Who would you all consider to be the most charismatic economists, particularly in the Austrian school? You can answer in the following categories: charismatic in writing, while speaking, in person, on video, etc.
I only ask because, for me, it was Milton Friedman’s friendly old man charisma that got me on a libertarian stint that eventually led me to the Austrian school. It was the one video of him on the Phil Donahue show answering a question about greed that really got me thinking about such things, and perhaps the same words spoken from a nasal and impatient-sounding Murray Rothbard wouldn’t have had the same effect, however sad that might be. So who’s charismatic in the Austrian school these days?
Dr Thomas Woods, while more of an economic historian, is always a thrill to read and listen to.
Jeffrey Tucker, while not an economist, is an enormous turn on to the Austrian school. His speaking and writing is probably the most inviting to the school than anyone I can think of.
In no particular order, Bob Higgs. Guido Hulsmann. Gary North. Bob Murphy. Peter Klein. Art Carden. George Selgin. Hans Hoppe. Bill Anderson. Tom DiLorenzo
Then I would say in the non-economists, Woods, Richman, Rockwell and Tucker.
“But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis.” (Talking about Meltdown)
When people don’t spend their money on present consumer goods and save the money, it causes businesses in the consumer goods sector to shrink. At the same time investments that can boost future production of goods offers an opportunity for entrepreneurs. So entrepreneurs borrow the saved money and use it to fund these investments. So there is a growth in the more capital intensive sectors of the economy.
This reasoning is purely logical, not any religious dogma.
By proving you’re right. But, I have to admit that Woods’ book was not very good. But, it was never meant to be an exaustive analysis on the current recession; it was only written a readable book on the recession to introduce the Austrian perspective, and hopefully invite the readers to read more thorough texts. In only that sense it was not “very good” (at analysis), but it was almost perfect in terms of advertising the Austrian School (which is just as important). Tom Palmer critisized the theory without actually knowing it, simply basing his opinion on the Austrian theory on what he had read in Woods’ book, when he should have figured that only skimmed the surface of it.
I’ve only read one of his books (the only one I know of; Free Banking) and it was kind of technical, but besides that it was a very well written book and easy to read.