It might have been common sense in his day, but it is surely not in ours. In our times (this book appeared in 1948) the truths he proves here are bracing. Prosperity comes from saving and investment. The printing press creates nothing and destroys plenty. The central has no tools that can get us out of recession and onto a sound footing. Intervention of all sorts creates more problems and solves none.

He writes with eloquence and scientific precision. He even gives us the first serious graphical comparison of the Keynesian v. Austrian views that appeared between Hayek and Garrison!

This book is a treasure, all but lost to history. This reprint brings it back in a big way and at the right time.

The book was attacked relentlessly in all the journal during the height of Keynesian hysteria. But it turns out that Hahn was right and his critics were wrong. Even to this day, it remains an outstanding discussion of the business cycle . In fact, it reads as if it appeared just last week.

May Hahn's wisdom here once again become so known as to be common sense once again.

A year ago, the folks at Cassidy & Pinkard Colliers described the office market in the nation's capitol as "recession-resilient yet again." And with the city's main employer adding jobs, the outlook for office was somewhat positive.

So who is buying the building? CoStar Group Inc. one of the go-to real estate data providers for appraisers. One would think the people at this company would know a deal when they see it.

Meanwhile, the two volume set of Libertarian Forum has undergone upheaval. We are now able to distribute the hardback of these volumes at half the price of what the softcover once was. I recall all too well what it was like to bring these volumes out only a few years ago. It was expensive and the print runs were small, because the demand was low. But with demand on the increase and technology marching foward, we were able to negotiate this special release, which, to my mind, is a huge improvement. These are large books and better in hard back in any case. The image that you see on the site is not the hardcover. We haven't had time to set up the big art shot yet.

In any case, one can hardly believe that these two large volumes of Murray's own publication are now in wide distribution in hardcover. Murray would be completely thrilled to know this! It is an exciting publication of commentary and analysis and some good dose of gossip - a real time capsule of the development of libertarian ideas. They also contain a strong element of lost knowledge waiting to be recovered.

1. "Moundsville Penitentiary Reconsidered: Second Thoughts on Hyperreality at a Small Town Prison Tour", by Allen Mendenhall

Abstract: In 2007, I toured Moundsville Penitentiary, a tourist spectacle that was once--and fairly recently--a working prison. I wrote about the experience as would a journalist, except that my working paradigm was the postmodern theory of hyperreality, which Jean Baudrillard used to describe the complex tensions between reality and illusion. A term of semiotics, hyperreality refers to the disappearance of the referent and its subsequent, oft-replicated simulation. It almost always involves strategically controlled images that distort and conceal true meaning. The International Journal of Baudrillard Studies published my essay in January 2009. Shortly thereafter, many of my libertarian friends and colleagues wrote to ask for clarification or to express their disagreements. In what follows, whether I'm describing hyperreality or speculating about the horror-themed attractions at Moundsville Penitentiary, my principal concern is laying the libertarian foundation for my argument. I do not mean to defend my theories so much as explain them; nor do I insist that my cultural criticism is somehow "the" right way. I simply hope to fill a critical vacuum and to generate conversation not only about the condition of the American prison system writ large, but also about state-run tourist attractions that glorify the history of the sovereign at the expense of real knowledge about human suffering.

2. "Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Are 100 Percent Reserves Sufficient to Prevent a Business Cycle?", by Philipp Bagus

Abstract: Authors in the Austrian tradition have made the credit expansion of a fractional reserve banking system as the prime cause of business cycles. Authors such as Selgin (1988) and White (1999) have argued that a solution to this problem would be a free banking system. They maintain that the competition between banks would limit the credit expansion effectively. Other authors such as Rothbard (1991) and Huerta de Soto (2006) have gone further and advocated a 100 percent reserve banking system ruling out credit expansion altogether. In this article it is argued that a 100 percent reserve system can still bring about business cycles through excessive maturity mismatching between deposits and loans.

3. "Rejoinder to Carnis on Private Roads", by Walter E. Block

Abstract: Carnis (2009) is a commentary on a debate I (Block and Block, 1976; Block, 1978c) have been having with Tullock (1976) on the privatization of roads. The present paper is a rejoinder to Carnis (2009) who is highly critical of Tullock's share of the debate, and offers some luke-warm support of my side of this issue, plus some criticisms of it.

4. "Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique", by Walter E. Block

Abstract: Van Dun rejects private road ownership on the ground that owners will trap homeowners whose property abuts their thoroughfares. The present paper rejects this claim, and demonstrates that a free enterprise system of private ownership will maximize the welfare of householders, not minimize it.

"Everyone knows that I am convinced that the central bank and the monetary, exchange rate and financial policy are fundamental for deepening the development policies," Mercedes Marco del Pont said when appointed. "I believe in the operating autonomy of the central bank but I don't think it can be independent from the whole of the nation's economic policies," she said. "We will propose a coordination just like what's done in all the civilized countries on the planet."

"Well before the federal government bailed out A.I.G. in September 2008, Goldman's demands for billions of dollars from the insurer helped put it in a precarious financial position by bleeding much-needed cash. That ultimately provoked the government to step in."

To do so, he asks himself several questions, the first of which is:

1. How are willing are you to talk about compromises with the state as it is?

My answer is, "very willing." For example, when I talk about raising the retirement age for Social Security, that is a compromise relative to "abolish Social Security."

I justify this not on the basis of political pragmatism but on the basis of self-doubt. I believe that the state could reduce or phase out Social Security without harmful consequences, but I am not certain of this. One can imagine potentially harmful consequences, including repercussions that ultimately harm the cause of liberty. In general, I think in terms of incremental steps and experiments rather than in terms of the ultimate libertarian ideal. The much-ignored Unchecked and Unbalanced champions those sorts of ideas, even as it aims for an ideal that is very different from our current form of government.

This is the sort of thing that is often said to make Rothbardians sound ridiculous. They won't accept anything less than the abolition of social security -- and that, of course, means they're nuts!

But I've never met a Rothbardian who would disapprove of raising the social-security retirement age or consider it a "compromise." To the contrary, it is a partial repeal -- fewer people are entitled to taxpayer money than before -- and therefore laudable.

A "compromise" would be something that substitutes a new government program for an old one, as in the case of so-called "privatization."

It also isn't un-Rothbardian, as far as I can tell, to think strategically about what advances toward liberty should be made before others. For example, some Rothbardians have thought about what the consequences might be of allowing open borders before repealing the welfare state -- much to the dismay and disgust of certain "Hayekians." (Unreasonable radical that I am, I say open them now anyway.)

I should add that Kling's post does rightly suggest that most people who call themselves libertarians really aren't too far apart on the vast majority of what matters, and the differences between them are primarily, though not entirely, ones of tone and emphasis. More talk about what we have in common, in addition to what divides us, would probably be beneficial.