May 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

« Welcome to Steve Horwitz | Main | A Tiger By the Tail? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

However interesting the fine points between Hayek and Kirzner, they're just the preliminaries of economics. When do we get to the main event?

To Mises: "The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another."

And to Hayek: "Redistribution" was "the crucial issue on which the whole character of future society will depend" and "it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing" it.

When you get around to discussing it, wake me up.

This is a great topic. I always enjoy reading up on the deepening split between Misesian and Hayekian economics. Now while I agree that Kirzner's role in the ongoing debate is essential, I feel that the views of Lachmann have been sadly neglected. Let me take this opportunity to respond to Dr. Horwitz's post with some of my observations.

First, in an uncertain world, it is improbable that the entrepreneur will ever come to introduce greater coordination and equlibration in the market process. As Lachmann observed many, many years ago, we can never be certain that the "spill-over effects" of an entrepreneurial act will always tend toward an equilibrating direction. These actions are far more likely to generate greater uncertainty (disequilibrium) as a result of the changes in expectations that the entrepreneur helped to bring about.

I think far more weight should be attached to economic factors that consider such things as the speed (and smoothness) of market adjustments, the availability (and likely permanence/durability) of information, and the extent to which an event consitutes a "real change" rather than a minor fluctutation.

However (and unfortunately for the Misesians/Kirznerians), the confirmation of an one of these considerations takes time --- a period in which a great deal could happen in the meantime.

So Kirznerian discovery in a dynamic market process is not sufficient to explain adequately the real-world which displays daily the fierce contest between disequilibration and equilibration. And it is misleading to suggest that the recognition of error by the entrepreneur will in all cases demonstrate the superiority of equilibrating forces.

One has to understand the role expectations play in the passage of time.

Where are all the Lachmanniacs at?

Right here Matthew. My celebration of Kirzner's genius was not an unqualified endorsement. I've written in ways sympathetic to Lachmann for years (going back to my first real published paper in AE, the piece with Boettke and Prychitko in 1986). I absolutely agree that Kirzner's somewhat linear story is too simple and mechanistic for a truly kaleidic world. I would much rather talk about the market process as being "creative" than "discovering" what's "already out there." Everything I've ever written about the need to talk about "order" rather than "equilibrium" can be understood as an attempt to go from Kirzner to Lachmann without losing Mises and Hayek in the process.

In the end, Paris gets fed even if we don't tend toward equilibrium in a strict sense.

Matthew, Steve,

At last, someone refers to Lachmann who is, for me, with Hayek, the most exciting Austrian economists, Kirzner (and Mises) being far behind them.

I have always had a problem with Kirzner: what we can read in Kirzner's "An essay on capital" is indigent: 140 hollow pages; his "theory" of entrepreneurship is hazy, to say the least, even if he re-wrote it so many times...; few things (if any?) about institutions, financial markets, or law; a weak epistemology. To sum up, Kirzner does not deserve a Nobel price (sorry Pete!!).

Hayek and Lachmann tried to tackle all these questions, even if one can find some deficiencies in both and even if their respective approaches are different. Their vision is definitely deeper than Kirzner's.

Comments will surely be numerous. My opinion is even worst concerning Mises, the all-purpose economist who manages to write so much pages with so few references to the developments of economics of his time...

Steve: In the end, we can eat (quite good BTW) in Paris.


What I like most about Lachmann, to paraphrase, is when (1970) he averred that spontaneous order theorizing must take note of social institutions outside of the market, or institutions related to the "common will." Or as Boettke and Storr (2000) note, scholars must take a look at economically relevant, economically conditioned, and economically oriented action.

Dr. Horowitz book review of Horton and Turner (1989) discusses these issues as well. However, being enrolled in a sociology program, I am a bit less optimistic than he is about the forthcoming rapprochment between economics and sociology.

I second Vilfredo's comments (even Schmoller agrees that one cannot eat for free in Paris): Austrianism will make little progress until the Lachmann-Kirzner dispute comes closer to resolution. We have made no further progress on Lachmann-Kirzner than was the state of play when Prof. Vaughan wrote her excellent paper on the tipc (early 90's?).

