WEBVTT

NOTE Menger and Böhm-Bawerk

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.000
We've got the Austrian family tree up there, and the founder of Austrian economics is Carl Menger, 1840 to 1921.

2
00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:23.000
The generally accepted position on the Austrian school was that, of course, Menger was the founder, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk was his most important student,

3
00:00:53.000 --> 00:00:57.000
The explosion of Menger's study, which is all of the good, great stuff.

4
00:00:57.000 --> 00:00:59.000
For one thing, Menger didn't write very much.

5
00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:02.000
He wrote his great Principles of Economics in 1871.

6
00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:05.000
It was supposed to be volume one of a mighty treatise,

7
00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:07.000
which the rest of it never got published.

8
00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:10.000
This, by the way, just as an aside, as scholars have said,

9
00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:13.000
don't write books entitled part one or volume one,

10
00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:16.000
because often the other parts never get written.

11
00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:19.000
This is what happened to Menger. He never completed this.

12
00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:22.000
It was supposed to be an introductory volume.

13
00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:30.000
Then he got off on methodology, his famous methodological struggle with Schmuller, and his famous argument on the origin of money, and that's just about it.

14
00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:33.000
There were a couple of other things, but basically he didn't write too much more than that.

15
00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:46.000
With the exposure of Menger's studies, the whole series of essays on Menger, and there will be more of that coming up, fortunately, because what happened was all of his papers were for lectures and papers and all that.

16
00:01:46.000 --> 00:01:53.000
Founded in the custody of Sun Carl Menger Jr., a distinguished mathematician at the University of Chicago, who refused to allow anybody to see them.

17
00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:56.000
This is of course a mystery in itself. Why did he refuse to do this?

18
00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:04.000
Tied up, by the way, with the mystery of why Menger retired early in 1903 from his chair, and didn't do anything after that.

19
00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:08.000
Sort of retired and had his famous library, and that's about it.

20
00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:14.000
Anyway, the story is, I'm not sure if this might be apocryphal, and I realize this is a reporting rumor here, but it's interesting anyway.

21
00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:24.000
The story is that Carl Menger Jr. was haunted for all of his life by the fact that he was apparently an illegitimate son of the Carl Menger, Carl Menger Sr., by a housekeeper.

22
00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:34.000
And in those days, of course, in Victorian Vienna, if I use that statement, this was a real shock and whatever, swept under the rug.

23
00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:43.000
And apparently one of the reasons why, perhaps, why Menger retired from his chair early in his life, or earlier than he had to, was sort of this potential disgrace.

24
00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:48.600
So anyway, Carl Menger Jr. refused to allow the papers, he's still at the age of 90 whenever he died,

25
00:02:48.600 --> 00:02:52.000
he still felt this terrible stain, a little eugeniccy.

26
00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:56.000
Apparently it was impossible to tell him that these days things are different.

27
00:02:56.000 --> 00:02:59.000
So he died a couple of years ago and now the papers are at Duke University

28
00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:04.000
and that's the whole process of being catalogued and open to scholars.

29
00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:09.000
So we'll know more about Menger's ideas and where he stood on various things as time goes on.

30
00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:27.000
One of the problems with the exposure of interest in Menger is that there is also an ideological grift connected with this hidden agenda in the accolades given to Menger, namely the depreciation and deprecation of von Boehm-Bawerk.

31
00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:31.960
So as Menger has been lauded as the great founder of the Austrian School, which he was indeed,

32
00:03:31.960 --> 00:03:37.800
the achievements of von Boehm-Bawerk have even been denigrated or forgotten and sort of stuffed away.

33
00:03:37.800 --> 00:03:42.080
And this is part of what I call a nihilist trend in the modern Austrian movement.

34
00:03:42.080 --> 00:03:46.760
There's also a sort of an attempt to claim that Menger and von Boehm-Bawerk were totally different,

35
00:03:46.760 --> 00:03:51.760
disagreed on almost everything and so forth and so on. I don't think that's true. I'm not prepared to state one way or the other of this,

36
00:03:51.760 --> 00:04:21.760
In 1871, Menger published his work in 1871 as a dramatic revolutionary trend in the German-speaking scene in general, and two young economists in their 20s, Wieser and Boehm-Bawerk, who were brothers-in-law

37
00:04:21.760 --> 00:04:31.760
and others and fairly early in the game, became Menger's great disciples and eventually, both eventually taught at the University of Vienna after many years of teaching in other places.

38
00:04:31.760 --> 00:04:41.760
And they came to disagree fairly sharply. I think it's, Wieser was certainly a praxeologist. He wrote on methodology in a sense, I think more than Boehm-Bawerk did.

39
00:04:41.760 --> 00:04:53.760
But his basic view, and he also contributed to marginal utility theory and certainly opportunity course theory, but basically the whole rest of his approach I think was much more sort of pre-neoclassical or pre-Keynesian.

40
00:04:53.760 --> 00:04:57.760
He did not believe, for example, in time structure capital, as von Boehm-Bawerk and Menger did.

41
00:04:57.760 --> 00:05:07.760
At any rate, the two of them, and this is Mises told me one time in the seminar, the two of them were brothers-in-law, very close friends, and they never discussed economics, unless they got to the point where they disagreed on stuff.

42
00:05:37.760 --> 00:05:43.040
Rudolf, the successor of the Austro-Hungarian throne, and sort of did with him apparently

43
00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:48.840
what he did with Archbishop Fenningel and the Duke of Burgundy back in the early 18th

44
00:05:48.840 --> 00:05:52.240
century France, late 17th century, early 18th century France.

45
00:05:52.240 --> 00:05:57.520
Now one of the problems here, I'm not sure what Menger's political economic views were,

46
00:05:57.520 --> 00:06:03.360
to me it's unclear. According to the Barry Smith book, there's an article on Menger's

47
00:06:03.360 --> 00:06:13.360
and Political Economy, and Barry Smith, excellent compendium, called Austrian Economics, a series of essays really on Austrian philosophy, underlying Austrian economics.

48
00:06:13.360 --> 00:06:23.360
Anyway, there's an essay there on Menger's political philosophy, which sounds pretty grim. It's sort of very conservative, semi-statist, Austrian, whatever.

49
00:06:23.360 --> 00:06:32.360
According to Erich Streisler on the other hand, I met with him a couple of weeks ago in Austria, he claims that Menger's lectures, it's clear Menger's lectures are unpublished,

50
00:06:32.360 --> 00:06:55.360
Manger tutored Crown Prince Rudolf in laissez-faire doctrine, since he was the successor of the Austrian throne, the idea that he would then take over and oppose classical liberalism and laissez-faire from above, so to speak.

51
00:06:55.360 --> 00:07:01.360
I mentioned Archbishop Fennellon because that was his plan of how to bring laissez-faire, economics and politics to France.

52
00:07:01.360 --> 00:07:05.360
Here they were living in the absolutism of Louis XIV.

53
00:07:05.360 --> 00:07:09.360
It was sort of the epitome and apogee of absolutism and mercantilism, all the rest of it.

54
00:07:09.360 --> 00:07:14.360
Here's Archbishop Fennellon with laissez-faire, anti-war, anti-militarism, everything, all the rest of it.

55
00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:17.360
And what do you do about it? How do you convert the king?

56
00:07:17.360 --> 00:07:22.360
The idea of building a mass movement was considered kind of bizarre.

57
00:07:22.360 --> 00:07:26.520
bazaar. I don't think it was considered thinkable in late 17th century France. Previous mass

58
00:07:26.520 --> 00:07:31.080
movements have been wiped out by the French monarchy. When Archbishop Fenwell decided

59
00:07:31.080 --> 00:07:35.000
to do his converts, get a hold of the Crown Prince, the Grand Adolphe, who was going to

60
00:07:35.000 --> 00:07:40.040
be the Grand Adolphe, was the grandson of Louis XIV, was supposed to take over the throne

61
00:07:40.040 --> 00:07:44.240
of France and convert him. He was the Duke of Burgundy. And Archbishop Fenwell got up

62
00:07:44.240 --> 00:07:49.640
and became the confessor and then the tutor of the Duke of Burgundy and he formed what

63
00:07:49.640 --> 00:08:19.640
The Burgundy Circle, a group of people at the court, were the top laissez-faire scholars, historians, political philosophers and economists in France, and worked on the Duke and converted him, so by the time he grew up, he was totally dedicated to laissez-faire, eliminating all the statism, eliminating the taxes, the controls, and the rest of the whole structure of quasi-totalitarian statism that Louis XIV had imposed. Well, unfortunately what happened was, about a year before he would have taken over the throne, he and his entire family were wiped out in the measles epidemic.

64
00:08:19.640 --> 00:08:24.640
The whole plan, a 25-year plan of converting the French monarchy without any dust.

65
00:08:24.640 --> 00:08:28.640
Poor Feynman was, of course, in despair at this. I don't blame him.

66
00:08:28.640 --> 00:08:34.640
Well, that's one of the problems with this kind of strategy here. Why am I converting one prince or something? What do you do if the prince corks off?

67
00:08:34.640 --> 00:08:40.640
So essentially the same thing happened, apparently, with Menger and Prince Rudolf.

68
00:08:40.640 --> 00:08:44.640
There's all sorts of Meyerling revisionism. Those of you who are interested in historical revisionism, there's a whole area.

69
00:09:14.640 --> 00:09:22.640
The other one, much more interesting one, which Lee Langeger, by the way, is convinced of, is that he was murdered by the statists in the Austrian court who didn't want him to take over.

70
00:09:22.640 --> 00:09:27.640
I'll leave that with you for further research that you're interested in pursuing myelin revisionism.

71
00:09:27.640 --> 00:09:40.640
So, and apparently one of the reasons why Menger lost interest in scholarship and didn't do much since later in the last 20, 30 years of his life is because of the death of Crown Prince Rudolf, the end of the Rudolf experiment, so to speak.

72
00:09:40.640 --> 00:09:47.240
To set the stage of the revolution that Menger effected, indeed, Menger and Boehm-Bawerk, the Austrian Revolution,

73
00:09:47.240 --> 00:09:53.140
is that he was reacting against, of course, the historical school, which was dominant in German-speaking countries,

74
00:09:53.140 --> 00:10:00.140
headed by Gustav Schmöller, who believed there were no economic laws, partly because he was interested in building up the state,

75
00:10:00.140 --> 00:10:10.540
state power in Prussia and the rest of Germany, and it was inconvenient to have any economic laws out there which might contradict or confound government decrees and actions.

76
00:10:10.540 --> 00:10:30.540
As a matter of fact, the famous phrase of Schmoller, which Mises likes to mention from time to time, is that the function of the University of Berlin, which is, of course, the creation of the Prussian state, the function of the professors of the University of Berlin is to form the intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern, the dinastic Prussian monarchy.

77
00:10:30.540 --> 00:10:40.540
And when Menger's Principle of Economics was published, it was greeted with hatred and, of course, some bitter derision of hatred by the Schmoller Right, so they began to organize a cadre campaign against it.

78
00:10:40.540 --> 00:10:49.540
And then Menger got caught up in this same methodological conflict, explaining why there is such a thing as economic law and why it's not just historical bound and all the rest of it.

79
00:10:49.540 --> 00:11:00.040
What Menger did in this principle was to really revive the continental tradition, the scholastic economic tradition, the tradition of Catalan and Turgao in 18th century France,

80
00:11:00.040 --> 00:11:07.040
the tradition of subjective value theory, of individual action, that's really a force of praxeological work,

81
00:11:07.040 --> 00:11:13.040
the focus on individual action and individual expectations and acting through time,

82
00:11:13.040 --> 00:11:21.040
And in fact, of course, the consumers valuing the good determine the price of the good and also determine the value of the factors of production.

83
00:11:21.040 --> 00:11:26.040
So the whole Austrian, the whole basic outlines of Austrian doctrine were in Menger's principles.

84
00:11:26.040 --> 00:11:29.040
They weren't fully worked out, but they were sort of in there.

85
00:11:29.040 --> 00:11:38.040
And they were essentially a revival in the development of the scholastic medieval and late Spanish scholastic and 18th century French tradition.

86
00:11:38.040 --> 00:11:43.840
Well, there was, I'd say, there was a fight in Germany, a German-speaking country, there was a fight with the Schmullerites.

87
00:11:43.840 --> 00:11:47.480
In England, of course, there was classical economics, classical economics, which

88
00:11:47.480 --> 00:11:54.880
the Austrians never really grappled with too much, because they were much more concerned with grappling with Schmuller.

89
00:11:54.880 --> 00:11:58.040
It's kind of a sweet thing that happened to me in the seminar, me in the seminar.

90
00:11:58.040 --> 00:12:02.960
The one time we really had an argument, it was a very friendly argument, argued by my deviation, one of my

91
00:12:02.960 --> 00:12:06.240
major deviations from Mises, which was on monopoly theory,

92
00:12:06.240 --> 00:12:09.560
and I was claiming there was no such thing as monopoly on the free market.

93
00:12:09.560 --> 00:12:13.600
Anyway, the discussion ended when he accused me of being a schmalerite.

94
00:12:13.600 --> 00:12:15.360
The interesting thing is

95
00:12:15.360 --> 00:12:20.600
that nobody else in the room, I think, understood what he was talking about and understood that this was the ultimate insult

96
00:12:20.600 --> 00:12:22.040
at an Austrian level

97
00:12:22.040 --> 00:12:24.000
and a critic.

98
00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:28.400
So the Austrians never really came to grapple with the English classical tradition and understood

99
00:12:28.400 --> 00:12:32.400
where they stood in relation to it. After all, England was far away. They were fighting with the German

100
00:12:32.400 --> 00:12:33.920
German situation.

101
00:12:33.920 --> 00:13:03.920
The English Classical School, and my vision, as Shrimp had recalled, my vision of the history of economic thought is that the English Classical School was the great detour, the great diversion from the mainline scholastic French tradition, the scholastic French tradition was a classic Daesh French tradition, continental tradition was a subject of value theory, it was basically what I call pre-Austrian. I realize it's anachronistic to say it, that's really what it was. With Adam Smith and with Smith and McCarter, the middle themes

102
00:13:03.920 --> 00:13:10.920
The Theory of Money and Credit

103
00:13:33.920 --> 00:13:40.960
and filial pietism, paying his great debt to his father, and by sheer intellectual bravura

104
00:13:40.960 --> 00:13:45.560
and the fact that he had tremendous stature in England at that time, won the day and restored

105
00:13:45.560 --> 00:13:49.980
the cardinalism to its unfortunate place in the history of thought.

106
00:13:49.980 --> 00:13:55.980
So when Menger created, in front of the Austrian theory, standard, well, the standard discussion

107
00:13:55.980 --> 00:13:59.620
since that of marginalism until very recently, of course, the standard discussion of history

108
00:13:59.620 --> 00:14:03.620
The History of Thought books was, well, marginalism popped up in three, independent in three countries.

109
00:14:03.620 --> 00:14:07.620
Menger in Austria, Jevons in England, and Valois in Switzerland.

110
00:14:07.620 --> 00:14:11.620
And they were all basically the same. So the basic view of the History of Thought,

111
00:14:11.620 --> 00:14:15.620
as I said until very recently, was, well, they're all about the same.

112
00:14:15.620 --> 00:14:21.620
Menger, Jevons, and Valois, except that Menger didn't know math.

113
00:14:21.620 --> 00:14:25.620
Menger was inferior because he didn't understand mathematics.

114
00:14:25.620 --> 00:14:27.620
Therefore he should concentrate on Jevons and Valois.

115
00:14:27.620 --> 00:14:32.620
and, of course, Balra has really taken over modern microeconomics.

116
00:14:32.620 --> 00:14:37.620
If you read, for example, one of the most repellent and odious works written on von Bawerk by Stiegler,

117
00:14:37.620 --> 00:14:42.620
George Stiegler, his Ph.D. dissertation called Productivity, Production and Distribution Theories,

118
00:14:42.620 --> 00:14:45.620
where he has a chapter on Menger, a chapter on von Bawerk.

119
00:14:45.620 --> 00:14:49.620
He really didn't like Menger, but he hated von Bawerk. All bad people hate von Bawerk.

120
00:14:49.620 --> 00:14:54.620
What he said about von Bawerk, wow, he said he didn't understand mathematics.

121
00:14:54.620 --> 00:15:03.620
That's it. Unfortunately, these guys did understand both Menger and von Boehm-Bawerk were trained in mathematics. They understood it all too well, which is why they rejected it.

122
00:15:03.620 --> 00:15:12.620
This, of course, the idea of knowing mathematics and rejecting its application in economics does not even occur to mathematical economists. It's just outside their kin, an unthinkable thought.

123
00:15:12.620 --> 00:15:20.620
Well, then what happens? Well, Austrian economics, even though this was the official view, so to speak, Austrian economics was extremely influential in the United States.

124
00:15:20.620 --> 00:15:30.620
with Federer, Federer was a very important Austrian, Davenport, Green, these were important Austrians who ignored the British classical tradition or attacked it.

125
00:15:30.620 --> 00:15:39.620
Unfortunately what happened in the United States was in World War I something snapped in American academic economics and theory drops out, the institutionalists take over.

126
00:15:39.620 --> 00:15:49.620
Except for a few people here and there, Fisher and Knight who were unfortunate sort of premodularist types, pre-Chicago-like, Federer lost interest in economic theory more or less and got hung up on monopolies.

127
00:15:49.620 --> 00:15:53.620
... hung up a monopoly, basing point monopoly, which he spent the rest of his life on.

128
00:15:53.620 --> 00:15:57.620
So, unfortunately, this left a vacuum and institutionalism poured in.

129
00:15:57.620 --> 00:16:00.620
So the American, a dumb-dumb variant of the Schmuller Historical School.

130
00:16:00.620 --> 00:16:05.620
It means this is historical school people with no knowledge of history or social science or anything.

131
00:16:05.620 --> 00:16:12.620
So these are the guys who sort of took over economic economics and left a theoretical vacuum in economic, in American economics.

132
00:16:12.620 --> 00:16:18.620
Well, this meant that in England, which of course was sort of the rear home of economics, supposedly,

133
00:16:18.620 --> 00:16:32.620
What happened in England was that the Austrian contribution was very cleverly and cunningly trivialized by Alfred Marshall, his mighty work, the principle of economics, and disposed of it that way by trivializing it.

134
00:16:32.620 --> 00:16:41.620
And from then on, Austrian school was not considered, not even mentioned and thought of by English economists, by Cambridge economists or by anybody else in the English tradition.

135
00:16:41.620 --> 00:16:50.620
And I grew up, I cut my ITs on Marshall. We had a very interesting college seminar, senior seminar, I spent the entire year on Marshall, coming through every chapter.

136
00:16:50.620 --> 00:16:56.620
And it was very interesting, so I recommended it, especially if you had nothing else to read. Certainly better than Keynes.

137
00:16:56.620 --> 00:17:02.620
But it was very interesting because that was considered economics. And what he did with Marshall utility theory, he trivialized it.

138
00:17:02.620 --> 00:17:09.620
He said, well, it's interesting, it fills a gap in the Ricardian program, because Ricard really didn't consider consumers,

139
00:17:09.620 --> 00:17:39.620
Douglas Goldstein, CFPÆ, is the director of the Profile Investment Services and the

140
00:17:39.620 --> 00:17:44.620
And the real important thing about cost of course is labor pain or a back to Ricardo and Marx and all the rest of it.

141
00:17:44.620 --> 00:17:49.620
It was a very clever device that he used. You can't say he ignored marginal utility. He just trivialized it.

142
00:17:49.620 --> 00:17:53.620
He encapsulated it in a couple of appendices or whatever and that was it.

143
00:17:53.620 --> 00:17:56.620
I remember when I was taking a history of thought at Columbia.

144
00:17:56.620 --> 00:18:01.620
In those days the Columbia Graduate School was the top department, a question about it.

145
00:18:01.620 --> 00:18:06.620
It had not fallen to its present sorry state, ranked among the top three graduate schools.

146
00:18:06.620 --> 00:18:17.620
And my professor was J.M. Clark, a weird figure. I asked him, I said, well, well, I didn't know anything about Austria, and I asked him about Jevons, because I knew Jevons was so important, and I don't have to read Jevons, he said, it's all incorporated into Marshall.

147
00:18:17.620 --> 00:18:25.620
I'm sure if I had known about Austria, he would have said the same thing about that. So that takes, it sort of shoves everything aside, Marshall then takes care of everything else.

148
00:18:25.620 --> 00:18:34.620
And this was before the Keynesian takeover, this was the, this was the Marshallian takeover, of course the Keynesian takeover is really part of that, in a larger sense, as Keynes was a Marshall student.

149
00:18:34.620 --> 00:19:04.620
So, to sum up Menger very quickly, what did he contribute? Again, he essentially brought back or developed a scholastic tradition, the praxeological method, the focus on individual action, entrepreneurship, all this comes in, of course, time, the time structure of production, the focus on individual, the fact that individual values of our consumers determine the, our expected values of consumers determine the value of the factors of production entrepreneurs are willing to invest in. The whole Austrian framework, if you read Menger, you know you're reading

150
00:19:04.620 --> 00:19:10.620
Austrian books read differently, Austrian books read differently, look differently, smell differently than classical books.

151
00:19:10.620 --> 00:19:12.620
One thing is no math in them, very little.

152
00:19:12.620 --> 00:19:15.620
They're clear, they're logical, they proceed step by step.

153
00:19:15.620 --> 00:19:21.620
There's no sort of sudden flights of abstract fancy, not grounded in actual individual action.

154
00:19:21.620 --> 00:19:23.620
What about von Boehm-Bawerk?

155
00:19:23.620 --> 00:19:27.620
What von Boehm-Bawerk did was he developed this outline, which Menger contributed,

156
00:19:27.620 --> 00:19:32.620
in particular developed the value theory, developed the value and price theory, very important, this famous marginal pairs,

157
00:19:32.620 --> 00:19:37.620
and of course the horses, you know about the horses, the first horse and the second horse and all that.

158
00:19:37.620 --> 00:19:42.620
I developed the world diminishing marginal utility brilliantly and of course developed the entire capital interest theory.

159
00:19:42.620 --> 00:19:46.620
He was the one who rescued capital interest theory from neglect.

160
00:19:46.620 --> 00:19:51.620
And as I said, always consider that von Boehm-Bawerk was the main line from Hungary.

161
00:19:51.620 --> 00:19:57.620
And it's only the last ten years or so when von Boehm-Bawerk has been deprecated by Lachmanians and other people.

162
00:20:27.620 --> 00:20:28.620
They Establish Much

163
00:20:28.620 --> 00:20:33.620
He said various things that he didn't like from Bawerk's Capital Theory.

164
00:20:33.620 --> 00:20:34.620
Terrible mistake.

165
00:20:34.620 --> 00:20:35.620
Okay.

166
00:20:35.620 --> 00:20:36.620
Terrible mistake.

167
00:20:36.620 --> 00:20:37.620
So what does that mean?

168
00:20:37.620 --> 00:20:41.660
The Streisler view is that, he's written several articles on this, is that, well, he said

169
00:20:41.660 --> 00:20:44.820
that it means that he didn't believe there was such a thing as a, he believed in time

170
00:20:44.820 --> 00:20:45.820
preference.

171
00:20:45.820 --> 00:20:46.820
We know that.

172
00:20:46.820 --> 00:20:47.820
We know Menger said that time preference was important.

173
00:20:47.820 --> 00:20:51.260
But somehow he didn't believe that time preference was reflected in the rate of interest.

174
00:20:51.260 --> 00:20:52.260
There was no rate of interest.

175
00:20:52.260 --> 00:20:54.260
There's too much of an equilibrating, equilibrating thing.

176
00:20:54.260 --> 00:20:59.260
only 2,000 rates of interest around, there's no one rate of interest, there's no tendency toward it.

177
00:20:59.260 --> 00:21:04.260
Well, that's possible, I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I don't believe it. I don't think Menger rejected equilibration.

178
00:21:04.260 --> 00:21:10.260
Kirzner, in a very interesting article in the Atlantic Economic Journal about 8 years ago,

179
00:21:10.260 --> 00:21:16.260
so he's the head of a whole issue on Menger, a very subtle article, a typical Kirznerian article, very subtle.

180
00:21:16.260 --> 00:21:22.260
He's one of the most understated economists I've ever read. You have to read him a great care, and it's pretty obvious

181
00:21:22.260 --> 00:21:26.260
And obviously, he's refuting this idea that there's a big split between Menger and Boehm-Bawerk

182
00:21:26.260 --> 00:21:30.260
and that they're really fairly similar.

183
00:21:30.260 --> 00:21:34.260
If you look at Boehm-Bawerk himself, what does he say about Menger?

184
00:21:34.260 --> 00:21:36.260
He doesn't say that Menger doesn't believe in a rate of interest.

185
00:21:36.260 --> 00:21:40.260
He says that Menger believes in a rate of interest, but it's incorrect.

186
00:21:40.260 --> 00:21:43.260
By the way, I recommend Boehm-Bawerk highly.

187
00:21:43.260 --> 00:21:45.260
I love reading Boehm-Bawerk.

188
00:21:45.260 --> 00:21:49.260
He's probably one of the great polemicists in the history of economic thought.

189
00:21:49.260 --> 00:22:06.260
Menger is very respectful of Menger. Menger is a great guy, except for his separate great insights. However, unfortunately, he's got an incorrect theory of interest, the theory of interest is the so-called use theory.

190
00:22:06.260 --> 00:22:12.260
But somehow, and he explains it in a very usual lucid, bring it in a lucid manner,

191
00:22:12.260 --> 00:22:22.260
Menger somehow believed that when you buy capital goods, when you buy factors of production, you also pay a price for them, as Roger said today.

192
00:22:22.260 --> 00:22:28.260
But you're also doing something else, you're also paying an extra surplus for the use of the factors of production, for the disposing of the factors of production.

193
00:22:28.260 --> 00:22:34.260
And Menger very carefully, page after page, said, look, there's no difference between the use of something and the thing itself.

194
00:22:34.260 --> 00:22:42.260
You buy something, you buy the uses of it. That's the whole point. You buy a machine, you buy only uses of the machine. There's no extra use payment in addition to the payment of the machine.

195
00:22:42.260 --> 00:22:54.260
Very beautifully and loosely and carefully, he demolishes Menger. Obviously Menger doesn't like to be demolished. There are very few people in the history of social thought who love being demolished. There might be one or two here and there, but I don't know of them.

196
00:22:54.260 --> 00:23:00.260
And I think that's it. I don't think the argument is over equilibration. I think the argument is over use theory.

197
00:23:00.260 --> 00:23:03.260
And that, of course, brings in the time preference theory of interest.

198
00:23:03.260 --> 00:23:07.260
And somebody asked Roger, why did von Boehm-Bawerk reintroduce it?

199
00:23:07.260 --> 00:23:10.260
I really don't know that. It's a famous puzzle in history of thought.

200
00:23:10.260 --> 00:23:15.260
Von Boehm-Bawerk's volume one, Capital and Interest, is a total demolition of a productivity theory.

201
00:23:15.260 --> 00:23:20.260
My only quarrel with von Boehm-Bawerk is a little unfair, he's unfair to two of us, no question about that.

202
00:23:20.260 --> 00:23:26.260
What he does is, his strategy was, here he's writing the definitive interest theory, capital and interest theory.

203
00:23:26.260 --> 00:23:29.260
He started by smashing everybody before you.

204
00:23:29.260 --> 00:23:54.260
The Austrian Theory of Bum-Bawerk and the Seminar of Carl Kniece on Turgot's Theory of Interest

205
00:23:59.260 --> 00:24:04.260
8 years later, to publish the book, he dismisses it as just physiocratic nonsense, about land-fructification.

206
00:24:04.260 --> 00:24:11.260
So something happened there, something in the 8 years, and I think it just didn't fit his strategy, so to speak.

207
00:24:11.260 --> 00:24:17.260
At any rate, this unpublished work, which I'd love to see translated and published someday, is in the possession of F.A. Hayek.

208
00:24:17.260 --> 00:24:23.260
Von Bawerk's widow gave it to Hayek, Young Hayek, in 1919 or something, and it's still somewhere in Hayek's repository.

209
00:24:23.260 --> 00:24:26.260
That's something, it's another research project for you.

210
00:24:26.260 --> 00:24:31.660
So von Bawerk then establishes the time preference theory and beautifully demolishes, there's no extra surplus,

211
00:24:31.660 --> 00:24:37.180
there's a difference between the productivity of capital and the reason why there's a price of capital goods,

212
00:24:37.180 --> 00:24:41.860
the interest payment of the time discount, and for some strange, crazy reason in volume two he brings it back.

213
00:24:41.860 --> 00:24:46.020
Not only does he bring back productivity, he makes it the most important element.

214
00:24:46.020 --> 00:24:50.140
So it's a total contradiction between his volume one and volumes two and three.

215
00:24:50.140 --> 00:24:54.860
Frank Federer's contribution was to demolish von Bawerk in turn, saying this doesn't work,

216
00:24:54.860 --> 00:25:03.860
and established the so-called pure time preference. The reason why we call it pure is because there's been all these admixtures, impure admixtures of productivity theory and all sorts of other stuff.

217
00:25:03.860 --> 00:25:07.860
We're trying to distill the purity, pure causal factor.

218
00:25:07.860 --> 00:25:12.860
A couple of famous problems of von Boehm-Bawerk, alleged problems.

219
00:25:12.860 --> 00:25:22.860
Again, I think the reason why von Boehm-Bawerk has been particularly attacked by the nihilist forces in modern industrial economics is because he's obviously clear, he's obviously equilibrating, he's obviously part of a great economic tradition.

220
00:25:22.860 --> 00:25:31.860
Mises built his theory on it. Mises is an elaboration of von Bawerk, an application to the theory of money.

221
00:25:31.860 --> 00:25:35.860
If you eliminate von Bawerk, you're also implicitly eliminating Mises, to cut the ground out from under Mises.

222
00:25:35.860 --> 00:25:39.860
It's a strategic ploy on the part of the nihilist forces.

223
00:25:39.860 --> 00:25:45.860
The thing about the nihilists is they don't like Mises, they don't like von Bawerk. Who are they going to like if they call themselves Austrian?

224
00:25:45.860 --> 00:25:50.860
The only Menger is the only one left, and he's far enough in the past to be safe, I suppose.

225
00:25:50.860 --> 00:25:55.260
One alleged problem with Bombardier always comes up, so I'm going to talk about that,

226
00:25:55.260 --> 00:25:59.760
is why is it that an increase in saving and investment always lengthens the structure of production?

227
00:25:59.760 --> 00:26:04.560
Why is it always a more roundabout production process? Why can't it be in a short production process?

228
00:26:04.560 --> 00:26:09.260
The answer is very simple. I like to call it, you have a little grid here, two by two grid.

229
00:26:09.260 --> 00:26:13.860
This, of course, is simplifying the picture, but I think you'll see the story here.

230
00:26:13.860 --> 00:26:19.060
Here you have production processes, less productive and more productive.

231
00:26:19.060 --> 00:26:24.660
I mean, in reality, of course, there's a whole spectrum of productivity, I'm making it a two by two grid here.

232
00:26:24.660 --> 00:26:30.860
And here we have shorter, in other words, coming early and longer.

233
00:26:30.860 --> 00:26:37.360
Well, if a process is very short, it takes you like five minutes, and very productive, it's going to be used already, it's not a problem.

