Friday, January 1, 2010
Boettke Et Al. Engage in Product Differentiation
The blog formerly known as "The Austrian Economists" will henceforth be referenced by the symbol α. No no it is actually now "Coordination Problem," and Boettke et al. ask you to update your blogroll accordingly. [Insert joke about coordination problem here.] In this post Boettke explains the decision:
OK I have mixed reactions about this. At first I wasn't even sure I should mention it, because I don't want to start another civil war. But since Boettke isn't allowing any comments on his post, we'll have to have the discussion here. This is a rather big announcement (in the admittedly small pond of Austrian blog readers) so it should be discussed somewhere. Here are my quick thoughts:
* For sure, I think it is childish if some people flip out at the "betrayal" of Mises, the "selling out," etc. etc. I saw that happen when Daniel Klein made a suggestion a few years back to rebrand Austrian economics as "spontaneous order studies" or something like that. I disagree with what Boettke et al. have decided, but it is a strategic disagreement and not one of "purity."
* It is undeniably true that Arnold Kling has gotten way more mileage among professional economists with his "Recalculation Argument" concerning the recession, than Mario Rizzo or I have gotten with our explicit debt to Mises and Hayek. Note that I am not saying Kling has done anything underhanded, and I'm not saying Kling's ideas are totally unoriginal. All I'm saying is that the progressive economists who bother to criticize Kling's views would have the exact same response to Rizzo or me, and yet they never bothered to point out why, "Those espousing the 'Austrian' explanation of depressions are wrong because..." It's true that Paul Krugman has explicitly attacked the Austrian theory of the business cycle and the "hangover" theory, but that was like a biologist at Harvard discussing creationism. The explicitly named ABCT has never gotten the courtesy from other econo-bloggers that Kling's "Recalculation Argument" has gotten, and I suspect much of the difference is simply due to the label.
* Having said that, I think Boettke et al. are wrong. For one thing, everyone is going to still refer to it as "Austrian economics." Yes, it's awkward when some people think you are talking about unemployment in Vienna, but in the last two years there has been major progress on that front. When Carlos Lara and I discuss our forthcoming book with insurance industry people, he has no qualms launching into a discussion of "Austrian economics," and half the time the people know what he is talking about already. One guy floored me by saying something like, "Look I like Schumpeter as much as the next guy, but let's think about the regulations our industry faces..."
* And this leads into my most serious objection/observation: For a long long time, there has been a big disagreement in Austrian (coordination problem?) circles over the strategy to get the word out. For lack of better terms, some people took the Rothbardian approach of trying to stay afloat in academia, but concentrating on educating the intelligent layperson. Other people took the Hayekian approach of trying to convert the intellectual elites, especially other professional economists.
Now look closely again at Boettke's explanation. I realize this may strike some as gloating, but that can't be helped: What Boettke is saying is that the people who decided to "take it to the common man" have been so overwhelmingly successful that the particular spin they put on "Austrian economics" has drowned out what the other camp wants people to think the term signifies. After all, I'm guessing it's not as if citations to Hayek or Kirzner have dropped in 2008 and 2009, relative to five years earlier. Rather, it's that people like Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and--dare I say it?--Lew Rockwell have gotten the term "Austrian economics" into the public discussion in a previously inconceivably short time frame. Ron Paul used the term on Jay Leno, for crying out loud!
So it is a bit exasperating when Boettke et al. decide to split off precisely when the strategy that others have been pushing has paid off so incredibly. Just to make sure my point is clear, let me say this: Five years ago, presumably Boettke et al. did not endorse the things being said in the name of "Austrian economics" referring to the evils of central bankers, the wickedness of George Bush, the dastardliness of Abraham Lincoln, etc. But they didn't bother to change the label back then. It is only now, when the "take it to the public" strategy has been so much more successful than the "let's take over the econ journals" strategy, that they have to disassociate themselves from the self-styled Austrians who are ostensibly pushing a narrow meaning of the term.
* Last point: When I become a rock star economist and can start charging for access to this blog, do I have to wait until January 1, 2020 before changing its name?!
As of January 1, 2010, we are changing our name to "Coordination Problem". This name change is symbolic as well as substantive. The term "Austrian economics" has become as much a hindrance to the advancement of thought as a convenient shorthand to signal certain methodological and analytical presumptions. We started this blog with a clear purpose to emphasize ongoing research in the scientific literature, and developments in higher education as related to economics and political economy. As a group we are committed to methodological individualism, market process theory, institutional analysis, and spontaneous order theorizing. And while we do not shy away from policy discussions, we do not identify with any political party or specific political movement.
As an experiment, over the past six months we have been tracking the use of the term Austrian economics in the news and in the blogosphere. Less systematically, we have also been listening carefully to the use of the term among fellow professional economists and what they think the label means. The results do not fit our intention. Google alert, for example, inevitably points to financial advice or libertarian politics, rarely to the research paradigm of F. A. Hayek, never to the scholarship of Israel Kirzner. Mises is often mentioned, but Mises the ideological symbol, not Mises the analytical economist. The "Austrian" theory of the business cycle is mentioned, but only in relationship to anti-fed politics and hard money advocacy, and never as an ongoing research program among professional economists.
These trends are not recent, but have been constant throughout our respective careers. We have always been among those who attempted to offer resistance to this use of the term. It has become evident to us that our efforts have been futile. Rather than resist the pure ideological identification, we are choosing to devote our efforts elsewhere. The name Austrian economics has been lost as a focal point for a tradition of economic scholarship, and is now a focal point for something else. We have to let it go.
