The majority of the political/economics material I read comes from mises.org
I’ve noticed that I am developing quite a bias for anyone outside the circle of Austrian Economics (which is not scientific in the slightest). If I hear someone refer to an individual from another school of thought I probably, though I don’t want to, assume they are in error and given only cursory listen to their message. Do you think this is just a function of reading too much within a small sect? Is it natural?
It seems natural to become more of a fundamentalist the deeper you delve into a faith. Read some Stirner, that might help.
To be honest, most of what people refer to is garbage this days.
The most common discussion that pops up in my school or just in general is that, derivatives/deregulation caused this mess and that gold/silver has no intrisic value.
But, yes you do develop a bias unfortunately/fortunately.
No bias.
In fact, you might have just spotted an error and knowing better are uninterested. With how much enthusiasm will you listen to a Grad Student prove 5 + 5 = 10, however, in some cases, it = 9?
As an economist, I have a rule of reading and completing at least any one economics book a day.
Whether Austrian or not, I read the full book and keep an open mind until I find either (a) useful contributions or (b) errors. Often, I find neither, but rather (c) a lack of any point whatsoever.
For instance: Having read several bindings of the Rand Corporation Journal, I must say that the Review of Austrian Economics has much more useful material (or at least material to argue and stimulate thought with). Why? Easy; mathematical models made to fit empirical data is not a substitute for theory, but the most ad hoc contruction I have ever seen.
For instance: Samuelson decides to use linear algebra to optimize a Leontief function which lack diminishing returns and has only one input (labour, lol; Leontief is a socialist) for all outputs. Once you realize how pointless this is, you will conclude that your time was better spent reading books by Hayek.
Austrians really have more consistent ideas for the most part. Much of the economics profession modifies basic theory willy nilly to fit data. But that’s not Kosher. Economics, at its most abstract, is applied math. If your willy nilly in your earlier steps, everything you do after those steps is wrong.
But most economists, as Hayek had said, are poor quality mathematicians. If you miss something in a conversation about economics, often it might very well be your not missing anything. That’s not your fault. Its the state of economics today.
Well it’s normal, and it is not to be feared. The Austrian School provides us with the tools to see what makes economic sense and what doesn’t. This combined with Rothbardian Philosophy gives you a logical and coherent set of ideas. Many ideas espoused by mainstream idiots are exclusionary, so you can’t really hold all those ideas and be logically consistent. Since Rothbardian Philiosopy and Austrian Economics differs so greatly from their statist counterparts (it’s natural, an anarchist is obviously the opposite to a hardcore statist, so they can’t share their ideas too much) it will be impossible to share too many ideas with any one statist, you may share some views with the “left” for being anti-war, or with the conservatives for wanting to cut government spending, but their sets of ideas and premises aren’t consistent nor logically sound, so developing a bias is essential.
Yes. Reverse while you can.
I don’t mind being limited to reading only from the Austrian school economists and philosophers. I don’t apologize for my belief in true free markets.
To what exactly?
It is a dangerous trap you are falling into, don’t allow it to happen. Do not discard other ideas just because they are not your ideas, I implore this to everyone here. I find that the best thing to do is to consider what others say or what others write. I would encourage everyone here to not only read Austrian Economics but also to read works from other schools, if you are right then you will emerge unscathed and simply more informed about where exactly the other school goes wrong.
There are two types of certainty, that which runs in the face of possible alternatives and those who face it directly, if skeptically.
Also, piece of advice, when listening to new ideas wait a day or two (after hearing the idea fully out) before passing judgment on it. I find those ideas which aren’t brushed aside out of hand are, for a short time seen as infallible, perfect, even if they are the utter heterodoxy of what you believed before. Then it takes a while for certain counter arguments, logical alternatives, and flaws to present themselves to you. It helps if, just before initially hearing the argument you reflect upon why you disagreed with it at that point.
Well it sounds like you should read some more opposition. I actually picked up Rousseau’s Social Contract to better understand his points.
Austrian scholars tend to read extensively because there’s always insights one can borrow/develop from other thinkers. Objectivists on the other hand for the most part treat their system as “closed” and thus not open to development. Hence their stagnation.
Don’t exclude thinkers or their ideas based on what school of thought they supposedly belong to. There are many great economists who, depending on who you ask, are not among the Austrian school. Confirmation bias can be a big concern is close-nit, insulated communities. Other schools may be wrong on some things yet you can still learn from them. For example, I am currently writing a paper reconciling behavioral economics and Austrian theory, particularly concerning radically subjective utility scales, cognitive bias and framing. Behavioral econ often gets a bad rap among Austrians because of Schiller/Sunstein and their policy recommendations, but much of the research actually substantiates many Austrian claims.
edit: One thing I like about the Austrian Economists blog is the variety of interesting comments and discussion from people people such as Barkley Rosser, Bill Woolsey, Greg Ransom and others, not all of which consider themselves Austrians but all of which are interesting and informative.
There’s plenty of disagreement within the Austrian circle without needing to read gibbering inanity to say you’re ideologically diverse.
An example from my life: I got Das Kapital just so I could say I had read the opposition, but I couldn’t finish it because it was so hilariously-terribly bad.
I just have a low tolerance for intellectual masochism. It’s why I don’t debate much.
Then why did you get Das Kapital? You are going to be ripping your hair out over that one.
There is a big difference between reading Neo-Classical, Behavioral, New Institutional whathaveyou economics and Das Kapital..
Jeremiah,
If you ignore everyone that doesn’t already agree with you, I don’t see how you can expect to learn anything you don’t already know.
Besides, how can you be so sure Austrians are right anyways? Because what they say sounds like common sense (as someone else said in this thread, its like 5 + 5 = 10)? Well, not to be cliche, but common sense is what tells us the world is flat. The point of any science is to overcome our initial impressions of the world around us and to discover its deeper truths. I am not saying Austrian Economics doesn’t do that, but I am saying that you won’t truly know that for yourself until you have extensively studied economics as a whole (both mainstream and heterodox) and looked outside your window enough to make an informed decision about which “school” makes the most sense.
Personally, I don’t think you should even both about picking an “school of thought” until you are close to 30 and have conducted some economics research of your own. But maybe I am being ageist.
In any case, I think you should be very worried if sentences like these pop into your head…
Economics is a science, not a faith or a political movement. If anarchism really turns you on (like most people here), don’t confuse that feeling with the science of economics. As David Friedman proves, one can be an anarcho-capitalist and a mainstream economist. There is really no special link at all between Austrian economics and politics (except that Rothbard and his followers really wished there was one).
In fact, it is extremely important to distuingish between libertarianism and austrian economics. I did like to see this distinction made more often.
I should mention, I did not say common sense = Austrian Economics. There is nothing common about Austrian Economics.
Merely: (a) formal logic, (b) discrete math (Karl Menger, the younger, argued that in fact Austrian verbal arguments can all be stated via math, and are in fact even more general hence powerful than most ad hoc partial derivative constructions,which require a continuous function of quantity). Ken Arrow’s monograph against Samuelson also reinforces this.
In my own notes, I simply do a litmus test on everything that I read: pick a formal logic system and test the relations of definitions. In math, which follows, if the definitions are wrong, then everything that follows is wrong.
I do not say that you shouldn’t read mainstream economics. You should. But you should have a formal system of error checking and be critical of everything. Also, this applies to Austrian Economics, which does not have one main line of thought; there are multiple arguments and you have to decide which is formally adequate.
Truth is, even Kirzner’s stuff can be stated mathematically. Hint: think of topographic integrals, which have not been widely used in economics. I’m writing a paper on it.
Truth is, on the other hand, most of the mainstream stuff is mathematically nonsense; no more no less.
For instance, Samuelson proved a normal distribution of first-order differences occurs on the stock market. How? He integrated a hypothetical first-difference function, which he just assumed. But any function that can be integrated has a normal distribution of first-order differences. In other words, he assumed normal distribution and hence normal distribution. Central limit theorem, which you would assume Samuelson was aware of.
So his proof had one purpose: to sidetrack the question, and pretend he had a response to Mandelbrot. Such nonsense is quite common, and if you don’t pay attention to authors like Samuelson after that you will not really miss anything. Same goes for Leontief (he claimed he can formulate a perfect five-year plan with mandatory resource allocations for all firms that will beat the market!), Krugman, Stiglitz, et company.
Could you link an attempt to formalize Austrian Economics? I am very interested in formal systems, since mathematics is such a powerful science since the introduction of those. Maybe Austrian Economics can become even more powerful with this.
They are in error, not because they are not Austrian, but because what they claim is wrong and non logical. Period.
Following this principle, there were too Austrian Autors who were wrong, like Hayek, who admit the State existence, or Ayn Rand (who is not Austrian, but was a great admirer of Mises thought).
Because economic is an aprioric science, where wrong and right is clearly delimited, you just have to listen to the arguments and to point out their inner contradictions. Do it with courtesy without looking haughty and arrogant.
And what can we do if the material from Mises.org is the most coherent and logical![H]
This is a case of being so open minded that your brain falls out. The first step in promoting crazy ideas is always using nihilism to make people discard pesky things like the senses and reason that get in the way. You being a standard Keynesian pretending to be impartial here almost seems like that.
Maybe you have some cynical hypothesis stowed away in the back of your mind about why the street to AE seems so one-way among all ages.