In the biggest bookstore here in Shenzhen (the thriving border city across from Hong Kong, sometimes ranked richest per capita in mainland China), that book is the only one based on Austrian economics I’ve seen (with the exception of Peter Schiff’s Crash Proof, which I’ve seen a couple of times). But one of my wife’s uncles has heard of Mises and his theories, even though he isn’t interested in economics more than anything else.
There are 5 Chinese edition published in year 1946, 1989, 1999, 2005 and 2008.
There is a post the econmical forum of Tianya. page view over 100 000, reply over 3 000
http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/develop/1/171509.shtml
Well, one of the problems is that Kant’s formulation and defense of a priori is simply not a sufficient - or correct description - of logical deduction. I do believe there is a justification for rationcination, but it is certainly not a Kantian ‘a priori’. So, if all you had reference to as far as primary philosophy was Kant or the Rationalist, you would to that extent be justified in rejecting their arguments for inferential rules.
And yet that says absolutely nothing at all about logical deduction itself. Tell me: do you enjoy putting forth a whole lot of nothing and doing so often?
‘This’ argument came up in another forum. Here is a paper I cited, well worth the read…
Best, Dan.
They shouldn’t set their face against the monetary system. They should support the denationalization of Money and real free trade.
But praxeology is not a simply deductive.