Jmh, Did you get involved much with the Austrian colloquim at NYU? If so, what was your experience? I’m reading a bit on my own about Austrian economics (on hiatus at the moment due to CFA level 1). I like what I’ve read so far, being a libertarian to begin with.
jmh530 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’ll second Hazlitt as a great intro, but not just > Austrian Economics, to all Economics. > While Schumpeter is Austrian, most of his work > wouldn’t be categorized as “Austrian Economics.” > > BTW, not all Austrian Economists believe in the > Gold Standard. What generally they agree on is > that state-run central banking is bad. Some > believe in Free Banking that allows fractional > reserve banks, some believe in commodity > standards, and some only support a classical gold > standard. Austrian Economics is more than just > Gold Standard is good and if you’re talking about > it without reading MES or Human Action, then your > opinion is basically naive and ignorant. btw,if you read human action,it would be evident why math is a flawed tool to study economics - a social science
I did attend the colloquium at NYU for about a year, but I was reading Mises and Hayek before I came to NYU. I liked the experience of the colloquium; there were always good discussions. In addition to the usual crowd, Roger Koppl and Israel Kirzner occassionally came so that’s always fun.
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Black Swan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It’s not that the Austrian school is > necessarily > > bad or wrong, I think for smaller countries it > is > > a phenomenal model to follow. However, I do > > believe that suggesting the mega economies such > as > > the UK, US, or China follow the gold standard > is > > impractical and moronic as it ignores the basic > > limitations of that school of thought, and the > > gold standard in specific. The gold standard > > would not be a viable option for an economy > with > > the scale, leverage and velocity of the US and > > would cause an immediate catacalysmic implosion > > when the first bubble inevitably bursts. > > is it because of the commodity gold that you are > against it or is it because you inherently think > big economies dont require stable money? It’s more the idea of using gold that i disagree with, I think
well.gold is just a metaphor .what austrians insist is stable money.historically gold backed paper was used and thus the use of the term. however faith based money can never be stable -has never been stable as history shows.currencies have come and gone if you wanted free markets,would you consider it normal to grant an entity consisting of unelected people the monopoly to control the monetary base?. why not have competing currencies? free banking perhaps?. they worked well in the past. i am unaware of any particular problems with stable money.
I’m okay with a currency backed by a gold metaphor. Me: Here’s $10,000. I want my gold. Fed: It’s a metaphor. Here’s your gold painted styrofoam bricks. Me: Can I sell 'em to the gov’t in the next bailout? Fed: Sure.
Fed?. n’existe pas .
Oh yeah. I keep getting this messed up. We have money backed by metaphorical gold. There is no central bank except the gov’t has nationalized all the private banks.
i am not biting
Why do some people have to bash Austrian Economics? Did I ask your personal opinion? If I said, I am going to study the religion of Muslim, I bet you are going to say shit about it too right. I simply asked some recommendation from people who are interested in this subject.
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s not that the Austrian school is necessarily > bad or wrong, I think for smaller countries it is > a phenomenal model to follow. However, I do > believe that suggesting the mega economies such as > the UK, US, or China follow the gold standard is > impractical and moronic as it ignores the basic > limitations of that school of thought, and the > gold standard in specific. The gold standard > would not be a viable option for an economy with > the scale, leverage and velocity of the US and > would cause an immediate catacalysmic implosion > when the first bubble inevitably bursts. Exactly the austrian school is just way too simplistic in its views.
DonYuan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do some people have to bash Austrian > Economics? Did I ask your personal opinion? If I > said, I am going to study the religion of Muslim, > I bet you are going to say shit about it too > right. I simply asked some recommendation from > people who are interested in this subject. Gee, we’re sorry that a discussion you didn’t authorize started on your thread. Folks, please be more respectful of Austrian economics, Islam, and the right of the OP to restrict the content of threads they start.
Read the title of this thread, I think our comments are in line.