Reagrding the Lachmann issue, from my book, Intellectually Incorrect, The Amateur Science of Economics, and the Professional War Against It:

Since there is always entrepreneurial error, and disequilibrating as well as equilibrating action in the market, its critics cite the possibility of the disequilibrating outweighing the equilibrating. It's also possible that, if we get out of bed in the morning, we'll get hit by a truck. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get out of bed. Economics is not a science of possibilities, for anything is possible, nor of certainties, for nothing is certain. It is a science of practical and reasonable assumptions, and the futility of human action is not one of them.

Error doesn't change the fact that the market tends to correct it, and nothing else could, that there could be no economic calculation and nothing but chaos without the market, that its tendency toward equilibrium, the Invisible Hand, is our only logical hope, and practical and reasonable assumption.

And, now, can we get to the main issue?

D.G. Lesvic

I agree that economics should be understood as a "science of practical and reasonable assumptions." That is why I am puzzled that you think you have settled the Lachmann issue by saying that "[e]rror doesn't change the fact that the market tends to correct it." Not only do you fail to make an argument in favor of this "assumption", but, stated in this way, I don't see how you could possibly hope to prove Lachmann wrong after granting the existence of error. The market certainly can recognize and attempt to address and eliminate error, but that does not mean it will succeed. Human action takes place in time. Time makes possible the anticipation of the future which causes expectations to diverge, leading to uncertainty and disequilibrium.

Now if these assumptions are valid, which I believe they are, I don't think simple statements like "Paris gets fed" will suffice in refuting them. It is hopeless to concede the most fundamental of assumptions to your opponent
(the existence of error and uncertainty) and then hope to win by enunciating statements that abstract from the tenability of pure theory.

"Kirzner's genius is not just in producing a very precise theory of the entrepreneur"
A *precise* theory? I wasn't aware that he had done so. I thought it was the broad outline of a theory. It seems to be that David Harper has done far more to produce a more nearly precise theory than anyone else. Kirzner refused as a matter of principle to give his theory more substance.

response to matthew mueller

My argument in favor of the assumption that the market tends to correct error and move toward equilibrium was the same as the argument in favor of getting out of bed in the morning: we have no practical and reasonable alternative.

Now, can we can get on to the main event?

One more digression, before moving on to the main event.

It is not just a theoretical assumption that the market works, but an empirical fact. We see the goods on the shelves. Are we to walk away from them because some college professor said the market may not work?

What are we to walk away to; what is the alternative? The fact that you yourself have not walked away from it is your own concession that it works.

And what other explanation for the fact that it works could there be, but the Invisible Hand, the tendency toward equilibrium?

Positive statements involving observations of successful market activity like the availability of goods and exchange depend on some form of comparison in order to vindicate the inexorable tendency toward equilibrium. That is, just because we see goods on the shelves of supermarkets does not mean the market works (or moves in an equilibrating direction). Bruce Caldwell in a lecture at FEE once remarked that on his trip to Poland (which was still part of the Soviet Empire) he noticed that a lot of street vendors offered for sale pounds and pounds of laundry detergent. Does this prove that markets work? In order to make these normative judgments, we must have something to compare these "empirical facts" to. One must assess the opportunity costs involved in all market activity. The market does not invariably generate equilibrium outcomes.

But if we agree that opportunity cost plays an essential role in the appraisal of market activity, then it would seem to follow that greater importance should be attached to "theoretical assumptions" than "empricial facts". What cannot make the case for capitalism by pointing to the shelves of one's local grocer; the Soviets could do that.

edit: "ONE" cannot make the case for capitalism....


Are pounds and pounds of laundry detergent all that you see on the free market's shelves?

If so, what are you waiting for? North Korea would be glad to have you. They're not keeping anybody out. Their problem is keeping people in.


I should have been more specific: a precise theory of the entrepreneurial function. How exactly individual entrepreneurs carry out that function was indeed left way too vague by Kirzner. And David's work certainly fills many of those gaps.


Kirzner has always adhered to a 'strict' definition of the economic point of view. His theory of entrepreneurship might thus look incomplete from the perspective of economists who consider that we should import knowledge from psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. to enrich our discourse.

This is what David Harper does in my view. In his preface to "Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development" (FEED), he writes that his "study applies Kirzner's theory of entrepreneurship and delves into the psychological, cultural, political and institutional contexts that frame entrepreneurial discoveries of unexploited gains from trade." In brillantly providing the psychological, cultural, political and institutional framework of Kirzner's theory, Harper certainly gives more substance to the latter theory. His 'wider' perspective on the economic point of view (than Kirzner's) allows him to 'deepen' Kirzner's theory of entrepreneurship.

Yet, would I be wrong if I said that Harper's writings leave the albeit narrowly-conceived economic substance of Kirzner's general (which I prefer to "precise") theory of entrepreneurship almost untouched?

On the issue raised by Peter Klein and Steven Horwitz, I think that the decisive influence on Kirzner was Mises. When one reads Kirzner's books like "The Economic Point of View" (1960), "Market Theory and the Price System" (1963), and his 1967 paper in Il Politico, "Methodological Individualism, Market Equilibrium and Market Process", the Misesian influence is striking.

As for Hayek and Kirzner, well, I wonder whether the influence did not run both ways. Kirzner does refer to Hayek's writings ("Economics and Knowledge", "The Use of Knowledge in Society" etc.) in the works I mentioned , but these writings do not refer to entrepreneurial discovery as Kirzner was to elaborate later. I agree with Peter Klein that the idea of entrepreneurial discovery is a Kirznerian one, that does, however, build upon the Hayekian notions of dispersed, tacit, knowledge. It's only in 1968 that Hayek elaborates explicitly on the idea of "competition as a discovery procedure" (and talks about entrepreneurship in this regard), but this year after Kirzner presented his paper entitled "Methodologial Individualism, Market Equilibrium, and Market Process", in which he refers to "entrepreneurs discovering discrepancies between prices" and to the notion of "alertness", at the Mont-Pelerin Society Meeting in France . Maybe Hayek was a Kirznerian?!

I forgot to mention that Hayek was present at the MPS meeting in Vichy, France, in Sept. 1967.

The entrepreneur certainly is not central to Hayek, but he is present in places. Constitution of Liberty chapter 5 section 7 lays it down Kirzner-like.

Aren't you people ever going to get to the main event?

Mr. Lesvic,

In the real world, do you routinely attend social events and then constantly interrupt people's ongoing conversations to demand that they talk about what you want to talk about? If not, can you not see why it's equally rude to do so on a blog? If you're not happy with the conversations here, could you either:

1. Start your own blog where you can have the conversations you want


2. Stop interrupting the conversations here with your "demands"?

Mr Horwitz,

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a tea party. I thought it was economics. And I didn't realize that it was private property. I thought it belonged to the public, and that the teachers were its servants, not its masters.

I see no sign that the public is primarily concerned with Hayek's differences with Kirzner, nor even that Hayek was primarily concerned with them.

To Hayek, "Redistribution was the crucial issue on which the whole character of future society will depend," and "it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing" it.

So tell him to get lost.

Economics is your job, and if you're not happy with it, why not get another one?

Bravo to Dr. Horwitz.
This Lesvic person is an idiot. Check out his self-published wacko book.

I second Prof H's comment: Go start your own blog. The readers here want to read the Austrian economists not Lesvic howling at the moon.

Mises, as usual, summed it up best:

" a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him."

And whether they are emperors at Versailles or Oxford and Cambridge.

Your quarrel isn't just with me, but with our host, who has met my criticisms with unfailing kindness, courtesy, patience, and invaluable instruction.

Now, that's a scientist and a man. And you could do worse than to follow his example.

You guys become rude with this poor Lesvic. His book is perhaps a bad one (I actually dont know Lesvic), but it is surely not the only one.

The question 'what is the worst book you have ever read?' would be fun. Personally, I think about the whole bibliography of Maurice Allais with a special mention to his General Theory of Surplus.

