Rating: 
Summary: Speaking With the Gods
Review: That is surely where Von Mises is - conversing amiably with the gods in his masterful, rational, clear and refined manner. The man was a wonder himself. From the classically liberal European tradition of the turn of the century, he fought valiantly to establish economics on a rational basis with rules, laws, and theorems - all based on "human action". He builds an elaborate system from axioms to dizzying heights of eloquent logic. He is important not because he championed material wealth - Marx did that - but for his recognition that this wealth rested on an edifice composed by people acting in their own self interest. Despite his dry style and subject matter, his writings were paeans of praise for humanity's soul. His theories (naturally) involved a synthesis with other arenas, notably philosophy, politics, morality, government, and aesthetics. It is on the subject of human freedom that he made an indelible mark by demonstrating that laissez-faire capitalism is not only the best in terms of economics but also by far the one that bequeaths the greatest freedom to the individual. It has been stated before - and was repeated in "Human Action" - there is a direct correlation between a nation's economic freedom and its political freedom. It is no accident that the US, Europe and some Southeast Asian nations are not only the richest in terms of material wealth but also in terms of human potential. What astonishes one are the public pronouncements from those who willingly choose systems that limit both wealth and freedom. While professional nitwits continue to blast Western culture, millions risk life and limb just to reach our shore. Am I the only one noticing the one-way flow of traffic from such vacation paradises as Cuba, Vietnam, China, Sudan and Syria? This book should be required reading in all high school - but then that would be a coercive action that the author would disdain.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Brilliance
Review: That much can be said of this great work. I will now address Walt Byars' criticisms of the Positive Theory of Time Preference (PTTP). Byars' first argument seems to be that since external factors affect utility, they "override" time preference. His second is that since external factors change from time to time, this supposedly negates the PTTP. Or to use his words, "Since we can't observe a state in which all else is equal from time to time, we can't use the fact that we observe humans acting as a basis for proving we all have a positive rate of time preference." First, the contention that external factors "override" time preference can be easily dealt away with when we consider that both external factors and time preference are part of utility. If you were aware that something in the future will prevent your enjoying the hamburger now, say an arrangement, the negative effect of that "external factor" would take away from the utility of present consumption and what positive benefits were gained by the virtue of it being a present satisfaction. Time preference would therefore be a deciding factor in utility only if it outweighs the external factors. Regardless, this justifies rather than negates the actual *structure* of the PTTP (and preferences in general) as "external" factors are part of utility and should be counted as such. In any case it's all curtains for the external-factors-override-time-preference argument (since they are *part* of utility, and therefore time preference). His second notion that "we can't observe a state in which all else is equal from time to time" is equivalent to (since 'all else' is part of utility) "we can't observe a state where *utility* is equal from time to time." Ignoring the fact that this would prove nothing insofar as it also entails a rejection of *all* value scales (external and time factors counting as part of utility after all, and all value scales being composed of comparable utilities), it is still just as patently absurd. The first question that comes to mind is, well, observed by whom? "We" apparently include people who may be acting out of uncertainty, indifference to "all else," unawareness of "all else," or even those who are delusional and "aware" of non-existent external factors! By "observe," Byars seems to be suggesting an objective observer. But this is also absurd -- people's value scales are not omniscient, and are often unaffected by "objective" external changes. Man judges and acts by a priori contentions of his own -- faulty or no. An example of this would be a person choosing to buy an item now while being unaware of a sale next week. (Byars then gives the hypothetical scenario that if you were given the choice of either eating a hamburger now or in an hour your tastes might change to be more favorable towards pizza in an hour. This alleged 'refutation' is invalid mainly because it is impossible to know for certain what the future would be, thus creating a state of uncertainty. If you had to choose between eating a hamburger now or in an hour, the fact that you don't know what your tastes will be in an hour will compel you to eat the hamburger now while it can be enjoyed. If in an hour your tastes change, this future occurrence would not have affected your decision when you were unaware of the outcome, and therefore would not have affected the PTTP, a factor shaping *current* decisions based on current knowledge. What is significant here is therefore not the alleged "objective" consequence of a future event, but your *subjective* ignorance of its potential existence.)
