1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10268/revisiting-misess-interventionism/

Revisiting Mises’s Interventionism

July 13, 2009 by

I turn your attention to one of the shortest of Mises’s works: Interventionism: An Economic Analysis. At 93 pages, it can be read in an evening. Mises offers solid evaluations and critiques of different types of interventionism, offering lessons that are very valuable today. FULL ARTICLE


Mac July 13, 2009 at 10:44 am

Mises is a master at taking things step-by-step. He is very meticulous in building up his arguments.

I say this because whenever I have tried taking notes of the steps by which he arrives at his conclusion, I end up highlighting nearly everything. And he examines the objections to his conclusions from different points of views. Keeping all this knowledge in your head as you go forward is very demanding, but if you could do it, you’d be like Mises, wouldn’t you?

Anyways, that’s my feeling on why his lesson doesn’t get absorbed so easily.


Inquisitor July 13, 2009 at 11:00 am

I agree with what Mac said. He does this especially in HA. Very careful, panoramic, lucid thinker.

Ryan July 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Hi Dr. Carden,

In what ways does this short book differ from Mises’ earlier book A Critique of Interventionism? Are they more or less the same?

I read A Critique of Interventionism about a year ago and thought it a fabulous exposition on the damaging affects of government intervention in the market economy.

Anonymous July 14, 2009 at 12:46 am

I occasionally skim the daily articles that are posted on this website, and this one is useful. Although I doubt that very much of it will happen anytime soon, I hope to read more from Ludwig Mises than I already have. This sort of article would help me decide which documents to read.

In the last year or so, I’ve been perplexed to find that some very fervent “devotees” of the 2009 Austrian Economics movement have read even less from Ludwig Mises than I have, which is not very much at all compared to some of the people officially associated with the Mises Institute. Some of these “devotees” tell me much more about the ideas that aren’t “Austrian Economics” than about the ideas that are. And, I tend not to be thrilled with what they say about the ideas that aren’t.

It seems this article is probably intended to provoke guys like me into actually reading something by Mises, and I hope it works. As someone who is often unfair and negative, I am a hypocrite when I say that I usually am not all that much inspired by the articles from Austrianism-associated websites that seem intended to turn people against something, or to arm people with a response to or explanation for something.

I use the terms “AE community” and “AE movement” very broadly. The way that I use them includes almost exclusively non-academics. The tiny minority of the “AE community” (as I use that term) that works for universities tends to be much more interesting, IMO, than the overwhelming majority that is outside academia. I guess that is why, as a younger person who has read and sometimes agreed with Hayek and Mises, I am more interested in trying to understand the textbooks and journals than the blogs.

I believe that serious students of economics should devote some time to reading old writings in their original wording. I’ve seen professors recommend reading Smith, Edgeworth, Walras, Mill, Marshall, Ricardo, Keynes, and others. Adding Mises and Hayek to the list would be good. Mises is, after all, an originator of a widely accepted, now mainstream theory regarding socialism.

Part of what makes Mises so interesting to read is that he was thoughtful about so many subject areas, and could write about them together. Such as:
-libertarian thought
-conservative thought

Although I am definitely not hoping people “convert” to the state of “being an Austrian”, I am hoping that people interested in all the subjects above, inside and outside academia, “convert” to the state of “being a person who actually reads Mises and Hayek”. I think that distinction is very important to make.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: