Podcasts about bawerk

In 1997, Bryan Caplan wrote an essay explaining why he was no longer a self-described Austrian. Recently, a reader asked him to comment on that essay. Bob reacts to Bryan's current views, arguing that the history of economic thought is indeed important, and the Misesian approach to praxeology is crucial.Bryan Caplan's Recent Article: Mises.org/HAP476aBryan Caplan's "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist": Mises.org/HAP476bHoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method: Mises.org/HAP476cBob's Cambridge University Press Article on Böhm-Bawerk's Critiques: Mises.org/HAP476dA Modern Guide to Austrian Economics: Mises.org/HAP476eBob and David Freidman, "The Chicago Vs. Austrian School Debate": Mises.org/HAP476fThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

In 1997, Bryan Caplan wrote an essay explaining why he was no longer a self-described Austrian. Recently, a reader asked him to comment on that essay. Bob reacts to Bryan's current views, arguing that the history of economic thought is indeed important, and the Misesian approach to praxeology is crucial.Bryan Caplan's Recent Article: Mises.org/HAP476aBryan Caplan's "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist": Mises.org/HAP476bHoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method: Mises.org/HAP476cBob's Cambridge University Press Article on Böhm-Bawerk's Critiques: Mises.org/HAP476dA Modern Guide to Austrian Economics: Mises.org/HAP476eBob and David Freidman, "The Chicago Vs. Austrian School Debate": Mises.org/HAP476fThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

Tired of the same old, same old? In this fresh episode of the No_System podcast, we're slicing through the fluff and getting down to brass tacks about time preference. It's all about the slow burn versus the quick fix in the creative world.We're not just tossing around highfalutin economic theory for kicks—We're looking to the big brain moves of Eugen Böhm-Bawerk. You're an artist, not a day trader, right? So why rush your masterpiece like a two-for-one sale at the dollar store?We spotlight legends like Banksy and Shepard Fairey to prove a point: playing the long game in art is like investing in a solid gold chain. It just doesn't lose its shine. We're serving up the kind of content that's meant to stick around, not just stick for now.We're not just here to preach. You'll get the real deal—tips on juggling your need for bread with your dream of leaving a mark.And since we're all about that action, step up and take our challenge. Go dust off that big idea you shelved and start sculpting it into something that'll echo through the ages—or at least outlive the latest meme.Before you dash off to make your mark, hit up nosysknows.com. Grab some gear as unique as your fingerprint and as loud as your art. It's not just merch; it's a statement that you're part of a tribe that values freedom, expression, and a good chuckle at the system's expense.This is the No_System podcast—no gatekeeping, no ivory towers, just real talk and a good laugh, where all rights are reserved, and all lefts are celebrated.©2023 Brian Behm Creative. 

Peter Lewin joins Bob to discuss his work with Nicolás Cachanosky on uniting Austrian capital theory with mainstream finance. Peter's New Book on Capital and Finance: Mises.org/LewinBook Join us in Nashville on September 23rd for a no-holds-barred discussion against the regime. Use Code "HA23" for $45 off admission: Mises.org/Nashville23

Peter Lewin joins Bob to discuss his work with Nicolás Cachanosky on uniting Austrian capital theory with mainstream finance. Peter's New Book on Capital and Finance: Mises.org/LewinBook   Join us in Nashville on September 23rd for a no-holds-barred discussion against the regime. Use Code "HA23" for $45 off admission: Mises.org/Nashville23]]>

Peter Lewin joins Bob to discuss his work with Nicolás Cachanosky on uniting Austrian capital theory with mainstream finance. Peter's New Book on Capital and Finance: Mises.org/LewinBook Join us in Nashville on September 23rd for a no-holds-barred discussion against the regime. Use Code "HA23" for $45 off admission: Mises.org/Nashville23

Peter Lewin joins Bob to discuss his work with Nicolás Cachanosky on uniting Austrian capital theory with mainstream finance. Peter's New Book on Capital and Finance: Mises.org/LewinBook Join us in Nashville on September 23rd for a no-holds-barred discussion against the regime. Use Code "HA23" for $45 off admission: Mises.org/Nashville23

Peter Lewin joins Bob to discuss his work with Nicolás Cachanosky on uniting Austrian capital theory with mainstream finance. Peter's New Book on Capital and Finance: Mises.org/LewinBook Join us in Nashville on September 23rd for a no-holds-barred discussion against the regime. Use Code "HA23" for $45 off admission: Mises.org/Nashville23

“L'uomo stesso è l'inizio e la fine di ogni economia” – Carl MengerCarl Menger è stato un rivoluzionario della scienza economica. Il suo primo libro, “Principi Fondamentali di Economia” (1871), apre la stagione del marginalismo - assieme ai lavori di Jevons e Walras. Menger ribalta la teoria del valore-lavoro. Il valore è negli occhi di occhi di chi guarda, attiene alle valutazioni dei singoli, non è il frutto di una qualche sostanza “valorificante” come era il lavoro per Marx. Menger spiega come il valore di un bene derivi dall'utilità che ognuno di noi gli attribuisce rispetto al soddisfacimento di un proprio bisogno.La prima vittima del suo pensiero è l'economia marxista, che verrà seppellita da suo allievoEugen von Böhm-Bawerk. I lavori successivi di Menger sono dedicati a ridefinire queste sue idee innovative e a difenderle, in particolare nell'ambito del dibattito sul metodo con la scuola storica tedesca. Il successo e l'apprezzamento per le analisi di Menger fanno sì che le sue idee si diffondano in tutta Europa, fino a diventare la pietra angolare di una nuova scuola di economia.Protagonista:Lisa KinspergherOspite:Raimondo Cubeddu, già Docente di Filosofia politica presso l'Università di Pisa, Senior Fellow e Presidente del Comitato Editoriale IBLConsigli di Lettura:- “Principi Fondamentali di Economia” ([1871], 2001) di Carl Menger, Rubbettino Editorehttps://www.store.rubbettinoeditore.it/catalogo/principi-fondamentali-di-economia/- “Gli errori dello Storicismo” ([1884], 1991) di Carl Menger, Rusconihttps://www.amazon.it/errori-dello-storicismo-Carl-Menger/dp/8818920065- “Sul Metodo e le Scienze Sociali” ([1883], 1996) di Carl Menger, Liberilibrihttps://www.ibs.it/sul-metodo-delle-scienze-sociali-libro-carl-menger/e/9788885140219Per Saperne di Più:- “La Scuola Austriaca di Economia: un'introduzione” (2014), di E. Butler, IBL Librihttps://www.brunoleoni.it/la-scuola-austriaca-di-economia- “Un Altro Menger. Scritti Polemici” (2021) di Raimondo Cubeddu, Liberilibrihttps://www.liberilibri.it/index.php/prodotto/un-altro-menger- “Il Valore della Differenza: Studi su Carl Menger” (2021) di Raimondo Cubeddu, BelforteSalomonehttps://www.ibs.it/valore-della-differenza-studi-su-libro-raimondo-cubeddu/e/9788874671892- “Scambio Valore e Capitale. Scritti su Adam Smith” (2019) di Carl Menger, a Cura diRaimondo Cubeddu, IBL Librihttps://www.brunoleoni.it/scambio-valore-e-capitale-scritti-su-adam-smithGuarda la presentazione del libro su YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjBbfYO5DWY

