an example of Rothbard being historically inaccurate?

[bcyclwutztht]

here’s Roger Garrison, discussing and quoting Bohm-Bawerk regarding monetary theory and Mises’s Theory of Money and Credit:

It is easy for modern Austrian economists to see that Böhm-Bawerk was just a step away from articulating the Austrian theory of the business cycle…[but this] was beyond Böhm-Bawerk for the simple reason that he would not allow himself to venture into monetary theory. His attitude toward this subject matter is revealed in the letters to Swedish economist, Knut Wicksell…In 1907, he wrote: “I have not myself given thought to or worked on the problem of money as a scholar, and therefore I am insecure vis-à-vis this subject.” In 1912: “You know that I do not really feel competent as regards the extremely difficult theory of money.”

Also in 1912, referring to The Theory of Money and Credit, in which Mises first articulates the Austrian theory of the business cycle, Böhm-Bawerk mentions to Wicksell “a book on the theory of money by a young Viennese scholar, Dr von Mises. Mises is a student of myself and Prof. Wieser, which, however, does not mean that I would want to take responsibility for all his views. I have just begun to read his book myself, and am not yet familiar with its content.” And finally in 1913, a year before his death, “I have not yet included the theory of money in the subject-matter of my thinking, and I therefore hesitate to pass a judgement on the difficult questions it raises.”

Here’s Rothbard:

…in his first great work, The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) Mises performed what had been deemed an impossible task: to integrate the theory of money into the general theory of marginal utility and price (what would now be called integrating “macroeconomics” into “microeconomics.”) Since Bohm-Bawerk and his other Austrian colleagues did not accept Mises’s integration and remained without a monetary theory, he was therefore obliged to strike out on his own and found a “neo-Austrian” school.

He makes it sound as though Bohm-Bawerk had (a) understood and (b) rejected Mises’s ideas, when in fact (or so it appears, at least) Bohm-Bawerk simply had not fully considered Mises’s work because of the difficulty of doing so.

[Statism_is_Crime]

I don’t think Rothbard was being historically inaccurate here. Rothbard’s statement that Bohm-Bawerk “did not accept Mise’s [Theory of Money and Credit] and remained without a monetary theory” is accurate but is also misleading. It implies that Bohm-Bawerk actually rejected the theory, which makes the case for the ABCT look weaker than it really is.

[Conza]

“And finally in 1913, a year before his death, “I have not yet included the theory of money in the subject-matter of my thinking, and I therefore hesitate to pass a judgement on the difficult questions it raises.””

So did he [Böhm-Bawerk] not then change his mind in that year after he went on to read it?

And if he [Böhm-Bawerk] did read it, then said he wasn’t going to take a position on it. How is it inaccurate to say he did not then accept it, instead deciding to “remain without a monetary theory”. Which appears to be the case.

I don’t think you’ve shown Rothbard to be historically inaccurate at all.

[bcyclwutztht]

So did he [Böhm-Bawerk] not then change his mind in that year after he went on to read it?

I think it’s pretty clear that Bohm-Bawerk didn’t change his mind, because it’s not even clear he ever made up his mind in the first place. Indeed, it appears quite unlikely to me that he ever did come to an opinion on Mises’s ideas.

And if he [Böhm-Bawerk] did read it, then said he wasn’t going to take a position on it. How is it inaccurate to say he did not then accept it, instead deciding to “remain without a monetary theory”. Which appears to be the case.

Technically speaking, I agree that Rothbard is being “accurate”. But, I also agree with Statism Is A Crime that using the phrase “did not accept it” is misleading—it introduces a completely unnecessary ambiguity at best, and incorrectly implies (indeed, reports) that Bohm-Bawerk rejected Mises’s ideas at worst. Problem is, imho, at the very least the reader is left wondering wtf Rothbard means—this is far from clear.

Without the Garrison information, I for one would be seriously tempted to interpret Rothbard’s statement to mean that Bohm-Bawerk rejected Mises’s monetary theory.