But the original poster didn’t ask whether or not Austrians should try to engage the mainstream, he asked the reasons why Austrians have been thus far unable to do so. Well, I believe I gave the reasons, for those Austrians who have attempted to interact with the mainstream and meet the usual standards for good economics, they are rewarded and engaged by “the mainstream”. Those who prefer to publish solely in Austrian outlets and attend Austrian conferences, will quite rightly have a difficult time getting attention. As for whether or not self described Austrians should try to meet the same criteria as other more mainstream economists, well, I’d agree that everybody is to some extent “locked into their own paradigm” and there are certainly incentives in academia that make certain models or approaches “stick” to the detriment of more orthodox approaches. But are the mainstream so hopelessly dogmatic so as to make communication impossible? I don’t think so, and the historical record is on my side. A lot of Nobel prize winners have cited Hayek as an influence and a lot of his work as been absorbed by the mainstream.
You know, reading other people charitably never did hurt honest, open and productive discussion. But, OK, you want to know why I think these two economists in particular should be considered successful. Leeson has a publication in JPE, a book with PUP and is visiting at Chicago, these are quite substantial achievements for an economist of just 30. Kirzner was on the faculty of NYU, and is a widely respected economist with a chance of winning the Nobel prize, since I don’t feel like looking up his CV to look at his exact publications I won’t cite any, but he has extensively engaged the mainstream and is recognised for it.
If you believe that mainstream economists are hopelessly wrong on every single issues, rendering interaction completely worthless then I’m not sure what I have to say to you and I’m not sure this discussion will prove worthwhile. Let me just point out that “mainstream” economics is hardly homogeneous. There are all sorts of different economists with affinities or direct links to the Austrian school, Public Choice theorists, experimental economics, behavioural economics, NIE and so on and so forth.
Well, thanks for the non-answer, now if you wouldn’t mind, what elements of Hayek’s social thought do you find so disagreeable?
No, I brought it up after you gave your whole motif about ‘mainstream success.’ I am not engaging the poster on his/her topic, I’m engaging the statements you have presented in this discussion.
Well you never answered why we should be engaging these people beyond writing critiques. I am guessing that is it is because you think they have something to offer in the study of economics, by chance if that is the case then what is it that they have to offer? Nobel prizes? Comfortable positions? Publications? Also I have explained what I think is ‘good economics’ evidently you haven’t though you did start with the statement that there are some things in Austrian economics which isn’t ‘good economics’ so I am skeptical about what you consider character virtues.
As you say this, the Austrian school is languishing in the mists of a second social revolution.
Awards, where you get published, where you go to school, these are mere fripperies. This whole Nobel prize envy does not really make much of a difference. Even individuals like Krugman get them. Oh but he doesn’t deserve one, yet somehow he got one. Ideas. That is all that matters. Ideas and the ramifications they bring.
You got that from me saying incorrectness is a guide to correctness? Astonishing. Perhaps you need to tone down the ‘charity.’
The first sentence. Again I say, how much of what I write do you actually read? In the interest of engaging in ‘productive’ debate I shall enlighten you with a practice that will cure your illness of misrepresenting and/or misreading my comments. It is simply this: Take your fingers off your keyboard and throughly read my responses. Once fully read, then meditate on what I have said, formulate your retort based on what I have said and then write it down.
So can you tell me just one historic example when a fiat currency was not inflated? Just one.
Seriously, why would goverment go through all the problems of imposing a paper monopoly if it wasnt to inflate? Also, can you tell me when someone has had a monopoly on phisical gold, not paper-gold.
And if the problem is that someone can abuse the monetary system, why not avoid any monetary monpoly and let people use whatever they want as money?
Honestly, not that I know of. But you know it can be done. The whole point behind “gold standard” is to limit the issuance. I think it is way easier to do the job with fiat currency.
Remember that just because we have not seen something in practice in can be used as a valid argument against it. Here many guys talk about anarchism, and a type of society never seen in the history of mankind. Yet…it is very very very valid to use.
Why not??? I told the problem lies not on the method but on the philosophy. We still have mainstream “economists” calling for inflation to fix things. And yet we have guys here saying that it is worthless to post any AE work in mainstream journals. AWESOME!!
South Africa had a monopoly of gold production for decades.
Sure I agree with you on this one. Let people use whatever they want as money. Please note I am not saying not to use govt issued currency.
I have Marx pretty much figured out though I have this strange affinity, a deep desire really, to only learn from people who know what they are discussing. Thank you for your consideration but your services are not required.