There was a reply that was censored that read:
“No. YOU think about! If Ron Paul wasn’t a threat to corporatism, why didn’t the corporate elites allow him to become president? Lol.”
On a slightly off topic note, someone forwarded me this:
Conclusion: It’s Attack of the YT Idiots Week on Mises.
Popular post by me it turns out,
Be that as it may, I still don’t think Ron Paul should be the one “defending Austrian economics” or attacking the Fed, and for what it’s worth, I think it would do him good as well.
There’s already an impression that nobody really does Austrian economics anymore besides a few kids who do it because they’ve not gone to university and learned the math. Perhaps that’s a bit exagerrated, but the point remains that there are a lot of myths floating around there about Austrian economics that are, in large part, perpetuated by well intentioned attempts to laymen to defend Austrian economics. Now, when somebody as a reputable as Paul goes on about the structure of production or whatever, he’d better know what he’s talking about lest he be called out for it. Personally, I don’t think he does know what he’s talking about.
Let’s face it, economics isn’t the most inspiring subject. I don’t think he does himself a lot of good when he goes into the ABCT, if he wants to tell people to visit www.mises.org or read Prices and Production or Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles in order to better understand our current mess, he should go for it. But leave the economics to the economists. He’s better off spending his time elsewhere.
- You can talk about a subject all you want. On the other hand, when you respect a school of thought yet don’t have a deep enough understanding to fully articulate its teachings, it’s probably best not to talk about it on national TV lest you mislead your viewers.
- True that.
The thing is, the empirical record is against you. Not only has there been a revival of Austrian economics recently (and yes, this is before Paul’s campaign) but there has been a lot of interest concerning Austrian ideas in the mainstream. Young stars such as Leeson and Coyne are getting published with Princeton and Stanford respectively. Other Austrian economists are getting published in top journals, there are Austrian courses in PhD granting institutions such as GMU, WVU and (I believe) Suffolk amongst others (there are more in Europe).
So clearly, Austrian economics isn’t dying out in academia.
The thing is, people take Austrian economics too lightly. There’s no use for popularizing “Austrianism” if there’s no work being done expanding the ideas in academia. Austrian economics is a serious set of ideas, not “Economics for Dummies”.
The Fed is a political institution so why shouldn’t a politician attack it? Any way I don’t know why anyone without a politics, politcal science or a poltical philosophy Phd let alone a bachelors degree should be talking about politics. I sympathise with your crusade against dumming down, I’m as elitist as they come, but if you were to apply your criterion consistently Ron Paul can open his mouth and then let Bob Murphy talk for him followed by our own Geoffery Allan Plauche.
You don’t need to be an expert on a subject to talk about a subject.
Also I disagree with your statement that there is no point popularising Austrain economics to the layman if no innovations and extentions are taking place in adcademia: supposing that the vast majority of Austrian canon is true then why shouldn’t it be popularised even if it is not being extended or does its truth value depend upon its extension? If more people know about it then surely there’s more chance of it being extended. I for one would never had heard of Misesian economics if it wasn’t for the Mises institute and there was more than a distinct possibility that I would have entered academia at one point.
So what’s that got to do with Ron Paul?
Absolutely nothing. Giles has picked up on Boettke’s obsession with AE being respected and dignified and confined only to qualified experts.
Attracting attention to yourself in nearly every thread, by adopting poorly thought out contrarian positions has made you infamous, which is a form of popularity.
Mission accomplished here. We’re neither talking about the videos or Ron Paul, but Giles Stratton!
Because like him or not, he’s not Ludwig von Mises.
What do you know about Ludwig von Mises?
Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul
@Giles
If I read you correctly
-
Ron Paul is writing books/ commenting on events over his head/ out of his area of expertise
-
Austrian economics is subject to bad stereotypes from people interested in the subject.; the stereotypes may have some warrent to them.
-
You think Ron Paul (amongst others) perpetuates these myths
All of these are probably valid observations. It is also probably an academician’s responsibility to separate themselves from “pop” discussions as much as possible. The problem is though, on a practical level, the populists/politicians/non-economists dictate much of the action and usually spread information to more people than a scientist does (even if most of the info is very diluted). The nature of our government almost guarantees that. More people are going to be persuaded and influenced by Moore and Paul than Keynes and Hayek. On the bright side, Ron Paul is probably one of the more educated laymen in economics, so when he is put on TV to debate other “expert” laymen he usually ends up looking good.
I think you may be worrying about two different worlds; one of serious intellectual thought and one of mass government and pop music. Unfortunately the mixing of science and politics is just something a serious intellectual has to acknowledge and probably just ignore. Economy, the environment, evolution, etc are all going to be subject to more idiotic debates by pop culture and politicians than serious academicians; yet I do not think in the long run the science will be hurt by it. Evolution has been under some intense political debate throughout it’s intellectual history, yet the field has prospered.
Now if you’re making a point along the lines: It is unwise for a non-economist to be using specifically Austrian economics (such as Ron Paul preaching the more exciting message of liberty over Austrian economics; or AE being looked upon in an unfavorable way amongst most economists) , you may have a point, but I think it would have to be elaborated.
Maybe some people missed the sign “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS”.
Awww… but
Physiocrat, I agree with you that one doesn’t need a PhD in a subject to speak about. The world would be a far less interesting place (although, perhaps less frustrating) if that were the case. Look, my formal training in economics consists of a year of a BA in economics at a top 10 university in England. My informal training consists of the books, papers and articles, admittedly quite a few, that I’ve read concerning the Austrian over the year that I’ve been studying economics. I’m still very much a layman, despite my intention to go into acadamia.
