http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html
Is this criticism valid?
Nothing by Huben is valid. His arguments consist of strawmen and pissing and moaning that AE isn’t positivistic.
If you want to see good criticisms of Austrian economics, I think Caplan’s is rather good. See the exchanges between Caplan and Boettke and Caplan and Huelsmann and Block. There’s also an interesting exchange between Leland Yeager and Sherwin Rosen on Austrian economics (David Gordon has a review of it). Backhouse also has a good overview of Austrianism available on this site.
Where can I find this? Doing a quick google search I found Boettke’s What is Wrong with Neoclassical Economics (And What is Still Wrong with Austrian Economics) http://economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/pubs/articles/wrong.htm and Caplan’s Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm but am having trouble finding where Block comes into the picture.
i think Caplan’s is rather embarrassing… for Caplan.
I started reading that Caplan article years ago, but couldn’t finish it. All he did was whine about Murray Rothbard’s personality and rearguard neo-classical.
How can criticisms of AE be good if AE rocks?
Even granting the truth of the basis of Austrian economics and praxeology, criticisms can still be useful. They will often reveal new truths about AE or reveal a mistake, and it leads you to check your premises, which is never a bad thing.
He hit the nail on the head with regard to Rothbard’s theory of welfare (although, others had said that same thing before him, such as Lawrence White). He also made some good points about ABCT. There are other areas where I think he was incorrect (namely his point on cardinal and ordinal theory of value). I also think he’s wrong in conflating Rothbard and Mises.
It’s been a while since I read it, but I think a lot of what he says is true to some extent.