WEBVTT

NOTE Theory and History

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.200
I'm going to talk today on theory and history.

2
00:00:04.200 --> 00:00:11.000
Now, a book I'd like to recommend, perhaps surprisingly for the topic theory and history,

3
00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:18.000
is the book by von Mises, Theory and History, that came out in 1957.

4
00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:23.400
This is one of Mises' four greatest books.

5
00:00:23.400 --> 00:00:26.600
Friedrich Hayek thought very highly of this book.

6
00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:34.600
This is one book he recommended. He thought this would be a good book for people to study.

7
00:00:34.600 --> 00:00:42.600
Also, I think you would find helpful the second chapter of Human Action.

8
00:00:42.600 --> 00:00:49.600
It has some very important comments by Mises on theory and history.

9
00:00:49.600 --> 00:01:14.600
Now, the first thing I want to discuss is what you will no doubt remember from your previous lectures that Misesian economics is based on the notion of praxeology, a science of human action in which by deductive reasoning one arrives at certain theorems about human action, about economics.

10
00:01:14.600 --> 00:01:23.440
Now, once these theorems aren't established by historical reasoning, we establish these

11
00:01:23.440 --> 00:01:29.560
by thinking about the notion of action, what's involved in the concept of action.

12
00:01:29.560 --> 00:01:37.560
But once we do this, then the historian has these theorems that he can apply to various

13
00:01:37.560 --> 00:01:38.880
historical problems.

14
00:01:38.880 --> 00:01:52.880
Now in praxeology, one can't deduce historical events, one can't say just by thinking about it, deduce that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 55 BC.

15
00:01:52.880 --> 00:02:04.880
That isn't a theorem of human action, but there are particular results that the praxeologist established that can be of use to the historian.

16
00:02:04.880 --> 00:02:15.880
For example, one you'll remember from, no doubt you've encountered from your reading in previous lectures, the socialist calculation argument.

17
00:02:15.880 --> 00:02:31.880
Mises contended that in a socialist society, by which he meant a society in which production was controlled by central authority,

18
00:02:31.880 --> 00:02:33.880
The Theory of Money and Credit

19
00:03:01.880 --> 00:03:09.780
to use that would give us the greatest quantity of the consumer's goods in the amounts, in

20
00:03:09.780 --> 00:03:12.340
the ways we most value them we would want.

21
00:03:12.340 --> 00:03:18.800
How would we get the consumer goods in just the way we most wanted them, but would best

22
00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:19.800
fulfill our wants?

23
00:03:19.800 --> 00:03:23.840
We wouldn't be able to do that without some means of calculating.

24
00:03:23.840 --> 00:03:31.600
We would have to say it would be better to produce one good rather than another good

25
00:03:31.600 --> 00:03:41.000
Mises said, we can't do this in the absence of an economic market. He said that only under capitalism can we have such a market.

26
00:03:41.000 --> 00:03:52.100
So under socialism, where you have either government ownership or control of the means of production, we couldn't have economic calculation at all.

27
00:03:52.100 --> 00:03:59.600
So a socialist society would inevitably collapse.

28
00:03:59.600 --> 00:04:28.160
Now, how can the historian use this theorem? Well, one obvious way to use this is if we take the history of Russia from 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution because what the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, actually in the Western calendar, it's November 1917, but it's called the October Revolution because they were using a different calendar.

29
00:04:28.160 --> 00:04:44.160
The Soviet Union was a direct attempt to establish a social society, so Mises' argument is clearly relevant there.

30
00:04:44.160 --> 00:04:50.160
It isn't relevant in the precise way you might think at first glance.

31
00:04:50.160 --> 00:05:16.160
So at this glance, you might say, well, Mises argued that social society is impossible, but we had a social society in existence for quite some years, 1917 through 1989, 1990, so some people in fact said, well, doesn't this show Mises' argument is wrong, because Mises says there can't be a social society, but we had a very large social society.

32
00:05:16.160 --> 00:05:46.160
Mises was one of the second most powerful country in the world for a good many of those years, so if this objection is right, then what the praxeologist has established wouldn't be of use to the historian at all, it would just come up with a wrong theorem that's been refuted by history, but in fact, this wasn't what Mises was contending, Mises contended only that a worldwide socialist society wouldn't be able to calculate,

33
00:05:46.160 --> 00:05:56.660
The Soviets were able to take advantage of prices on the capitalist market and not all parts of the economy were socialized.

34
00:05:56.660 --> 00:06:04.660
So, given that the social calculation argument isn't refuted, then we still have to face the question,

35
00:06:04.660 --> 00:06:14.660
how can the historian use the calculation argument to try to explain, to help him explain Soviet history?

36
00:06:14.660 --> 00:06:27.660
Well, if we know from the calculation argument that socialism won't work, and we extend this, as Mises did, to thinking that attempts to bring about socialism will be inefficient.

37
00:06:27.660 --> 00:06:35.660
It isn't that everything is all right in a socialist society until we try to establish a worldwide economy and that it will collapse.

38
00:06:35.660 --> 00:06:41.760
What is that? Attempts to socialize lead to inefficiency. We can use this in trying to

39
00:06:41.760 --> 00:06:51.140
understand particular episodes in Soviet history. For example, when the Soviets first took over,

40
00:06:51.140 --> 00:06:57.540
they tried to establish a communist economy by abolishing money. And this didn't work

41
00:06:57.540 --> 00:07:05.020
at all, just as the calculation argument would lead us to expect. The goods weren't supplied

42
00:07:05.020 --> 00:07:13.340
to the cities at all. All the farmers refused to send in their goods to the cities and there

43
00:07:13.340 --> 00:07:20.580
was almost a complete collapse of the economy. So as a result, under Lenin, in 1921, their

44
00:07:20.580 --> 00:07:28.280
so-called new economic policy had to be introduced that allowed the market to return in agriculture

45
00:07:28.280 --> 00:07:41.760
into a Lesser Extended Industry. This continued until 1929. Now, then further, when the Soviet

46
00:07:41.760 --> 00:07:48.160
economy eventually collapsed, we can see one reason for this. Again, if the calculations

47
00:07:48.160 --> 00:07:54.600
argument is correct, then the Soviet economy was bound to collapse at some time or other

48
00:07:54.600 --> 00:08:13.600
because the inefficiencies of socialism would bring it down eventually. Mises didn't say this would happen immediately, given that it wasn't a worldwide social society, but this was bound to happen sooner or later, this case quite a bit later.