Names like Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser, Hayek, and Rothbard are well-known to adherents of the Austrian school of economics. Emil Kauder isn't one of those names, but Murray Rothbard brings his contributions to Austrian thinking to light. Original Article: "Emil Kauder as an Austrian Dehomogenizer" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Names like Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser, Hayek, and Rothbard are well-known to adherents of the Austrian school of economics. Emil Kauder isn't one of those names, but Murray Rothbard brings his contributions to Austrian thinking to light. Original Article: "Emil Kauder as an Austrian Dehomogenizer" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Whether we're talking about reformist or revolutionary Marxist tendencies of The Second International or those outside the tradition who attempted to debunk Marx's critique of political economy, nobody took him seriously on the most important aspect of the project until Grossman came along. If you don't know about Grossman, it's because all these other Frankfurt School thinkers took the spotlight. Did they deserve it? Come find out. Ted Reese is going to tell us why and you'll learn about the thing everyone keeps getting wrong, from Kautsky and Hilferding to Rosa and Lenin; von Böhm-Bawerk through Schumpeter to Keynes; much less the MMT econ nerds of today. Whether you think Marx's critique or proposed solutions are important or not, you need to at least know what everyone else kept getting wrong.All of Pleeb's work has been de-monetized and self-funded for over a year. If you want to give back in any way you can support #FreeMikey at www.Patreon.com/TheDangerousMaybe. Tell him Pleeb sent you.Follow pleeb on Duolingo and use this link so pleeb gets a week of free Plus https://invite.duolingo.com/BDHTZTB5CWWKTP747NSNMAOYEIGet Pleeb's updates and thoughts here https://nspleeb.substack.com/Make sure to follow https://www.instagram.com/pleebmemes/ for memes related to pleeb's work and communityReferenced materials:Ted's book on Grossman: https://www.amazon.com/End-Capitalism-Thought-Henryk-Grossman/dp/1789047730Grossman's book The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Accumulation-Breakdown-Capitalist-System/dp/0745304583How to enjoy the end of the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8Davos 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLuQF6nyckY&t=65sRe-Think X: https://www.youtube.com/c/RethinkXPLAYLISTS YOU SHOULD KNOW:Pleeb 'n Mikey Lecture-Interviewshttps://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcbaQ1cp2TLvXtp5bYnmCjf_otZw0M2NPleeb interviews and gets schooled by amazing peoplehttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcbaQ1cp2TKo5_C6vyIphjsMD7c_fbMwProfessor Pleeb Lectureshttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcbaQ1cp2TISAuNvqAdpOexm08Gc8yVhPleeb's old video essayshttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcbaQ1cp2TJpzDw4TRjnW3zR9Al-3_JxPleeb's Assisted Readings https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcbaQ1cp2TKnWyq5fxA5pMTAMtxGzuExMUSIC CREDITSRoyalty Free Planet - EVA - Rear ViewLicense:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0http://bit.ly/RFP_CClicenseMike Chino – Demigods: https://youtu.be/M6wruxDngOkLicense: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 - http://bit.ly/RFP_CClicense

What were the contributions of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Friedrich von Wieser? Join FFF president Jacob G. Hornberger and Citadel professor Richard M. Ebeling as they examine these three earliest Austrian economists. Please subscribe to our email newsletter FFF Daily here.

Miguel Anxo Bastos hace una comparación entre Capitalismo y Socialismo para determinar cuál tiene mayores ventajas. En primera instancia, menciona rasgos del Socialismo: ausencia de libertad y de propiedad privada, explotación del trabajador, privilegios de la burocracia estatal e imposibilidad de cálculo económico, entre otros; que en su opinión hacen del mismo un sistema injusto e insostenible donde no puede existir prosperidad. También, presenta las ventajas del Capitalismo: forma justa de asignar de los recursos, capacidad de producción, pago de salarios a los trabajadores y una estructura que permite mayores ventajas para alcanzar el desarrollo económico. Bibliografía: [01] El cálculo ecónomico en el sistema Socialista - Ludwig von Mises [02] Socialismo: Análisis Económico y Sociológico - Ludwig von Mises [03] Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk refuta la teoría de la explotación Capitalista - José Ignacio del Castillo [04] Böhm-Bawerk's Critique of the Exploitation theory of interes: [05] The positive theory of capital - Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk: [06] Karl Marx and the close system - Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk: [07] Una contradicción no resuelta en el sistema económico Marxista - Eugen Böhm Ritter von [08] Economía y Sociedad: Esbozo de Sociología comprensiva - Maximilian Weber: [09] Capitalismo, Socialismo y Democracia [2 tomos] - Joseph Alois Schumpeter: [10] The State: Its History and development viewed Sociologically - Franz Oppenheimer: [11] El Estado: Su Historia y evolución desde un punto de vista sociológico - Franz Oppenheimer: [12] Camino de servidumbre - Friedrich August von Hayek: [13] Camino de servidumbre [Resumen] - Friedrich August von Hayek: [14] La fatal arrogancia: Los errores del Socialismo - Friedrich August von Hayek: [15] Crítica de la Teoría de la explotación por el profesor Jesús Huerta de Soto (Video): [16] Socialismo, cálculo económico y función empresarial - Jesús Huerta de Soto: [17] El fiasco de la teoría marxista de la explotación - Juan Ramón Rallo: [18] An Economic History of the USSR [1917-1991] - Alec Nove: [19] 4000 años de controles de precios y salarios - Eamonn Butler: Busca a tu país en el índice de Libertad Económica: http://www.heritage.org/index/ Créditos: Comparación entre Capitalismo y Socialismo X Seminario InterUniversitario Economía para la Política Miguel Anxo Bastos Boubeta. Auditorio Álvaro Castillo Urrutia Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala Guatemala, 18 de abril de 2012 Una producción de New Media - UFM. Guatemala, julio de 2012 Cámara: Diego Chajón, Mario Estrada; edición digital: Kleify González; índice: Gabriela Valverde; sinopsis y revisión de contenido: Eugenia Aldana; publicación: Claudia Hernández, Eugenia Aldana. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/emjulu/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/emjulu/support

Economia Underground: Um podcast institucionalista Hoje nós retomamos as nossas conversas sobre heterodoxia, debatendo os escritos do Schumpeter e Neoschumpeterianos. Essa distinção apesar de importante, é rara de se fazer presente aqui no Brasil. Muitas vezes, Schumpeter é apresentado dentro do escopo Neoschumpeteriano. Mas, devemos frisar, são perspectivas diferentes! Em que consiste essas diferenças? Há elementos em comum? Quais são? Confira neste episódio! Referências David, P. (1985) “Clio and the economics of QWERTY” The American Economic Review, 75(5): 332-337 Dosi, G. (1982) “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories” Research Policy, 11: 147-162 Kuhn, T. (2013) A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva McCaffrey, M; Salerno, J. (2014) “Böhm-Bawerk's approach to entrepreneurship”Journal of the History of Economic Thought 36(4): 435-454 Nelson, R & Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press. Samuels, W. (1983) “The Influence of Friedrich von Wieser on Joseph A. Schumpeter” History of Economics Society Bulletin 4 (2):5-19 Tigre, P. (2009) “Paradigmas Tecnológicos e Teorias Econômicas da Firma” Revista Brasileira de Inovação 4(1): 187–223 Documentário "Triunfo do Nerds" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nHzrZsdG4 Nossas redes: Twitter: @ecounderground Instagram: @economiaunderground Facebook: Economia Underground Podcast

Fans of Austrian economics know hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel as a brilliant thinker thoroughly steeped in Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Rothbard. His excellent 2013 book The Dao of Capital was rooted in Austrian capital theory and "roundaboutness," and his application of of that theory has proven highly beneficial for his investors. Now Spitznagel is back with a new book that directly challenges our understanding of risk. Safe Haven asks, and answers, a fundamental question: Can mitigating risk actually add to the bottom line? Can safe havens be truly cost-effective, by adding to CAGR? Mises Institute Senior Fellow Robert Murphy, who consulted on the book, joins the show for a fascinating look at Spitznagel's penetrating and contrarian thesis. If you're interested in the intersection of investing and Austrian economics, don't miss this episode! Mark Spitznagel's Safe Haven: Investing for Financial Storms on Amazon: Mises.org/SafeHaven And, Spitznagel's 2013 book The Dao of Capital: Austrian Investing in a Distorted World on Amazon: Mises.org/Dao

Fans of Austrian economics know hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel as a brilliant thinker thoroughly steeped in Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Rothbard. His excellent 2013 book The Dao of Capital was rooted in Austrian capital theory and "roundaboutness," and his application of of that theory has proven highly beneficial for his investors.  Now Spitznagel is back with a new book that directly challenges our understanding of risk. Safe Haven asks, and answers, a fundamental question: Can mitigating risk actually add to the bottom line? Can safe havens be truly cost-effective, by adding to CAGR? Mises Institute Senior Fellow Robert Murphy, who consulted on the book, joins the show for a fascinating look at Spitznagel's penetrating and contrarian thesis. If you're interested in the intersection of investing and Austrian economics, don't miss this episode! Mark Spitznagel's Safe Haven: Investing for Financial Storms on Amazon: Mises.org/SafeHaven And, Spitznagel's 2013 book The Dao of Capital: Austrian Investing in a Distorted World on Amazon: Mises.org/Dao]]>

https://youtu.be/NKjWFoqxCw0 ... Böhm-Bawerk, in sum, posed the grave inner contradiction of Marxian theory plainly and starkly: Marx claimed that goods exchanged on the market in proportion to the quantities of labor embodied in them (i.e., that their values are determined by the quantity of labor-hours needed to produce them), and yet also conceded that the rates of profit on all goods tended to be equal. And yet, if the first clause is true, the rates of profit would be systematically lower in proportion to the intensity of capital investment, and higher in proportion to their labor-intensiveness of production. Murray N. Rothbard Classical Economics, p. 414 Full Video: https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/the-anti-capitalist-ideology-of-slavery/ LBRY / Odysee: https://odysee.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b/LTOV-Debunked:b BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/jxyJHJOJCosX/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2rfzUn6nU1DCe8ye4xJidV Flote: https://flote.app/post/87b01f1e-0b7b-45a8-b7e5-435871047c70 Archive: https://archive.org/details/surplus-exploitation-theory-of-value-debunked Minds: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1276297438893707270?referrer=KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone

Fans of Austrian economics know hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel as a brilliant thinker thoroughly steeped in Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Rothbard. His excellent 2013 book The Dao of Capital was rooted in Austrian capital theory and "roundaboutness," and his application of of that theory has proven highly beneficial for his investors. Now Spitznagel is back with a new book that directly challenges our understanding of risk. Safe Haven asks, and answers, a fundamental question: can mitigating risk actually add to the bottom line? Can safe havens be truly cost-effective, by adding to CAGR? Mises Institute Senior Fellow Robert Murphy, who consulted on the book, joins the show for a fascinating look at Spitznagel's penetrating and contrarian thesis. If you're interested in the intersection of investing and Austrian economics, don't miss this episode! Mark Spitznagel's Safe Haven: Investing for Financial Storms on Amazon: Mises.org/SafeHaven And Spitznagel's 2013 book The Dao of Capital: Austrian Investing in a Distorted World on Amazon: Mises.org/Dao

Fans of Austrian economics know hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel as a brilliant thinker thoroughly steeped in Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Rothbard. His excellent 2013 book The Dao of Capital was rooted in Austrian capital theory and "roundaboutness," and his application of of that theory has proven highly beneficial for his investors. Now Spitznagel is back with a new book that directly challenges our understanding of risk. Safe Haven asks, and answers, a fundamental question: can mitigating risk actually add to the bottom line? Can safe havens be truly cost-effective, by adding to CAGR? Mises Institute Senior Fellow Robert Murphy, who consulted on the book, joins the show for a fascinating look at Spitznagel's penetrating and contrarian thesis. If you're interested in the intersection of investing and Austrian economics, don't miss this episode! Mark Spitznagel's Safe Haven: Investing for Financial Storms on Amazon: Mises.org/SafeHaven And Spitznagel's 2013 book The Dao of Capital: Austrian Investing in a Distorted World on Amazon: Mises.org/Dao

Fans of Austrian economics know hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel as a brilliant thinker thoroughly steeped in Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Rothbard. His excellent 2013 book The Dao of Capital was rooted in Austrian capital theory and "roundaboutness," and his application of of that theory has proven highly beneficial for his investors. Now Spitznagel is back with a new book that directly challenges our understanding of risk. Safe Haven asks, and answers, a fundamental question: can mitigating risk actually add to the bottom line? Can safe havens be truly cost-effective, by adding to CAGR? Mises Institute Senior Fellow Robert Murphy, who consulted on the book, joins the show for a fascinating look at Spitznagel's penetrating and contrarian thesis. If you're interested in the intersection of investing and Austrian economics, don't miss this episode! Mark Spitznagel's Safe Haven: Investing for Financial Storms on Amazon: Mises.org/SafeHaven And Spitznagel's 2013 book The Dao of Capital: Austrian Investing in a Distorted World on Amazon: Mises.org/Dao

On this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast, Richard Ebeling joins Peter Boettke to discuss his work on the lost papers of Ludwig von Mises. Ebeling recounts the history of Mises's escape from the Nazi expansion into Europe, the confiscation of his papers, and how Ebeling's later discovery of the papers in Russia led to the creation of the three volume series, "The Selected Works of Ludwig von Mises." Additionally, Boettke and Ebeling discuss the continuing relevance of Mises's critiques of socialism and how the work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk shaped his thinking. CC Music: Twisterium

Lesestunde #12 - Blockzeit 687969 Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, "Zum Abschluß des Marxschen Systems" (1896) BitBox02 Bitcoin Only Edition - 10% discount für die Einundzwanzig Community: https://shiftcrypto.ch/einundzwanzig Besuche unsere Website: https://einundzwanzig.space Diskutiere mit, in unserer Community: https://t.me/einundzwanzigpodcast Verfolge die neusten Schlagzeilen im Newsfeed: https://t.me/einundzwanzigbitcoin

Hören Sie die Vorbemerkung aus der neuen „Mises Karma“-Hörbuch-Umsetzung des 1896 erschienenen Essays „Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems“ von Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. … Episode 89: Vorbemerkung aus „Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems“Weiterlesen »

Hören Sie die Vorbemerkung aus der neuen „Mises Karma“-Hörbuch-Umsetzung des 1896 erschienenen Essays „Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems“ von Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. Bestellen Sie das rund 4-stündige Hörbuch noch bis Ende Mai 2021 für nur 6 Euro unter: https://miseskarma.de/hoerbuch

Novo Episódio no Ar! Neste Vai Ler e Vai Estudar sobre o Marxismo, Lucas Azambuja e Rafael Madalozzo analisam a obra “A Teoria da Exploração do Socialismo-Comunismo”, do estadista e economista austríaco Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Nesta obra, o autor desenvolve uma das refutações mais célebres das premissas socialistas, demolindo o ponto central da economia marxista: o princípio de que o trabalhador é implacavelmente explorado pelo empresário capitalista. A obra, contudo, não apenas constitui uma refutação exemplar da pedra angular da teoria econômica marxista, mas é também um exemplo de honestidade intelectual, de como conduzir uma investigação científica, e de como rebater e refutar ideias infundadas e falaciosas. Trilha sonora do podcast: Antonio Vivaldi, “La Notte", Concerto em G menor, RV 439. Felix Mendelssohn, “Variations Sérieuses”, Op. 54, solo para piano.

Tank and Tracy dive deep into the history of the Republican party in the United States. All the names we couldn't pronounce: Joseph Weydemeyer, Carl Schurz, Friedrich Hassaurek, Julius Stahel, Friedrich Anneke The Bellamy salute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#/media/File:Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg Lysander Spooners' letter to Charles Sumner: https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/spooner-letter-to-charles-sumner-1864 Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk's "Karl Marx and the Close of his System: A Criticism": https://cdn.mises.org/Karl%20Marx%20and%20the%20Close%20of%20His%20System.pdf Support us on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/tandtlibertyfactory Or just donate to the show: Bitcoin (BTC) 3FNiu1B5q25x8jhZzaPmMLbu9hVoJpyWVE Zcash (ZEC)  t1KqKcmKugzidsUoFvSc3hHP6xVDNsqExmq Horizen (ZEN)  znmAnp12wQm76PQf5KpQGHRoP3DqCMDPvLa Bitcoin Cash (BCH)  qqg6j467fdr064tgqxjswk7d79dh4ya48g9vyx4cq4

Vi tackar Eugen för kaffet och går tillbaka mot tidsmaskinen. Medan vi knappar in vårt årtal harklar sig ekonomen "Jo, ehh, vill ni inte ha lite punsch efter kaffet? Jag kan berätta om min kritik av exploateringsteorin. Det finns en grupp här som kallar sig socialister med helt vilda teorier om ekonomi som jag slår hål på mest för skoj skull. Dessa tokar är säkerligen förpassade till historien i er tid må jag tänka." Vi sätter oss ned artigt och lyssnar. Ingen har hjärta att beskriva dagens verklighet för den gode Böhm Bawerk. https://www.mises.se/2016/05/30/bohm-bawerks-kritik-av-exploateringsteorin-2/

Vi reser tillbaka till ursprungskällan för den österrikiska ekonomin och hälsar på Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. På plats får vi en lektion i hans banbrytande upptäckt kring ränteinkomster. https://www.mises.se/2016/05/02/var-kommer-kapitalistens-ranteinkomster-ifran/

Professor Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, is in the midst of writing a new textbook titled Principle of Economics. But he's writing it in open-source form: drafting, revising, and sharing the manuscript with his online students as the book is created. And unlike most lousy college economics textbooks, his offering is rooted in Austrian theory and contains numerous references to Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Academia is changing, and the way we learn is ripe for disruption. Dr. Ammous is at the fore of these changes, and you don't want to miss this show.

