HomeThe Basic Truths of Saysian Economics and Their Contemporary RelevanceEducationAtlas University
No items found.
The Basic Truths of Saysian Economics and Their Contemporary Relevance

The Basic Truths of Saysian Economics and Their Contemporary Relevance

August 8, 2023

This article was originally published by the Foundation for Economic Education and has been reposted under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.

Having studied quite a lot of political economy over the past four decades, and critically, I must say that I consider A Treatise on Political Economy (1803)1 by Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832)2 to be best work ever published in the field. It easily surpasses anything contemporary but also Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) and Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1949). Nothing beats it. Not coincidently, I also judge Say to be history’s greatest political economist, indeed, “capitalism’s economist” (though the term “capitalism” wasn’t coined until 1850).3 He also wrote for beginners a succinct Catechism of Political Economy, with a Q&A format.4

Say, once accurately described as a “neglected champion of laissez-faire,”5 was original and provocative. I’d go so far as to say he was so ahead of his time that economists today are best interpreted as being well behind the times, at least scientifically speaking, because so many of them are virtual mercantilists (at least implicitly), thus pre-Smithian. Erosion in the quality and relevance of economics makes Say more relevant and helpful today than ever. Whether you’re a friend, a foe, or mixed in your view of capitalism, you should feel both obliged and motivated to grasp Say’s methodology, principles, and policy advice; armed with all that, you’ll find today’s often complex and confusing world to be more understandable, manageable, predictable, and curable. His Treatise will be prized by anyone who values prosperity, wants it examined clearly, and wishes to know its prerequisites.

Salsman: Economics in "Atlas Shrugged"

Why “Saysian Economics”

In coining the phrase “Saysian economics” in 20036 I sought to crystallize and “capture the essence of Say’s doctrines: the sanctity of private property, the primacy of production, the creative entrepreneur, the virtue of saving, the benefits of capital formation, the need for gold-based money, the gains from unilateral free trade and the case for laissez-faire capitalism.” I explained how “these are the causes of prosperity and investment portfolio gains,” while “departures from these principles bring poverty and portfolio losses.” Finally, I stressed that although “Saysian economics is the opposite of Keynesian economics” the latter, tragically, remains predominant.

Keynesianism persists for three reasons, I think. First, for a century or so, with rare exceptions, Saysian economics just hasn’t been taught, thus hasn’t been known, hence hasn’t been applied to ongoing events, or used to guide policy.7 Second, due to the first reason, Keynesianism is now seen as the “only game in town,” as the “go-to” policy cure for crises and recessions, even though, as a mere modern mode of mercantilism, it’s more often the cause of such troubles. Third, Keynesianism reflects and rationalizes the biases of statists who distrust or detest capitalism for ideological-political reasons and wish (always) to expand the size, scope and power of the state.

Nevertheless, with Saysian and Keynesian models available for all to see and assess, a more robust, fruitful debate can ensue. It’s helpful that “Saysian” and “Keynesian” rhymes (my intent). I hope before long the term “Saysian” will be heard at least as often as “Keynesian.” Meantime, friends of capitalism who hear “Keynesian economics” and “Keynesian policy prescriptions” should cite “Saysian economics” and offer “Saysian policy prescriptions.”

Say’s Principles: Original, Provocative, Timeless

Among historians of thought, Say is often miscast as a mere “popularizer” of Adam Smith’s works, but though he admired Smith as a pioneer, he was no mimic. Many passages in the Treatise identify Smith’s methodological and doctrinal errors and substitute truths in their place. For Say, Smith wasn’t sufficiently pro-capitalist. In a letter to Malthus in 1821 he wrote: “Smith has not embraced all the phenomena of the production and consumption of wealth,” and though “I revere Adam Smith,” nevertheless “I learned to go alone. Now I have ceased to belong to any school.” “I submit to the decrees of eternal reason, and I am not afraid to declare it.” The Treatise rejects roughly a half-dozen of Smith’s erroneous ideas, including his belief in the labor theory of value, his denial of the productivity of services, and his defense of usury laws. Say’s objectivity and independence made him reject the labor theory of value even as predecessors and successors—Smith (1776), Ricardo (1817), Malthus (1821), Mill (1848), and Marx (1869)—accepted it in their own texts, helping promote (by intent or not) anti-capitalism.

Summarizing his main discoveries and doctrines, we find that Say:

  1. contends that strict preservation and protection of private property advances both justice and prosperity;
  2. explains how intelligence is the main source of wealth and profit is the net production of wealth, not a “theft” from laborers nor an unearned monopolist “rent”;
  3. explains why a harmony of interests exists among seemingly disparate classes and all the factors of production, and why machinery is good and not, as Smith, Ricardo, and Marx believed, a source of alienation or mass joblessness;
  4. recognizes entrepreneurs as the premier producers, because skilled solicitors, organizers, motivators, and payers of the various factors of productions
  5. defends as productive what later became known as the “service sector” (including finance);
  6. promulgates the “law of markets” (later, “Say’s Law”), the principle that supply constitutes demand, that production has primacy (we must produce before we can demand), that aggregate supply and aggregate demand are inseparable (like two sides of a coin), so no aggregate “over-production” (or “general glut”) can possibly arise;8
  7. explains how recessions are caused not by prior episodes of “over-production” (or “deficient demand”) but by government impediments to producing and profiting (such as punitive or arbitrary taxation and regulation);
  8. rejects the labor theory of value (that economic value reflects some embodied time spent in manual labor) and in its stead explicates and advances the idea that utility is the sole basis of value and price, as embodied in prices;
  9. shows that the value of finished goods determines production costs (not the reverse);
  10. distinguishes demand and consumption, the first being a desire to purchase coupled with purchasing power (prior production), the latter a destruction (using up) of wealth; real demand is synonymous with supply; consumption per se (unless part of a net-value creation in a production process) is no boon to wealth-creation.9

That Say’s principles and policies are sorely needed today should be evident when we recall the pervasive trailing influence of myths perpetrated by Malthus, Marx, and Keynes. Malthus was the Keynes of Say’s time (early 1800s), a “general glut” worrywart, but Say refuted him directly in an exchange of letters,10 and so thoroughly as well, by using timeless principles, that the refutations were no less applicable (and devastating) to subsequent versions of similar error, whether pushed by Sismondi (1773-1842), Rodbertus (1805-1875), Marx, (1818-1883) or Keynes (1883-1946). It wasn’t necessary re-invent the wheel (Say’s Law), only to recall and re-apply it.

Sustainable Prosperity Requires the Protection of Private Property

Say was a principled defender of the constitutionally limited state, even more consistently so than many of his classically liberal contemporaries (or successors). To his credit, he was also no anarchist.

Perhaps Say is at his best when explaining the connection between politically protected property rights and economic progress. He devotes an entire chapter of the Treatise to “the right of property” and explains its many positive consequences. Economic derangements, in contrast, reflect rights violations.11 “Of all the means by which a government can stimulate production,” he wrote, “none is so powerful as the perfect security of person and property, especially from the aggressions of arbitrary power. This security is itself a source of public prosperity.”

Salsman: Rent Selling Countries are More Corrupt and Less Wealthy

According to Say, “the healthy state of industry and wealth is the state of absolute liberty, in which each interest is left to take care of itself.” Only with security of private property and sanctity of voluntary contract “can the sources of production, namely land, capital and industry, attain their utmost degree of fecundity.” Economic stagnation ensues if, due to bad policies, producer confidence wanes. “In times of political confusion and under an arbitrary government,” Say explains, “many will prefer to keep their capital inactive, concealed and unproductive, either of profit or gratification, rather than run the risk of its display. This latter evil is never felt under good government.” The “immutable laws” of political economy, as is so of the physical sciences, are true regardless of opinion, regardless of convention. Say gets this—and shows it—by his rational, integrative approach.

The Tragic Failure of Say’s Successors

Sadly, too few influential economists in the past century have grasped or used Saysian economics (or Say’s Law) to combat falsehoods. That’s why we see economies periodically enmeshed in destructive crises (1930s, 1970s, 2000-02, 2008-10, 2020) caused not by “market failure” but government failure—not by capitalism but varieties of anti-capitalism—with misdiagnoses ensuring future crises. We see economies weighed down by rights-abridging labor laws (including minimum wage laws), financial sector regulation, and punitive-confiscatory taxation, embodying Marxian myths “alienation,” “exploitation,” and “parasitism.” We observe persistent and pervasive Keynesian myths claiming that “deficient demand” causes recessions or that “excessive growth” causes inflation; such myths give rise to volatile, damaging monetary policies, debt monetization, and misnamed deficit-spending “stimulus” schemes that depress economies.12 We see tax codes hailed as “progressive,” as if progress flows from confiscatory rates and wealth is multiplied by dividing it. Meanwhile, “pro-market” neoclassical economists push perpetual government “fixes” to cure “market failures,” defined as market winners who disobey imaginary features of a Platonic-egalitarian model of an alleged “perfect” competition.13 We see economies strain under anti-capitalist environmental agencies and policies that codify sensational, unproved claims and phobias, derived mainly from long-refuted Malthusian myths, about “excessive” population growth and resource depletion.

Today most of Say’s doctrines are flatly denied (or blithely ignored) by Keynesians. Say’s views are most closely endorsed by supply-side economists, although today’s supply-siders are but a pale imitation of Say (and perpetuate many Keynesian fallacies). Nevertheless, even the (watered-down) supply-side program of Reaganomics in the 1980s (of which we still see vestiges today) was closer to Saysian economics than to Keynesian economics (which dominated in the 1960s and 1970s).14 Economic-investment performance has been far better under Saysian policies than Keynesian policies.

"Old, but True Always" Beats "New, but False"

Why consult a treatise that’s two centuries old? Many of Say’s principles have been lost or obscured, to the detriment of sound policy and sustainable prosperity. The Treatise is also a powerful antidote to the many Keynesian and Marxian notions that persist today and still inflict harm. Lost knowledge has bedeviled economics before. Classical economists (Say included) refuted protectionist mercantilists and taught how “the wealth of nations” is achievable for those who adopt rational policies. Marx and the socialists then gained influence by claiming capitalism was evil and unsustainable. Beginning in the 1870s the neoclassical and Austrian schools refuted Marx but rendered economics desiccated and overly mathematized. Keynes followed, blaming the Great Depression of the 1930s on a “deficiency of aggregate demand,” in the process illogically rejecting Say’s law and repeating the “general glut” myth, as initially pushed by Malthus in the 1820s. Marxian-Keynesian myths, we know, always stoke demand for state intervention, which Say rightly identifies as the cause of economic miseries.

Say’s principles have been rejected by Marxians and Keynesians but defended by great, prominent liberals—including Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850),15 William Hutt (1899-1988),16 Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973),17 and Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993).18 To its credit, for decades FEE has promoted the works of this heroic minority. As mentioned, Say’s principles were partly adopted in the “supply-side” policies of the 1980s, which fostered entrepreneurial activity, encouraged production, saving, and investment, and substantially revitalized America’s economy well into the 1990s. Even when applied in diluted form, Saysian political economy has performed wonders for ailing and failing economies. Saysian economics has been “modernized” and proved practical, to the extent incorporated in supply-side economics, but more must be done if it’s to live and serve humanity’s future.

Henry Hazlitt in 1959 described Keynesian economics thus: “what’s old in it isn’t new, and what’s new in it isn’t true.” Exactly right. Saysian economics may be old, to some—and therefore untrue, to them alone—but in truth it’s both old and true, and as such, can be made new again, respected again, applied again—because it’s true.

The Case for a Rational, Reality-Based Methodology

In the introduction to the Treatise, Say provides a penetrating assessment of the history of economic thought, distinguishing his innovations; he makes a case for using Bacon’s empirical-inductive method, then adopt it assiduously in his text, carefully deriving valid principles from objectively observed facts. Say rejects both “a priori” deduction (as in Ricardo’s work) and blind statistical empiricism (as in Malthus’s work).

Say believed political economy should be scientific, understandable, moral, and practical. Much of contemporary economics fails, to varying degrees, on each count, partly because it’s “method” is overly formal-mathematical, based on deliberately unrealistic assumptions, but also because it bifurcates reality into the realms of morality-politics and efficiency-economics, the first modeled as “normative” (emotive, arbitrary, merely asserted), the second as “positive” (factual, scientific, provable). But then, quite illogically, economists presume an innumerable array of “market failures,” magically fixable because somehow there exist wise, moral, and competent politicians, served by like-minded and motivated career bureaucrats. It’s all so utterly preposterous, of course. For Say, such error is avoided when we recognize that all fields must be scientific, not only the “natural” sciences but the social sciences too—ethics, politics, the law, economics. In Say’s words, from the opening passage of his Treatise,

A science only advances with certainty, when the plan of inquiry and the object of our researches have been clearly defined; otherwise a small number of truths are loosely laid hold of, without their connection being perceived, and numerous errors, without being enabled to detect their fallacy. For a long time the science of politics, in strictness limited to the investigation of the principles which lay the foundation of the social order, was confounded with political economy, which unfolds the manner in which wealth is produced, distributed, and consumed. Wealth, nevertheless, is essentially independent of political organization. Under every form of government, a state, whose affairs are well administered, may prosper. Nations have risen to opulence under absolute monarchs and have been ruined by popular councils [democracy]. If political liberty is more favorable to the development of wealth, it is indirectly, in the same manner that it is more favorable to general education.
All human knowledge is connected. Accordingly, it is necessary to ascertain the points of contact, or the articulations by which the different branches are united; by this means, a more exact knowledge will be obtained of whatever is peculiar to each, and where they run into one another.
In political economy, as in natural philosophy, and in every other study, systems have been formed before facts have been established; the place of the latter being supplied by purely gratuitous assertions. More recently, the inductive method of philosophizing, which, since the time of Bacon, has so much contributed to the advancement of every other science, has been applied to the conduct of our researches in this. The excellence of this method consists in only admitting facts carefully observed, and the consequences rigorously deduced from them; thereby effectually excluding those prejudices and authorities which, in every department of literature and science, have so often been interposed between man and truth. But, is the whole extent of the meaning of the term, facts, so often made use of, perfectly understood?

A Challenging, Productive, Consequential Life

Say lived courageously, in a time of tumult. Facing Napoleon’s censorship, he extolled rights and liberty.19 He attributed crises and recessions not to “market failures” but unjust, distortive state interventions. As both an intellectual and entrepreneur, Say was a principled “classical liberal” who contributed much to the Enlightenment, the 18th century epoch when reason and science were widely respected and applied to fields as diverse as astronomy, biology, and political economy.

The first French edition of the Treatise appeared in 1803, the second not until 1814 (due to Napoleon’s wrath). Use of the text spread quickly in Europe. In 1821 an English version appeared and for five subsequent decades it was adopted by professors as the main textbook in political economy at leading US colleges, including Harvard, Yale, and Columbia. The Treatise was considered superior to rivals because it was sophisticated, logically ordered, and well-written. Say originated the sensible tripartite division of the discipline into the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. Production, for Say, deserves the primary focus and thus comes first and occupies roughly half of his text. In contrast, most textbooks today devote undue space to consumption and portray the consumer as super-causal. Producing, Say argues, is more difficult than consuming; the former must surmount innumerable hurdles and isn’t automatic; the latter takes care of itself. Production is the creation of useful wealth (utility), while consumption is the destruction of wealth. We produce so that we can consume, but also so that we can save and accumulate wealth. We cannot, as many say, boost production by boosting consumption (least of all by government); nor can we prosper more simply by saving less.

Say’s influence on America in the 19th century was important to her remarkable, unprecedented rise, domestically and globally. In a letter to the American editor of his Treatise, Say asked “where should we expect sound doctrine to be better received than within a nation that supports and illustrates the value of free principles, by the most striking examples?” and added that “the old states of Europe are cankered with prejudices and bad habits” while “it is America who will teach them the height of prosperity which may be reached when governments follow the counsels of reason, and do not cost too much.” Say’s great Treatise being so readily and widely deployed in American colleges, it’s possible to conclude without doubt that he more than anyone else taught sound economics to Americans, in a century when, not coincidentally, they advanced so much in their liberty and prosperity.

The great French liberal Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) popularized much of Say’s political economy and in his Economic Harmonies (1848)20 wrote of Say and Say’s Law as follows:

It is fortunate for society that men of genius like Say have patiently and tirelessly applied themselves to observing, classifying, and setting down methodically all the facts that constitute this excellent science [of political economy]. Henceforth the human mind can move forward from this firm base toward new horizons. . . You too might be able to take this same torch from the hands of your predecessors and turn its light upon some of the dark recesses of the social sciences, and particularly upon those that have recently been plunged into darkness by the dissemination of mad doctrines.

The torch for Bastiat is Say’s Law. There’s no more important principle in political economy to get right and avoid getting wrong. As Bastiat knew, it’s akin to a torch that illuminates and facilitates the spread of knowledge, based on reason and reality. The torch helps us avoid a deleterious dissent into the darkness of “mad doctrines.”

