I describe myself as an economic enthusiast and an Austrian. I will be returning to a University of Wisconsin school for an undergraduate degree in Economics. They offer a Quantitative Concentration, a General Economics Major, and a Monetary and Financial Economics Concentration.
Which do you think would be best for a budding Austrian? Before you say none, consider I want to be firmly grounded with the knowledge of mainstream economics to better refute it later on down the road. I’m hung up between a Quantitative or a Monetary major.
I have a strong background in Supply Chain and in Manufacturing as both management and an hourly worker. It would probably be smart to build on those but I’m not adverse to a complete career change.
I’d like to run a brokerage firm eventually (I’m also about to start the process of studying for the Series 7 while I attend school) but I would have to secure employment beforehand, hopefully with a lucrative salary.
The days of credentialed employment are coming to an end. We’re moving into a new economy where what you know is more important than what papers you have. If Peter Schiff still does his Wednesday radio shows, you should call in and ask a brokerage professional exactly what sort of qualifications you need to get into that field. Someone in the business will give you a much better idea of what they look for and expect.
There may be other investment gurus (don’t mess around with any small timers) who can give you some insight. In fact, if you write Lew Rockwell a very short, very polite request, I am sure he could point you to someone who could offer some guidance. Doug Casey also comes to mind. Gary North as well.
Remember, professors and colleges want to get your tuition, they really don’t give a damn how successful you are when you leave school. A working professional on the other hand has insight that professors cannot hope to rival because they never actually compete in the arena.
I’m going to endorse this as well. I’m spending two years in grad school and feeling that working different jobs would have been a much better option. If I wasn’t half done I’d be doing internships and projects and the like.
Most well paying employers want a Bachelors degree for people to change toilet paper rolls. Without it, you’re cleaning toilets. That’s due to the wanton proliferation of 4 year degrees of course and the horrible quality of education for most high school grads. A college degree is great to up the starting salary too. I would have started in a marketing firm this month as their Director of Project Management or Project Management Manager :), having landed the position in August, but the position was contingent on the firm’s expansion. With the current credit market and lack of venture capital they’re not expanding. That leaves me jobless. No bites on anything else in my neck of the woods.
Even though I have years of experience in production management and the supply chain (minus a college degree) the job market has changed and I’m in the market at age 42. Luckily I own my home free and clear, car’s paid off, and have no loans. I do have evil property taxes and utilities of course. It might be a great time for me to finish my degree to earn a decent salary.
I do like the suggestions above about writing Peter Schiff or Marc Faber. I think I’ll try that, thanks!
IMO, which could be horribly wrong from a career perspective, I don’t think an economics major in mainstream economics is even the best way to shoot it down. In fact using their methods it’s probably not even possible to discredit their thinking, at least not decisively. The Mises/Austrian approach would be to use logic, reasoning, talk about ‘human action’, and so on. That type of attack on phony economists also resonates much, much better with the masses because it’s easier to understand and it makes much more sense than some ridiculous formulas or equations some idiot dreamed up which only apply to past history…
Someone here once recommended becoming a revisionist historian as an alternative, or something more practical than academic similar to what Peter Schiff makes a living doing. (Well, maybe not so much if he wins the senate election, but you get the idea.)
Speaking only for myself, as a person who is interested in discussing economic theory, I prefer a mainstream education not because I plan to use their methodology against them, but because a degree from a university that teaches in a mainstream fashion is bound to have higher desirability in the general job market (barring, perhaps, universities with substantial “Austrian” faculties). So, its main value is in the fact that I can use it to gain influential academic positions. If you are an influential academic, then your work will be more highly regarded, respected and believed (as unfortunate as this may be).
I also forgot to mention LvMI’s Doug French. Although he was a banker, I am sure he has lots of knowledge of the investment sector, and like Lew could probably provide some excellent recommendations for more information.
Every break I have had in business has come from professional relationships. It is one of the things schools can’t give you, unless you go Ivy League, and get entre to social groups of prime movers via alumni associations and the like.
I talked to my Veteran’s Benefits Officer and found out I just might be able to do Carthage. The only downside is I would pay upfront and recoup the cost after the semester. Not much downside at all.
This is true, but I’m afraid it’s how the rules work for non-Austrians mostly. Perhaps I’m wrong but even if you have the degree and credentials to get consideration, if the questions start flying during the interview and you’re talking about shutting down the Fed, Social Security ponzi schemes, or the ATBC… I suspect they’re gonna just move on to the next “non-crazy” applicant.
I don’t mean to discourage you, I could easily be wrong or you could find that rare open-minded niche where they’re willing to tolerate different viewpoints, but I think “Austrian” on your resume nowadays is more of a handicap when it comes to finding work.
Maybe I’m just in a pessimistic mood now, but it’s almost as if the war has already been lost, and that’s it. The Austrians lost the war against circus-economics propagandists. Maybe it’s possible to turn that ship around, and perhaps it is turning a little in some grassroots sense, but until things change “at the top” and the goons with phd’s and “respected” positions have to actually defend their quackery on equal terms with the likes of Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, etc. (without the peanut gallery laughing in the background…), I don’t see any mass movements backed by the lay person.
I mean I can’t even imagine the morons at (for example) the local news station, or the screaming idiots on “business/investment shows” even beginning to consider that they’re been spouting nonsense for years. They pretty much all have to be replaced. That’s a strong foothold they have, there.
I think you’re right, since professional journals are generally there to support the profession and advance scholarship in that profession’s tradition. Austrianism will find more luck outside of journals and with the people.