Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

Reply

InHongKong Posted: Fri, May 20 2011 3:50 PM

rated by 0 users

This obviously may not be a sensible question, but... given the Krugmans of the world, why wouldn't the Institute or some associates of its issue an M.A. in economics to people who have studied Austrianism?  Obviously, some would call it a diploma mill, but... what would one call the departments of economics of the Ivy League?

Reply

John James replied on Fri, May 20 2011 4:16 PM

rated by 0 users

You're asking why a charity doesn't grant diplomas?

Reply

InHongKong replied on Fri, May 20 2011 4:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Yes... students of the Austrian school certainly know more about economics than Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, and the rest of them...

Reply

InHongKong replied on Fri, May 20 2011 4:25 PM

rated by 0 users

Pardon, but I think if one isn't a statist, there should be nothing wrong with this.  I attended Thomas Aquinas College in California for a year, so I think I know a thing or two about what knowledge is and what it isn't.  M.A.s are typically a mark that one has some kind of narrow expertise.  Now who is more of an expert on economics... Joe on the street, who understands Austrian economics, or Ben Bernanke?  Paul Krugman?

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Fri, May 20 2011 11:48 PM

rated by 0 users

"You're asking why a charity doesn't grant diplomas?"

When did the Mises Institute turn into a charity?

To the OP: The Mises Institute already has various courses on economics, history and philosophy through the Mises Academy. It just recently started so it has a select course listing but I'm sure it will grow with time. 

Reply

Matticus Rex replied on Fri, May 20 2011 11:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Nonprofit =/= charity.

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Sat, May 21 2011 12:28 AM

rated by 0 users

InHongKong:

  I attended Thomas Aquinas College in California for a year, so I think I know a thing or two about what knowledge is and what it isn't.

Its a shame that colleges dont teach you about logical fallacies

Reply

John James replied on Sat, May 21 2011 2:33 AM

rated by 0 users

InHongKong:

I attended Thomas Aquinas College in California for a year, so I think I know a thing or two about what knowledge is and what it isn't.

You know how I know that first part is true?  If you were making it up you would have picked a school more than 2 people have heard of.

Andrew Cain:

When did the Mises Institute turn into a charity?

October 1982.

Matticus Rex:

Nonprofit =/= charity.

So what?

Reply

Zachary Plaxco replied on Sat, May 21 2011 3:18 AM

rated by 0 users

"Yes... students of the Austrian school certainly know more about economics than Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, and the rest of them..."

This doesn't hold true, not even half the time.  It's even worse you put Krugman and Bernanke in the same sentence, one is much more respectable than the other, but both are incredibly intelligent and know quite a bit of economics.  Maybe this would be more true if the majority of the students of the Austrian School didn't restrict themselves to exclusively Rothbardian economics...

Reply

abskebabs replied on Sat, May 21 2011 5:40 AM

rated by 0 users

I think Zach may have a point... at least as far as undergrad economics goes. Mainstream econ is definitely worth learning, if at least to contrast in a critical perspective, and I think a lot of current younger Austrians (going from personal experience) are not doing themselves a favour by ignoring mainstream econ to the extent they seem to be. I don't think we should try to become 21st century Schmollerites.

Being on an advanced econ course at the moment, I've noticed a curious psychological phenomenon among my classmates. Among them, even the people who seemed to find a lot of what they were originally being taught nonsense, especially among those who were originally maths amteurs, there comes a kind of holy mesmerisation with mathematics and its application, that I think would probably make it very hard for these people to fathom serious critiques of what they are doing after the sacrifices they have made to try to learn it.

Not sure how much is useful beyond the undergrad level, for instance mainstream macro atm seems to me a hell of a lot of playing with Hamiltonians to find steady states (not that variational calculus isn't fascinating in its own right). Not sure how this kind of mental masturbation yields much useful knowledge, especially with some of the laughable analogies utilised, but hey what do I know.

Also, who are you referring to as much less "respectable" than the other? The 2009 nobel prize winner or the ex chair of the Princeton Economics department?

