It is, actually.
I didn’t bother to read Caplan’s critique and instead read Block and Hülsmann’s replies.
I didn’t think too highly of Huelsmann critique of Mises actually.
Are there any critiques of it I can read…or can you provide one?
This is kind of stupid. I once made the same mistake with the frb debate.
As far as I’m aware, there are no critiques, but I didn’t think it was entirely convincing, one part of it is merely a debate between those who adhere to Lachmann’s views (Huelsmann and Salerno I think, perhaps some others too) and those who believe that even if businessmen correctly anticipate the expansion the boom and bust will still occur, I’ll look over the paper and provide my own criticisms and post them here once I get the time.
When I said I didn’t think too highly of it, that was not really true, it’s a good paper I just don’t agree with it.
I skim-read it, but from the issues Hülsmann and Block highlighted I was clear on what he was arguing, and equally clear he was wrong.
This is not the thread, but you are horrifically wrong if you think it is legitimate for a bank to promise to have someone’s money in a vault and not have it there. You know if a bank were not to promise such a thing, that it is not illegitimate.
Nevertheless you’ll have to admit, that there are diffenreces between Hayek and Mises, Hayek being the more evolotionary, agreed?
Nevertheless you’ll have to admit, that there are diffenreces between Hayek and Mises, Hayek being the more evolotionary, agreed?
There’s differences, but my point is that Hayek’s criticisms of Mises are largely things Mises agreed with anyway. Mises was not a classical rationalist in the vein of Spinoza, Descartes or Leibniz, he was closer to Frege and Wittgenstein in many ways. I think Hayek failed to realise this.
A good article that has some information is this.
Some other people as well claim that Austrian theory is wrong on the premise that the distortion of the natural rate of the
market cannot probably be so important so as to cause such huge problems in the economy for example a deep and lasting recession or depression and necessarily there need to be other more “complex” mechanisms in order to explain this.
Well I wonder if they really mean that since the Keynesian approach seems like childlike to me.
Another critic recently said that the problem is not caused by what Austrians suggest.
The crisis was caused because when the economy is in an expansionary state all companies try to increase their capital at the same time!
So it’s just a matter of not creating credit fast enough…
To be honest I think that none of them has seriously studied Human Action .In my opinion this book should be instead of Keyne’s nonsensical book the “bible” of economic theory.
The interest rate is one of the most important prices on the market. It is also inextricably linked to money in systems where credit expansion is the means of increasing the money supply. How on earth can tampering with it not be dangerous?
To all those people familiar with the Austrian approach it seems natural as a consequence to have depressions when someone distorts the natural rate of the market.
Some people though on the other camp regard it as not so important.
Unfortunately I cannot recall who was the one that wrote that recently.
Maybe it was Krugman but I am not at all sure.
That’s nice. I’ll be interested when they actually demonstrate that a price control over interest rates is not damaging, contrary to everything economic theory suggests. Maybe by relying on poorly interpreted data?
Um, a dismissive or rejective review is not a ‘hit piece’. Mises was never major enough for anyone to be ‘out to get him’. Mainstreamers just don’t take fringe arguments seriously - it’s ignorance and bias, not malice.
Except for the Nazi Party.
He was a jewish anti-state economist living in a Germanic territory. That clearly falls under Nazi blanket policy. The police are not ‘out to get’ individual drug users, they just have a policy of harassing to the users of drugs.
All mainstreamers in all subjects of thought never take any fringe argument seriously? Really?
Not as an absolute, but as a rule of thumb yes. They wouldn’t be mainstream otherwise. They usually can’t believe anyone would take ideas like ‘abolish the government’ or ‘unions cause unemployment’ seriously. It’s too far out of their frame of information.
Are you talking about mainstream academics/professors, usually people who have studied a very specialized area, and of thought and are thought to be an expert to the highest degree of said subject? And even so, mainstream political groups throughout history haven’t taken fringe thought seriously? I don’t even know if I can say as a rule of thumb.
I would say some thoughts have fallen under propaganda therefore not taken seriously, some thoughts have not marketed themselves well enough to be taken seriously, and some thoughts are just to batshit loopy to be taken seriously. But squeaky wheels and “safe” political scapegoats can turn out to cause quite the uproar.