This obviously may not be a sensible question, but… given the Krugmans of the world, why wouldn’t the Institute or some associates of its issue an M.A. in economics to people who have studied Austrianism? Obviously, some would call it a diploma mill, but… what would one call the departments of economics of the Ivy League?
You’re asking why a charity doesn’t grant diplomas?
Yes… students of the Austrian school certainly know more about economics than Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, and the rest of them…
Pardon, but I think if one isn’t a statist, there should be nothing wrong with this. I attended Thomas Aquinas College in California for a year, so I think I know a thing or two about what knowledge is and what it isn’t. M.A.s are typically a mark that one has some kind of narrow expertise. Now who is more of an expert on economics… Joe on the street, who understands Austrian economics, or Ben Bernanke? Paul Krugman?
“You’re asking why a charity doesn’t grant diplomas?”
When did the Mises Institute turn into a charity?
To the OP: The Mises Institute already has various courses on economics, history and philosophy through the Mises Academy. It just recently started so it has a select course listing but I’m sure it will grow with time.
Nonprofit =/= charity.
Its a shame that colleges dont teach you about logical fallacies
You know how I know that first part is true? If you were making it up you would have picked a school more than 2 people have heard of.
October 1982.
So what?
“Yes… students of the Austrian school certainly know more about economics than Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, and the rest of them…”
This doesn’t hold true, not even half the time. It’s even worse you put Krugman and Bernanke in the same sentence, one is much more respectable than the other, but both are incredibly intelligent and know quite a bit of economics. Maybe this would be more true if the majority of the students of the Austrian School didn’t restrict themselves to exclusively Rothbardian economics…
I think Zach may have a point… at least as far as undergrad economics goes. Mainstream econ is definitely worth learning, if at least to contrast in a critical perspective, and I think a lot of current younger Austrians (going from personal experience) are not doing themselves a favour by ignoring mainstream econ to the extent they seem to be. I don’t think we should try to become 21st century Schmollerites.
Being on an advanced econ course at the moment, I’ve noticed a curious psychological phenomenon among my classmates. Among them, even the people who seemed to find a lot of what they were originally being taught nonsense, especially among those who were originally maths amteurs, there comes a kind of holy mesmerisation with mathematics and its application, that I think would probably make it very hard for these people to fathom serious critiques of what they are doing after the sacrifices they have made to try to learn it.
Not sure how much is useful beyond the undergrad level, for instance mainstream macro atm seems to me a hell of a lot of playing with Hamiltonians to find steady states (not that variational calculus isn’t fascinating in its own right). Not sure how this kind of mental masturbation yields much useful knowledge, especially with some of the laughable analogies utilised, but hey what do I know.
Also, who are you referring to as much less “respectable” than the other? The 2009 nobel prize winner or the ex chair of the Princeton Economics department?
abskebabs I don’t get it. Your first paragraph is spent making your claim that learning mainstream econ is totally worth the time, and your following two provide anecdotal evidence refuting it. Whose side are you on?
I guess it depends on your goals.
If you don’t want to bother going beyond learning the sound basic principles of economics, you can find many excellent, introductory works on this site for example (and I’m not denigrating this at all, in fact pursuing other activities may well be far more productive a way to spend one’s time), and not need to bother going beyond them.
If you want to be a serious scholar and contribute something though, then you can’t discount reading Neoclassicals and neoclassical textbooks IMO. You never know you might gain a lot, if even indirectly. I made the distinction of undergrad level economics, as it seems to me beyond that a lot of what is presented beyond that is just ever more mathematical refinements to the same essential doctrine. If you want to understand the rationale of people writing in the FT or the Economist, then this on its own is certainly useful if only to sort out the wheat from the chaff of what they’re saying for instance.
I guess perhaps though this is a mistaken personal preference of mine, that I think one should at least aim to evaluate all sides of an argument to the best of one’s abillity as a minimal standard of honesty and integrity in intellectual pursuits…
Of course I understand the argument for being familiar with the other side (aka “what else is out there”), as this is not a new argument by any stretch. But as I said elsewhere, I liken the suggestion of learning the kind of modern macro taught in most classrooms to studying how to cut and splice physical celluloid film, or reading science books from the 1920s…so that you can “fully appreciate” how far we’ve come and “understand the foundations” or some other nonsense like that.
Yes, it is helpful to understand a lot of mainstream macro, if for no other reason than that’s what so much of the world’s policy is rationalized by (despite the nonsense that it is), and of course most micro is essential…but those are generally concepts that will be included in any Austrian analysis (e.g. law of supply and demand, law of unintended consequences, etc.) But to try to claim that someone should waste a considerable amount of time learning that the universe revolves around the Earth, just because that’s what a lot of other people believe…or that you should dedicate scores of hours schlepping through The General Theory and other incomprehensible tomes so that you might better learn the foundations behind the mathematization of government regulation and useless concepts like GDP and CPI, just because that’s the way economics is currently done by the mainstream, is rediculous.
There is something to be said with being at least somewhat familiar with the opposing side’s view…but I’m not about to dedicate any time reading The Flat Earth Society handbook.