49
00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:21.880
but so again you see how the historian is applying the calculus is acquainted with

50
00:08:21.880 --> 00:08:28.440
praxeology is applying the calculation argument now the historian who is

51
00:08:28.440 --> 00:08:34.040
acquainted with praxeology isn't it isn't always a matter of just taking the

52
00:08:34.040 --> 00:08:39.960
theorem and applying it there are also difficulties that might come about for

53
00:08:39.960 --> 00:09:00.960
For example, a historian might try to say, well, why was it in the period World War II, how were the Soviets able to have such a very strong army that was able to defeat the German army, which was one of the best in the world?

54
00:09:00.960 --> 00:09:13.960
The Soviet economic production, contrary to most people's belief, was much in military, in armaments, was much greater than the German people think it was the other way around.

55
00:09:13.960 --> 00:09:24.960
But there was a very good book on this, Bert and Klein, Germany's economic preparations through war, shows that the German armaments down to the 1930s were much less than people thought they were.

56
00:09:24.960 --> 00:09:41.960
The Soviets had a very strong economy, so people who want to use praxeology would have to explain what seems to be a counter-instance to the view that socialism is inefficient.

57
00:09:41.960 --> 00:10:11.960
The Socialist Historian who doesn't accept Mises' argument would then explain events in a different way, for example, he would say that the Soviet economy encountered difficulties at first, not because Socialism was efficient, they might say, well, it doesn't follow that if an economy is inefficient, it's going to be unable to produce anything at all, just that the total allocation of goods won't be efficient, not absolutely every good. Then, you see, a historian who is not, say, a Socialist historian who doesn't accept Mises' argument would then explain events in a different way.

58
00:10:11.960 --> 00:10:40.960
Socialism is an inefficient system and can't work, but because of, say, external obstacles, the Russian Civil War of 1920 and 21, where forces backed by Britain and France invaded Russia, trying to restore, to overthrow the Bolshevik regime and restore the previous government.

59
00:10:40.960 --> 00:10:48.840
And then there was also war with Poland in 1920, so people who are socialist historians

60
00:10:48.840 --> 00:10:53.840
are not sympathetic to praxeology, would explain the events in a quite different way.

61
00:10:53.840 --> 00:11:01.920
So you see, here's one example of how a praxeologist, knowing praxeology, can help the historian

62
00:11:01.920 --> 00:11:06.200
in trying to explain particular historical events.

63
00:11:06.200 --> 00:11:14.320
Now another example is the Industrial Revolution, the great development of capitalism starting

64
00:11:14.320 --> 00:11:18.680
in England beginning in the 18th century.

65
00:11:18.680 --> 00:11:23.280
Professor Reiko mentioned this I think in his initial lecture.

66
00:11:23.280 --> 00:11:31.400
Many historians contend that E. P. Thompson, Making the English Working Class, a very influential

67
00:11:31.400 --> 00:11:39.000
The book came out, I think, in the 1960s, but he contended that the Industrial Revolution, the onset of capitalism,

68
00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:43.500
worsened the condition of the working classes.

69
00:11:43.500 --> 00:11:53.600
Of course, there's a famous contention of Friedrich Engels in his book, The Condition of the Working Classes in England, 1844,

70
00:11:53.600 --> 00:11:57.600
and later Karl Marx in Das Kapital in 1867.

71
00:11:57.600 --> 00:12:03.200
They said capitalism has really made conditions very terrible for the workers.

72
00:12:03.200 --> 00:12:08.100
It's not a very good system for the workers at all.

73
00:12:08.100 --> 00:12:12.300
People have to work in factories under very bad conditions.

74
00:12:12.300 --> 00:12:17.500
They work 16-hour days, and women and children have to work in factories.

75
00:12:17.500 --> 00:12:19.600
So capitalism is terrible.

76
00:12:19.600 --> 00:12:25.900
Now, it isn't a theorem of praxeology that conditions for workers

77
00:12:25.900 --> 00:12:44.900
and Social Cooperation in the market is the most productive system, we would find it unlikely that the onset of capitalism has worsened conditions, it wouldn't be impossible that in particular cases this has happened, but we wouldn't expect that the market system is the most productive system.

78
00:12:44.900 --> 00:12:51.400
I find it unlikely that the onset of capitalism has worsened conditions.

79
00:12:51.400 --> 00:12:56.900
It wouldn't be impossible that in particular cases this has happened, but we wouldn't expect it.

80
00:12:56.900 --> 00:13:07.900
So the historian informed by praxeology would tend to view the evidence not in the way that Marx and his many followers have done,

81
00:13:07.900 --> 00:13:13.900
but in a way that is more sympathetic to capitalism.

82
00:13:13.900 --> 00:13:21.020
And we find, in fact, that the historians influenced by praxeology have done just that.

83
00:13:21.020 --> 00:13:24.460
One very good example is Mises himself.

84
00:13:24.460 --> 00:13:31.180
Mises has a very interesting discussion of the Industrial Revolution in human action.

85
00:13:31.180 --> 00:13:36.380
It's, I think, on pages, just a few pages, I think, pages, in the Scholar's Edition,

86
00:13:36.380 --> 00:13:40.980
pages 611 through 619, I think.

