WEBVTT

NOTE Rothbard on Socialism in the U.S. and in the Soviet Union

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.000
I wanted to, before I get started, I wanted to thank Professor Holtzman for having, giving me this opportunity.

2
00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:15.000
I have never been to the facility down here and it's just absolutely mind-boggling to me and I don't know if Lew was in here,

3
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:24.000
but he deserves all gratitude by the Austrians because this is amazing, sort of awestruck in a lot of ways.

4
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:34.000
I also want to thank the Mises Institute for bringing out Man Economy and State again in this new edition, which I think is a real moment of celebration for all of us.

5
00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:42.000
My paper today is on Rothbard on socialism and theory and practice.

6
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:51.000
If anyone wants a copy of it, which I hope you will, this is my email address. Just email me and I'll send you an attachment.

7
00:00:51.000 --> 00:00:53.600
It's an amazing thing, what's happened in the world right now.

8
00:00:53.600 --> 00:00:56.400
I don't have to carry the papers with me, I just send them to you.

9
00:00:56.400 --> 00:00:59.000
So anyway, that's my email address.

10
00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:08.000
You'll let me know when I'm talking too long, right?

11
00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:09.000
Yeah, okay.

12
00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:16.000
All right, what's my basic thesis of this paper?

13
00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:38.000
The basic thesis of this paper is that Rothbard anticipated all, and I should underline, all the major subsequent developments in Austrian analysis of the problems of socialism and the developments in the field of comparative political economy for the examination of real existing socialism in the USSR.

14
00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:45.000
Basically, if it's not in Rothbard, it wasn't worth developing.

15
00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:52.000
And that's kind of an interesting conclusion for me because I haven't always returned back to this book.

16
00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:58.000
But when reading this, I realized how much of his analysis actually anticipated everything.

17
00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:00.000
And I'll emphasize this at the end of my talk.

18
00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:07.000
But what you also have to realize is that he wrote this primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, early 1960s, right?

19
00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:21.000
1962 is the publication date, and none of the criticisms that he anticipates yet that we identify, those of us who read Sovietology, that we would identify, were ever penned at that time.

20
00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:35.000
So he got there first. It's a very sort of humbling experience. What do I mean by getting him there first? In theory, for example, Rothbard, well before any of the other re-interpreters of the Socialist Calculation Debate,

21
00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:41.400
reinterpret the socialist calculation debate to argue that the Austrians actually won, not lost.

22
00:02:41.400 --> 00:02:53.640
It's hard for us nowadays to remember, but the standard view in the 1970s, 1980s, was that the Austrians, you know, had this debate.

23
00:02:53.640 --> 00:03:00.240
They lost the debate, theoretical debate, and that's sort of it.

24
00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:09.940
You know, Langa defeated that. In fact, the argument, as I'll quote later on, is that Enrico Barone defeated Mises before Mises ever wrote.

25
00:03:09.940 --> 00:03:18.320
That's sort of the standard line that was promoted in the 1950s and held basically through the 1970s to the mid-1980s.

26
00:03:18.320 --> 00:03:24.240
Rothbard already anticipates the argument that Lavoie makes in 1985.

27
00:03:24.240 --> 00:03:28.320
But not only that, he has a whole analysis of the property rights system under socialism,

28
00:03:28.320 --> 00:03:33.420
and Real Existing Property Rights System, and why the idea of collective property is incoherent,

29
00:03:33.420 --> 00:03:40.020
which later becomes an argument that Yoram Barzell and other property rights economists promote it

30
00:03:40.020 --> 00:03:44.520
in the development of property rights economics following on Armin Altschin and Harold Demsets.

31
00:03:44.520 --> 00:03:52.420
But Rothbard actually has that in 1962, a decade to two decades before Barzell ever thinks about it.

32
00:03:52.420 --> 00:04:01.700
The second thing is, is in practice, Rothbard challenges the very idea that the Soviet economy is planned, all right.

33
00:04:01.700 --> 00:04:09.460
This becomes a sort of a major idea that Paul Craig Roberts develops in the 1970s and is later developed by other Sovietologists,

34
00:04:09.460 --> 00:04:13.860
so that we started talking about the administered economy rather than the planned economy.

35
00:04:13.860 --> 00:04:21.380
But Rothbard has the whole nature of the polycentric nature of planning down in practice and the idea of a special interest nature

36
00:04:21.380 --> 00:04:33.380
of Political Economy and Socialism. I should also put in here, he has the argument why the growth rates don't capture the essence of a Soviet economy.

37
00:04:33.380 --> 00:04:44.380
All right, so what do I go to sort of make my argument? I go through the textual evidence. On a side note, when I saw that this opportunity had come available,

38
00:04:44.380 --> 00:04:51.380
I wrote right away about this because I have, to whatever extent I've had any influence in this field,

39
00:04:51.380 --> 00:04:57.880
it's because I happen to be the person that is, Michael Ellerman, who's a leading Sovietologist,

40
00:04:57.880 --> 00:05:02.380
teaches at Cambridge one time, told me at a conference in Warsaw, he says,

41
00:05:02.380 --> 00:05:07.380
he says, I have to teach my students every semester why you're wrong, you know,

42
00:05:07.380 --> 00:05:11.880
it's me and Paul Craig Roberts because we challenge this idea of the socialist economy

43
00:05:11.880 --> 00:05:18.880
This is a rationally planned economy that instead there's all kinds of markets that are existing in this system.

44
00:05:18.880 --> 00:05:22.880
It's to anticipate what Rothbard said, it's a centrally prohibited economy.

45
00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:26.880
It's a prohibition economy like Mark Thornton's work.

46
00:05:26.880 --> 00:05:32.880
And this is the challenge to the idea of a top-down ideal planning system.

47
00:05:32.880 --> 00:05:35.880
And I knew Rothbard had this idea in here in his idea.

48
00:05:35.880 --> 00:05:40.880
He says, the extent of socialism, quoting from Man Economy and State, page 830, 831.

49
00:05:40.880 --> 00:05:49.880
The extent of socialism in the present-day world is at the same time underestimated in countries such as the United States and overestimated in Soviet Russia.

50
00:05:49.880 --> 00:05:56.880
It is underestimated because the expansion of government lending to private enterprises in the United States has generally been neglected.

51
00:05:56.880 --> 00:06:01.880
And we have seen that the lender, regardless of his legal status, is also an entrepreneur and part owner.

52
00:06:01.880 --> 00:06:06.880
The extent of socialism is overestimated because most writers ignore the fact that Russia,

53
00:06:06.880 --> 00:06:15.880
that Russia, socialist as she is, cannot have full socialism as long as she can still refer to the relatively free markets existing in other parts of the world.

54
00:06:15.880 --> 00:06:34.880
In short, a single socialist country or block of countries, while inevitably experience enormous difficulties in waste and planning, can still buy and sell and refer to the world market and can therefore at least vaguely approximate some sort of rational pricing of producer goods by extrapolating from the market.

55
00:06:34.880 --> 00:06:43.880
The well-known ways and errors of this partial socialist planning are negligible compared to what would be experienced under total calculational chaos of the world socialist state.

56
00:06:43.880 --> 00:06:56.880
So I understood that that argument was a very strong argument in my own perspective about thinking, but I didn't realize how much Rothbard's writings on this issue had affected me.

57
00:06:56.880 --> 00:07:10.880
What did you call it, a virus? So I had this Rothbardian virus in me for ten years, like, that I didn't know about, that now I, you know, I took the blood test and I find out that I have it.

58
00:07:10.880 --> 00:07:18.880
And the first one is the development of the theoretical argument. The development of the theoretical argument, I think actually Joe and I should talk about this,

59
00:07:18.880 --> 00:07:27.880
I don't want to talk about this, but I actually think that Rothbard resolves the dispute between the calculation and knowledge debate before anyone ever engaged in it.

60
00:07:27.880 --> 00:07:38.880
Of course, the crucial issue is economic calculation, but the question is that the knowledge surrogates or inputs are not available to engage in the calculation.

61
00:07:38.880 --> 00:07:45.120
He develops this in the context of the theory of the firm and the limitations.

62
00:07:45.120 --> 00:07:51.320
He argues what happens if you try to vertically integrate a firm.

63
00:07:51.320 --> 00:07:56.940
This is where he develops the theory of why socialist calculation comes to a problem.

64
00:07:56.940 --> 00:07:59.560
He says this is on page 547.

65
00:07:59.560 --> 00:08:04.800
In that case, it would have no way of knowing which stage was being conducted properly and

66
00:08:04.800 --> 00:08:05.800
which not.

67
00:08:05.800 --> 00:08:11.000
This is when it can't refer to external markets, external pricing system, right?

68
00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:16.240
It would therefore have no way of knowing how to allocate factors to the various stages.

69
00:08:16.240 --> 00:08:21.400
There would be no way for it to estimate any implicit price or opportunity cost for the

70
00:08:21.400 --> 00:08:23.760
capital goods at that particular stage.

71
00:08:23.760 --> 00:08:27.760
Any estimate would be completely arbitrary and have no meaningful relation to economic

72
00:08:27.760 --> 00:08:28.760
conditions.

73
00:08:28.760 --> 00:08:29.760
All right?

74
00:08:29.760 --> 00:08:32.960
So the reason why we can't calculate is because we don't have knowledge.

75
00:08:32.960 --> 00:08:33.960
Okay?

76
00:08:33.960 --> 00:08:38.960
Why don't we have the knowledge? Because we don't have private property rights in those markets.

77
00:08:38.960 --> 00:08:46.960
No markets exist because there's no private property rights in those goods.

78
00:08:46.960 --> 00:08:54.960
549, just to anticipate. This is a lengthy quote. I apologize for lengthening this quote, but I think it's important,

79
00:08:54.960 --> 00:09:02.960
because he nails exactly the point that, to whatever extent, it's a good point that Vaughan, Morrell or LeVoy later make.

80
00:09:02.960 --> 00:09:09.480
He says, a curious legend has become quite popular among writers on the socialist side of the debate over economic calculation.

81
00:09:09.480 --> 00:09:18.240
This runs as follows. Mises, in his original article, asserted theoretically that there could be no economic calculation under socialism.

82
00:09:18.240 --> 00:09:22.760
Baroni proved mathematically that this is false and that calculation is possible.

83
00:09:22.760 --> 00:09:29.200
Hayek and Robbins conceded the validity of this proof, but then asserted that calculation would not be practical.

84
00:09:29.200 --> 00:09:42.400
The inference is that the argument of Mises had been disposed of and that all socialism needs is a few practical devices, perhaps calculating machines or economic advisers to permit calculation and the counting of equations.

85
00:09:42.400 --> 00:09:48.320
Rothbard characteristically points out, this legend is almost completely wrong from the start.

86
00:09:48.320 --> 00:09:50.080
Let me reread that, right?

87
00:09:50.080 --> 00:09:55.680
This legend that Hayek had made this concession is almost completely wrong from the start.

88
00:09:55.680 --> 00:09:59.560
In the first place, the dichotomy between theoretical and practical is a false one.

89
00:09:59.560 --> 00:10:02.960
In economics, all arguments are theoretical.

90
00:10:02.960 --> 00:10:05.640
And since economics discusses the real world,

91
00:10:05.640 --> 00:10:09.360
these theoretical arguments are by their nature practical ones as well.

92
00:10:09.360 --> 00:10:14.840
The false dichotomy disposed of, the true nature of Baroni's proof becomes apparent.

93
00:10:14.840 --> 00:10:16.720
I said something that a little Jaeger thing here.

94
00:10:16.720 --> 00:10:19.440
Proof becomes apparent.

95
00:10:19.440 --> 00:10:23.320
It is not so much theoretical as irrelevant.

96
00:10:23.320 --> 00:10:27.480
The proof by listing of mathematical equations is no proof at all.

97
00:10:27.480 --> 00:10:30.920
It applies at best only to the evenly rotating economy.

98
00:10:30.920 --> 00:10:34.120
Obviously, our whole discussion of the calculation of problem

99
00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:37.720
applies to the real world and into it only.

100
00:10:37.720 --> 00:10:40.560
There can be no calculation problem in the ERE

101
00:10:40.560 --> 00:10:43.920
because no calculation there is necessary.

102
00:10:43.920 --> 00:10:46.360
Obviously, there is no need to calculate profits and losses

103
00:10:46.360 --> 00:10:48.800
where all future data are known from the beginning

104
00:10:48.800 --> 00:10:51.800
and where there are no profits and losses.

105
00:10:51.800 --> 00:10:55.280
In the ERE, the best allocation of resources proceeds automatically.

106
00:10:55.280 --> 00:11:00.760
For Barone to demonstrate that the calculation difficulty does not exist in the ERE is not a solution.

107
00:11:00.760 --> 00:11:04.680
It is simply a mathematical belaboring of the obvious.

108
00:11:04.680 --> 00:11:08.080
The difficulty of calculation applies to the real world.

109
00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:08.760
OK.

110
00:11:08.760 --> 00:11:13.640
So Lavoie's book is titled Rivalry and Central Planning.

111
00:11:13.640 --> 00:11:19.400
The whole idea behind that is if you take the entrepreneurial rivalrous view, non-ERE view,

112
00:11:19.400 --> 00:11:24.120
The problems of calculation and whatnot come to the forefront of the analysis.

113
00:11:24.120 --> 00:11:29.440
If you assume by hypothesis that the equations are known and given, then the problem disappears.

114
00:11:29.440 --> 00:11:34.480
So it's exactly as Mises says, Lange and those guys had a solution by hypothesis.

115
00:11:34.480 --> 00:11:37.640
They didn't argue for what it is they needed to prove.

116
00:11:37.640 --> 00:11:45.520
Rothbard has this, you know, 23 years, right, before LaVoie's book ever comes out, 18 years

117
00:11:45.520 --> 00:11:59.720
The other point which I think is essential and it relates to an internal debate that

118
00:11:59.720 --> 00:12:09.560
we've been having at GMU, this is directed at my infant cerebral, you know, Ed Stringham,

119
00:12:09.560 --> 00:12:14.160
this comes from Rothbard pointing out that there is no such thing as collective ownership

120
00:12:14.160 --> 00:12:15.160
and Reality.

121
00:12:15.160 --> 00:12:19.840
You know, I thought I was a genius for coming up with this idea of the split between de

122
00:12:19.840 --> 00:12:22.120
facto and de jure and all this stuff like that.

123
00:12:22.120 --> 00:12:25.160
It's right in Rothbard.

124
00:12:25.160 --> 00:12:28.720
And he says here about the important feature of ownership.

125
00:12:28.720 --> 00:12:30.360
He's talking about collective ownership.

126
00:12:30.360 --> 00:12:34.080
He says this is in his criticism of public ownership.

127
00:12:34.080 --> 00:12:40.480
The important feature of ownership is not legal formality, but actual rule.

128
00:12:40.480 --> 00:12:47.480
And under government ownership, it is the government officialdom that controls and directs, and therefore owns the property.

129
00:12:47.480 --> 00:12:53.480
But while government officials possess ownership in terms of control rights, this is me speaking, I'll come back to quoting again,

130
00:12:53.480 --> 00:13:00.480
they do not possess full cash flow rights, and the rights they do possess are not secure in the long run.

131
00:13:00.480 --> 00:13:07.480
Hence, this is quoting Rothbard again, government officials will tend to regard themselves as only transitory owners of public resources,

132
00:13:07.480 --> 00:13:19.720
In short, except in the case of a private property of a hereditary monarch, by the way, anticipates everything that Hoppe had to say, or for that matter, Mancer Olson.

133
00:13:19.720 --> 00:13:29.680
In short, except in the case of a private property hereditary monarch, government officials own only the current use of the resource, but not their capital value.

134
00:13:29.680 --> 00:13:37.360
And if a resource itself cannot be owned, but only its current use, this will rapidly ensure the uneconomic exhaustion of the resource.

135
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:41.760
So the tragedy of the commons, you know, problem comes in, okay?

136
00:13:41.760 --> 00:13:50.560
So this sets up the whole property rights analysis of socialism, which becomes dominant in the 1990s with work by Andre Schleifer and other people.

137
00:13:50.560 --> 00:13:58.260
Practice, let me, you know, don't belabor the obvious here. Rothbard points out the existence of black markets, okay?

138
00:13:58.260 --> 00:14:01.360
And why black markets enable the system to muddle through.

139
00:14:01.360 --> 00:14:11.040
So, Rothbard, what I'm trying to say is Rothbard demonstrates the $64 million question, which is socialism is so bad, how could it have lasted for 70 years, right?

140
00:14:11.040 --> 00:14:17.640
And the argument here is like, you know, do the Austrians commit two bites of the apple? Kind of logical fallacy.

141
00:14:17.640 --> 00:14:25.440
You know, socialism is terrible, but damn it, Soviet Union socialist, right? Or socialism is impossible, the Soviet Union socialist.

142
00:14:25.440 --> 00:14:29.040
You can't really have that sort of argument. That would be two bites of an apple, all right?

143
00:14:29.040 --> 00:14:39.040
What the Austrians are actually arguing is that socialist economy is impossible, but real existing quote-unquote socialism, which isn't really socialism, because socialism is impossible,

144
00:14:39.040 --> 00:14:50.040
models through, through various different other things, which have to do with world prices, black markets, that even under this system, it's going to confront the problems of innovation and growth,

145
00:14:50.040 --> 00:14:55.040
So it's not going to be able to expand over time.

146
00:14:55.040 --> 00:14:59.040
Page 835, he talks about the whole idea of conspicuous production.

147
00:14:59.040 --> 00:15:02.040
Basically, why did the Soviet Union have these big growth rates?

148
00:15:02.040 --> 00:15:06.040
Because they measured the value of the inputs, not the value of the output.

149
00:15:06.040 --> 00:15:07.040
Rothbard nails them on this.

150
00:15:07.040 --> 00:15:11.040
Well before G. Warren Nutter ever took pen to paper on this issue.

151
00:15:11.040 --> 00:15:14.040
G. Warren Nutter, if you remember what he was writing in the 1950s,

152
00:15:14.040 --> 00:15:18.040
it was about the extent of monopoly enterprise in the US.

153
00:15:18.040 --> 00:15:27.040
He was Friedman's student. Friedman put him on the idea of the challenge that the natural idea of advanced capitalism was to become more and more monopolistic.

154
00:15:27.040 --> 00:15:35.040
So Warren Nutter originally demonstrated that that wasn't the case. Over time, the extent of monopoly enterprise in the U.S. actually declined.

155
00:15:35.040 --> 00:15:44.040
That's his Ph.D. thesis. It's not until the mid-1960s that G. Warren Nutter writes his stuff on the Soviet Union and challenges the growth rates of the Soviet Union.

156
00:15:44.040 --> 00:15:46.840
has it well in advance, again.

157
00:15:46.840 --> 00:15:49.480
And a key thing which I think is extremely important

158
00:15:49.480 --> 00:15:53.760
is Rothbard points out how when you have conspicuous production,

159
00:15:53.760 --> 00:15:58.120
this translates into the real world into a malinvestment.

160
00:15:58.120 --> 00:16:00.400
And so actually what you have in the Soviet Union

161
00:16:00.400 --> 00:16:03.160
is a giant business cycle.

162
00:16:03.160 --> 00:16:06.760
All right, giant business cycle.

163
00:16:06.760 --> 00:16:07.800
I'm rushing through that.

164
00:16:07.800 --> 00:16:12.360
I apologize if you can ask me, challenge me, criticize me,

165
00:16:12.360 --> 00:16:23.360
Alright, so then what I go on is I argue that, like, let's look at the implications of this issue, alright, and implications of Rothbard's analysis.

166
00:16:23.360 --> 00:16:35.360
And what I want to suggest in here is that Rothbard's analysis of, you know, here, it's become obligatory for economists to make two comments, alright, actually three, three comments.

167
00:16:35.360 --> 00:16:45.360
Here they go. Defining economic moments of the 20th century are the Great Depression and the collapse of communism.

168
00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:50.360
Second statement. We economists didn't know that socialism would fail.

169
00:16:50.360 --> 00:17:02.360
Third one. We don't know what to do because it's the first time in human history we've moved from a centrally planned economy to a market economy.

170
00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:11.840
The problem with this is, you know, the second argument that people didn't know that socialism

171
00:17:11.840 --> 00:17:12.840
would collapse.

172
00:17:12.840 --> 00:17:13.840
Well, that's not quite right.

173
00:17:13.840 --> 00:17:16.600
It's just that they didn't listen to the economist who said it would collapse.

