Don't be sorry, you can still suffer with me. Here is more, some quotes about economics from that book:
Whatever you subsidize, you increase – whatever you tax, you decrease.
Taxation and subsidies are incentives and disincentives for human beings, but since not everything owned by human beings is made by them, Molyneux isn't quite right here. Take a look at the land-value tax. Since biological need is not caused by other individuals, Molyneux "concludes" nobody is using force in the "free market". This leaves out nature being privatized. As he puts it:
When you get hungry, or thirsty, or cold, no one is initiating force against you.
(Even where taxation or subsidies are directly applied to jobs, it doesn't follow that the incentives work out strictly in the direction as econ101 tells you. If I have a certain level of doubt about my future prospects in employment, then it can make sense for me to work a bit longer for more money, just like econ101 tells you. However, if I am very confident about finding employment in the future as well as choice in how long I can work, then an increase in my hourly wage might as well translate into me choosing to work a shorter time.)
Also, in any field of human productivity, a tiny minority of people produce the vast majority of output. This is described as a Pareto distribution. In any productive group, the square root of the workers produces half the product. This means that if you have 10,000 employees, 100 of them produce half the value.
The Pareto distribution is about a distribution pattern often observed when it comes to wealth, the existence of the pattern does not imply a corresponding productivity. Land ownership is distributed very unevenly. Absentee landlords make money (or more accurate: get money) because of good things happening in the vicinity of the land they own, making that an attractive location for living. How on earth is that due the productivity of the landlord? Some guy once said, "Requiring definitions is our most fundamental weapon against sophistry. Sophists avoid definitions and utilize colourful language…" So, Stefan, what tortured definition of productivity do you use to arrive at your conclusion here?
The word “inflation” actually means an increase in the money supply; the resulting increase in prices is merely the effect of that increase.
Counter-example: A lot of productive capacity of a country gets wiped out by a natural disaster while the amount of currency in electronic accounts stays the same. Inflation or deflation are not intrinsic to this or that particular single thing, these concepts describe the relation between the things and services and the amount of money chasing them.
He thinks Venezuela is socialist, and apparently, so is "most of Africa".
Good workers don’t want job protections, because good workers are protected by, well, being good workers.
Clever kids of entrepreneurs don't want to start at a cozy job at dad's firm or inherit any wealth, because they surely can pull up themselves by their own bootstraps!
However, if the bad worker can unite the team against the boss, his own sloppy work can be more easily overlooked. If the bad worker can convince the team that the boss is malevolent, then job protections can be sought, which protect the bad worker.
So, the brilliant boss doesn't know enough about the work processes to figure out whether people are slumming it? Hmm. A thing that Molymeme leaves out here is that once the evil sophist work demagogues (if that's a word) his colleagues into supporting his position, how do the workers then convince the boss to make the changes? The answer is by the threat of strike. And why is a strike a threat? An individual worker alone may not make much of a difference. Indeed, unless it's a very small firm, the boss likely has some redundancy in the system. Any mediocre economist should be able to tell you that, of course, the potential cost of a group withdrawing collectively at once is much higher than the cost of an individual worker withdrawing multiplied by the number of people on strike, as there are urgent things to do and less urgent things. Said the other way around, the productivity of the group of workers divided equally among them is likely much higher than the marginal difference removing one worker would make. This is also a banal fact for the mediocre mainstream economist ("Ah, yes, the marginal productivity of the worker…"). What the mainstream economist doesn't explain is why one should believe this difference "naturally" belongs to the boss.