87
00:13:40.980 --> 00:13:49.920
So what Mises contends is that at this period in the world there was a massive population

88
00:13:49.920 --> 00:13:59.660
expansion so that the previous, the pre-capitalism was completely unable to cope with this population

89
00:13:59.660 --> 00:14:00.660
expansion.

90
00:14:00.660 --> 00:14:08.940
So if it hadn't been for capitalism, the new people wouldn't have been able to survive

91
00:14:08.940 --> 00:14:15.740
at all. So conditions were bad for workers, not because of capitalism, but on the contrary

92
00:14:15.740 --> 00:14:22.540
of capitalism, it was what enabled the people to survive. And he goes on to argue further that even

93
00:14:22.540 --> 00:14:29.820
not taking into account the population increase, the condition of the lower classes was very bad

94
00:14:29.820 --> 00:14:37.340
or even worse than under labouring conditions under capitalism in the preceding period. So you see

95
00:14:37.340 --> 00:14:47.340
Here again, the person who knows praxeology is looking at the historical evidence in a

96
00:14:47.340 --> 00:14:52.740
rather different way from the historian who isn't acquainted with praxeology.

97
00:14:52.740 --> 00:15:00.100
Since we expect capitalism to be beneficial, we tend to be very skeptical of evidence that

98
00:15:00.100 --> 00:15:07.580
Capitalism has lowered the standard of life of the working classes will instead try to

99
00:15:07.580 --> 00:15:13.740
explain this apparent evidence to that effect in a different way.

100
00:15:13.740 --> 00:15:22.420
I should say in addition to the Mises, there's a book edited by F. A. Hayek called Capitalism

101
00:15:22.420 --> 00:15:38.420
and the Historians, which I think came out in 1954. It has a number of essays critical of the view, the Marxist view of the Industrial Revolution, the condition of the working classes under capitalism.

102
00:15:38.420 --> 00:15:57.420
Now, a final illustration I want to give of the use of the praxeology of the story is in the interpretation of the Great Depression in the United States beginning in October 1929.

103
00:15:57.420 --> 00:16:27.420
and I want to take here the, contrast two books, the one, the book, the Austrian book by Murray Rothbard called America's Great Depression, which came out in 1963, which is, Rothbard, of course, was one of the main Austrian economists of the 20th century and his view is the praxeological one, giving the Austrian theory of the business cycle, using that to explain

104
00:16:27.420 --> 00:16:52.420
The Great Depression. To contrast this with the book by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, which also came out in 1963, called A New Monetary History of the United States, a much more influential book than Rothbard's book, in my view unfortunately, but both of these books have very different accounts of the depression.

105
00:16:52.420 --> 00:17:05.660
You remember from your studies of Austrian theory, according to the Austrian view, if there's an expansion of bank credit by the government,

106
00:17:05.660 --> 00:17:19.580
this lowers the monetary rate of interest, the money rate of interest, how much interest you have, say, a businessman would have to pay if he borrows money from a bank to invest,

107
00:17:19.580 --> 00:17:28.580
lowers it below the so-called natural rate of interest, which is determined by people's time preference,

108
00:17:28.580 --> 00:17:36.580
how much people prefer to receive, how much people prefer the present over the future,

109
00:17:36.580 --> 00:17:51.580
What the premium is people will have to pay, what premium will have to be offered to people if they're to accept money in the future rather than the present.

110
00:17:51.580 --> 00:18:00.580
So according to the Austrian theory, if the interest rate becomes lower, the money interest rate becomes lower than the natural rate,

111
00:18:00.580 --> 00:18:09.080
And then people who want to invest in higher orders of production, goods that are used

112
00:18:09.080 --> 00:18:17.680
to produce other goods further down the line, as it were, sort of heavy industries, other

113
00:18:17.680 --> 00:18:22.840
goods that are in, you remember the stage of the production, I'm not going to draw

114
00:18:22.840 --> 00:18:30.560
that because I can't draw, but you remember how the system works, I hope, so people will

115
00:18:30.560 --> 00:18:36.160
People then invest much more in these higher stages because the money is available to them.

116
00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:46.160
But after the monetary expansion has gone on and when it stops, then it will be revealed

117
00:18:46.160 --> 00:18:52.240
that all these investments weren't justified by the natural rate of interest.

118
00:18:52.240 --> 00:18:59.120
People will then revert to their natural rate of interest and they won't be saving as much.

119
00:18:59.120 --> 00:19:04.980
So the new businesses that have been invested won't be able to survive, they won't have

120
00:19:04.980 --> 00:19:12.640
sufficient funds, people will shift to spending on consumer industries from investing, from

121
00:19:12.640 --> 00:19:19.040
spending on the goods of higher orders, and there will be a collapse of these goods of

122
00:19:19.040 --> 00:19:20.040
higher orders.

123
00:19:20.040 --> 00:19:27.000
And this in the Austrian view is the depression, it's the liquidation of the cycle, the part,

124
00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:30.560
and the expansion caused by bank credit.

125
00:19:30.560 --> 00:19:39.600
So in the Austrian view, which Rothbard holds, there's the depression in 29 with the necessary

126
00:19:39.600 --> 00:19:43.720
liquidation of a boom of the 1920s.

127
00:19:43.720 --> 00:19:52.400
So to support this, since Rothbard is writing in terms of the Austrian view of the business

128
00:19:52.400 --> 00:20:21.400
This is the theory he accepts. He tries to establish in the 1920s that there was a period of bank credit expansion, and he stresses, say, that the Federal Reserve policy under Governor Benjamin Strong, who was the governor of the bank in New York, was trying to inflate the currency in order to, in some sense,

129
00:20:21.400 --> 00:20:30.400
One of his motives was to help out the Bank of England run by his friend, the governor of the Bank of England, Montague Norman.

130
00:20:30.400 --> 00:20:37.400
So in Rothbard's view, his view of the depression, he wants to show there was a monetary expansion in the 1920s.