Also, for what it’s worth, I came to economics through Ron Paul and consequently the LvMI. And to the best of my knowledge the same is true of Krazy Kaju. This isn’t an anti RP witchhunt we’re engaged him.
I’m essentially making two, related, claims:
- Ron Paul’s arguments against the Fed on economic grounds (by the way, I’ve not read his book, but if his arguments against the Fed are of a political nature, then I retract any statements I made providing he doesn’t step out of the acceptable in that area either) don’t do anything for his campaign. Paul isn’t the world’s greatest speaker, and subject such as “the structure of production” aren’t attention grabbers as far as the layman goes. I think his speeches on various subjects such as the gold standard and the ABCT are going to be more divcive (sp?) than anything else. One doesn’t need to be an Austrian economic to point out that credit expansion by the Fed causes the business cycle.
- Even if RP does know enough economics to provide a full elaboration, there are other constraints that make this implausible. The fact of the matter that in politics lengthy, theoretical speeches aren’t popular. One doesn’t see Obama saying anything more than he needs to about the business cycle and what he believes causes it. He doesn’t mention Hicks and the ISLM model, or the neoclassical synthesis or any of that stuff. In fact, in the 2008 election, Paul was the only candidate I can think of who was spouting off about economics. Now, if he was an economist gone politician, this might make sense. If this were harmless I wouldn’t say anything, but it isn’t. Eventually Austrian Economics winds up being associated with anti-intellectualism, 9/11 truthers, bigotry in the form of newsletters and fringe movements such as libertarian. This isn’t the sort of press that Austrian economics need.
Perhaps I overstated my case. Let me try to be a bit more clear. There is nothing wrong with attempts to attract the layman to Austrian economics in, and of, itself. Problems arise when one considers the opportunity cost of doing this and the methods used. In regards to the former, when I see guys who are very intelligent like Bob Murphy writing Politically Incorrect Guides to whatever insteaf of aiming their attention at their peers I see a waste of talent. In regards to the latter point, I think Austrian economics is all too often sold to the layman on anti intellectual grounds. What I mean is that essentially critiques of math such as “math is inappropriate for the subject matter of economics” or “the math used in economics is to unsophisticated” become “math is too complicated”. Which is why you get the odd situation in which the layman will say he’s an Austrian, profess his hate for the state but probably can’t tell you much about AE besides the fact that they’re anarcho capitalists who hate FRB and think the government is always inefficient.
Ron Paul also doesn’t praise the glorious economists at GMU, so he loses brownie points there. 
Dondolee, thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I probably won’t give it as much thought as I should since you raise many of the same points as Physiocrat. Once again, however, I’ll begin my post with emphasis on the fact that my formal training in economics amounts to a year of a BA in Economics at a reasonably well ranked institution (top 10 in the UK). My informal training consists largely of books in Austrian economics (and some in Public Choice), I’m a layman in the grand scheme of things.
You write about how it is necessary for an academic to seperate themselves from “pop” discussions. Whilst true to an extent, it’s also misleading. Peter Boettke recently wrote that Milton Friedman was gifted in that he was able to communicate to numerous grounds (peers, students, policy makers and laymen) and do so effectively. There’s nothing wrong with public intellectual work by academics (look at the great work done by Russ Roberts over on EconTalk and his blog Cafe Hayek with Boudreaux).
In my opinion the problems come when economics (specifically Austrian economics, which is vulnerable to these types of misrepresentations since it’s methodology and its policy proposals are highly “unorthodox”) is represented (or misrepresented) in a way that isn’t truthful to the economists in that tradition. Now, of course, Paul needn’t be directly responsible for this (although, empirically, he is guilty of speaking about subjects that he isn’t entirely knowledgable about, as KK pointed out) but when Paul is associated to 9/11 truthers, or people who are suspected of being “racists” or anti intellectual groups or whatever, when he goes on to speak about his admiration for Mises and attempts to explain the ABCT, AE is implicated.
I think you need to be a bit more explicit about what you mean when you say “impact”. Granted, Paul and Schiff have more sway than Garrison and Horwitz ever will when it comes to public opinion. But the latter two economists hold positions are universities and have been published in top journals. When it comes to academia Paul and Schiff are nobodies. When you talk of “impact” I think there’s some confusion. Yes, Paul can have a lot of political impact, but he doesn’t need Austrian economics to show the public that the government is incompetant, all he knows is the stuff most people learn in principles levels economics classes and books (and keep in mind, this would do him good as well). On the other hand, if one wants to have impact amongst the profession, it’s necessary that one dedicates their lives investing in the human and social capital necessary to do so. Paul simply isn’t going to convince the profession anything other than that he’s slightly kookier than they thought by writing End the Fed .
cause ‘ending the fed’ is kooky.
giles-sigh
Indeed. Someone needs to remember how heroic Mises was, saying unpopular things that cost him advancement, marginalized him and the Austrian school, etc.
Lew Rockwell just gave a talk about Mises, Hazlitt and Rothbard, and their courage, at the Seattle Mises Circle, which can be found on the misesmedia YT channel.
These modern academics are not saying unpopular things, and they are not being courageous or taking risks. Ron Paul may not be Mises, but he has certainly taken more risks for AE and liberty than these state intellectuals, pissing themselves over the latest pronouncements of Tyler Cowen.
indeed courage is a long term strategy and indicative of low-time preference [;)]
So what? Tell us PRECISELY what you mean. And I know that you actually mean that a PhD is required to talk about economics, so anything other than that from you will just be you lying to us because you know that you’ve been caught advancing a fallacious argument.