Reply

John James replied on Sat, May 21 2011 7:31 AM

rated by 0 users

abskebabs I don't get it.   Your first paragraph is spent making your claim that learning mainstream econ is totally worth the time, and your following two provide anecdotal evidence refuting it.  Whose side are you on?

Reply

abskebabs replied on Sat, May 21 2011 8:58 AM

rated by 0 users

I guess it depends on your goals.

If you don't want to bother going beyond learning the sound basic principles of economics, you can find many excellent, introductory works on this site for example (and I'm not denigrating this at all, in fact pursuing other activities may well be far more productive a way to spend one's time), and not need to bother going beyond them.

If you want to be a serious scholar and contribute something though, then you can't discount reading Neoclassicals and neoclassical textbooks IMO. You never know you might gain a lot, if even indirectly.  I made the distinction of undergrad level economics, as it seems to me beyond that a lot of what is presented beyond that is just ever more mathematical refinements to the same essential doctrine. If you want to understand the rationale of people writing in the FT or the Economist, then this on its own is certainly useful if only to sort out the wheat from the chaff of what they're saying for instance.

I guess perhaps though this is a mistaken personal preference of mine, that I think one should at least aim to evaluate all sides of an argument to the best of one's abillity as a minimal standard of honesty and integrity in intellectual pursuits...

Reply

John James replied on Sat, May 21 2011 10:01 AM

rated by 0 users

Of course I understand the argument for being familiar with the other side (aka "what else is out there"), as this is not a new argument by any stretch.  But as I said elsewhere, I liken the suggestion of learning the kind of modern macro taught in most classrooms to studying how to cut and splice physical celluloid film, or reading science books from the 1920s...so that you can "fully appreciate" how far we've come and "understand the foundations" or some other nonsense like that.

Yes, it is helpful to understand a lot of mainstream macro, if for no other reason than that's what so much of the world's policy is rationalized by (despite the nonsense that it is), and of course most micro is essential...but those are generally concepts that will be included in any Austrian analysis (e.g. law of supply and demand, law of unintended consequences, etc.)  But to try to claim that someone should waste a considerable amount of time learning that the universe revolves around the Earth, just because that's what a lot of other people believe...or that you should dedicate scores of hours schlepping through The General Theory and other incomprehensible tomes so that you might better learn the foundations behind the mathematization of government regulation and useless concepts like GDP and CPI, just because that's the way economics is currently done by the mainstream, is rediculous.

There is something to be said with being at least somewhat familiar with the opposing side's view...but I'm not about to dedicate any time reading The Flat Earth Society handbook.

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 10:44 AM

rated by 0 users

What I meant was that the Mises Institute should institute some sort of award or diploma to indicate that someone literally understands sound economics.  The program of course would exclude works by such morons as Keynes and econometricists.  Give out an associates degree, for goodness' sakes.  When Ben Bernanke's Ph.D. is worse than useless, there is no difference between a Ph.D. and a minor in economics.  Gary North proposes that children take an accelerated path to college and pay only around $15,000.  Why shouldn't Rothbardian employers - which will soon be numerous, in countries in which they aren't dead - look for the Mises' Institute's stamp of basic competence instead of a wretched, generic B.A.?  It seems like it would be a growth industry...

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 10:45 AM

rated by 0 users

Of course, they might simply also award doctorates to anyone who is competent - Ben Bernanke getting a Ph.D. throws the whole academic award system into chaos. 

Reply

John James replied on Sat, May 21 2011 10:56 AM

rated by 0 users

I still have no idea what your purpose is in any of this.  You're arguing that a largley unknown charitable organization should be granting diplomas that won't be to anyone worth the paper they're printed on.  Please tell me what the hell is someone supposed to do with a piece of paper that says "M.A. in economics" from the charity known as the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Reply

abskebabs replied on Sat, May 21 2011 11:14 AM

rated by 0 users

I also appreciate where you're coming from but can't help but think you're overstating your case.