131
00:20:37.400 --> 00:20:44.400
And then he goes and says, well, because of this, this drove the rate of interest below the natural rate.

132
00:20:44.400 --> 00:20:49.400
This accounts for the collapse in 1929.

133
00:20:49.400 --> 00:21:05.400
Milton Friedman doesn't hold to the Austrian theory at all. In his view, really, he explains the depression by a collapse in the quantity of money.

134
00:21:05.400 --> 00:21:18.400
So in 1929, he says, there was just a sudden collapse in the quantity of money, the Federal Reserve system failed to respond to this collapse in the quantity of money.

135
00:21:18.400 --> 00:21:25.160
and this led to the not to the turn what would be a normal business downturn into

136
00:21:25.160 --> 00:21:30.960
a severe depression. So you see that how there's a direct contrast here from the

137
00:21:30.960 --> 00:21:35.520
Austrian view which is that the depression came about because of a

138
00:21:35.520 --> 00:21:41.000
monetary expansion with this view of Friedman. Now it was a collapse in the

139
00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:46.160
quantity of money that caused depression. In Rothbard's view, even though he

140
00:21:46.160 --> 00:22:06.160
Friedman, who doesn't accept the Austrian theory, has a completely contrasting account of how the depression works with the one found in Rothbard's book.

141
00:22:06.160 --> 00:22:12.160
I want to turn now to a more general topic, which is, as I've given so far, just on how

142
00:22:12.160 --> 00:22:22.800
Rothbard's book, so we see here one more instance of how knowing praxeology will affect the

143
00:22:22.800 --> 00:22:34.400
practice of the historian. Now, I want to turn now to a more general topic, which I've

144
00:22:34.400 --> 00:22:41.560
given so far, just on how the historian can use praxeology in helping him to explain various

145
00:22:41.560 --> 00:22:48.560
Historical Benefits, but I now want to raise a more general question. What is the nature of historical explanation?

146
00:22:48.560 --> 00:23:06.560
In here, Mises' view was, again, to some extent, based on praxeology, although certainly it isn't part of praxeology, but it is to some extent based on praxeology.

147
00:23:06.560 --> 00:23:32.560
The historian can't deduce particular events from praxeology, but what he can do is explain particular human actions based on his knowledge of how people act in given circumstances.

148
00:23:32.560 --> 00:23:37.560
He thought, in addition to theoretical knowledge that we get from the science of human action,

149
00:23:37.560 --> 00:23:45.060
we have an ordinary, everyday knowledge of how human motives work in particular cases.

150
00:23:45.060 --> 00:23:57.560
He called this, he coined the name, actually took this, see if I can write on this, it's too technological for me.

151
00:24:02.560 --> 00:24:20.160
He proposed the name thymology for kind of a discipline that would enable us to understand human modes.

152
00:24:20.160 --> 00:24:30.960
Actually, he took this from the philosopher, George Santayana, who didn't use the term in a very favorable way for Santayana.

153
00:24:30.960 --> 00:24:49.960
What Mises suggests is that we could have a common-sense psychology that would enable us to understand how particular actors in history had made decisions.

154
00:24:49.960 --> 00:24:55.960
Let me give you an example of what he meant.

155
00:24:55.960 --> 00:25:20.960
What he said was, in trying to reconstruct how a particular actor had made a certain decision, suppose we take a concrete problem, suppose we say, after the onset of World War II, after the Munich Conference, which was September 29th and 30th, 1938,

156
00:25:20.960 --> 00:25:30.960
Remember where Hitler had taken over the Sudetenland, which was the German part of Czechoslovakia,

157
00:25:30.960 --> 00:25:35.960
after agreement with Britain, France and Italy.

158
00:25:35.960 --> 00:25:41.960
After that, there had been a change in British foreign policy.

159
00:25:41.960 --> 00:25:45.960
British foreign policy, down to the time the Munich Congress had appeased Hitler.

160
00:25:45.960 --> 00:25:47.960
The Theory of Money and Credit

161
00:26:15.960 --> 00:26:27.080
What a historian can do is he'd say, imagine say that you were in control of British foreign

162
00:26:27.080 --> 00:26:35.120
policy and you imagine that you know certain facts, for example, Hitler has taken over,

163
00:26:35.120 --> 00:26:39.640
just taken over the rest of Czechoslovakia and you have various information on what his

164
00:26:39.640 --> 00:26:50.040
Previous steps had been, say, the takeover of Austria in March 1938, Munich settlement in September.

165
00:26:50.040 --> 00:27:01.240
What would you then, given, say, that you were aiming to promote British interests, what policy might you adopt?

166
00:27:01.240 --> 00:27:06.240
So what you're trying to do, according to this view of historical explanation,

167
00:27:06.240 --> 00:27:21.840
You're trying to imagine yourself in the position of the decision maker, say, imagine you had certain motives, certain desires, and certain theories of how people act, certain views of how people act.

168
00:27:21.840 --> 00:27:35.040
What would you have done in that instance? So then, say, you come up with an answer to that, and then you see how, you imagine, say, supposing you were in control of British foreign policy, what would you have done?

169
00:27:35.040 --> 00:27:42.480
And then you say, how does what you come up with then correspond to what the people actually did?

170
00:27:42.480 --> 00:27:50.240
In fact, we see that in the actual British foreign policy, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax,

171
00:27:50.240 --> 00:27:56.800
tend to take control over British foreign policy from the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain.