Ron Paul references quite a few in his book, The Revolution. I am a firm believer.
DonYuan - Hazlitt and the books I mentioned are great. Hayek and Menger are very accessible as well. Road to Serfdom and Prices and Production by Hayek are great, Menger’s Principles great too. No one here really criticized Austrian Economics as I understand it. Their arguments have essentially boiled down to the gold standard is bad and that Austrian Economics is too simple. Striking criticism I must say. When Bryan Caplin criticizes Austrian Economics, I listen (and then read Walter Block’s response). Not much incentive here. There’s a difference between positive economics and normative economics. Saying that central banking creates a boom/bust cycle (a positive statement) is not the same as saying the gold standard would be a better system (a normative statement). If anyone has a criticism of the logic that government manipulation of interest rates create boom/bust cycles, I would love to hear it. However, even this story is not all there is to Austrian Economics. Just one, albeit large, part.
jmh530 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There’s a difference between positive economics > and normative economics. Saying that central > banking creates a boom/bust cycle (a positive > statement) is not the same as saying the gold > standard would be a better system (a normative > statement). If anyone has a criticism of the > logic that government manipulation of interest > rates create boom/bust cycles, I would love to > hear it. However, even this story is not all > there is to Austrian Economics. Just one, albeit > large, part. Yeah, well, that’s just not how good science works. The idea that gov’t manipulation of interest rates creates boom/bust cycles isn’t one of those things you throw up and say that it’s true until someone refutes the logic of it. Alas, the problem with this hypothesis is that it just doesn’t stand up to any decent empirical tests. Of course the Austrian criticism of that is that the tools are just wrong and in the sort-of nose in the air, you haven’t read the following 1000-page treatise way of most Austrian economists, you declare that we don’t know how to use the tools anyway. Sigh. I’m totally good with anybody reading anything they want and discussing it on AF and supported that notion. I was told this was an “ignorant rant”. The problem with Austrian economics is it’s just a trolls club. There is surely sensible stuff there (though a ton of pretty mainstream ideas get called Austrian) but you just say the word and some guy like spierce objects and the fight is on.
Joey, You’re a smart guy and you generally do this, but others on this thread say it is simplistic and a dumb theory without ever reading a book or knowing anything else about it. If I don’t know anything about a subject, I say that and try to learn more rather than spout idiocies about a subject I know nothing about it. For instance, you mention that the hypothesis doesn’t stand up to decent empirical tests without probably checking to see if people have done them. Indeed, people have done empirical tests. Here are two places to look. These aren’t perfect by any means. There are plenty of other papers where they use Austrian economics to explain different historical episodes. An Empirical Examination of Austrian Business Cycle Theory - Robert Mulligan Empirical Evidence for Hayek’s Theory of Economic Fluctuations - Charles Wainhouse There is a larger debate on positivism in the Friedman sense that the Austrians like to debate. I can refer you to the “The Ongoing Methodenstreit of the Austrian School” by de Soto. I love statistics. The Austrian critique is more against mathematical modeling and forecasting than about statistics. Austrians love to look at history, but they would say that past relationships may not hold up in the future, complain about aggregate data, and that theory should be done before empirics. There’s a lot in mainstream economics that has borrowed from the Austrian school and we certainly like to read from other schools of thought. I would say the Lucas Critique is a pretty big one. If you would like the Austrian theory of the business cycle in a nutshell, the simplest place to get it is from Roger Garrison’s website: http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/cbm.htm or the second power point here: http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/macro.htm I prefer the longer book treatments, but there is a much better explanation than I could write here. I don’t get in troll fests, but if you want to discuss these ideas further, feel free to send me an email.
Isn’t Ludwig von Mises one of the go-to guys on Austrian economics?
I think he dated Sarah Palin in the 70’s.
“You’re a smart guy and you generally DON’T this” I think he died in the 70s, but yes he is a “go-to” guy.