What did you guys make of this recent article Wall Street Journal article?
Its great to see WSJ mentioning Austrian Economics. Boettke tends to be everyones fav professor @ GMU. He’s an awesome guy
Not bad.
This is interesting:
“But as much as the Austrian diagnosis may resonate now, it doesn’t provide a playbook for what to do next, which could limit its current resurgence.”
Really? So all the Austrians are saying to the govt, like Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel, “Another fine mess you got me into”, but like him, have no clue how to get out of the mess.
TY Wall Street Journal.
I’m surprised there isn’t the mention of the usual criticism of AE and the lack of “empirical evidence”.
It felt like they made an effort to avoid mentioning Mises (NYU has legendary Austrian roots!.. but we won’t clarify), while calling Schumpeter an Austrian economist, but whatever; it’s a small article and I like Boettke. No such thing as bad publicity!
Gipper, I think its probably because GMU brand of Austrianism doesn’t emphasize the standard Austrian complains against empiricism.
In fact, Pete Leeson (apparently PB’s favorite student) had an article arguing Mises was a radical empiricist.
-
The article fails to mention Mises.
-
It fails to mention the Mises Institute.
-
It connects Austrian Economics to the Reagan Revolution. AE had nothing to do with this. It was more supply side than anything else. What Austrian economists were connected to this? None that I know of.
-
The article says that AE “doesn’t provide a playbook for what to do next, which could limit it current resurgence”. Yes, there are plays to run, they just aren’t what WSJ reporters, mainstream economists, and politicians are accustomed to or desire to see implemented. They want equations that tell them to increase this intervention here to create that economic impact over there. They completely miss the point of AE.
But, I must admit, the article placed AE in a positive light in a mainstream publication.
How do Boettke’s insights differ from those of the scholars at the Mises Institute? I see there are a few articles in Literature, one Daily Article, and one media link (ASC from 2003). What is his past connection to the LvMI, if any?
A statist story, in a statist rag, written for a statist audience- end of story.
Regards, onebornfree.
Student,
"Gipper, I think its probably because GMU brand of Austrianism doesn’t emphasize the standard Austrian complains against empiricism.
In fact, Pete Leeson (apparently PB’s favorite student) had an article arguing Mises was a radical empiricist."
http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf <= Boetteke and Leeson arguing that Mises was completely right on methodology. Yes; Mises did some awesome empirical work, but the right kind of it. Leeson does awesome empirical work completely in line with the Austrian tradition. The thing that people should now is that Austrian economics is not (I repeat: not ) against empirical work. Hulsmann even said on Mises University that he thinks the mainstream produces a lot of interesting empirical work - but he finds their theoretical insights to be lacking. And that, obviously, is true.
The GMU brand of Austrianism shares the exact same complaint against empiricism. But everyone who is well read in the Austrian tradition knows the link between Praxeology and Thymology; the link between theory and history. And the conclusion isn’t: ‘we shouldn’t do empirical work’. The conclusion is: we should do empirical work from a sound theory.
Onebornfree,
why would you say that? Again; look at it from context. It’s a story in a mainstream newspaper. Of course; it’s not celebrating the mythical Mises who has taught us the alpha and omega of economics and politics in the new libertarian world. But it’s nice to get Austrian Economics mentioned. Obviously; it’s nothing compared to the amount of times that Austrian Economics get mentioned by Ron Paul and others. But ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ in spreading austrian economics, no?
So I 'don’t see any reason to be so negative as your post would suggest.
Chloe,
"w do Boettke’s insights differ from those of the scholars at the Mises Institute? "
<= Not that much if you compare Boettke and the Mises Institute to like the mainstream in general.
Answering this question isn’t that possible either, because there isn’t really a overarching vision of the scholars of the Mises Institute.
In general; there is a different in approach between GMU and The Mises Institute, and a certain difference in emphasis and all. But the differences are minor compared to the Austrians in general to the mainstream in general.
David Kramer on LRC responding to this article:
You mean this article? Also, I have no problem (as a neoclassical) calling Leeson a first-rate economist.
^ thats the one (i forgot pb was a coauthor on that).
It is good strategy for the establishment. Shine the spotlight on the one Austrian who is not a radical.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/kelly-evans-again.html
and spin off story:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64657.html
there is some bad blood between coordination problem and austrian economists.
Marko,
“It is good strategy for the establishment. Shine the spotlight on the one Austrian who is not a radical.”
What do you mean by ‘radical’? Why is Boettke not a radical in your opinion?
The mutual hatred between some people at GMU at some people associated with the Mises Institute is really irritating. Hopefully; the next generation can do without and let everyone work out their comparative advantage, without the need of bashing the other strategy on the head for not being whatever enough.
Oh, yeah?
If you believe that all (top ranking) employees of state are under the control of gigantic financial interests, you will then recognize that:
The Fed Must Not Be Tampered With. Period.
Read today’s Lew Rockwell blogs, esp: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64559.html
Sam