234
00:26:37.360 --> 00:26:43.260
It's like monodropping from heaven, if you have monodropping from heaven, or the shmoo, if you remember the early al cap,

235
00:26:43.260 --> 00:26:48.360
the shmoo is infinitely productive, can be used for anything. Obviously, you're going to snap it up, I mean, it's already going to be used.

236
00:26:48.360 --> 00:26:53.360
So that is no longer a part of human action. Whatever is there has already been used up, okay?

237
00:26:53.360 --> 00:26:58.360
On the other hand, if a process is very long and produces almost nothing, it's not going to be used at all. Only morons would use it.

238
00:26:58.360 --> 00:27:05.360
In other words, if you've pictured 50 years to produce one widget, you're not going to do it, if you know it, if you have any brains at all.

239
00:27:05.360 --> 00:27:12.360
So this is out of the picture too. If you leave out, you toss out the long, unproductive processes and the short, very productive processes, you're left with two things.

240
00:27:12.360 --> 00:27:17.360
You're left with short, less productive processes versus longer, more productive.

241
00:27:17.360 --> 00:27:25.860
And so when you save and invest, you decide when you're going to give up early consumption and up for a longer but more productive process.

242
00:27:25.860 --> 00:27:31.860
So that's why more saving investment is always a longer process of production. It's very simple if you look at this grid work.

243
00:27:31.860 --> 00:27:37.360
And of course, you've got the time structure of production, wonderful analysis of capital and interest.

244
00:27:37.360 --> 00:27:43.360
Another thing I should say about Menger and Boehm-Bawerk and the media they were involved in, it's not an accident.

245
00:27:43.360 --> 00:28:10.360
I think it's no accident that the value climate, the epistemological value and value climate in Austria is completely different than it was in Germany and Britain, namely, in short, Austria was Catholic and always had been Catholic whereas northern Germany was Protestant and England of course was Protestant.

246
00:28:10.360 --> 00:28:22.360
And what this meant in epistemological and value terms is that in Austria they still continued to read Aristotle in the high schools until very late, certainly by the time Menger and von Boehm-Bawerk were growing up.

247
00:28:22.360 --> 00:28:36.360
They were steep in natural law, natural rights, and ______ epistemology in general. Northern Germany and England and Britain were influenced by Calvinism and Protestant evangelicalism, which tossed out the so-called scholastic method.

248
00:28:36.360 --> 00:28:43.360
And in addition to that, of course, Aristotle was not read. Hegel, of course, was Protestant. There was some form of Protestant.

249
00:28:43.360 --> 00:28:50.360
So we have the Austrians speak on a very different tradition, religious and philosophical tradition, on either the Germans or the British.

250
00:28:50.360 --> 00:29:01.360
And the new book edited by Barry Smith, the very interesting thing about that is he points out his best article there is one by Smith himself on the philosophical climate of Austrian economics.

251
00:29:01.360 --> 00:29:12.360
He points out, not just that they're reading Aristotle, but the big philosopher of Austria was Franz Brentano, who was an Aristotelian realist, the lead guy I read all the time, all over the place in Austria,

252
00:29:12.360 --> 00:29:20.360
and also points out that Menger's principle, he has paragraphs from Menger and paragraphs from Brentano showing they're almost identical in their basic epistemology,

253
00:29:20.360 --> 00:29:27.360
their view of natural law, their view of the essences of the so-called exact law, the essences of action, the connected cause and effect.

254
00:29:27.360 --> 00:29:33.360
All these things were very close to Brentano. They knew each other, by the way. They interacted a lot. Their value theories were quite similar, too.

255
00:29:33.360 --> 00:29:36.360
The subjective value theory of Brentano was quite similar to that of Menger.

256
00:29:36.360 --> 00:29:41.360
So there was a tremendous interaction between Menger and von Bawerk people on one hand and the Brentano people on the other.

257
00:29:41.360 --> 00:29:45.360
In Britain, they had an even worse situation, from my point of view.

258
00:29:45.360 --> 00:29:49.360
Then we have Calvinism rampant, which was, first of all, dominant in Adam Smith.

259
00:29:49.360 --> 00:29:54.360
I don't think it's an accident that Adam Smith tossed out short-run consumer value.

260
00:30:24.360 --> 00:30:29.560
have usury laws, the channel saving and typical productive investment, and also the emphasis

261
00:30:29.560 --> 00:30:34.360
of course on labor pain as the real basis of value. It's true that Ricardo was not Calvinist,

262
00:30:34.360 --> 00:30:39.560
but James Mill was Ricardo's control, that's a strong term, but I think more and more believed

263
00:30:39.560 --> 00:30:44.840
James Mill was the real heart of Ricardianism. James Mill was a Scottish Calvinist and by the

264
00:30:44.840 --> 00:30:51.000
whole doctrine of Scotland came to England and then continued it. John Stuart Mill of course was his

265
00:30:51.000 --> 00:31:09.080
John Stuart Mill reestablishing this whole doctrine, and with Marshall as Calvinist moralism

266
00:31:09.080 --> 00:31:16.800
constantly thrown out, there's always constantly shoving in stuff about the importance of thrift

267
00:31:16.800 --> 00:31:18.800
and all that sort of stuff.

268
00:31:18.800 --> 00:31:22.800
There's some of the neo-Calvinism red lines throughout the book.

269
00:31:22.800 --> 00:31:27.800
And I don't think it's an accident that people who are neo-Calvinist types don't like to talk about consumers,

270
00:31:27.800 --> 00:31:31.800
because consumers are fickle and they spend and they're luxurious and they're sinful anyway.

271
00:31:31.800 --> 00:31:36.800
Whereas pain and hard work and thrift is really good stuff.

272
00:31:36.800 --> 00:31:41.800
I don't know of any labor theory or value of a person who was not brought up in the British tradition.

273
00:31:41.800 --> 00:31:44.800
Marx of course was an economic laborer, a cardian.

274
00:31:44.800 --> 00:31:57.800
I'd say I think von Boehm-Bawerk, despite his peccadilloes and bringing back productivity, the key person in the development of the theory of capital interest, I recommend reading him. I think he's great. I love the slow, patient demolition of the enemy. Magnificent.

275
00:31:57.800 --> 00:32:12.800
I was promised a reference to Marx in this thing. Maybe I should have recommended some more of these readings, like Barry Smith and stuff, but I've just gotten finished with dealing with Marx in my own work, so let's say I just want to inflict the pain on other people.

276
00:32:12.800 --> 00:32:17.760
The interesting thing about von Boehm-Bawerk's refutation of Marx, which of course is a famous refutation which he

277
00:32:17.760 --> 00:32:20.080
his review, so to speak, after the

278
00:32:20.080 --> 00:32:21.220
theory of interest, he sort of

279
00:32:21.220 --> 00:32:25.640
had the basis of it in his theory of capital interest, but after Marx's volume three of capital came out,

280
00:32:25.640 --> 00:32:29.320
was put out by Engels, von Boehm-Bawerk does the ultimate demolition of it,

281
00:32:29.320 --> 00:32:34.620
he was generally accepted by economists of the day, you're right, I mean really until this day,

282
00:32:34.620 --> 00:32:38.540
Marx's economists are very weak on labor theory of value, they're not labor value theorists.

283
00:32:38.540 --> 00:32:42.220
Even Joan Robinson and people like that, well of course we know labor theory is ridiculous, but

284
00:32:42.220 --> 00:32:44.140
somehow exploitation anyway.

285
00:32:44.140 --> 00:32:50.660
But that's really, of course, the guts of the economic aspect of Marxism, and it was essentially demolished by von Boehm-Bawerk.

286
00:32:50.660 --> 00:33:00.260
Of course, by the way, the famous story here is a true story. In volume two of Capital, by the time Marx had died, Engels was engaged in this great work of

287
00:33:00.260 --> 00:33:04.660
coming out and getting Marx's old notes together, getting them into a book form.

288
00:33:04.660 --> 00:33:07.020
In volume two of Capital, on the preface,

289
00:33:07.020 --> 00:33:08.020
Engels

290
00:33:08.020 --> 00:33:15.260
teasingly sort of childlessly organize the game. Let's see how Marx is going to solve the great problem. The great problem, of course, is this,

291
00:33:15.260 --> 00:33:17.780
of volume one of capital.

292
00:33:17.780 --> 00:33:21.660
If profits come from exploitation of workers and profit rates are reduced,

293
00:33:21.660 --> 00:33:24.380
then of course there's capital investment.

294
00:33:24.380 --> 00:33:27.460
How is it that the profit rates are really about the same on the market?

295
00:33:27.460 --> 00:33:31.980
So what's the story here? Why isn't it true that the profit rate in, say,

296
00:33:31.980 --> 00:33:34.840
heavily capitalized industries is much lower

297
00:33:34.840 --> 00:33:37.900
than a profit rate, say, in ditch digging, which should be very high?

298
00:33:37.900 --> 00:33:41.700
And he said, well, in volume three, Marx will solve this great problem.

299
00:33:41.700 --> 00:33:44.460
So he offered, Engel was offered a contest.

300
00:33:44.460 --> 00:33:46.980
Let's everybody get to it and see how Marx solved it,

301
00:33:46.980 --> 00:33:48.980
see if they can predict how Marx solved it.

302
00:33:48.980 --> 00:33:51.500
And a lot of people, you know, engage in this contest.

303
00:33:51.500 --> 00:33:54.540
Of course, there's no prize at the end.

304
00:33:54.540 --> 00:33:56.460
But anyway, they came out with this,

305
00:33:56.460 --> 00:33:58.980
how can you solve this insoluble problem?

306
00:33:58.980 --> 00:34:00.540
In other words, you either have a labor theory value

307
00:34:00.540 --> 00:34:02.740
or you give that up, or you give up the idea

308
00:34:02.740 --> 00:34:05.340
that profit rates are equalized on the market.

309
00:34:05.340 --> 00:34:08.340
It's difficult for the Marxist to give up either one.

310
00:34:08.340 --> 00:34:12.340
Anyway, nobody solves it, supposedly.

311
00:34:12.340 --> 00:34:18.340
It comes out with an alleged solution, which von Bawerk then riddles patiently point by point

312
00:34:18.340 --> 00:34:22.340
and shows that Marxists essentially gave up, implicitly gave up labor theory of value

313
00:34:22.340 --> 00:34:25.340
because they obviously had to admit that profits tend to be equalized on the market,

314
00:34:25.340 --> 00:34:28.340
and therefore labor theory of value is shot.

315
00:34:28.340 --> 00:34:32.340
Of course, Marx doesn't admit it, but he points out he has to admit it, etc., etc.

316
00:34:32.340 --> 00:34:40.340
The interesting thing is the reaction of, I think many Marxists gave up the thing altogether, Achille Luria, kind of a sweet reaction to all this.

317
00:34:40.340 --> 00:34:47.340
Luria was an Italian Marxist, didn't have to wait for von Bawerk's critique, he realized immediately when he read volume 3, the whole thing was shot.

318
00:34:47.340 --> 00:34:54.340
And he was very bitter, because he had previously said that capital is the greatest book of all time, it's the fulcrum of all life or whatever.

319
00:34:54.340 --> 00:34:59.340
When Volume 3 came out, Lorea said that this is the Russian campaign of Marx.

320
00:34:59.340 --> 00:35:02.340
That was the analogy for Napoleon's Russian campaign.

321
00:35:02.340 --> 00:35:05.340
He said that the end is suicide. He's had it. Marxism is finished.

322
00:35:05.340 --> 00:35:12.340
The other Marxists who are trying to remain Marxists to this day, what they did is essentially change the Art League terms of the debate.

323
00:35:12.340 --> 00:35:16.340
They said, well, Marx didn't mean that when he talked about value, he didn't mean prices.

324
00:35:16.340 --> 00:35:19.340
He didn't mean influences on relative price. He meant something else.

325
00:35:19.340 --> 00:35:21.340
He meant some kind of mystical embodiment of value.

326
00:35:21.340 --> 00:35:23.340
It has nothing to do with the price system.

327
00:35:23.340 --> 00:35:29.340
Marx thought he had something to do with prices. This is typical of Marx's reaction to criticism.

328
00:35:29.340 --> 00:35:35.340
When Marx makes a prediction, for example, that workers are going to get worse and worse off until they finally revolt,

329
00:35:35.340 --> 00:35:39.340
they're obviously not getting worse and worse off. Marx's reaction is, well, Marx didn't mean worse off.

330
00:35:39.340 --> 00:35:43.340
He meant relatively worse off to wealthier people. You shift the terms of the debate.

331
00:35:43.340 --> 00:35:46.340
You never be wrong. It's a non-philosophiable proposition.

332
00:35:46.340 --> 00:35:50.340
So the Marxist reaction to all this, those who continue to be Marxist,

333
00:35:50.340 --> 00:35:56.340
What Marx didn't mean meant values in some sort of mystical sense, values embodied by labor and nothing to do with prices.

334
00:35:56.340 --> 00:36:05.340
Marx, I don't think, meant that, but this is the fullback position, this is the position of Hoferding, for example, of so-called reputation, of von Bawerk.

335
00:36:05.340 --> 00:36:13.340
Mises tells the story about Otto Bauer, who was the leading Austrian Marxist for many years and a friend of Mises at least for a while,

336
00:36:13.340 --> 00:36:19.340
and Bauer enrolled in von Bawerk's seminar for a couple of years in order to refute it, in order to refute von Bawerk's reputation of Marx,

337
00:36:19.340 --> 00:36:21.340
The Finner of Equity, never did it.

338
00:36:21.340 --> 00:36:25.340
And he admitted to Mises one time, well, you know, that's it, there's no reputation.

339
00:36:25.340 --> 00:36:27.340
And they were very, very shot.

340
00:36:27.340 --> 00:36:32.340
And one interesting thing is, sort of a footnote to this saga,

341
00:36:32.340 --> 00:36:38.340
is that the most highly praised recent book on Marxism,

342
00:36:38.340 --> 00:36:40.340
which was by Thomas Sowell, on Marxism,

343
00:36:40.340 --> 00:36:45.340
also takes the Marxist line of von Bawerk didn't understand Marx and meant something else.

344
00:36:45.340 --> 00:36:53.340
It's a strange book, but the sole book is essentially a pro-Marxist book, which has been built by propagandists as the definitive critique of Marxism.

345
00:36:53.340 --> 00:36:58.340
If I leave that to you, it's a kind of interesting saga.

346
00:36:58.340 --> 00:37:09.340
There's also a charming, there's a couple of charming quotes by Alexander Gray, my favorite humorous economic writer, ceramic economic thought.

347
00:37:09.340 --> 00:37:14.340
He's going through all this stuff. He's a marvelous book called The Socialist Tradition. He's going through all the socialists.

348
00:37:14.340 --> 00:37:21.340
He talks about the attempts of various Marxists to try to explain why Marx didn't really mean value. What did he really mean when he talked about value?

349
00:37:21.340 --> 00:37:27.340
He takes off on G.D.H. Cole's book, which is called What Marx Really Meant, and tries to explain this, etc.

350
00:37:27.340 --> 00:37:33.340
So here's a charming quote from Gray. This is a critique of Cole.

351
00:37:33.340 --> 00:37:41.340
The identity of value in embodied labor was surely something Marx thought he had proved, which therefore required proof in the opening pages of Capital.

352
00:37:41.340 --> 00:38:11.340
If the identity of value in labor is a matter of definition, as the Marx Neo-Marxists said in an assumption, then at least we know the meaning Marx attaches to value, but in that case, the pretended proof in the opening chapter is mere eyewash, since one states but does not prove definition, so the whole thing is simply a definition of what's valuable because I say it is, but why does he go through the whole book? Also in that case, he adds, it is to be feared that the whole of capital, resting on an arbitrary definition which implies the conclusion to be reached, is an example of wandering vainly in a circle, even more than the most critical critics of thought,

353
00:38:11.340 --> 00:38:20.340
If, on the other hand, the identity of value and labor is a matter of proof and not of definition, we still have to grope the meaning of Marx's attachment to the word value.

354
00:38:20.340 --> 00:38:31.340
To conclude with Ray, Marx's value theory, to witness von Bawerk or Mr. Joseph, H.W.B. Joseph wrote a book on labor theory, value and Marx,

355
00:38:31.340 --> 00:38:36.340
to witness von Bawerk or Joseph carving up Marx is but a pedestrian pleasure.

356
00:38:36.340 --> 00:38:40.700
For these are but pedestrian writers, who are so pedestrian as to clutch at the plain

357
00:38:40.700 --> 00:38:45.500
meaning of words, not realizing that what Marx really meant, Cole, has no necessary

358
00:38:45.500 --> 00:38:50.780
connection with what Marx undeniably said.

359
00:38:50.780 --> 00:38:55.380
To witness Marx surrounded by his friends is, however, a joy of an entirely different order,

360
00:38:55.380 --> 00:38:59.860
for it is fairly clear that none of them really knows what Marx really meant, and even a considerable

361
00:38:59.860 --> 00:39:03.460
doubt as to why he was talking about, there are hints that Marx himself did not know what

362
00:39:03.460 --> 00:39:09.460
In particular, there's no one to tell us what Marx's story meant by value.

363
00:39:09.460 --> 00:39:16.460
I think that's a sense of last word on Marx, because I think that's the whole other saga.

364
00:39:16.460 --> 00:39:21.460
The entire Marxian canon is essentially a prophetic religious movement of a weird kind.

365
00:39:21.460 --> 00:39:26.460
What I'm advocating here is essentially back to Boehm-Bawerk, I'm going to put that on a sloganeering term.

366
00:39:26.460 --> 00:39:30.460
Boehm-Bawerk has been denigrated, he's essentially fulfilled the Mangerian mission,

367
00:39:30.460 --> 00:39:36.460
Commission, and applied Hungarian-Austrian economics to capital and interest, and successfully,

368
00:39:36.460 --> 00:39:42.460
so I think. And then Federer, of course, I'm going to add him to the arrow here, and then

369
00:39:42.460 --> 00:39:49.460
Mises. So I think that's basically what I want to say in the lecture in a few minutes,

370
00:39:49.460 --> 00:39:57.460
but I'm going to wrap it up now and go over questions. Thank you.

371
00:39:57.460 --> 00:40:13.460
My question is, is that von Boehm-Bawerk was, and Mises had a little, had different approaches and feelings about governmental bureaucracy.

372
00:40:13.460 --> 00:40:19.460
Do I have, that Mises essentially was more tolerant of it?

373
00:40:19.460 --> 00:40:20.460
More tolerant?

374
00:40:20.460 --> 00:40:22.460
More tolerant of it.

375
00:40:22.460 --> 00:40:23.460
More tolerant of bureaucracy?

376
00:40:23.460 --> 00:40:33.460
I think they're pretty similar, I mean, von Boehm-Bawerk, as you say von Boehm-Bawerk, he was not a pure academic, Menger too was a civil servant, a member of parliament.

377
00:40:33.460 --> 00:40:37.460
Von Boehm-Bawerk was a minister of finance, I think Menger was a minister of commerce for a few years.

378
00:40:37.460 --> 00:40:43.460
Von Boehm-Bawerk was a minister of finance several times, he sort of alternated a seminar, a professorship in the ministry of finance.

379
00:40:43.460 --> 00:40:52.460
He was the one responsible for going with the gold standard, and generally a free market type, and I think he didn't engage in political, economic analysis as much as Mises did.

380
00:40:52.460 --> 00:40:58.820
Mises Institute, basically I think in the same area, and one of the, one of the, one

381
00:40:58.820 --> 00:41:01.820
of the other von Boehm-Bawerkian mysteries, there's no life, of course, there's no biography

382
00:41:01.820 --> 00:41:05.220
of Menger and there's no biography of von Boehm-Bawerk, okay, there's no other research

383
00:41:05.220 --> 00:41:10.500
projects, there's nothing, and one of the, von Boehm-Bawerk died fairly young, died immediately

384
00:41:10.500 --> 00:41:13.740
after World War I broke out, and the story is he might have committed suicide, well,

385
00:41:13.740 --> 00:41:17.940
Mises Institute thinks he was very depressed because of the wars that meant the end of

386
00:41:17.940 --> 00:41:22.100
Western civilization, probably his concern, and there's also a story he might have committed

387
00:41:22.100 --> 00:41:33.100
The whole world is falling apart. Indeed, it was falling apart. Classical liberalism, peaceful world, peaceful Europe, and so on.

388
00:41:33.100 --> 00:41:43.100
I think their views are fairly similar. I don't think that Mubarak didn't have much time to spend, much except these three-volume work and the different editions of them, various journal articles.

389
00:41:43.100 --> 00:42:08.100
A couple of things about Menger. Hayek mentions in his introduction to the principles that Menger was an activist in the Liberal Party. Maybe that will help give us an indication of his policy.

390
00:42:08.100 --> 00:42:17.100
Why am I not sure? I guess liberalism was many things. It could be laissez-faire liberalism or it could be some sort of Mubbering moderate. I'm not sure, I'm not even sure.

391
00:42:17.100 --> 00:42:20.100
I'd say Streisberg claims he was a hardcore laissez-faire liberal.

