There you go again, Pete
My friend Peter Boettke is at it again. Pete is notorious for flippantly propagating gross distortions of the history of the modern Austrian revival. In a recent talk on "Socialism and Transition" at the Foundation for Economic Education Pete is caught in the midst of a discussion of incentives and socialism making the following jaw-dropping statement (at 51:55 of the podcast): "A few years ago at the Mises thing, Hans Hoppe said 'No Hayekian economist ever believes in private property rights.'"
The "Mises thing" Pete is referring to was the first annual Austrian Scholars Conference held in 1995 at the Mises institute in Auburn Alabama. I was also in attendance at Hoppe's talk that Pete alludes to and never heard him make such a statement.
Although I do not recall Hoppe's exact words, I do recollect the gist of what Hoppe said, which was that those who adhere to Hayek's position in the socialist calculation debate of the 1930s believe that lack of the knowledge conveyed by past prices and not the lack of private property rights, exchange, and monetary calculation based on anticipated prices is the essential problem of socialist central planning.
Whether one agrees with Hoppe's position or not, thus stated it is certainly a far cry from the position that Boettke attributes to him. Not trusting to my own fallible memory, I asked two others who were also in attendance if Hoppe made the statement that Boettke alleged, i.e., that Hayekians do not believe in private property rights. They confirmed my recollection. Whether Pete was just fishing for cheap laughs--which he got when he later added "What the hell is he talking about"--or whether he had one of his typical lapses of memory, is not important. Since Pete is one of the most visible spokesman for Masonomics, I think it behooves him to express himself with greater attention to the facts and in a more scholarly fashion.
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (57)
Comments (57)
newson
masonomics: we believe in the stickiness of prices (especially down), but object to criticism by non phd economists.
Published: July 4, 2009 8:09 AM
newson
those interested in the "debate on the debate" would do well to read these horwitz papers for a counterpoint to the "small group of austrians" behind the hayek/mises dehomogenization thesis:
"Monetary Calculation and the Unintended Extended Order: The Misesian Microfoundations of the Hayekian Great Society"
"Monetary Calculation and Mises's
Critique of Planning"
Published: July 4, 2009 8:30 AM
Bruce Koerber
Divine Economy Ethics
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Economic Interpretation Lacks An Ethical Foundation.
As a hermeneutic doctor I am sure that Peter Boettke 'believes' that he has the right to interpret. Yet the world is suffering under the thumb of the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters.
Eventually the hermeneutically-inspired system described by the term 'Masonomics' will be interpreted to need more intervention to make the world like the one they 'believe' it should be. What is there that can prevent this?
The answer is: Irrelevance.
Published: July 4, 2009 8:32 AM
Stop
These controversies between Auburn and Mason are tiresome and unfortunate.
Published: July 4, 2009 9:10 AM
Agreed
I agree. We're in the middle of the Obamavic revolution and we're taking time to gripe about something Peter Boettke said about Hoppe said 15 years ago?
Published: July 4, 2009 10:44 AM
Bruce Koerber
It really is not about politics. Regardless of who the ego-driven interventionists are, the science of economics is not served by hermeneutics.
Published: July 4, 2009 11:32 AM
John Singleton
I'm fine with professional disagreement, but why make it so personal Joe?
Its extremely unbecoming. Even if Boettke is the one in the wrong, grow up. You sound childish.
Published: July 4, 2009 11:35 AM
Matt R.
Let's air these grievances somewhere else.
Published: July 4, 2009 2:06 PM
scineram
Thank god Boettke is not a hermeneutician.
Published: July 4, 2009 2:33 PM
Lee Kelly
That was helpful.
Published: July 4, 2009 2:42 PM
GS
"It really is not about politics. Regardless of who the ego-driven interventionists are, the science of economics is not served by hermeneutics."
As far as I'm aware, they're not teaching hermeneutics over at GMU anymore, so this criticism is somewhat irrelevant.
Published: July 4, 2009 3:03 PM
Anonymous
Who cares what Hoppe said. The question is, is the statement "No Hayekian economist ever believes in private property rights" correct? No.
Published: July 4, 2009 3:06 PM
Gs
"These controversies between Auburn and Mason are tiresome and unfortunate."
