Introduction: The Economist as System Builder: Ludwig Von Mises and the Architect of Economic Science and Political Economy

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Boettke ◽  
Peter T. Leeson
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
Ludwig Von Mises ◽  
Von Mises

scholarly journals European values: a liberal doctrine through the methodology of political economy

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-28
Author(s):  
Tetiana Artomova
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Social Economy ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
Conceptual System ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Von Mises ◽  
Classical Economic

Clarification of the laws of harmonious ordering of the social economy system was largely carried out in the depth of European civilization in the course of the evolution of fundamental scientific knowledge. Thus, the synergy of intellectual efforts of the representatives of classical German philosophy, English political economy and French social doctrines became a catalyst and, at the same time, a fertile cultural ground for the establishment of civic institutions of modern times. Transcendent understanding of civilizational values as a system of social relations is to be carried out by political economy – the science of economic laws. Such a mission of economic science was defined during the formation of its classic research line as the logic of the Middle Way. However, modern economic theory in content remains traditional. It does not conceive its object in a single space-time coordinate system or recognize the economic value (economic good) as its own object and the basis of social relations. For that reason, the most important concepts of civilizational heritage are considerably distorted. Freedom, equality, and brotherhood, which are considered to be political in origin, are the most important universal values that have been promulgated by the European community in modern times. However, the crystallization of the values of freedom, equality, and brotherhood in their syncretic unity is initially carried out in the depths of political economy. In recent times, each of them has been taken as one of the traditional methodological branches of economic science. Thus, the problem of freedom is key to the liberal-margin economic doctrine that today ideologically feeds educational courses in economics. In order to modernize the training courses, experts propose to restore their connection with the provisions of the authentic doctrine of liberal marginalization, and with the conceptual system of L. von Mises. This rethinking makes the logic of functioning of the modern market economy and the basic principles of neoliberal policy more transparent and at the same time shows the imperfection of liberal doctrine in comparison with the original scientific provisions of classical economic thought.

scholarly journals Ponencia - Fernando Chavarro Miranda - Buenos Aires, Argentina - 2016

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chavarro Miranda Fernando
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Buenos Aires ◽  
Ludwig Von Mises ◽  
Von Mises

Participación como experto en el evento, denominado Coloquio de Liberty Fund, “Political Economy and Freedom in Ludwig von Mises`s Lost Papers”, socializando con los participantes internacionales lo pertinente al proceso investigativo adelantado en el área de experticia. Igualmente se obtuvo un cúmulo de información que permitirá enriquecer aun más los procesos de investigación en los que se está inmerso dentro de la Facultad de Administración de Empresas.

scholarly journals Legacy of Ludwig von Mises: Rationalism

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-64
Author(s):  
Witold Kwasnicki
Keyword(s):  
Daily Life ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
Economic Evolution ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Ludwig Von Mises ◽  
Von Mises ◽  
Ultimate Foundation

Abstract There are three intentions (aims) of this paper. First, to focus the attention of readers to three not so well known and least frequently quoted by economists of Mises’s books, namely his 1957 Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, and two closely related The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method (1962), and Epistemological Problems of Economics (1933/1960). The second aim is to outline Mises’s legacy, presented in the form of eleven dimensions of Mises’s Intellectual Universe. The eleven dimensions of Mises’s system are: Economics as science, praxeology, and human action; Methodological dualism; Judgments of value and subjectivism; Individualism; Rationalism and human action; Consumer; Cooperation and competition; Thymology; Mathematics in economics; Predictions; and Historical analysis. Third, to present the main issues related to Mises’s concept of rationalism. There is no mention of Ludwig von Mises’s concept of rationality in a great number of books and papers dealing with the understanding of the rationality of human beings. The concept of rationality proposed by Ludwig von Mises is neglected by modern researchers and economists of different schools, but especially by mainstream economists. A good example of neglecting Mises’s ideas on rationality is the latest book by Nassim Taleb, Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life. Although Taleb’s proposition of understanding rationality and irrationality is very close to the concept of Mises, he does not refer to Mises’s work at all. No single word on Mises in that book!