Professor Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, is in the midst of writing a new textbook titled Principle of Economics. But he's writing it in open-source form: drafting, revising, and sharing the manuscript with his online students as the book is created. And unlike most lousy college economics textbooks, his offering is rooted in Austrian theory and contains numerous references to Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Academia is changing, and the way we learn is ripe for disruption. Dr. Ammous is at the fore of these changes, and you don't want to miss this show.

Professor Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, is in the midst of writing a new textbook titled Principle of Economics. But he's writing it in open-source form: drafting, revising, and sharing the manuscript with his online students as the book is created. And unlike most lousy college economics textbooks, his offering is rooted in Austrian theory and contains numerous references to Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Academia is changing, and the way we learn is ripe for disruption. Dr. Ammous is at the fore of these changes, and you don't want to miss this show.

Professor Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, is in the midst of writing a new textbook titled Principle of Economics. But he's writing it in open-source form: drafting, revising, and sharing the manuscript with his online students as the book is created. And unlike most lousy college economics textbooks, his offering is rooted in Austrian theory and contains numerous references to Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Academia is changing, and the way we learn is ripe for disruption. Dr. Ammous is at the fore of these changes, and you don't want to miss this show.

Professor Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, is in the midst of writing a new textbook titled Principle of Economics. But he's writing it in open-source form: drafting, revising, and sharing the manuscript with his online students as the book is created. And unlike most lousy college economics textbooks, his offering is rooted in Austrian theory and contains numerous references to Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Academia is changing, and the way we learn is ripe for disruption. Dr. Ammous is at the fore of these changes, and you don't want to miss this show.  ]]>

Chcete-li podpořit Studio Svobodného přístavu, můžete tak učinit v krypto i korunách! Pravidelná podpora: https://opristavu.urza.cz/ BTC: 3HXfMaWb5z5QVwiNJH3BA8Dxyjd5QPoDYb LTC: Lg1ZrfMqmZUe98KBjP7pSvSET7wnGsJ3KM Číslo účtu: 2201359764/2010; variabilní symbol: 6 -------- Lichva (poskytování úvěru s úrokem) je velkým tématem, které vyvolává silné emoce a vášně už velké stovky let; již katolická církev k němu ve středověku zaujímala nejrůznější (spíše záporné) postoje, v důsledku čehož byla lichva často zakazována. Nejrůznější ekonomové se snažili vysvětlit a popsat jev úroku; světlo do toho vnesla (jako obvykle) rakouská ekonomická škola, konkrétně Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Jeho poznatky jsou dost nadčasové, takže je lze použít i dnes jako odpověď na volání některých socialistů po legislativním zastropování výše úroků. Též se dotýkám tématu splatitelnosti a nesplatitelnosti úroků ve frakčním bankovnictví; tady se kupodivu frakčního bankovnictví i zastanu proti jednomu nevalidního argumentu. – Urza (www.urza.cz); autor knihy Anarchokapitalismus; tvůrce Svobodného přístavu; spoluzakladatel a hlava Institutu Ludwiga von Misese; člen předsednictva Svobody učení

What are interest rates, where do they come from, and what purpose do they serve? Smith, Marx, and Keynes got these questions wrong; Turgot, Böhm-Bawerk, and Mises got them right. Economist Jeffrey Herbener from Grove City College explains. Readings "The Brilliance of Turgot" by Murray RothbardProfile of Böhm-Bawerk by Roger Garrison Subscribe and listen on iTunes, YouTube, Stitcher, Soundcloud, Google Play, Spotify, or via RSS.

What are interest rates, where do they come from, and what purpose do they serve? Smith, Marx, and Keynes got these questions wrong; Turgot, Böhm-Bawerk, and Mises got them right. Economist Jeffrey Herbener from Grove City College explains. Readings "The Brilliance of Turgot" by Murray RothbardProfile of Böhm-Bawerk by Roger Garrison Subscribe and listen on iTunes, YouTube, Stitcher, Soundcloud, Google Play, Spotify, or via RSS.]]>

What are interest rates, where do they come from, and what purpose do they serve? Smith, Marx, and Keynes got these questions wrong; Turgot, Böhm-Bawerk, and Mises got them right. Economist Jeffrey Herbener from Grove City College explains. Readings "The Brilliance of Turgot" by Murray RothbardProfile of Böhm-Bawerk by Roger Garrison Subscribe and listen on iTunes, YouTube, Stitcher, Soundcloud, Google Play, Spotify, or via RSS.

Home assistants like the Amazon Echo have become increasingly common in households in the US and Europe. What is rarely seen, however, is the vast infrastructure and complex array of technology, materials, and labor needed to produce and provide these small devices. We break down an article that attempts to map out all of the myriad of inputs and trace them to the production of a simple voice command - and dive deep into the economic and ideological presuppositions which underlie their critique. Links: anatomyof.ai I, Pencil Böhm-Bawerk's Critique of the Exploitation Theory of Interest Labor and Capitalist Exploitation: Böhm-Bawerk and the Close of Marx's System Episode 70: Ai in the Cloud and Around the World with Mark Sears ollow us and leave us a rating! iTunes Homepage Twitter @artlyintelly Facebook

Bob and Tom discuss the work of Bob's favorite economist, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Böhm-Bawerk refuted many an economic fallacy in his day, including Marxism itself. We discuss the arguments he made as well as how he made them. Show notes for Ep. 158

A strong member of the “second generation of the Austrian school of economics,” Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1914) and his works are discussed by Peter Klein. Böhm-Bawerk did much to extend and further develop Menger's theories of value, price, capital, and production. Included in his work of the two volume Capital and Interest is a devastating critique of Marx's exploitation theory. Böhm-Bawerk explained that far from being exploited, the workers are actually accommodated, being paid in advance of the produced goods being sold. In the second volume of Capital and Interest, Böhm-Bawerk explained the time consuming nature of production and how it relates to interest. Roundabout production methods are more productive but come at a cost of forgoing current consumption during the process of accumulating the capital. This became the basis for his time preference theory of interest as well as the foundations for the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Böhm-Bawerk also presented a clear example diminishing marginal utility and explained how real prices, as opposed to hypothetical equilibrium prices, are determined. The Who Is? podcast is available on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, Soundcloud, and via RSS.

In this episode, Guido Hülsmann, author of Mises's biography The Last Knight of Liberalism, highlights the life and work of Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973), arguably the greatest economist of all time. Very early in his career, Mises was influenced by Carl Menger and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk to turn away from the Historicist approach and to pursue studies in economic theory. Among Mises's many contributions, Hülsmann discusses the socialist calculation debate, Mises's battle against inflation, and the argument that economics is part of a larger science called Praxelogy. Mises revolutionized the theory of money, developing a full explanation of money prices and the consequences of money production.

Murray Rothbard died before he could write the third volume of his famous History of Economic Thought, which would cover the birth and development of the Austrian School, through the Keynesian Revolution and Chicago School. With this six-lecture course, however, the History of Economic Thought is complete. 4. Menger and Böhm-Bawerk Carl Menger, 1840-1921, founded Austrian economics. Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk was the most important student. Weiser was his brother-in-law, but was fairly pre-Keynesian. Mises was the great successor to Bohn-Bawerk. With Adam Smith, and with especially Riccardo, we shift toward the theory which still plagues us to the present day – namely that the real determinant of value, of prices, is not consumer subjective utility, but objective labor pain – labor toil. Menger in Austria, Jevons in England, and Walras in Switzerland created the Austrian discussion of marginalism. Menger brought back the scholastic tradition, the praxeological method of focus on individual action, entrepreneurship, time, structure of production, and the fact that the expected values of the consumers determine the value of the factors of production that entrepreneurs are willing to invest in. Menger and Bohm-Bawerk were steeped in natural law and natural rights and Aristotelian epistemology in general. That’s a very different tradition than either the Germans or the British. Marx essentially gave up the labor theory of value. He had to admit that profits tend to be equalized on the market. Marxists would shift the debate whenever faced with defeat. There is no one to tell us what Marx thought he meant by value. The entire Marxian canon is essentially a prophetic religious movement of a weird kind. The fourth in a series of six lectures on the History of Economic Thought This lecture on YouTube: https://youtu.be/8DjUcrYk_ss Sourced from: https://mises.org/library/history-economic-thought-marx-hayek We are not endorsed or affiliated with the above. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode Presented by: Read Rothbard is comprised of a small group of voluntaryists who are fans of Murray N. Rothbard. We curate content on the www.ReadRothbard.com site including books, lectures, articles, speeches, and we make a weekly podcast based on his free-market approach to economics. Our focus is on education and how advancement in technology improves the living standards of the average person. The Read Rothbard Podcast is all about Maximum Freedom. We look at movies and current events from a Rothbardian Anarchist perspective. If it's voluntary, we're cool with it. If it's not, then it violated the Non-Aggression Principle and Property Rights - the core tenants of Libertarian Theory - and hence - human freedom. Website: http://www.ReadRothbard.com iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-read-rothbard-podcast/id1166745868 Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/m/Ii45fhytlsiwkw6cbgzbxi6ahmi?t=The_Read_Rothbard_Podcast Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/readrothbardclub Twitter: https://twitter.com/read_rothbard Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/145447582@N05/xB4583 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ReadRothbard Murray Rothbard, Murray N Rothbard, Read Rothbard, Anarchy, Anarchism, Free-Market, Anarcho-Capitalism, News and Events, Podcast, Laissez-Faire, Voluntaryist, Voluntaryism, Non-Aggression Principle, NAP, Libertarian, Libertarianism, Economics, Austrian Economics,