No, it's not. One of the more important aspects of science is criticial dialogue. There isn't nearly enough of that within the Austrian community as it is. Granted, the debates sometimes get heated, but that doesn't mean that good points don't come out of it.
Published: July 4, 2009 4:24 PM
J Cortez
Matt R. : "Let's air these grievances somewhere else."
I agree with this sentiment.
It's not a regular thing, but there's been a few GMU vs the institute posts on this blog here and there that come off as just catty and useless. Regardless of who is right or wrong, what I take away from this is just pointless negativity as the tone of it is personal.
Published: July 4, 2009 4:30 PM
Bruce Koerber
If hermeneutics is not part of GMU then what constitutes Masonomics?
Published: July 4, 2009 4:32 PM
S Andrews
I don't understand why these disagreements have to be obnoxious and personal.
Published: July 4, 2009 5:35 PM
S Andrews
I totally agree with the above 4 comments.
Published: July 4, 2009 5:40 PM
DNA
Newson,
As far as I know, no GMU-allied economist has responded in any way to Hulsmann's 1996 paper Knowledge, Judgement, and the Use of Property, the definitive paper on the Misesian side of the dehomogenization debate (none of the Horwitz papers you cite does). I have to therefore conclude that the GMU side has no response, apart from word games regarding various metaphors they frequently employ.
Published: July 4, 2009 6:37 PM
JP
DNA, maybe the dehomogenization debate just isn't that interesting -- it seems like a lot of semantics and assertions that can be debated forever.
Published: July 4, 2009 7:13 PM
Andrew
This is all part of the problem. The in-fighting between all those who consider themselves "free-market" supporters.
I understand Joe's point. My problem is why did Boettke not just go ask Hoppe for an explanation of what he thought he said and then read that instead of trying to slam him?
Maybe there is a better way. Joe can you get Hoppe to write an essay on this. Not directly talking to Boettke but addressing the subject matter? Then send it to Boettke and post it on Mises. That is the only way I can see to clarify misconceptions.
Published: July 4, 2009 7:48 PM
newson
if, as salerno asserts (and the attention dedicated to it by socialists bears him out), the most important economic paper of the twentieth century was mises' "economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth", then a bit of exegesis doesn't go astray.
feathers will get ruffled.
Published: July 4, 2009 8:48 PM
Gil
"I think it behooves him . . ."
'Embiggens' is a perfectly cromulent word.
Published: July 4, 2009 8:49 PM
newson
to dna:
yes i did read the hulsmann paper. i found this hoppe paper helped me better understand the subtle differences between hayek and mises (knowledge vs. property, in gross terms):
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_1_13.pdf
Published: July 4, 2009 9:42 PM
DixieFlatline
@S Andrews, was Salerno obxnoxious when he called Boettke his friend?
Boettke said something Salerno believes is incorrect. He has called him out on it. I would expect no less from a serious intellectual. Certainly Boettke gets a lot less flack for things he writes about LvMI and associated parties via his own blog. What many seem to be overlooking, is that it appears Boettke made a false claim.
Thank you Professor Salerno. It's good to see people stand up for HHH, who is an often misunderstood and mis-characterized Mises fellow.
If people want everyone to agree and get along, go to an Obama rally. There is plenty of group think there. The Mises blog should be used to discuss Austrian disputes.
Published: July 4, 2009 10:36 PM
Bruce Koerber
Just like the last time there was a debate about Masonomics (about a month ago) no one wants to answer the simple question:
If hermeneutics is not part of GMU then what constitutes Masonomics?
Published: July 4, 2009 10:56 PM
Econ Dude
Can you teach Austrian economics without using the word praxeology? Of course, Yes....Can you teach hermeneutics without saying the word hermenutics? yes
Published: July 4, 2009 11:22 PM
Brent
I disagree with everyone who thinks it isn't important to call a spade a spade. Everyone who thinks this way needs to grow a spine and stop hiding from controversy. As if Austrian free market economics is just going to "catch on" if only we'd all just refuse to criticize "teammates" when they do something stupid.
Dr. Salerno, you should continue to call out dumb remarks by other Austrians and I'm sure they'll do the same. It's the only way misinformation gets cleared up.
Published: July 5, 2009 1:17 AM
Conza88
Brent and Dixieflatline well said.
Thanks Salerno
Published: July 5, 2009 3:37 AM
Ekonomi
Thank god Boettke is not a hermeneutician.
