I study economic history, and in 2 weeks we are to have a presentation on an economic crisis. Now, I’ve found allot of information about how “its all a proof of the free markets failure” and how “there is a correlation with stability and government intervention”. This is all from my (politically correct) course literature, but since I want to hear both sides before I form an opinion, I was wondering about good sources for the free market take on the great depression. Any good short (300-400 page) e book would be optimal. So in short, my question is: Where do I look for the best presentation of the great depression, from a rational (non Keynesian that is) standpoint?
That will be my reading for the weekend, thank you. A quick follow up question tho: How accepted is the Austrian school in modern economic thought? I mean if I quote Rothbard, won’t they just dismiss it like an “outdated theory”. Not that I will let that bother me - truth is good enough to back itself up without fancy names, but I’m curious, how recognized is the Austrian school today? My teachers has a fetish for “Structural analysis” which i understand is about the same as Evolutionary economics.
Though I’m sorry to hijack my own thread - have you any tips about good reads on the Austrians thought about Evolutionary economics? What are your opinions?
My major was not economics and when I took an economics class in college I had not yet discovered the Austrian school. Though I was lucky enough to have a professor who was, at least, libertarian. He was a neoclassical economist. So, I am afraid I cannot tell you from personal experience how your professor will react. What are your professor’s views? How hostile to free market ideas in general is your professor? That may make a difference.
As for structural analysis I am, to be honest, not familiar with the topic. I am a fan of this site and what it stands for but I am not a professional economist. I am a dabbler in economics to be honest. However, I did a site search and this article popped up: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae5_1_4.pdf
Apparently, it at least mentions the topic. You may wish to at least scan it over.
I’m not sure what evolutionary economics is exactly, but I know Mike Shermer is an adherent of it and he is also an Austrian. A lot of heterodox economists like Austrianism because of its disequilibrium and capital theories, and because it does not assume a homo oeconomicus, all of which the mainstream does not adequately address. But most economists are likely to be unfamiliar with the Austrian school. It’s simply omitted on most curricula, and not because it’s wrong; but because it’s not well known, even though at a time it was prominent. What tends to throw economists off, I think, are its methodological leanings. Most economists are not philosophers, and thus will likely find Mises’s highly philosophically-minded Kantian grounding of the school intimidating, and even wrong, even if it isn’t (although I am not a Kantian myself.) Rothbard is usually comes across as less threatening in this regard.