Who would you all consider to be the most charismatic economists, particularly in the Austrian school? You can answer in the following categories: charismatic in writing, while speaking, in person, on video, etc.
I only ask because, for me, it was Milton Friedman's friendly old man charisma that got me on a libertarian stint that eventually led me to the Austrian school. It was the one video of him on the Phil Donahue show answering a question about greed that really got me thinking about such things, and perhaps the same words spoken from a nasal and impatient-sounding Murray Rothbard wouldn't have had the same effect, however sad that might be. So who's charismatic in the Austrian school these days?
He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer.
Economic Thought (Latest Post): How Not To Make Globalization Work
Dr Thomas Woods, while more of an economic historian, is always a thrill to read and listen to.
Jeffrey Tucker, while not an economist, is an enormous turn on to the Austrian school. His speaking and writing is probably the most inviting to the school than anyone I can think of.
Joseph Salerno is great to listen to, too.
Bob Murphy is a pretty funny guy...his blog is a hoot to read.
Since someone has to say it, I'm going to nominate J.M. Keynes. If there was a word to describe him it would be "charismatic".
Irish Liberty Forum
Speaking: Anthony Carilli, Paul Cwik, Steve Horwitz, Peter Boettke, Walter Block
Writing: Bob Murphy, Gene Callahan, Peter Leeson
(and Tom Palmer isn't an economist)
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Anthony Carilli and, to the extent you would count him as an 'Austrian', James Buchanan.
And although he is a historian, I find Thomas Woods, Jr. to be quite entertaining.
Frederick the Great“I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.”"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.”
bastiat and robert murphy are both great.
Jeffrey tucker is very, very good and mike munger is a hoot to listen to! (although the latter is more of a political science guy I think)
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer.
Had him at the Oxford Libertarian society -- he was awesome. He's the kind of guy I want talking to the masses
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
fakename:bastiat and robert murphy are both great.
Where have you heard Bastiat talk? I wanna go!
He's a liar and a demagogue. Not a fan.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
In no particular order, Bob Higgs. Guido Hulsmann. Gary North. Bob Murphy. Peter Klein. Art Carden. George Selgin. Hans Hoppe. Bill Anderson. Tom DiLorenzo
Then I would say in the non-economists, Woods, Richman, Rockwell and Tucker.
liberty student: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer. He's a liar and a demagogue. Not a fan.
http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/11/01/norberg-on-the-financial-crisis-great/
"But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis." (Talking about Meltdown)
Thedesolateone: liberty student: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer. He's a liar and a demagogue. Not a fan. http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/11/01/norberg-on-the-financial-crisis-great/ "But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis." (Talking about Meltdown)
Let's be honest, Tom Woods' email to Tom Palmer's boss complaining about the book review was a bit extreme. Cringeworthy.
If you're looking for a liar and a blogagogue, Brad DeLong is your man.
Thedesolateone: http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/11/01/norberg-on-the-financial-crisis-great/ "But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis." (Talking about Meltdown)
Just curious, how does one respond to such criticism?
Write to his boss.
Alex M:Just curious, how does one respond to such criticism?
I suppose, like this, then this, which leads to this. (Palmer does have a point, he just misapplied it)
When people don't spend their money on present consumer goods and save the money, it causes businesses in the consumer goods sector to shrink. At the same time investments that can boost future production of goods offers an opportunity for entrepreneurs. So entrepreneurs borrow the saved money and use it to fund these investments. So there is a growth in the more capital intensive sectors of the economy.
This reasoning is purely logical, not any religious dogma.
Alex M: Just curious, how does one respond to such criticism?
By proving you're right. But, I have to admit that Woods' book was not very good. But, it was never meant to be an exaustive analysis on the current recession; it was only written a readable book on the recession to introduce the Austrian perspective, and hopefully invite the readers to read more thorough texts. In only that sense it was not "very good" (at analysis), but it was almost perfect in terms of advertising the Austrian School (which is just as important). Tom Palmer critisized the theory without actually knowing it, simply basing his opinion on the Austrian theory on what he had read in Woods' book, when he should have figured that only skimmed the surface of it.
Larry Sechrest was an amazing speaker. Hoppe is good too once you get past the thick accent (I actually like it.)
Tom Palmer critisized the theory without actually knowing it, simply basing his opinion on the Austrian theory on what he had read in Woods' book, when he should have figured that only skimmed the surface of it.
He's a nit-picking positivist who has a history of not comprehending what he reads and then launching attacks.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: Larry Sechrest was an amazing speaker.
Larry Sechrest was an amazing speaker.
I've only read one of his books (the only one I know of; Free Banking) and it was kind of technical, but besides that it was a very well written book and easy to read.
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