Published: July 5, 2009 6:41 AM
DNA
Whether or not hermeneutics is part of the official curiculum at GMU, its legacy lives on in much of this branch of Austrianism, as evidenced by its acknowledgments that many of their claims re. Mises (or Hayek, for that matter) only become apparent upon the proper "reading" of the actual works in question. This is esp. true of Boettke's work, but it can also be found in Horwitz, eg his microfoundations paper newson references above.
Published: July 5, 2009 8:06 AM
Question, Andrews
Would this be a bad place to call into question the treatment/methodology of analyzing property rights in Austrian Econ?
Richard O. Hammer's power-point http://freenation.org/antechamber/ASC_IP.ppt first pointed this out to me.
"[human-conflict is costly in nature, so humans adopt non-conflicting patterns in relation to one another. We, sometimes, depending upon agreement, call these 'rights' (other times 'laws', and some base 'morality' off of these)]"
So this is the most fundamental look at the root of natural law/rights that I've seen so far, so: is this something that you guys would embrace? Are there counter-arguments? Better explanations?
(This is something I've found all the 'leftists' I've talked to, extremely receptive toward. I think it might be because many people contribute to the mystical connotation behind 'rights' when they don't clarify on the origin..)
Thank you.
Published: July 5, 2009 1:28 PM
JP
Bruce, whatever hermeneutics means -- something about interpreting texts -- it seems there's a lot more of it going on in the QJAE than at GMU.
As for the term "Masonomics," the term seems to be an unfortunate creation of Arnold Kling, but it's hard to see where any Austrian would disagree with it:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=101007A
Published: July 5, 2009 1:58 PM
newson
to jp:
it's stuff like this from kling that i find objectionable, and i can only presume he knows what masonomics stands for. thanks for the article:
"--recognize that market failures exist, and that is why we need markets."
Published: July 5, 2009 6:48 PM
clawback
Complaints about these debates becoming tiresome are not arguments for avoiding confrontation and argument (as some have suggested). Intra-Austrian criticism is good and important, but the way that these arguments become smug us-vs.-them affairs IS tiresome. Most of the blame must fall on the GMU crowd (they're "cosmpolitan" and "professional"; you're "homophobic" and "neo-confederate"), but that doesn't excuse the pettiness on the other side. If one wants to argue about interpretations of Hayek, fine. If one wants to conflate these arguments with years of sniping and insults from the "other" side, then it should be taken somewhere else.
As for the phd, non-phd issue, Boettke is fully committed to the view that serious econimists must undergo years of formal training in order to learn the intricacies of various arguments, their place in ongoing debates, and their place in the history of economic thought. Serious economists will publish in journals recognized by the field at large. This is a high standard, and it is a standard that presumes the value of certain professional and institutional norms. He's made this very explicit at The Austrian Economists blog (Steve Horwitz's, not Boettke's). I don't know, however, if he has formulated a view of other kinds of intellectual work in economics. In any case, none of this should produce a schism within Austrian economics. For those of us on the outside of these debates, but who understand the intellectual and political importance of Austrian insights, these debates are not just tiresome, but heart-breaking. I'm partial to the Mises Institute and the political work associated with it, but that an intellectual force like Peter Boettke (or Hans Herman Hoppe) must be a lightning rod in the intra-Austrian culture war is unfortunate.
Published: July 5, 2009 11:17 PM
Anonymous
I respect what is done at academic departments and in journals.
Having said that, the notion that you get priority for having Ph.D.'s, professorships and publications is simply incompatible with Austrianism, given the current situation.
To be an Austrian in 2009, you have to be willing to take the position that tenured professors at Princeton are wrong, and guys who get rejected when they apply for tenure track jobs, and read/write on mises.org, are instead right. If something holds you back from being willing to take that position, then you have little choice but to be against Austrian Economics, as things stand right now.
Considering that the most published econ professors disagree with each other so much, it's hard to argue that being a highly published econ professor makes you right. I think it is quite possible for the professor with publications to be wrong and the blogger without them to be right. Having said that, I greatly respect the value of the grad school, publishing and academia process. People who are passionate about ideas, including the general Austrian political-economic tradition, I would encourage to do the grad school and academia process if it is a feasible and prudent option for them. That applies to political science, sociology, legal scholarship, philosophy and other subjects et cetera.
