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
Physiocrat: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
As I see it "what the state should do" in a given situation is just normative conclusions derived from contemporary history, so I don't think we have a disagreement there. Likewise, I'd be right with you in suggesting that economics, narrowly construed, isn't sufficient, so I'm not sure where our disagreement would be.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:LibertyStudent, your fascination with me is flattering
It's not a fascination. I moderate, and you are the forum's most moderated member.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
GilesStratton: Physiocrat: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 As I see it "what the state should do" in a given situation is just normative conclusions derived from contemporary history, so I don't think we have a disagreement there. Likewise, I'd be right with you in suggesting that economics, narrowly construed, isn't sufficient, so I'm not sure where our disagreement would be.
My disagreement was with your statement that economics is there essentially to allow economic history to take place and your implicit support of more economic history than foundationalist economics based on that non-sequitur.
When I said "what the state should do" I meant that economic theory gives the insight in what effects state policy have and so in a utilitarian sense can give reasons for what the state should or should not do.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
hayekianxyz: (By the way, D'Amico is a student over at GMU, so...)
(By the way, D'Amico is a student over at GMU, so...)
Btw, D'Amico studied under Walter Block at Loyola New Orleans, and Ed Stringham studied under Walter Block at Holy Cross.
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