But the question: 'what book has been the most important in your intellectual development?' is surely more constructive. I would answer "The Pure theory of capital".

If you're all that concerned with my book, it's just a click away.

Worst book - there are so many to choose from! Anything by George Lukacs I guess (made to read it as an undergrad).

Intellectual development books: Lavoie's Rivalry and Central Planning; Boettke - Political Economy of Soviet Socialism; Mises - Socialism; Selgin - Theory of Free Banking' Roberts - Alienation and the Soviet Economy.

To Mr. Lesvic Is A Kook:

I don’t need you to tell me I’m an idiot. My wife has already made that perfectly clear to me.

And, if you want to read the Austrian economists, how about Mises and Hayek; were they good enough for you?

Mises: “The idea underlying all interventionist policies is that the higher income and wealth of the more affluent part of the population is a fund which can be freely used for the improvement of the conditions of the less prosperous. The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution. Every measure is ultimately justified by declaring that it is fair to curb the rich for the benefit of the poor.”

Hayek: “Redistribution by progressive taxation has come to be almost universally accepted as just. Yet it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing this issue. Moreover, to do so would mean to ignore what seems to me not only the chief source of irresponsibility of democratic action but the crucial issue on which the whole character of future society will depend.”

And, to Prof. Horwitz:

What kind of a grade would you have given Mises and Hayek, or would you have just thrown them out of class, too, for trying to get you to the point?

And, if their subtleties were too much for you, how about Homer von Simpson:


By the way, I forgot the most interesting thing of all, in connection with Kirzner and what you perceive as my idiocy, and I really do hate to tell you this.

Kirzner himself didn't exactly see me as an idiot, but as keenly intelligent.

And I understand that he doesn't throw such encomiums around lightly.

I just hope this revelation doesn't kill his chances at the Nobel, or lower him too much in your finely attuned estimation.

Oh, why should I tease you. Here, from my wacko book, referring to my "new idea" of redistribution:

Prof. Fritz Machlup of NYU: "the writing is really not acceptable..."

Prof. Israel Kirzner of NYU: "I found it written with keen intelligence, but I do have several difficulties...The ‘idea’ seems to depend on the existence of equilibrating forces operating upon income amounts -- while what economic theory recognizes is the operation of equilibrating forces upon factor prices. You have not, it seems to me, demonstrated that redistribution necessarily distorts these prices."

I really think Dr Horwitz is correct. Mr Levsic ought to start his own blog so that he can discuss whatever he likes to his hearts content. His posts about other folk (see his remarks about Ludwig in an earlier thread for example) are insulting and he has little interest in anything other than his own pet topic.

On the basis of the book that clicking Levsics's link takes you to it is surprising that Machlup (long dead) or Kirzner found any real theory to assess. I assume the real theory is not in the excerpts?

To the first individual above:

My "pet topic," and Mises and Hayek’s.

As for my insulting Ludwig, it’s really yourself you’re worried about. He isn’t the one crying to his mama; you are, and telling me that, since you can’t stand the heat, I should get out of the kitchen.

to the second individual above:

You’re right, the idea is hard to find, and I apologize for that.

It was simply this, as presented in my advertisements in Liberty magazine, as follows:

Since the Left depends entirely on the assumption that taking from the rich to give to the poor reduces income inequality, it would be utterly demolished by the opposite-most conclusion, that it didn’t reduce but increased inequality.

And here, briefly, is the logic behind it.

Taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn’t just draw money but manpower downward upon the hierarchy of production, and the manpower faster than the money. For manpower doesn’t merely follow money but anticipates it. And, with manpower and competition among the poor increasing faster than the redistributed money, they’ll be poorer than they would have been without it.

That’s certainly not the whole story, but perhaps enough to get a discussion going.

And I do thank you for your interest. My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, and Hayek and Mises thank you.

Mr Lesvic,

You might want to begin by drawing some very basic supply and demand diagrams. In your exposition on your website you appeared to be confusing quantity supplied and supply.

