1,549 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
Hans F. Sennholz’s How Can Europe Survive? is a single-author Austrian political-economic pamphlet about the ideological foundations of postwar Europe’s crisis. It asks why Europe remains economically fragile despite reconstruction, foreign aid, and new international institutions, and it answers that the problem is not insufficient administration but the administrative mentality itself. For Sennholz, planning, welfare-state expansion, protectionism, exchange control, and cartelized integration are not separate errors. They are symptoms of one anti-market doctrine.
Sennholz’s essay argues from a libertarian perspective that central banking gives political authorities command over money through institutions presented as monetary technique. He begins with the post-1907 call for reform, taking the reformers’ slogan as the key to the institutional problem he identifies:
"We need a more flexible currency," the advocates of a reorganization of the American banking system asserted; "a currency that can be made to expand or contract in accordance with the needs of business."
Sennholz’s essay compares United States policy with the ten transitional measures listed in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The editorial foreword distinguishes economic communism from “Communism” as organized subversion; Sennholz’s own method is more specific. He asks not whether the United States is formally Soviet, but how far its policies have moved toward Marx’s ten transitional measures. His central thesis is that American capitalism has been progressively limited by taxation, regulation, credit control, federal ownership, and social planning.
This 1964 American Opinion essay is a magazine political polemic by Hans F. Sennholz, written as the Goldwater movement was being attacked as a “radical right.” Its scope is the immediate 1964 election, but its larger object is conceptual: to redefine extremism as allegiance to collectivism, not as distance from the reigning liberal consensus. Sennholz argues that liberal denunciations of the right are strategic acts of division and deflection, meant to smear opponents rather than answer their case.
Sennholz’s essay interprets Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society as a continuation of New Deal liberalism rather than a new social vision. Its central claim is that the program promises universal uplift while expanding federal paternalism, weakening responsibility, distorting markets, undermining property, and distracting the nation from war, Communism, racial unrest, and monetary danger. The essay repeatedly reduces ambitious social planning to a fiscal and moral question:
Where is the money coming from?
Hans Sennholz’s essay builds on a Cold War-era semantic reversal. It does not argue that America has become a Soviet satellite; it argues that “communism,” as Marx and Engels used the term, described a policy program now partly lodged in American institutions. The Manifesto’s ten points supply his opening measure of comparison, and President Johnson’s Great Society appears as the contemporary agenda completing that trend.
Hans Sennholz’s 1965 essay treats inflation as a political instrument: hidden taxation, coerced redistribution, and a fiscal device by which the modern state finances promises it cannot openly tax into existence. Written against postwar Keynesian policy and welfare-state expansion, the essay frames monetary depreciation as a direct threat to liberal institutions.
This file is a 1965 American Opinion cover-review and bibliographic profile of Ludwig von Mises by Hans Sennholz. Its scope is a guided survey of Mises’s major works, with Sennholz’s interpretation supported by the voices of Rose Wilder Lane, Henry Hazlitt, F. A. Hayek, Percy L. Greaves, and repeated passages from Mises himself. The structure moves book by book—from Human Action, Socialism, and The Theory of Money and Credit through Theory and History, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Planning for Freedom, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, and The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth—to present Mises as both systematic economist and civilizational critic.
This 1966 American Opinion essay is a topical monetary polemic on the Johnson administration’s “Great Society” economy. Sennholz opens with a public dispute among Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Walter Heller over tight money, inflation, taxes, and recession, then recasts it as a deeper confusion about inflation itself. His thesis is that Kennedy-Johnson prosperity is an artificial credit boom generated by the Federal Reserve, masked by Keynesian “stop-and-go” policy, and moving toward recession, controls, and enlarged federal power.
Hans F. Sennholz’s 1967 essay is a warning that the apparent return of prosperity is not recovery but an inflationary boom. It begins with contemporary signs—rising manufacturing orders, retail sales, employment, wages, profits, and consumer prices—but immediately reverses the optimistic interpretation. The acceleration is, for Sennholz, the visible effect of expansionary money and deficit finance, not evidence of economic health. His main thesis is that federal policy has manufactured a boom whose costs will appear as dollar depreciation, redistribution, malinvestment, and recession.
Hans Sennholz’s article presents a free-market interpretation of the supermarket boycotts that appeared before the 1966 elections. Its thesis is that anger over food prices was politically redirected away from what he identifies as the real causes—monetary inflation, federal spending, farm policy, taxation, and union-imposed production costs—and toward supermarkets, which Sennholz presents as competitive, low-margin victims rather than culprits. The essay’s central conceptual move is definitional: Sennholz insists that “inflation” properly names currency depreciation by government, not merely the visible result of higher prices.
Hans F. Sennholz’s “Tax and Tax” responds to Treasury Secretary Henry Fowler’s September 1968 tax-reform proposals. Sennholz first summarizes Fowler’s agenda—exempt the poor, tax high incomes sheltered by preferences, reconsider estate and gift taxes, and curb tourists’ foreign spending in connection with “special drawing rights”—then recasts it as a program of redistribution and compulsion. The essay’s thesis is that tax reform presented as compassion for the poor would damage the capital formation, federal balance, property rights, and freedom of movement on which general prosperity depends.