April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad

« Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy | Main | Steve Pejovich Knows How to Ask the Right Questions? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is fantastic, fascinating work. Are you and Lewin still working on a book-length treatment of these questions? I remember reading something about that on one of your webpages a few months back.

Peter and I have a paper in the next issue of the RAE applying market process arguments to some current issues in marriage and divorce. The manuscript version can be found here:


I'm working on a solo book project that is more in line with the stuff in this entry. It remains a work in progress. I hope to have a draft done later this year.

Dr. Horowitz,

I can't wait for the book to be released. My thanks to you again.

An area of interest for me, as pertaining to abuse and neglect, is the irrelevancy of who marries whom---in undifferentiated societies. There, the chances that the children will turn out "well" depends less upon whether the parents agree - and get along - because customs, practices, etc. are determined and, are largely the same, within the society. Here, the proverb, indeed, applies. "It takes a village to raise a child."

But in highly differentiated societies (i.e., capitalism), where childrearing is almost exclusively a parental job, how children "turn out" falls a great deal on the customs, practices, norms, etc. of the parents. Therefore, methinks, if a couple is planning to have children, who marries whom becomes quite important. The problem, however, is that there are no criteria for marriage outside of pure affection and monetary reasons. And, as you note, monetary reasons are becoming much less of a criterion with women increasingly equipped with human capital comparable to men.

This, I believe, can become a problem for children because love can be "misleading." And hence, leaving the parties to the (affection engendered) marriage bitter about meeting each other and having children. Nevertheless, marriage for love is ALWAYS preferable to marriage for monetary reasons because money is too flexible to mediate human relationships.

Last, while I am not totally happy about the rising number of divorces, and the decline in the number of marriages, I much prefer this to children raised in conflict-ridden homes. The point I am trying to make is that I do believe that citizens should be more solicitous about how families "function." But, how they "function," often, has a great deal to do with how they emerged. That is, are they the by-product of "hedonic marriages"/love matches or are they the products of a number of familial interests such as love, money, personality compatibility, etc.?

Btw, you are a Ropkean!

Thanks for the link. I see you've adopted the standard post-revival naming convention, "Noun 1, Noun 2, and Noun 3: An Austrian/Market Process Approach on Noun 4." We could do a generator a la the post-modernism generator, but for Austrian economics paper titles.

Not a complaint, just an observation. Besides, institutions, such as this, decrease uncertainty and make the formation of plans easier and their completion more likely.

This was an age of innocence and happiness.God bless you all, and God bless America !

Great read! You have a very interesting viewpoint. It really makes a lot of sense. I will have to read your book!

I just have to agree with all those uttered comments about your article. Your points really do make sense! Reading through your book is a very productive and effectively useful thing to do with all your words that would truly touch ones heart and sense!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books