LvMI vs. GMU

I am attempting to understand the differences between the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the George Mason University version of the Austrian theory of market processes. As far as I can tell (as an Austro-New Keynsian) the difference is that the LvMI views Rothbard as the legitimate update to Misesian thought, while GMU views Hayek as the more important heir to Mises. Is this a fair analysis, or is there more important differences?

Depends. There's three major strands of Austrianism. One is the Misesian-Lachmannite strand, which places a greater stress on subjectivism and thymology. GMU Austrians like Boettke adhere to this strand mostly. The other is the Misesian-Hayekian strand, which is closer to Hayek than Mises, and focuses heavily on entrepreneurship, knowledge, evolutionary psychology and the like. The LVMI's strand is pure Misesianism, which Rothbard (and Hoppe) is thought to have built upon, and which favours neo-Kantian formalism (i.e. praxeology.) Of course, the pure Misesian strand can be built on an Aristotelian foundation, which avoids all the pitfalls of the former methods. Reisman arguably has developed his own strand, fusing classicism with Austrianism, and grounding it in an Objectivist epistemology (close to Aristotelianism.) The first three strands do not diverge too much, except in the stress they place on various elements of Austrianism (e,g, calculation problem as knowledge or property problem) and in methodology. Personally, I view the differences between these strands as exaggerated, and in some cases resulting from mere confusion. Reisman, on the other hand, diverges quite a bit by introducing some pre-Austrian insights.

-Jon

There are people like Edward Stringham who are GMU grads who are quite Rothbardian-Misesian in every way, so it does become a bit foggy. The major tendency I see from folks to do their PhD work at GMU is to place Public Choice at the center of their analytical framework. I think this testifies to the central of that perspective in the classes and faculty. Deep Austrian analytics in the area of capital theory and business cycles and the theory of the firm--for example--is being done by people who worked within mainstream departments other than GMU and see Austrian analytics as an excellect foil and corrective, and providing a great way to understand the real world as versus the made-up world of mathematical equations. I know that this sounds more mundane than the above explanations but it accords with most of what I see.

Jon Irenicus:

Depends. There's three major strands of Austrianism. One is the Misesian-Lachmannite strand, which places a greater stress on subjectivism and thymology. GMU Austrians like Boettke adhere to this strand mostly. The other is the Misesian-Hayekian strand, which is closer to Hayek than Mises, and focuses heavily on entrepreneurship, knowledge, evolutionary psychology and the like. The LVMI's strand is pure Misesianism, which Rothbard (and Hoppe) is thought to have built upon, and which favours neo-Kantian formalism (i.e. praxeology.) Of course, the pure Misesian strand can be built on an Aristotelian foundation, which avoids all the pitfalls of the former methods. Reisman arguably has developed his own strand, fusing classicism with Austrianism, and grounding it in an Objectivist epistemology (close to Aristotelianism.) The first three strands do not diverge too much, except in the stress they place on various elements of Austrianism (e,g, calculation problem as knowledge or property problem) and in methodology. Personally, I view the differences between these strands as exaggerated, and in some cases resulting from mere confusion. Reisman, on the other hand, diverges quite a bit by introducing some pre-Austrian insights.

-Jon

Jon, could you translate this into something a layman such as myself can better understand?

liberty student:

Jon Irenicus:

Depends. There's three major strands of Austrianism. One is the Misesian-Lachmannite strand, which places a greater stress on subjectivism and thymology. GMU Austrians like Boettke adhere to this strand mostly. The other is the Misesian-Hayekian strand, which is closer to Hayek than Mises, and focuses heavily on entrepreneurship, knowledge, evolutionary psychology and the like. The LVMI's strand is pure Misesianism, which Rothbard (and Hoppe) is thought to have built upon, and which favours neo-Kantian formalism (i.e. praxeology.) Of course, the pure Misesian strand can be built on an Aristotelian foundation, which avoids all the pitfalls of the former methods. Reisman arguably has developed his own strand, fusing classicism with Austrianism, and grounding it in an Objectivist epistemology (close to Aristotelianism.) The first three strands do not diverge too much, except in the stress they place on various elements of Austrianism (e,g, calculation problem as knowledge or property problem) and in methodology. Personally, I view the differences between these strands as exaggerated, and in some cases resulting from mere confusion. Reisman, on the other hand, diverges quite a bit by introducing some pre-Austrian insights.

