Sraffa did not believe in the LTV. Sraffa’s work was a resurection of Ricardo, not Marx. I suggest reading Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, his magnum opus. It’s relatively short, at less than 100 pages, and it will give you an excellent understanding of the gulf between Hayek and Sraffa’s conceptions of the economy. I also suggest Lachmann’s article on the Hayek-Sraffa debate.
Marx got the LTV from Ricardo.
Not quite. Ricardo has a LTV, but it is combined with a cost of production approach. The LTV is just an approximation, at best. At least, this is my understanding. A number of others also have this view, such as Stigler. Regardless, Sraffa has a cost of production approach.
Terry Peach’s Interpreting Ricardo goes into detail on this, for those who are interested.
I’ve only ever read Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance from him, but I really liked it.
Must not be enough calories for you.
The Theory of Money and Credit
The Liberty Fund has a good print. Nice cover as well. (http://www.libertyfund.org/details.aspx?id=1756)
I’d say that is North’s best work - my disparaging comments about him were mostly in comparison to Mises. If he had studied Mises his own work would be so much more complete. In fact his most important methodological difference from Neo-Classical methodology (imperfect information) comes directly from Hayek, which he acknowledges (this predates Hayek of course). It’s very strange that North doesn’t seem to have explored the other Austrians, considering that imperfect information is really the basis of his work.
While reading Economic Controversies, the biggest surprise so far has been how much Rothbard hates on the ideas of “market process” and Kirzerian “entrepreneurial alertness.”
The objection to Kirzner makes sense (entrepreneurship is about uncertainty-bearing, not about opportunity-noticing, which is a labor function). But what is his objection to market processes?
Could you elaborate on what you mean - or where I can find - by ‘opportunity noticing’ is a labor function? Why is that not also an ‘entrepreneurial’ element? Why would that be a ‘labor function’? I always took ‘opportunity noticing’ as part of the enterpreneurial uncertainty; because ‘opportunities’ are never certain - and it’s just the other side of the same coin.
I do endorse your comments on Rothbard’s history of economic thought. It’s just not a good book if one wants to learn the authors who Rothbard discusses.
Shouldn’t have been that big of a surprise, though.
Basically, his methodological individualism runs counter to the idea of an impersonal “process”; rather, it is human action that propels the market forward.
That is intuitive to his worldview; however, once we introduce words like “market” or even “equilibriating tendences” (which he does), then I’m not sure Rothbard’s argument holds up.
I understand his rationale, but disputes like that portray Rothbard as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
If anything, this anthology has made me dislike Rothbard; his negativity is too dominate a force in this collection–his inability to even reconcile other Austrians into his dogmatism (Rizzo, O’Driscoll, Hayek, Kirzner, etc.) is strange to me. I understand the need to be polemical when one is a heterodox economist yelling against the wind, but Rothbard seems to be as unfriendly as the worst caricatures of Rand.
I mean, his willingness to do coalition-building with leftists seems to be stronger than his willingness to exhibit academic civility with “deviant” Austrians!
I’m still looking forward to Rothbard’s more non-economic / libertarian writing toward the end of the book, though; his talk on taxation and so on will surely provoke more agreement from me.
I understand his rationale, but disputes like that portray Rothbard as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
If anything, this anthology has made me dislike Rothbard; his negativity is too dominate a force in this collection–his inability to even reconcile other Austrians into his dogmatism (Rizzo, O’Driscoll, Hayek, Kirzner, etc.) is strange to me. I understand the need to be polemical when one is a heterodox economist yelling against the wind, but Rothbard seems to be as unfriendly as the worst caricatures of Rand.
I mean, his willingness to do coalition-building with leftists seems to be stronger than his willingness to exhibit academic civility with “deviant” Austrians!
I’m still looking forward to Rothbard’s more non-economic / libertarian writing toward the end of the book, though; his talk on taxation and so on will surely provoke more agreement from me.
Adrian,
Noticing an opportunity isn’t bearing uncertainty: a hired market analyst can do that. It’s putting your own resources on the line afterward that is bearing uncertainty, the success of which, as Peter Klein argues in The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur, depends on judgment, not alertness.
Thanks SL,
That does seem to be a bizarre position on Rothbard’s part, but I guess I shouldn’t judge until I’ve had a chance to read it myself.
Daniel, I think you will be pleasantly revlieved to see that Rothbards take on ‘market process’ is entirely defensible… contrary to Strangeloops suggestion.
Well; I’m not sure that that distinction really is that clear cut.
First of all; there is the pure entrepreneurial element which is inherent in all human action - all actions bear uncertainty. If I work at place x, I risk a better paying opportunity at place y. The entrepreneurial element isn’t just present in the capitalist-entrepreneur. A labor-entrepreneur is not the same as a capitalist-entrepreneur; but both cary uncertainty and thus have an entrepreunerial to their actions.
Secondly; an ‘opportunity’ isn’t something a market analyst can judge. Absence action; there is no ‘opportunity’ - as far as I’m concerned. So a market analyst can give suggestions; the ‘noticing’ only happens when act upon - and taken the correct course of action, which, obviously, involves risk. But both a laborer and a capitalist have to notice and act upon opportunities; wether or not it be taking a specific job or investing capital.
The difference between a capitalist-entrepreneur and a labor-entrepreneur is ‘what’s on the line’. For a laborer; it is ‘only’ opportunity cost - but the wage is certain (and the capitalist pays something tending towards the DMVP). The capitalist, on the other hand, risks (because of uncertainty and not because of risk, obviously) losing his capital if he makes a bad decision. But that doesn’t seem to me the difference between an entrepreneur and a non-entrepreneur, but the difference between 2 specific kinds of uncertainty bearing actions.
I’m aware that this sort of deviates from the standard way of talking about it, but I don’t think I’m wrong in presenting it like this.
Opportunity and uncertainty are connected if you talk about concrete human action - as far as I see it.
Well Adrian, if you can usefully reconstitute production/distribution theory according to your favored definitions, have at it.
It’s not just Rothbard. I suggest reading Salerno’s essay “The Concept of Coordination in Austrian Macroeconomics.”