Comparing reading micro and macro textbooks to "schlepping" through the General Theory is a bit much. Also, though Keynesianism and (thankfully) Austrianism have been on the rebound recently, there is a lot more out there than just Neo-Keynesian macro, it does somewhat miff me that about 5 rather different schools of thought with markedly different policy conclusions are all labelled as "Keynesian" by Austrians. It goes without saying that these schools of thought have nothing to do with growth theory. They are only "Keynesian" in the sense of their employment of aggregates , and though I'm sure we both agree that is a major flaw common to all of them, this doesn't make it excusable to just flippantly dismiss their differences(for instance, the real business cycle school as inane as we might think they are in their analysis, at least have consistent free market conclusions, that pretty much deny any benefits from government intervention in business cycle crises.)

I strongly doubt most New Keynesians, let alone economists in general have read something like the GT cover to cover. My professor last term flabbergasted me by saying reading Marshall was like me as a physicist reading Newton (talk about a stupid comparison!). All I am saying is that it might be useful to get a good grip on their current doctrine.

Also, the schools of thought only refer to business cycle theory, where there is debate and a difference of opinion, which incidentally is maybe also why Austrians have found it easier in macro than in micro to get a foothold. Neoclassical growth theory seems to have hardly been touched by contemporary Austrians for instance. While I think it contains similar errors to mainstream macro and micro in terms of aggregates and utility analysis, it would also be a useful excercise perhaps part and parcel in the development of a proper Austrian growth theory to begin with a consideration of the treatment of time horizons and time preference in the Ramsey Model for instance.

Finally, I think Austrians could benefit from making more targeted critiques of other schools of thought(especially in micro), beyond simply crticising methodology (as important as that is).

Hell, perhaps you might even change your mind on economic questions. I've always held that as a possibillity. I've seen value in what I've learned from mainstream econ, even though I still consider myself an "Austrian." It's also made me a lot more aware of where I think there are gaps in the Austrian literature, and it seems to me mostly in pointed enough, specific critiques of neoclassical micro so far. I'm hoping to get my thoughts down in written form by the end of summer.

Reply

Scaramanga replied on Sat, May 21 2011 11:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Let me guess....Krugman is the more respectable...Why? Because he was awarded the Fake Nobel Prize in Economics?? To me he is a confounded man, master disseminator of what economics is NOT about......Bernanke is a misguided person who is nothing more than a rube who thinks economics is some sort of nintendo game, where you press the button "money expansion" when you want. and when required later on, you then press the button "Drain" and everything works out just fine. He still does not understand (will figure it out eventually) that trying to play the economic measures game expecting people to do this or that is akin to herding cats...

As for intellingence....in many cases it does not correlate with "thinking or doing the right thing". Karl Marx was a very intelligent man, he was also very wrong. I could cite a great number of examples.

Reply

John Ess replied on Sat, May 21 2011 12:32 PM

rated by 0 users

The whole point of degrees is accreditation.  Which is to separate general knowledge from academic knowledge.

Academic knowledge can be good and bad.  But it is what it is.  And all the Bernankes and Krugmans have the academic knowledge.

Their MA is not a claim to absolute truth or intelligence.  It is a claim to academic knowledge.

The Mises University is about distributing knowledge about Misesian ideas and graduating people with requisite knowledge about those subjects.

If you think Ben or Krugman having MAs is no proof of their intelligence, then there is no need for Mises Institute to prove your intelligence either.

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 12:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Krugman is another mega-villain.  C'mon, this is Mises.org! 

John james, I'm going to talk crazily, but I do think I'm onto something.  Maybe I'll award myself a Ph.D. in economics and a Bobel [sic] Prize from the prestigious Noble Singaporean Society of Bobel Prizes, and start a diploma mill, because the Mises Institute won't.  Let's be ruthless when it comes to ridiculing Princeton et alia. 