If, as Say requires, the principles of political economy must be derived inductively from the facts of reality and applied deductively to new cases, they’ll be practical and thus worth studying. As Gilles Jacound explains,

Jean-Baptiste sought to make the subject of political economy known to a wide public and taught it right up to the last few weeks of his life. For Say, political economy is worth studying because it’s capable of making men more virtuous and societies more civilized. To do this, it must establish irrefutable truths. This is possible thanks to use of the experimental method which, in political economy, enables the establishment of laws as sound as those that exist in the field of physics. Once these laws are known, they help individuals act according to their true interests, enabling them to improve their material conditions. The material affluence favored by the knowledge of political economy contributes to men’s fulfilment and makes nations more civilized.21

Our Potential Saysian Future

Jean-Baptiste Say was, Palmer explains, “an economist in troubled times.”22 Likewise, today’s Saysian economist lives in troubled times, as an unprotected minority, troubled by the sight of crises and chaos caused by contraventions of pro-capitalist, pro-constitutional (Saysian) principles, yet blamed on freedom and met with still further resort to Keynesian excuses and abuses, pushing the world still further down a still-worse road to serfdom. Still, the Saysian principles abide; they exist; they’re true; they’re valuable, retrievable, applicable.

Draw My Life: My Name is Finance

America at her best once knew and practiced Say’s political economy. Then she lost it. But being true and timeless, it can be revisited, re-learned, and applied anew, in contemporary times, for the peace, propriety, and prosperity of all. Let’s now see who dares to seize Say’s torch, to wield it courageously for human betterment.


1 At FEE, see A Treatise on Political Economy (1880 edition; initial publication 1803). For an convenient, searchable version of the Treatise, click here.

2 For profiles of Say and his works, see Online Library of Liberty, Mises Institute, and David M. Hart, “The Life and Works of Jean-Baptiste Say,” The Library of Economics and Liberty, January 2, 2001.

3 Richard M. Salsman, “The Mind-Based Etymology of ‘Capitalism,’” The Objective Standard, Winter 2018.

4 Jean-Baptiste Say, Catechism of Political Economy (1821).

5 Larry J. Sechrest, “Jean-Baptiste Say: Neglected Champion of Laissez-Faire,” July 15, 2000.”

6 Richard M. Salsman, “Saysian Economics,” Part I (December 31, 2003) and Part II (January 4, 2004), The Capitalist Advisor, InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., summarized here. The full report is available upon request, here: rmsalsman@intermarketforecasting.com.

7 For a worthy exception, see the works of Steven Kates, especially Two Hundred Years of Say's Law: Essays on Economic Theory's Most Controversial Principle (Edward Elgar, 2003); Say’s Law and the Keynesian Revolution: How Macroeconomic Theory Lost its Way (Edward Elgar, 2009); What's Wrong with Keynesian Economic Theory? (Edward Elgar, 2016); and for today’s classroom or self-study, Free Market Economics: An Introduction for the General Reader (Edward Elgar, 2017).

8 Temporary micro-level surpluses (or shortages) can occur but are brief and necessarily, fully counterbalanced by micro-level shortages (or surpluses) elsewhere; persistent micro imbalances arise only if price adjustment is resisted, discouraged, or legally prohibited. For more on Say’s Law, see Richard M. Salsman, “Say’s Law versus Keynesian Economics,” American Institute for Economic Research, February 9, 2020; Richard M. Ebeling, “Jean-Baptiste Say and His Timeless Law of Markets,” Foundation for Economic Education, July 6, 2017; Steven Horwitz, “Understanding Say’s Law of Markets,” Foundation for Economic Education, January 1, 1997;  Thomas Sowell, Say’s Law: An Historical Analysis (1972); William Hutt, A Rehabilitation of Say’s Law (1974); and two books by Steven Kates: Two Hundred Years of Say's Law: Essays on Economic Theory's Most Controversial Principle (Edward Elgar, 2003) and Say’s Law and the Keynesian Revolution: How Macroeconomic Theory Lost its Way (Edward Elgar, 2009). See also, Steven Horowitz, “Say’s Law is Back: Steven Kates Rehabilitates Say’s Law of Markets,” Foundation for Economic Education, August 1, 1999.

9 In the Treatise Say contends that “the encouragement of mere consumption is of no benefit to commerce, for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire to consume; it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption.” Moreover, government is primarily (often significantly) a consumer, not a productive institution which can “stimulate” an economy (beyond its legitimate purpose of legally protecting private property rights and ensuring the rule of law).

10 Jean Baptiste Say, Letters to Mr. Malthus (1821).

11 See also Gary M. Galles, “Jean Baptiste Say on Why Property Rights Are the Key to Prosperity,” Foundation for Economic Education, February 18, 2019.

12 See Richard M. Salsman, “The Production of Money Isn’t (Necessarily) the Production of Wealth,” American Institute for Economic Research, March 18, 2019; James C.W. Ahiakpor, “On the Mythology of the Keynesian Multiplier: Unmasking the Myth and the Inadequacies of Some Earlier Criticisms,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 60(4), October 2001, pp. 745-773; Casey B. Mulligan, The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy (Oxford, 2012); and two by Harvard’s Robert Barro: “Government Spending is No Free Lunch,” Wall Street Journal, January 22, 2009 and “Voodoo Multipliers,” Economists’ Voice, February 2009, pp. 1-4.

13 George Reisman, “Platonic Competition,” Mises Daily Articles, Mises Institute, December 20, 2005.

14 See Raymond Keating, “A Walk on the Supply Side,” Foundation for Economic Education, June 1, 1995, who writes that “the seeds of supply-side thought were firmly planted by such classical economists as Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say.” According to Bruce Bartlett (Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, 1981), “In many respects, supply-side economics is nothing more than classical economics rediscovered. More particularly, it is Say’s Law of markets rediscovered. The essence of Say’s Law, named after the great French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, is that goods are ultimately paid for with other goods. Thus, it is production which limits the satisfaction of human wants, not the ability to consume.” Bartlett and Timothy Roth (The Supply-Side Solution, 1983) explain that “in the 1830s the great French economist Jean Baptiste Say articulated what has come to be called supply-side economics. Say’s Law declared that goods are ultimately paid for with other goods. Thus, it is aggregate supply that determines national income.”

15 Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Harmonies (1850).

