Lack of Specialization.

[Lee337]

GilesStratton,

Understanding macroeconomics is exactly why I came here.

Money and banking, history, economic history, ethics, political philosophy, epistemology, sociology, political economy, capital theory.

I mean for me what good is it to be able to read a balance sheet and understand asset allocation in my portfolio if I do not have a firm grasp on the forces that are behind the prospect of a specific business/investment?

IMO for one to set themselves apart they must look outside the tradition for their own truth and understanding. What may have been economically sound investment 20 years ago (GM) would have been a very poor investment decision last year. Yet GM still raised billions with the “too big to fail” mantra.

My point is there is no one school of thought with all the best answers today nor will there be one tomorrow (I’m speaking in terms of investments). For me the best results come from an understanding of all aspects of a potential investment micro&macroeconomically, politically, ethically, sociologically as well as historically regardless of how good or bad a balance sheet looks.

In closing I believe I do agree with you that there should be more specialization in Austrian Economics just as there should be a better understanding of Austrian ideas on the other side of the isle.

@liberty student

@GilesStratton

Not really, I disagree with the whole Austrian view of academia being one big conspiracy. Sure, a lot of economists have bad ideas and stick to them dogmatically, I don’t think it has much to do with the fact that most universities are owned by the state.

Academia is not one big conspiracy, but it is no coincidence that the more radical an Austrian is, regardless of the quality and merit of his work, the harder it is for him to be established in academe. Hoppe and Block’s conflicts are a good example of the cultural marxism that is institutionalized in the public and educational sector, an ideology that would whither and die in the market if exposed to any genuine sort of competitive force.

I’d venture to bet that if you replaced “Austrian” with any other word it would still hold true. Radical ideas are always met with opposition in any field historically regardless of how good they are. It’s less about being Austian and more about not conforming. DO WHAT YOUR TOLD!

Hope everyone had a great weekend.

Best, Lee

[phrizek]

This discussion reminded me of this quote by Mises:

The study of economics has been again and again led astray by the vain idea that economics must proceed according to the pattern of other sciences. The mischief done by such misconstructions cannot be avoided by admonishing the economist to stop casting longing glances upon other fields of knowledge or even to ignore them entirely. Ignorance, whatever subject it may concern, is in no case a quality that could be useful in the search for truth. What is needed to prevent a scholar from garbling economic studies by resorting to the methods of mathematics, physics, biology, history or jurisprudence is not slighting and neglecting these sciences, but, on the contrary, trying to comprehend and to master them. He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence, lest he confuse the tasks and the methods of the theory of human action with the tasks and the methods of any of these other branches of knowledge. What was wrong with the various Historical Schools of economics was first of all that their adepts were merely dilettantes in the field of history. No competent mathematician can fail to see through the fundamental fallacies of all varieties of what is called mathematical economics and especially of econometrics. No biologist was ever fooled by the rather amateurish organicism of such authors as Paul de Lilienfeld.

When I once expressed this opinion in a lecture, a young man in the audience objected. “You are asking too much of an economist,” he observed; “nobody can force me to employ my time in studying all these sciences.” My answer was: “Nobody asks or forces you to become an economist.”

[hayekianxyz]

@phrizek

This discussion reminded me of this quote by Mises:

The study of economics has been again and again led astray by the vain idea that economics must proceed according to the pattern of other sciences. The mischief done by such misconstructions cannot be avoided by admonishing the economist to stop casting longing glances upon other fields of knowledge or even to ignore them entirely. Ignorance, whatever subject it may concern, is in no case a quality that could be useful in the search for truth. What is needed to prevent a scholar from garbling economic studies by resorting to the methods of mathematics, physics, biology, history or jurisprudence is not slighting and neglecting these sciences, but, on the contrary, trying to comprehend and to master them. He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence, lest he confuse the tasks and the methods of the theory of human action with the tasks and the methods of any of these other branches of knowledge. What was wrong with the various Historical Schools of economics was first of all that their adepts were merely dilettantes in the field of history. No competent mathematician can fail to see through the fundamental fallacies of all varieties of what is called mathematical economics and especially of econometrics. No biologist was ever fooled by the rather amateurish organicism of such authors as Paul de Lilienfeld.

When I once expressed this opinion in a lecture, a young man in the audience objected. “You are asking too much of an economist,” he observed; “nobody can force me to employ my time in studying all these sciences.” My answer was: “Nobody asks or forces you to become an economist.”

I wouldn’t disagree with any of that, it still doesn’t follow that one can’t focus their writings on a single area whilst studying others.

[hayekianxyz]

@Lee

I’d venture to bet that if you replaced “Austrian” with any other word it would still hold true. Radical ideas are always met with opposition in any field historically regardless of how good they are. It’s less about being Austian and more about not conforming.

This is entirely true, radical statists are probably marginalized to a far greater extent than Austrians (go into academia and tell people you’re a fascist, see how they react).

[Harry_Felker]

@GilesStratton

This is entirely true, radical statists are probably marginalized to a far greater extent than Austrians (go into academia and tell people you’re a fascist, see how they react).

Go to any American University and say, in the sociology wing how you think the government should own and grant privilege to all property, and see how you are applauded…