Rating:
Summary: Everyone should read
Review: The Wall Street Jounral said it best with "-ought be on the shelf of every thinking man".
Rating:
Summary: monumental.
Review: There is no way I can say all that I want to say in this review. Murray Rothbard has aptly said: "Every once in a while the human race pauses in the job of botching its affairs and redeems itself by producing a noble work of the intellect. . . . To state that _Human Action_ is a 'must' book is a greater understatement. This is the economic Bible of the civilized man." I would take Rothbard's praise further. This is not only the single most important economic tome ever, but also the most pathbreaking, definitive exposition of praxeology, the correct basis for social sciences and also necessarily the foundation for epistemology. Only a few living economists of the "Austrian" school of economics seem to have truly absorbed the true praxeological methodology forged by Mises. Mises' contribution to economics cannot be understated. In basing economics on the axiomatic status of action, Mises established the ultimate foundation for economic science. The fact that humans act -- that is, human beings *act* purposively to reach subjectively chosen ends -- is, of course, irrefutable (to argue against the axiom of action is itself an action). This, however, may seem like a trivial observation. Humans act, big deal? Why is it so important? Its importance is in praxeological economics' methodology deductive chains of reasoning to realize the implications. In understanding what is implied by action - values, ends, means, choice, cost, preference, profit, and loss - economic science can be deduced logically, so it is a purely an a priori science where economic laws tell describe apodictically true relationships in the real world. In this way, key economic principles follow from the action axiom (as well as a few general, explicit assumptions about the empirical reality in which the action occurs), such as the law of diminishing marginal utility, how taxation changes time-preference schedules, the counterproductive nature of interventionism, involuntary unemployment, and so on. So long as the logic deriving the principles is correct, then economic laws are a priori-valid, and empirical testing has no bearing on them. This book initially appeared in a difficult time, when positivist methodology and the Keynesian paradigm were dominant. Thus, upon _Human Action_'s release it was mostly derided and ignored by the mainstream, rather than studied and criticized. It did, however, gain notoriety among academic circles for rebuilding economic science from the ground up, all the while plowing through the epistemological shortcomings of previous standards. Mises has provided considerable ammunition for institutional critique. He uncovered the socialist calculation problem -- a central planning authority has no rational way to allocate resources for production without market prices -- and this is an insurmountable hurdle for any state-run economy. In fact, when analyzed fully, it shows that _any_ government intervention in the economy results in market distortion and inefficiency. In essence, nothing can ever be provided more efficiently by the government nor can the government do anything to make the market more efficient. Murray Rothbard, who was of course Mises' student, explored this thoroughly in his critique of interventionism, _Power and Market_ (now available with the Scholar's Edition of _Man, Economy_ and State_). Lee Carlson's shamefully inane review can be wholly disregarded. Although he appeals to authorities it does not change the fact that the search for mathematical parameters for economic analysis is utterly impossible because of the existence of human choice. But would finding such parameters be possible even if one could isolate all the factors involved that affect decision-making? Again, no, simply because of the fact of human choice. You cannot quantify economic laws mathematically. All parameters quantifying human choice are historical data and nothing more. In regards to the reviews criticizing Mises extreme rationalism, they would do well to better understand Mises' methodology and the epistemological nature of economic science. To Mises, ultimately, all economic laws were derived from the incontestable axiom that, trivially enough, humans act, choosing between alternatives in a finite universe. In understanding the effects of different forms of economic activity, the economist must determine correct theory by relying on human choice as the guiding factor. To consider the effects of a change brought about by action, we need recognize that by taking certain choices, the opportunities for other choices are destroyed. And because the relationship between these universes resulting from different choices are a priori related to the others, there is no need to rely on empirical confirmation for correct theory. The corpus of economic science is essentially a system of counterfactual laws where empirical testing is completely useless. For example, it would be foolish to argue that consumption need not be preceded by production, just as it would be foolish to argue that money inflation does not raise prices higher than otherwise, just as it would be foolish to argue that 1+1=3. Like a mathematical proof, all economic laws must be refuted by identifying errors in the axiomatic-deductive chain. This is also the only truly valuable way to understand complex economic phenomena. For example, were rising real incomes in Canada 1950-1990 a result of increased taxes, or despite of more taxes? Would they have been higher still with higher or lower taxes? Counterfactual laws of case-probability are greatly more valuable than any mathematical model because of their counterfactual method. They require no qualifying considerations and are always true. Finally, on the Scholar's Edition itself: This is a BEAUTIFUL book. From the Mises Institute: "The Scholar's Edition