172
00:27:56.800 --> 00:28:03.680
He adopted a much stronger policy of resistance to Hitler than previously in the case he issued

173
00:28:03.680 --> 00:28:33.680
the guarantee against a German attack to the Polish government that eventually led to war when the Germans invaded September 1st, 1939, Britain and France declared war the next couple of days on September 3rd, so you see what you would be doing here is saying you're trying to figure out how did the particular actors respond to the situation, so you imagine yourself

174
00:28:33.680 --> 00:28:35.680
The Theory of Money and Credit

175
00:29:03.680 --> 00:29:07.680
The Theory of Money and Credit

176
00:29:07.680 --> 00:29:11.680
The Theory of Money and Credit

177
00:29:33.680 --> 00:29:50.320
view of historical explanation, Mises was extending and further developing the ideas of a number of 19th century and early 20th century writers, philosophers who had similar ideas.

178
00:29:50.320 --> 00:30:14.920
I want to mention two in particular, what happened here, this is not what, everything was going, was working up till now.

179
00:30:20.320 --> 00:30:25.320
Can someone give me a hand here?

180
00:30:25.320 --> 00:30:28.320
Oh, thanks.

181
00:30:35.320 --> 00:30:45.320
This is, well, I'll have to go on with it.

182
00:30:45.320 --> 00:30:50.320
Is a consumption tax preferable to an income tax?

183
00:30:50.320 --> 00:30:53.320
Well, I haven't the slightest idea, I'm sorry.

184
00:30:53.320 --> 00:30:57.320
Well, all right, so, oh good, he's here.

185
00:30:57.320 --> 00:31:04.320
Yeah, my stuff isn't coming.

186
00:31:04.320 --> 00:31:08.320
Oh, oh, I would do that.

187
00:31:08.320 --> 00:31:13.320
Ah, ah, thanks very much.

188
00:31:13.320 --> 00:31:15.320
Thanks.

189
00:31:19.320 --> 00:31:21.320
Okay.

190
00:31:43.320 --> 00:31:58.120
Okay, these are two philosophers who were, also they're both philosophers, both of them

191
00:31:58.120 --> 00:32:04.080
were historians and philosophers, but they influenced Mises and were especially important

192
00:32:04.080 --> 00:32:11.080
in that Mises had very similar ideas in his notion of Brichet and of this type of historical

193
00:32:11.080 --> 00:32:41.080
The Theory of Money and Credit

194
00:32:41.080 --> 00:32:51.080
In this example I gave, someone was trying to explain why Lord Halifax had promoted a more aggressive response to Germany.

195
00:32:51.080 --> 00:33:04.080
He was really reconstructing Halifax's thoughts, so he was really having the same thought as Halifax had done if he were correct in his explanation.

196
00:33:04.080 --> 00:33:09.080
It wouldn't of course be the same act of thought. The historian isn't Halifax himself.

197
00:33:09.080 --> 00:33:14.080
The Great Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce, said in a similar vein, that if he's right,

198
00:33:14.080 --> 00:33:22.080
the content of his thought is exactly the same as Halifax. If his explanation is the correct one, he's successfully reconstructed the thought.

199
00:33:22.080 --> 00:33:33.080
Mises thought very highly of Collingwood. He said that really Collingwood is the only one of these writers who's fully understood praxeology.

200
00:33:33.080 --> 00:33:42.360
The great Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce said in a similar vein, all history is contemporary history.

201
00:33:42.360 --> 00:33:50.840
By this he didn't have the absurd view that, say, the events of the Middle Ages are taking place now.

202
00:33:50.840 --> 00:34:00.440
What he meant was that when the historian succeeds in rethinking the thoughts of the action of the past,

203
00:34:00.440 --> 00:34:02.440
The Theory of Money and Credit

204
00:34:30.440 --> 00:34:37.040
Contributions, Croce had done some early work in economics but then went on to other subjects.

205
00:34:37.040 --> 00:34:48.440
All right, so as I say, this is the view that Mises held of historical explanation, that's

206
00:34:48.440 --> 00:34:58.700
one that emphasizes notion of intuitive understanding. Now this view has to be contrasted with another

207
00:34:58.700 --> 00:35:04.380
Interview, which was held by the logical positivists.

208
00:35:04.380 --> 00:35:14.580
There is a famous article published by Carl Hempel in 1942, which is called The Problem

209
00:35:14.580 --> 00:35:23.140
of General Laws in History, and he said what the historian does is just like the physical

210
00:35:23.140 --> 00:35:33.140
What he's trying to do is to explain a particular event by showing how it follows from a general law.

211
00:35:33.140 --> 00:35:47.140
What we do in any scientific explanation, we have a general law that says if we have such and such initial conditions,

212
00:36:17.140 --> 00:36:23.540
in Philosophy of Science Circles is deductive, nomological, familiar, the DN model. If you

213
00:36:23.540 --> 00:36:28.580
hear people talk about the DN model of explanation, this is what it's referring to. You explain

214
00:36:28.580 --> 00:36:35.020
something by showing how it fits under a general law. So you see, this is a completely different

215
00:36:35.020 --> 00:36:46.340
account from the Christian view that I mentioned that Mises held, because in Mises' view,

216
00:36:46.340 --> 00:36:51.540
You don't come up with general laws, you just have a kind of intuitive understanding of

217
00:36:51.540 --> 00:37:00.240
what particularly people are going to do based on your own, based on various, the motives

218
00:37:00.240 --> 00:37:09.940
or beliefs and beliefs you impute to the persons you're trying to understand.

219
00:37:09.940 --> 00:37:15.640
Now the people, the positivists objected to Frischte and they said, well, this isn't a

220
00:37:15.640 --> 00:37:45.640
This isn't a very scientific approach at all, this is just, Mises is talking about intuitive understanding, this really doesn't get you anywhere, this might be all right as a way to come up with a hypothesis, but this isn't really scientific because what you have to do to come up with a valid explanation is you can get a hypothesis in any intuitive way you want, but you have to then formulate it as a general law.

221
00:37:45.640 --> 00:37:55.640
and then test it, see whether the historical documents support the conjecture law explanation that you postulated.

222
00:37:55.640 --> 00:38:03.640
Now, I think Mises' reply to this, I think, would be twofold.

