he was a central planner in favour of restricted trade in a some markets. money, law.
he was against the central planning of other markets, and in this aspect he was in favor of free trade.
he was certainly inconsistent, thats a given. and if pushed i would say he was an ideological enemy of mine. since he favoured the state.
but in so far as he hated the state meddling in all markets but the aforementions he is an ally. life is tricksy.
He’s responsible for the removal of the gold standard, for freely floating exchange rates between many different kinds of currencies, and supports central banks “determining” the rate of inflation (which is impossible). He’s basically in favor of price setting, first at the higher stages of production, and then at the lower.
I’m being pedantic, but only because I agree with you!
responsible might be too strong a word? you made him responsible for things I think he was not and perhaps have overlooked areas where more blame could be laid at his feet. (income withholding tax).
central bank determination of the rate of inflation is not impossible its what they do if they control the money supply. if they increase the money supply at a certain rate, so that is the rate of inflation… its retarded and immoral but all too horribly possile
I doubt it, Rothbard was never a fourth as famous as Friedman nor as good a debater so I doubt that he was ever in many debates… I’m dissapointed as to the harsh things that have been said about Friedman thusfar in this thread.
I doubt it, Rothbard was never a fourth as famous as Friedman nor as good a debater
How can you know that without any videos of him in debate, or even any accounts of one? If anyone has such info, please share. Anyhow, I’ll take the soundness of ideas over ability to smash people in debates any day.
I know, but the former is more valuable IMO because we can see Rothbard’s ideas holding their own long after he is dead. Anyhow, I have no clue what type of debater Rothbard was. Maybe there is something in his biography.