If I recall, I think Rothbard is basically saying this: The bread, the ham, the knife, etc.. are not consumer goods from the point of view of the guy preparing and eating the sandwich because the preparation of the sandwich is still part of production. He’s obviously correct.
But I think that from a catallactic point of view, it would be perfectly fine to regard the bread, ham and knife as consumer goods, because they were obviously the last goods to be exchanged for money. If the same knife, bread, and ham were used to make a sandwich which was then sold for money, then those goods were obviously capital goods, and only the complete sandwich is the consumers goods. I think this distinction is the only one relevant for the analysis of a money economy because we can’t really analyze (effectively and systematically) anything beyond that.
“finally, i need you to clarify your understanding of the ‘future goods’ ‘present goods’ terminology.”
Rothbard from MES:
Goods being directly and presently consumed are present goods. A future good is the present expectation of enjoying a consumers’ good at some point in the future. A future good may be a claim on future consumers’ goods, or it may be a capital good, which will be transformed into a consumers’ good in the future. Since a capital good is a way station (and nature-given factors are original stations) on the route to consumers’ goods, capital goods and nature-given factors are both future goods.
The above also seems to be fully compatible with Mises’ use of the terms.
Goods being directly
and presently consumed are present goods. A future good is the
present expectation of enjoying a consumers’ good at some
point in the future. A future good may be a claim on future consumers’
goods, or it may be a capital good, which will be transformed
into a consumers’ good in the future. Since a capital
good is a way station (and nature-given factors are original stations)
on the route to consumers’ goods, capital goods and
nature-given factors are both future goods.