest, Expressed Via Time Preference, And Why The Temporal Nature Of Production Helps Us Understand The Premium For Present Goods Relative To Future Goods Far From Exploiting Workers Or Borrowers, Capitalists Actually Advance Money Man, Economy, And State By Murray N Rothbard Man, Economy, And State Epitomizes And Depicts The True Essence Of The Austrian School Of Economics Murray Rothbard Successfully Accumulates Comprehensively Through And Through The Key Fundamentals In The Methodological Individualist Approach To Economics Established By The Study Of Praxeology Popular Videos Man, Economy, And State Man, Economy, And State Chapter One The Fundamentals Of Human Action Rothbard Book Group By Derrick Horton Man, Economy And State Further Implications Ends And Values By RicardoMan, Economy And State With Jeff Deist Mises Today S Solo Show Kicks Off Our Reading Of Rothbard S Landmark Man, Economy, And State With A Look At Chapter , Fundamentals Of Human ActionSo Much Of What Economics Texts Get Wrong Is Laid Out Brilliantly Here By Rothbard, Who Gives Readers The Basics Of Action, Means Ends, Time, Ranking, Factors Of Production, And Capital In Thispage Master Class Man, Economy, And State With Power And Market Man, Economy, And State AND TO Libertarians Of The Past, Who Blazed The Trail And To Libertarians Of The Future, Who Shall Overcome Power And Market The Ludwig Von Mises Institute Dedicates This Volume To All Of Its Generous Donors And Wishes To Thank These Patrons, In Particular George W Connell Andreas Acavalos, Mr And Mrs David Baumgardner, Richard Bleiberg, John Hamilton BolstadMan Economy YouTube Man Economy Videos Full List Playlist This Item Has Been Hidden Man Economy Recommends Maneconomy Interviews Channel Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe Black Pigeon Speaks ChannelMan, Economy, And State, With Power And Market Man, Economy, And State Is Murray Rothbard S Main Work In Economic Theory It Appeared In , When Murray Was Onlyyears Old In It Murray Develops The Entire Body Of Economic Theory, In A Step By Step Fashion, Beginning With Incontestable Axioms And Proceeding To The Most Intricate Problems Of Business Cycle Theory And Fundamental Breakthroughs In Monopoly Theory And Along The Way He Presents A Why You Should Read Man, Economy, And State Rothbard Scholar Patrick Newman Joins Jeff Deist To Kick Off A Series Of Shows Featuring Rothbard S Landmark Treatise Man, Economy, And State They Discuss The History And Background Behind This Important Book, How It Changed The Landscape, And Why The Concluding Chapters Titled Power And Market Proved So Controversial At The Time And Remain So Today Dr Newman Calls Rothbard S Opus

About the Author: Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Newton Rothbard was an influential American historian, natural law theorist and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism Rothbard took the Austrian School s emphasis on spontaneous order and condemnation of central planning to an individualist anarchist conclusion, which he termed anarcho capitalism.