I just listened to Pete Leeson’s lectures on Development Economics and Self-Governance. All I can say is: Wow!
Leeson is a great lecturer. He’s very clear and engaging, and he’s constantly pointing out the implications of key Austrian insights.
Knowing Leeson is on our side, you just can’t help feeling optimistic about the future of Austrian economics.</gleeful rambling>
After reading some of Leeson’s blog posts on The Austrian Economists, namely the one concerning vices Austrians should avoid (which was a shot of LvMI scholars IMO), I’ve not got a good impression of him. Despite that, he seems like a very smart guy and I’ve heard lots of good things.
What are his methodological views?
Yeah, the petty bickering can get pretty ugly.
As far as I know, he follows Boettke on the “analytical narrative” method. So he thinks empirical work in applying and illustrating theories is consistent with Austrianism.
Yeah, I had thought as much, I heard a quotation from him saying that the case for anarchism is essentially empirical.
Indeed, funnily enough there was a blog post on the Mises blog that took a shot at GMU that was promptly removed.
The GMU folks are all state subsidized economists, right? The university receives state aid and privilege?
If you’re talking about the post I think you were Giles, then it was a good one.
The one bashing Cowen?
Yes. I cannot stand Cowen. I think he is a worm.
To be honest, I can’t really much stand any minarchist economists. Not ones that are aware of Hoppe and Rothbard and Long amongst others. Guys like Cato and GMU that pretend they are taking some principled stand within the state paradigm are dishonest, naive or both.
It’s one thing to be an anarcho-capitalist like Bob Murphy and work under the structure imposed on you, quite another to be a minarchist and accept the structure as something that can be what it can never be. Honest and just.
Me either, or Caplan at that. TBH, I wouldn’t be suprised if Caplan knows the Austrians are correct and just wants to make a name for himself. Their arrogant dismissals of Austrianism are very petty indeed though.
Well, I don’t mind the minarchists, Reisman for example (I think DiLorenzo may also be a minarchist). It’s their attitudes towards the LvMI that annoy me. And Boettke and company’s strategy of attempting to suck up to the mainstream to convert them seems hopeless to me, they’re going to spend so much time investing intellectual capital to even get into the “top” journals I don’t know to what extent they’ll even be considered Austrians. Not to mention their venture into hermeneutics.
Of course, whenever they’re challenged the retort is simply “my CV is bigger than yours”.
Then there’s Tom Palmer…
Reisman is somewhat tolerable. I don’t think DiLorenzo is a minarchist.
They are hypocrites. Courtiers.
dilorenzo is an anarchist that will often emphasise states rights over federal rights, but this is just ron paul style propoganda.
Reisman is awesome economist that taught me a lot about capitalism, but he has a lot of randian junk, like IP and minarchy. The way he writes about capitalism and economics makes me overlook these defects, I give him a Mises pass on the minarchy front, and a too young when you met Rand pass on the IP issue.
Thanks for the information on DiLorenzo. As for Reisman, I’ve not read much by him, I intend on reading Capitalism in the future though.
No wai! DiLorenzo definately seems like an ancap. I think Ron Paul is also an ancap, but won’t admit it for practical reasons.
Thanks for the links!
He’s a great lecturer, and I found myself reluctantly agreeing with a lot of the points he made re: anarchy and epiricism.
i dislike cohen because liberals like cohen