OK I have mixed reactions about this. At first I wasn't even sure I should mention it, because I don't want to start another civil war. But since Boettke isn't allowing any comments on his post, we'll have to have the discussion here. This is a rather big announcement (in the admittedly small pond of Austrian blog readers) so it should be discussed somewhere. Here are my quick thoughts:
* For sure, I think it is childish if some people flip out at the "betrayal" of Mises, the "selling out," etc. etc. I saw that happen when Daniel Klein made a suggestion a few years back to rebrand Austrian economics as "spontaneous order studies" or something like that. I disagree with what Boettke et al. have decided, but it is a strategic disagreement and not one of "purity."
* It is undeniably true that Arnold Kling has gotten way more mileage among professional economists with his "Recalculation Argument" concerning the recession, than Mario Rizzo or I have gotten with our explicit debt to Mises and Hayek. Note that I am not saying Kling has done anything underhanded, and I'm not saying Kling's ideas are totally unoriginal. All I'm saying is that the progressive economists who bother to criticize Kling's views would have the exact same response to Rizzo or me, and yet they never bothered to point out why, "Those espousing the 'Austrian' explanation of depressions are wrong because..." It's true that Paul Krugman has explicitly attacked the Austrian theory of the business cycle and the "hangover" theory, but that was like a biologist at Harvard discussing creationism. The explicitly named ABCT has never gotten the courtesy from other econo-bloggers that Kling's "Recalculation Argument" has gotten, and I suspect much of the difference is simply due to the label.
* Having said that, I think Boettke et al. are wrong. For one thing, everyone is going to still refer to it as "Austrian economics." Yes, it's awkward when some people think you are talking about unemployment in Vienna, but in the last two years there has been major progress on that front. When Carlos Lara and I discuss our forthcoming book with insurance industry people, he has no qualms launching into a discussion of "Austrian economics," and half the time the people know what he is talking about already. One guy floored me by saying something like, "Look I like Schumpeter as much as the next guy, but let's think about the regulations our industry faces..."
* And this leads into my most serious objection/observation: For a long long time, there has been a big disagreement in Austrian (coordination problem?) circles over the strategy to get the word out. For lack of better terms, some people took the Rothbardian approach of trying to stay afloat in academia, but concentrating on educating the intelligent layperson. Other people took the Hayekian approach of trying to convert the intellectual elites, especially other professional economists.
Now look closely again at Boettke's explanation. I realize this may strike some as gloating, but that can't be helped: What Boettke is saying is that the people who decided to "take it to the common man" have been so overwhelmingly successful that the particular spin they put on "Austrian economics" has drowned out what the other camp wants people to think the term signifies. After all, I'm guessing it's not as if citations to Hayek or Kirzner have dropped in 2008 and 2009, relative to five years earlier. Rather, it's that people like Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and--dare I say it?--Lew Rockwell have gotten the term "Austrian economics" into the public discussion in a previously inconceivably short time frame. Ron Paul used the term on Jay Leno, for crying out loud!
So it is a bit exasperating when Boettke et al. decide to split off precisely when the strategy that others have been pushing has paid off so incredibly. Just to make sure my point is clear, let me say this: Five years ago, presumably Boettke et al. did not endorse the things being said in the name of "Austrian economics" referring to the evils of central bankers, the wickedness of George Bush, the dastardliness of Abraham Lincoln, etc. But they didn't bother to change the label back then. It is only now, when the "take it to the public" strategy has been so much more successful than the "let's take over the econ journals" strategy, that they have to disassociate themselves from the self-styled Austrians who are ostensibly pushing a narrow meaning of the term.
* Last point: When I become a rock star economist and can start charging for access to this blog, do I have to wait until January 1, 2020 before changing its name?!
Comments:
"Now look closely again at Boettke's explanation. I realize this may strike some as gloating, but that can't be helped: What Boettke is saying is that the people who decided to "take it to the common man" have been so overwhelmingly successful that the particular spin they put on "Austrian economics" has drowned out what the other camp wants people to think the term signifies. After all, I'm guessing it's not as if citations to Hayek or Kirzner have dropped in 2008 and 2009, relative to five years earlier. Rather, it's that people like Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and--dare I say it?--Lew Rockwell have gotten the term "Austrian economics" into the public discussion in a previously inconceivably short time frame. Ron Paul used the term on Jay Leno, for crying out loud!
So it is a bit exasperating when Boettke et al. decide to split off precisely when the strategy that others have been pushing has paid off so incredibly. Just to make sure my point is clear, let me say this"
Define successful? A bunch of nobodys can show how clueless they are about just about everything on the internet.
It doesn't mean a thing in terms of science.
So it is a bit exasperating when Boettke et al. decide to split off precisely when the strategy that others have been pushing has paid off so incredibly. Just to make sure my point is clear, let me say this"
Define successful? A bunch of nobodys can show how clueless they are about just about everything on the internet.
It doesn't mean a thing in terms of science.
# posted by 
: January 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Define successful?
Successful means stopping the government from implementing horrible policies that our science tells us would be destructive.
I'm sure you will come back with something like, "Aha! So you admit it has nothing to do with economics, just your political preferences." But if you want to go that route, I can come up with medical analogies that I think make my position perfectly laudable and obvious.
Successful means stopping the government from implementing horrible policies that our science tells us would be destructive.
I'm sure you will come back with something like, "Aha! So you admit it has nothing to do with economics, just your political preferences." But if you want to go that route, I can come up with medical analogies that I think make my position perfectly laudable and obvious.
A bunch of nobodys can show how clueless they are about just about everything on the internet.
And by "nobodys" you are referring to people who have infinitely more name recognition than the people you are endorsing, and who also spout off their cluelessness on nationally televised presidential debates and on the Jay Leno show, right?