is printed on stunning, pure white, acid-free Finch Fine 50 lb. paper; carefully set in the readable and beautiful Janson typeface, including the 1954 index, the most comprehensive ever done; covered in spectacular dark azure Odyssey cloth from Prague, the finest natural-finish, moisture-resistance book fabric in the world; secured by the finest caliper Binders board; protected by an impressive slipcase from the famous Old Dominion company; graced with antique-soapstone endpapers from Ecologic Fibers; casebound with the strongest Smyth-sewn signatures; fitted at head and foot with silken endbands, thick wrapped for durability; complemented with a double-faced, satin-finish ribbon marker; stamped with brilliant, non-tarnishing gold foil from Japan's Nakai International; and produced at R.R. Donnelly's famed Crawfordsville Bindery, where's America's finest books are assembled." Pretty delicious, actually! The Scholar's Edition also features an exhaustively compiled index and -- most importantly -- restores all the ambiguities and deleted material from the third and fourth editions. UTTERLY ESSENTIAL FOR ALL CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS.
Rating: 
Summary: Purely descriptive...
Review: This book is a non-quantitative, non-analytical, purely descriptive overview of economics as given by one of the main figures in the 'Austrian' school of economics. The author does not hesitate to denounce those who would seek to bring in mathematics and statistics in to the study of economics, and he makes it clear that introducing these tools is a meaningless endeavor. It is interesting to think about the author's statements in the context of the Nobel prizes in economics this year, as they were given to honor the use of psychological modeling and empirical studies in economics. What these individuals have shown is that one can indeed quantity the subjective factors behind economic behavior. The author of this book would be find their contributions completely vacuous, based on his statements in this book. Indeed, the author holds that "identical events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why". This is a particularly odd statement, as the author is asserting implicitly that he has an ability or a tool for distinguishing one event from another, and for judging when they are the same. Is the author asserting the existence of a metric, a purely quantitative notion, for distinguishing between events? This would go against another statement he makes elsewhere, namely that "no such constant relations exist in the field of human action". And later, he states that "in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible." If what he is saying is true, then it would definitely be impossible to label one event as being identical to another, nor in a "quantitative" nor "qualitative" sense. Identical events would definitely stand in a constant relation to one another. The author attempts to categorize his approach to economics, which he labels as a "praxeological system", as different from a "logical system", the latter of which does not include notions of time and causality. But logical systems that contain these notions have been constructed and have been studied by a number of individuals, going by the name of deontic logic. And just because "events are irreversible", as the author (only partially) correctly observes, does not mean that historical or economic events cannot be categorized and studied to the extent that future events can be predicted (albeit within a certain tolerance) using this information. In fact, it is sometimes astounding to the degree that one can do this, particulary in the the use of artificial intelligence for economic time series prediction. Irreversibility can be dealt with, given the patience and sound mathematical tools. The notions of probability that the author holds to in the book are also interesting (and somewhat troubling). One is called "class probability" and is the familiar frequentist notion. The other is called "case probability", and is apparently the one that the author favors in the study of economics. I thought when reading the book that case probability would perhaps be a Bayesian notion, since he states that it deals with the incompleteness of our knowledge. But alas, the author states that "it is not open to any kind of numerical evaluation". His notion of case probability could perhaps however be compared with the field of inductive logic programming in artificial intelligence, wherein one is given a certain amount of "background knowledge" and positive examples and attempts to find the reasons or "hypotheses" for obtaining this knowledge without generating any "negative examples". All of this is done in a purely qualitative framework. Game theory has generated much research in economics, and there are fine examples of just how fruitful this approach can be. The author however does not hold any place for game theory in economics, stating that "there is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society". This is an outstanding statement, given the many examples of just how game theory can in some instances exactly model the business arrangements among a certain group of individuals. Examples of this include QoS provisioning in telecommunication networks and wireless bandwidth allocation. The theory of noncooperative games has in this case been extremely helpful in bargaining and allocation strategies in the business environment. Noncooperation does not by result automatically in the "social disintegration" of the participants, as claimed by the author. With the proper mathematical tools they can instead reach a level mutually satisfactory to all. "Human Action" should be read as perhaps a warm-up to the study of economics. Anyone genuinely interested in the dynamics of a capitalist economy however will not find a sound and scientific study of such in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant, but there are still some flaws.
