The Best Austrian Textbook From a Living Economist.

Reply

pentahedron replied on Fri, Apr 29 2011 4:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Me and someone were talking about this last week. He finished grad school and is an Austrian. He told me that he hopes someone gets around to writing a modern Austrian treatise while incorporating some mainstream theory since it's came a long way since Human Action was written.

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Fri, Apr 29 2011 4:48 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't know if it's the best, but one that has had some level of influence on me is George Reisman's Capitalism.  I mean, there are a lot of major concepts I haven't really assimilated yet, or even come to terms with, -- such as his rate of profit theory of interest -- but overall I think it's an important piece of 'Austrian' literature.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what living 'Austrian' economist has written a real treatise.  I've heard rumors that Jesús Huerta de Soto is working on a two-volume general treatise on Austrian economics, though.

Reply

Lagrange multiplier replied on Fri, Apr 29 2011 4:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Being a fan of de Soto, I would definitely appreciate that.

Next question: why aren't Austrians writing more A-to-Z textbooks?

Reply

John James replied on Fri, Apr 29 2011 4:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Lagrange multiplier:

Next question: why aren't Austrians writing more A-to-Z textbooks?

Not sure what you mean.

Reply

MrSchnapps replied on Fri, Apr 29 2011 4:57 PM

rated by 0 users

I've read a bit of Capitalism, and would agree that it is an excellent work. However, I have heard that he differs with Austrians on some pretty fundamental issues, although this might just be hearsay floating around.

Does anyone have any details to substantiate the difference?

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Fri, Apr 29 2011 5:11 PM

rated by 0 users

I've read a bit of Capitalism, and would agree that it is an excellent work. However, I have heard that he differs with Austrians on some pretty fundamental issues, although this might just be hearsay floating around.

There are some major differences.  Reisman rejects the "pure time preference" theory of interest and instead develops his own "net-profit" -- or something like that -- theory of interest.  Also, Reisman disagrees with the marginal productivity theory of wages -- I think correctly -- and proposes his own "productivity theory of wages" (as I understand both theories, I don't think they are mutually exclusive if you tweak the former to explain money wages and the latter as a general explenation of rising real wages).  Reisman doesn't get into methodology, but he is not a praxeologist; more importantly, he rejects the idea of a science which explains human action, and instead adops the classical definition of economics as a science which explains the accumulation of wealth.

It's been over a year since I've last looked at Reisman's book (and I never finished it; I left off where he explains his theory of interest so that I could read Human Action... I have yet to return to Capitalism), and so my memory is a little weak, but there are a number of other -- probably a bit more minor -- differences, as well.

Reply

BlackNumero replied on Sat, Apr 30 2011 7:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Depends on how you define "Austrian" and "textbook" really. Austrian can range from the strict Rothbard-Mises strand all the way to Neoclassical economics + ABCT + economic coordination. And by textbook, are you referring to a extensive work on Austrian economics, or a full blown treastise?

For the full blown Rothbard/Mises strand, MES is really the best treatise hands down. As for later treatse for this particular group, I don't think anything compares. Good textbooks can range from the Structure of Production by Mark Skousen to Huerta de Soto Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles.

For applied Austrianism, there are some textbooks listed on the Coordination Problem I see but have never read. Time and Money is another good one, though it focuses on Austrian macroeconomics.

Reply

Zachary Plaxco replied on Sun, May 1 2011 4:19 AM

rated by 0 users

Mises is different than Rothbard in quite a few ways.  I think it's rather confusing to call the Rothbardian strain the Mises-Rothbard strain.

Reply

BlackNumero replied on Sun, May 1 2011 1:05 PM

rated by 0 users

How So? I know Rothbard disagreed with him on issues such as monopoly/FRB, but they both utilized the same praxeological method  and many of their ideas are similar. Mises is definately sourced by everyone, but If I "had" to put him in a group, it would be the Rothbard strand. He is definately more of a Rothbardian than a Hayekian or an applied Austrian/neoclassial. 

Reply

Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on Sun, May 1 2011 1:14 PM

rated by 0 users

Did Mises ever comment on Rothbard's reformulation of his monopoly theory in Man, Economy, and State?

Next question: why aren't Austrians writing more A-to-Z textbooks?

What's an A-to-Z textbook?

Reply

BlackNumero replied on Sun, May 1 2011 2:06 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't think he did, nor did he address any of Rothbards deviations (or supposed deviations by some critics) from his views (that I know of). All he wrote about it was the glowing review where he heavily praised Rothbard. Perhaps he thought Rothbard was going places and didn't want to bring down the Austrian movement by engaging in debates with him, or he thought Rothbard was right and this was the easiest way for him to write it besides "Okay, I was wrong about X,Y,Z etc".

Reply

Zachary Plaxco replied on Mon, May 2 2011 4:29 AM

rated by 0 users

Deviations on monopoly, money, banking, and political economy.  At least that's what I get from my readings.