An Austrian's view on the Austrian School

Got this in response to posting a link to the Daily Article from the other day where Rothbard analyzes Keynesian theory.

I am always bemused when people link to the Ludwig von Misses site to support their anarcho-libertarian ideology or criticisms of today’s governments from that perspective. This is rather like citing an X-Files episode to support a claim of the government covering up their possession of UFOs and UFO technology. I also get a little irritated because many people take the name to mean that here in Austria we are actually subscribing to this economic ideology and successfully running a country using it. We are not… and as far as is known it is not possible to do so.

The so called Austrian School of economics can best be described as an heresy, one which flared up more than a hundred years ago, never really got off the ground, and today is not in main stream economic schooling…. To my knowledge it is not taught in any university economics programs, even as an oddity. As I understand this is because the proponents of the Austrian School reject the scientific method and instead rely on a unique set of mental gymnastics to support a preconceived ideology. An ideology which is stridently against centralization, so you can see why it’s so popular with today’s anarcho-libertarians.   Also supporters of the main stream economic schools can point to scores of factual historical events which support their economic theories and  prove their economic models. These events, by definition, also invalidate the Austrian School’s claims (if only they would accept the scientific method). The corollary to all of this is that all these people posting links to monographs on Austrian School theories, are drawn to them because they support their ideologies and not because they have been shown to be successful predictors of economic reality or as useful tools in informing public policy. This strikes me as rather unhelpful and eerily reminiscent of Soviet thinking… which didn’t turn out to be so successful. So, I have to wonder if the right direction for societies is the direction which sees the majority to liberty & prosperity or the one which conforms to a particular preconceived ideology.

I actually think part of it has to do with being brought up & raised in a 2 party political statist climate, where, one may grow up to view the other political party as the idiots (and a lot of this is encouraged by others doing the same, the way logic & argumentation isn't taught so much in the beloved state schools, other circumstances, etc.), and therefore have a right to ignore logic & their own bullshit in pursuit of proving the other to be "wrong", and themselves to be "right", whatever argumneative means that might entail.

That's not to excuse it on the individual level, of course, but I can't help but think of that as a possible reason sometimes, whenever I happen to skim the daily political news.  Especially since in hindsight, I remember when I was a leftist, there was always a focus on who was right and who was wrong, with the why being only superficialy enough to put the other into their place in a debate (this is all ancedotally, of course).

Nitroadict:

there was always a focus on who was right and who was wrong

A prophet is least welcome in their native land as these are the folks that know them best.  Von Mises and his theories have challenged the economic policy du jour for over 100 years in Austria and most of Europe.  First he challenged the Facists with their government control of private business.  Then he challenged the Communists with their take over of private business.  Then he challenged the "Commie Lite" Democratic Socialists and their control on Austrian society. 

People hate to hear they are off on the wrong direction and that the only way forward is to let other people peacefully conduct their lives.  Most folks love to hear that you can make the world a better place through benevolence, aka: force and violence.

Did anyone inform this "bemused" imbecile that the scientific method they're speaking of has fallen out of fashion within philosophical and scientific circles? Almost enough to "bemuse" one. They don't address the Austrian criticisms of the scientific method, they fail to understand methodological dualism, they think historical facts (which are always complex and multifaceted) can refute sound theory (in practice, no "fact" simply refutes any theory) and instead prefer to mire it in a deluge of pure sophistry. Moreover, one can launch a counter-attack on this charge of ideological bias that government economists concoct abstract nonsense cloaked in mathematical obscurity merely to justify government. The Austrian School is "heresy" indeed, in that it rebukes mainstream received doctrine and refuses to yield to its lies, in that it overthrew the classical school when it came to value and in that it continues to undercut the very foundations of mainstream economics. And like true doctrinaires, mainstream economists choose to ignore it, often invoking their precious, refuted (by its own standards) "scientific method". Feyerabend and Kuhn pretty much demolished Popper's paradisiac notion of "conjectures" and "refutations". In many ways, the Austrian School is about the only good thing to come out of his provincial little country in the past century.

Bemusing, indeed.

-Jon

Nitroaddict, that reminds me of this quote by Russell:

The French have a reputation for being "logical," but it is a quite undeserved reputation. Since the suppression of the Jansenists they have contributed nothing to logic, while the Germans and English have revolutionized the subject. It is probable that the suppression of Jansenism (and, in a lesser degree, of Protestantism) had a great deal to do with this decay of the logical faculty. The Jesuits encouraged sentimentality, in thought as in act; when they acquired control of education they trained boys to arrive at opinions by feeling rather than thought, and this produced mental habits which survived in many who revolted against the Catholic orthodoxy. Moreover, the Jesuits invented propaganda (in the sense in which it was understood by Governments during the war); this made both their disciples and their opponents view opinions from a party point of view, and accept en bloc opinions which hung together politically, not logically. This, precisely, is what is meant when the French are said to be "logical"; and this, precisely, is what a logician would mean if he said they were "illogical."

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

In many ways, the Austrian School is about the only good thing to come out of his provincial little country in the past century.

I was engaging in deliberate hyperbole. He seems to be positively insulted that "his" nation is associated with Austrianism.

-Jon

Here's an interesting lecture by Rothbard.

-Jon