16 William H. Hutt, A Rehabilitation of Say's Law (1974).

17 Ludwig von Mises, “Lord Keynes and Say’s Law,” The Freeman, Foundation for Economic Education, October 30, 1950.

18 Henry Hazlitt, “Keynes vs. Say’s Law,” in The Failure of the New Economics (1959).

19 Scholarly and illuminating intellectual-biographical accounts include R.R. Palmer, J-B. Say: An Economist in Troubled Times (Princeton, 1997); Evelyn L. Forget, The Social Economics of Jean-Baptiste Say: Markets and Virtue (Routledge, 1999); Richard Whatmore, Republicanism and the French Revolution: An Intellectual History of Jean-Baptiste Say’s Political Economy (Oxford, 2000); and Evert Schoorl, Jean-Baptiste Say: Revolutionary, Entrepreneur, Economist (Routledge, 2013).

20 Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Harmonies (1850).

21 Gilles Jacound, “Why Does Jean-Baptiste Say Think Economics is Worth Studying?” History of Economics Review 55 (Winter 2012), pp. 29-46

22 R.R. Palmer, J-B. Say: An Economist in Troubled Times (Princeton, 1997).

Richard M. Salsman Ph.D.
About the author:
Richard M. Salsman Ph.D.

Dr. Richard M. Salsman is a professor of political economy at Duke University, founder and president of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and senior scholar at The Atlas Society. In the 1980s and 1990s he was a banker at the Bank of New York and Citibank and an economist at Wainwright Economics, Inc. Dr. Salsman has authored five books: Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions (1990), The Collapse of Deposit Insurance and the Case for Abolition (1993), Gold and Liberty (1995), The Political Economy of Public Debt: Three Centuries of Theory and Evidence (2017), and Where Have all the Capitalists Gone?: Essays in Moral Political Economy (2021). He is also author of a dozen chapters and scores of articles. His work has appeared in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, Reason Papers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun, Forbes, the Economist, the Financial Post, the Intellectual Activist, and The Objective Standard. He speaks frequently before pro-liberty student groups, including Students for Liberty (SFL), Young Americans for Liberty(YAL), Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Dr. Salsman earned his B.A. in law and economics from Bowdoin College (1981), his M.A. in economics from New York University (1988), and his Ph.D. in political economy from Duke University (2012). His personal website can be found at https://richardsalsman.com/.

For The Atlas Society, Dr. Salsman hosts a monthly Morals & Markets webinar, exploring the intersections between ethics, politics, economics, and markets. You can also find excerpts from Salsman's Instagram Takeovers HERE that can be found on our Instagram each month!

Recent Articles (Summaries)

Rent Selling Countries are More Corrupt and Less Wealthy -- AIER, May 13, 2022

In the field of political economy in recent decades an important and valuable emphasis has been placed on “rent seeking,” defined as pressure groups lobbying for (and getting) special favors (bestowed on themselves) and disfavors (imposed on their rivals or enemies). But rent seeking is only the demand side of political favoritism; the less-emphasized supply side – call it rent selling– is the real instigator. Only states have the power to create zero-sum political favors, disfavors, and cronies. Cronyism isn’t a brand of capitalism, but a symptom of hybrid systems; interventionist states that heavily influence socioeconomic results actively invite lobbying by those who are most affected and can most afford it (the rich and powerful). But the root problem of favoritism isn’t one of demanders who bribe, but of suppliers who extort. ‘Crony capitalism’ is a blatant contradiction, a ruse to blame capitalism for the results of anti-capitalist policies.

NATO Expansion as an Instigator of the Russia-Ukraine War -- Clubhouse, March 16, 2022

In this 90-minute audio interview, with audience Q&A, Dr. Salsman discusses 1) why national self-interest should guide US foreign policy (but doesn’t), 2) why NATO’s decades-long expansion eastward toward Russia’s border (and hints it might add Ukraine) has fueled Russia-Ukraine conflicts, and the current war, 3) how Reagan-Bush heroically (and peacefully) won the Cold War, 4) how/why Democrat presidents in this century (Clinton, Obama, Biden) have refused to cultivate post-Cold War peace, have been pushers of NATO, have been unjustifiably belligerent towards Russia, and have undermined U.S. national strength and security, 5) why Ukraine is unfree and corrupt, is not a genuine U.S. ally (or NATO member), is not relevant to U.S. national security, and is undeserving of official U.S. support of any kind, and 6) why today’s bipartisan, near-ubiquitous support for a wider war, promoted heavily by the MMIC (military-media-industrial-complex), is both reckless and ominous.

Ukraine: The Facts Don’t Excuse Putin, But They Do Condemn NATO -- The Capitalist Standard, March 14, 2022

You needn’t excuse or endorse Putin’s brutish pugilism to recognize plain facts and reasonable strategic concerns: to acknowledge that NATO, the American warmongers, and Russo-phobes made much of this conflict possible. They’ve also instigated a Russia-China alliance, first economic, now potentially military. “Make the world democratic” is their battle cry, regardless of whether locals want it, or whether it brings liberty (rarely); or whether it topples authoritarians and stages a fair vote. What mostly happens, post-toppling, is chaos, carnage, and cruelty (see Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.). It never seems to end because the nation-breakers never learn. NATO has been using Ukraine as a puppet, effectively a client state of NATO (i.e., the U.S.) since 2008. That’s why the Biden crime family is well known for “pulling strings” there. In 2014, NATO even helped foment the coup d’etat of Ukraine’s duly elected pro-Russia president. Putin reasonably prefers Ukraine be a neutral buffer zone; if, as NATO-Biden insists, that’s not possible, Putin would rather simply wreck the place — as he’s doing — than own it, run it, or use it as a westward stage for invasions of other nations.

