In this debate between Bryan Caplan and Peter Boettke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVSVOEnofZ8), Boettke claims that the Rothbard branch of Austrian Economics, which I assumes includes Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, and Tom DiLorenzo, focuses on theory doesn't do enough economic history. However, isn't economic history much of what Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, and Tom DiLorenzo? There's the Mises.org Dailies, the PIG to the Great Depression, Tom DiLorenzo's books on capitalism, Tom Woods' Meltdown, etc. Or do you have to be published in some mainstream economics journal to qualify?
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Is there any point to this topic?
Ultimately, Murphy probably wouldn't have been writing for long when the debate took places and neither Woods nor DiLorenzo do much economic history (the to extent that Woods has done economic history, the same problem applies to his as does to Murphy's). In any case, you've named three "Rothbardian" scholars who have done some history, what about all the ones that don't do any history? (And there are plenty of them). Look, if you want to see what Boettke means go and look at the publications lists of Boettke, Leeson, Storr, Coyne, Stringham, Powell, Beaulier, Prychitko, Chamlee Wright and the like.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:Is there any point to this topic?
Yup.
GilesStratton:Ultimately, Murphy probably wouldn't have been writing for long when the debate took places and neither Woods nor DiLorenzo do much economic history (the to extent that Woods has done economic history, the same problem applies to his as does to Murphy's).
The video I link to was uploaded to youtube this month and the Caplan's and Boettke's attires seem modern, so figured this was a recent debate.
GilesStratton:In any case, you've named three "Rothbardian" scholars who have done some history, what about all the ones that don't do any history? (And there are plenty of them). Look, if you want to see what Boettke means go and look at the publications lists of Boettke, Leeson, Storr, Coyne, Stringham, Powell, Beaulier, Prychitko, Chamlee Wright and the like.
Do any of them have works that compare to Rothbard's America's Great Depression?
Daniel:Do any of them have works that compare to Rothbard's America's Great Depression?
The Invisible Hook by Leeson is pretty good.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
What about Dan D'Amico? He applies AE to prisons, justice, et al.
What about Ron Paul? Or does he not qualify because he doesn't have a degree in economics?
Or Douglas French with his book on the tulip bubble?
There is more then enough history behind their economics. Perhaps they don't have itunes and rss subscriptions? There is a whole series to listen to these guys about history. DiLorenzo's lectures alone are all about 19th century tariffs, monopolies, Lincoln's economic policies. Thomas Woods is a historian so I don't think it fair to expect a great deal of economics out of him but he has been getting into it and he is very good. He covers the great depression, labor unions [ which I think is very important and neglected, he's got meltdown, 'Why you've never heard of the 1921 depression' [ that is actually the first lecture I listened to by him and I instantly loved his style and presentation ] and Bob Murphy not so much a historian but he does some work. I think history is very important and people should combine it with economics [ some are economists who try to delve into history and historians who try to delve into economics, I am the latter ] but anyways its a positive force but I wouldn't force people to do it.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Daniel:Or do you have to be published in some mainstream economics journal to qualify?
I beileve so. Boetkke seems to me to be less concerned with educating outside the economics profession itself.
This stuff happens in every school of thought. People fight over who is consistent, or who is most rigorous, or who is most progressive or who has achieved such and such.
I'm sure that Boettke et al are very successful at what they set out to do. Unfortunately, they seem to have little interest in capturing my interest, or sharing the relevance of such work with the layman. It might all be brilliant and worthwhile stuff. Who outside the economics profession knows?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Daniel:Or do you have to be published in some mainstream economics journal to qualify? I beileve so. Boetkke seems to me to be less concerned with educating outside the economics profession itself. This stuff happens in every school of thought. People fight over who is consistent, or who is most rigorous, or who is most progressive or who has achieved such and such. I'm sure that Boettke et al are very successful at what they set out to do. Unfortunately, they seem to have little interest in capturing my interest, or sharing the relevance of such work with the layman. It might all be brilliant and worthwhile stuff. Who outside the economics profession knows?
Yeah, I don't know why Giles was getting so pissy. I wasn't attacking Boettke's work or anything of that sort. I was merely challenging Boettke's claim that people in the "Rothbardian branch" are not historical enough.