392
00:42:20.100 --> 00:42:40.100
There's a book called The Gold Standard, edited by Lew Rockwell, that brings out Menger's position on the gold standard, which is not only favored because it's limited to the expansion of the state.

393
00:42:40.100 --> 00:42:42.100
That part was probably true.

394
00:42:42.100 --> 00:42:46.100
But he also has some status remarks in his book on money.

395
00:42:46.100 --> 00:42:52.100
So he is evidently somewhat of a mixed bag in that respect.

396
00:42:52.100 --> 00:42:54.100
Who is he outbush?

397
00:42:54.100 --> 00:42:58.100
The fellow who wrote in the Barry Smith book on Menger's political theory, political views,

398
00:42:58.100 --> 00:43:01.100
keeps talking about the Austrian political theorists.

399
00:43:01.100 --> 00:43:04.100
E-O-T-V-O-S was about freedom lives.

400
00:43:04.100 --> 00:43:06.100
I'm not sure how you pronounce it.

401
00:43:06.100 --> 00:43:08.100
But he sounded pretty status to me.

402
00:43:38.100 --> 00:44:07.100
Manger and Rudolf have co-operated an anonymous political pamphlet that was very hardcore in that status, was it fair?

403
00:44:07.100 --> 00:44:32.100
I wonder if you might say a few words about Wieser and how it is that he got the somewhat odd views, at least for an Austrian, that he did.

404
00:44:32.100 --> 00:44:41.100
Well, he was a Fabian Socialist. Rick Steves was also a Fabian, although he certainly doesn't write like one. He writes like a hardcore market person.

405
00:44:41.100 --> 00:44:49.100
And he also used, I think perhaps the first one to use the idea of the Pigou idea that since you have a diminishing marginal utility of money,

406
00:44:49.100 --> 00:44:58.100
somehow this means that you should have a progressive income tax to maximize general social utility. I think the origin of that.

407
00:44:58.100 --> 00:45:04.100
I'm not sure why he deviated or whatever. Again, of course, there's no biography of him either.

408
00:45:04.100 --> 00:45:09.100
I don't know. I know Mises and his notes of recollection are very bitter about Wieser.

409
00:45:09.100 --> 00:45:15.100
And I didn't think he was worth much at all. As a matter of fact, when Hayek was first introduced himself to Mises,

410
00:45:15.100 --> 00:45:21.100
he had a level of recommendation from Wieser, which almost killed Hayek's chances in Mises.

411
00:45:21.100 --> 00:45:25.100
Not quite, but it was not considered a positive recommendation.

412
00:45:25.100 --> 00:45:53.100
There is a section in volume 2 of von Boehm-Bawerk's book, called The Law of Costs, in which he elaborates on the cost-production view of price determination, and he says that it is possible to reconcile this with the demand-utility approach.

413
00:45:53.100 --> 00:46:01.100
So you reconcile the backward looking toward the past, price determination with the looking toward the future view.

414
00:46:01.100 --> 00:46:09.100
Well, the costs are looking to the future. The costs are the expected productivity of the factor to the consumers.

415
00:46:09.100 --> 00:46:13.100
So in other words, the costs are also a subjective concept.

416
00:46:13.100 --> 00:46:30.380
I didn't think he was using that version of cost. I think he was using the classical version

417
00:46:30.380 --> 00:46:40.580
of cost as monetary outlet. And I'm not quite sure how he's able to tie them together.

418
00:46:40.580 --> 00:46:51.580
I think he used this version of Coarse. I realize that was developed more over time, but I think he was basically an opportunity Coarse Austrian.

419
00:46:51.580 --> 00:46:57.580
That's certainly Jevons, to the extent he wrote about it, was.

420
00:46:57.580 --> 00:47:09.580
Larry White says that von Bawerk was distinctly not a praxeologist and that Mises' work in methodology was to some extent a repudiation of his mentor.

421
00:47:09.580 --> 00:47:22.580
Well, why didn't Mises ever say it? Mises was not reluctant to talk about what his views were. There was nothing in Mises that he repudiated from Barber quite the opposite. He always hailed him as his predecessor.

422
00:47:22.580 --> 00:47:27.580
The whole style of Boehm-Bawerk's presentation is really logical.

423
00:47:27.580 --> 00:47:31.580
It's kind of logical deduction reading his book.

424
00:47:31.580 --> 00:47:34.580
It's like he starts from scratch and then builds things.

425
00:47:34.580 --> 00:47:40.580
It's just ridiculous to think that there is any kind of principle difference between the two,

426
00:47:40.580 --> 00:47:45.580
even though Boehm-Bawerk did not write much on methodology.

427
00:47:45.580 --> 00:47:50.580
He has some remarks for various places, but there is no indication.

428
00:47:50.580 --> 00:47:57.580
In fact, there's a beautiful book by Boehm-Bawerk. Actually, one of the problems with Boehm-Bawerk is that I realize that the Smart translation is the first edition.

429
00:47:57.580 --> 00:48:06.580
And so, the Xenholz translation is the third edition. But I think, I don't know German that well, but I know Smart was a much better English writer than English.

430
00:48:06.580 --> 00:48:14.580
Boehm-Bawerk on the Smart edition is a great writer, and his flow is beautifully. So I don't know whether it's the Smart himself, or was himself a good writer, or whatever.

431
00:48:14.580 --> 00:48:19.580
But I would recommend reading that, to get the flow of Boehm-Bawerk, step by step. Everything fits together.

432
00:48:19.580 --> 00:48:44.580
Could you briefly explain the difference between Menger, Boehm-Bawerk, and Mises, and Lachmann's notion of capital, and how Lachmann's notion of capital and structural production made sense?

433
00:48:49.580 --> 00:48:53.580
How does this relate to the nihilist view?

434
00:48:53.580 --> 00:48:57.580
Well, Lachman's book, Capital and its Structure, is basically a bombardment of Misesian's book.

435
00:48:57.580 --> 00:49:01.580
It's the early Lachman's book, Lachman 1.

436
00:49:01.580 --> 00:49:07.580
And that's a fine book, I don't know, I'm all for it. It talks about how the stock market fits into all this.

437
00:49:07.580 --> 00:49:15.580
Shares of titles to capital fit into the whole structure of allocating resources in the best manner, etc.

438
00:49:15.580 --> 00:49:17.580
This book is essentially a Boehm-Bawerk-Misesian book.

439
00:49:17.580 --> 00:49:22.580
What happened was that Lachman, sometime after that, discovered Shackle and nihilism and then became a Shack-Helian.

440
00:49:22.580 --> 00:49:25.580
So that's, you know, it's Lachman 2.

441
00:49:25.580 --> 00:49:29.580
There's not much you can say about that except it's institutionalist.

442
00:49:29.580 --> 00:49:32.580
It's nihilist and institutionalist. There are no economic laws.

443
00:49:32.580 --> 00:49:35.580
You can't predict the future. You don't know what's going on. It's all sort of chaotic.

444
00:49:35.580 --> 00:49:38.580
Well, kaleidic, as Lachman likes to put it.

445
00:49:38.580 --> 00:49:42.580
And that's about it. I mean, that's kind of a boring thing in a sense.

446
00:49:42.580 --> 00:49:48.580
Murray, earlier he said that he thought that Boehm-Bawerk was unfair to Trivgo.

447
00:49:48.580 --> 00:49:54.900
and period and you sort of wipe out a little economics. But I think I don't see much, I think

448
00:49:54.900 --> 00:49:59.580
Boehm-Bawerk definitely, he's more of the Misesian, praxeological tradition than Menger in a sense of

449
00:49:59.580 --> 00:50:09.460
step-by-step analysis and everything flowing logically. Murray, earlier you said that he

450
00:50:09.460 --> 00:50:14.940
thought that Boehm-Bawerk was unfair to Trigga. Would you say something similar to that about

451
00:50:14.940 --> 00:50:21.940
What about his treatment of Cassell and the notion of weighting and all that was...

452
00:50:21.940 --> 00:50:28.940
I don't know. I didn't really focus on it. I know Cassell was sort of an aggregativist type, kind of a fissured type.

453
00:50:28.940 --> 00:50:35.940
But it also didn't have the sort of the array view of price index view, etc.

454
00:50:35.940 --> 00:50:37.940
And it might have been. It was, you can't...

455
00:50:37.940 --> 00:50:41.940
As I say, he had this idea that everybody before him has to be demolished.

456
00:50:41.940 --> 00:50:44.940
And once in a while, demolish is something unfairly.

457
00:50:44.940 --> 00:50:48.940
And it might be the only one that didn't do that with John Ray.

458
00:50:48.940 --> 00:50:52.940
But of course, John Ray was discovered after he wrote his first edition.

459
00:50:52.940 --> 00:50:55.940
And in 1903 or whatever, he came out with the edition.

460
00:50:55.940 --> 00:50:57.940
And then he hailed John Ray as his great predecessor.

461
00:50:57.940 --> 00:51:02.940
So by that time, he sort of established his strategy for the first volume.

462
00:51:02.940 --> 00:51:24.940
If the paper favorable to Turgo is still in Hayek's basement, how is it known that von Boehm-Bawerk was so favorable in the beginning?

463
00:51:24.940 --> 00:51:32.940
Hayek disposes what he said, and Hayek reported this, and then he hails Turgow's interest theories and predecessors of his own work.

464
00:51:32.940 --> 00:51:46.940
So, it's in the Turgow edition. The marvelous English translation of all of Turgow's economics works by Grunewagen, he's got that in there, reporting this from Hayek.

465
00:51:46.940 --> 00:51:56.940
So I could see Hayek disgorge this or this thing or whatever and get this, get a translator or whatever. It should be fascinating.

466
00:51:56.940 --> 00:51:57.940
Yeah?

467
00:51:57.940 --> 00:52:04.940
I think there seems to be nothing else on Menger and Barber. I think you're being a little unfair to Tom Sowell's book about Marxism.

468
00:52:04.940 --> 00:52:15.940
I think that Sowell's point about Marx and the labor definition of it, in fact I think Tom states specifically in this book that

469
00:52:15.940 --> 00:52:30.940
Marx did not give a labor theory of value, he gave a labor definition of value, and this is a bit of controversy, and given that Marx is in many cases not sufficiently coherent to be termed right or wrong, I think that you are being a little bit unfair to me.

470
00:52:30.940 --> 00:52:46.940
I think I'm being not fair enough, because he says that these other guys never cite Marx directly, Samuelson and so forth, and he said Marx never has a labor theory, he doesn't mention the word labor theory of value.

471
00:52:46.940 --> 00:52:52.940
And of course he did, and as a review of my David Ramsey Steele International Philosophical Quarterly points that out.

472
00:52:52.940 --> 00:53:15.940
I think the Conway book is infinitely better as an introduction to Marx than Sol is.