The Costly but Deliberate U.S. Labor Shortage -- AIER, September 28, 2021

For more than a year, due to Covid-phobia and lockdowns, the U.S. has suffered various types and magnitudes of labor shortages, the case in which the quantity of labor demanded by would-be employers exceeds quantities supplied by would-be employees. This isn’t accidental or temporary. Joblessness has been both mandated (by shutdowns of “nonessential” businesses) and subsidized (with lucrative and extended “jobless benefits”). That makes it difficult for many businesses to attract and hire labor of sufficient quantity, quality, reliability, and affordability. Material or chronic surpluses and shortages reflect not “market failure” but the failure of governments to let markets clear. Why is so much of this unclear even to those who should know better? It’s not because they don’t know basic economics; many are ideologically anti-capitalist, which biases them against employers; channeling Marx, they falsely believe capitalists profit by underpaying workers and over-charging customers.

From Fast Growth to No Growth to De-Growth -- AIER, August 4, 2021

Increasing prosperity over the long term is made possible by sustained economic growth over the short-term; prosperity is the broader concept, entailing not merely more output but a quality of output valued by buyers. Prosperity brings a higher standard of living, in which we enjoy better health, longer lifespans, and greater happiness. Unfortunately, empirical measures in America show that its economic growth rate is decelerating, and it’s not a transitory problem; it’s been happening for decades; Sadly, few leaders recognize the grim trend; few can explain it; some even prefer it. The next step could be a push for “de-growth, ”or successive contractions in economic output. The slow-growth preference was normalized over many years and this can happen also with the de-growth preference. Today’s de-growth acolytes are a minority, but decades ago the slow-growth fans also were a minority.

When Reason is Out, Violence is In -- Capitalism Magazine, January 13, 2021

In the aftermath of the Trump-inspired right-wing assault on the U.S. Capitol last week, each “side” rightly accused the other of hypocrisy, of not “practicing what they preach,” of not “walking the talk.” Last summer left-wingers tried to justify (as “peaceful protest”) their own violence at Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and elsewhere, but now denounce right-wing violence at the Capitol. Why is hypocrisy, a vice, now so ubiquitous?  Its opposite is the virtue of integrity, which is rare these days because for decades universities have inculcated philosophical pragmatism, a doctrine which does not counsel “practicality” but instead undermines it by insisting that fixed and valid principles are impossible (hence dispensable), that opinion is manipulable. For the pragmatists, “perception is reality” and “reality is negotiable.”  In place of reality, they prefer “virtual reality,” instead of justice, “social justice.” They embody all that is fake and phony. All that remains as a guide to action is rank opportunism, expediency, “rules for radicals,” whatever “works” – to win an argument, advance a cause, or enact a law – for now at least (until . . . it fails to work). What explains today’s bi-partisan violence? The absence of reason (and objectivity). There is (literally) no reason for it, but there’s an explanation: when reason is out, persuasion and peaceful assembly-protest also are out. What remains is emotionalism – and violence.

Biden’s Disdain for Shareholders is Fascistic -- The Capitalist Standard, December 16, 2020

What does president-elect Biden think of capitalism? In a speech last July he said, “It’s way past time we put an end to the era of shareholder capitalism – the idea that the only responsibility a corporation has is with shareholders. That’s simply not true. It’s an absolute farce. They have a responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country. That isn’t a new or radical notion.” Yes, it’s not a new notion – that corporations must serve non-owners(including the government). Everyone these days – from the business professor to the journalist to the Wall Streeter to the “man on the street” – seems to favor “stakeholder capitalism.” But it’s also not a radical notion? It’s fascism, plain and simple. Is fascism no longer radical? Is it the “new” norm –albeit borrowed from the 1930s (FDR, Mussolini, Hitler)? In fact, “shareholder capitalism” is redundant, and “stakeholder capitalism” is oxymoronic. The former is genuine capitalism: private ownership (and control) of the means of production (and its output, too). The latter is fascism: private ownership but public control, imposed by non-owners. Socialism, of course, is public (state)ownership and public control of the means of production. Capitalism entails and promotes mutually beneficial contractual responsibility; fascism destroys that, by brutally severing ownership and control.

The Basic Truths of Saysian Economics and Their Contemporary Relevance –- Foundation for Economic Education, July 1, 2020

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) was a principled defender of the constitutionally limited state, even more consistently so than many of his classically liberal contemporaries. Most known for “Say’s Law,” the first principle of economics, he should be considered one of the most consistent and powerful exponents of capitalism, decades before the word was coined (by its opponents, in the 1850s).  I’ve studied quite a lot of political economy over the decades and consider Say’s Treatise on Political Economy (1803) the best work ever published in the field, not only surpassing contemporary works but also those like Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) and Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1949).

Fiscal-Monetary 'Stimulus' is Depressive -- The Hill, May 26, 2020

Many economists believe public spending and money issuance create wealth or purchasing power. Not so. Our only means of obtaining real goods and services is from wealth creation —production. What we spend must come from income, which itself must come from producing. Say’s Law teaches that only supply constitutes demand; we must produce before we demand, spend or consume. Economists typically blame recessions on “market failure” or “deficient aggregate demand,” but recessions are due mainly to government failure; when policies punish profits or production, aggregate supply contracts.

Freedom Is Indivisible, Which Is Why All Types Are Now Eroding -- Capitalism Magazine, April 18, 2020

The point of the principle of indivisibility is to remind us that the various freedoms rise or fall together, even if with various lags, even if some freedom, for a time, seems to be rising as others fall; in whatever direction the freedoms move, eventually they tend to dovetail. The principle that freedom is indivisible reflects the fact that humans are an integration of mind and body, spirit and matter, consciousness and existence; the principle implies that humans must choose to exercise their reason – the faculty unique to them – to grasp reality, live ethically, and flourish as best they can. The principle is embodied in the better-known one that we have individual rights – to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness – and that the sole and proper purpose of government is to be an agent of our right of self-defense, to constitutionally preserve, protect, and defend our rights, not to abridge or nullify them. If a people wants to preserve freedom, they must fight for its preservation in all realms, not just those in which they most live, or most favor – not in one, or some, but not others, and not in one or some at the expense of others.