Review: This is one of the great texts in Economics, philosophy, or any field for that matter. However, there are some serious flaws that need to be dealt with. The first is Mises' dealing with time preference. Mises presents a terrible argument justifying the universality of a positive rate of time preference. Mises States: " The very act of gratifying a desire implies that gratification at the present instant is preferred to that at a later instant. He who consumes a nonperishable good instead of postponing consumption for an indefinite later moment thereby reveals a higher valuation of present satisfaction as compared with later satisfaction. If he were not to prefer satisfaction in a nearer period of the future to that in a remoter period, he would never consume and so satisfy wants. He would always accumulate, he would never consume and enjoy." There is a huge problem with this reasoning. It would hold true only if there were an identity between periods. Like all constructs, time preference only operates in cases of "all else being equal". Lets say I had a neutral rate of time preference, and had the opportunity to eat a hamburger now or in an hour. If I don't eat it now, if all else is equal, I would not be able to eat it an hour from now. Hence, given that fact that people DO act, doesn't this show that people have a positive rate of time preference? Not at all. Everything is NOT equal from time to time. Lets say that in the hour, my tastes change to be more favorable towards pizza,or I sense that something will happen in the future to prevent me from eating it, then I would be able to eat it. Since we can't observe a state in which all else is equal from time to time, we can't use the fact that we observe humans acting as a basis for proving we all have a positive rate of time preference. Mises even admits that peoples preferences and reasons for action do change over time, and this affects their actions (see section entitled "The Temporal Relation Between Actions "). I will now deflect some criticisms of this book. On page 314, Mises does say the successful entrepreneur can't learn their craft on the job, and that business schools only train people for "routine jobs". However, Mises concept of entrepreneurship differs from that of the common usage. To Mises, an entrepreneur is not an innovator (a function he mentioned in a fairly unrelated previous paragraph), but one who buys goods that have been undercapitalized or over-discounted. Harvard Business school can't teach one to do that particular job. Also, Mises doesn't really argue that a ban on the advertising of quack medicine will actually lead to a ban on religion. He argues that once an intellectual argues for a ban on quack medicine, and then someone launched an anti religion crusade, it would be difficult for the intellectual to resist their argument and remain consistent. Despite some linguistic ambiguities, he is not talking about the "slippery slope" in the more pragmatic realm of politics.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterwork
Review: This is the greatest economics book ever written. Mises was an absolute genius and this is his magnum opus. After reading this there are no doubts left about the greatness of capitalism and the depravity of socialism. He covers every aspect of the market economy, as well as the characteristics of the socialist and hampered economies. He explodes fallacy after fallacy. This book reveals that capitalism is the greatest thing that has ever happened to the world. It has elevated living conditions to previously unthinkable heights. It is the only system that fosters human beings to live in civilized manner. This book is unparalled in human thought. It is the economic equivalent to Ayn Rand's fiction masterpiece Atlas Shrugged.
