LATE FINAL EXTRA: No news today.
Test your “writing fitness”, insert some text in the box and see how you perform on a number of indicators of tight, lean writing.
Bolt on Palmer.
The labour market. Where was the business community when it would have helped to resist the re-regulation of the labour market? Too little, too late.
Around the town: IPA HEY! on line, statements of the week.
The Sydney Institute. Australian Taxpayers Alliance, Quadrant on line, Mannkal Foundation, Centre for Independent Studies. Some Indian libertarians.
Gerard Henderson’s Media Watchdog. This weeks edition appears in the afternoon.
Sport and recreation. Sachin Tandulkar approaches the end of the road. Thanks for the memories!
John Arlott on cricket at Lords with a few frames of old film of W G Grace, Victor Trumper and more on the Englishmen and Australians of the 1930s.
For nerds. Hulsmann on von Mises
Adam Smith had neglected money because neither the demand for money, nor the supply thereof were to be counted among the causes of the wealth of nations. Many of his disciples — especially the great David Ricardo — delved into the matter in more detail. But their writings suffered from the Achilles’ heel of Smith’s theory: his cost-of-production theory of prices. They could therefore not quite come to grips with the economics of banking, and the practical consequence was a never-ending sequence of booms and busts. This practical failure in the field of money and banking eventually discredited the entire edifice of classical economics. Inflationist doctrines made a comeback, first creeping (second half of the 19th century), then galloping (around WWI), and eventually triumphing in the 1930s.
Mises did not develop his theory of money in order to come up with classical-liberal practical conclusions. Quite to the contrary, it took him a while to understand the political implications of what he had found. The first edition of this monetary treatise (1912) is actually quite tame in that respect. It is only in the second edition (1924) that Mises starts to hammer the anti-interventionist implications of his work in monetary economics. At about the same time, he had begun to delve into other areas of research, most notably into the analysis of socialist and interventionist systems of government. These works brought him great fame, and they were instrumental in converting an entire generation of young intellectuals — such as Hayek, Haberler, Machlup, Morgenstern, and Robbins — to classical liberal ideas. But his monetary thought would always remain the backbone of his thinking. Eventually he would present it fully developed within a general theory of human action (Nationalökonomie, Human Action).