1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11592/new-recording-of-mises-this-is-fantastic/

New Recording of Mises (this is fantastic)

February 2, 2010 by

Bettina Bien-Greaves has given the Mises Institute a treasure trove of items from Mises’s own personal belongings that had been handed on to her, among which was a long-playing record, recorded as radio broadcast made during intermission of the U.S. Steel Concert Hour, May 17, 1962.

Chad Parish converted it to MP3 just this morning, giving us what is, by far, the best recording of his voice that we have. Here is a very bright and learned Mises responding to the question: “Are the interests of the American wage earners in conflict with those of their employers, or are the two in agreement?”

The transcript is here.

The quality is incredible.


Bruce Koerber February 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Avoid discussing what I said about your stance as long as you can and then maybe you can avoid making your stance clear to everyone.

If that is not your strategy then you will make yourself clear.

Bruce Koerber February 4, 2010 at 2:20 pm

“Bruce, viewing the market as achieving something optimal is a distinctly non-Austrian view!”

I see no evidence.

mpolzkill February 4, 2010 at 2:24 pm

There I go again, assuming I can speak to the author of “Economics for Real People” about the market in a short hand way. You are calling for religious leaders to take over the means of production? Are you having a laugh? There are only two systems of production, market or command (or a lousy mix, like we have), that is what I was referring to. I don’t know why you now provide half-assed aid and comfort for the advocates and masters of command, and I’m beginning to not care.

Gene Callahan February 4, 2010 at 2:43 pm

Bruce, what have I not made clear?

Bruce Koerber February 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm

“Bruce, what have I not made clear?”

Why do you think that taking a snapshot of the market economy at some fixed point in time when humanity has relatively numerous moral afflictions is a valid starting point for you to use as evidence to support your criticism of the market economy?

frank February 4, 2010 at 6:25 pm

“But let’s take something like some really disgusting, degrading porn (but between adults) — you imagine your own variety, so I don’t ned to describe it! — it’s not illegal, it was never promoted by the CIA, was never the target of “the War on Porn.”

Now, is someone promoting that on the Internet serving his customers, or pandering to them?”

I actually spent most of that post answering your question – the comment on heroin was an afterthought at the end.

Yes I agree, porn is not a result of direct government intervention. Do you not think hard money will reduce the amount of it produced though? Less degrading porn is better and I think hard money will accomplish this, for a book-length of reasons.

Is such a provider serving or pandering? I don’t really see a difference – if someone earns enough to feed himself and his family and pay his rent and wants to spend the rest of his money on degrading porn, who am I to judge? What exactly is your problem with it?

My own main problem with it is that people – especially the young – otherwise unable to get jobs act in them for quick money and it has a massive cost to them. This is pretty awful. But an economy and education system that is also “free” would in my reckoning lengthen people’s time preference, and so provide more opportunities for work and less demand for porn, reducing, though certainly not eliminating, this degrading porn.

Bruce Koerber February 5, 2010 at 11:46 am

Where’d he go?

Bruce Koerber February 6, 2010 at 9:48 am

In the final analysis: Listening to Mises is a special treat because he was a very great man. During the interview he made numerous points that appear subtle but which have deep implications and are worthy of thoughtful contemplation.

Also, Gene Callahan made an erroneous statement and faded away when challenged at the theoretical level. When the ‘Austrians’ who became Keynesians left the theoretical grounding built upon the tradition of classical liberalism they deluded themselves and became ego-driven interpreters and eventually, to various degrees, became ego-driven interventionists. Gene Callahan has succumbed to his ego or else he would either 1). clearly lay out the theoretical basis for his statement that appears to have distorted the statement by Mises or 2). admit his error and show some evidence that his ego can be subdued thus preventing him from deluding himself into thinking that his interpretation has a scientific basis.

Bill J February 11, 2010 at 8:57 am

I think Gene’s point is bigger than economics, and can’t be discussed within the confines of economics. That’s what you all don’t seem to understand, which earlier Austrians and classical economists implicitly understood and did not need to spell out.

Economics is not the end-all and be-all of life, of society, of human existence and social organization. The political element of society, which has always existed, has all but been abolished in the modern American-dominated world. No power any longer exists that can resist or counter the corporation, which was barely founded 150 years ago, by the state. Anything which stands in it ways will be crushed, until the American cultural-abortion and outgrowth of the West plays itself out in stunning depravity over the coming centuries.

Some of you are old and ideologically shallow and congealed. Others will ‘get it’ as they learn and grow and expand their horizons, but I’m not gonna argue about it. You either see the bigger picture or you don’t.

mpolzkill February 11, 2010 at 9:32 am


I understood this perfectly well, that’s why I asked Callahan if he was advocating certain government policies or just giving a sermon. To be more clear, I wasn’t denigrating sermons, per se, just laughing at the idea of Callahan giving one. People are a reflection of those they admire. We are seeing the results when millions think more of Brittany Spears or Tiger Woods than they do of Gautama or Lao Tzu or Jesus of Nazareth or Aristotle or whichever actual philosopher.

Mises, btw, did spell out how economics isn’t everything, it is Callahan who seems to have been trying to reduce *him*. But Callahan *is* a slippery character…who knows?

Also, I would urge you to read Albert Nock’s “Our Enemy the State” and learn Nock’s formulation of “Social Power” vs. “Political Power” so that you may avoid the confusion of saying: “The political element of society…has all but been abolished…No power any longer exists that can resist or counter the corporation…which was…founded…by the state.”

Bill J February 11, 2010 at 4:36 pm


a better read about be “the state” by oppenheimer. he discusses in some detail the different ways the topic you’re refering to has been worded over time and place. that distinction isn’t really what i was getting at, though.

mpolzkill February 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm

Bill J,

You were getting at “Democracy”? Is that what’s been abolished?

newson February 11, 2010 at 6:30 pm

michael douglas fortunately cured himself of his sex addiction. expensive therapy bought at market prices.

so far no one has been able to cure my addiction to brittany spears. clear case of market failure.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: