Joe Salerno in a review essay on Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism. There are so many interesting parts of Brian's story, but Joe focuses on one aspect of that story and one that happened to rely on some interviews over the years that Brian conducted with me when I was teaching at NYU and at GMU. Joe criticizes my interpretation of the Austrian movement.
I am sure I am guilty of loose lips and also of stating things in an interview less thoughtfully than I hopefully would in an written article, but the context of the discussion between Brian and myself was always one of "how is it that such a powerful set of ideas from Mises and Hayek could have such little impact within the economics profession at large?" I tried to provide arguments which self-reflect on the behavior of Austrian economists themselves, rather to blame others for our failures. I don't deny that there are formidable forces to overcome, but I also think this is a very competitive business and "we" have not competed very well. And I think the evidence is around for us to consider who is competing well or not --- you either publish in professional journals or not; you either get tenure track appointments or not; you either get promoted or not; you either place PhD students or not; you either publish with top publishing houses or not.
It is not that the evidence is murky on this, nor it is really murky that this is the criteria to use in determining whether you are making an impact as a scientific movement in political economy.
Anyway, Joe Salerno --- who I respect tremendously for both the quality of his mind and his deep commitment to Austrian economics --- finds my statements objectionable. There should be a fair hearing of views within Austrian circles, so for those of you who haven't read them check them out. I could indeed be wildly off-the-mark, and if so, perhaps Joe will have a better answer to Brian's question as to why Austrian's have found it so difficult to advance their ideas when in fact on both an empirical (collapse of Keynesianism and collapse of real existing socialism) and theoretical (collapse of macroeconomics, and the development of new institutionalism and resurgency of political economy) level the world of academic economics has moved in such a positive direction.