Published: July 6, 2009 12:33 AM
DNA
Clawback writes:
"As for the phd, non-phd issue, Boettke is fully committed to the view that serious econimists must undergo years of formal training in order to learn the intricacies of various arguments, their place in ongoing debates, and their place in the history of economic thought."
The irony here is that Boettke's lack of mathematical training leads him to make claims about neoclassicism that are thoroughly confused, if not outright false. This becomes very clear in his various debates with Bryan Caplan. Although this is a general problem with many Austrian economists (I strongly encourage anyone interested in AE to also make an effort to understand the mathematical formulation of neoclassicism, I believe it will help them to better understand Austrian positions), it's particularly true of people like Boettke, who spend far too much time critiquing neoclassicism by overemphasizing the limitations of equilibrium theorizing. There's more to it than that.
Published: July 6, 2009 7:13 AM
Current
clawback: "Intra-Austrian criticism is good and important, but the way that these arguments become smug us-vs.-them affairs IS tiresome."
Exactly. This dispute doesn't have to be carried out in the way that it has been.
I've had more civil discussions with Marxists.
Published: July 6, 2009 7:55 AM
Gene Callahan
"My problem is why did Boettke not just go ask Hoppe for an explanation of what he thought he said and then read that instead of trying to slam him?"
You must be kidding. A good friend of mine and a prominent Austrian economist went to LVMI one year. Someone introduced him to Hoppe, and my friend held out his hand to shake Hoppe's. Hoppe looked contemptuously at my friend's hand, said "We've met before," and turned and walked away.
Published: July 6, 2009 9:03 AM
Gene Callahan
By the way, both Mises and Rothbard were "hermeneutic" social scientists. Rothbard was either:
1) Too dull to realize this; or
2) In his fury that Don Lavoie had dared to disagree with him, he wanted to trash Lavoie so badly that he just didn't care.
Published: July 6, 2009 9:07 AM
DNA
Gene Callahan should have stuck with programming.
Published: July 6, 2009 9:33 AM
Current
Gene, DNA, why not actually argue about this?
Published: July 6, 2009 9:41 AM
DNA
Current,
Argue about what? Gene Callahan despises Hoppe, but whatever, that's his opinion. All he's doing here is being nasty, and spreading a rather wide net to include Rothbard. Clearly there's some issues there that he needs to get over. Until then there's no point in debating with him.
Published: July 6, 2009 9:51 AM
Daniel J. Fallon
Huh? If Rothbard is a hermeneutician, why does he write the following scathing attack on hermeneuticians in his review of Don McCloskey’s Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics:
"Rhetoric" is kissin' cousin to the short-lived "hermeneutics" movement in economics, and indeed he helped contribute to that movement.' Like his friends the hermeneuticians, McCloskey insists that economics must be an eternal and perpetually "open" "conversation." Like the hermeneuticians, he is a nihilist and a village relativist. The difference is that McCloskey is far shrewder than they. In two ways: first, because he has a lock on the term "rhetoric," and can ring the changes on that word; and second, because he is far more elusive and evasive, far more the "artful dodger," than his stodgy and plodding hermeneutical comrades.”
Published: July 6, 2009 9:52 AM
DNA
Daniel J. Fallon,
Rothbard's not a hermeneutician, Gene Callahan is just being asinine. He's obviously sore about his business relationship with LvMI over his book (when in reality, the Institute should be mad about grossly overpaying).
Published: July 6, 2009 10:04 AM
JP
If that is really Gene Callahan, is that what happened? Business deal with LvMI? What about his criticism of Rothbard? Is that something new?
Published: July 6, 2009 10:33 AM
DNA
Further comment on clawback's post: Boettke urges interaction with the mainstream (which he often combines with snide swipes at the scholarly content of those who publish in the LvMI journals), but he seriously underestimates the barriers thinkers like Mises or Hayek would face in the current intellectual millieu. This objection has been raised many times in comments on his blog, but I can't see that he's ever really effectively responded.
Published: July 6, 2009 12:37 PM
GS
"Daniel J. Fallon,
Rothbard's not a hermeneutician, Gene Callahan is just being asinine. He's obviously sore about his business relationship with LvMI over his book (when in reality, the Institute should be mad about grossly overpaying)"
Somebody has neither read "Theory and History" nor knows what thymology is.