473
00:53:15.940 --> 00:53:21.940
I think what happens in the Sol book, if you read the Sol book carefully, you'll find out that the citations are almost all about early before 1963.

474
00:53:21.940 --> 00:53:48.940
The Modern Marxists, do they tend to defend this labor theory value or reject it?

475
00:53:48.940 --> 00:54:00.940
It seems like there's a big problem, either way. If they defend it, then, predictably, they'll say very silly things, but if they reject it, then it just seems without rudder. Everything collapses.

476
00:54:00.940 --> 00:54:02.940
Basically, they tend to reject it.

477
00:54:02.940 --> 00:54:04.940
But what's in place?

478
00:54:04.940 --> 00:54:06.940
I don't know. It speaks to me.

479
00:54:06.940 --> 00:54:08.940
The overall social philosophy.

480
00:54:08.940 --> 00:54:16.940
The evolution of mankind through this stage of feudalism, periodism, socialism, all the rest of it. That they try to rescue.

481
00:54:16.940 --> 00:54:26.940
To my knowledge, there's hardly any Marxist who will defend labor theory or value, even though they all recognize that that is the core of Marxism.

482
00:54:26.940 --> 00:54:29.940
There was one at NYU, I can't think the name.

483
00:54:29.940 --> 00:54:30.940
Becker.

484
00:54:30.940 --> 00:54:35.940
Becker. He proudly defended the labor theory of value.

485
00:54:35.940 --> 00:54:37.940
There's pretty few and far between.

486
00:54:37.940 --> 00:54:39.940
I can't remember what he said.

487
00:54:39.940 --> 00:54:51.940
Basically, they fall back into the general sociology or whatever, alienation, of course, is a big one, and the labor theory gets shunted aside somewhere.

488
00:54:51.940 --> 00:55:05.940
But it's interesting, because Marxism tends to flourish not in economics, but in other softer disciplines, literature, sociology, all these benighted areas, where it flourishes, and economics is really fairly free of it.

489
00:55:05.940 --> 00:55:23.940
But even in the communist countries, the leading forces giving up Marxism than the economists, Yugoslavia, Hungary, etc., are always in the forefront of abandoning the whole damn thing and going on to some sort of market.

490
00:55:23.940 --> 00:55:37.940
In Germany, I would say that too. Among economists, you don't find Marxists. I mean, not Marxists in the sense that they think that that is the philosophy that they use as their guideline or whatever.

491
00:55:37.940 --> 00:55:50.940
You find among sociologists, political scientists, German, English, literature, you name it, you got it, but economics outright Marxists on a rare occasion.

492
00:55:53.940 --> 00:56:02.940
There's something about the discipline of economics, I think, that sort of puts a conservatizing influence in general.

493
00:56:02.940 --> 00:56:08.940
You know, the fact that you can't eat your cake and have it at the same time is sort of self-discipline.

494
00:56:08.940 --> 00:56:23.940
We're not really on a topic, but since we're on it, why don't you tell us a little bit about, like, since you just finished your work on Marx, why don't you give us a little crazy overview of Marx.

495
00:56:38.940 --> 00:56:41.940
In the case of Marx, I thought, well, everybody knows about Marx, labor theory, value, and bingo.

496
00:56:41.940 --> 00:56:43.940
And I found out, of course, there's a lot more to it.

497
00:56:43.940 --> 00:56:45.940
And I had to plan my way to Hegel.

498
00:56:45.940 --> 00:56:49.940
Well, that was something I do not wish on my worst foes.

499
00:56:49.940 --> 00:56:55.940
At any rate, what I think of the essence of Marx is worse than we might think.

500
00:56:55.940 --> 00:56:58.940
In other words, the whole thing is really religious doctrine.

501
00:56:58.940 --> 00:57:04.940
It comes from, it starts off with the Christian heresy,

502
00:57:04.940 --> 00:57:10.300
and the actual neoplatonic movement, Christian heresies in the early Christian period.

503
00:57:10.300 --> 00:57:15.380
It continues on as an underground movement, the basis of which,

504
00:57:15.380 --> 00:57:20.620
well, the two aspects of it, one is creatology, the science of how the universe was created,

505
00:57:20.620 --> 00:57:23.180
or why did God create the universe.

506
00:57:23.180 --> 00:57:28.500
This might seem many hear the esoteric topic, but they're just thinking of something like praxeology.

507
00:57:28.500 --> 00:57:32.180
Theology, I find it very interesting, something like praxeology, one slip and you've had it.

508
00:57:32.180 --> 00:57:40.180
In one slip you had the inductive chain, you make one slip somewhere in the early premises and you're sort of finished, you wind up with bizarre deviations.

509
00:57:40.180 --> 00:57:47.180
So what happens, the Orthodox Christian view, which is a safe view, by the way, in all these areas, as far as I can see,

510
00:57:47.180 --> 00:57:50.180
the Orthodox Christian view is God created the universe out of love for his creatures.

511
00:57:50.180 --> 00:57:54.180
And there's no political implications or sociological implications from this.

512
00:57:54.180 --> 00:58:02.180
Heretical view was that God created the universe because God was dissatisfied, was lonely or whatever, like imperfect.

513
00:58:02.180 --> 00:58:09.180
So, you start off with the viewpoint, which starts, let's say, with Plotinus and the old Platonist goes down,

514
00:58:09.180 --> 00:58:18.180
is that you start with the world where God and man are unified, and how man and God could be unified for creation,

515
00:58:18.180 --> 00:58:21.180
I don't know, don't ask me to explain this, I can only report it.

516
00:58:21.180 --> 00:58:27.180
So God and Man are sort of together one cosmic blob, but unfulfilled, imperfect.

517
00:58:27.180 --> 00:58:34.180
Then God creates the universe as an act of desperation and trying to fulfill God's functions or soul or whatever.

518
00:58:34.180 --> 00:58:40.180
And then you have creation. Creation becomes then, in this heretical Christian heresy view, an act of evil,

519
00:58:40.180 --> 00:58:44.180
because what you have is you split the original unity of man and God.

520
00:58:44.180 --> 00:58:49.180
Before that, man, God and nature, before creation, were unified. That was the great thing about it.

521
00:58:49.180 --> 00:58:55.180
Then, with the creation of the universe, everything gets split into atoms and individuals and species and all the rest of it.

522
00:58:55.180 --> 00:59:01.180
So man, the collective capital M, of course, the species, is now cut off from nature and cut off from God.

523
00:59:01.180 --> 00:59:06.180
And it was individual men are cut off from each other because they're really a part of a collective blob.

524
00:59:06.180 --> 00:59:12.180
So, at this point, the good thing, the bad thing about it is, this is where the concept of alienation comes in.

525
00:59:12.180 --> 00:59:17.180
Alienation does not mean psychological disturbance because you don't like what's going on or something like that.

526
00:59:17.180 --> 00:59:20.180
Human Action is a fundamental act of creation, involved in creation itself.

527
00:59:20.180 --> 00:59:23.180
Man, God, and nature are alienated from each other.

528
00:59:23.180 --> 00:59:30.180
So then what happens is, is that that way is a determined process by which God fulfills himself in some way,

529
00:59:30.180 --> 00:59:35.180
man fulfills himself in a species development, and finally as an ultimate act,

530
00:59:35.180 --> 00:59:39.180
the final end of the universe, eschatology, the last days,

531
00:59:39.180 --> 00:59:45.180
where man and God rejoin each other in a great blob again, at this time at a higher level, known as the return.

532
00:59:45.180 --> 00:59:56.180
What we want to say about this is very collectivist, because the individual means nothing. The individual person is nothing, just a cell in this great collective organism.

533
00:59:56.180 --> 01:00:04.180
So when you say man is progressing, it means the species is progressing toward this higher level, an ultimate reunion with God.

534
01:00:04.180 --> 01:00:17.180
What happens later as things develop, after the Christian period, middle ages, etc., is this gets pantheized with Hegel, the entire romantic period of pantheization of this.

535
01:00:17.180 --> 01:00:29.180
God drops out as a supernatural person, or being, or whatever, and you're left with this collective man, the species, then fulfilling, finding out that man and God are really the same thing.

536
01:00:29.180 --> 01:00:38.180
And that's the ultimate consciousness ever. You wind up with a cosmic blob. This time, God has dropped out. Man and God are the same thing. You have a sort of pantheistic thing. They're always one.

537
01:00:38.180 --> 01:00:45.180
This is the end of history, the end of the universe. And the entire Romantic period, by the way, is saturated with this crap.

538
01:00:45.180 --> 01:00:55.180
There's a wonderful book by M.H. Abram, which I recommend everybody, called Natural Supernaturalism, which analyzes the world of Romantic literature and philosophy, basically.

539
01:00:55.180 --> 01:01:04.180
Wordsworth and Coolridge and Hegel and Schleiermacher and Schlegel and Schiller and all these people, mostly German and English, they all have this viewpoint, more or less.

540
01:01:04.180 --> 01:01:17.180
Down to D.H. Lawrence, by the way, the idea that they have this species development winding up at the end of alienation and everything is great and perfect as the end of history as the man is reintegrated with nature and God and the rest of it.

541
01:01:17.180 --> 01:01:21.180
So what you have with Marx is an atheist version of this pantheism.

542
01:01:21.180 --> 01:01:51.180
Hagell was a pantheist, Hagell was believing he himself was the final culmination, he was the ultimate god person because he invented the theory, so this makes him the world historical figure, and Marx atheized it, so instead of talking about god at all, you just have a collective species blob man, the capital M, so what you have is the final eschatology of course is the communist system where everything is then integrated, individuals are joined together in a collective blob which results in the end of history,

543
01:01:51.180 --> 01:01:58.180
This is sort of an atheized version of a pantheized version of Christian or original Christian heresy or neoplatonic heresy.

544
01:01:58.180 --> 01:02:08.180
And you have the apocalyptic, you know, final conflict where all these things, of course, there's a final conflict with good and evil or good triumphs over evil and you have a final, puts an end to history.

545
01:02:08.180 --> 01:02:16.180
The oldest thing that makes, I wouldn't say it makes sense out of Marx, but you understand what he's talking about. He was involved in this kind of, the prophet of this doctrine.

546
01:02:16.180 --> 01:02:20.180
If you look at his early poems, so-called early poems, they're even more interesting.

547
01:02:20.180 --> 01:02:22.180
Early poems does not mean he was a kid of 12.

548
01:02:22.180 --> 01:02:26.180
He was a graduate student. I figured if you're a graduate student, you're responsible for your own product.

549
01:02:26.180 --> 01:02:31.180
He wrote these very interesting poems, which have been translated, most of them, and plays,

550
01:02:31.180 --> 01:02:34.180
which are really hair-raising, because essentially he sets forth his program.

551
01:02:34.180 --> 01:02:37.180
This is before he knew about the labor theory of value.

552
01:02:37.180 --> 01:02:40.180
This is when he's ultimate sort of vision of the world.

553
01:02:40.180 --> 01:02:42.180
The vision of the world was, and what he said was, explicitly was,

554
01:02:42.180 --> 01:02:46.660
He hates the universe because God created it and it means that God is a greater person than he is.

555
01:02:46.660 --> 01:02:52.660
Therefore, his goal is to destroy the universe, which fits in with the rest of his program.

556
01:02:52.660 --> 01:02:59.540
So anyway, it's a fascinating study, you know, how can I leave this stuff out, right, as the book keeps growing and growing?

557
01:02:59.540 --> 01:03:03.940
I think that's a sort of a capsulated version of the Marxian, of the Marxian vision.

558
01:03:03.940 --> 01:03:07.380
And of course, first of all, and this is of course accepted, he becomes a communist,

559
01:03:07.380 --> 01:03:10.820
and then he looks around for, in other words, he's got the, he becomes a communist,

560
01:03:10.820 --> 01:03:13.180
Communism is the final goal. How do you bring it about?

561
01:03:13.180 --> 01:03:15.300
If you have religion, if you have the second coming,

562
01:03:15.300 --> 01:03:17.460
or the messiah comes, you have the mechanism.

563
01:03:17.460 --> 01:03:19.380
Of course, Marx couldn't talk about a messiah,

564
01:03:19.380 --> 01:03:20.260
so what's going to be?

565
01:03:20.260 --> 01:03:21.860
You have to have some inevitable law of history

566
01:03:21.860 --> 01:03:23.940
that determines the final outcome.

567
01:03:23.940 --> 01:03:27.180
The rest of his life, he's searching for the economic forces.

568
01:03:27.180 --> 01:03:30.660
How does this work? Why does capitalism inevitably lead to communism?

569
01:03:30.660 --> 01:03:33.820
The final apocalyptic moment in the working class takes over.

570
01:03:33.820 --> 01:03:34.900
He's trying to find the mechanism.

571
01:03:34.900 --> 01:03:36.860
So the last 30 years of his life or whatever,

572
01:03:36.860 --> 01:03:39.340
he's trying to figure out how it must work.

573
01:03:39.340 --> 01:03:49.340
But the goal of communism was established from very early, 1844 or whatever, and the rest of us kind of spin out how the messianic ages are going to take place without the messiah.

574
01:03:49.340 --> 01:03:55.340
It's difficult to do it, and I guess he tried nobly, or whatever you want to call it, and flopped.

575
01:03:55.340 --> 01:04:01.340
Anyways, sort of a capsule of the view of it, yeah.

576
01:04:01.340 --> 01:04:06.340
What's in Marx's view?

577
01:04:31.340 --> 01:04:37.340
The early Marxists were usually a Freudian historian. This time he was very straight. He talked about the religious prophetic.

578
01:04:37.340 --> 01:04:41.340
So we have now more stuff which is pretty good on all of this, analyzing it.

579
01:04:41.340 --> 01:04:45.340
We've more or less transcended the idea of the early Marx and the late Marx.

580
01:04:45.340 --> 01:04:53.340
There's one Marx, one bad guy, starting out with the communism of destruction and eschatology and trying to figure out how to work it.

581
01:04:53.340 --> 01:05:00.340
And interestingly enough, the idea that there were two Marxists, the humanist type said, yes, the early Marx is great.

582
01:05:00.340 --> 01:05:03.260
because the early Marx talks about freedom and alienation then he gets bad

583
01:05:03.260 --> 01:05:07.940
because he talks about labor theory, value and economics too rational so this is the

584
01:05:07.940 --> 01:05:12.540
new left Marxist and then you have the Stalinists like Althusser who said no no

585
01:05:12.540 --> 01:05:17.100
the early Marx is crazy the late Marx is great because he's talking about economics and of

586
01:05:17.100 --> 01:05:20.740
course the conclusion is there's only one Marx and it's all different aspects of

587
01:05:20.740 --> 01:05:38.740
I think so. He doesn't even talk about the philosophic aspect much at all. I think he does, yeah.

588
01:05:38.740 --> 01:05:44.740
I think I missed a minute ago. Where did the soul go wrong? What are the claims that soul makes?

589
01:05:44.740 --> 01:05:53.740
Well, he thinks that Boehm-Bawerk did not refuse Marx, that Boehm-Bawerk didn't understand Marx, and that Marx didn't talk about prices and things like that.

590
01:05:53.740 --> 01:05:58.740
And it doesn't really deal with much of any of this.

591
01:05:58.740 --> 01:06:01.740
But Conway, on the other hand, is quite good. I mean, it's not perfect.

592
01:06:01.740 --> 01:06:05.740
I think it deals with most of these, most of the problems.

593
01:06:05.740 --> 01:06:09.740
Not so much of the religion aspect, but...

594
01:06:09.740 --> 01:06:13.740
What do you mean, as far as where David ran the steel on the...

595
01:06:13.740 --> 01:06:15.740
Oh, but it's a short review.

596
01:06:15.740 --> 01:06:17.740
I mean, steel, he has the quote...

597
01:06:17.740 --> 01:06:19.740
I mean, what is this, the...

598
01:06:19.740 --> 01:06:21.740
Let's see here.

599
01:06:21.740 --> 01:06:23.740
Where is the steel piece?

600
01:06:23.740 --> 01:06:25.740
The International Philosophical Quarterly.

601
01:06:25.740 --> 01:06:27.740
Let's see what the issue was.

602
01:06:27.740 --> 01:06:31.740
It's June 1986, International Philosophical Quarterly.

603
01:06:31.740 --> 01:06:33.740
It could be longer, but it's a nice short...

604
01:06:33.740 --> 01:06:35.740
It's a short review, but it really spears them.

605
01:06:35.740 --> 01:06:42.740
But so it said when the Marx Nowhere refers to a theory of value, despite numerous and undocumented interpretive literature to the contrary.

606
01:06:42.740 --> 01:06:50.740
Well, Steele pointed out that there it is. I mean, he cited the exact quotes. So that was just one feature of it.

607
01:06:50.740 --> 01:06:57.740
I'm sure Steele, if necessary, could work out a whole thing there, because he's got a lot to say about this old book of his, Bet Noirs.

608
01:06:57.740 --> 01:07:14.740
Before Marx became a Hegelian, what was he doing?

609
01:07:27.740 --> 01:07:31.740
What the Path is Toward the Allegedly Inevitable Communist

610
01:07:31.740 --> 01:07:40.740
My question is, I've heard, and I can't remember where, a number of times that capital was really written by Hegel, and then Marx just...

611
01:07:40.740 --> 01:07:42.740
Written by Hegel?

612
01:07:42.740 --> 01:07:44.740
Had Marx put his name on it with Hegel.

613
01:07:44.740 --> 01:07:46.740
In Engels, really in Engels.

614
01:07:46.740 --> 01:07:48.740
Yeah, I don't know about that.

615
01:07:48.740 --> 01:07:51.740
Well, I don't know. That's interesting.

616
01:07:51.740 --> 01:07:57.740
Gary North has written a second edition of his book on Marxism, Marxism, Religion and Revolution.

617
01:07:57.740 --> 01:08:05.740
And Gary North claims that Engels really did most of the work. He was a theorist and he revered Marx, because Marx had a PhD.

618
01:08:05.740 --> 01:08:13.740
And Engels didn't. It's an early case of PhD-itis. I'm not sure about that. It's interesting speculation.

619
01:08:13.740 --> 01:08:18.740
There's various views. Engels really was a real theorist.

620
01:08:18.740 --> 01:08:22.740
There's other views. Engels was the bad guys, the view of the fifties or so.

621
01:08:22.740 --> 01:08:24.740
Engels was the Stalinists, quote-unquote.

622
01:08:24.740 --> 01:08:28.740
I'm not really sure. I mean, it needs more investigation if you're interested in investigating it.

623
01:08:28.740 --> 01:08:30.740
Because the two were very close.

624
01:08:30.740 --> 01:08:34.740
And while Engels was alive, he read everything Engels wrote and, you know, whatever.

625
01:08:34.740 --> 01:08:37.740
So it was sort of like a joint product.

626
01:08:37.740 --> 01:08:40.740
Also, there's a tendency to whitewash Marx by saying Engels was the bad guy.

627
01:08:40.740 --> 01:08:46.140
Engels is a bad guy. For example, the dialectical materialism question is a part of Marxism

628
01:08:46.140 --> 01:08:50.260
that Marxists don't like to talk about because the idea of dialectical materialism applies

629
01:08:50.260 --> 01:08:54.780
to all of life. The cell negates the cell and that sort of stuff. It doesn't sit well

630
01:08:54.780 --> 01:08:58.740
with most people. So the theory is, while Engels is a guy who's interested in Darwin

631
01:08:58.740 --> 01:09:02.020
and biology and things like that, Marx wasn't. It turns out Marx was just as interested.

632
01:09:02.020 --> 01:09:06.020
So, I don't know, it's interesting, my area of speculation.

633
01:09:06.020 --> 01:09:14.020
Mark sent his work, he asked Darwin if he would be allowed to dedicate his work to him.

634
01:09:14.020 --> 01:09:18.020
But Darwin never replied.

635
01:09:18.020 --> 01:09:22.020
I have a question, but at least he didn't agree.

636
01:09:22.020 --> 01:09:25.020
So, Mark's work was my own work.

637
01:09:25.020 --> 01:09:29.020
Is this economics from his father-in-law?

638
01:09:29.020 --> 01:09:56.020
He liked his father-in-law very much. He had a very close relationship and that was the explanation why, in spite of the fact that the family of Marx's wife was actually opposed to the marriage.

639
01:09:56.020 --> 01:10:22.020
The only one out of the family who was in favor of the marriage of Marx, at this time, was his father-in-law. All the rest of it. He hated the fact that they were a nobility family, and all the rest of it, and Marx wasn't. And Marx, until the end of his life, was very proud of the fact that he had married a person of nobility.

640
01:10:26.020 --> 01:10:37.020
That's why he also made tremendous efforts to hide that he also had the kids, because if you are married to a wife from nobility, that's not the kind of thing you do to her.

641
01:10:56.020 --> 01:11:13.020
Why is it so hard to bury and what's the problem?

642
01:11:26.020 --> 01:11:34.020
I mean that does happen of course, people get converted out of Marxism quite frequently, but I guess it's a good spot to end the session. Thank you very much.