Setting the Record Straight on Austro-Punkism and the Sociology of the Austrian School of Economics

Joe Salerno recently published a paper that was written in 1996 and directed at a cultural issue that actually was focused on the ideas and rhetoric of a group of graduate students a decade before that.  Joe called this group of students that was associated with Don Lavoie Austro-Punkism, and likened the movement to the "punk movement" from the 1970s.  To justify publishing such an out-of-date account, Joe states: "... despite the fact that the situation in Austrian economics has greatly changed for the better since the paper was originally written and despite my dissatisfaction with its imperfections of style and tone, I think its substantive claims have stood up quite well and bear repeating. In particular, I believe the paper identifies counterproductive attitudes peculiar to proponents of a heterodox intellectual movement. Such attitudes are always liable to recur and must be vigilantly guarded against because they are likely to impede the movement's further progress, if not threaten its very survival."

Joe singles out David Prychitko's response to his essay, but claims it was based on an inaccurate reading of his argument.  I do not really want to debate that issue, nor do I have any desire to start another blogosphere war.  I am sincere when I say that I consider Joe a friend, and a friend who I actually value my friendly history with.  There are others within Joe's circle that I would have absolutely no qualms  fighting with in an intellectual nasty manner.  What I really want to do is just raise some doubts about the claim by Joe that his "substantive claims have stood up quite well" and that his paper successfully "identifies counterproductive attitudes" that must be "vigilantly guarded against" if the Austrian school is going to survive.

First, I must admit that when I heard this paper presented for the first time, and I read it for the first time back in the mid 1990s I laughed.  Both because there is a certain cutting humor associated with the claims and also because the claims are on the face of it ludicrous when you examine the facts of the individuals Joe is directing his argument against.  Of course, I also have to admit that while not explicitly named in the piece, I am one of the parties Joe intended to direct his criticism against.  But do note that by that time I was already teaching a PhD seminar in Austrian economics at NYU, had published 2 books applying Austrian arguments to the historical problems of socialism, was a research fellow at Boston University, been awarded the Otto Eckstein Award by the Eastern Economic Association for a paper on Hayek, completed a post-doc fellowship at Stanford, was named a visiting scholar at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and had published quite a number of papers in the professional journals outside of the Austrian inner-circle on the methodology and importance of the Austrian school of economics.  While I wrote a lot of methodological papers at the time, the vast majority of my work was then, as now, applied economics and political economy.  Then, as now, I just write a lot for the professional journals and in academic books in the areas of history of thought, methodology, conceptual theory and applied economics and political economy. But even my close friend David Prychitko had at the time of Joe's writing of his article been a post-doc at Cornell, and a Fulbright Fellow in Yugoslavia. 

Moreover, since Joe not only seemed completely oblivous of the research activity of the people he refered to as "punks" but also questioned their training as economists and as Austrian economists.  Important fact, both Dave and I studied Austrian economics as undergraduates -- me with Hans Sennholz (including his 'graduate seminar') and Dave with Howard Swaine (who though a committed student of Armen Alchian, alerted Dave to the contributions of Mises and Hayek on the problems of socialism); we then both attended GMU for graduate studies where we studied with James Buchanan (Nobel Prize winner), Kenneth Boulding (John Bates Clark Award winner) and Gordon Tullock (AEA Distinguished Fellow) --3 obvious recognized masters of economics (who exactly did Joe study with?!), as well as Michael Alexeev (a formal general equilibrium theorist who had published in JET), Kevin Greir (a respected econometrician), as well as contemporaries of Joe within the Austrian movement such as Jack High and Don Lavoie (PhD student of Israel Kirzner, as well as Fritz Machlup), but also more established scholars of Hayek such as Viktor Vanberg and Karen Vaughn.  Personally, I also studied with Tom DiLorenzo (Industrial Organization), Robert Tollison (Public Choice), Dwight Lee (microeconomics) and sat in on lectures by George Selgin (monetary theory).  In addition, both Dave and I attended Murray Rothbard's lectures on the history of economic thought.  Studied Rothbard's work intensely, especially Man, Economy and State, and Power and Market, and viewed ourselves as trying to work within a Rothbardian inspired project in economics and political economy.  So the charge of "untrained", "self-proclaimed", denying the authoritative status of the works of "Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard" and the description of the work being done as "incessant and carping metaeconomics" all must be rejected as empirically false descriptions of the work of two comparative economists who brought the Austrian argument to bear on the literature of their chosen field of applied economics --- Prychitko on workers' managment and Yugoslavian system, and me on the history of Soviet socialism and the transition from socialism in East and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.  And, as I said above, both also took the Rothbardian position on anarcho-capitalism seriously and tried to put that position on the agenda for analysis in the comparative literature.  Not exactly analogous to the Sex Pistols assault on the music establishment.  Instead, I think one might be reminded of Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin during the scene in the movie The Song Remains the Same looking at Chuck Berry and Little Richard and announcing "No denying our roots."  Rather than 1950s rock, we were drawing from 1950s-1980 Austrian economics, but there was no "denying our roots".

