If you really think that, define the latter and the differences between Smith and the others in that regard. How do they fail to satisfy whatever criteria you’re proposing for economics as a social science while Smith satisfied it? Smith was copying their work!!
“Keynesians accept marginal utility theory, as to all neo-classical economists.”
Not in a Mengerian fashion, and with all other kinds of things thrown in. I never said that marginal utility theory was sufficient for libertarianism, only that it certainly helps to bolster libertarian arguments.
His question was on “advancing liberty”, not strictly libertarianism. Note that classical liberal philosophy promotes liberty. So you agree with us that they were important in that regard, thank you.
? Menger’s conception of economics was based on methodological individualism. Or were you in fact not talking about economics? (though you said ‘AE’)
Don’t forget about Hamilton, that wonderful creator of the American School!
I’m going to challenge you all by asking which economic school of thought do you think is better, Keynesian economics, or American Economics (National System/Hamiltonian program)
“How do they fail to satisfy whatever criteria you’re proposing for economics as a social science while Smith satisfied it? Smith was copying their work!!”
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that Smith’s work is what put the debate and science into high gear. There is a very good reason why economists point to smith as the one who spawned economics as a system and that’s because it was his work which caused the work of the classical economists. This would be the case if it turned out that all he did was cut and paste the words of the Spanish enlightenment, Cantillon, and Hume
“I never said that marginal utility theory was sufficient for libertarianism, only that it certainly helps to bolster libertarian arguments.”
And my point was exactly that nothing within the original Austrian system necessitated libertarianism, as you are admitting right now. Marginal theory is not sufficient, just a good stepping stone.
“Note that classical liberal philosophy promotes liberty. So you agree with us that they were important in that regard, thank you.”
Important does not mean most important. Modern day liberals do some things to promote liberty, this does not make them libertarians or great advancers of liberty.
“Menger’s conception of economics was based on methodological individualism. Or were you in fact not talking about economics? (though you said ‘AE’)”
It was not nearly as developed as an individualist system, nor its conclusions necessarily imply individualism.
@Skeptical Metal
Well they’re hard to compare because they kind of target two really different areas, growth Vs. recessionary macroeconomics, but I’d have to say the American system since that at least has a much better chance of achieving its goal of industrialization (not prosperity).
Not really. It’s mainly because most English speaking people couldn’t read the works in the other languages well enough and so instead read Smith’s compilation of the studies of earlier writers, then repeated the myth ad nauseam that Smith somehow ‘spawned economics’.
On the contrary the conclusion to be drawn from it was liberty. That exchange is necessarily beneficial to both participating parties is, for example, a linchpin of libertarianism.
Meh, that’s irrelevant since I was contesting your other claims. Their economic work was clearly based on individual man - in stark contrast to many contemporary intellectuals. The Methodenstreit, and Bohm-Bawerk’s critique of Marx were key instances of those two figures engaged in debate against statist intellectuals. I really don’t see how Hayek and Mises departed much from them at all.
Yes really. The classical economists were influenced in huge smith, even if the single reason was because he happened to write in English
“That exchange is necessarily beneficial to both participating parties is, for example, a linchpin of libertarianism.”
And is something which every division of neo-classical economics.
“I really don’t see how Hayek and Mises departed much from them at all.”
They focused the entire matter firmly an prettymuch exclusively on the matter of individual action. This is similar to Menger, but much more thorough and much more explicit on the causal factors there.
I was clearly talking about the ‘spawned economics’ part, and as I said if you really think that’s true, outline to me the criteria for ‘economics’ and explain what’s lacking in the earlier writings that is present in Smith (you’ll find some fallacies at least!). Otherwise just drop it.
What I mean by “founding economics” is that it is clearly Smith’s work which inspired the major works, discussions, and philosophers that deal with the subject area which we call “economics”. If some guy in an empty room were to divulge all of the laws of mathematics and then never spoke again then we would not attribute the founding of mathematics to him, rather to those who began studying the discipline in such a way that it spawned major debate. This is not to say that Cantillon’s work did not influence Smith, merely that it was Smith who inspired economics as broad-reaching, and more importantly independent, discipline and who the first people who called themselves “Political Economists” were responding to and who they were relating their ideas to.
There is a reason why Smith is attributed with the credit, not Cantillon, and this is because the people who first dedicated themselves to studying wealth, exchange, and production in an in-depth and scholarly manner in such a way which would not turn out to be entirely fallacious (physiocrats) were influenced almost entirely by Smith’s work.
Well now you’re just wilfully ignoring those that came before Smith, especially those who called themselves ‘économistes’. Also, it’s ridiculous to called the physiocrats “entirely fallacious” - have you even read any of their works??
Anyway, your analogy is flawed since the writers that preceded Smith were not nearly as obscure as you imply (they were well-known enough for Smith to copy the vast majority of his ideas from them!). Sure, Smith’s book was famous and influential, but it was just a compilation of ideas well known and a continuation of previous scholarship. It is more accurate to say that he popularised economics than that he spawned it.
“Also, it’s ridiculous to called the physiocrats “entirely fallacious” - have you even read any of their works??”
What do you think that the answer is? And you’re right, it’s hyperbole to call them entirely fallacious, but the majority of what they focused upon certainly could be described as incredibly flawed.
“Sure, Smith’s book was famous and influential, but it was just a compilation of ideas well known and a continuation of previous scholarship. It is more accurate to say that he popularised economics than that he spawned it.”
If you’re misunderstanding me like this then perhaps I’d better reiterate, what you’re saying is very similar to what I am saying. Whether or not Smith copied the ideas from other sources, whether or not that’s all that he did, it is ultimately from his work that modern economics is primarily descended.
I will be super original and say Rothbard. He wrote so much, and his writings don’t cover only the economic side of libertarianism but also the ethical side of it. And even though if you don’t agree with his ethics, you have to admit that writing about ethics is important when you want to promote a certain political position. So yeah, my vote goes to Rothbard.