Also, why are you so obsessed with the so-called Left? I did not care for your pro-Bush regime comments on your website which seemed rather out of step with the general ethos of classical liberal political economy broadly understood.

Incidentally, how big is the prize you offer to anyone who refutes you? (Additionally, who is the judge of the quality of the supposed refutation?)

PS: What on earth is the hierarchy of production? Presumably you do not mean structure of production (higher order goods to lower order goods).

"That’s certainly not the whole story, but perhaps enough to get a discussion going."

Please post the rest. Or let us know where we can find more.

To AE reader:

The "whole story" is quite a lengthy chapter of my book, and it might be an imposition on our gracious host to post it all here. So I will do so on my own blog. I still need help with that, wich won't be available until next week. But I'll let you know when it's up.

In the meantime:

As for Pres. Bush, I assume you're referring to my reference to his tax cutting. What was wrong with that? Wouldn't more of it be even better?

The "hierarchy of production" refers to the organization of the workforce from top to bottom, from the higher down to the lower paid workers.

What is the difference between "quantity supplied" and "supply?

My "obsession" with the Left is with not wanting to wind up in a concentration camp.

You won't find pictographs in my economics. It's not for Dick and Jane, but grown-ups and the brighter schoolchildren.

How did you know about the prize? Do you read Liberty? That's where it had been offered. I gave up on that, and will probably give up on the whole advertising program in Liberty. The prize was a US $20 Liberty head gold coin. I would not offer that again. The problem, I am learning, is that there is no common ground here. Everything is subject to dispute. Two and two is four would be disputed. And to add personal financial considerations to that mix would just make it that much worse. So, sorry, no more gold coin.

1)What is the difference between "quantity supplied" and "supply?

Oh dear. Maybe read one of those mainstream intro books you despise so much. Even Mises and Hayek had this one down.

2) My "obsession" with the Left is with not wanting to wind up in a concentration camp.

That is just silly. Please grow up.

3|)You won't find pictographs in my economics. It's not for Dick and Jane, but grown-ups and the brighter schoolchildren.

It might help you answer 1 above.

You say that both Hayek and Mises explained the difference between supply and quantity supplied.

Would you be good enough to tell me where.

Thank you.

Dr Levsic,

I don't know about Hayek, but you might try the first chapter of any intro econ textbook aimed at 18 and 19 year old college kids.

That might help get you up to speed on economic reasoning.

Quantity supplied is a specific quantity that is supplied at a particular price (say 600 gidgets at a particular relative price).

Supply is the locus of all quantity supplied-relative price points.

Both holding all else constant.

Simple enough?

A good text to start with is Boettke-Heyene, etc (advertized above)

PS to DLesvic,

You ought to be ashamed coming on here and lecturing wel-educated Professors like Dr. Horwitz on what they should and should not discuss when you are not even ashamed that you do not have the minimum aquaintance with the tools of economic reasoning that Dr Horwitz would no doubt expect from his dopiest freshman football player.

Read a book (or at least a couple of paragraphs) before you try to play with the grown-ups (and I second the Boettke-Heyene text sugggestion made above - a fine intro text)

Mr. Lesvic,

You might consult a book called *Human Action*, pages 332-333, where a guy named Mises writes:

"Demand and supply are the outcome of the conduct of those buying and selling. If, other things being equal, supply increases, prices must drop. At the previous price all those ready to pay this price could buy the quantity they wanted to buy. If the supply increases, they must buy larger quantities or other people who did not buy before must become interested in buying."

In other words, when supply increases, price falls, and the quantity demanded rises. By the same logic, when demand increases, price increases, and the quantity supplied increases.

Mises understood this distinction, even if he later says "the drawing of such curves may prove expedient in visualizing the problems for undergraduates. For the real tasks of catallactics they are mere byplay."

Anyone who cannot distinguish between a change in constraints (e.g. prices leading to a movement along a curve) and a change in preferences (a shift in the curve itself) is in no position to say much of anything about economics because such a person is unable to explain the causes and consequences of real-world price movements. Mises could.

To the first individual above:

Your statement:

"Supply is the locus of all quantity supplied-relative price points.

Both holding all else constant.

Simple enough?"

Not for me.

Did Hayek likewise lack the minimum tools of economic reasoning, and was it likewise presumptious of him to have set an agenda?

All I'm asking for is his agenda, and not to the exclusion of yours, but merely that yours not be to the exclusion of his, but that there be a place for both, not just the one or the other.

They're both essential. Yours is the preliminaries. His was the main event. I am just asking, as he was just asking, that at some point we get past the preliminaries and to the main event. Was that asking too much?

Prof. Horwitz,

I don't know how old you are, but I would hazard the guess that I have been reading Human Action since before you were born. Nevertheless, I am asking for your instruction, that you consider me your student, and my statements as questions.

Within a day or two, I hope to have my theory of redistribution on my blog, which you could reach by clicking my name below, and then Comments.

Yours would be most appreciated, and I am sure instructive.

Mr. Lesvic,

You write that Israel Kirzner said that you were "keenly intelligent." Maybe Kirzner said this, and maybe it's true. But there's one thing you probably don't know or are ignoring: Kirzner is a VERY courteous person, even with those with whom he disagrees. There's not a single chance that Kirzner would approve your behavior here.

BTW, I had the chance of discussing with Kirzner in his office at NYU on the last day he occupied it. So, we discussed about Austrian economics quite naturally. And, guess what, Kirzner told me (and I do agree with him), that the 2 most important books published by Austrian economists during the past 15 years (that was in 2001) since "The Economics of Time and Ignorance" by Mario Rizzo and G. O'Driscoll were Roger Garrison's "Time and Money" and...Steve Horwitz's "Microfoundations and Macroeconomics." Think about the possibility that Dr. Horwitz might be at least as "keenly intelligent" as you are.

All I'm asking is that you face my challenge, as Prof. Kirzner faced it, and Prof. Boettke has faced it, with grace. Is that asking too much?

I'm the one that's supposed to be dense. But you people still don't get it. You're not just attacking me. You're attacking Hayek and Mises. You're attacking Kirzner and Boettke. You're attacking economics. Can we get back to it?

Mr Lesvic,

No economists will bother addressing you until you state your case in terms of economic reasoning. When you have grasped the difference between quantity demanded and demand (which means spend some time reading an intro econ text), it is not worthwhile engaging in discussion with you. Until you state your case using economic reasoning it is simply too unclear as to what you are trying to say.

Kirzner, Boettke, et al were being polite. They are nice guys.

"I would hazard the guess that I have been reading Human Action since before you were born"

With this attitude is it any wonder people are unwilling to take you at all seriously? Turning the pages without comprehension is easy. How on earth can you read Mises without gaining an understanding of basic price theory?


You're absolutely right. The concept of demand is at the heart of this issue. You'll be able to find my treatment of it in The Forbidden Theory of Redistribution, which will be up very shortly. You can get to it then by clicking my name below, or typing in , and then, just a little way down, clicking on Comments.

Look for the section that begins: "Like Rothbard, Larry White, Tom Hazlett, and David Friedman are prominent libertarians and professors of economics, and they all teach their students the difference between the price of an economic good in money terms and its price in real terms, in terms of what money will buy -- but failed to see the difference themselves."

One caveat. Since I have never been able to understand why you needed a curve to understand that quantity demanded goes down as price goes up, there are no curves, angles, tangents, or any other such mumbo jumbo in my writing. So, if you still need pictures on a wall to understand economics, you're not ready for the main event.

We know that you can attack the man. So, let's see if you can attack the logic, in plain English.

That's your challenge, and you're either up to or you're not. We'll see, won't we.

OK, it's up now. So let's put all of the malice and rancor aside, and see if we can help each other as economists and citizens.


"Let's say that in the hypothetical state of equilibrium engineers earned $50M/year and janitors $10M, and that we took $10M from each of the engineers and gave, let us say, $2M to each of the more numerous janitors, reducing the engineers' take home pay from $50M to $40M, raising that of the janitors from $10M to $12M, and reducing the differential between them from $40M to $28M. Since at the differential of $40M there was equilibrium between the supply of and demand for both engineers and janitors, at the differential of $28M there will be a relative oversupply of janitors and undersupply of engineers."

Lump-sum tax or income tax? If latter what is the rate? More detail is needed to evaluate the coherence of the argument.

Querist: While I appreciate your interest, and your question, it seems completely immaterial to me. Sorry.

Prof. Horwitz:

Beneath all the hazy gabble of movements along a curve, etc., you were simply referring to a difference between a change in prices and a change in preferences. Isn't that simply a difference between cause and effect, the change in preferences the cause of the change in prices?

And couldn't you have just said all that in simple English?

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to explain the difference between quantity supplied and supply. And if you can't explain such a simple thing in simple terms, that's your problem, not mine.

I did explain it. You either didn't try to understand it, or did try and failed to. Several people suggested sources to go to for further explanation.

You can hold to your "outsider" stance all you want and think we're all idiots for not understanding your great advances in economics, but don't get upset when we are actually talking about economics, Austrian and otherwise, and you are unable to follow the conversation.

You can stamp your feet and tell us we're all wrong and you're the only one who's right, but this is how (Austrian) economics is understood and this is the discourse community into which YOU have entered. This is the language of economics and if you are coming here to talk about issues of interest in Austrian economics, the burden is on you to understand the local lingo. When in Rome and all that.

And I do apologize if you think I'm rude. I'm a great believer in "tit for tat" and raising people's costs when they are producing output I think is itself rude. You came here and told us we didn't know what we were talking about and that we're ignoring what you think is the "main event." I tried to be nice as did others, but you continued with behavior that, if it took place offline, would be quite rude. Now it's time to respond in kind.

Of course you'll go tell everyone that the mean old closed-shop Austrians are ignoring you and your important advances and that none of us have an answer for you. Let me head that off at the pass by saying that if you need us to explain the difference between quantity supplied and supply, and if you think Querist's question is irrelevant, you are not serious about engaging in economic analysis.

Please, stop this pseudo-and-quite-ridiculous debate with Mister Lesvic. It was fun, but now it is rather borring. I think contemporary Austrian economics has still a huge agenda. Among other things:
What can we say about develoment?
How can we define development in Austrian terms?
What are (or should be) the relationships between Austrian econ and evolutionary econ?
How can we use these relationships to render Austrian econ more "fashionable" and to have an increased access to major universities?
What can we gain from complexity theory? (cf. Velupillai, very good!!)
Shouldn't we try to make explicit, systematic comparison between "mainstream" (what is it?) econ and Austrian econ, on knowledge, evolution, institutions, capital, etc.?
Is the notion of imputation useful when we use the notions of production plan or joint production (cf. Peter Lewin's book, Capital in Disequilibrium, a good book but sometimes too sketchy)?
Consequently, can we articulate some insights of the "measurement cost view" and the "asset specificity view" (Langlois and Robertson) with an Austrian theory of the firm?
How can we articulate the three main achievements of Austrian econ.: market process, capital theory and institutions around a unique and unifying notion(I am actually working on it)?

To put it differently, lets talk about theoretical or methodological questions, not about this unknown Lesvic, whatever his qualities or deficiencies may be.

If I have chosen economics and if I read this blog, that s not because I want to hear things about left-right bla-bla or read personal attacks from an obscur Mister X against an even more obscur Mister Y.

For me, but I may be wrong,this blog permits one thing, a central thing, the central thing: to discuss about what new questions can be raised, if books or papers from non-Austrian economists can provide us with new topics, new questions, new difficulties, about what is our daily evolution as "intellectuals" (I hate this term).

What we do, or should do, is research: we try to enhance our own knowledge, daily, to provide new answers, daily, to ask new questions, daily.

That s all what I have to say. Have a nice day, soothe yourself and read books or, better, write some.

Prof. Horwitz,

I am asking again for your instruction.

What do you think of Hayek's declaration that redistribution was the crucial issue, and that it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing it?

Was he being rude, too?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books