If you want to say certain people have dumbed down the message so that Joe Sixpack gets it, and have thereby bastardized the great economics of Mises et al., OK fair enough. But you can't also say that it's a bunch of cranks sitting in the corner. That's the whole POINT of my argument you were quoting: The reason Boettke et al. are changing their name is that the other camp has swept the country/world, relatively speaking.
Also, are you suggesting that guys at MIT hold Israel Kirzner and Hayek in high esteem? I can tell you from personal experience that there most grad students at NYU didn't know who Kirzner was even though they walked past his office daily.
And by "nobodys" you are referring to people who have infinitely more name recognition than the people you are endorsing, and who also spout off their cluelessness on nationally televised presidential debates and on the Jay Leno show, right?
If you want to say certain people have dumbed down the message so that Joe Sixpack gets it, and have thereby bastardized the great economics of Mises et al., OK fair enough. But you can't also say that it's a bunch of cranks sitting in the corner. That's the whole POINT of my argument you were quoting: The reason Boettke et al. are changing their name is that the other camp has swept the country/world, relatively speaking.
Also, are you suggesting that guys at MIT hold Israel Kirzner and Hayek in high esteem? I can tell you from personal experience that there most grad students at NYU didn't know who Kirzner was even though they walked past his office daily.
Argh sorry folks, my comments above are much testier than I wanted them to be.
To be absolutely clear, I think Hayek and Kirzner are awesome. I make a snarky comment when Bryan Caplan recently trashed Hayek.
The Anonymous poster's remarks made me flip out though because by calling us "nobodys" he was implying that Boettke & Co. are revered members of the economics profession, whose contributions on economic theory and policy are treasured among the Ivy League. I don't think that's exactly accurate. (And that's not a knock on Boettke & Friends, it's a knock on the Ivy League elite who can't see the truth staring them in the face.)
Anyway please let's not let this devolve into a civil war--oh wait a minute, Boettke et al. are trying to secede! Bravo!
To be absolutely clear, I think Hayek and Kirzner are awesome. I make a snarky comment when Bryan Caplan recently trashed Hayek.
The Anonymous poster's remarks made me flip out though because by calling us "nobodys" he was implying that Boettke & Co. are revered members of the economics profession, whose contributions on economic theory and policy are treasured among the Ivy League. I don't think that's exactly accurate. (And that's not a knock on Boettke & Friends, it's a knock on the Ivy League elite who can't see the truth staring them in the face.)
Anyway please let's not let this devolve into a civil war--oh wait a minute, Boettke et al. are trying to secede! Bravo!
Boettke has been trying to re-brand Austrian Economics forever. Whatever his psychological obsession with mainstream acceptance is, he is quite likely mistaken on his branding strategy.
Wow....who is going to Google "Coordination Problem"? He is taking a strong brand (with both positive and negative reactions) and replacing it with, huh?
Hey, lets rename Coke. That will work...whoops. I know, Kleenex should rename itself Mucus Remover.
Wow....who is going to Google "Coordination Problem"? He is taking a strong brand (with both positive and negative reactions) and replacing it with, huh?
Hey, lets rename Coke. That will work...whoops. I know, Kleenex should rename itself Mucus Remover.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM
"Successful means stopping the government from implementing horrible policies that our science tells us would be destructive.
I'm sure you will come back with something like, "Aha! So you admit it has nothing to do with economics, just your political preferences." But if you want to go that route, I can come up with medical analogies that I think make my position perfectly laudable and obvious."
And the folk over at the Mises blog are doing that how exactly?
I mean, look at the reactions to the death of Samuelson... these guys are just of bunch of clueless cranks isolating themselves from anybody willing to have rational discussion.
I'm sure you will come back with something like, "Aha! So you admit it has nothing to do with economics, just your political preferences." But if you want to go that route, I can come up with medical analogies that I think make my position perfectly laudable and obvious."
And the folk over at the Mises blog are doing that how exactly?
I mean, look at the reactions to the death of Samuelson... these guys are just of bunch of clueless cranks isolating themselves from anybody willing to have rational discussion.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 1:39 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 1:39 PM
" Whatever his psychological obsession with mainstream acceptance is, he is quite likely mistaken on his branding strategy.
"
No obsession, just a recognition that the economics doesn't advance by blog posts.
"
No obsession, just a recognition that the economics doesn't advance by blog posts.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM
"OK fair enough. But you can't also say that it's a bunch of cranks sitting in the corner. That's the whole POINT of my argument you were quoting: The reason Boettke et al. are changing their name is that the other camp has swept the country/world, relatively speaking."
They haven't swept anything, but a few cranks can make a lot of noise.
Do you ever read the Mises blog? It's just a bunch of goofy, clueless 50 year old guys who think they're going to revolutionize the way economics and philosophy is done with their blog posts.
They haven't swept anything, but a few cranks can make a lot of noise.
Do you ever read the Mises blog? It's just a bunch of goofy, clueless 50 year old guys who think they're going to revolutionize the way economics and philosophy is done with their blog posts.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM
I read lewrockwell.com every day, but I also read the blog formerly known as "The Austrian Economists." In other words, I have at least an outside observer's perspective on the Austrian Civil Wars.
Actually, I think Boettke is being misunderstood here. Boettke doesn't have a psychological need for mainstream acceptance (as far as I know), but it's clear from everything he writes that he's concerned with Austrian economics as an ongoing, productive research paradigm. I think what concerns him is that Austrian economics continue to refine itself and develop internally. For instance, there have been many refinements to ABCT since originally developed -- you can see this ongoing process in the comments on Horwitz's blog. But the version of ABCT you get from Ron Paul and Peter Schiff is a shorthand, nutshell version that doesn't reflect the latest developments in Austrian (coordination problem?) economics.
