Discussion of the Austrian School

[oldfart]

I have been reading some stuff mainly about Rothbard, which has got me to thinking. Is there any interest in a somewhat technical and nerdy discussion of the "Austrian School" and should it be here or in the CDZ? My first choice would be to put it here. What say you?

 

[Oddball]

Better start in in the CDZ or the cement-headed progressive socialist trolls will take it over.

 

[Dot Com]

CDZ. Before you know it people will start "throwing spreadsheets at each other" -Paul Krugman

No, seriously though, I get pretty worked-up about this stuff especially when its used, by those on the right, as a bludgeon on the poor.

 

[Oddball]

See what I mean?

 

[Dot Com]

Stephanie will straighten this out. Where is that rw genius on all matters economics?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Stephanie will straighten this out. Where is that rw genius on all matters economics?

How often do you hear the "right-wing" discussing Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, or Murray Rothbard, honestly?

 

[Dot Com]

Stephanie will straighten this out. Where is that rw genius on all matters economics?

How often do you hear the "right-wing" discussing Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, or Murray Rothbard, honestly?

Paul Ryan (R) promotes von Mises. He is also a Randian & a high ranking, Repub, washinton-insider. Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Stephanie will straighten this out. Where is that rw genius on all matters economics?

How often do you hear the "right-wing" discussing Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, or Murray Rothbard, honestly?

Paul Ryan (R) promotes von Mises. He is also a Randian & a high ranking, Repub, washinton-insider. Are the two mutually exclusive?

Of course they're not, but, in reality, how many are there? I've never heard Paul Ryan mention Mises, though it's possible. Bachmann of course said she reads Mises on the beach, but do either of them advocate a return to the gold standard or ending the Federal Reserve? Do they promote the Austrian theory of the business cycle which was perhaps Mises' greatest contribution?

The simple fact is that the Austrian school is not popular within the circles of power, right or left, because the Austrian school doesn't support government power.

 

[Oddball]

How often do you hear the "right-wing" discussing Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, or Murray Rothbard, honestly?

Paul Ryan (R) promotes von Mises. He is also a Randian & a high ranking, Repub, washinton-insider. Are the two mutually exclusive?

Of course they're not, but, in reality, how many are there? I've never heard Paul Ryan mention Mises, though it's possible. Bachmann of course said she reads Mises on the beach, but do either of them advocate a return to the gold standard or ending the Federal Reserve? Do they promote the Austrian theory of the business cycle which was perhaps Mises' greatest contribution?

The simple fact is that the Austrian school is not popular within the circles of power, right or left, because the Austrian school doesn't support government power.

There's that and the fool assumption that just because Ryan has his employees read Rand, that it's how he governs...Which, judging from his track record, he clearly doesn't.

But that expecting the blind partisan demagogues to notice such things is just too much to expect.

 

[Kimura]

I have been reading some stuff mainly about Rothbard, which has got me to thinking. Is there any interest in a somewhat technical and nerdy discussion of the "Austrian School" and should it be here or in the CDZ? My first choice would be to put it here. What say you?

Carl Menger is probably the only relevant economist out of the whole Austrian School. He helped develop the theory of marginal utility. Off the top of my head, several of their claims are basically false, such as the Austrian Business Cycle and their utter rejection of econometrics and mathematics. I also think the entire premise of praxeology is just plain wrong.

I do appreciate the intellectual contributions of Hayek, von Mises, etal.... I do thoroughly detest Murray Rothbard, though. I don't think he understood macroeconomics.

 

[william the wie]

Hayek was the true mainstream of Austrian economics. With an admitted horizon of prediction of 3-9 months no one can seriously claim that economics is not chaotic in math terms, which in turn means that government intervention with very limited exceptions adds costs without adding provable value. The exceptions tend to be logistical, legal definitions of property and legal protection.

Also high tech revolutions have increasing returns which is why they grow so fast. The mainstream of economics rejects even the possibility of increasing returns such as Moore's law.

So, I would like to see this one rip.

 

[Oddball]

Hayek was the true mainstream of Austrian economics. With an admitted horizon of prediction of 3-9 months no one can seriously claim that economics is not chaotic in math terms, which in turn means that government intervention with very limited exceptions adds costs without adding provable value. The exceptions tend to be logistical, legal definitions of property and legal protection.

Also high tech revolutions have increasing returns which is why they grow so fast. The mainstream of economics rejects even the possibility of increasing returns such as Moore's law.

So, I would like to see this one rip.

Not when it comes to gubmint "stimulus" and other trappings of economic central planning and their socialistic welfare state....Then they pretty much claim that it's Moore's Law on steroids.

 

[oldfart]

Carl Menger is probably the only relevant economist out of the whole Austrian School. He helped develop the theory of marginal utility. Off the top of my head, several of their claims are basically false, such as the Austrian Business Cycle and their utter rejection of econometrics and mathematics. I also think the entire premise of praxeology is just plain wrong.

I do appreciate the intellectual contributions of Hayek, von Mises, etal.... I do thoroughly detest Murray Rothbard, though. I don't think he understood macroeconomics.

It sounds like we have a sufficient number to support an intelligent discussion! We may even have enough to drive away trolls (except Ed. There is no level of abuse that could drive away Ed. Besides, he's our pet troll!)

Board rules frown on beginning threads in different for_a on the same topic, so I guess we need to pick one. There is a lot of support for CDZ, so I'll start a thread there with a substantive post tonight and we can continue a not-too-wonkish discussion here.

So, I agree we have to start with Menger and his adoring pupil Mises. As Rothbard rarely disagrees with Mises and spent a lot of time defending Mises, he also logically follows. We have a bit of a problem with Hayek, who is really close to the neo-classical mainstream. But then both sides downplay the role of the Austrians in the original Marginalist Revolution, making the Austrians seem more antagonistic to the neo-classicals than they really are. Friedman is a critic of the Austrians in a number of key respects, so I have trouble considering him in the group. Any major figures I've left out?

