Murray Rothbard tells us that his gigantic, two-volume work was first envisioned as a “standard Smith-to-the-present moderately sized book, a sort of contra-[Robert] Heilbroner” (p. xv). When we see what has emerged from that plan, a parallel at once springs to mind: Cervantes began Don Quixote as a short story, but he gradually expanded it into one of the great books of the world. Likewise, this “moderately sized book” has become one of the great intellectual enterprises of our age. Indeed, the following review discusses only the first volume.
For Rothbard, the history of economics has an unusually broad scope. To him it includes not only economic theory, but virtually all of intellectual history as well. As he often did in conversation, Murray Rothbard here advances definite and well-thought-out interpretations of major historical controversies. FULL ARTICLE
{ 9 comments }
Interesting. I just finished The Essential Rothbard last night, this review is almost word to word with a section in the chapter on Rothbard’s economic history.
Two literary birds with one pen.
Coury Ditch,
David Gordon wrote that book. This is probably an edited excerpt.
I included material from my reviews and articles in the book.
“Eh? How can there possibly be a ratio of ‘builder’ to ‘shoemaker’?”
I don’t understand Rothbard’s (rhetorical) question. Is the problem the singularity of the nouns? (Surely it’s not problematic to talk about the ratio of builders to shoemakers.)
To Philip–yes; Rothbard takes Aristotle to mean that there is an intrinsic value of the activity of the builder and of the shoemaker and that the ratio of these values should determine the rate of exchange between them. Rothbard doesn’t think this makes sense.
In the preface to “Theory and History”, Rothbard states that Mises had “four towering masterpieces”:
1. The Theory of Money and Credit
2. Socialism
3. Human Action
4. Theory and History
I believe Rothbard also has “four towering masterpieces”:
1. Man, Economy, and State
2. The Ethics of Liberty
3. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought
4. The Mystery of Banking
I didn’t buy it when it first came out because I was too cheap and thought it would have to come down in price from that death-zone elevation in short order. Well, I waited and waited and when I could wait no longer I bit the bullet, cursed, and coughed up the asking price. Now look at it. The entire set for less than a quarter of what I paid! Do I feel cheated? Not in the least! Vol. I alone was and is worth twice what I paid. It reads like an historical novel. I couldn’t put it down. I don’t think I ever breezed through a book on economics like I did Vol. I. Thanks MR.
This riveting set was one of my first purchases at the mises.org store.
I agree with Rothbard’s assessment of those works of Mises. But there’s another which, I believe, deserves mention because of its simple, all-encompassing treatment of its subject matter: BUREAUCRACY.
BUREAUCRACY is unlike others of Mises’ works in that it is virtually self-contained, short, pithy, readable, and understandable by a wide audience. I believe it makes a more or less ideal introduction to Mises’ economic thought, despite the fact that it is not, primarily, on what is normally thought an “economic” topic. Moreover, it deals with an institution of almost universal misapprobation; there may be no better way to snare the unwary reader into learning a bit more about economics. There’s even a chance that, as a paperback, it might become a “best-seller.”
Comments on this entry are closed.