223
00:38:03.640 --> 00:38:08.640
One is there aren't any such general laws available.

224
00:38:08.640 --> 00:38:13.640
There just aren't any general laws of a kind that Hempel assumed existed.

225
00:38:13.640 --> 00:38:15.640
The Theory of Money and Credit

226
00:38:43.640 --> 00:38:52.080
satisfied with the territorial gains it had already gotten but would then go on to more

227
00:38:52.080 --> 00:38:57.720
further demands on the rest that would threaten British interests.

228
00:38:57.720 --> 00:39:05.680
So then you can test, you can certainly test this by saying how does it, this is verified

229
00:39:05.680 --> 00:39:12.060
by the British invasion of Poland, I mean the British declaration of war against Germany

230
00:39:12.060 --> 00:39:16.940
and the German invasion of Poland, but to view this as a verification, you still have

231
00:39:16.940 --> 00:39:24.540
to apply Brechtian to that. You have to understand what are the motives behind that. So you can't,

232
00:39:24.540 --> 00:39:33.960
if Mises is right, escape from the notion of Brechtian. There isn't some kind of specially

233
00:39:33.960 --> 00:39:43.120
The scientific process that enables you to get out of the intuitive psychology that Mises

234
00:39:43.120 --> 00:39:48.960
has postulated, is used in his own account of historical explanation.

235
00:39:48.960 --> 00:39:57.160
So now, what I've done so far is, what I've discussed so far, the application of praxeology

236
00:39:57.160 --> 00:40:04.160
to History and Mises, Frischte and the way he's explained history have been problems

237
00:40:04.160 --> 00:40:10.880
in the philosophy of history in the sense that they've been concerned with historical

238
00:40:10.880 --> 00:40:18.920
explanation how the history, sorry, we could call this, if you wanted to be fancy, the epistemology

239
00:40:18.920 --> 00:40:25.880
of history, how the history explains various phenomena, what's involved in explanation.

240
00:40:25.880 --> 00:40:49.880
There is another sense of philosophy of history, which is very different. In this sense, philosophy of history refers to a kind of speculative scheme that's an account of not what the historian is doing in explaining facts, but is an account of is there a pattern in history as a whole.

241
00:40:49.880 --> 00:40:53.580
is that we have, of course, histories of particular countries,

242
00:40:53.580 --> 00:40:56.280
history of the United States, history of Russia,

243
00:40:56.280 --> 00:41:01.680
have history of particular sciences or all sorts of particular history,

244
00:41:01.680 --> 00:41:06.480
but is there a pattern to histories, all of history,

245
00:41:06.480 --> 00:41:09.380
something that will explain the whole thing?

246
00:41:09.380 --> 00:41:13.880
And most historians today would say no, there isn't,

247
00:41:13.880 --> 00:41:17.880
but there are a few philosophers of history

248
00:41:17.880 --> 00:41:27.880
who thought there was such a pattern, and I want to mention two of these, Karl Marx and Oswald Spengler.

249
00:41:47.880 --> 00:42:05.640
Question, we have to ask, why was Mises in theory and history concerned with these philosophies?

250
00:42:05.640 --> 00:42:14.360
Well, what Mises was always interested in, as I'm sure you've gathered by now, is supporting

251
00:42:14.360 --> 00:42:24.320
Supporting and Defending Capitalism, and these philosophies, if they were correct, would

252
00:42:24.320 --> 00:42:27.220
in some sense threaten capitalism.

253
00:42:27.220 --> 00:42:35.120
They would show, if they were in very different ways, that capitalism was a system that would

254
00:42:35.120 --> 00:42:41.800
be applied only to particular periods in history and would be superseded by some other form

255
00:42:41.800 --> 00:42:44.280
of social organization.

256
00:42:44.280 --> 00:42:53.560
So Mises was very much concerned to show what was wrong with these systems in order so he

257
00:42:53.560 --> 00:42:59.520
could pursue his primary goal of defending the free market.

258
00:42:59.520 --> 00:43:05.480
So I wanted in the time remaining just to go over what his criticisms were of the two

259
00:43:05.480 --> 00:43:08.480
philosophies.

260
00:43:08.480 --> 00:43:13.960
The section on Marxism is probably the more important of the two because Marx has been

261
00:43:13.960 --> 00:43:31.560
and much more influential figure than Spengler, although Spengler had quite a vogue for a while, especially in the 1920s and 30s, and he was an important theorist of fascism, although his own political views are somewhat hard to pin down.

262
00:43:31.560 --> 00:43:41.560
Now, according to the Marxist view of history, as Mises explained it, Marx was here following,

263
00:43:41.560 --> 00:43:49.120
in his account of Marx, he was here following an interpretation by the 19th century Russian

264
00:43:49.120 --> 00:43:58.320
Marxist Plekhanov, might as well put him down also, as long as I'm putting down a name,

265
00:43:58.320 --> 00:44:03.400
The technological interpretation of Marx, and I think it is a very convincing interpretation,

266
00:44:03.400 --> 00:44:11.080
the British philosopher G. A. Cohen in his book, Karl Marx's Theory of History, defends,

267
00:44:11.080 --> 00:44:15.840
which is the best defense of Marx, and I know also adopts this interpretation.

268
00:44:15.840 --> 00:44:21.920
According to this view, what was basic to Marx, Marx's view of history, was a constant

269
00:44:21.920 --> 00:44:39.920
There's a constant tendency in history for technology to develop, Marx called this the forces of production, which basically, technology and society, there's a constant tendency throughout history for technology to get more and more advanced.

270
00:44:39.920 --> 00:44:47.400
say, we have, we start off in the Stone Age and now we go on to the Industrial Revolution

271
00:44:47.400 --> 00:44:57.700
and things just keep getting more and more developed in history, so as the force of production

272
00:44:57.700 --> 00:45:05.880
develop, for each, at each stage in the development of forces of production, there's a particular

273
00:45:05.880 --> 00:45:15.480
Social System, the relations of production that is best suited to develop the forces of production.

