That’s a good question. Hoppe mentions this in a footnote here:
So I get the idea that Mises was an uncompromising Austrian, whereas Hayek was more of a “bargainer” (not to mention, a half-Austrian at best).
I don’t want to say everything I think, but let’s just call it compromise. Friedman and Hayek were both very handy for neo-liberal policy makers, as they advocated privitization without advocating the privitization of the state, and this helped push us deeper into fascism.
I don’t think they did it intentionally, but when everyone is lauding you as a savant, there is going to be some distortion in your perception and critiques. It’s only natural that biases change with opportunity and influence.
Mises was legendary for being uncompromising, and Rothbard loathed the state. The “mainstream” exists only to support the state and so neither Rothbard or Mises would have been useful in that cause.
Matthew, I can’t agree with you that Hayek was a “half-Austrian”, granted, there are some differences between Mises and Hayek that Salerno, Huelsmann and others have emphasized. But I’m not really sure that the doctrinaire approach of purging or distancing ourselves from thinkers who aren’t entirely in line with the orthodoxy is the best way to go. This would be true even if Hayek were a “half-Austrian”, but I don’t think he is. I think there’s a valid claim that Hayek took Misesian economics and ran with it in one direction (Kirzner would be considered a part of the “research programme” too) and Rothbard (and the subsequent Rothbardians) took Misesian economics in another direction.
As for Hoppe’s quotation, I’m going to have to say that he’s wrong. Mises wasn’t really rejected by the establishment. He was, after all, a distinguished fellow at the American Economic Association. Granted Hayek was perhaps more prestigous but I just think this has to do with the fact that Hayek was less radical than Mises, although even the economics of Hayek were swept away during the Keynesian revolution. As for Hayek being “unsystematic” that has to be something of a joke, the ABCT is a product of Hayek more than it is of Mises. On a different note, Hayek’s attitude towards his contemporaries was far more scholarly than Mises’ who was stubborn and short tempered.
On a final note, Nozick was a better philosopher than Rothbard. No doubts about it, anybody who would deny that can’t be said to know a thing about philosophy. So it just looks as if Hoppe is engaging in his usual unsupported assertions and libertarian propoganda.
To an extent that’s true. Although, it’s worthwhile pointing out that those over at GMU probably do more work on methodology than the writes associated with the LvMI. When it comes to political philosophy and history, then yes, hands down people at the LvMI do more of it. But this just ties into what I was saying earlier, people are the LvMI are more the public intellectual, by and large catering to libertarians. Whereas those over at GMU at economic scientists first and foremost (although Horwitz, Boettke and others there are certainly libertarians).
I am wondering why nobody (except Mr. Tucker) has mentioned Robert P. Murphy. I think his dailies here in this webpage are cogent. I love reading them.
The other author I love reading is Gene Callahan. He reminds me of Hazlitt in many ways. He brings economics to the laymen in a very systematic way. And that’s what I really look for from any author.
Mr. David Gordon is another good author I like reading. I think he explains the ‘regression theorem’ better than others.
You actually misread me. Much of the book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, was filled with economic fallacies and many of critiques of the Austrian school, seem to focus on mere terminological issues.
However, Caplan did attack von Mises in the book and incorrectly called him a market fundamentalist when von Mises didn’t believe in anarcho-capitalism and actually shared the same view as Caplan on the possibility of monopoly. Which was a fallacy touted by Caplan in the book.
Most likely because Hayek had a job in Cambridge and the LSE, and Mises and Rothbard were just out in the wilderness.
Jesus Huerta de Soto and Israel Kirzner are easily the most accomplished; I think JHDS has a legitimate shot at winning a nobel prize down the road, I wish Kirzner would receive that recognition too. Robert Higgs is growing in influence with a larger sub-culture (of anti-War people more generally and not just regulated to Austrian specialists).
Peter Leeson is one I would look out for later in life.
But all this being said, I wouldn’t take anything away from anyone else. JT is correct, these economists are all special and important people in their own right. They’re professionals at what they do and good people for doing it. I commend them all.
This.