Three questions to political economy (An attempt of system introspection)

2018 ◽  
pp. 118-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. B. Kleiner
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
Linear Component ◽  
Capitalist System ◽  
Economic Space ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
System Paradigm

The development of the system paradigm in economic science leads to the formulation of a number of important questions to the political economy as one of the basic directions of economic theory. In this article, on the basis of system introspection, three questions are considered. The first is the relevance of the class approach to the structuring of the socio-economic space; the second is the feasibility of revising the notion of property in the modern world; the third is the validity of the notion of changing formations as the sequence of “slave-owning system — feudal system — capitalist system”. It is shown that in modern society the system approach to the structuring of socio-economic space is more relevant than the class one. Today the classical notion of “property” does not reflect the diversity of production and economic relations in society and should be replaced by the notion of “system property”, which provides a significant expansion of the concepts of “subject of property” and “object of property”. The change of social formations along with the linear component has a more influential cyclic constituent and obeys the system-wide cyclic regularity that reflects the four-cycle sequence of the dominance of one of the subsystems of the macrosystem: project, object, environment and process.

The Idea of a Meaningful Synthesis of Marxist and Non-Marxist Systems of Political Economy as a Mirror of Intellectual Turmoil (About V.T. Ryazanov’s Book «Modern Political Economy: Prospects of Neo-Marxist Synthesis»)

2019 ◽  
pp. 74-98
Author(s):  
A.B. Lyubinin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Economic Status ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
Objective Reality ◽  
Commodity Production ◽  
Subjective Assessments ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Political Economic

Review of the monograph indicated in the subtitle V.T. Ryazanov. The reviewer is critical of the position of the author of the book, believing that it is possible and even necessary (to increase the effectiveness of General economic theory and bring it closer to practice) substantial (and not just formal-conventional) synthesis of the Marxist system of political economy with its non-Marxist systems. The article emphasizes the difference between the subject and the method of the classical, including Marxist, school of political economy with its characteristic objective perception of the subject from the neoclassical school with its reduction of objective reality to subjective assessments; this excludes their meaningful synthesis as part of a single «modern political economy». V.T. Ryazanov’s interpretation of commodity production in the economic system of «Capital» of K. Marx as a purely mental abstraction, in fact — a fiction, myth is also counter-argued. On the issue of identification of the discipline «national economy», the reviewer, unlike the author of the book, takes the position that it is a concrete economic science that does not have a political economic status.

CRITICAL NOTICE

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Guala
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
Neoliberal Governmentality ◽  
General Theme ◽  
Collège De France ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Contemporary Liberalism ◽  
Academic Year ◽  
Critical Notice

The title of this book is rather misleading. “Birth of neoliberal governmentality,” or something like that, would have been more faithful to its contents. In Foucault's vocabulary, “biopolitics” is the “rationalisation” of “governmentality” (p. 261): it's the theory, in other words, as opposed to the art (governmentality) of managing people. The mismatch between title and content is easily explained: the general theme of the courses at the Collège de France had to be announced at the beginning of each academic year. It is part of the mandate of every professor at the Collège, however, that his lectures should follow closely his current research. As a consequence it wasn't unusual for Foucault to take new directions while he was lecturing. In 1979, for the first and only time in his career, he took a diversion into contemporary political philosophy. His principal object of investigation became “neoliberal” political economy. More precisely, he got increasingly interested in those strands of contemporary liberalism that use economic science both as a principle of limitation and of inspiration for the management of people.

scholarly journals Perfect Capitalism, Imperfect Humans: Race, Migration and the Limits of Ludwig von Mises’s Globalism

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinn Slobodian
Keyword(s):  
International Order ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Habsburg Empire ◽  
Empirical Reality ◽  
Ludwig Von Mises ◽  
Austrian Economist ◽  
Global Mobility ◽  
Open Borders ◽  
International Theory ◽  
Von Mises

While the Viennese origins of key neoliberal intellectuals is well known, the formative influence of the Habsburg Empire on their thought is surprisingly understudied. This article argues that the empire was a silent and open partner in the writings of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises on international order, especially on questions of migration and the management of a polyglot population. After 1918 Mises conceived of robust forms of multinational governance capable of protecting a world of what he called ‘perfect capitalism’ with total global mobility of labour, capital and commodities. Yet, by 1945 he had scaled back his proposals to the effective recreation of the Habsburg Empire. I show that Mises’s international theory was cleft by a faultline between a normative theory of an open borders world and the empirical reality of a closed borders world, underwritten by what he saw as the stubborn obstacles of human ignorance and racial animus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document