Perfect anti-mind analysis

you make a perfect villain in Atlas Shrugged

Certainly.

Marx's whole theory was based on the (rubbish) idea that when a product was created, the person doing the physical work was entitled to the entire proceeds -- that in other words it was only the physical work that counted; the inputs of creative thought, and of capital (in building the factory and/or machines that make the product) were dismissed as unimportant and didn't count for anything, because (paraphrased) the capital was merely the creation of earlier physical laborers, and inventing things wasn't really "work." (And the Soviet economy reflected these misconceptions -- they invented very little, and never bothered updating any of their factories or building new ones.)

Your theory is similar except that you would have only the creative thought count, and dismiss the physical work and the capital investment, saying the capital was merely the creation of earlier inventors. (I don't think you explained why the physical work doesn't count.)

I insist that all three inputs should count. And that's the way capitalism works in the real world -- all three input-providers get paid.

And in my opinion, this comic explains how capital is created. http://freedom-school.com/money/how-a...

Marx was about physical labor. Do you understand logic?

Really how does that explain the history before the industrial revolution. Oh yeah you are a follower of Mises, so facts and evidence are irrelevant.

No it is not it is not based on the philosophy of science

No it does not. You clearly think no one achieves anything. Gee you sound exactly like the villains in Atlas Shrugged and Obama "you didn't create that."

Mises is a disaster. His praxeology is philosophical rationalism, which is not science. He attacks reason and rational ethics. This means he is attacking Locke, Rand, and the Foundation of the United States

Even that definition understates the field. Economics is the study of human behavior and its motivation. Thus the title of Mises' great work.

Necessity may be the mother of invention, but profit is its father, not its mother. ;)

Economics, the genuine kind, is very much a science. But for political reasons the field has attracted more Lysenkos than even climate science, and this has been true for centuries.

That statement assumes that there were no inventions before you, which is an absurdity. Every inventor stands on the shoulders of giants.

Science is an approach valid regardless of whether human players act logically (as judged by whom?)
Irrespective of whether humans are logical or otherwise in groups or as individuals, the study of human behavior lends itself to the scientific method, or at least if understanding is to be enhanced.

Agreed. That is why utilitarian economics is correct. People don't have to make the choices you consider rational for it to work.

What I get out of both von Mises and Adam Smith is that opportunities for profit are the mother of wealth. The American Revolution brought them simply by getting government out of the way. "Progressive" laws after the Civil War have reversed that, so we need a revolution (or equivalent change) again.

The causes are honest, productive work of all kinds, and the willingness of owners to risk their capital, as well as innovation. To credit only inventors is an error as fundamental as Marx' "labor theory of value".

excellent post and book...what comes first is the environment for capitalism to flourish...

With the carpetbaggers looting all the wealth remaining in the south and the south as a conquered nation having no voice in congress?
Great deal for the corporate welfare looters.
We just have to kill 20 million socialist sympathizers in NY, DC, CA, and steal their property.
With all the destruction we'd have full employment, too.
(Attention NSA, that's sarcasm.)

I'd really like to try it again to see if it was that good. I'm betting it is.

Many people consider the post civil war until the passage of the Anti-trust laws as one of the freest and most productive in the history of the world.

You're correct. In a free market things correct themselves without the government stepping in. Even with the best of intentions, every time the gov. tries to correct "inequities" the collateral damage winds up making things worse in the long run. Add to that, unscrupulous politicians do things ostensibly for beneficial reasons but in reality, in order to benefit themselves or their cohorts.

I've thought for a long time that economics has become too complicated by people (governments) trying to manipulate what should be left to run naturally. Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I understand this country was pretty good until after the civil war.

Thanks

The "necessity" of personal Integrity, perhaps. The felt sense of "rightness" in Ingenuity...

And the difference between Dale's answer and the "feeling" of the rest of the world holds tremendous power, methinks. Good distinction.