Now again Joe paints with a broad brush and talks about the centrality of hermeneutics to the Austro-punks.  He moves from this pronouncement to a comment on deconstruction without recognition of the fact that within hermeneutic tradition there are traditional approaches that demand that the text has a defined meaning that can be discerned (Hirsch), Gadamerian hermeneutics that respects the authors intent, but also looks for the meaning of the text beyond that intent, and Ricouer's hermeneutics that denies the authorial intent.  None of these are quite the same as the deconstructionism of Derrida, nor the critical theory of Habermas.  But the roots of contemporary hermeneutics also can be found in the writings of Dilthey (an explicit influence on Mises) and also Husserl's phenomenology (again an influence on Mises and especially his student Alfred Schutz).  It might be important to remember again here that Don Lavoie wrote his PhD under the direction of Israel Kirzner at NYU (a top 20 department), Fritz Machlup was a member of that committee, as was Jerry O'Driscoll and Mario Rizzo, and he published that dissertation with Cambridge University Press (one of the most prestigious publishers in the world of academia) and to strong reviews and positive citations by the likes of Janos Kornai, etc.  And let us not forget that Don was at the time one of the few individuals teaching PhD students in Austrian economics -- a class that he taught using Mises's Human Action.  Again, it just appears as if Joe is talking (writing) but not from the basis of anything one might call "informed" of the issues he is discussing or in recognition of the accomplishments of the people he is so vociferously criticizing.  To use an analogy that might makes sense that Joe would understand, you can go watch the Mets play and see them lose because of a bad pitch or a botched play in the top of the 9th the produced an insurmountable lead for the visiting team.  At the bar after the game, the fans with a beer or two in them will be so bold as to start to claim that the guy who committed the error is a bum and that any pro cannot make such an error.  All the beer induced kvetching still doesn't change the fact that the player the fan paid to watch is an athlete of exceptional skill, so exceptional in fact that it is beyond the comprehension of the fan just how good a ball player.  Don Lavoie was by 1996 a proven scholar of exceptional recognition in the field of history and method of economics, and the primer defender of the Austrian school within the comparative economic systems professional discussion.  Unfortunately, Joe actually has the gall to cite Hans Hoppe's unpublished comment from the MPS meetings on Lavoie where Hoppe actually suggests that Lavoie's paper must have been written when he was on drugs.  That is supposed to be an argument of professional quality to counter punkism!  As the philosopher Loren Lomsky once said of Hoppe's writings --- repeating a statment at every louder decibels does not an argument make.

Joe then asks why punkism has invaded Austrian economics.  Remember the punks are supposedly engaged in "gross misrepresentation" of the masters and "innocent of a profound understanding of the orthodoxy" they are supposedly rejecting.  As I have tried to say, none of the punks I have listed -- Lavoie, Prychitko, or myself, derided the masters or engaged in gross misrepresentations.  Instead, we were trying to take the ideas of Mises, Hayek, Lachmann, Rothbard, and Kirzner and bring them to the contemporary discussion in economics in general (not strictly limited to the internal discussion among Austrians).  And as I have said, while Joe claims we were not interested in theoretical and applied economics but actually in meta-economics, the reality is that the vast majority of our work was devoted to conceptual theory (trying to address modern theorists such as Stiglitz) and applied economics and political economy (critique of socialism and the transitional political economy of post-communism). But since Joe does not provide a single citation to any of the "Austro-punks" by name or by work, in fact, he pulls a scholarly cheap trick by claiming that he doesn't want to accuse any particular persons and has studiously avoided any reference to particular persons (and I should add particular pieces!). What is so studious about that?!

