Do you realize that almost every academic does the same? Can you even mention an academic that did not stand on the shoulders of giants?
no, you misunderstood. mises built upon menger and bowerk. he refined and greatly improved on them. and reisman improved on mises. can you say now that reisman is a more brilliant economist than bowerk?
And was a giant himself. So…
MRP, it’s an economic concept, and applies to intellectuals as much as anyone else.
I think the measure of a “giant” is whether the economist constructs a new theory that was missing before, as opposed to improving an existing theory.
Menger did that with his subjective marginal utility theory of value, Bohm-Bawerk did that with his agio/time-preference capital theory, and Mises did that with his theory of money and credit. Until Mises, nobody knew how to apply subjective value theory to money: this was an enormous hole that he filled.
I don’t think I have the tools to adequately assess the value of these inividual economists to a comprehensive economic understanding I’m not going to claim to have.
My “favorite” economists are Block and Rothbard. Their influence has completely changed my life. My outlook, my actions and my ends.
I like Rothbard because he is more historical, has a good sense of humor and writing style and is charismatic.
I think they are great economists, just too dogmatic, but great ones.
Hm should mention some others aside from Mises: Menger, Reisman, Hulsmann and Hayek. There are many good economists who are not Austrian but share similar affinities but I’ve not read enough of them to judge whether I’d consider them a favourite. I won’t include Hoppe because his work is too interdisciplinary and focused on political/ethical/sociological/epistemological theory; when it comes to economics he mostly expands a bit on Rothbard and knows his stuff, but not enough for me to think of him as a great economist per se.
Mises and Bastiat.
Bastiat for making sense.
Mises for his great and seamlessly thinking, destroying the micro and macro dichotomy for once.
I wasn’t aiming for great. Just for my favorite. The ones who have influenced me, who have added to my life not just made a wonderful argument, but given more meaning to my work, and more purpose to my ends, those are the ones whom I enjoy the most.
i disagree, i think this is a myth.
Good call on Hayek, I definately think he is an example of how all scientists should conduct themselves. Hayek made immense contributions to a huge number of subjects: legal theory, economic science, political philosophy, methodology, philosophy of the mind, history of ideas and history. Mises is the obvious call, and for good reason, he was certainly one of the best economists ever (although, yes, he did stand of the shoulders of giants).
For me it’s difficult to say,I think Hayek and Mises would be my top two. Of more recent economists Salerno and Garrison are absolutely wonderful with the former doing good more on the more technical aspects of the Austrian school and the latter “selling” Austrianism to the mainstream. Garrison is one of few Austrians to keep up with recent developments in macroeconomics. Peter Klein is a really great contemporary Austrian. Other young Austrians who look very promising include Bob Murphy (it’s a shame he doesn’t do more academic work as opposed to the public intellectual stuff, he’s got a great mind), Pete Leeson (goes without saying, I’m reading his The Invisible Hook now and it’s superb) and Ed Stringham. Jesus Huerta de Soto has also done the Austrian school a great credit with his treatise on money and banking (even if I disagree with a great deal of it). Robert Higgs is probably one of the best Austrians out there, his work is really superb.
Other economists I’m getting into but can’t comment on yet would be W.H. Hutt (his The Keynesian Episode is Great), Ludwig Lachmann (I’ve got Lavoie’s edited collection of his essays which I’m going to read soon), Steve Horwitz (he convinced me of the desirability of FRB), Leland Yeager, Jim Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, George Selgin, Lawrence White, Pete Boettke, Isreal Kirzner, Bryan Caplan (I’ve heard The Myth of the Rational Voter is great), Mario Rizzo ( especially his The Economics of Time and Ignorance which I’ve got but not read).
I’m probably forgetting some but that’s my list (it’s quite a bit different to the list of most people).
did he do this anywhre in particular ?
Does he have an article here http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/Papers/pubs.htm that is recommended on this topic? or somewhere else?
Ludwig Lachmann- His work on capital theory was a great improvement over Hayek’s and his analysis of institutions is incredibly stimulating. Furthermore, his penetrating critiques of both neoclassical and neo-Ricardian economics have helped develop my own ability to critically analyze the assumptions and methods of economists.
As for more recent economists:
Peter Lewin- He has done great work on capital theory and organizational theory in the Lachmannian tradition. His book, Captial in Disequilibrium, is an intriguing look at the history of capital theory and further develops this in a Mengerian direction.
Mario Rizzo- His attempt to place economics on firm philosophic ground with a Bergsonian philosophy of time was both intriguing and revolutionary. The only other movement I can think of that has attempted something similar is Lawson’s Critical Realist economics.
Theodore Burczak- He has attempted an innovative synthesis of Hayek, Marx, Sen, and Nussbaum in his recent work. Although I think his views are misguided, this kind of novel work is a welcome change from normal Austrian theory.
Ah yes, Lewin was one I had forgotten to put into the last section of my list. nirgrahamUK, check out “Capital Theory, Inflation and Deflation”.
i will. thanks
FA Hayek and Mises for their work in business cycles and spontaneous order.
Milton Friedman for his works in monetary theory and free markets.
Joseph Schumpeter for his work in entrepreneurship and creative destruction.
Steve Horowitz, Peter Boettke, Roger Garrison, Lawrence White, George Selgin, and the rest of the “Austrian” free banking school for their works in showing why the “Austrian” economic thoughts are not just filled with gold bugs.
Henry George for his work on free trade and why protectionism for anything - infant industries or otherwise - is wrong.
I’d enjoy your perspective on Horowitz’s work. His attitude online is a big turnoff, and he comes off as one of these “economic science”-statist Austrians.
Take it as personal opinion, I don’t think that there truly is a purely objective method for determining what method is “better”, which you seem to hint at by calling it a “myth”. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Mises’ approach is weaker than Hayek’s because of the fact that Mises’ is weak against the Walrasian equilbrium approach, which is then disproved by introducing knowledge into the matter qua Hayek did.
In addition, happy birthday M. Friedman!
My favorite economists are Milton Friedman because of his unrelenting defense of liberty and individual choice and Ludwig Von Mises because of his systematic and comprehensive critique of socialism.