Is Schumpeter an Austrian economist?

And how does deriving theories not based on deduction relate to Austrianism? For example, I suspect that you are crazy because your mom beat you as a child. Would not this theory be just as useful as one that said you are crazy because your hair is brown since neither is based off deduction (according to Misesian epistemology that is)?

afruff23:

Is Schumpeter an Austrian economist?

Not really, although he has Austrian roots.  He started out as a student of Bohm-Bawerk, a giant in the Austrian tradition, just like his contemporary Mises.  And he is well-known for his veneration of the enterpreneur and the popularization of the phrase "creative destruction" to describe the dynamism of the economy.  But Schumpeter became seduced by the Walrasian school and became enamored of equilibrium in mathematical models, a big epistemological no-no in the Austrian method.  He also didn't subscribe to Austrian Business Cycle theory but instead posited his own business cycle theory where change occured due to the entreprenuer over 4 regular cycles of varying lengths (54, 18, 9 and 4 years) which overlapped in different ways.

afruff23:

And how does deriving theories not based on deduction relate to Austrianism?

It differentiates non-Austrian theories from Austrian ones, given that Austrian theories are based on deduction.

 

The attempts at creating a periodical BCT really amaze me. It reminds me of when they would try to model the path of planets in the sky and use several circles to describe an orbit only to find they need to add yet another circle to correct for the new errors. Did it ever occur to them that correlation is not causation and these models are fundamentally flawed?

So why are Bohm-Bawerk and Mises not famous, while their less-Austrian students are?

afruff23:

So why are Bohm-Bawerk and Mises not famous, while their less-Austrian students are?

Economists that advocate government intervention are lionized by the establishment (e.g. Keynes, Friedman); economists that oppose government intervention are dismissed as cranks (e.g. Mises, Rothbard).

Well, Mises was famous in his day, and very influential. It is only later in time that he faded into complete obscurity. Hayek is known to almost all though, albeit grudgingly.

-Jon

afruff23:

Did it ever occur to them that correlation is not causation and these models are fundamentally flawed?

So why are Bohm-Bawerk and Mises not famous, while their less-Austrian students are?

Mises is famous, Bohm-Bawerk is known to people that are interested into economics. Just why is Friedrich von Wieser less known or popular with Austrians today? Perhaps because he is "less liberal"?

We know the Austrian approach to economics. What is the Schumpeterian approach to economics in a nut shell?

Torsten:

What is the Schumpeterian approach to economics in a nut shell?

He is a Walrasian Neoclassical; Schumpeter beleived Walras to be the greatest single economist ever to have lived.

Jon Irenicus:

Hayek is known to almost all though, albeit grudgingly.

There is a picture of Hayek in the tutoring room of the University of Amherst's (UMarx if noone else knows about the place) Economics Department, so Hayek is still influential.

laminustacitus:

Jon Irenicus:

Hayek is known to almost all though, albeit grudgingly.

There is a picture of Hayek in the tutoring room of the University of Amherst's (UMarx if noone else knows about the place) Economics Department, so Hayek is still influential.

 More so in neurology and artificial intelligence. Spontaneous Order FTW!