Há em Portugal um núcleo qualificado de divulgadores e de estudiosos da Escola Austríaca de Economia. São intelectuais, professores universitários, estudantes, economistas, advogados, empresários que mantêm viva a tradição iniciada por Carl Menger e Böm-Bawerk. Lá já existe, inclusive, o Instituto Mises Portugal. Assim como aconteceu no Brasil, a Escola Austríaca ganhou uma nova base intelectual na acadêmica portuguesa: foi criada a primeira pós-graduação em EA na Universidade Lusófona do Porto. Diretor da Faculdade de Direito e de Ciência Política da Universidade Lusófona do Porto, Rui Albuquerque contou neste Podcast do Instituto Mises o que motivou a criação da pós-graduação em EA, que deve abrir a primeira turma no início de 2017. Rui, que é diretor do curso junto com o professor José Manuel Moreira, falou sobre o programa da pós, contou quem serão os professores (incluindo Ubiratan Jorge Iorio e Helio Beltrão), a expectativa de alunos da primeira turma e a projeção das ideias Austríacas em Portugal. *** A música da vinheta de abertura é a “Abertura Solene 1812”, do compositor russo Piotr Ilitch Tchaikovsky, executada pelo guitarrista Eric Calderone. *** Todos os Podcasts podem ser baixados e ouvidos pelo site, pela iTunes Store e pelo YouTube. E se você gostou deste e/ou dos podcasts anteriores, visite o nosso espaço na iTunes Store, faça a avaliação e deixe um comentário.

This week's episode of Economics Detective Radio deals with the economic thought and continuing popularity of Marx. No, not Groucho! The other Marx! My guest on the podcast is Phil Magness, a historian who teaches at George Mason University. Phil recently wrote a piece entitled, "Commie Chic and Quantifying Marx on the Syllabus." Recently, the Open Syllabus Project released a data set including thousands of college syllabi. To many people's surprise, Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto enjoys massive popularity! Phil took a closer look at the numbers and reached some startling conclusions: 1. Accounting for different versions of its title, Marx’s Communist Manifesto appears on a total of 3856 syllabi in the Open Syllabus Project database. That makes it the second most used text in academia after the popular writing style manual by Strunk and White (3934 syllabi) – a book that’s usually assigned to help college students with their composition habits for writing term papers. 2. Of those 3856 Communist Manifesto hits, only 103 – or 2.67% – are on syllabi in Marx’s own primary academic discipline, economics. The rest are in fields that venture far astray from economics, with the highest concentrations coming from the humanities. 3. Marx’s Communist Manifesto far exceeds the syllabus frequency of virtually *any* other author or work in all of human history with the possible exception of Plato. Here are the rankings for Marx and the most cited work of several major philosophical figures on the list (note: I intentionally excluded works that are textbooks or primarily literary and paired down the tail end of the list to give a rough sample): Marx (Communist Manifesto) – 3856 Plato (Republic) – 3573 Aristotle (Ethics) – 2709 Hobbes (Leviathan) – 2671 Machiavelli (The Prince) – 2652 King (Letter from the Birmingham Jail) – 1985 Mill (On Liberty) – 1969 Foucault (Power) – 1774 Darwin (Origin of Species) – 1701 Augustine (Confessions) – 1694 Tocqueville (Democracy in America) – 1650 Smith (Wealth of Nations) – 1587 Rousseau (Social Contract) – 1427 Rawls (Theory of Justice) – 1248 Sartre (Existentialism) – 1224 Paine (Common Sense) – 1128 Locke (Second Treatise) – 1045 What could account for the popularity of The Communist Manifesto? Phil identifies two hypotheses: First, it could be the case that Marx simply is the most important thinker who has ever lived, beating out all but Plato by a wide margin. Second, Marx could be enjoying outsized popularity because university faculty outside of economics are overly enamoured with his thought. The latter seems like the truth. While Marxian thought does dominate some corners of philosophy, history, literary criticism, and many other subfields, we would expect classes in those areas not to focus on The Communist Manifesto but on Marx's other works. Das Kapital is in 1447 syllabi, right around Rousseau's Social Contract. The Communist Manifesto is a political leaflet, not a work of deep scholarship. The fact that it dominates not only the works of other thinkers but also Marx's other works indicates that it is assigned primarily for its political conclusions. How has Marx Avoided the Dustbin of History? Marx' economic thought was rejected by economists even within his own lifetime. All of his economic analysis shared a fatal flaw: the labour theory of value. Marx observed that capitalists earn profits above the wages paid to workers. In his framework, this would only be possible if the capitalists exploited the workers. This was met with an empirical challenge: If profits are the result of exploitation, how come profit rates aren't highest in capital-intensive industries? Instead they are relatively consistent across the entire economy. Engels claimed that Marx would resolve this issue in the later volumes of Kapital. He even held a Prize Essay Competition to see if anyone could anticipate Marx' solution to this seemingly intractable problem. But the later volumes didn't offer a satisfactory solution. Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk wrote the definitive critique of Marx, Karl Marx and the Close of His System. The marginal revolution of the 1870s, which laid the groundwork for all of modern economics, offered a simple solution to the problem that has stood the test of time: interest. As Böhm-Bawerk points out, workers are paid when the work is performed. But capitalists only earn revenue once the final product is sold. So if production takes time, we must account for interest. A unit of currency today (gold, silver, dollars, pounds, etc.) is not worth the same as that same unit tomorrow or next year. Leaving aside inflation, people subjectively value money today over money in the future. When you adjust future revenues accordingly, profits are actually very close to zero throughout the economy. This is the explanation that any modern economist will give you. So when a modern economist assigns Marx, it's to teach about his role in the history of economic thought, not to teach his ideas on their own merits. That's why so few economists are assigning Marx at all! Marx the scientist may have fallen out of favour, but Marx the political theorist survived and thrived. Marx inspired the political left, and through a twist of fate his adherents came to power in Russia and spread his influence around the world. Other links: Venezuela, El Caracazo, and Chavism with Francisco Toro Colonization After Emancipation, Phil's book on slavery

Os estudiosos da Escola Austríaca geralmente dão um salto dos escolásticos tardios da Escola de Salamanca para os Austríacos de primeira geração, como Menger e Böm-Bawerk – uma das exceções é o David Gordon. Mas há no século XX uma influência importante: autores da Filosofia Austríaca cujos pressupostos estão presente da Escola Austríaca de Economia. Para falar dessa parte da Filosofia Austríaca que influenciou a Escola Austríaca e de representantes como Franz Brentano, o Podcast do Instituto Mises Brasil entrevistou Gabriel Ferreira, doutor em Filosofia e professor na Unisinos. Gabriel explicou nesta conversa o que é esse ramo da filosofia e quais são os pressupostos filosóficos da Filosofia Austríaca presentes na Escola Austríaca, incluindo as concepções de liberdade, de indivíduo, de conhecimento a priori. Esta é, de fato, uma entrevista importante e reveladora para os estudiosos da EA no Brasil. *** A música da vinheta de abertura é o tema da série Game of Thrones executada pelo guitarrista ? Eric Calderone. *** Todos os Podcasts podem ser baixados e ouvidos pelo site, pela iTunes Store e pelo YouTube. E se você gostou deste e/ou dos podcasts anteriores, visite o nosso espaço na iTunes Store, faça a avaliação e deixe um comentário.