Instead, we get a general indictment of the three pronged attitude of the punks that is due to: (1) lack of graduate school training in Austrian economics; (2) a penchant for left-libertarianism of the 1970s; and (3) an attraction to the work of Ludwig Lachmann. How individuals who were either teaching or trained in the Austrian programs at NYU (Kirzner) and GMU (Lavoie) could be described as lacking in graduate school training is amazing. And remember at the time of the writing, I was teaching at NYU with Kirzner and Rizzo, and in fact teaching a PhD seminar on the Austrian School of Economics, and had in fact arranged for the Austrian Economics Program at NYU to provide a fellowship to Joe Salerno to join our research group (a fellowship he holds to this day).  Also, how libertarianism got involved in this discussion is never really explained --- especially when the main punks were in fact all radical anarcho-capitalist libertarians. So yes if by 1970s left-libertarianism one means Murray Rothbard of For a New Liberty, then yes Joe at least this punk is a left-libertarian of the Rothbardian tradition and not a right wing paleo.  I had that attitude in 1984 when I showed up at graduate school to work with Don Lavoie, and I have that attitude in 2008, when I did not sign a pettion to support Ron Paul.  How that impacts my credentials within Austrian economics still has to be explained to me.  And the work of Lachmman?  How is a familiarity with the work of one of the leading post WWII Austrians punkish?  I confess I don't understand the claims being made --- the people in question where educated in economics and specifically Austrian economics both at the undergraduate and gradaute level, and had taken advantage of every opportunity to study Austrian economics through conferences sponsored by FEE, IHS and the Mises Institute.  By what authority can Joe so confidently declare his positions as orthodoxy?

Anyway, after his "analysis" of these 3 factors, Joe then concludes that the punks have no future in economics and that their work will lead nowhere.  Joe publishes a 13 year old speech so confidently because he thinks his predictions have proven true.  Well not so quick Joe --- Don Lavoie isn't influential today primarily due to his untimely death, but look at the teaching impact of his students in producing students who devote their life to the scholarship and teaching of Austrian economics and the policy debates for libertarianism.  This might require some empirical research.  David Prychitko made a decision to cut back on his professional engagement, but is still teaching and even at that his record of accomplishment is quite impressive by any standard reasonable people could agree to for an out-of-sync economist both as a teacher and as a scholar.  As for me, I will leave that to others to determine but my record as a teacher and scholar is easily available for anyone to see online, and my professional reputation as a scholar of the Austrian tradition is easily discernible by a look at titles of my papers, and the placement in journals and books. And relevant to Joe's 1996 "prediction", this punk is neither burning out nor fading away.  Look around at the number of Austrians teaching in PhD granting institutions in the US, how many come out of the so-called "punk" movement you deride in this essay?

I apologize for the personal nature of this comment, but remember it is a response to a very personal (though hidden) challenge without any reporting of the "facts" or an "analysis" of the writings.  I'd like to know, for example, where Joe thinks I am wrong when I walk through the argument of the problems with socialism which starts with private property, moves to the analysis of relative prices, and then focuses on the importance of profit and loss accounting.  Property, prices and profit/loss.  That was written in the dissertation and elaborated on in articles and books over a decade.  Talking about not understanding the position of those one is criticizing.  Prychitko has written on the evolution of private property rights, and the problems of workers' self-management due to attenuated property rights.  And of course Don Lavoie's position in the socialist calculation debate is that the Austrian defeated Lange and Lerner upon a careful reading.  How this all adds up to rejection of the masters is completely beyond me -- it was in 1996 and it remains so in 2009 when the essay finally gets "published".

Rather than punkism destorying the Austrian movement, what is destorying Austrian economics and making it a laughing stock in the economics profession is anti-intellectualism, insular behaviors such as publishing only in your own journals and self-published books and only citing the work of your friends rather than engagement with the wider profession, and finally engaging in critiques without in fact acknowledging the facts or the arguments one can easily read in those works.   Also the tone of argument that lead a scholar-gentlemen such as Israel Kirzner to describe as "verbal terrorism" is of course destroying Austrian economics. There is no doubt that some of the arguments presented in the literature between 1985-1995 contained errors that could be pointed out (and should be pointed out by an informed critic).  Unfortunately, Joe doesn't provide such an analysis. He does cite the "analysis" one finds in the critique of hermeneutics (as if that was the only thing going on) by Rothbard and Hoppe, but if you look at Rothbard's article there is no sustained critique of the writings of Lachmann, Lavoie, and Ebeling, but just statments that asserts that anyone would be crazy to think there is a connection between Austrian economics and hermeneutics and then a citation to Frankfurt's On Bullshit.  Not Rothbard's finest moment of scholarship, and not really that effective of a polemic.  There are many essays by Rothbard that are more intellectual responsible and biting in their criticism.  And lets not forget that Hoppe's "critique" of Lavoie does contain his "insightful" LSD comment, and varioius  ad hominem arguments. Wow, that is really advacing thought and the great tradition of Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises and Hayek.  Joe, honestly, this is not a high point of critical scholarship, or even a turning point in the sociology of the Austrian school, but an example of just how low someone was willing to go to try to tear down a scholar who had so clearly outcompeted him in the academic marketplace.