Tripartite Governance: A Guidepost for Proper Policymaking -- AIER, April 14, 2020

When we hear the term “government” most of us think of politics – of states, regimes, capitols, agencies, bureaucracies, administrations, and politicians. We call them “officials,” presuming they possess a unique, elevated, and authoritative status.  But that’s only one type of governance in our lives; the three types are public governance, private governance, and personal governance. Each I best conceived as a sphere of control, but the three must be balanced properly, to optimize the preservation of rights and liberties. The ominous trend of late has been a sustained invasion of personal and private governance spheres by public (political) governance.

Free Things and Unfree People -- AIER, June 30, 2019

Politicians today assert loudly and sanctimoniously that many things – food, housing, health care, jobs, childcare, a cleaner-safer environment, transportation, schooling, utilities, and even college – should be “free,” or publicly subsidized. No one asks why such claims are valid.  Are they to be accepted blindly on faith or affirmed by mere intuition (feeling)? It doesn’t sound scientific.  Shouldn’t all crucial claims pass tests of logic and evidence? Why do freebie claims “sound good” to so many people?  In fact, they’re mean, even heartless, because illiberal, hence fundamentally inhumane. In a free, capitalist system of constitutional government there is to be equal justice under law, not discriminatory legal treatment; there’s no justification for privileging one group over another, including consumers over producers (or vice versa).  Every individual (or association) must be free to choose and act, without resorting to mooching or looting.  The freebies approach to political campaigning and policymaking brazenly panders to mooching and, by expanding the size, scope, and power of government, also institutionalizes looting.

We Should Celebrate Diversity in Wealth Too -- AIER, December 26, 2018

In most realms of life today, diversity and variety are justifiably celebrated and respected. Differences in athletic and artistic talent, for example, entail not only robust, entertaining competitions, but fanatics (“fans”) who respect, applaud, award, and handsomely compensate the winners (“stars” and “champions”) while also depriving (at least relatively) the losers. Yet the realm of economics — of markets and commerce, business and finance, income and wealth — elicits a near-opposite response, even though it’s not, like sporting matches, a zero-sum game. In the economic realm, we observe differential talents and outcomes unequally compensated (as we should expect), but for many people, diversity and variety in this realm are disdained and envied, with predictable results: a perpetual redistribution of income and wealth by punitive taxation, stiff regulation, and periodic trust-busting. Here winners are more suspected than respected, while losers receive sympathies and subsidies. What accounts for this rather odd anomaly? For the sake of justice, liberty, and prosperity, people should abandon their anti-commercial prejudices and cease deriding unequal wealth and income. They should celebrate and respect diversity in the economic realm at least as muchas they do in the athletic and artistic realms. Human talent comes in a variety of wonderful forms. Let’s not deny or deride any of them.

To Deter Gun Slaughters, the Federal Government Must Cease Disarming the Innocents -- Forbes, August 12, 2012

Gun control-advocates want to blame mass shootings on “too many guns,” but the real problem is far too few guns and too little gun freedom. Restrictions on our Constitution’s 2ndAmendment right to bear arms invite slaughter and mayhem. Gun-controllers have convinced politicians and law enforcement officials that public areas are especially prone to gun violence and have pushed for onerous bans and restrictions on gun use in such areas “gun-free zones”). But they are accessories to such crimes, by encouraging government to ban or restrict our basic civil right to self-defense; they’ve goaded stray crazies into publicly slaughtering people with impunity. Self-defense is a crucial right; it requires gun-toting and full use not only in our homes and on our property but also (and especially) in public. How often do gun-wielding policemen actually prevent or stop violent crime? Almost never. They are not “crime-stoppers” but note-takers who arrive at a scene. Gun sales have jumped in the past month, after the movie theater slaughter, but that didn’t mean those guns could be used in movie theaters – or in many other public venues. The legal prohibition is the real problem – and the injustice must be terminated immediately. The evidence is overwhelming now: no one any longer can claim, in candor, that gun-controllers are “pacific,” “peace-loving,” or “well-meaning,” if they are avowed enemies of a key civil right and abject abettors of evil.

Protectionism as Mutual Masochism -- The Capitalist Standard, July 24, 2018

The logical and moral case for free trade, whether it’s inter-personal, international, or intra-national, is that it’s mutually beneficial. Unless one opposes gain per se or assumes exchange is win-lose (a “zero-sum” game), one should herald trade. Apart from self-sacrificing altruists, no one trades voluntarily unless it benefits oneself. Mr. Trump pledges to “make America great again,” a noble sentiment, but protectionism only hurts rather than helps do that job. Roughly half the parts in Ford’s best-selling trucks are now imported; if Trump has his way, we couldn’t even make Ford trucks, let alone make America great again. To “buy American,” as the nationalists and nativists demand, is to eschew today’s beneficial products while underrating the benefits of yesterday’s globalization of trade and fearing tomorrow’s. Just as America at her best is a “melting pot” of personal backgrounds, identities, and origins, so also products at their best embody a melting pot of globally-sourced labor and resources. Mr. Trump claims to be pro-American but is unrealistically pessimistic about her productive power and competitiveness. Given the benefits of free trade, the best policy any government can adopt is unilateral free trade (with other non-enemy governments), which means: free trade regardless of whether other governments also adopt freer trade.

Best Case for Capitalism -- The Capitalist Standard, October 10, 2017

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged (1957) by Ayn Rand (1905-1982), a best-selling novelist-philosopher who extolled reason, rational self-interest, individualism, capitalism, and Americanism. Few books this old continue to sell as well, even in hardcover, and many investors and CEOs have long praised its theme and insight. In a 1990s survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club, respondents named Atlas Shrugged as second only to the Bible as the book that made a big difference in their lives.  Socialists understandably reject Rand because she rejects their claim that capitalism is exploitative or prone to collapse; yet conservatives are wary of her because she denies that capitalism counts on religion. Her major contribution is to show that capitalism isn’t only the system that’s economically productive but also the one that’s morally just.  It rewards people of honesty, integrity, independence, and productiveness; yet it marginalizes those who choose instead to be less-than-human, and it punishes the vicious and the inhumane. Whether one is pro-capitalist, pro-socialist, or indifferent between the two, this book is worth a read – as are her other works, including The Fountainhead (1943), The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism (1964),and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966).