Per Bylund återvänder för att utröna vad det mytiska kapitalet faktiskt är. Teorier av Böhm-Bawerk och Hayek avverkas. Ekonomiska system utan kapitalteori sågas. Slutligen diskuteras Pers kommande bok ”The problem of production”

This week we are joined by Peter J. Boettke, who explains this history and tenets of the Austrian tradition in economics. Boettke traces the school’s history from Carl Menger through Eugen Böhm-Bawerk and Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard to contemporary economists such as Israel Kirzner, Vernon Smith, and Mario Rizzo. He explains what Austrian economics does and does not do, and distinguishes between what he calls “mainline” economics and “mainstream” economics.What distinguishes Austrian economics from other schools of thought in economics? How did the Austrian school come to be known as the free market school?Show Notes and Further ReadingPeter J. Boettke, Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (book) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Mark Thornton is an economist who lives in Auburn, Alabama. Mark is Senior Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and serves as the Book Review Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Mark’s publications include The Economics of Prohibition; Tariffs, Blockades, and  Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War (2004), The Quotable Mises (2005),The Bastiat Collection (2007), An Essay on Economic Theory (2010), and The Bastiat Reader (2014). Dr. Thornton served as the editor of the Austrian Economics Newsletter and as a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Libertarian Studies. He has served as a member of the graduate faculties of Auburn University and Columbus State University. He has also taught economics at Auburn University at Montgomery and Trinity University in Texas. Mark served as Assistant Superintendent of Banking and economic adviser to Governor Fob James of Alabama (1997-1999), and he was awarded the University Research Award at Columbus State University in 2002. Mark is a graduate of St. Bonaventure University and received his PhD in economics from Auburn University. Economics Themes: In this interview, Mark mentions and discusses: Competition, Entrepreneurship, comparative economic systems, economic history, business cycles, value theory, population policy, purchasing power, deflation, monetary policy and bitcoins. Economists and Economic Schools: In this interview, Marina mentions: Ludwig von Miss, Friedrich Hayek, David Hume, Israel Kirzner, Carl Menger, Richard Cantillon, Friedrich von Wieser, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Joseph Schumpeter, Fritz Machlup, Adam Smith, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Irving Fischer, Milton Friedman, Ben Bernanke, Scott Sumner, George Soros, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Jim Rogers, Paul Krugman, Austrian Economics, Merchantilists, Physiocrats, French Liberals and Classical Economists. Find out: about the Greek and Roman philosophical roots of Austrian Economics. about the importance of deduction and logic in Austrian thinking. the limitations to Austrian Economic thinking. about Irish economist Richard Cantillon, who remains quite elusive in economics. who Richard Cantillon influenced through his writings. why the Austrian School of Economics is given its name. how von Mises' papers got in the hands of Nazi Germany and then the Soviets. whether von Mises or Irving Fischer was right about the 1929 Stock Market Crash and the subsequent Great Depression. who would support Bitcoins - von Mises or Fischer? why bitcoins were created. how similar bitcoins are with gold and the Gold Standard.To access the shownotes to this epsiode, visit www.economicrockstar.com/markthornton

In Austria, hardly any other economist has achieved the same kind of fame as Böhm-Bawerk, write Eugen-Maria Schulak and Herbert Unterköfler.This audio Mises Daily is narrated by Paul Strikwerda.

Narrated by Paul Strikwerda. [8:59]

Carl Menger, 1840-1921, founded Austrian economics. Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk was the most important student. Weiser was his brother-in-law, but was fairly pre-Keynesian. Mises was the great successor to Bohn-Bawerk.With Adam Smith, and with especially Riccardo, we shift toward the theory which still plagues us to the present day – namely that the real determinant of value, of prices, is not consumer subjective utility, but objective labor pain – labor toil.Menger in Austria, Jevons in England, and Walras in Switzerland created the Austrian discussion of marginalism. Menger brought back the scholastic tradition, the praxeological method of focus on individual action, entrepreneurship, time, structure of production, and the fact that the expected values of the consumers determine the value of the factors of production that entrepreneurs are willing to invest in.Menger and Bohm-Bawerk were steeped in natural law and natural rights and Aristotelian epistemology in general. That’s a very different tradition than either the Germans or the British.Marx essentially gave up the labor theory of value. He had to admit that profits tend to be equalized on the market. Marxists would shift the debate whenever faced with defeat. There is no one to tell us what Marx thought he meant by value. The entire Marxian canon is essentially a prophetic religious movement of a weird kind.The fourth in a series of six lectures on the History of Economic Thought.