I think that Boettke's concerns are unwarranted. What harm is there in what Schiff and Paul are doing? What harm is there in what the Mises Institute has done? But I also don't think that Boettke's motives can be ascribed to a need for mainstream recognition, nor can they be ascribed to the anti-Mises ick factor that motivates some other Austrians.
Actually, I think Boettke is being misunderstood here. Boettke doesn't have a psychological need for mainstream acceptance (as far as I know), but it's clear from everything he writes that he's concerned with Austrian economics as an ongoing, productive research paradigm. I think what concerns him is that Austrian economics continue to refine itself and develop internally. For instance, there have been many refinements to ABCT since originally developed -- you can see this ongoing process in the comments on Horwitz's blog. But the version of ABCT you get from Ron Paul and Peter Schiff is a shorthand, nutshell version that doesn't reflect the latest developments in Austrian (coordination problem?) economics.
I think that Boettke's concerns are unwarranted. What harm is there in what Schiff and Paul are doing? What harm is there in what the Mises Institute has done? But I also don't think that Boettke's motives can be ascribed to a need for mainstream recognition, nor can they be ascribed to the anti-Mises ick factor that motivates some other Austrians.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 1:52 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 1:52 PM
One more thing, the other "anons" making the snarky ccomments about cranks and their blog posts appear to be in denial. The Ron Paul movement, Peter Schiff's media work and Senate campaign, and the efforts of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Inst. have indeed changed the political landscape. We actually have a public discussion in the media and in Congress about auditing the Fed, about ending the Fed, and about how the Fed partly caused the recent financial collapse. No, of course we aren't going to "End the Fed" tomorrow, but because of the efforts of activists associated with Austrian economics, we are that much closer to real reform. That much is hard to deny.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM
I can understand why Mr Boettke cares for brand name. I dropped the Libertarian label when I realized that Bob Barr was actually quite representative of the Libertarian movement. Nothing one can do about newcomers taking over a political brand, except starting a new one.
I can also understand by Mr Boettke is disturbed that a layman like me claims to be of the Austrian School of Economics.
I therefore think that is move is fine. Good luck to him. Mr Boettke may however give a few bucks to lewrockwell.com because without this great website I would never have learned about him and his associates.
I can also understand by Mr Boettke is disturbed that a layman like me claims to be of the Austrian School of Economics.
I therefore think that is move is fine. Good luck to him. Mr Boettke may however give a few bucks to lewrockwell.com because without this great website I would never have learned about him and his associates.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Boettke writes: "We hope by focusing on the substantive proposition of coordination (including what it means, how it emerges, and what institutional arrangements facilitate or retard it, among many other important research questions) we can avoid fruitless debates over intellectual heritage and intellectual purity..."
I think this is the statement we should focus on if we want to discern Boettke's motives for the name change. For him, it really is about the ongoing research program -- the science of Austrian economics. Boettke is as well versed as anyone in the intellectual history and intellectual heritage of Austrian (and other) economics, but perhaps because of that knowledge, he's also keen to separate questions of science and questions of intellectual history. That much, I think, is laudable. Look at Marxism for an example of a dead research program -- I think Boettke wants to avoid that fate for Austrian economics.
Again, I think his concerns are overblown, but his motives are disintersted.
I think this is the statement we should focus on if we want to discern Boettke's motives for the name change. For him, it really is about the ongoing research program -- the science of Austrian economics. Boettke is as well versed as anyone in the intellectual history and intellectual heritage of Austrian (and other) economics, but perhaps because of that knowledge, he's also keen to separate questions of science and questions of intellectual history. That much, I think, is laudable. Look at Marxism for an example of a dead research program -- I think Boettke wants to avoid that fate for Austrian economics.
Again, I think his concerns are overblown, but his motives are disintersted.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM
He forgot to mention how a name change would help curb the massive confusion between Austrian economics and this school: http://outsidethe-cardboard-box.tumblr.com/post/249074091/the-new-australian-school-of-economics-wonkish
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM
"Boettke doesn't have a psychological need for mainstream acceptance (as far as I know), but it's clear from everything he writes that he's concerned with Austrian economics as an ongoing, productive research paradigm."
What Boettke means by "productive research program" is just an euphemistic word for making AE more compatible with the mainstream economics, and more publishable in the mainstream journals. Don't be naive, that has nothing to do with the science, and a lot to do with PR and acceptance in mainstream economic circles.
In terms of science, Boettke and his group are the real Pygmies compared with the giants of the_Rothbardian wing of the Austrian economics, such as de Soto, Hoppe, Huelsman, Salerno etc. Not only that politicians and activists, such as Ron Paul, Peter Shief or Lew Rockwell succeeded in promoting the "fudnamentalist" version of the Austrian economics in the political arena, but the theorists of the "Alabama School" by far surpassed GMU group in their academic achievements as well. Is there anything that those guys have ever written that even remotely compares with de Soto's "Money, Banking and Economic Cycle"?
What Boettke means by "productive research program" is just an euphemistic word for making AE more compatible with the mainstream economics, and more publishable in the mainstream journals. Don't be naive, that has nothing to do with the science, and a lot to do with PR and acceptance in mainstream economic circles.
In terms of science, Boettke and his group are the real Pygmies compared with the giants of the_Rothbardian wing of the Austrian economics, such as de Soto, Hoppe, Huelsman, Salerno etc. Not only that politicians and activists, such as Ron Paul, Peter Shief or Lew Rockwell succeeded in promoting the "fudnamentalist" version of the Austrian economics in the political arena, but the theorists of the "Alabama School" by far surpassed GMU group in their academic achievements as well. Is there anything that those guys have ever written that even remotely compares with de Soto's "Money, Banking and Economic Cycle"?
