Rothbard was just following Mises.
Post by twetch#1832
And many Austrians think Rothbard is worse on money than Mises. I tend to agree, but it's been a while since I've read him. I know he abuses apriorism, like Hoppe afterwards.
Regardless, Mises-Rothbard is only one sect of Austrian monetary theory.
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 520
- Time
- 2020-05-19T01:36:10Z
- Signer
- 17zmPibuXUuDsPnW5B4UVsV9jin35HWWU2
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#1832
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
17zmPibuXUuDsPnW5B4UVsV9jin35HWWU2 VerifiedReplies (8)
Is money a present good?
Are you asking for my economic theory or Rothbard's? If the latter, he'd say money is a present good.
I'm asking for your theory.
If you're actually interested in my ideas, you might enjoy my critique of the overextension of apriorism in Austrian Economics. Hoppe is the main target of criticism, but it applies to Rothbard too.
I don't think the concept is precise enough. Money is a unique good that doesn't fit squarely into any existing conceptual toolbox that I've come across.