Recorded 15 October 1988. [Transcript (provided by Mr. Kaan Dişli. The text is also available in Turkish.)] 100 years ago If you are an economist living in the United States you might have subscribed to a journal called the “Quarterly Journal of Economics” and you might have gone out to the mailbox one day in October 1888 and found the latest issue and if one found the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics October 1888 you would have opened it to its lead article and its lead article was by a man named James Bonar. 100 years ago this month, and the title of the article was the “Austrian economists and their view of value”. 100 years ago this month was the first English exposition in detail of the Austrian school. In this exposition James Bonar, an admirer of Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, offered to the English-speaking world the first systematic, thorough, methodical understanding of how the Austrians viewed value, how from value they explained the emergence of price and market processes. Now what Bonar enabled the reader in America and England to see was that the Austrians were developing an alternative way of understanding the economic process. One that on the other one hand challenged the classical economists ,including Marx as a labor theorist, and offered a new vision of how to construct economic theory for an understanding of the real world. Right there the first English exposition this month 100 years ago Now what Böhm-Bawerk did was more in his writings than just present a positive theory, he was a brilliant economist who had mastered all of the economics literature up to his own time and he proceeded to first criticize and attack his opponent before he went on to present his positive theory. In fact, it was Böhm-Bawerk who opened the first clash that the Austrians had with the socialists. In the 20th century we are most familiar with the Austrian challenge to socialism through the works of Ludwig von Mises, his challenge against the socialists, how would a central planning system work where the planners had overthrown private ownership of the means of production and eliminated therefore the price mechanism ,for as I'm sure most of you are familiar with, Mises argued that where there is no private property there is nothing to buy and sell, when there is nothing to buy and sell, there is nothing to make offers or bids for, when there are no bids and offers there are no agreed-upon terms of trade, when there are no agreed-upon terms of trade there are no prices, and when there are no prices, there is no way for agents in the market to form estimates concerning the value that individuals are placing upon the means of production as a calculative device to determine how to an efficient and economizing manner apply the means of production to alternative uses in a society of scarcity. But that was really the second challenge, the first one was Böhm-Bawerk's. He first made this challenging criticism in Volume one of “Capital and Interest”, his history and critique of interest theories, in 1884 the year after Marx passed away. He had a chapter on the exploitation theory, in which he criticized another German named Rodbertus and Marx. Then he had another opportunity to extend and elaborate on his criticism and that was in 1886, shortly after volume 3 of ” Das Kapital” had appeared posthumously. Böhm-Bawerk was asked to give a contribution for a German economist. And his contribution was a hundred page monograph called “Karl Marx and the close of his system” in which he attempted to update his criticism in the light of the second and third volume coming out and showing that there were insoluble problems in Marx's system. In fact, the interesting thing that one can understand historically is that if one looks at most accounts today on Marx and his economic system and his social system and his conception of the social order, most proponents will present a conception of Marxist theory of exploitation, his notion of alienation, his idea of superstructure, his idea of exploitation and potential search for imperialist capture of markets via the Leninist interpretation… But there is one thing that they tend to brush over now, one thing that they devote little attention to in their expositions of Marx and that is the “Labor theory of value”. They usually devote the least amount of time to it, they give short expositions, they mention that it was essential to Marx's conception but they basically brush over it. They go on to other aspects of Marx's critique of the capitalist order. Now this is in contrast to earlier in this century, at that time the heart of Marx's system was considered the labor theory of value. It was only with the labor theory of value, it was argued, that one could have a scientific analysis to explain why capitalism inherently was exploitive. Now why has the labor theory of value fallen into the background? Why has it become an embarrassment, something that is briefly talked about rather than made the center of the exposition and the discussion? I would like to suggest that it's precisely because of the critique that Böhm-Bawerk made a hundred years ago. Because through this critique, Böhm-Bawerk raised questions about the logic of the labor theory itself and the inconsistencies of Marxist theory with the empirical workings of real market processes. But before one can understand Marxist criticisms, it is useful and important to briefly summarize Marxist system itself. Marx begins volume one by emphasizing that no commodity can have exchange value unless it has use value, unless it is wanted by someone for some purpose. In other words, unless it has use value it cannot have exchange value. But it is not sufficient for a commodity to have use value to have exchange value, he argues that one has to search for something else than just its usefulness if one wants to understand from whence exchange values between commodities arises. He argues that use values are of a qualitative and diverse nature and therefore cannot be compared, there is no common denominator from which one can look at them and evaluate them. One has to look for what is it that commodities have in common other than their quality of being useful because uses are so diverse. He therefore says we have to look beneath it and to ask what quality do all commodities have in common other than their diversity of their uses and he says the quality that they share in common is a quantitative dimension and that is, they all share the common attribute that they are produced by labor. He therefore argues that one has to abstract from the use values of commodities to that more general quality of merely having been the product of quantities of labor input. Only when one has understood the nature of labor as a physical input in the production of commodities can one then return to the surface of the analysis and understand why useful things have exchange ratios in the ways they do in the market. He therefore is looking for a common denominator among all commodities and he argues that when one strips it away what one finds therefore is that all commodities are produced by labor. But what kind of labor? Well he argues that if we are to strip away the particular concrete attributes of commodities that make them useful for particular purposes, we need to strip away the concrete types of labor that go into their production and to understand labor purely as an abstraction, quantities of labor in abstract form. He argues that therefore what determines the value of commodities in their specific forms are their more generic aspect of having been the product of labor of an abstract type. Now how shall one measure the amount of labor that goes into a product and therefore to determine what the value of one commodity should be in relation to another? Marx argues that measurement should be the duration of labor time entering into its production. However, he then emphasizes that it is not going to be a conception of concrete labor time but a thing that he calls “socially necessary labor”, that is labor necessary to produce an article under normal conditions of production, an average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. It is these values set as an average sampling of the class that determines what shall be the measurement of labor. Now as an extension of that, one says that the amount of labor that is going into a product is going to be a socially necessary amount of labor, that is that time duration raised another question. Well what does one do with the fact that there seems to be a great diversity of types and qualities of labor, that is simple labor and complex labor, skilled labor and unskilled labor? Marx argues that is not a difficult matter one merely has to realize that skilled labor is a multiple of simple labor; such as a doctor is ten times the labor of a simple worker digging a ditch. Now Marx argues that with these basic concepts one can understand that on the basis of socially necessary labor that the value of a skilled professional is merely a multiple of unskilled labor of this more abstract type, that one should easily see that individuals would trade and exchange commodities in terms of their labor values. But this then brings him to his notion of the relationship between the worker and the social system in which he resides. He then makes a distinction between “necessary labor” and “surplus labor”. Necessary labor is the amount of time duration that an individual has to incur sufficient to produce enough products or the value of enough products to sustain himself and his family. Necessary labor is therefore enough for the worker to be able to maintain oneself. Surplus labor would be the amount of product or value of product produced during a period of time in excess of what is required for one's own sustenance and it is this conception of the amount of labor necessary just to maintain yourself and extra labor during a day beyond that, that would go in excess of that amount in terms of products made or value of products made that takes Marx to his conception of exploitation. He argues that under capitalism the workers do not have direct access to the means of production that they require to be able to produce the products necessary for their own survival, rather the means of production are monopolized in the hands of the owners and therefore the worker has to go to the owners and negotiate in contract to have access to that which is essential for them to do the work required to maintain their own lives and here enters Marx's conception of exploitation. He argues that the capitalist by having this monopoly control over the means of production has the capacity to force the worker (one presumes by threatening denial of access to the means of production) to work more hours for him than would be necessary just to produce product or value of product sufficient to maintain himself but not pay the individual for that surplus. In other words, the worker is only paid a value equivalent to his subsistence and the excess is then garnished by the capitalist owner of the means of production. Thus Marx argued through this method the worker is exploited. He only receives a fraction of that which he has produced, the mere ownership of property gives the owner the opportunity to live without effort and therefore the injustice of the system. Now Marx then tries to analyze the workings of the economic system and he argues that on the one hand based upon his labor theory of value commodities should exchange based upon their labor values but what he notices is that in the market this is not always the case, in fact generally in the capitalist economy this is not always the case. He also notices that commodities do not exchange in terms of their percentages of surplus values but through an equality of the rate of profit and this is seen as an anomaly also, and why? Marx says that there are two aspects of the capital that a producer or capitalist uses, there is what he calls” constant capital” and “variable capital”. Constant capital is merely the amount of capital equipment that the capitalist has purchased from other producers, variable capital is the amount of labor that he employs to work with that capital equipment in a particular productive endeavor. Now Marx argues that for the constant capital he pays its full value. Why does he pay its full value? Because commodities are expected to trade at their full value. He as a producer has bought equipment from some other capitalist, that other capitalist has exploited his workers, but that other capitalists in fact charges the other capitalists the full labor value of the product and therefore there is no exploitive gain from the capital equipment purchased from other capitalists, they are really just paid from their full value. The only source of surplus value is the workers he hires to work with the capital he has employed in garnishing a part of the value of what they have produced. Now Marx points out that there is an anomaly here and that anomaly is that one could imagine a situation in which many companies or firms in an industry have the same rate of surplus-value but each of them are experiencing different rates of profit. But Marx realizes that the market tends to equate rates of return and therefore how can this jive with the labor theory of what will determine the value of commodities? Now the reason why he argues that there can be different rates of profit while having the same surplus value is because he argues that surplus value is merely a percentage of the amount of excess of one's variable capital invested, in other words if a workers subsistence is 20 and he produces 40, surplus value is 100 percent. But one calculates total profit on investment not on the basis of just surplus value but on all capital invested, constant and variable. The larger one's proportion of constant capital, the smaller one's rate of profit on the total capital investment. How does Marx attempt to overcome this? Well he argues that competition will handle this. He says the competition will tend to assure that capitalists will shift the types of products they make and that they will then by shifting into different lines of production assure that there is a common rate of profit but how does this jive with his labor theory of value that commodities are to exchange at their labor inputs? Well he argues that the market does it by creating what he calls “prices of production” and what he says is that the market will do the following thing: it will average out the rate of surplus-value throughout all sectors of the economy. When one works out an average of what has been constant capital, one works out what has been an average of surplus capital that tells us what is the average rate of surplus value and the market will then assure through competition the equating of that. Now we'll come back to that when we look at Böhm-Bawerk's criticism. Now Marx tries to defend this and present a number of different