174
00:17:16.600 --> 00:17:21.040
And three, does the past have a useful economics for the future?

175
00:17:21.040 --> 00:17:25.640
And it seems to me Rothbard's analysis points out the idea that simply what we're trying

176
00:17:25.640 --> 00:17:38.640
The point I'm trying to do in the former Soviet Union, okay, is engage in a kind of a depression, you know, the kind of same policies that you would adopt coming out of a severe depression in say the U.S. or any other economy.

177
00:17:38.640 --> 00:17:51.640
It's not a different system. That's the point of the quote. The differences in the system are in degree, not in fundamental kind, because the difference in kind is ruled out as a theoretical possibility.

178
00:17:51.640 --> 00:17:58.640
The socialist system was, is a mercantilist system, similar to like mercantilist system in France, Bob Eaklin's work, okay?

179
00:17:58.640 --> 00:18:06.640
Or, for example, the mercantilist system in the U.S. or any other system in which you're trying to transition from.

180
00:18:06.640 --> 00:18:12.640
In which these transitory owners, you're trying to eliminate the officiadum and instead give the ownership rights to those.

181
00:18:12.640 --> 00:18:19.640
So you want to give control rights and cash flow rights to those who currently have only control rights, okay?

182
00:18:19.640 --> 00:18:25.080
And you want to sort of develop the system into a private property based system, alright,

183
00:18:25.080 --> 00:18:27.700
and allow for the reallocations of capital.

184
00:18:27.700 --> 00:18:32.220
I was in Romania last year, alright, one of the things that they came up to me and said,

185
00:18:32.220 --> 00:18:36.880
can you explain to us, in Bucharest, it's a vibrant sort of, you know, place, Misesians,

186
00:18:36.880 --> 00:18:40.880
by the way, in Bucharest, first public lecture I gave, which had nothing to do with Austrian

187
00:18:40.880 --> 00:18:41.880
economics.

188
00:18:41.880 --> 00:18:46.680
Kid raised his hand at the end and said, well, what would Murray Rothbard say about public

189
00:18:46.680 --> 00:18:47.680
goods?

190
00:18:47.680 --> 00:18:51.680
It was like, this is in Bucharest? You know, so it's like, anyway.

191
00:18:51.680 --> 00:18:57.680
Though they have a little strange thing going on too, because they want to combine Austrian economics with the Orthodox Church as a movement.

192
00:18:57.680 --> 00:19:03.680
I don't know if it's the strategy movement I would pick.

193
00:19:03.680 --> 00:19:07.680
But they're very enthusiastic, they're great, and I think the world of them.

194
00:19:07.680 --> 00:19:14.680
But there's a region in Romania, 100% unemployment. I'm not kidding you, 100% unemployment.

195
00:19:14.680 --> 00:19:15.680
and Employment.

196
00:19:15.680 --> 00:19:16.680
Well, what's the reason for this?

197
00:19:16.680 --> 00:19:18.480
It just doesn't take rocket science.

198
00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:22.240
They won't allow people to reallocate the capital, and they don't allow people to move

199
00:19:22.240 --> 00:19:24.160
to get new jobs.

200
00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:28.360
And they pay the workers two-thirds of their previous salary.

201
00:19:28.360 --> 00:19:31.120
And then they say, how come nothing's happening there?

202
00:19:31.120 --> 00:19:33.320
It's like, you know, right?

203
00:19:33.320 --> 00:19:34.360
There's no reallocation.

204
00:19:34.360 --> 00:19:36.660
So what's the Rothbardian response to that?

205
00:19:36.660 --> 00:19:39.540
It's in America's Great Depression, right?

206
00:19:39.540 --> 00:19:42.840
Don't hold up wages, allow capital to be reallocated.

207
00:19:42.840 --> 00:19:48.020
It's basically shock therapy, well before Jeffrey Sachs ever went anywhere, right?

208
00:19:48.020 --> 00:19:50.320
Murray Rothbard was an advocate of shock therapy.

209
00:19:50.320 --> 00:19:56.960
All right, so let me just conclude with these theoretical, you know, positions that I think

210
00:19:56.960 --> 00:19:57.960
are important here.