"Google alert, for example, inevitably points to financial advice or libertarian politics, rarely to the research paradigm of F. A. Hayek, never to the scholarship of Israel Kirzner."
Will this be corrected by the name change? Will Hayek and Kirzner begin appearing in Google alerts as "coordination problem theorists?"
Will we read, "F. A. Hayek, a noted coordination problem theorist, wrote ... "
Hmmm.
I don't think their means will satisfy their implied ends.
Will this be corrected by the name change? Will Hayek and Kirzner begin appearing in Google alerts as "coordination problem theorists?"
Will we read, "F. A. Hayek, a noted coordination problem theorist, wrote ... "
Hmmm.
I don't think their means will satisfy their implied ends.
Translation of Boettke:
Our treehouse has been crashed, we're going to take our ball and go home now. /blows raspberry
Our treehouse has been crashed, we're going to take our ball and go home now. /blows raspberry
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 5:17 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Five years ago, presumably Boettke et al. did not endorse the things being said in the name of "Austrian economics" referring to the evils of central bankers, the wickedness of George Bush, the dastardliness of Abraham Lincoln, etc.
I think they were writing things themselves about the contemporary errors of central bankers and Bush. And Hummel was complaining about Lincoln without calling himself an Austrian at all.
I think they were writing things themselves about the contemporary errors of central bankers and Bush. And Hummel was complaining about Lincoln without calling himself an Austrian at all.
Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell have done much to spread libertarian ideals and get people thinking about the implications of policy, but there is certainly a line to be drawn between free market advocacy and economic research. Part of the problem is that Austrian economics is often confused with libertarianism and natural rights/objective ethics. It's no surprise that the GMU crowd, who are largely consequentialist in their ethics, prefer to disassociate themselves with Austrians of a Rothbardian persuasion, who clothe their economics in moralistic language. 'The state is evil!' 'FRB is fraud! (are we lawyers, or economists?)
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 9:53 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 9:53 PM
zefreak: "It's no surprise that the GMU crowd, who are largely consequentialist in their ethics, prefer to disassociate themselves with Austrians of a Rothbardian persuasion, who clothe their economics in moralistic language. 'The state is evil!' 'FRB is fraud! (are we lawyers, or economists?)"
Lawyers if anything have less warrant to have a policy view about the state or FRB than do economists. Lawyer are much more corrupt, ignorant, socialist, economically illiterate, and stupid than are economists. Maybe you meant to ask "are we libertarians, or economists?".
But then, Boettke and his crew also tend to be libertarian--what a coincidence. Any non-evil Austrian economist will be a libertarian. And to be a good libertarian you have to be an Austrian. They are not the same but they go together.
Lawyers if anything have less warrant to have a policy view about the state or FRB than do economists. Lawyer are much more corrupt, ignorant, socialist, economically illiterate, and stupid than are economists. Maybe you meant to ask "are we libertarians, or economists?".
But then, Boettke and his crew also tend to be libertarian--what a coincidence. Any non-evil Austrian economist will be a libertarian. And to be a good libertarian you have to be an Austrian. They are not the same but they go together.
Stephan Kinsella: "Lawyers if anything have less warrant to have a policy view about the state or FRB than do economists. Lawyer are much more corrupt, ignorant, socialist, economically illiterate, and stupid than are economists. Maybe you meant to ask "are we libertarians, or economists?"."
It is irrelevant whether lawyers are fulfilling the requirements of their trade or are corrupt, illiterate, or statist. The question of whether FRB is fraudulent within a legal system falls under the domain of philosophers of law and not economics. Of course, economists can have opinions regarding the desirability of FRB, but economics as such can only examine the incentives of FRB. The question of its legitimacy within a contractual framework is irrelevant within economics.
"But then, Boettke and his crew also tend to be libertarian--what a coincidence. Any non-evil Austrian economist will be a libertarian. And to be a good libertarian you have to be an Austrian. They are not the same but they go together."
There is a definite tendency for Austrian's to be libertarian, and I am one myself. The two are distinct, and perhaps Boettke's point is that when attempting to express ideas to other schools of thought, particularly those with differing philosophical and ethical backgrounds, restricting the conversation to economics alone might be a better strategy. If they truly do share similar values, then the implications of economics will be discovered on their own terms.
It is irrelevant whether lawyers are fulfilling the requirements of their trade or are corrupt, illiterate, or statist. The question of whether FRB is fraudulent within a legal system falls under the domain of philosophers of law and not economics. Of course, economists can have opinions regarding the desirability of FRB, but economics as such can only examine the incentives of FRB. The question of its legitimacy within a contractual framework is irrelevant within economics.
"But then, Boettke and his crew also tend to be libertarian--what a coincidence. Any non-evil Austrian economist will be a libertarian. And to be a good libertarian you have to be an Austrian. They are not the same but they go together."
There is a definite tendency for Austrian's to be libertarian, and I am one myself. The two are distinct, and perhaps Boettke's point is that when attempting to express ideas to other schools of thought, particularly those with differing philosophical and ethical backgrounds, restricting the conversation to economics alone might be a better strategy. If they truly do share similar values, then the implications of economics will be discovered on their own terms.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 11:05 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 11:05 PM
I'm actually happy for the name change. "The Austrian Economists" seemed smug. There are others after all.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM
zefreak:
"It is irrelevant whether lawyers are fulfilling the requirements of their trade or are corrupt, illiterate, or statist. The question of whether FRB is fraudulent within a legal system falls under the domain of philosophers of law and not economics."
Lawyers are not philosophers of law. They just know how to navigate a complicated fascist-regulatory system.
