Since the austrians have always disagreed with pretty much every single economist from all the major schools, what type of disagreements would there be among austrians with regards to certain economic fundamentals?
I know that there was a disagreement between Hoppe and Block over immigration, but are there any other topics that the austrians would disagree with each other on? i.e. private law, banking, derivative investments, night watchmen state et al? While at times what the austrians say about for instance private roads is enlightening (block) other times it can be disconcerting when a free law society is discussed (murphy).
the only main disagreement I ever remember having with a very well read Austrian was over IP protection. I went with the view that the State or the legal system shouldnt stand behind copyright laws etc. I wouldnt lose sleep over it but it is an interesting area where not everyone lines up at the same point. I guess it is how you define property rights?
To me IP laws are non-issue when we have voluntary society. They are semi-possible today only because monetary and moral cost is offloaded to government. I highly doubt that any private company could enforce them. They are problem when government exist though, but then we can do nothing about it unless we have higher bargaining power than special interests.
if you are focusing on political disagreements, hayek supported stated provided health care (see road to serfdom) which i doubt would float many anarchist boats these days.
Some Austrians are monetary equilibrium theorists and others support 100% reserve requirements. This is, by far, the biggest disagreement amongst Austrians.
“He asked about Austrian School economists, not Austrian School economics.”
And as Austrian School economists qua economists they have nothing to say about immigration, private law, nightwatchmen state etc. bar if you have this policy, this will be the result.
His second paragraph is clearly geared towards issues of political philosophy. I’m merely pointing out the distinction between the two.
I don’t want to belabor the point, but I said that some Austrians support MET, while others support 100% reserves. Very few, if any, reject both positions. I think I once heard someone say that they supported 90% reserves.
Debatable. Some contend that Mises, in TMC, supported MET, while others claim that he supported 100% reserves in HA. Either way, the fact that he didn’t explicitly take a position doesn’t necessarily mean that he rejected both MET and 100% reserves. But of course you know this…so…
Some contend a lot of things…that doesn’t make it so.
MET was implicitly and not explicitly rejected by Mises because its revival and much of its theoretical development, particularly in its attempt to be integrated with Austrian capital theory and the trade cycle theory, was chronologically after Mises. Yet most of Mises’ writings cannot be reconciled with modern MET.
I think there may be disagreement over the theory of interest.
Mises’ Theory deals with Time Preference, whereas Hulsmann’s deals with a means-end framework. I don’t think there is consensus on Hulsmann’s theory, although it is gaining traction.
I don’t reject ME yet, but I’m not convinced yet (I’ve read Horwitz book, but I do have one big problem that I find no solution too) and yet I think the 100% reserve banking guys are obviously wrong.
" Yet most of Mises’ writings cannot be reconciled with modern MET." This is just stating your conclusion. The MET-people argue that there is no such impossibility.
I’ve no idea what is ‘true’; but I see no reason to just accept that his writings cannot be reconciled with modern MET.