The archive.

Glasnost, perestroika, and the scramble toward markets across the socialist bloc read, in this 1988 essay, as something larger than policy adjustment: an ideology publicly conceding its own bankruptcy. Rothbard interprets the reforms in the Soviet Union, Hungary, China, and Yugoslavia as belated confessions that Ludwig von Mises had been right all along, that without market prices and profit-and-loss tests, central planning cannot coordinate a modern industrial economy. He denies socialism its claim to be the heir of progress, casting it as a rival modernism that borrowed liberal ends while substituting coercion for exchange, and he links economic liberalization to glasnost's loosening of censorship. His conclusion refuses the narrower Cold War target: the enemy is socialism itself, not merely its Communist variant.

In 1988, we were living through the most significant and exciting event of the 20th century: nothing less than the collapse of socialism.

Interest rates, Rothbard insists, are prices in credit markets, not headlines to be read off the last few weeks of Fed activity, a habit he mocks with the Marxist term impressionism. The essay's decisive distinction separates a genuine fall in rates, driven by real saving and lower time preference, from an artificial one manufactured by bank-credit expansion that only mimics thrift. From there follows the Austrian cycle: cheap credit validates capital-intensive projects the economy has not actually saved for, until rising prices force an inflation premium onto rates and expose the malinvestments. Extending the logic to capital flows, exchange rates, and the gold standard, he argues that government money is what makes interest-rate signals unstable, needlessly complicating what price theory would otherwise render simple.

Without the interference of government, the entire topic would be duck soup.

Economists wait for the National Bureau of Economic Research to pronounce the economy in or out of recession, and Rothbard's quarrel is with that deference. The Bureau advertises a Baconian method, no theories, only facts averaged into leading, coincident, and lagging indicators, but its procedures, he argues, smuggle in arbitrary choices at every step. Selecting a single peak and trough month from a flat or ambiguous plateau, then dividing the interval into equal parts, forces irregular movement into neat sawtoothed lines; averaging cycles across decades assumes a stable population of events that economic history, with its shifting institutions and monetary regimes, never supplies. Invoking Burns and Mitchell's Measuring Business Cycles as measurement without theory, he challenges the legitimacy of letting a statistical authority define the cycle.

Everyone waits for the National Bureau to speak; when the oracle finally makes its pronouncement, it is accepted without question.

Modern liberalism, in Rothbard's satire, runs as a machine for converting ordinary scarcity, hangnails, unaffordable BMWs, a fable of federally funded beri-beri, into public emergencies whose every failure only justifies tripled funding. Against that ratchet he defends a distinction conservatives forgot: a subsidy hands you money taken from others, while a tax credit merely lets an earner keep his own. When conservatives joined liberals after the 1986 Tax Reform Act in scorning credits as loopholes and subsidies, they surrendered one of the few devices limiting state extraction. Tracing the tactic through the 1988 childcare debate, Rothbard urges not the closing of loopholes but their endless widening, until the federal revenue system becomes one vast opening and the tax state is structurally hollowed out.

Modern liberalism works in a simple but effective manner: liberals Find Problems.

Against the split between academic economics and applied policy—between 'neutral' analysis without theory and scholarship detached from public life—Rothbard offers the Mises Institute as the cure. Part institutional history, part manifesto, the essay recounts a founding in the fall of 1982 with no endowment and no billionaires, then narrates the post-1974 Austrian revival after Hayek's Nobel and the softening 'Austrianism' that whispered Mises had been too dogmatic, too extreme. Rothbard accepts the charge as praise: dogmatism means fidelity to truth. He describes the journals, seminars, fellowships, and Auburn programs not as administration but as the infrastructure a living discipline requires, and treats the word 'Austrian' itself as contested ground nearly captured from within. His conclusion reclaims it—uncompromisingly Misesian, free-market, and radical.

Above all, Austrian economics is once again, as it ever shall be, Misesian.

Born in London and trained under the hard-money economist Edwin Cannan at the London School of Economics, William Harold Hutt built a body of work that Rothbard here rescues from neglect, treating its obscurity as a verdict on the profession rather than on the man. Hutt emerges as a unified theorist of market coordination: The Theory of Collective Bargaining argued that unions cannot raise wages generally, only redistribute them by displacing less privileged labor; his writing on South Africa read apartheid economically, as compulsory racial labor cartelization; and The Theory of Idle Resources recast Keynesian unemployment as capacity withheld from the market, not proof of deficient demand. Across labor, race, money, and Say's Law runs one conviction—that waste and exclusion arise from coercive privilege, not from free exchange—and it places Hutt beside the Austrian revival he supported.

Indeed, he showed that industrial apartheid was imposed by a successful general strike in 1922 led by William H. Andrews, head of the Communist Party of South Africa under the slogan “Whites Unite and Fight for a Workers’ World”!

Americans save too little, the late-1980s refrain ran, falling behind thrifty Germans and Japanese and starving the country of investment. Rothbard grants the statistics may be right and then dissolves the question behind them: no economist or politician can name the proper rate of saving from outside individual time preference, and moral exhortations to thrift carry neither weight nor content. The real distortion, he argues, is coercive, taxes, spending, capital-gains taxation, and the 1986 repeal of IRA deductibility all shove resources from saving toward state-directed consumption. He rejects the accounting convention that counts government spending as investment, reserving that word for production aimed at future consumers. The cure is not preaching but stripping away government's own coercive tilt against saving.

What is really needed is a drastic reduction of all government taxation and spending, state, local, and federal, across the board.

The hurricane was natural; the disaster, Rothbard contends, was substantially manufactured by government. Taking Hugo's 1989 landfall as a case study in libertarian political economy, he moves outward through the layers of intervention: FEMA relief that forces distant taxpayers to underwrite reconstruction on a known high-risk coast; compulsory evacuations and mayors barring owners from their own damaged homes; Charleston's anti-gouging law that turned rising prices, the market's rationing signal, into Eastern-European lines and empty shelves. His fiercest fire is reserved for beachfront rebuilding restrictions, which he treats not as ecological prudence but as uncompensated confiscation, citing litigation over whether the state may forbid an owner to build without paying for the taking. The storm, in his reading, is merely the occasion; the state's assault on property is the subject.

Perhaps the worst blow to the coastal residents was the intervention of those professional foes of humanity—the environmentalists.

As Soviet-style legitimacy visibly crumbled across Eastern Europe in 1989, the pressing question was no longer whether socialism had failed but how to undo it, and here, Rothbard argues, decades of anticommunist scholarship had left the cupboard bare. Liberalization is the easy part: legalize black markets, free the currency, scrap price and production controls, cut taxes. The hard problem is ownership, since the economy's main assets remain in state hands and cannot simply be sold to citizens who lack the funds or restored to pre-communist owners. Following Paul Craig Roberts, he would give land to peasants and factories to workers, even buying off the nomenklatura with stock, while rejecting privatization by lottery: the first titles, he insists, must carry enough justice to make the new market order endure.

But the trouble here is that Roberts ignores the hunger for justice among most people, and particularly among victims of communism.

Inflation never really left, it merely waited. Writing at the end of the 1980s, Rothbard explains the return of rising prices as the delayed harvest of earlier money-supply expansion, held back for a time by the collapse of OPEC and an expensive dollar and by the public's willingness to hold rather than spend its cash. Against the mechanical monetarism of the Chicago School, he insists that Austrians recognize no fixed leads and lags: money creation drives the cycle, but expectation and choice decide when its price effects surface. He faults the Federal Reserve for expanding in recession, mistaking the lag for success, then attempting gradual restraint under Alan Greenspan. Reading his preferred M-A aggregate, he sees recession already in motion, and refuses to call for the fresh expansion that would only postpone a necessary correction.

Whatever the Fed does, it unerringly makes matters worse.

Eight years of free-market rhetoric under Reagan, Rothbard contends, accomplished the opposite of what they promised: the resurrection of a Keynesianism that the stagflation of the 1970s should have buried. Stripped of its algebraic jargon, the doctrine reduces to a simple political creed—recessions come from underspending, inflation from overspending, and 'Big Daddy government' stands ready to fine-tune both. But simultaneous recession and inflation, he argues, expose a contradiction at the model's heart, unmasking it as an economics of power rather than explanation. Tracing how Keynesians' promise of budgets balanced over the cycle dissolved into permanent deficits, and how the collapse of monetarism left Keynesians dominant in the Reagan and Bush teams, this 1989 essay reads macroeconomic management as inseparable from the growth of the state.

The stark fact of inflationary recession violates the fundamental assumptions of Keynesian theory and the crucial program of Keynesian policy.

A $550 million income earned Michael Milken the shared contempt of John Kenneth Galbraith, Donald Trump, and David Rockefeller, an alliance Rothbard reads as a tell rather than a verdict. The scandal, he argues, was not greed but competition: Milken's pay measured his marginal value product to Drexel Burnham Lambert, and his high-yield bonds resurrected the takeover bid that the 1967 Williams Act had shielded incumbent managers against. Leveraged buyouts handed shareholders a mechanism to displace inefficient management, precisely the control that critics since Berle and Means had claimed to want, and shifted capital from less to more efficient hands. The junk label, and the eventual Justice Department and SEC prosecutions, he casts as entrenched elites wielding state power against an innovator who threatened them.

People like Michael Milken perform a vitally important economic function for the economy and for consumers, in addition to profiting themselves.