" Of course, economists can have opinions regarding the desirability of FRB, but economics as such can only examine the incentives of FRB. The question of its legitimacy within a contractual framework is irrelevant within economics."
Economics proper is value-free, sure, but no one is just an economist.
"There is a definite tendency for Austrian's to be libertarian, and I am one myself. The two are distinct,"
Of course. Everyone knows this.
"and perhaps Boettke's point is that when attempting to express ideas to other schools of thought, particularly those with differing philosophical and ethical backgrounds, restricting the conversation to economics alone might be a better strategy."
So the name change is not about economic substance, but one of strategy?
"It is irrelevant whether lawyers are fulfilling the requirements of their trade or are corrupt, illiterate, or statist. The question of whether FRB is fraudulent within a legal system falls under the domain of philosophers of law and not economics."
Lawyers are not philosophers of law. They just know how to navigate a complicated fascist-regulatory system.
" Of course, economists can have opinions regarding the desirability of FRB, but economics as such can only examine the incentives of FRB. The question of its legitimacy within a contractual framework is irrelevant within economics."
Economics proper is value-free, sure, but no one is just an economist.
"There is a definite tendency for Austrian's to be libertarian, and I am one myself. The two are distinct,"
Of course. Everyone knows this.
"and perhaps Boettke's point is that when attempting to express ideas to other schools of thought, particularly those with differing philosophical and ethical backgrounds, restricting the conversation to economics alone might be a better strategy."
So the name change is not about economic substance, but one of strategy?
zefreak said:
Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell have done much to spread libertarian ideals and get people thinking about the implications of policy, but there is certainly a line to be drawn between free market advocacy and economic research.
Right, and I totally understand that. Look, there is not really a black-and-white difference in how academics should behave, between the two camps, even though I highlighted the difference above. In other words, Boettke and Horwitz spend a lot of their time evangelizing the masses (writing for the Freeman, writing op eds, giving talks to the public, etc.). They do a lot more in spreading the message of the free market (as in "what does economics tell us about government policy if we want to make people more prosperous?") than most chemists spend in trying to influence public opinion.
On the other hand, the actual academic economists (as opposed to odd ducks like me) who are closely associated with the Mises Institute also publish numerous journal articles that are technical in nature, and not "2-4-6-8 let's hurry up and smash the state."
So the real difference has been mostly a matter of priorities and target audience. Again, brushing broadly, I would say the GMU guys want to be really careful to not rock the boat, to not sound like "extremists," and to fit in with the rest of the economics profession. The people associated with LvMI tend to think that's a waste of time, that we're never going to make Hayekian analysis the hot new thing at MIT by convincing the current journal editors, and it makes a lot more sense to try to recruit a bunch of young kids to get interested in Austrian economics, and to get the public fired up in preventing the New Deal II.
To see that there's really not a fundamental difference, but rather one of emphasis, I note that Bob Higgs and Roger Garrison are respected figures among both camps. They're both top notch in their respective areas academically, such that mainstream people can't dismiss them as cranks; they can certainly translate the ideas of Mises and Hayek into language and models that mainstream economists can understand. So that's why Tyler Cowen presumably would share a cab with either of them.
At the same time, they are welcome in Auburn because (a) Bob Higgs pulls no punches in his critique of the Leviathan state and (b) Garrison does such a great job explaining ABCT to undergrads.
I should close by saying the above considerations are my own, and I don't know if others would agree with the way I'm framing things.
Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell have done much to spread libertarian ideals and get people thinking about the implications of policy, but there is certainly a line to be drawn between free market advocacy and economic research.
Right, and I totally understand that. Look, there is not really a black-and-white difference in how academics should behave, between the two camps, even though I highlighted the difference above. In other words, Boettke and Horwitz spend a lot of their time evangelizing the masses (writing for the Freeman, writing op eds, giving talks to the public, etc.). They do a lot more in spreading the message of the free market (as in "what does economics tell us about government policy if we want to make people more prosperous?") than most chemists spend in trying to influence public opinion.
On the other hand, the actual academic economists (as opposed to odd ducks like me) who are closely associated with the Mises Institute also publish numerous journal articles that are technical in nature, and not "2-4-6-8 let's hurry up and smash the state."
So the real difference has been mostly a matter of priorities and target audience. Again, brushing broadly, I would say the GMU guys want to be really careful to not rock the boat, to not sound like "extremists," and to fit in with the rest of the economics profession. The people associated with LvMI tend to think that's a waste of time, that we're never going to make Hayekian analysis the hot new thing at MIT by convincing the current journal editors, and it makes a lot more sense to try to recruit a bunch of young kids to get interested in Austrian economics, and to get the public fired up in preventing the New Deal II.
To see that there's really not a fundamental difference, but rather one of emphasis, I note that Bob Higgs and Roger Garrison are respected figures among both camps. They're both top notch in their respective areas academically, such that mainstream people can't dismiss them as cranks; they can certainly translate the ideas of Mises and Hayek into language and models that mainstream economists can understand. So that's why Tyler Cowen presumably would share a cab with either of them.
At the same time, they are welcome in Auburn because (a) Bob Higgs pulls no punches in his critique of the Leviathan state and (b) Garrison does such a great job explaining ABCT to undergrads.
I should close by saying the above considerations are my own, and I don't know if others would agree with the way I'm framing things.
Kinsella: It seems that there is no substantive disagreement between us when it comes to value-freedom in economics. My only point was that Boettke and friends are much more careful in making it explicit when things are said with their libertarian caps on. Part of this reason is that they are interested in discussions with people that don't already share their conclusions. This can be seen as trying not to 'rock the boat' of the mainstream, or it can be seen as focusing on the economics so that normative differences don't close doors that would otherwise remain open.