Maybe it is completely crazy, but I don't know anyone in the regular Austrian movement who is flamboyant and great at marketing.  For instance, Peter Schiff, Gary North, Ron Paul, Porter Stansberry, and maybe even the Mogambo Guru, are honorable men, but they are not marvels at persuading.  None is very handsome, well-spoken, or mediagenic.  Such things shouldn't be important in persuading good men, but good men are all too rare, of course.  Someone with smart marketing skills and a grasp of the pertinent target markets might have an opportunity.  For instance, I think that Porter Stansberry, who is no doubt rich, might have the wrong marketing strategy and the wrong audience.  John James, I'm not going to reveal the details on an open and relatively popular forum. 

Yes, it'd be bad for people who study real learning, like at Thomas Aquinas College, but it'll help rectify the scandal of the prestige of the Ivy League. 

The bottom line is, the contemporary economics Ph.D. is baloney.  Start a (legal) "diploma mill" and show these clowns up for what they are. 

Reply

Scaramanga replied on Sat, May 21 2011 12:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Your comments are...shall we say addressing different issues? I'm in no way debating the good deeds of the Mises University distributing knowledge.I will refer specifically to the points I was making. Krugman and Bernanke have accreditation...so?   What is it that you mean by that?   Werner Sombart (Google him) also was a famous economist and had the accreditation.....and he explained to us all that Hitler communicated with God...he just did not know how....So, we cannot call him an idiot because he had accreditation?    No, the whole point is not accreditation. The whole point is precisely to discuss and exchange ideas.

Regarding "intelligence" I did not say these two were not intelligent, but that intelligence is no guarantee of thinking or doing the right thing (you want more examples?)

As to your dictum "If you think Ben or Krugman having MAs is no proof of their intelligence, then there is no need for Mises Institute to prove your intelligence either". I suggest: you read my original post again (You may want to make some changes to your answer). If that does not help, try lowering your cafeine intake....

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:03 PM

rated by 0 users

I know nothing of microeconomics or its uses.  I assume it is useful only for central planners, whether governmental or corporate. 

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Pardon my irreverence, but I beg you: what real knowledge does Bernanke have that Joe Austrian doesn't?  What congressional hearing halls look like?

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:11 PM

rated by 0 users

And Thomas Aquinas College is admittedly unknown, but since it teaches Aristotle's writings rigorously, is a lot smarter than phenomenologists from Harvard, to say nothing of the racist, sexist nuts who dominate Harvard.  Aristotle was a lot smarter than he's credited to be. 

Reply

John James replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:18 PM

rated by 0 users

InHongKong:

I'm going to talk crazily...

Truer words were never spoken.

Maybe it is completely crazy, but I don't know anyone in the regular Austrian movement who is flamboyant and great at marketing.  For instance, Peter Schiff, Gary North, Ron Paul, Porter Stansberry, and maybe even the Mogambo Guru, are honorable men, but they are not marvels at persuading.  None is very handsome, well-spoken, or mediagenic.  Such things shouldn't be important in persuading good men, but good men are all too rare, of course.  Someone with smart marketing skills and a grasp of the pertinent target markets might have an opportunity.  For instance, I think that Porter Stansberry, who is no doubt rich, might have the wrong marketing strategy and the wrong audience.

And a fake "diploma" from a charity is going to change that?

Start a (legal) "diploma mill" and show these clowns up for what they are.

How in the world does the first part accomplish the second?

I know nothing of microeconomics or its uses.

And why does that not surprise me in the slightest.

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Sir Daniel Donohue; other knights of Malta; David Schippers, the Democrat who prosecuted Clinton; the Pope; and numerous Cardinals know about Thomas Aquinas College and think it superior in ways to the Ivy League, but then, most of them might be said to be prejudiced.

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:23 PM

rated by 0 users

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.... whoooooooo

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 1:44 PM

rated by 0 users

You guys are Austrians, like me, and perhaps you don't believe in your own economic theory.  Is Austrianism far superior to Keynesianism?  So award a degree.  The difficulty is marketing, and no one prominent in the Austrian movement knows marketing - at least, the American public hasn't bought it yet.

