Martin, Milei having the … chutzpah … to attack Hoppe as economically illiterate (while later praising him yet again, like a schizo) reminds me of the time that Cato pest Tom Palmer had the temerity to attack Hans Hoppe for noting that on the free market, “unemployment” is “always voluntary.” When I defended Hoppe to Palmer, he wrote me:
[…] who could take a self-described economist seriously when he writes that unemployment is impossible in a free market? And when he claims that that’s somehow an implication of Austrian economics he adds insult to ignorance. […] The fact is that Mr. Hoppe is an embarrassment.
In response, I pointed out that Mises, in Human Action (Chapter XXI. WORK AND WAGES, Section 4. Catallactic Unemployment), explicitly stated: “Unemployment in the unhampered market is always voluntary.” Clearly Hoppe’s view on unemployment is the same as Mises’s. Is Mises supposed to be an embarrassment to Austrian economics too, I asked La Palmer?
Palmer’s reply to this? We are … cultists.
For Mr. Hoppe it is a cult based on reading and interpreting sacred texts, the point of which is to ‘master Misesian economics.’ […] I don’t really give a fig about what Mises said just because it’s what he said; what I care about is whether what he wrote helps me to understand the world. […] You write, ‘And it is more than an implication of Austrian economics–it is Mises’ actual, express, explicit view, in his magnum opus.’ If you’re right, then so what? Is that an argument? If you’re right about this, then Mises was wrong. Is that so hard to accept? (( Raico Cleans Tom Palmer’s Clock; Palmer on Coase and Hoppe. ))
Doug French
Fernando Chiocca
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Jay Baykal
Juan Fernando Carpio
Martin Cabrera
PFS
Stephan Kinsella
Tom DiLorenzo