274
00:45:15.480 --> 00:45:25.960
So the relations of production, the social system, has as its function the highest possible development

275
00:45:25.960 --> 00:45:35.080
of the forces of production at that time. So that in the ancient world, slavery was the way that would

276
00:45:35.080 --> 00:45:39.480
would develop the force of production the best in the Middle Ages.

277
00:45:39.480 --> 00:45:43.640
The feudal system would best develop the force of production.

278
00:45:43.640 --> 00:45:48.360
At the time, Marx was writing, it was capitalism that would best develop the force of production.

279
00:45:48.360 --> 00:45:54.680
He thought there would be a final stage in which socialism would develop the force of

280
00:45:54.680 --> 00:46:00.960
production the best, and then after this, this would just continue indefinitely.

281
00:46:00.960 --> 00:46:06.360
That was the final system, that was it.

282
00:46:06.360 --> 00:46:14.080
So you see why Mises wouldn't like this view, because if it's right, capitalism is going

283
00:46:14.080 --> 00:46:17.220
to be superseded by socialism.

284
00:46:17.220 --> 00:46:26.000
So Mises developed some, I think, very effective criticisms of the Marxist view.

285
00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:56.000
He said, first of all, why does Marx, Marx says that there's a constant tendency for the forces of production to develop in history, but he seems to take this as if it's just something that happens automatically, whereas we know that, in fact, the force of production will develop only if particular people want them to develop, only, remember, if one of the basic principles

286
00:46:56.000 --> 00:47:12.000
and Praxeology, only individuals act so that we can't just take development of force and production as if it's some kind of force operating independently of human action.

287
00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:24.000
It's individuals who are acting in history, so the whole basis of the Marxist system, some kind of autonomous development of force and production, collapses if Mises is right.

288
00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:35.640
We have a further problem with the system. Again, we can get this directly from Mises' reasoning in the praxeological approach.

289
00:47:35.640 --> 00:47:43.000
We know that capitalism, the free market, is always the most efficient method of social production.

290
00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:50.880
It isn't the case that, say at previous times, slavery was best fitted to develop a force of production.

291
00:47:50.880 --> 00:47:58.400
and later time feudalism only at a particular period would capitalism be the best system.

292
00:47:58.400 --> 00:48:05.520
It's capitalism is always the best system to develop the forces of production. Incidentally,

293
00:48:05.520 --> 00:48:13.600
one could, if Marx was right that capitalism is the, at least for the present, is the way best

294
00:48:13.600 --> 00:48:19.920
developed forces of production, we could get a kind of a Marxist argument for capitalism,

295
00:48:19.920 --> 00:48:23.720
Which would be, you can take what Marxist said,

296
00:48:23.720 --> 00:48:27.220
that capitalism best develops force of reduction, at least for the present,

297
00:48:27.220 --> 00:48:31.420
and you combine that with the socialist calculation argument,

298
00:48:31.420 --> 00:48:34.720
that socialism, far from being a more productive system,

299
00:48:34.720 --> 00:48:37.720
would lead to complete collapse,

300
00:48:37.720 --> 00:48:41.520
and then you would get a Marxist argument for capitalism,

301
00:48:41.520 --> 00:48:46.420
which would say that only under capitalism,

302
00:48:46.420 --> 00:48:49.820
in the indefinite future, can the force of reduction

303
00:48:49.820 --> 00:48:51.820
The Theory of Money and Credit

304
00:49:19.820 --> 00:49:25.820
have it because it would be the one that would develop the force of production to the greatest possible extent.

305
00:49:25.820 --> 00:49:37.820
Now, a third criticism that Mises made of Marx was one that he said was guilty of what for him was one of the supreme sins.

306
00:49:49.820 --> 00:50:13.580
Oh good, it worked. Polylogism. Mises liked somewhat unusual words, even if he didn't

307
00:50:13.580 --> 00:50:15.580
The Theory of Money and Credit

308
00:50:43.580 --> 00:50:50.080
The Proletarian logic, which was completely different from bourgeois logic.

309
00:50:50.080 --> 00:50:53.080
So, Mises was very much opposed to this.

310
00:50:53.080 --> 00:50:59.080
You remember in praxeology we have certain categories of human action that apply to all human beings.

311
00:50:59.080 --> 00:51:08.580
It isn't just the case that some people from certain social classes use means to achieve ends.

312
00:51:08.580 --> 00:51:13.080
It's everyone in action uses means to achieve ends.

313
00:51:13.080 --> 00:51:21.480
Praxeology applies universally, so this goes very much against this notion that Marx had.

314
00:51:21.480 --> 00:51:28.520
So, polylogism then is a fundamental failing of Marxism according to Mises.

315
00:51:28.520 --> 00:51:34.880
Now, polylogism is also, here it becomes an even more important point, the principle criticism

316
00:51:34.880 --> 00:51:39.400
that Mises gives of the system of Oswald Spengler.

317
00:51:39.400 --> 00:51:46.400
Spengler was famous for his book, which came out right after World War I, called The Decline of the West.

318
00:51:46.400 --> 00:51:58.400
And what Spengler contended is that there are various civilizations, cultures, that he distinguished seven of these.

319
00:51:58.400 --> 00:52:02.400
We're now in what he called the Faustian culture.

320
00:52:02.400 --> 00:52:22.400
And he said, each of these cultures, he's rejecting methodological individualism, he said it isn't only individuals act, it's an entire culture acts as a single entity, just like a plant.

321
00:52:22.400 --> 00:52:34.900
A culture just grows like a plant. Say, it starts off in the springtime and then it'll achieve its highest point in what he calls summertime.