expositions and numerical examples but in a nutshell that is his explanation. He argues that labor is the basis of value, commodities based upon labor should exchange in terms of their labor inputs, labor input is measured by socially necessary labor, complex labor is reduced to simple labor and one then sees in the market a situation where anomalies may occur between the rate of surplus-value and the rate of a profit, competition by averaging out the rate of return, guarantees that while not directly commodities exchange at their labor values they do so indirectly. Now Böhm-Bawerk approaches this by wanting to take up two criticisms: One is does Marx's theory fit with the facts? And second of all what is the basis of his theory of value? Before I discuss this I want to suggest the different approach that Böhm-Bawerk comes with. Böhm-Bawerk argues in his critique of Marx and in his positive theory of capital, in which he has a long section on value and price, is that there are two starting principles that one has to begin with in analyzing all market phenomena and that is “methodological individualism” and “methodological subjectivism” Methodological individualism argues that if we are to understand the nature and structure and emergence of social phenomena we must begin with those elemental components from which all social phenomena arises and that is the individuals of which the society is constructed and composed. It is individuals who act, individuals who choose, individuals who decide, Böhm-Bawerk clearly says that all economic processes begin with man and his purposes and it is from man and his purposes that emerge the evaluations of commodities and their actions that bring about market phenomena. The second if statement is that commodities only have value, not only because individuals are the actors but precisely because it is only in terms of how the actors evaluate, decide, conceive, determine, perceive that anything occurs in the social world. In other words: if we are to understand social phenomena in general and economic phenomena in particular, we must always do so from the actors point of view. Now this means that for Böhm-Bawerk one cannot abstract from the nature and qualities of the use value of commodities as perceived by the actor, it is precisely because of the concrete attributes or possibilities to serve ends that an individual sees in a commodity that he assigns value to it and wishes to do various productive activities to bring that commodity into existence. So therefore Böhm-Bawerk is saying that we must begin with the individual, we must begin with his evaluations and that one has to think not in the abstract of use-values in general but the specific purpose and ends in mind for which an individual would want a commodity. Now on the basis of this, Böhm-Bawerk begins to look at Marx's theory of value. First of all he says that Marx has proceeded to try to glean what is the basis of the value of commodities in a peculiar fashion and that peculiar fashion is that he defines commodities precisely in a way that the only thing that he will be left with in his analysis is the presumption that only labor can be the common denominator. For example, Böhm-Bawerk points out that Marx does not discuss things given to us by nature that have value, commodities that cannot be reproduced with labor that have value and therefore Marx guarantees that he will have the result that he wants precisely because he defines a commodity in a way that when he reduces all commodities to a common denominator, the only common denominator that he is left with is that which he is looking for. He also argues that the same problem exists with the reduction of skilled labor to unskilled labor. Because Böhm-Bawerk argues that just as one evaluates commodities in terms of the concrete purposes and usefulness as they have for the individuals, we evaluate labor on the same basis. We are not interested in labor in the abstract but we are interested in labor of particular kinds, qualities, attributes and skills precisely because those are the types of labor that can serve the purposes in mind to create the product we desire. There is also a reasoning in a circle, Böhm-Bawerk argued in the same way here. Because Marx says that skilled labor is merely a multiple of unskilled labor and how does Marx attempt to show that? Well he says look in the marketplace. Skilled labor is offered a wage or a price many times the value of an unskilled labor and therefore the fact that the skilled labor is given in terms of its market value a multiple of unskilled labor demonstrates that skilled labor is merely a multiple of unskilled labor. In other words, he presumes that which he is to prove rather than trying to show how one multiplies unskilled labor into skilled labor and then derive an analysis that shows why the market then generates these differences in remuneration. He argues that the evidence that there are differences in remuneration and how much the differences of remuneration are, demonstrates that his premise is correct. Now Böhm-Bawerk argues in contrast to Marx's analysis of the discrepancy between his theory of value and surplus value and a tendency for rates of profit to be equalized in the following way: and that is he says that Marx suffers from methodological holism. Marx suffers from treating an abstract concept that is a construction of Marx's own mind as if it is an expression and a theoretical framework to understand the real world. Now why does Böhm-Bawerk argue that? Because Böhm-Bawerk explains that when Marx attempts to explain the equality of rates of profit across industries Marx says “Well let us imagine that the economy was a single firm and we're averaging out the amount of return each division has individually owned and then working out the average from all the individual divisions we're then going to disperse them in equal proportions back to the divisions of our economy and therefore we will equalize the amount of return each sector receives through this conception” Böhm-Bawerk's response is that the economy is not a single unit, he argues that there is no relationship between the actions of the individual parts and treating them as if the economy was a single firm that a planner then determines how much each division has earned, works out an average and then disperses that average among the component parts. Rather than explaining how competition would equate the rates of profit among sectors of the economy, Marx has created out of his own mind a construction of how an economy could work if it was an economy that was going to function in a manner that Marx wanted. That it is not a theory of how real economies function, but rather is a construction of his mind in which he treats the economy as a whole, it is not a theory of how competition and individuals have incentives to act and respond and shift resources in various ways but is a construction that Marx has created to reach the conclusion that he desires. Böhm-Bawerk takes him precisely to task for this, by arguing that it would have been a simple method for Marx to see if competition had a tendency to function the way he wanted, in the manner he suggested it did. That is to begin with the introspective element of how any individual acts under the constraints of means that are scarce in relation to ends and opportunities that exist before him in responding to those opportunities. Böhm-Bawerk argues using the older terminology, each individual who is a social analyst has the opportunity to follow the psychological method that is to imagine and reflect in your own mind what you would do confronted with constraints of means and desires and profit opportunities before you. He argues that is the only theoretical and sound basis whence one can construct a theory of market response, equality of returns through sectors of the economy, readjustments and redistributions of resources among sectors of the economy and yet that is the very method that Marx turns against. Because like the classical economists, Marx chose to treat demand as an element that obviously could not be ignored but was put in appendix not to be dealt with in any great detail. Finally Böhm-Bawerk argues that what Marx has confused is profit and interest. What Marx has confused is that which is transitory and that which is permanent. Marx asked the question: “How can it be that a producer hires a set of workers, pays them one price, they produce or work up raw materials into a product and the employer is able to sell that product for a higher price than he has paid out in terms of the prices of the factors of production?” How else can it be if the work has been done by those he has hired other than that he has taken from them something that belongs to them and does not belong to the owner? Basically what Böhm-Bawerk argues that Marx has left out an ingredient that is essential, inseparable from all human decision-making and that is the element and evaluation of time. That there is a difference in the evaluation and estimate of things in the present and things in the future. That the worker is receiving present goods, in exchange for working on commodities that reflect future goods. The employer is advancing the worker commodities in the present rather than the workers working up products themselves or deferring their receipt of payment until the product is ready in its finished form at some point in the future. That in fact what the worker and the employer are doing is making an inter-temporal exchange, that the worker chooses not to wait either in making the product himself for sale or to make the product and wait till it is sold later by the entrepreneur for payment. That he is willing to work now, for payment now, at a price less than the product will sell for in the future and in turn the employer is willing to advance commodities for the workers sustenance in the present with the understanding that the employer has the opportunity to sell that product in the future at a price that reflects the remuneration that is his due for having forgone the use of commodities and income in the present that he has forwarded to those workers. Böhm-Bawerk argues that profit is transitory, it is that which arises out of changing market conditions but which competition has as its purpose to compete away but that interest is inseparable from the market itself. Interest is not a transitory element but is a price like any other price, its uniqueness is that it is the price of time. It is not the price of apples in the present versus pears in the present but apples in the present versus apples in the future, pears in the present versus pears in the future. It is an exchange across time and therefore one cannot do away with the discounting of the value of the laborers product unless one wishes to say that time and the evaluation of time is no longer inherently an element in the judgment of all actors in the market. Because as Böhm-Bawerk clearly explains that all action is forward-looking, it is prospective, it is a judgment concerning the future in relation to today. Now I would like to suggest that no one has surpassed Böhm-Bawerk's criticism. The apologists and proponents of Marxism have attempted to get around these issues. They've argued “well Marx really didn't mean this”, “he wasn't attempting really to explain the exchange values in the market”, “he had other purposes for the labor theory of value” but you can't get around the fact that Marx says in Capital itself but for all the other purposes that he wishes to develop a labor theory and have labor as a basis of understanding the value of commodities, one of its functions is to enable an understanding and an explanation of what determines the relative prices in an economy. Once you appreciate Böhm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx's conception of how competition works and that, that is not the nature of competition or market processes then one has to realize that in fact, Marx has given no theory of how prices and exchange ratios emerge in the market on the basis of his own theory of value. In fact once one critically evaluates how Marx rigs the argument to assure that the only thing left in a commodity is labor as a common denominator and realizes that it is a false universal principle because it is not universal at all. One realizes that there are many different bases upon which one can say commodities are valued. Of course Böhm-Bawerk is on the Austrian school that value originates through the relationship of ends, desires and means to which they can be applied to them that are scarce in terms of ends desired. The Austrians have fought two battles with the socialists, and the result of those two battles is that, for all intents and purposes, socialism and Marxism is dead. A hundred years ago Böhm-Bawerk was able to show that Marx's theory of value was inherently flawed, inherently inconsistent and was not the avenue to understand either the value of commodities or the nature of the market process. And in the 20th century that criticism was completed by Ludwig von Mises. Mises recognizes that he is starting where Böhm-Bawerk left off because if you read Mises' “Socialism” he briefly talks about the problems with the labor theory of value, he just doesn't devote much time to it because he realizes that Böhm-Bawerk had settled one level of the debate. Mises was to show that once you eliminate other elements of a market economy it is impossible for that economy to function. At the beginning of this century if there was one thing that was obvious in most people's minds, it was that socialism was inevitable. If anything was clear in most people's minds it was that “planning” was the economic system of the future. If anything was obviously inevitable to people at the beginning of this century, it was that capitalism was going to die that capitalism was undesirable because it was it was exploitive that capitalism was inefficient and wasteful and that planning was a method to achieve all the things that we supposedly admired capitalism for but with none of its abuses, exploitation, waste or inefficiencies. We end the 20th century with socialism being nothing more than a bad taste in people's mouths and I would like to suggest that we leave the 20th century, a hundred years after the arrival of the Austrian school on the international scene of economic ideas, because of what Böhm-Bawerk for us did at the end of the 19th century and Mises completed in the early part of the 20th. Because there is no value other than that which resides in an individual evaluating commodities and there is no way for those values that interact in an economy to be reflected for people to use for their economizing purposes without prices and markets and that means that the 21st century will hopefully be a century in which the Austrian school stands as the school, the dominant school of economics because the Austrian school will have refuted all the economics of this century. Thank you very much.