Is it not strange that those who like Hayek the most, are more positivistic? [ No this is not an insult Iam ]
Hayek is weaker against walrasian equilib approach than mises in my opinion.
No, not really. Hayek had an extremely extended intellectual journey, by the end of his career he was endorsing Popperian falsificationism. So no, it’s not really suprising that you would call those followers of Hayek positivists. But to say that all those who are more Hayekian than Misesian are positivists is absurd, look at Lachmann and his followers. They’re more akin to Hayek but they’re certainly not positivists.
I suspect that you simply lack a nuanced view of the world, for you everything can be divided into two categories “Austrians” and “non-Austrians”. With you providing the definitions for those categories.
Because, we all know that academic work should be judged by the “attitude” of its author. That’s certainly a sensible way to go about science, although, I wonder where Rothbard would fit into this? He most certainly had a self-righteous tone in all of his writings and took a condescending tone towards anybody that remotely disagreed with him. Not to mention his repeated calls for what can only be described as purges.
As for Horwitz, he’s been giving numerous speeches about his take on the recent financial crisis, which of course contains Austrian analysis of the current situation. He’s done work on Austrian theory amongst other areas that should be of interest to Austrians and even libertarians. He’s affiliated with FEE, GMU and perhaps some other libertarian think tanks that I’m not aware of. He’s associated with the SDAE (treasurer, I believe). So I can speculate: what you mean is that he doesn’t toe the Rothbardian, anarcho-capitalist party line and is therefore “impure”.
Get off it, this sort of attitude is ridiculous.
Yeah, and clearly Hoppe didn’t read Salerno’s piece. In which he says that both the Misesian and Hayekian lines of Austrian thought are interesting, illuminating and insightful. I don’t think he once referred to Hayek’s thought as fallacious, nor does Hoppe’s own piece provide any substantial arguments against Hayek’s contributions (in fact, I’m not sure if Hoppe even understands them).
But of course, Hoppe will be Hoppe. But Hoppefully he’ll never win a nobel prize (hahaha!).
Karl Popper was a positivist and as you said near the end of Hayek’s career he was being swayed by Popperianism. If one takes up the premises of Hayekian logic then they naturally take up his Popperianism unless they specifically denounce it. I believe you have taken up his Popperianism by you strutting around claiming economics is akin to natural science.
First you self-victimize yourself, then you claim others are idiots. You just must be a tortured philosopher surrounded by those who can’t understand you. No doubt only Hegel complained more then you about people not understanding him.
I’ve stated that economics is science, not once have I claimed that economics is a natural science. Simply put, I don’t believe it is. Now, since Mises entitled one of his works The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science it’s quite clear that he too saw economics as science. As for historical work, empirical evidence is most certainly necessary. This isn’t to say that historical incidents can refute theory, just that, America’s Great Depression wasn’t deduced from the action axiom. Sorry, but I’m strictly Misesian so far.
Good thing too, I wouldn’t know how to self-victimize somebody else.
Well that’s great and all, but that doesn’t really have much to do with anything I’ve said. There are many intelligent minds who lack a nuanced mind, so I’m not sure I’ve claimed anybody is an idiot. Rothbard didn’t exactly have the most sophisticated world view, but I would hesitate before calling him an idiot.
So you are now admitting here that Austrianism is an apriori social science whose basic structure does not require empirical data in order to make predicitions/ provide explainations?
Ermm, I’ve never denied that. What are you stupid or something?
Its pretty clear to me that Salerno favours the Misesian arguments over the Hayekian, in his replies to Yeager, he defends the Salerno, Rothbard, and Herbener positions against Yeagers arguments, which are Hayekian.
If you read The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited by Murray N. Rothbard there is a section entitled Fallacies of Hayek and Kirzner
With regards to Adam Smith - there’s a reference in the movie “A Beautiful Mind” where John Nash Jr. “revises” Smiths’ “invisble hand” with his “game theory” (something that actually did not happen -
but my question to this is: What economic school did John Nash Jr. belong to?
Just curious Giles, what caused you to turn almost a complete 180 on Hoppe, exactly?
Not that there is anything wrong with this or anything, just curious is all.
I still enjoy and appreciate some of his writings, I’ve just come to realize that he might not be the most professional of scholars. His work on certain subject contains precious few references and quite a few unsupported assertions. Besides that there are far too many incidents of italics, exclamation marks!!! and ad hominems. Simply put, I don’t think he’s on the same level as economists like Mises, Hayek, Garrison, Yeager, Selgin, White and I don’t think he’s on the same level as many philosopers. Now, his work on sociology has some value, but that’s about it.
I think it would be more accurate to say they are less rationalistic or have a greater appreciation of non-rationalist thinkers. Putting it this way covers Lachmann as well as Hayek and fellow travellers.
Fair enough.
I really enjoy his stuff, though I doubt I am well versed enough to critically examine it like you are.
I’m an electrical engineer afterall, not an economist. [:P]
I was wondering what you think about Bob Sugden?
My favorite would probably be Hayek as well, for the already mentioned reasons.
Not at all. Which is why I asked Nir to give me his review. Look, people who have poor socialization skills, or are annoying (such as present company) suffer when they have to compete. Reputation is not just consistency and honesty, it’s about being able to communicate those values, and establish a relationship. Some people say dumb crap, and it costs them book sales. Some people say something ignorant, and lose their talk radio show. It doesn’t matter if they were right or wrong (although in this case, I feel fairly confident the comments were wrong-headed).
So I don’t recall ever judging Horowtiz’s work, which is the crux of your latest temper tantrum. Although, IIRC he is a free banker, and I think the free bankers are nuts he’s not even the 3rd free banking economist that comes to mind when I think about that dark art.
Which would be just pure speculation.
Indeed. I’m done indulging you on this topic.
He’ll be in good company with Mises and Rothbard then.
The economics Nobel is like the sound of one hand clapping. It is not a genuine Nobel. It is a banking industry award.
Hoppe is still better than a great many philosophers, (political) economists and sociologists. However, for reasons I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t factor in as a “favorite” economist for me, as he isn’t one primarily but only secondarily. His lack of scholarliness here and there matter little to me. It is merely form and not substance, but it really can hamper his ability to communicate Austrian ideas which he otherwise does very eloquently.
Jon, I’m not going to argue philosophy with you, for reasons that I hope are obvious. I don’t know much philosophy so I can’t really make a very good comparison. From what I’ve seen of his argumentation ethics I’m not convinced, I simply don’t think it proves what it intends to. Now, whether it’s beyond the point where it can be salvaged I don’t know and I’ve not got much interest in finding out anytime soon.
As for his economics, I find them to be very flawed. His work in public goods isn’t bad (the strawman attacks on the Virginia School ignored), but I don’t think it proves what Hoppe hopes it does. Whilst there may be no distinct class of goods that may be called “public goods” there clearly are some goods which do have certain characteristics which make there provision by “arm length exchanges” more difficult if not impossible. If you look at D:TGTF (which is a good book, although, I’d be interested in Leeson’s critique) he explains mechanisms whereby goods may be provided that are different from the traditional “firm”. I don’t like his work on FRB at all, as you can probably tell. I find some of his statements to be nothing other than assertions (e.g. that people want base money, what he doesn’t say is why).
His sociology remains good the same. To put my position concisely, I think Hoppe is a far better libertarian than he is an Austrian.
regression theorem might be a hint. did people want fiat money right off the bat? i put this here more as something to reflect on, than to debate back and forth on this thread. If you want to go into Hoppes writings on FRB we could start up a new post…
Heh, reminds me of Selgin’s and White’s remark that Hoppe redefines fiat by fiat. FRB is not a fiat currency, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Also, I don’t see how regression theorem comes in here. All that states is that money must arise from the market and not be decree (actually, Selgin has a fascinating paper on this).
not here.