322
00:52:34.900 --> 00:52:38.900
Then it'll fall into decay in the autumn and winter.

323
00:52:38.900 --> 00:52:51.900
He thought that although we have these separate cultures, each one goes through precisely the same stages as all the others.

324
00:52:51.900 --> 00:53:01.900
So, what he was extremely good at, he would draw very imaginative parallels between the cultures at various stages.

325
00:53:01.900 --> 00:53:10.900
And he thought, though, that each culture, again, this is the polylogist part, thought in a completely different way.

326
00:53:10.900 --> 00:53:17.900
Say, Greek mathematics was completely different from Faustian Western mathematics.

327
00:53:17.900 --> 00:53:24.300
He thought the Greeks didn't have the idea of infinity. This was a concept that they couldn't have understood.

328
00:53:24.300 --> 00:53:38.300
So he then, applying this to contemporary civilization, he thought that capitalism wouldn't last.

329
00:53:38.300 --> 00:53:43.800
It would be replaced by some form of nationalistic socialism.

330
00:53:43.800 --> 00:53:49.400
and although he himself in his, one of his last books called The Hour of Decision was

331
00:53:49.400 --> 00:53:55.960
rather critical of Hitler, he was also critical of the industrial system, he was very much

332
00:53:55.960 --> 00:54:04.360
an opponent of capitalism, so Mises criticizes him just principally on the grounds that he's

333
00:54:04.360 --> 00:54:09.640
endorsing polylogism, he says all the people in these cultures think in completely different

334
00:54:09.640 --> 00:54:22.640
Mises says, no, that's not right. Everyone has the same logic. Mises says, well, if there are these other logic, let's have them formally specified so we can see what they are.

335
00:54:22.640 --> 00:54:33.640
And he also criticizes Spengler for methodological holism. Spengler thinks that these cultures are acting as if they're organic units.

336
00:54:33.640 --> 00:54:41.020
isn't just individuals who act, it's the whole culture that is, in his view, quite literally an organism.

337
00:54:41.020 --> 00:54:46.840
The culture is like a plant, and Mises, of course, very much repudiates that.

338
00:54:46.840 --> 00:55:02.720
So I think I bring this talk to a much needed end, so I think we have a couple minutes left for any questions, comments, objections.

339
00:55:02.720 --> 00:55:10.320
I'm not familiar necessarily with the monetarist view of the depression, but I am familiar with the Mondelian view of the depression.

340
00:55:10.320 --> 00:55:19.220
And so I'm wondering how do the Austrians view that, which is the idea that since all of the European nations went off the gold standard during World War I,

341
00:55:19.220 --> 00:55:24.920
from 1914 to 1924, the United States was the only country in the world on the gold standard.

342
00:55:24.920 --> 00:55:31.420
And the reason that the European nations did this was so that they could engage in deficit finance to pay for the war,

343
00:55:31.420 --> 00:55:35.300
which caused a considerable inflation over that 10 years.

344
00:55:35.300 --> 00:55:40.220
And then in 1924, when they started going back to it, they went back to it at an undervalued price of gold.

345
00:55:40.220 --> 00:55:42.380
They went back to the original price of gold.

346
00:55:42.380 --> 00:55:47.660
Now, to me, that seems like that would have a significant economic effect, deflationary effect,

347
00:55:47.660 --> 00:55:51.180
and explain a lot of the things that we see in the Depression.

348
00:55:51.180 --> 00:55:58.220
Is the Austrian view completely tied to Austrian business cycle theory and the credit expansion?

349
00:55:58.220 --> 00:56:05.020
or is, I mean, does it take into account this, you know, this deflation by the monetary policy?

350
00:56:05.020 --> 00:56:14.460
Well, I think Rothbard does have a paper on that subject. I think I'd have to look that up again,

351
00:56:14.460 --> 00:56:20.060
but I think what he contends is that he tries to fit this in with his own account of the 20s.

352
00:56:20.060 --> 00:56:27.340
What he says is that the Federal Reserve system to some extent inflated the U.S. currency

353
00:56:27.340 --> 00:56:34.100
In order to support the deflationary policy of the British, in order to help them preserve

354
00:56:34.100 --> 00:56:40.340
the value of the pound they wanted, they inflated the American currency, because otherwise the

355
00:56:40.340 --> 00:56:41.940
British policy would have collapsed.

356
00:56:41.940 --> 00:56:49.660
So he sees the policies you're referring to as not in disagreement with his explanation

357
00:56:49.660 --> 00:56:59.660
Justice, one reason accounting for what he views as the U.S. expansion during that period.

358
00:56:59.660 --> 00:57:01.660
Kevin?

359
00:57:01.660 --> 00:57:15.660
So I understand what the difference is between some of the Austrians in New York Nation and a lot of the Austrians here is that I think the praxeology or the praxeological method is a kind of human.

360
00:57:15.660 --> 00:57:18.660
Basically, it's merely a mode of interpretation.

361
00:57:18.660 --> 00:57:25.060
And I'd be interested to understand, because I think this applies to historical interpretation too,

362
00:57:25.060 --> 00:57:29.060
so some people will say that, you know, to overstay him,

363
00:57:29.060 --> 00:57:36.260
praxeological categories is always sort of subjective, merely a mode of interpretation.

364
00:57:36.260 --> 00:57:44.660
And I wonder what you would say about that, or if somebody said, you know,

365
00:57:44.660 --> 00:58:06.660
I think what those people are doing, they're confusing historical explanation with the actual science of praxeology, that praxeology claims if it's right, if it's correct, that it's not just a way of looking at things, but I mean this is a necessary category of action.

366
00:58:06.660 --> 00:58:21.660
Rothbard has some paper on that. I wrote one years ago with the rather perhaps question-begging title Hermeneutics vs. Austrian Economics and I have a copy.

367
00:58:21.660 --> 00:58:25.660
I guess we're out of time now. Thanks very much.