"So the name change is not about economic substance, but one of strategy?"
I believe so, and I think it was made clear in Boettke's post that their 'split' is between the positive and normative aspects of economics rather than Austrian theory or methodology.
Bob Murphy: Thanks for responding, and I do not disagree with your post. I have been a fan of your blog for some time, although this is my first time posting.
However, as I said above, I think interpreting Boettke and Co's strategy as "fitting in" with the mainstream isn't quite right. They certainly don't 'fit in' with the mainstream on matters of substance. Rather, I would interpret their strategy as attempting to communicate Austrian insights within the language and context of the mainstream. This seems like a more generous, and accurate, interpretation.
"So the name change is not about economic substance, but one of strategy?"
I believe so, and I think it was made clear in Boettke's post that their 'split' is between the positive and normative aspects of economics rather than Austrian theory or methodology.
Bob Murphy: Thanks for responding, and I do not disagree with your post. I have been a fan of your blog for some time, although this is my first time posting.
However, as I said above, I think interpreting Boettke and Co's strategy as "fitting in" with the mainstream isn't quite right. They certainly don't 'fit in' with the mainstream on matters of substance. Rather, I would interpret their strategy as attempting to communicate Austrian insights within the language and context of the mainstream. This seems like a more generous, and accurate, interpretation.
# posted by : January 1, 2010 at 11:52 PM
: January 1, 2010 at 11:52 PM
As if Keynesians don't mix their economic theories with sociology, ethics, politics, or whatever. Talk to a post-Keynesian, about the role of speculation, the phenomenon of profit, and the role of prices as a coordinating market mechanism. You'll soon see that their explanations are not economic in nature. Either way, I don't get the objection. Austrian economics is associated with free markets and libertarianism, so what? How is this different from monetarism?
I'm a 22 year old undergrad senior who's pretty well-read in Austrian theory. And I can tell you that I know many around my age who buy books like Positive theory of capital with their money and actually read it, cover to cover. What other school of thought can say the same?
I'm a 22 year old undergrad senior who's pretty well-read in Austrian theory. And I can tell you that I know many around my age who buy books like Positive theory of capital with their money and actually read it, cover to cover. What other school of thought can say the same?
# posted by : January 2, 2010 at 2:18 AM
: January 2, 2010 at 2:18 AM
The last anon makes a great point. I too am senior undergrad and i find it fascinating all the things that are being shoveled into economics that is pure politics and not "positive" like the school claims. We learn from day one the difference between positive and normative, "if than"s and "should/ought"s. But after day 1, all the oughts and shoulds get thrown into economic models so fast that any genuine positivism goes out the window. I once had a true/false question on an exam that was not falsifiable, so i wrote that in (and got it wrong of course).
I say all of this because Paul/LvMI are responsible for my love of economics, and opened me to the literature of Austrian(ism?). I was a hard core neoCon before hearing Paul (and hated him in the 2008 debates) and this new years eve i spent 2 (drunken) hours trying to convince my friends that anarcho capitalism is the way to go! I use the term Austrian scarcely around my econ teachers because i don;t want to be shunned immediatly, so i see why Boettke et al want the science without the scoffs; but you have to give the Austrians credit; They convinced my with positive LOGIC that my normative values needed to change, which is amazing considering how stubborn i am.
I say all of this because Paul/LvMI are responsible for my love of economics, and opened me to the literature of Austrian(ism?). I was a hard core neoCon before hearing Paul (and hated him in the 2008 debates) and this new years eve i spent 2 (drunken) hours trying to convince my friends that anarcho capitalism is the way to go! I use the term Austrian scarcely around my econ teachers because i don;t want to be shunned immediatly, so i see why Boettke et al want the science without the scoffs; but you have to give the Austrians credit; They convinced my with positive LOGIC that my normative values needed to change, which is amazing considering how stubborn i am.
The parallels between
The Austrian Economists -> Coordination Problem
and
Scientific Creationism -> Intelligent Design
are just too delicious.
The Austrian Economists -> Coordination Problem
and
Scientific Creationism -> Intelligent Design
are just too delicious.
"On the other hand, the actual academic economists (as opposed to odd ducks like me) who are closely associated with the Mises Institute also publish numerous journal articles that are technical in nature, and not "2-4-6-8 let's hurry up and smash the state."
Who might this be, Klein? Carden? Higgs?
In other words, the economists from over at the LvMI who are respected by the GMU crowd.
Who might this be, Klein? Carden? Higgs?
In other words, the economists from over at the LvMI who are respected by the GMU crowd.
# posted by : January 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM
: January 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM
"So the real difference has been mostly a matter of priorities and target audience. Again, brushing broadly, I would say the GMU guys want to be really careful to not rock the boat, to not sound like "extremists," and to fit in with the rest of the economics profession. The people associated with LvMI tend to think that's a waste of time, that we're never going to make Hayekian analysis the hot new thing at MIT by convincing the current journal editors, and it makes a lot more sense to try to recruit a bunch of young kids to get interested in Austrian economics, and to get the public fired up in preventing the New Deal II.
"
No, it's just really obvious to anybody who isn't an extremist crank that if you want to do science, ignoring the rest of the profession isn't the way to go about it.
Look, it's great for Paul to go and lecture to the kiddies in the world of politics. These kiddies (sometimes big ones) go and fill their blogs up with angry rhetoric and clumsy prose.
But clumsy prose, angry rhetoric and blog posts don't really advance economics.
"
No, it's just really obvious to anybody who isn't an extremist crank that if you want to do science, ignoring the rest of the profession isn't the way to go about it.
