The Late Andrew Ryan: "As someone who is currently trying to tackle Human Action I can tell you its probably a bad idea. Mises was a great economist but nonetheless I consider his magnum opus to be incredibly disorganized and hard to follow, even with the study guide. Often Mises goes on long ramblings about nothing very much and spends a great deal of time chasing hairs while just zooming by some of his more important concepts. What angers me the most is his tendancy to, every so often and in the middle of sections seemingly unrelated, go off on rants against other philosophers/economists in a disorganized and unproffesional way. This is how I feel about Human Action a little over 200 pages and 10 chapters in.
This is so here’s what I recomend: Get human action PDF and the study guide, but only read those chapters which you wish to learn specifically about or are confused on, but also pick up MES and its study guide, read it from cover to cover. That’s if you want to become well acquainted with Austrian economics in general, but if you want to read Mises specifically I’d read some of his other works."
TLAR, von Mises organized Human Action with great care and precision. He agonized over questions like which exact section the chapter on the trade cycle should go in. Ludwig von Mises did NOT “ramble”. EVERY argument he decided to include in Human Action, he chose, because he saw it as a necessary corrective for a then-current scientific controversy, or because it was a necessary building block for the edifice of economics. Nor does he “rant”. If anything is “ranting”, it is venting a half-baked emotional response to a book you have not come close to even finishing, let alone understanding. And if anything is “disorganized”, it is your use of mixed metaphors ( “chasing hairs”?). And if you’re going to call one of the intellectually bravest and most principled men in history “unprofessional”, at least have the care to spell the damn word correctly.
If Ryan would like some help interpreting and integrating Mises I’m sure we are happy to oblige. simply ask, why does Mises discuss X on page p, given that he was discussing Y etc.
It could be an opportunity for everyone to learn more Mises, even those that know him well need to review.
Grayson, I’m sorry I haven’t responded to this thread sooner this is the first time I’ve come here (I don’t usually have a reason to come here cuz I’m a good little forum user but with all of this Olovetto business…) when I first saw this post when you originally posted I didn’t realize it had its own thread.
I’ve decided to continue to read human action because the day after I posted the above I hit some of his better chapters and I have to say that his chapter “the market” was one of the greatest works of writing that I’ve ever read. This being said my statement above still stands, I consider that much of what he wrote is as “user friendly” as a sledgehammer and I feel as though there is a definite unevenness in Mises’ writing, reasoning, and layout of the book depending upon what chapter and section you are looking at.
However, until I have finished the book I will make no final judgment as to the way the book is organized, but you could do me a great service Grayson, or anyone who is reading this. Since I finsihed “The market” I’ve moved on to “prices” parts of which have been utterly unintelligible to me. Today I was reading section six on monopoly price and I got so fed up that I literally stopped reading half way through. Would you please help me understand much of what Mises wrote in some of the more difficult chapters, such as this one? this may at times be quite difficult for both you and I, so it is merely a request and one which you are free to opt out of at any point in time, but hey, its in the motto of this site. As I said this is a request but one I will be incredibly grateful for should you comply with it, but it will not be easy for you or I so it is not an obligation and you are free to decline.
Thanks for the post, Ryan. I’d be happy to try to answer any questions you have about Human Action. The biggest takeaway of the monopoly sections is that the existence of a monopoly per se has no effects which can be construed as negative. It is only monopoly prices that is of any economic significance. And monopoly prices are almost always brought about by government intervention. In a free market it is only in the case of monopoly prices that an alteration in the productive structure is brought about NOT at the behest of consumers. However, even with a monopoly price, no third party can know what other price would serve consumers better.
I’m halfway through HA, and I can say that the section on prices, specifically monopoly prices, was probably by far the most intricate thing I’ve read as far as economics. I ended up taking a break from HA for a few weeks when I finished the part on prices, so what questions I would have had about it are now lost in memory. Is there something I could read that would compliment that part of HA?
but with all of this Olovetto business…) when I first saw this post when you originally posted I didn’t realize it had its own thread.