Giles,
Not wishing argue about FRB here but a matter of clarification- Hoppe has never to my mind argued that people prefer base money. In fact he repudiates such a term, used by FRB proponents, in Against fiducuiary media.
Btw I agree 100% with Jon on Hoppe- he’s a political economist/ philosopher first, economist second.
I’m unfavourable to the idea of obsessing over individuals. It isn’t about the people to me. It’s about the work and keeping it in check.
I am referring to his methodological work which is cutting edge. He is way ahead of most epistemologists. And argumentation ethics remains a better attempt than what most philosophers have made on the topic of ethics.
Right, I think he is more interested in whether they can be provided without the state than whether firms can.
I still want to read his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism which I hear is one of his best works.
Jon since you are very well read in philosophy, who would you say are some of your favorite philosphers?
Aristotle mainly. Other than him, David Gordon, Roderick Long Laurence BonJour, Daniel Dennett, Anton de Jasay, John Searle, Philippa Foot, Julia Annas, Laurence BonJour, Hoppe, Mises (yes, I do count him as one), David Kelley and Douglas Rasmussen. I like Kant but don’t count him as a favourite. I loathe Wittgenstein, regardless of how much many philosophers adore him - his writings are ineffable. And I like Hume, but disagree with a lot of what he says, though I think he has many affinities with Aristotle that are often unnoticed.
It’s great. A fantastic work of political economy and contains his most detailed exposition of argumentational ethics.
Don’t forget about Bob Murphy!
Actually, it would be interesting to hear who your favorite Mises.org contributor economists are (the ones who are still living)
Nash wasn’t really an economic theorist, per se. He made great contributions to the field, but he would probably consider himself more of an econometric guy than an “economic theorist” following a certain school.
That said, Nash would likely fit in more of a New Keynesian framework.
But my point was that he’s arguing like a lawyer. On the one hand he states something along the lines of “we don’t need the state because public goods don’t exist” on the other hand he says “we don’t need the state because voluntary associations of individuals can handle public goods”. I agree with the latter of the two arguments, but not the former
It’s OK, there’s nothing groundbreaking in there. The tone of the book is considerably different to the tone he takes in later works. That said, the first few chapters are quite a nice extension of Rothbard’s Power & Market. I still prefer D:TGTF, which is quite a good book even if flawed at times.
Physiocrat, here’s what I was talking about, from this paper:
Now, I have trouble believing this for reasons outlined by Selgin & White, much more so because there’s not so much as a quotation, let alone a study, to support this assertion. Now, giving Hoppe the benefit of the doubt I’d say that he simply considered it obvious to the extent that he needn’t support such a claim. But, I’m more inclined to believe that he simply doesn’t have any studies to prove such a thing. With a secondary market in bank notes it’d be fairly obvious if a bank was not solvent, since the notes would trade below par and consequently a run on the bank would follow. Otherwise, there’d be no reason for the notes to be suspect, and I can see why they’d be accepted over money because they pay interest.
As for Hoppe the philosophy, I don’t consider myself well read enough in philosophy to make any definitive judgements. But what I will say is that his argumentation ethics is seriously weak. Loren Lomasky hit home in his criticisms if you ask me (and Kinsella admits as much). By the way, I heard GAP was working on a critique of Hoppe’s ethics, does anybody know what’s going on with this?
I don’t know about that, but Robert Murphy and Gene Callahan co-wrote a critique.
this is walrasian equilibrium theory at its best(worst). there cant be money on the floor or someone would have picked it up. the bank cant be insolvent or it would have gone bust.
No, it’s not. All I’m assuming is that markets work efficiently and that entrepreneurs respond to incentives and economize on the available knowledge. Now, if you wish to deny this, go ahead, but you’re going to reject a lot of Austrianism in the process.
Lilburne, I’ve read the critique, thanks for link thought. Callahan & Murphy are both great.
strawman. it seems you didnt understand that you made a fallacy. ‘if its not bust, it wont be busting’
There was no fallacy. Perhaps you just didn’t understand, but I doubt you have much of an interest in doing so anyway (funny, you berated me for the same thing). My point was that if there are doubts about the solvency of the bank these will be reflected in secondary markets, it will manifest itself as notes trading below par. If this is the case it would be “rational” for depositors to perform a run on the bank.
yes, i am not disagreeing with you that insolvent banks wont go bust in short order. i am just disagreeing with you that fiduciary media is viable banking, and your position that the possibility and actuality of runs on banks will lead to better fiduciary banks and fewer possibility and actuality of runs on fiduciary banks, rather, i suspect the market would weed out fiduciary banks in favour of sound ones.
Do you have anything to support this suspicion of yours. Because it seems to me that depositors would find it beneficial to receive interest on their deposits as opposed to paying for them.
My favorite is Hoppe because he’s always starting new debates instead of rehashing the old ones.
I didn’t give a thought about bankruptcy laws until he pointed out how it interfered with credit.
depositors whose banks go bust dont get interest on their deposits. they dont even get their deposits.
Historically banks that practise FRB didn’t go bust (see White on Scotland). In any case, competition would ensure that banks practise responsible lending, by and large eliminating the danger of bankruptcy.