 

[Oddball]

Friedman is a critic of the Austrians in a number of key respects, so I have trouble considering him in the group. Any major figures I've left out?

As are almost all Keynesian & Chicagoan fiat monitarists....Nothing new there.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I have been reading some stuff mainly about Rothbard, which has got me to thinking. Is there any interest in a somewhat technical and nerdy discussion of the "Austrian School" and should it be here or in the CDZ? My first choice would be to put it here. What say you?

I've read almost everything rothbard has put forth. What particularly about rothbard would you like to discuss regarding austrian view? There are probably some pre-requisites to reading rothbard as he piggybacks many of Mises and Menger's (among others) work.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I have been reading some stuff mainly about Rothbard, which has got me to thinking. Is there any interest in a somewhat technical and nerdy discussion of the "Austrian School" and should it be here or in the CDZ? My first choice would be to put it here. What say you?

Carl Menger is probably the only relevant economist out of the whole Austrian School. He helped develop the theory of marginal utility. Off the top of my head, several of their claims are basically false, such as the Austrian Business Cycle and their utter rejection of econometrics and mathematics. I also think the entire premise of praxeology is just plain wrong.

I do appreciate the intellectual contributions of Hayek, von Mises, etal.... I do thoroughly detest Murray Rothbard, though. I don't think he understood macroeconomics.

Can you provide evidence that the business cycle theory is "basically false"? It's a pretty well known understanding of market intervention today. Even the federal reserve understands the principles of the business cycle.

I can help you start with your assertion by providing a comparison:

 

[oldfart]

Hayek was the true mainstream of Austrian economics.

I have made the initial post in the Clean Debate Zone, and posited the question as to whether Hayek and Rothbard/Mises are really the same school. They represent at the minimum two distinctly different branches.

With an admitted horizon of prediction of 3-9 months no one can seriously claim that economics is not chaotic in math terms, which in turn means that government intervention with very limited exceptions adds costs without adding provable value. The exceptions tend to be logistical, legal definitions of property and legal protection.

I agree with you about the predictive time horizons, but I would make it a bit longer, at least for tax and fiscal policy. And I agree that bad policy has costs in excess of benefits. But the remedy for bad policy is not no policy, it is good policy and that is what I think the debate is about.

Also high tech revolutions have increasing returns which is why they grow so fast. The mainstream of economics rejects even the possibility of increasing returns such as Moore's law.

I'm skeptical of the increasing returns argument, but that's a debate for another time. You could start a thread in the CDZ about it (hint, hint).

So, I would like to see this one rip.

Me too! Let the games begin!

 

[oldfart]

I have been reading some stuff mainly about Rothbard, which has got me to thinking. Is there any interest in a somewhat technical and nerdy discussion of the "Austrian School" and should it be here or in the CDZ? My first choice would be to put it here. What say you?

I've read almost everything rothbard has put forth. What particularly about rothbard would you like to discuss regarding austrian view? There are probably some pre-requisites to reading rothbard as he piggybacks many of Mises and Menger's (among others) work.

Much of Rothbard's work is a defense of Mises, and of course Mises worshipped Menger. We'll just have to see where the discussion leads. I assume that BB's "roundaboutness" won't excite much discussion, but Rothbard's welfare theory will.

 

[Kimura]

I have been reading some stuff mainly about Rothbard, which has got me to thinking. Is there any interest in a somewhat technical and nerdy discussion of the "Austrian School" and should it be here or in the CDZ? My first choice would be to put it here. What say you?

Carl Menger is probably the only relevant economist out of the whole Austrian School. He helped develop the theory of marginal utility. Off the top of my head, several of their claims are basically false, such as the Austrian Business Cycle and their utter rejection of econometrics and mathematics. I also think the entire premise of praxeology is just plain wrong.

I do appreciate the intellectual contributions of Hayek, von Mises, etal.... I do thoroughly detest Murray Rothbard, though. I don't think he understood macroeconomics.

Can you provide evidence that the business cycle theory is "basically false"? It's a pretty well known understanding of market intervention today. Even the federal reserve understands the principles of the business cycle.

I can help you start with your assertion by providing a comparison:

Yup, good ole' Roger Garrison. Here we go with the Wicksellian monetary equilibrium and the mythical natural rate of interest. I shall endeavor to to point out the problems in a concise manner.

I have to dust off some Jesús Huerta de Soto. I need quotes to point out the inconsistencies. I really don't want to get into the differences between Hayek and Mises, since it makes more sense to deal with guys like Murphy, Huerta De Soto, Kirzner and Garrison as they're contemporary economists of this particularly heterodox school.

 

[oldfart]

Carl Menger is probably the only relevant economist out of the whole Austrian School. He helped develop the theory of marginal utility. Off the top of my head, several of their claims are basically false, such as the Austrian Business Cycle and their utter rejection of econometrics and mathematics. I also think the entire premise of praxeology is just plain wrong.

Can you provide evidence that the business cycle theory is "basically false"? It's a pretty well known understanding of market intervention today. Even the federal reserve understands the principles of the business cycle.

As I understand it, the Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) is basically a theory of unsustainable increases in bank credit, often encouraged by central bank policy. The main attack on it (from Keynes, Sraffa, Frank Knight, and later Milton Friedman {which is one reason including him among the Austrian School is problematic!} is based on the statistical evidence. There are some good insights about the business cycle in ABCT, but IMHO it doesn't do well as a predictive model. I really don't look at ABCT much, so I'd like to hear from people who are more familiar with it.