-Jon

Jon, could you translate this into something a layman such as myself can better understand?

 

No joke man.

What is there to translate? I am but a layman myself, and merely a Philosophy undergrad. Hayek, Mises, Lachmann and Reisman all have different epistemological views, and to some extent different areas of focus.

-Jon

liberty student:

Jon Irenicus:

Depends. There's three major strands of Austrianism. One is the Misesian-Lachmannite strand, which places a greater stress on subjectivism and thymology. GMU Austrians like Boettke adhere to this strand mostly. The other is the Misesian-Hayekian strand, which is closer to Hayek than Mises, and focuses heavily on entrepreneurship, knowledge, evolutionary psychology and the like. The LVMI's strand is pure Misesianism, which Rothbard (and Hoppe) is thought to have built upon, and which favours neo-Kantian formalism (i.e. praxeology.) Of course, the pure Misesian strand can be built on an Aristotelian foundation, which avoids all the pitfalls of the former methods. Reisman arguably has developed his own strand, fusing classicism with Austrianism, and grounding it in an Objectivist epistemology (close to Aristotelianism.) The first three strands do not diverge too much, except in the stress they place on various elements of Austrianism (e,g, calculation problem as knowledge or property problem) and in methodology. Personally, I view the differences between these strands as exaggerated, and in some cases resulting from mere confusion. Reisman, on the other hand, diverges quite a bit by introducing some pre-Austrian insights.

-Jon

Jon, could you translate this into something a layman such as myself can better understand?

I don't know that he could. He is describing the differences as they are. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the varied arguments themselves; they become self-explanatory then. 

So is GMU a leading school for Austrians or something that you brought up this question?

krazy kaju:

So is GMU a leading school for Austrians or something that you brought up this question?

Actually I was very surprised it wasn't mentioned in the "where to study Austrian Economics" thread. I still can't seem to figure out why more people on this forum don't support GMU. It is the only school that teaches AE that I am seriously considering for graduate school.

It is mentioned there, though. NYU is the other US university that offers systematic studies in Austrian economics.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

It is mentioned there, though. NYU is the other US university that offers systematic studies in Austrian economics.

-Jon

My mistake. I read it a long time ago and didn't remember seeing it.

Yeah, I'm thinking about going to GMU. My other top choices would be U of M, MSU, U of Chicago, and NYU, although none of them teach Austrian economics AFAIK.

Jon Irenicus:

It is mentioned there, though. NYU is the other US university that offers systematic studies in Austrian economics.

-Jon

I thought NYU is pro-free market but from a neoclassical perspective?

No, they have a course explicitly devoted to Austrian economics. Plus, the Mises circle still gathers there. It was where Mises taught, and where many of his disciples remain.

-Jon

krazy kaju:

I thought NYU is pro-free market but from a neoclassical perspective?

Israel Kirzner teaches there.  Back in the day, when I was more of a Supply-Sider, I chose to go to Columbia so as to study with Robert Mundell.  At this point, I kinda wish I'd picked NYU and studied with Kirzner, though I think I got better exit opportunities out of Columbia and probably more resume cachet.

Jon Irenicus:

Plus, the Mises circle still gathers there.

Is this a regular informal event, or are you referring to the official Mises Circle that holds irregular meetings around the country (in Seattle today, in fact)?  I'd love to attend a regular informal Circle in the NYC area.

I'm interested in "defining" a Mises Circle, to encourage decentralized, spontaneous creation of such informal events.

It's the official one, but they also hold unofficial meetings IIRC. At least as far as I can recall.

-Jon