Daniel:Yeah, I don't know why Giles was getting so pissy.
Giles is at that age where people have heroes and see everything in polar battles of good versus bad. Before it was Hoppe. Now it is Boettke. Later it may be someone else. His defense of GMU economists has probably done more to undermine them than to support them, just as his posts in favour of Hoppe probably did more to defame him.
He's learning moderation. Slowly, but he is improving.
Daniel, I'm not getting pissy, I just figured this topic would eventually take the same direction as all these topics do. Fortunately, it has thus far avoided such a fate.
I don't think it's worth getting into "The Invisible Hook better than America's Great Depression", because I've not read the latter but I don't think the two books will easily lend themselves to comparison. I will say that The Invisible Hook is absolutely terrific, I've read a bit of Coyne's work on post war reconstruction and it's also first rate economics. Your original question seemed to pertain to quantity and not necessarily quality, and in regards to quantity I think the GMU guys quite clearly have the advantage. I don't want to have to make a list of all of their works because it's far more original than that done by the people like Rothbard and Murphy (I don't mean to downplay their work, by the way) and wider in scope.
Despite these wasted words, I'd argue that Boettke was referring to the difference in focus that exists between Auburn and Fairfax.
(By the way, D'Amico is a student over at GMU, so...)
LibertyStudent, it's certainly true that the people associated with GMU have a different academic strategy. But it simply isn't true that they're not interested in educating the layman. Numerous of the economists you're referring to contribute to The Freeman, Boettke has had kind words for Bob Murphy's work and the work of the LvMI and most of them participate in FEE seminars and the like..
(By the way, why don't you apply this formule you've figured out and determine how much money I receive from GMU or whoever else?)
GilesStratton:Despite these wasted words, I'd argue that Boettke was referring to the difference in focus that exists between Auburn and Fairfax.
I know, I know. But why is it a "problem", as Boettke called it, that Auburn focuses on theory? Why can't we have a synergy where Auburn focuses on theory and Fairfax focuses on history or real-world applications of theory?
GilesStratton:By the way, D'Amico is a student over at GMU, so...
He's definately a Rothbardian though.
GilesStratton:I'm not getting pissy
Oh, you get petulant all of the time. It's a well earned reputation.
GilesStratton:I just figured this topic would eventually take the same direction as all these topics do.
Which has more to do with you than anyone else.
GilesStratton:Fortunately, it has thus far avoided such a fate.
If it changes, that will be up to you.
Daniel: GilesStratton:By the way, D'Amico is a student over at GMU, so... He's definately a Rothbardian though.
Which just shows how little this school divide amounts to.
I suppose it's a problem because for the guys over at GMU (and for Ludwig von Mises, may I add) the purpose of theory is to analyse history, we should avoid analysis at a level of abstraction higher than necessary. The obvious problem with your "synergy" is that neither organization is monolithic, at the end of the day they're just associations of scholars and there are numerous professional (and personal) disagreements between them. That said, there is overlap, Roderick Long and Bob Higgs are both associated with both GMU and LvMI.
As for Dan D'Amico being a Rothbardian, almost all bloggers over at The Austrian Economists would consider themselves "Rothbardians" to some extent or another.
LibertyStudent, your fascination with me is flattering and I'm by no means opposed to speaking about me, but let's not derail another topic with discussion about me, so if you're going to do this, just send me a message telling me I'm awesome and I'll get back to you.
GilesStratton: I suppose it's a problem because for the guys over at GMU (and for Ludwig von Mises, may I add) the purpose of theory is to analyse history, we should avoid analysis at a level of abstraction higher than necessary.
I suppose it's a problem because for the guys over at GMU (and for Ludwig von Mises, may I add) the purpose of theory is to analyse history, we should avoid analysis at a level of abstraction higher than necessary.
I'm not entirely sure that is true. It is obviously a legitimate application of economics, Mises studied economics so he could study history. But economics can also just be applied to what the state should or should not do or just be pursued for its own sake. Further I don't see the problem of high level abstraction if it reformulates theory on an even sounder basis. Finally economic theory alone cannot be used to understand history- it requires psychology and also sociology hence my favourable disposition towards inter-disciplinarian study.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
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