Reply

Walden replied on Sat, May 21 2011 2:19 PM

rated by 0 users

In fact Walter Block's department might offer an M.A. in AE. http://www.business.loyno.edu/master-economics

You can't just expect Austrian economics degrees to be offered everywhere just because it's the right idea. It's a slow process to create a new paradigm- and hopefully we won't need to make the distinction "Austrian" and we can just call it "economics."

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 2:23 PM

rated by 0 users

I really am sorry for having been irreverent, but I ask you: what good is modern microeconomics?  Isn't it only supposedly good for statists?  Maybe there is a use.  Please tell me.

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 2:43 PM

rated by 0 users

Peter Schiff and the rest of them are terrible at promotion.  It has been ten decades and they still haven't gotten through.  Simple: take a picture of a geeky young guy with gorgeous women on his arms kissing him, with the message, this could be you!  Don't let the women look like sluts; just make them beautiful and kissing him. 

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sat, May 21 2011 2:58 PM

rated by 0 users

I have beaten around the bush.  Sell it to sixteen year old males and tell them to use it to get jobs in banks and law firms.  Eventually, someone will buy the knowledge, and someone will hire them when they keep insisting, "I have a doctorate.  Hire me.  I'll work cheap." 

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Sat, May 21 2011 9:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Diplomas from LvMI would indeed by worthless on the job market.  The only reason that you can take to the bank for attending formal schooling is credibility.  For the purpose of learning formal schooling is a disadvantage.

Reply

Joseph F replied on Sun, May 22 2011 2:29 AM

rated by 0 users

InHongKong,

Just out of curiosity, what was your major at St. Thomas Aquinas College?

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sun, May 22 2011 3:35 PM

rated by 0 users

There are no majors or electives at Thomas Aquinas College.  The reason I wrote the bit about knowledge and my year there were because they read lots of the works of Aristotle, whose writings, by the way, are a big part of the basis of the Austrian school.  They study classics there, and though I don't agree with everything about the school - it's a specialized place - it's a good place.  Unlike virtually all Americans with diplomas, they know what education is and what it isn't. 

Many graduates of this college, if prodded, forced, or somehow persuaded to give their honest opinions, would say that Paul Krugman isn't educated - and certainly not liberally educated.  It's an acknowledged fact that professors from Harvard don't have a clue as to what education is.  I'd take it a step further and say that Krugman's just a prestigious thug with credentials.  I'd bet many students of the Austrians would agree wholeheartedly.  So, I propose: Paul Krugman is a thug committing fraud; it just wouldn't be capable of prosecution in a modern court. 

People want 'educations' to look good, to winnow, because it's our culture, or because it's what is done in America, but they don't know what education is. 

Bush went to Yale and Harvard, and smarties knows his intelligence is not very high.  What good is the stamp of Yale and Harvard?  Bush, Krugman, and a host of other lightweights dilute the value of the stamp.

Gary North has a similar idea - get a Bachelor's degree by the time that one is 18, and do it for less than $15,000.  I'm proud of having gone to Thomas Aquinas College for a year.  They know what knowledge is and what it isn't. They know what they don't know.  Probably all of Gary North's graduates won't.  So, if one doesn't intend to get a liberal education - to read the classics, and not claptrap about race, "psychology", "business administration" and the rest of the ludicrous pseudo-subjects, why not learn something lucrative, like engineering, "finance", or nursing?  There's nothing wrong with not being a scholar. 

Don't just consider Gary North or Thomas Aquinas College, an obscure place.  The British prior to the Reform Act of 1832 had a similar idea.  Either you got a liberal education, reading the classics, or you weren't a scholar.  They never would have awarded degrees in "Business Administration", and perhaps not even Bachelor's of Chemistry, despite the fact that they might have studied Chemistry.  They gave a lot of respect to a man who was 18 who, being from a respected family, was commissioned a 2nd Lt. in the army.  Yes, America rebelled against the British of that age; please don't misunderstand me, which would be extremely easy, given the great nuance of my views and the slowness with which I type.  Irrespective of your opinion of those British, their culture was relatively rich, elevated, and moral compared to our current culture, and they were successful, for whatever its worth, at bossing much of the world for a while. 

