You mean a Rothbardian on philosophy, right?
I always have to pause when I read comments like these. Is the significance of Austrian economics really reducible to what some would call an obscure and esoteric philosophical question? Even if we disagree with particular Austrians on some things such as free will or whether praxeology is the way to do economics or whatever, can’t we still appreciate everything that Austrian economics “gets right”? That is, can’t we appreciate its distinctive emphasis on disequilibrium and the dynamic nature of markets and exchange, subjective preferences, the role of time and interlocking stages of production, entrepreneurial discovery and search, the essence of knowledge as dispersed, tacit, and situated, the non-neutrality of money, the spontaneous order of institutional structures and social norms, the heterogeneity of capital, economic calculation, etc. Are including these things in our economic analyses really such an “ideological” thing to do like many Austrian critics charge? I don’t think it is. Hopefully this wasn’t said tongue-in-cheek, or I’ll feel rather stupid.
In any case…
To answer this thread. I just finished Israel Kirzner’s An Essay on Capital. I encourage every student of Austrian economics to read it. I also just finished Truth Versus Precision in Economics. There aren’t too many books on economic methodology worth reading, in my opinion, including this one.
Tomorrow I’ll be beginning Understanding the Process of Economic Change by Douglas North. AAAhjhhbhbhbddddhhhhhjhhjhhhhhh
Douglass North is a bit of a joke. I’ve never seen him cite/refer to Mises or any other Austrian except for Hayek (and even then he only knows Hayek’s middle and later work), and virtually everything North tries to dicuss was already done by Mises (as well as other Austrians), but in a much more accurate way. Ironically, he apparently said that Hayek was the most important economist of the 20th century!
Actually, economics does not depend on our not knowing the causes of human decisions any more than the laws of logic depend on our not knowing the mechanics of orbital bodies. They are separate domains. Any comprehensive explanation of human psychoactivity would be an accounting of the causal processes that lead to intentionality and existential awareness; economics would still be a true discipline separate from the mathematical natural sciences even if we were somehow able to calculate the actions of men. Value would still be subjective experience, even if the experiential processes is made up of precisely demarcated quantaties of energy and specific materials, etc. Value would still not be interpersonally comparable because value is only value within the framework of bounded rationality.
There is a corelation with age/books read, so a book total won’t say much.
I agree. Usually when North starts talking about the financial crisis he shows that he doesn’t understand economics.
I finished that book a bit ago. It really shows Rothbard at both his best and worst. If only more of his essays could have been the sort of scholarly analysis demonstrated in his article on defining the money supply or Lange’s praxeology, rather than the repetition of basic concepts. Far too much of his work repeats the same ideas over and over.
I’m reading John Taylor Gatto’s Undergroung History of American Public Education. I grabbed the chapters from LRC and made an epub.
Danny,
People here weened on Rothbard need to learn about Smith from other sources too. Judging, not just from the audiobook author’s interpretations, but the actual quotes of Smith, Rothbard’s characterization of Smith in Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought was altogether a skewed and ungracious misreading of a great man, a great thinker, and one of the most important champions of liberalism who ever wrote and taught.
To some extent I agree. If you haven’t already, I would take a look at Nicholas Phillipson’s biography of Adam Smith. However, I think Rothbard may be correct in certain respects, although something I’ve always been skeptical about is the notion that without Smith the writings of the Scholastics or Cantillon would have flourished.
Honestly, it feels as if Rothbard was so ideological that most of his treatment of other people’s work is extremely unfair. I hate to say this on an Austrian forum, but this may also be true of his treatment of Keynes (which is more of an attack on Keynes than Keynes’s work, but even putting that aside my point holds true). I’m not saying that Keynes was a great economist, but just that even when it came to Keynes Rothbard was very extreme and prejudice.
Are you talking about “Keynes the Man” or something else?
Are you talking about “Keynes the Man” or something else?
That and the notes in his copy of The General Theory.
Where those meant to be published? My notes look like exercises in obscenity, yet I’d never get those on line.