Trump and GOP Condone Monopoly Medicine -- The Capitalist Standard, July 20, 2017

The GOP and President Trump, having brazenly broken their campaign promises by refusing to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare, now claim they’ll just repeal it and see what happens. Don’t count on that. At root, they don’t really mind ObamaCare and the “single payer” system (government medicine monopoly) to which it leads. Abominable as it is, they accept it philosophically, so they also accept politically. Trump and most Republicans condone the socialist principles latent in ObamaCare. Perhaps they even realize it’ll continue to erode the better aspects of the system and lead to a “single-payer system” (government monopoly on medicine) –which Obama [and Trump] have always said they wanted. Nor do most American voters today seem to object to this monopoly. They might object to it decades from now, when they realize that access to health insurance doesn’t guarantee access to health care (especially not under socialized medicine, which reduces quality, affordability, and access). But by then it’ll be too late to rehabilitate those freer elements that made America medicine so great in the first place.

The Inequality Debate: Senseless Without Consideration of What is Earned -- Forbes, February 1, 2012

Instead of debating the truly monumental questions of our troubled times – namely, What is the proper size and scope of government? (answer: smaller), and Should we have more capitalism or more corporatism? (answer: capitalism) – political media instead are debating the alleged evils of “inequality.” Their shameless envy has run rampant lately, but the focus on inequality is convenient for conservatives and leftists alike.  Mr. Obama accepts a false theory of “fairness” that rejects the common-sense, merit-based concept of justice that older Americans might recognize as “desert,” where justice means we deserve (or earn) what we get in life, if by our free choice. Legitimately, there is “distributive justice,” with rewards for good or productive behavior, and “retributive justice,” with punishments for evil or destructive behavior.

Capitalism Isn't Corporatism or Cronyism -- Forbes, December 7, 2011

Capitalism is the greatest socio-economic system in human history, because it’s so moral and so productive– the two features so essential to human survival and flourishing. It’s moral because it enshrines and fosters rationality and self-interest – “enlightened greed,” if you will – the two key virtues we all must consciously adopt and practice if we’re to pursue and attain life and love, health and wealth, adventure and inspiration. It produces not only material-economic abundance but the aesthetic values seen in the arts and entertainment. But what is capitalism, exactly? How do we know it when we see it or have it – or when we haven’t, or don’t?  Capitalism’s greatest intellectual champion, Ayn Rand (1905-1982), once defined it as “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” This recognition of genuine rights (not “rights” to force others to get us what we wish) is all-crucial and it has a distinctive moral foundation. In fact, capitalism is the system of rights, liberty, civility, peace and non-sacrificial prosperity; it’s not the system of government that unjustly favors capitalists at others’ expense. It provides a level legal playing field plus officials who serve us as low-profile referees (not arbitrary rule-makers or score-changers). To be sure, capitalism also entails inequality – of ambition, talent, income, or wealth – because that’s how individuals (and firms) really are; they’re unique, not clones or inter-changeable parts, as the egalitarians claim.

Holy Scripture and the Welfare State -- Forbes, April 28, 2011

Many people wonder why Washington seems forever mired in a stalemate about what policies might cure excessive spending, budget deficits and debt. We're told that the root of the problem is "polarized politics," that "extremists" control the debate and preclude solutions that only bipartisan unity can deliver.  In fact, on many issues both "sides" wholly agree – on the solid basis of a shared religious faith.  In short, not much changes because both sides agree on so much, especially about what it means to "do the right thing" morally. It's not widely reported, but most Democrats and Republicans, whether from the left or right politically, are quite religious, and thus tend to endorse the modern welfare state. Even if not all politicians feel so strongly about this, they suspect (rightly) that voters do so. Thus even minor proposals to restrain government spending elicit accusations that the proponent is callous, heartless, uncharitable, and un-Christian – and the charges ring true to most people because Scripture has long-conditioned them to embrace the welfare state.

Where Have All the Capitalists Gone? -- Forbes, December 5, 2010

After the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and dissolution of the USSR (1991), almost everyone conceded that capitalism was the historic "victor" over socialism. Yet interventionist policies reflecting largely socialist premises have returned with a vengeance in recent years, while capitalism has been blamed for causing the 2007-2009 financial crisis and global economic recession. What explains this seemingly abrupt shift in the world's estimate of capitalism? After all, apolitical-economic system, whether capitalist or socialist, is a broad and persistent phenomenon that cannot logically be construed as beneficial one decade yet destructive the next. So where have all the capitalists gone? Curiously, a "socialist" today means an advocate for the political-economic system of socialism as a moral ideal, yet a "capitalist" means a Wall Street financier, venture capitalist or entrepreneur – not an advocate of the political-economic system of capitalism as a moral ideal. In truth, capitalism embodies the life-enhancing, wealth-creating ethic of rational self-interest –of egoism, of "greed," if you will – which is perhaps most blatantly manifested in the profit motive. So long as this humane ethic is distrusted or despised, capitalism will suffer unearned blame for any social-economic ill. The collapse of socialist regimes two decades ago didn't mean capitalism was finally being hailed for its many virtues; the historic event only merely reminded people of capitalism's productive ability – an ability already long-proven and long-acknowledged even by its worst enemies. Persistent animosity toward capitalism today rests on moral, not practical grounds. Unless rational self-interest is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism thus improves, socialism will keep making comebacks, despite its deep and dark record of human misery.

No items found.
No items found.