The British were not alone in this idea.  Guess from whence it came. 

Both groups, viz, this college and the old British, looked ultimately to the ancient Greeks, who considered economics to be a matter analogous to accounting - emphatically not a difficult or complicated subject in a just world.  (Yes, our world is not just.)  They thought economics was mainly a matter of counting:  this one has $2 trillion of credit; this one OOOOH has $14.2 trillion of debt.  The creditor is RICH!  The debtor is POOR!  It isn't rocket science - or as tough as understanding the nuances of Aristotle. 

The Chinese are beating us because their costs are lower.  If a young man can cut six years of time out of his time twiddling his thumbs in school and ask employers for a much lower salary in the meantime, he'll be doing something like what the Chinese do - lower costs would make him more competitive.  Today's employers are concerned about costs.

Obviously, an I-bank isn't going to hire a 16-year old with any kind of diploma, but a law firm might hire him as a secretary, particularly if he has, say, one or two years experience in menial work/shopkeeping, etc.  From there, he could become a secretary in the financial markets, then an officer, a trader, whatever.  Alternatively, he could work in a retail bank for a couple of years.  If he's constantly discussing the Austrian theory of the business cycle with bank VPs who may not have finished college majors in ludicrous subjects, they'll think he's nerdy -  not a bad qual for getting into Wall Street or I-banking. 

Point is, smart employers can look at a young man who knows a lot about the markets, has an independent mind, is well-motivated, and so forth, to do a good job, rather than some nobody out of college who doesn't know something, or worse, some moron-tyrant with an MBA.  A bachelor's degree in psychology, sociology, African studies, etc. is junk - a "diploma mill" D. Econ. that actually indicates exceedingly useful knowledge would be preferable if I were the one doing the hiring for a broad variety of jobs - just about everything except mathematical/scientific work and Hollywood/entertainment.  Does this "diploma mill" D. Econ. deserve honor in America?  The answer is yes.  The difficulty is overcoming ignorance, bitterness, etc. 

ADDENDA - Wall Street is corrupt, the British were corrupt, and a man with a "diploma mill" D. Econ. would still have quite a scramble getting a job today in America.  I condemn the bailouts and those who work for companies receiving them.  Ideally the capital markets wouldn't be in bed with Washington and the Fed.

Reply

Joseph F replied on Sun, May 22 2011 8:10 PM

rated by 0 users

Jeez, man.  I asked a simple question that implied a simple answer.  I am not sure what any of that other stuff has to do with my question, therefor I ignored it (tl;dr).  

Reply

InHongKong replied on Sun, May 22 2011 9:02 PM

rated by 0 users

Their curriculum doesn't fit the typical mold, but the closest thing is a double major in philosophy and theology with a quintuple minor in math, science, history, Latin, and literature.

Reply

Andrew Cain replied on Thu, May 26 2011 6:51 PM

rated by 0 users

"October 1982."

Well going off your comment to Matticus, "So what?," I don't think you have the proper definition of a charity so I am skeptical about you thinking Mises is a "chartity."

Reply

John James replied on Fri, May 27 2011 1:22 AM

rated by 0 users

Andrew Cain:

Well going off your comment to Matticus, "So what?," I don't think you have the proper definition of a charity so I am skeptical about you thinking Mises is a "chartity."

Quite the opposite...

"The Mises Institute is a 501(c)(3)" [1],

"Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations." - IRS.gov/charities/charitable

"All 501(c)(3) organizations are further categorized as one of five types under IRC 509(a):" [2][3]

Public charities: 509(a)(1), 509(a)(2), 509(a)(3), 509(a)(4)
Private Foundations: All 501(c)(3) organizations that don't qualify as public charities.

In terms of legal definitions—which is the logical forum to use, as we're talking about categorizing a legal entity—the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a public charity.  It is Matticus (and evidently you) who don't "have the proper defition of a charity".