The Austrian Tent? A Rejoinder to Gallaway and Vedder, by Walter Block and William Barnett II (Loyola University, New Orleans)
How do neoclassical economists reply to Austrian critiques of their work? Typically, although to be sure there are exceptions, they ignore them. That is, the former move mountains in an effort to avoid the arguments of the latter. Sometimes this occurs even when neoclassicals explicitly reply to Austrian critiques.
{ 7 comments }
I dislike both the tone and the substance of this short piece. The very idea behind it is wrong and harmful, namely, the attempt to define who is a “true” Austrian and who is just an impostor. It is due to such attempts that the great school of thought becomes a closed sect with very sectarian discussions about orthodoxy and heresy, which reminds me the style of intra-bolsheviks discussions of the 1920s and early 1930s. It makes it very easy for non-Austrians to dismiss us as sectarians hiding in a small ghetto behind a thick wall which we ourselves are trying to build up.
In fact, there is, and has never been, such thing as “true Austrianism”. For instance, I believe that Mises was wrong on the copyright issue, he was not against taxation per se, his monopoly theory seems to be erroneous, and his regression theorem also looks unconvincing and redundant. And still, I regard myself fully Austrian, and think that Mises was the greatest Austrian of all.
It seems that this strong focus on the precise dichotomy of Austrianism vs. others is a new phenomenon, foreign to Mises (and certainly to Hayek), and probably has more to do with personal traits of Rothbard who sometimes tended more to hate the state and its champions rather then analyze them.
Emphasys on the existence of the separate Austrian theory indirectly justifies polylogism of the economic science, as it treats other theories as somewhat equally scientific, at least in the eyes of a non-Austrian. What we need is something opposite; we need to demonstrate that what we call Austrianism is just the economics, and what is different between the Austrianism and other sis just inevitable errors committed by others. We should demolish the dividing wall, not to sthrengthen it.
Specifically, all Austrians should strongly welcome Vedder and Gallaway, at least for their contribution to the history of the Great Depression. The title of the famous Rothbard’s book was, unfortunately, a misnomer – he dealt mostly with the crisis, and not with the depression which followed. It was the long depression after the crisis which made it unique, and it was Gallaway and Vedder who explained how it happened.
Perhaps the problem is that there is no online access to the paper in question? The comment seems hard to follow without reading what is being addressed in particular.
“and his regression theorem also looks unconvincing and redundant.”
Care to elaborate?
Mmmm… Rothbard did define the modern Austrian school; but does anyone really need any analysis of State beyond the observation that any State is a criminal enterprise?
I would venture to guess that any such analysis should rightfully belong to parasitology or criminology, or psychiatry, but not economics.
There’s nothing about the action of states which can be meaninfully analyzed in economical terms alone, for they are irrational and arbitrary perversions of economical activity brought about by the epidemics of the irrational beliefs. Trying to make economical sense out of states is the same as trying to find logic in lunatic’s ravings.
In my approaching to Austrian school I am experiencing what Boris Lvin has exposed: this environment looks sectarian, voted to label other schools or opinions as “wrong” or “silly”, and focused on exhalting a libertarian (theoretical) world with little (or null) room for self criticism, any other school’s reasons, or contestualization of any theory assuming the presence of State.
For instance, I constantly find here a sense of hatred against neoclassicals or monetarists, dubbing them as “mathematicians”, like there was no economic thought behind their formulae; I sincerely disagree: if you want find someone exhalting his method with no improvement in analysis contents you have no need to look much afar (and master economists are rare anywhere); at the same time I have read no critiques like “keynesians have lost the short-term significance of their theories”, but just “they are wrong, the State is inefficient”. Attacking conclusions instead of starting points of theories is easy to do (and good for attracting economics-amateurs in search for a flag) but no source for intellectual improvement.
Besides some interesting articles, I have noticed this sectarian spirit (“we are the pure and good, the rest is evil”), which can simply harm a School who has much to teach.
“How do neoclassical economists reply to Austrian critiques of their work? Typically, although to be sure there are exceptions, they ignore them” is an unfair expression: Friedman and Phelps did thank the Austrians for their work, can you call them “exceptions”?
Please Austrians, respect the others, and stop building your own ghetto.
I look for knowledge, not a sticker for my car.
L.Baggiani – I’m a mathematican, a real one, with degree from one of the best math schools in the world. And because of my professional training I can easily see that the entire edifice of the mainstream economics is built on a two-penny logical fallacy of aggregating demonstrably non-additive quantities. Mathematically, the “mathematical” economics is valid no more than any calculation containing division by zero.
Does that make me “sectarian”? I do dislike snake oil peddlers and other scam artists of all kinds, why should I profess any respect to the members of the academia who do the exact equivalent of the same scam? They selling the pseudo-science when they are supposed to have enough basic education to understand what’s wrong with what they do – so either they are undereducated pretenders with fake degrees, or simply cynical liars.
So, by all means, look for knowledge, but try to understand why people who have seen the fallacy through and have shaken the hypnosis of “scientific consensus” do reject the conclusions drawn from that fallacy with the same vehemence the physicists reserve for perpetuum mobile kooks.
And the kooks, of course, think that physicists are sectarian and arrogant, and spend quite a lot of time bitching about unwillingness of physicists to come down from their ivory towers and consider compromises with their outlandish beliefs.
And, yes, the history knows examples when entire branches of scientific establishment were temporarily overtaken by the schools of kooks.
very thanks çok güzel konu
Comments on this entry are closed.