Published: July 6, 2009 12:48 PM
Bernard
"Dr" Peter Boettke (what a scoundrel he is) is attacking Mises Institute scholars yet again:
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/07/in-praise-of-accomplishment.html#comments
The advancement of Austrian theory needs more true scholars and gentlemen like Salerno and Rockwell instead of crude louts like Boettke and the GMU crowd.
Published: July 6, 2009 3:05 PM
Bruce Koerber
Classical Liberalism Protection
Monday, July 6, 2009
Hermeneutics Is A Flawed Type Of Empiricism.
It looks like I struck a nerve!
Hermeneutics is indeed alive and well, yet no one wants to be identified with it!
So is there a secret affiliation with hermeneutics which by its very nature acts like an infectious disease? Not a word from the 'good doctor!' Need we wonder why?
Published: July 6, 2009 3:48 PM
GS
"The advancement of Austrian theory needs more true scholars and gentlemen like Salerno and Rockwell instead of crude louts like Boettke and the GMU crowd."
Do as you say, not as you do?
I fail to see how Dr Boettke is a "crude lout", for the record, it's Mr. Rockwell, not Dr. Rockwell.
I fail to see how your description fits Dr Boettke anymore than it fits some of the LvMI fellows. Whilst he may make some remarks that those affiliated with the LvMI may find offensive, he does so in the interest of Austrian economics and science in general. Not because he has some chip on his shoulder with regards to the LvMI.
Published: July 6, 2009 5:27 PM
Gabe
Believe it or not, Dr Boettke has had a hand in bringing more people to LvMI. He has devoted his life to advancing individualism. I may not agree with all of his strategies for doing so, but I'd guess that some here who call themselves Austrians may have actually done less than Boettke. Argue away, but no need to start hurling names.
Published: July 6, 2009 6:28 PM
mikey
I learned a lot from the article and the above comments.Nothing about economics, though.
Published: July 6, 2009 9:28 PM
clawback
DNA writes:
"Boettke urges interaction with the mainstream,... but he seriously underestimates the barriers thinkers like Mises or Hayek would face in the current intellectual millieu. This objection has been raised many times in comments on his blog, but I can't see that he's ever really effectively responded."
Good point. I haven't seen such a response either. Still, his rapprochement with the main stream shouldn't be cause for schism. I have it from Horwitz himself that he and Boettke respect and appreciate much of what the non-GMU Austrians are doing, including those with the LVMI. If this is contradicted by snipes made elsewhere, so be it, but the viciousness of these debates is bizarre.
BTW, if Hoppe isn't the character he's sometimes depicted as, why is he so polarizing? Does it all stem from the gay student of his who filed a complaint? Or is it just professional and social anxieties on the part of the GMU crowd?
Published: July 6, 2009 10:54 PM
S Andrews
What mikey said.
I am sorta new to the politics between LvMI & GMU. Could someone give me a summary thereof?
Published: July 6, 2009 11:36 PM
DNA
Clawback,
I agree that dialog with mainstream economists shouldn't be polarizing within Austrian circles, and in fact I don't think this dialog as such is polarizing. However, I think there is legitimate disagreement over what is true and what is false within AE, and this going to be reflected the relative worth the two camps assign to debate with non-Austrians.
Published: July 7, 2009 6:52 AM
Joseph Mises
#
**"My problem is why did Boettke not just go ask Hoppe for an explanation of what he thought he said and then read that instead of trying to slam him?"
You must be kidding. A good friend of mine and a prominent Austrian economist went to LVMI one year. Someone introduced him to Hoppe, and my friend held out his hand to shake Hoppe's. Hoppe looked contemptuously at my friend's hand, said "We've met before," and turned and walked away.**
I'm just laughing at Callahan's comment.
Published: July 7, 2009 9:21 AM
john hosemann
it is interesting to me that while rome (usa) is burning some in the academic blogasphere have retreated to the safe havens of debating some irrelevant fine points...what those of us in the real world do know is that mises and hayek were not communists or socialists....put down your textbooks and pickup your rifles men it is time to put out the fire and take back our freedom...so we can live another day to debate the finer points of economic history....
Published: July 9, 2009 9:44 PM