The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Political Theory
 »
Criticising Austrians

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Criticising Austrians

rated by 0 users
This post has 8 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Posts 536
Points 17,205
Reply
alimentarius Posted: Sat, Sep 19 2009 4:58 PM

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html

 Is this criticism valid?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Reply
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sat, Sep 19 2009 5:00 PM

Nothing by Huben is valid. His arguments consist of strawmen and pissing and moaning that AE isn't positivistic.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430
Reply
hayekianxyz replied on Sat, Sep 19 2009 5:13 PM

If you want to see good criticisms of Austrian economics, I think Caplan's is rather good. See the exchanges between Caplan and Boettke and Caplan and Huelsmann and Block. There's also an interesting exchange between Leland Yeager and Sherwin Rosen on Austrian economics (David Gordon has a review of it). Backhouse also has a good overview of Austrianism available on this site.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 188
Points 3,820
Reply
socialdtk replied on Sat, Sep 19 2009 6:09 PM

GilesStratton:
I think Caplan's is rather good. See the exchanges between Caplan and Boettke and Caplan and Huelsmann and Block.

Where can I find this?  Doing a quick google search I found Boettke's What is Wrong with Neoclassical Economics (And What is Still Wrong with Austrian Economics) http://economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/pubs/articles/wrong.htm  and Caplan's Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm but am having trouble finding where Block comes into the picture.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Reply
nirgrahamUK replied on Sat, Sep 19 2009 6:59 PM

i think Caplan's is rather embarrassing..... for Caplan.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895
Reply
Caley McKibbin replied on Sun, Sep 20 2009 1:32 AM

I started reading that Caplan article years ago, but couldn't finish it.  All he did was whine about Murray Rothbard's personality and rearguard neo-classical.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 536
Points 17,205
Reply
alimentarius replied on Sun, Sep 20 2009 2:35 AM

GilesStratton:
If you want to see good criticisms of Austrian economics, I think Caplan's is rather good.

How can criticisms of AE be good if AE rocks?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 901
Points 15,900
Reply
wombatron replied on Sun, Sep 20 2009 2:50 AM

alimentarius:
How can criticisms of AE be good if AE rocks?

Even granting the truth of the basis of Austrian economics and praxeology, criticisms can still be useful.  They will often reveal new truths about AE or reveal a mistake, and it leads you to check your premises, which is never a bad thing.

Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430
Reply
hayekianxyz replied on Sun, Sep 20 2009 7:42 AM

Caley McKibbin:

I started reading that Caplan article years ago, but couldn't finish it.  All he did was whine about Murray Rothbard's personality and rearguard neo-classical.

He hit the nail on the head with regard to Rothbard's theory of welfare (although, others had said that same thing before him, such as Lawrence White). He also made some good points about ABCT. There are other areas where I think he was incorrect (namely his point on cardinal and ordinal theory of value). I also think he's wrong in conflating Rothbard and Mises.

It's been a while since I read it, but I think a lot of what he says is true to some extent.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap