Mises and Montaigne: A Comment

Philipp Bagus, David Howden, Amadeus Gabriel and Eva María Carrasco Bañuelos

History of Political Economy, 2016, vol. 48, issue 4, 733-740

Abstract: Did Ludwig von Mises err in attributing the idea that “no man profits but by the loss of another†to Michel de Montaigne, as Casto Martín Montero Kuscevic and Marco Antonio del Río Rivera claim? In this brief comment we vindicate Mises's assessment and criticisms of Montaigne by way of three points. First, Mises was indeed correct in christening the belief that the economy can be presented as a zero-sum game as the “Montaigne dogma.†Second, we demonstrate that Montaigne refers not only to involuntary exchanges but also to voluntary ones. Finally, we show that Mises considers cases beyond their strict monetary results and refers to entrepreneurial profits as being primarily psychic in nature. As a result, Mises is able to offer an explanation for why forced transactions create no net benefit, but voluntary ones cannot be interpreted in the same way.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-3687331 link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:48:y:2016:i:4:p:733-740

Access Statistics for this article

History of Political Economy is currently edited by Kevin D. Hoover

More articles in History of Political Economy from Duke University Press Duke University Press 905 W. Main Street, Suite 18B Durham, NC 27701.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Center for the History of Political Economy Webmaster ().