211
00:19:57.960 --> 00:20:04.120
One of the reasons why Rothbard's analysis I think stands out as so advanced to the reader

212
00:20:04.120 --> 00:20:09.040
and so fresh, I mean, one of the things you've got to keep in mind is the current revisions

213
00:20:09.040 --> 00:20:14.040
are new editions of Man Economy and State, have never been revised. What you're reading

214
00:20:14.040 --> 00:20:18.840
is the book as it was published in 1962. It's not like he rewrote it. So it's not like he's

215
00:20:18.840 --> 00:20:24.760
taken into account the new developments. This is what he wrote in 1962, which means he wrote

216
00:20:24.760 --> 00:20:31.440
it in the 1950s. So when you think about the context of the 1950s, the lone wolf nature

217
00:20:31.440 --> 00:20:37.000
of Rothbard's analysis, both of the theoretical and of the applied problems of socialism stand

218
00:20:37.000 --> 00:20:41.000
have come out as even more gigantic in their contribution.

219
00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:45.000
It's absolutely phenomenal.

220
00:20:45.000 --> 00:20:52.000
All the stuff, Schleifer's work on rent-seeking in the Soviet economy, is there.

221
00:20:52.000 --> 00:20:57.000
All the stuff by Alchin and all those guys on property rights and the analysis of property rights system is there.

222
00:20:57.000 --> 00:21:03.000
All the stuff by Kirzner and Lavoie and all those guys on the reinterpretation of the calculations, it's there.

223
00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:09.300
There's nothing that was done later that was any good that Rothbard didn't already have.

224
00:21:09.300 --> 00:21:15.300
And the key issue, this is relevant to Mark, the key issue is Rothbard has a notion of a centrally prohibited economy.

225
00:21:15.300 --> 00:21:20.600
He refers to it as, it can't be called a centrally planned economy, it's a centrally prohibition economy.

226
00:21:20.600 --> 00:21:23.800
So then what do you have to do? You have to go to his sections on prohibition.

227
00:21:23.800 --> 00:21:30.700
And not to, certainly not to take anything away from, I think, very solid work that you did on prohibition.

228
00:21:30.700 --> 00:21:34.700
But he has all the stuff in there about the per-eutin potency, I mean, all the way down the line.

229
00:21:34.700 --> 00:21:37.700
It's a shortage economy, so corn eyes trumped by Rothbard.

230
00:21:37.700 --> 00:21:44.700
I mean, everything that is there, if you look at the analysis, Rothbard has it two decades before any of these other guys come.

231
00:21:44.700 --> 00:21:47.700
So I think the analysis is amazing.

232
00:21:47.700 --> 00:21:54.700
And the main advancement here is that, to keep in mind the following thing, is what did we have with the planning debate empirically?

233
00:21:54.700 --> 00:22:24.700
empirically. What happened, is my last point, is that we either went into mathematical models, Samuelson, Bergsson, social welfare function, right, following on Lange, Lerner and Taylor, okay, or you went into growth economics, let's estimate the growth rates, and what was missing in the Soviet context is the microanalytics of planning. How actually does this system work? And it's only since the system collapsed and we get access to the data about how the system

234
00:22:24.700 --> 00:22:54.700
The Soviet system, he arrived in the 1950s, okay, and so he provides the framework for us for understanding the microanalytics of planning, and if we understand the property rights system and the problems that the planning system had, and why it, quote unquote, planning system has, we understand where it is that the reforms have to come from. See, the reforms have to come from the system itself.

235
00:22:54.700 --> 00:23:03.700
The biggest problem with the transition economics has been that we've misidentified the start state and ill-defined the state that we're going towards.

236
00:23:03.700 --> 00:23:10.700
So in the path from here to there, we didn't know what the here was, and we didn't have a very strong idea of what the there was that we were going.

237
00:23:10.700 --> 00:23:19.700
Rothbard identifies the here and now, and make no bones about it, he understood where there should be, right?

238
00:23:19.700 --> 00:23:26.700
All right, so as a result, the implications for transition economics are extremely important, it seems to me, from this book.

239
00:23:26.700 --> 00:23:31.700
And I can't thank the Mises Institute enough for bringing the book back out again.

240
00:23:31.700 --> 00:23:37.700
And I hope everyone reads it afresh and goes from there. Okay? Thank you.