I think the point Jonathan is trying to make is read broadly. Mises and Rothbard both did. I am in favour of the Austrian methodological approach, but like Jonathan said, the school tends to focus on certain issues, and there are other economists out there who, while not openly Austrian, can be considered ‘fellow travellers’ in their methodological approach or who contribute works which are complementary to the school’s own.
Here’s a direct link to a .zip file I uploaded with some of Shackle’s article’s: www.economicthought.net/shackle.zip.
“I didn’t realize there was a uniquely PK approach to price theory. I would be interested in seeing how it differs. Any particular authors worth checking out?”
Wasn’t that what the “Unlearning Economics” guy was promoting when he was here talking about marginalist price analysis a while ago? I know that he identifies himself as a post-Keynesian or something like it.
thanks for the zip Jonathan
Hey Vive…
The forum could use some moderating vive…
I’m not going to be around my computer much this week. Next week hopefully I can pick up some slack.
You can PM me some of the more annoying stuff - and I’ll try to get to it ASAP, no promises though
If you are one for buying books, the Liberty Fund has all of Buchanan’s stuff in very nice editions (they sell nice Mises’ books too - and the LvMI sells some of their books). Buchanan is great and pretty funny. Coase I am sort of familiar with. he is an odd type of apologist (market failures can be avoided when/if the state decides on property rights).
The Post-Keynesians have their own academic journal. I’ve only read a few of their articles, but they are highly critical of the US (and world) monetary system.
This is not Coase’s argument. Coase’s argument is that when transaction costs are high, externalities can’t be solved through bargaining. Instead, those involved use the legal system. If the courts are to decide the distribution of property rights, Coase’s argument is that they should be as well informed as possible. Coase is extremely skeptical that government can solve market failure. He argues that it’s more probable that the government solution will have a higher net cost than the externality.