1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7410/gg-on-capital/

GG on Capital

November 7, 2007 by

Sorry to revisit the same topic so shortly, but in that same AA edition cited in my previous post, I simply cannot praise Garrett’s piece, entitled ‘Mythologies of Reconversion’, enough.

This is not just a witheringly effective dismissal of the central planner’s and inflationist’s folies de grandeur, but one of the most evocative treatments you could wish for of what that much-misunderstood word ‘capital’ really means. He also paints a vivid picture of how stupefyingly complex are the interrelations of the modern economy and emphasises that only the individual entrepreneur, acting to secure himself an honest profit can therefore contribute to its functioning.

When you read it – as I urge you should – bear in mind that when our sage talks about the tremendous waste involved in beating swords back into ploughshares and of how exquisitely tooled pieces of equipment may become absolutely useless once long-suppressed consumer preferences are allowed to reassert themsleves, he is not just talking here of the particular circumstances of 1945, but of the painful aftermath of every mass folly of intervention-driven malinvestment.

Truly spectacular!

{ 8 comments }

jeffrey November 7, 2007 at 3:26 pm

I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to hear you say this. With this journal, I think we have an amazing and historic find. I’ve never seen so many great articles — that went down the memory hole. And let me tell: this is just the beginning. It is vast and vast and vast.

There is a slight problem though. We have volumes 7-12 but not 1-6. I’m fairly at a loss on this.

In any case, Sean, I’m just so happy that you have taken notice of this journal and see its importance. I feel like we are sitting on a gold mine here.

Robert November 8, 2007 at 5:15 am

There is the little matter that Austrian business cycle theory is mistaken:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024311

eric lansing November 8, 2007 at 9:31 am

hi robert… read some of these – it will clear things up for you a little.

http://mises.org/daily/x?AuthorId=115

Robert November 8, 2007 at 11:29 am

I consider Mr. Lansing’s response non-substantial.

Anthony November 8, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Like your own? Nothing new there.

eric lansing November 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

you read all those articles already?!

or did you read even one of them??

there is a guy who comes on here named Mike Sproul and he argues the Real Bills doctrine. I find his arguments interesting and impressive.

your paper, however was unimpressive at best.

as above, please review the Shostak articles. They make your thesis indefensible.

eric lansing November 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

you read all those articles already?!

or did you read even one of them??

there is a guy who comes on here named Mike Sproul and he argues the Real Bills doctrine. I find his arguments interesting and impressive.

your paper, however was unimpressive at best.

as above, please review the Shostak articles. They make your thesis indefensible.

Robert November 8, 2007 at 8:24 pm

The paper at this URL presents an argument:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024311
Despite the impression Anthony’s comment might give the unwary, that paper has received exactly zero substantial comments.

Eric Lansing writes:
“Your paper, however was unimpressive at best.”
I don’t know why I should care about Mr. Lansing’s feelings. It is clear that 99% of the Frank Shostak texts Mr. Lansing refers us to are not on-topic for me. If Mr. Lansing wanted to say something, anything, of substance, he would point something out that Frank Shostak says that is relevant.

I’ll even go further. Among others, I have read Menger, Bohm Bawerk, Wicksteed, Mises, Hayek, Lachmann, Kirzner, O’Driscoll, Yeager, and Garrison. If I understand these authors, I doubt that there is anything Frank Shostak writes that “will clear things up for [me] a little.” If the paper at the above URL embodies some confusion about what these authors say, it would be up to Mr. Lansing to point out where that confusion is manifested. Of course, he is free to continue to say nothing substantial at all.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: