1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10381/britain-looks-to-the-continent/

Britain looks to the Continent

July 31, 2009 by

This should intrigue historians of thought: the Adam Smith Institute celebrates the Austrians for being right about boom-bust.

{ 10 comments }

Bruce Koerber July 31, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Will the British youth look to the youth of the ‘Continent?’

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=22841

Gordon Stewart August 1, 2009 at 4:25 am

Sadly no the British youth are too obsessed with their next dole check, and the UK is firmly in the grasp of Brown and is crew of Marxists, who are “quantitive easing” as we speak

Vanmind August 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Uh, Bruce, “The Continent” as used in the Adam Smith Institute article refers to Europe, not North America. The link you provided has at best only a tangential relevance to the blog post.

Bruce Koerber August 1, 2009 at 9:49 pm

Vanmind,

Peter Schiff, who is the only one quoted, is from the ‘Continent’ else why quote him. It is an odd way of referring to America but explain why only Peter Schiff is quoted.

If youth (British or elsewhwere) do indeed look to the Austrians for great insight, for instance like Peter Schiff, they can find peers in the Young Americans For Liberty.

P.M.Lawrence August 2, 2009 at 1:40 am

No, Bruce, the only way it makes sense is from Austria being part of the continent. Schiff has an Austrian connection here, not a US one. That is, he’s typical of the former, not the latter.

Arend August 2, 2009 at 5:43 am

I don’t it’s that intriguing at all. Adam Smith is mostly considered as a laissez-faire economists. Even in circles that hail the man and/or name their organized intellectual circles after him.

Time for some cognitive dissonance literature: http://mises.org/resources/2691

Current August 2, 2009 at 9:21 am

“Time for some cognitive dissonance literature: http://mises.org/resources/2691

See:
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2008/08/once-more-on-murray-rothbard-and-his.html

And other pages on Rothbard on that blog.

Rothbard was correct that Adam Smith wasn’t a supporter of anarchy. Neither was Mises. However Rothbard was wrong about a good deal else concerning Smith.

Note that the ASI don’t support all Smith’s idea just because they are named after him. They certainly don’t support the labour theory of value.

Current August 2, 2009 at 9:21 am

“Time for some cognitive dissonance literature: http://mises.org/resources/2691

See:
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2008/08/once-more-on-murray-rothbard-and-his.html

And other pages on Rothbard on that blog.

Rothbard was correct that Adam Smith wasn’t a supporter of anarchy. Neither was Mises. However he was wrong about a good deal else.

Note that the ASI don’t support all Smith’s idea just because they are named after him. They certainly don’t support the labour theory of value.

Arend August 2, 2009 at 1:47 pm

@ Current: will check out the link you provided. Thanks for that.

Mises wasn’t an anarcho-capitalist but was a laissez-faire economist as far as one can go without being an anarcho-capitalist. Smith was neither by a long shot. This fact of course doesn’t say anything about the soundness of Mises and Smith respective economics per se.

If ASI doesn’t support the labour theory of value it rejects one of the cornerstones of Smithian economics. This of course is no big deal when the labour theory of value constitutes bad economics, which I think we can all agree it does. But, theories like the labour theory of value among others don’t constitute sound economics and imply (not strictly in a logical sense though in bad political ideological sense) interventionist government schemes and even ‘great inventions’ like socialism.

Anyhow, my point in saying that “Adam Smith is mostly considered as a laissez-faire economist. Even in circles that hail the man and/or name their organized intellectual circles after him.”, was that people can be minarchists or anarcho-capitalists and maybe even austro-libertarians of the minarchist or anarcho kind and still hail Adam Smith and/or are member of an institutional intellectual group named after the man. It’s not that intriguing to me that this is part of reality. On the other hand, these facts of reality are based on a false (mythical) picture of Adam Smith political economy, whether these members of e.g. ASI are conscience of these facts or not. If so, it still is true that Adam Smith’s name is a good marketing name for such an intellectual group. However, it’s based on a wrong perception of history that hasn’t taken Rothbard’s (among others) revisionist history into account. Rothbard will probably not be accurate on everything regarding Smith. (The book which the chapter I linked to above was published posthumously, in my humble opinion some parts of the books are largely informal in use of language or at least treat some of the ‘great’ economists – at least in the minds of the mainstream – maybe somewhat harsh – which doesn’t mean per se that Rothbard is wrong there.)
However, I do think Rothbard is right on the main subjects and the fundamentals of Smith’s political economy which pretty much could make one think that some group like the ASI listening to continental schools of thought is intriguing. My point is that it’s not.

Bruce Koerber August 2, 2009 at 8:36 pm

The blog title laid the groundwork for the comments. The article spoke of the Austrian tradition and chose Peter Schiff as a modern voice. Connecting the two was a little awkward which is why I put it in quotes but the main point for me was to further connect youth – wherever they reside – to the liberty movement and their peers.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: