Comments on: Sherman's Motives

By: ettubloge

ettubloge — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:11:25 +0000

Jim Powell's "Bully Boy" and Burton Fulsom's "The Myth of the Robber Barons" show the anti-trust laws maintained high prices for local goods to the harm of the consumer. The data puts the lie to the standard reasons propounded for protectionism.

Lucky enough for us that the Von Mises website reprinted this beautiful essay from Von Mises (oh, if it were only untainted by the regulators):

"Our economic system — the market economy or capitalism — is a system of consumers' supremacy. The customer is sovereign; he is, says a popular slogan, "always right." Businessmen are under the necessity of turning out what the consumers ask for and they must sell their wares at prices which the consumers can afford and are prepared to pay. A business operation is a manifest failure if the proceeds from the sales do not reimburse the businessman for all he has expended in producing the article. Thus the consumers in buying at a definite price determine also the height of the wages that are paid to all those engaged in the industries."

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:33:30 +0000

but at the same time most historians are lousy economists

I submit that many, if not most, historians are lousy historians as well.

By: The Albatross

The Albatross — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:57:55 +0000

True, I will concede that most economists are lousy historians, but at the same time most historians are lousy economists. However, I put forth that the nature of the Supreme Court at the time probably made Senator Sherman think that whatever he proposed would quickly be declared unconstitutional. The statute itself is tremendously vague, and Sherman would have expected it to have been either thrown out or narrowly prescribed. He likely had no idea that this act would be so expanded and so recently narrowed. At the same time, the Act would have seemed toothless, which would have encouraged Sherman (and those in the House and Senate) to vote for it. Therefore, it provides perfect cover for the passage of this abominable tariff. At the same time, Sherman’s support of this Act, while at the same (or near) time supporting a tariff, suggest that he was not so inclined to seek revenge on the “moneyed interests,” but to enable them, which would pour cold water on the claim that that Sherman passed the Act which bears his name to spite the interests that denied him the Republican nomination. Excuse my language, but despite his personal feelings over being denied the nomination of 1888, Senator Sherman did not defecate where he ate.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:40:40 +0000

Considering that the act passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming support...

What further proof is needed?

By: Henri Hein

Henri Hein — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:25:28 +0000

I second David Graf's take on DiLorenzo.