Rating:
Summary: Mixed Bag
Review: This work towers above the mediocore garbage that currently passes for economic writing. (As late as 1989, Samuelson could say with a straight face that the Soviet economy was more productive than ours!) This book can be traced directly to the Austrian School of Classical Liberalism that attempts to define economic activity in terms of human activity, wants and needs. This is in direct contradiction to modern "economic speak" in which it is a given that the State play a vital if not pervasive role in individual human economic activity. Von Mises, Hayek and Menger (among others) were diametrically opposed to a "middle way" between statism (socialism/fascism) and capitalism for one simple reason: Statism, once introduced, becomes the dominant force and eventually wins the contest since in a centrally-run economy all economic decisions become political ones. Von Mises struggled his whole life to develop general rules for economic activity. There was (and is) a gray area in which economic theory and economic reality coexist in an uneasy relationship. Despite von Mises assertion that economics was basically a theoretical science - as opposed to physics or chemistry where axioms could be physically proven - he continued to maintain that economics was a rational science based upon human needs. It is this latter point that exalts his work. For perhaps the first time since Adam Smith he set about demonstrating that Capitalism is the economic system most conducive to human nature, how it makes the most sense from a "human" point of view of wants and needs and rewards and - most important - how it delivers the goods and affects material life. Both von Mises and Hayek were convinced that when the state attempts to lead economic activity, failure and misery are sure to follow since it would eventually become a contest among competing interest groups, each vying for their turn at the trough (which it has). Von Mises's work on economic swings was another example of brilliant logic that has held true ever since. Hayek, because he was convinced of the evolutionary nature of the economic system, also believed in cycles. HUMAN ACTION does its part in demonstrating the correlation between increasing State control of the economy and decreasing individual freedom. After having heard yet another of the Presidential campaign "debates" it is apparent that the "debaters" get their economic schooling from the editorial page. Let us pray this is a farce for the uneducated and they really don't believe what they say. If they do, the Viennese Classical School was correct in its predictions.
Rating:
Summary: Human Reaction
Review: This work towers above the mediocore garbage that currently passes for economic writing. (As late as 1989, Samuelson could say with a straight face that the Soviet economy was more productive than ours!) This book can be traced directly to the Austrian School of Classical Liberalism that attempts to define economic activity in terms of human activity, wants and needs. This is in direct contradiction to modern "economic speak" in which it is a given that the State play a vital if not pervasive role in individual human economic activity. Von Mises, Hayek and Menger (among others) were diametrically opposed to a "middle way" between statism (socialism/fascism) and capitalism for one simple reason: Statism, once introduced, becomes the dominant force and eventually wins the contest since in a centrally-run economy all economic decisions become political ones. Von Mises struggled his whole life to develop general rules for economic activity. There was (and is) a gray area in which economic theory and economic reality coexist in an uneasy relationship. Despite von Mises assertion that economics was basically a theoretical science - as opposed to physics or chemistry where axioms could be physically proven - he continued to maintain that economics was a rational science based upon human needs. It is this latter point that exalts his work. For perhaps the first time since Adam Smith he set about demonstrating that Capitalism is the economic system most conducive to human nature, how it makes the most sense from a "human" point of view of wants and needs and rewards and - most important - how it delivers the goods and affects material life. Both von Mises and Hayek were convinced that when the state attempts to lead economic activity, failure and misery are sure to follow since it would eventually become a contest among competing interest groups, each vying for their turn at the trough (which it has). Von Mises's work on economic swings was another example of brilliant logic that has held true ever since. Hayek, because he was convinced of the evolutionary nature of the economic system, also believed in cycles. HUMAN ACTION does its part in demonstrating the correlation between increasing State control of the economy and decreasing individual freedom. After having heard yet another of the Presidential campaign "debates" it is apparent that the "debaters" get their economic schooling from the editorial page. Let us pray this is a farce for the uneducated and they really don't believe what they say. If they do, the Viennese Classical School was correct in its predictions.
Rating:
Summary: Dr. von Mises' Work & Book Might Save U.S. and Iraq, TOO!!!
Review: Warm y'a up with a couple morsels from the book first: "Only clumsy would-be historians believe that they can serve their cause by distortion." (p.88) "Reason's biological function is to preserve and to promote life and to postpone extinction as long as possible. Thinking and acting are not contrary to nature, they are, rather, the foremost features of man's nature." (p.882) "The abhorrence of the gold standard is inspired by the superstition that omnipotent goverments can create wealth out of little scraps of paper." (p.474)
___________
If this "mixed-up, shook-up" world has any possible chance for rapid, not too-too-gory, resolution of social/political/economic/cultural hara-kiri that faces us all.... well my [money] will be bet on this "warhorse" and his bona fides of science, fact, honesty, logic, amplified by a delicious, tart, writing wit. Or, I could keep betting on those darned three-legged match races, in the vain hope I won't continue to lose my shoes, shirt, service, and beloved civilization.
__________________
| 