What I meant was that the Mises Institute should institute some sort of award or diploma to indicate that someone literally understands sound economics. The program of course would exclude works by such morons as Keynes and econometricists. Give out an associates degree, for goodness’ sakes. When Ben Bernanke’s Ph.D. is worse than useless, there is no difference between a Ph.D. and a minor in economics. Gary North proposes that children take an accelerated path to college and pay only around $15,000. Why shouldn’t Rothbardian employers - which will soon be numerous, in countries in which they aren’t dead - look for the Mises’ Institute’s stamp of basic competence instead of a wretched, generic B.A.? It seems like it would be a growth industry…
Of course, they might simply also award doctorates to anyone who is competent - Ben Bernanke getting a Ph.D. throws the whole academic award system into chaos.
I still have no idea what your purpose is in any of this. You’re arguing that a largley unknown charitable organization should be granting diplomas that won’t be to anyone worth the paper they’re printed on. Please tell me what the hell is someone supposed to do with a piece of paper that says “M.A. in economics” from the charity known as the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
I also appreciate where you’re coming from but can’t help but think you’re overstating your case.
Comparing reading micro and macro textbooks to “schlepping” through the General Theory is a bit much. Also, though Keynesianism and (thankfully) Austrianism have been on the rebound recently, there is a lot more out there than just Neo-Keynesian macro, it does somewhat miff me that about 5 rather different schools of thought with markedly different policy conclusions are all labelled as “Keynesian” by Austrians. It goes without saying that these schools of thought have nothing to do with growth theory. They are only “Keynesian” in the sense of their employment of aggregates , and though I’m sure we both agree that is a major flaw common to all of them, this doesn’t make it excusable to just flippantly dismiss their differences(for instance, the real business cycle school as inane as we might think they are in their analysis, at least have consistent free market conclusions, that pretty much deny any benefits from government intervention in business cycle crises.)
I strongly doubt most New Keynesians, let alone economists in general have read something like the GT cover to cover. My professor last term flabbergasted me by saying reading Marshall was like me as a physicist reading Newton (talk about a stupid comparison!). All I am saying is that it might be useful to get a good grip on their current doctrine.
Also, the schools of thought only refer to business cycle theory, where there is debate and a difference of opinion, which incidentally is maybe also why Austrians have found it easier in macro than in micro to get a foothold. Neoclassical growth theory seems to have hardly been touched by contemporary Austrians for instance. While I think it contains similar errors to mainstream macro and micro in terms of aggregates and utility analysis, it would also be a useful excercise perhaps part and parcel in the development of a proper Austrian growth theory to begin with a consideration of the treatment of time horizons and time preference in the Ramsey Model for instance.
Finally, I think Austrians could benefit from making more targeted critiques of other schools of thought(especially in micro), beyond simply crticising methodology (as important as that is).
Hell, perhaps you might even change your mind on economic questions. I’ve always held that as a possibillity. I’ve seen value in what I’ve learned from mainstream econ, even though I still consider myself an “Austrian.” It’s also made me a lot more aware of where I think there are gaps in the Austrian literature, and it seems to me mostly in pointed enough, specific critiques of neoclassical micro so far. I’m hoping to get my thoughts down in written form by the end of summer.
Let me guess…Krugman is the more respectable…Why? Because he was awarded the Fake Nobel Prize in Economics?? To me he is a confounded man, master disseminator of what economics is NOT about…Bernanke is a misguided person who is nothing more than a rube who thinks economics is some sort of nintendo game, where you press the button “money expansion” when you want. and when required later on, you then press the button “Drain” and everything works out just fine. He still does not understand (will figure it out eventually) that trying to play the economic measures game expecting people to do this or that is akin to herding cats…
As for intellingence…in many cases it does not correlate with “thinking or doing the right thing”. Karl Marx was a very intelligent man, he was also very wrong. I could cite a great number of examples.
The whole point of degrees is accreditation. Which is to separate general knowledge from academic knowledge.
Academic knowledge can be good and bad. But it is what it is. And all the Bernankes and Krugmans have the academic knowledge.
Their MA is not a claim to absolute truth or intelligence. It is a claim to academic knowledge.
The Mises University is about distributing knowledge about Misesian ideas and graduating people with requisite knowledge about those subjects.
If you think Ben or Krugman having MAs is no proof of their intelligence, then there is no need for Mises Institute to prove your intelligence either.
Krugman is another mega-villain. C’mon, this is Mises.org!
John james, I’m going to talk crazily, but I do think I’m onto something. Maybe I’ll award myself a Ph.D. in economics and a Bobel [sic] Prize from the prestigious Noble Singaporean Society of Bobel Prizes, and start a diploma mill, because the Mises Institute won’t. Let’s be ruthless when it comes to ridiculing Princeton et alia.
Maybe it is completely crazy, but I don’t know anyone in the regular Austrian movement who is flamboyant and great at marketing. For instance, Peter Schiff, Gary North, Ron Paul, Porter Stansberry, and maybe even the Mogambo Guru, are honorable men, but they are not marvels at persuading. None is very handsome, well-spoken, or mediagenic. Such things shouldn’t be important in persuading good men, but good men are all too rare, of course. Someone with smart marketing skills and a grasp of the pertinent target markets might have an opportunity. For instance, I think that Porter Stansberry, who is no doubt rich, might have the wrong marketing strategy and the wrong audience. John James, I’m not going to reveal the details on an open and relatively popular forum.
Yes, it’d be bad for people who study real learning, like at Thomas Aquinas College, but it’ll help rectify the scandal of the prestige of the Ivy League.
The bottom line is, the contemporary economics Ph.D. is baloney. Start a (legal) “diploma mill” and show these clowns up for what they are.