Look, it's great for Paul to go and lecture to the kiddies in the world of politics. These kiddies (sometimes big ones) go and fill their blogs up with angry rhetoric and clumsy prose.
But clumsy prose, angry rhetoric and blog posts don't really advance economics.
# posted by : January 2, 2010 at 6:37 AM
: January 2, 2010 at 6:37 AM
How exactly has Boettke advanced economic science?
His strategy has failed and this is the final white flag being raised.
His strategy has failed and this is the final white flag being raised.
# posted by : January 2, 2010 at 6:42 AM
: January 2, 2010 at 6:42 AM
One quick comment:
This change is not a rejection of the substance of AE, just a reconsideration whether that name sufficiently captures the intellectual enterprise. Anyone who read our post should know this. I repeat this piece of the post for the readers here.
The contributors to this blog are convinced that O'Driscoll put his finger on the central unifying theme in Hayek's long and diverse research career. But our intent goes well beyond Hayek studies, we are convinced that Mises and Hayek identified in the 1930s through the 1950s the central elements of sound economic and social analysis: the problem of economic calculation and the division of knowledge; the cultural and institutional conditions which make possible social cooperation under the division of labor; and the arranging (and re-arranging due to changing circumstances) of heterogeneous and multi-specific capital goods into a coherent production plan that must mesh with diverse consumer demands. The role of money, interest, and prices in market analysis all point back to the central theme of the discipline --- the coordination of economic activities through time that results in the "wealth of nations".
Folks, that IS Austrian economics. And it is central to a broader vision of political economy and social theory. Again, this is about whether the name "Austrian economics" sufficiently conveys to the audience we are talking to how we generally attempt to understand the world. We have become convinced it doesn't do so very well anymore. To other audiences it might, but not to ours.
Finally, I don't think you'll see any of us referring to ourselves as "Coordination Problemists" or any stupid crap like that. We're economists who think the theoretical propositions associated with AE are very valuable for understanding the world, but they are not the only tool in the toolkit.
We're just economists. Really.
This change is not a rejection of the substance of AE, just a reconsideration whether that name sufficiently captures the intellectual enterprise. Anyone who read our post should know this. I repeat this piece of the post for the readers here.
The contributors to this blog are convinced that O'Driscoll put his finger on the central unifying theme in Hayek's long and diverse research career. But our intent goes well beyond Hayek studies, we are convinced that Mises and Hayek identified in the 1930s through the 1950s the central elements of sound economic and social analysis: the problem of economic calculation and the division of knowledge; the cultural and institutional conditions which make possible social cooperation under the division of labor; and the arranging (and re-arranging due to changing circumstances) of heterogeneous and multi-specific capital goods into a coherent production plan that must mesh with diverse consumer demands. The role of money, interest, and prices in market analysis all point back to the central theme of the discipline --- the coordination of economic activities through time that results in the "wealth of nations".
Folks, that IS Austrian economics. And it is central to a broader vision of political economy and social theory. Again, this is about whether the name "Austrian economics" sufficiently conveys to the audience we are talking to how we generally attempt to understand the world. We have become convinced it doesn't do so very well anymore. To other audiences it might, but not to ours.
Finally, I don't think you'll see any of us referring to ourselves as "Coordination Problemists" or any stupid crap like that. We're economists who think the theoretical propositions associated with AE are very valuable for understanding the world, but they are not the only tool in the toolkit.
We're just economists. Really.
# posted by : January 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM
: January 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Mike, your two cases aren't much of a parallel at all. The intelligent design movement is accused by its detractors of being creationism in diguise, but its adherents deny it. Boettke isn't denying being an Austrian, he's explicit about the fact that this is mere rebranding.
People who have invested a lifetime in justifying various state interventions into the market are unlikely to ever reconsider. The "Road to Damascus" moments are very rare (not that they don't happen). People don't often give up political relevancy and a government paycheck just to be right. On the contrary, it isn't hard to find people who were right, who give it up (possibly slowly, a gentle seduction) for the glamor of being "important" or not having to do honest work.
It seems Hayek got chummy with the intellectual support system of the State and forgot just what it was they were ultimately helping to support. The intellectual support system views itself as far enough removed from the chaos it enables to be able to deny responsibility for it, so they can rationalize away their participation while still taking the perks. These people won't defect en masse until after the critical time is past, if at all. Hitler knew that he'd get support from the intellectuals AFTER he gained power. Until then courting them was irrelevant; after then courting them was unnecessary.
It seems Hayek got chummy with the intellectual support system of the State and forgot just what it was they were ultimately helping to support. The intellectual support system views itself as far enough removed from the chaos it enables to be able to deny responsibility for it, so they can rationalize away their participation while still taking the perks. These people won't defect en masse until after the critical time is past, if at all. Hitler knew that he'd get support from the intellectuals AFTER he gained power. Until then courting them was irrelevant; after then courting them was unnecessary.
# posted by : January 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM
: January 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM
That the State employed intellectuals of Germany enthusiastically supported Hitler after he gained power demonstrates that the nearly free lunch the State gives to its priesthood doesn't draw the higher sort of person.
# posted by : January 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM
: January 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM
People who have invested a lifetime in justifying various state interventions into the market are unlikely to ever reconsider.
Do they have reasons? Are their justifications right or wrong?
Do they have reasons? Are their justifications right or wrong?
# posted by : January 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM
: January 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Well I thank LvMI for introducing me to AE. Is it bad that my favorite "AE" at GMU are Williams, Roberts and Boudreaux?
I just don't get why Boettke and friends are doing what they are doing. It seems petty to me, at least from the outside.
Post a Comment
I just don't get why Boettke and friends are doing what they are doing. It seems petty to me, at least from the outside.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]