Jerzy Reisman - tata Kelthuza. Fanboj Misesa i Rand. Denialista klimatyczny. Mocno zmasakrowany przez Kirznera.

Wybrane fragmenty recenzji Kirznera[1]

But Reisman has pursued (and quite unjustifiably assumed the universal recognition of) values (which he has adopted from Ayn Rand’s philosophy) which many of his readers are likely not to share. […]Writers who have expressed opinions (either on fundamental values or on economic policies) with which Reisman disagrees are guilty of being in an “advanced state of philosophical corruption” (p. 35), of “willful dishonesty” (p.87),of being a “dishonest gang”(p.205),and of possible “compartmentalized imbecility” (p. 337).

In this section I shall critically examine Reisman’s claim, and conclude that it is indeed based on a fallaciously narrow understanding by him of the essential vision of Carl Menger and of the tradition spawned by that vision. As a consequence, it turns out, the major contents of Reisman’s economics and, more importantly, the overall understanding of the capitalist system which those contents express, must be pronounced to be sharply at variance with Austrian economics and, in particular, with the Misesian system.

Now there is no doubt Mises saw these latter “Austrian” definitions of economics [science of choice] as extremely important reflections of the Austrian abandonment of the earlier (classical) preoccupation with wealth as providing the unifying focus for economic understanding. Reisman’s brief dismissal of these definitions suggests his failure to appreciate this importance.

In Austrian fashion Reisman criticizes (p. 9) mathematical economics for its preoccupation with states of equilibrium rather than with asearch for understanding the equilibrating processes which characterize markets. But the price theory he offers does not deal with the processes of mutual learning and discovery; which must in fact constitute these market processes of equilibration.

One gains the impression that this refusal to find a place for the role of pure entrepreneurial profit is not unrelated to the general tendency we have noticed for this book toa ssume, in effect, that the market economy successfully expresses full relevant equilibrium at all times. […] Although this may seem indeed inconsistent with the above-mentioned critique by Reisman of the equilibrium-preoccupation displayed by mathematical economics, the truth is that Reisman’s own economics shows many signs of utter disinterest in what Austrian economics recognizes as the crucially important entrepreneurial process.

The truth is that contemporary macroeconomics is no longer crude Samuelsonian-45-degree-diagram Keynesianism. While the perfectly competitive model still dominates contemporary microeconomics, its best exponents deploy the model with sensitive insight and realism. It is even the case that certain Austrian insights (particularly those, concerning the dispersal of knowledge, which Hayek articulated) have become widely understood in the profession (and are even represented in several mainstream textbooks).

and Reisman’s own method of deriving supply-and-demand price theoretic understanding (pp. 151–171) is extremely cumbersome, and not at all necessarily superior to a number of mainstream textbook treatments

Where Reisman’s economics does differ fundamentally and categorically from contemporary mainstream economics, is in Reisman’s uncompromisingly classical approach to economics generally and to macroeconomics in particular. But here, as noticed in the preceding section, an Austrian economist finds it impossible to side with Reisman.

To cite Reisman’s work as constituting a definitive defense of capitalism, as a continuation of the Austrian work of Ludwig von Mises, must be to accept that aggregative-wealth argumentation (and to accept the belief that this argumentation is basically compatible with Mises’s understanding and defense of capitalism). Intellectual honesty must prevent one

from sharing such acceptance.

this book, for all its merits, must not and for the sake of doctrinal integrity and self-respect, cannot be the source of one’s understanding of and defense for the free market society.

1. [] — Israel M. Kirzner, Report on a Treatise
O ile nie zaznaczono inaczej, treść tej strony objęta jest licencją Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License