i think pk says it best in his essay “ricardo’s difficult idea”.
“The idea of comparative advantage – with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both – is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it. Yet anyone who becomes involved in discussions of international trade beyond the narrow circle of academic economists quickly realizes that it must be, in some sense, a very difficult concept indeed.”
I read about it in chapter 2, so I knew it must be in the index somewhere. I found it under Law → economic → comparative costs.
I’m not sure I’ve read one original idea in Rothbard, yet. Frankly, he is excessively repetitive and dumbed-down for my taste (although, I’m sure MES is incredibly clear and helpful to econ newcomers). I mean, marginal utility is “a well settled idea” and look how long he discusses that! I would almost call MES a “Principles of the Principles of Economics” book (if that makes sense).
The more I read him, the more I want him to express relationships in an equation and then move on (now that is what I would call an application of Occam’s razor, not his claim that verbal logic is simpler).
But, to Rothbard’s credit, it is obvious that he will not release a concept until he has looked at it from every angle and attempted to dissolve any predictable misunderstandings. I appreciate that, even though it is making the book many times longer than it might need to be.
You are aware of the fact that marginal utility, as Rothbard explains it, is completely different than the Gossen’s laws as they are explained in introduction to economics, right? You are aware that utility necessarily goes down and that there is no such thing as a increase in marginal utility?
If you are aware; good! When Rothbard wrote MES the idea was that this was a general rule, and not a praxeological truth. That’s, probably, why he explains it so exhaustive.
The idea of ‘putting it into an equation’ totally misses the point. It doesn’t help to say; well, utility is marginal, so let’s take the derivate of his utility function and be done with it! It doesn’t explain the process of why and how.
The difference, in my opinion, is negligible. If I remember Rothbard’s counterpoint, then he claimed that a recipe might need four eggs to produce a dessert, but that the fourth egg doesn’t increase the marginal utility, but rather that it’s a different good entirely. This might interest those more inclined to doctrinal quibbling, but not me.
Other than that argument, though, I fail to see how Rothbard’s version is “completely different” from the mainstream (but perhaps I am failing to notice the fuller discrepancy).