I'm just curious at to what are the main differences between GMU (Boettke, Lavoie etc.) and those at the LvMI. As I understand it the former seem to advocate hermeneutics in economics and claim that one interpretation of Mises himself suggests that.
What are some good sources on this? As I understand it Huelsmann covers some of it in his book concerning Mises and Rothbard, Hoppe, Long, Gordon and others have written concerning the issue. Can anybody else recommend any good sources from either side?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I happen to very much agree with this.
Ansury:I am a complete elitist in this regard --- PhDs and academics only, there hasn't been a lay contribution to economic science that mattered in over a century, peer reviewed research must be the norm, disciplinary boundaries should be more or less respected, there are no great hords of unpublished genius running around to enlighten us on economic issues, etc. Of course, exceptions to these rules of thumb can be found, but I generally believe the exceptions prove the rule. A lot of lay discussion that passes for Austrian economics on the internet and even in some libertarian periodicals and books is intellectually embarrassing and often as poorly written as it is ill-informed on the issues. Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric against intellectual opponents does not produce a treatise in the scientific discipline in economics no matter how much someone attempts to hype it. Contributions to scholarship do not come so easily.
Likewise, especially the following quotations:
Boettke:there are no great hords of unpublished genius running around to enlighten us on economic issues,
Boettke:A lot of lay discussion that passes for Austrian economics on the internet and even in some libertarian periodicals and books is intellectually embarrassing and often as poorly written as it is ill-informed on the issues
Boettke:Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric against intellectual opponents does not produce a treatise
By the way guys (AC, Juan, nir, Wilderness, LS) I'm still waiting for some answers, you've not been very forthcoming with them.
GilesStratton:Likewise, especially the following quotations: Boettke:there are no great hords of unpublished genius running around to enlighten us on economic issues, Boettke:A lot of lay discussion that passes for Austrian economics on the internet and even in some libertarian periodicals and books is intellectually embarrassing and often as poorly written as it is ill-informed on the issues Boettke:Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric against intellectual opponents does not produce a treatise
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton:By the way guys (AC, Juan, nir, Wilderness, LS) I'm still waiting for some answers, you've not been very forthcoming with them.
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
GilesStratton: Likewise, especially the following quotations: Boettke:there are no great hords of unpublished genius running around to enlighten us on economic issues, Boettke:A lot of lay discussion that passes for Austrian economics on the internet and even in some libertarian periodicals and books is intellectually embarrassing and often as poorly written as it is ill-informed on the issues Boettke:Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric against intellectual opponents does not produce a treatise By the way guys (AC, Juan, nir, Wilderness, LS) I'm still waiting for some answers, you've not been very forthcoming with them.
Good points. But I think what is important to look at is the root cause of "Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric', and why is AE (or economic science in general) all of the sudden passionatly appealing to so many lay people? Personaly, I think it is because of the centralization of science. This tends to happen with science when it vies for public centralization. Why is global warming/environmental science so heated with debate from lay people? I think for the exact same reason. You don't hear too many passionate lay people debate as to what made the dinosaurs go extinct or what caused the late bronze age crash. It is usually only when ones ideas are being forced on another do things tend to go into a fever pitch.
I am of the opinion that many peoples anger and frustartion are warrented in today's world, particularly more free market oriented people where the propaganda and political situation is clearly not in their favor.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Dondoolee: GilesStratton: Likewise, especially the following quotations: Boettke:there are no great hords of unpublished genius running around to enlighten us on economic issues, Boettke:A lot of lay discussion that passes for Austrian economics on the internet and even in some libertarian periodicals and books is intellectually embarrassing and often as poorly written as it is ill-informed on the issues Boettke:Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric against intellectual opponents does not produce a treatise By the way guys (AC, Juan, nir, Wilderness, LS) I'm still waiting for some answers, you've not been very forthcoming with them. Good points. But I think what is important to look at is the root cause of "Bad readings of economic argument combined with angry rhetoric', and why is AE (or economic science in general) all of the sudden passionatly appealing to so many lay people? Personaly, I think it is because of the centralization of science. This tends to happen with science when it vies for public centralization. Why is global warming/environmental science so heated with debate from lay people? I think for the exact same reason. You don't hear too many passionate lay people debate as to what made the dinosaurs go extinct or what caused the late bronze age crash. It is usually only when ones ideas are being forced on another do things tend to go into a fever pitch. I am of the opinion that many peoples anger and frustartion are warrented in today's world, particularly more free market oriented people where the propaganda and political situation is clearly not in their favor.
I found this to be an interesting article (found it in one of the comments on his blog)
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Why all the hate for Giles?
I. Ryan: Why all the hate for Giles?
Dunno. I think he makes alot of good points, and seems very well-versed in economics.
Juan:Is Giles well versed in economics ? A week ago he was a staunch opponent of FRB. Now he's in favor of it. That's kinda...weird...for someone who really knows what he's talking about.
Elaborate.
He certainly is well versed, although I'm sure he admits there is still alot to learn and understand. Perhaps he has reevaluated his position regarding FRB. If this is the case, I am interested in his reasoning.
I read some of Boettke's articles regarding FRB and he often refers to a "natural rate of interest" that is different than the market rate. As in, in times of increased demand to hold money, the market rate will change relative to the "natural rate" and this is sub-optimal. Perhaps Giles can elaborate, if he is familiar with Boettke's position. What is the natural rate of interest, how can it be known to differ with the "market" rate, and what are the implications of allowing the market rate to differ from the "natural" rate?
I am far from convinced that FRB and monetary policy can "fix" the market, but I don't want to dismiss it out of hand.
I don't get it; why should we give up on capital theory?
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
The natural rate of interest: The rate of interest that would be determined by supply and demand if actual capital goods were lent without the mediation of money, meaning without the distorting affects of fluctuations in the purchasing power of money.
The market or money rate of interest: The rate of interest that is demanded and paid for loans in money or money substitutes, or the rate at which the banks lend.
The diversion of the market rate of interest to that of the natural rate is what causes the business cycle, the booms and the busts. When the banks create fiduciary media (know what this means), through credit expansion, they necessarily lower the market rate below the natural rate. Even if the market rate does not change, the natural rate has, it increased (since creating fiduciary media presupposes lowering the market rate below the natural rate). This allows firms to engage in a more lengthening capital accumulation process, and allows investment ventures which are not truly profitable to appear profitable. For example, if your expected rate of return was 4%, but the rate of interest was 5%, you could not open your business, unless you enjoy making losses. But if the market rate was suppressed, arbitrarily so, to 3%, your project now seems profitable. But the people do not really want your business, they have not actually chosen to differ consumption (save) as to warrant the entry of your company onto the market. This diverts labor and capital away from actual sustainable activities into unsustainable ones, and bids labor away from lower order goods to higher order ones (from producing immediate consumption goods to future production goods). This also increases competition for laborers which results into inflated wage prices, which are made rigid through union contracts. When the bust comes (when the market rate returns to the natural rate) those who are unnaturally employed must see a reduction in their wages or unemployment. The market rate must eventually return to the natural rate, no matter what; this process can be delayed but never stopped. We can't know what the natural rate is, or at least right now we can't know.
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