Inspired by that other thread, and knowing that I’m not getting anywhere in Man, Economy, and State (too soon after Human Action, honestly), I’m just going to go ahead and read Keynes’s The General Theory (cover to cover, this time). I’ll prob. be live blogging my thoughts on economicthought.net.
Just read The Real Frank Zappa Book, Ancient Gonzo Wisdom (book of Hunter Thompson interviews), and Cleopatra: A Biography by Duane W. Roller.
Started a little bit on House of Wittgenstein: A Family at War by Alexander Waugh.
How can you read Sartre? I think he might be the only writer more boring to read than Heideggar. Jeez, I don’t miss those days in Philosophy class, lol.
btw, I’m reading Rollback. I recommend people check out Trickle Up Poverty by Michael Savage. It’s pretty good.
To be honest, I haven’t read a whole book on Austrian Economics. I have read many journal articles, essays, chapters from books, but not an entire book from cover to cover. Every time I find something problematic with other people’s theory I start formulating an opposing theory. In my journey of doing so I try to find what an Austrian has written about it.
I almost finished “My Life with Ludwig von Mises”. 
In September 2010 I told myself that I will adopt a more systematic approach to the theory. I started my inquiry with the theory of value. I did well with that. From then on I got back to my previous practice of reading this and that. Now I am reading in a more advanced manner what the early Austrians wrote about capital, capital structure and interest. I fear that without writing about what I have read the reading is pointless. It becomes some kind of a mess in my head. I have noticed that the more time I spend reading the less time I think, it’s like when I try to think of a solution to a problem with a theory about something, I am too lazy to think it through but rather merely try to remember what an Austrian has written. I am not saying that AE does not help me, of course my contra-argument is always based on AE, but when I do not use my brain I can not sufficiently formulate an argument that covers all the aspects. I am looking forward to reading and writing and hopefully one day mises.org will publish my own article.
I am trying to read up on Sraffa. Apparently Sraffa and Hayek had a few major debates, and half of the people I speak to claim Hayek won, while the others claim Sraffa was right. From what I can gather the debate caused Hayek to reformulate some of his ideas regarding monetary equalibrium and capital structure. Although I am not sure about this and I cannot find a good place to start reading on the subject.
Vaduka, I want to say how right you are. Reading makes me a lazy thinker. If you run to books everytime you need a solution to a problem, you never have the ability to increase your knowledge or your philosophy/thinking skills.
Debating is an excellent way to solidify a concept or to practice or even just to mess around if you’re trying something out. Usually I put books last if I absolutely cannot solve a problem. Most of the time I can solve a problem if I just give it time and listen to some good music.
The entire debate between Sraffa and Hayek is available in Liberty Fund’s Contra Keynes and Cambridge, and the articles can be found on JSTOR. IIRC, it’s three or four articles long (split between the two). I don’t think you can say anybody “won”, since Sraffa’s criticisms missed the point. But, you’d also have to read Prices & Production for background on what Sraffa is trying to critique. Sraffa probably influenced Hayek to some degree when writing The Pure Theory of Capital,but I wouldn’t say it was in a fashion that changed Hayek’s views. Rather, Hayek reformulated his theory to make it more comprehensive for his opponents (which as not just Sraffa, but also Kaldor and Knight, and others).
The entire debate between Sraffa and Hayek is available in Liberty Fund’s Contra Keynes and Cambridge, and the articles can be found on JSTOR. IIRC, it’s three or four articles long (split between the two). I don’t think you can say anybody “won”, since Sraffa’s criticisms missed the point. But, you’d also have to read Prices & Production for background on what Sraffa is trying to critique. Sraffa probably influenced Hayek to some degree when writing The Pure Theory of Capital,but I wouldn’t say it was in a fashion that changed Hayek’s views. Rather, Hayek reformulated his theory to make it more comprehensive for his opponents (which as not just Sraffa, but also Kaldor and Knight, and others).
Thanks, thats exacly what I was looking for. I read Prices and Production and thought it was pretty good, although I am not sure if I am a big fan of hayekian triangles. Didn’t Sraffa beleive in the LTV? I find that odd for an economist of his time.