I do not expect to persuade anyone who might read this who already sides with Joe in the internal debates within contemporary Austrianism of the utter sillyness of such exercises by Joe and others (and the complete waste of my time in responding). But there are young people out there who I meet all the time who are persauded by this sort of dismissive screed by Joe until they learn better.  I just would like the facts to get on the table. Don Lavoie didn't get defeated, he died.  Dave Prychitko didn't get defeated, he moved in a different direction.  But you can find their work in the library or online. Read for yourself and decide.  Lavoie's best work can be found in Rivalry and Central Planning, and National Economic Planning: What is Left?  Prychitko has several important essays that are critical of traditional Austrian economics, such as his critique of Austrian welfare economics, and he has many positive examination of the workers' managed system -- including his Marxism and Workers' Self-Management.  As for me, I am still here -- teaching at GMU and publishing works on the history and method of economics representing the traditional Austrian position of Mises and Hayek, and applied work in political economy utilizing the traditional Austrian ideas of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Kirzner.  BTW, I also should be listing Steve Horwitz in these discussions as well, since he is a well-known (though younger) punk.   Steve has published 2 books in Austrian macroeconomics, scores of articles in the professional journals and in books, has been named a distinguished professor, and served as a Dean.  He is hardly burning out or fading away.  Steve is now about to finish a new book applying Austrian ideas, and in particular Misesian ideas on social cooperation under the division of labor to the understanding of the family and contrasting this view with that of the neoclassical theory of the family.  So I am forced to ask again: On what margin of traditional academic accomplishment are we supposed to be judging the staying power of the Lachmann-Lavoie punks?  Teaching?  Publishing?  Placement?  Citation count? Professional awards and honors?

What argument or evidence would persuade you to the contrary to your assessment that your "substantive claims have stood up quite well."

Comments

[Christoph Kohring]

Thank you very much for this very enlightening post. If this starts "another blogosphere war," then so be it! :o(

Christoph, armed & neutral at the foot of the Mont-Pèlerin

[l4k]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

[Punky Brewster]

With friends like these, who needs enemas?

[Adam]

Well said Pete.

The rancor over hermeneutics always baffled me. You can argue its not fruitful to study, but equating all hermeneutics with some sort of relativism or nihilism is like equating all epistemology with rationalism. It confuses a field of study for a substantive position.

To paraphrase Pete: you can't not have a hermeneutic position, you can only have an implicit and undefended position or an explicit and defended one. As Pete points out, there are a range of actual hermeneutic theories just there are all sorts of ontologies or epistemologies. Certain hermeneutic doctrines must be wrong, for there exist mutually exclusive opinions in the field. But there's a difference between critiquing particular doctrines and dismissing the field of inquiry.

Everyone has some opinions on how best to interpret texts. Its extremely anti-intellectual to assume those opinions are not subject to any rational scrutiny. Do we really want to accuse Augustine--a neoplatonist who wrote a whole book critically examining how to interpret scripture a millienium and a half before postmodernism--of being an intellectual nihilist?

In addition, there's rank confusion over the distinction between hermeneutics as an input into scientific epistemology and hermeneutics as an aid to understanding social processes. We as social scientists encounter language that must be interpreted, but--unlike physical scientists--so do the objects of our study, choosing (and interpreting) agents.

There is all the difference in the world between saying that agents in social processes engage in interpretation and saying that economic theory is mere interpretation. And any real Austrian should know better, because we know to correct the perfectly analogous confusion between subjectivist economics and claims that economic laws are only subjectively valid.

Hermeneutics is a necessary constituent of Misesian thymology. (You can argue that thymology isn't economics proper, but then you'd have to argue that price theory isn't economics proper. Prices are signals that have to be understood.) It may be less useful in understanding the nature of economic theory itself (as I believe it is), but that is irrelevant to the central and undeniable role it plays in the Austrian understanding of society.

[Sam]

"There are others within Joe's circle that I would have absolutely no qualms fighting with in an intellectual nasty manner."

I just wonder if this is ever sensible, even if justifiable. And which members anyhow?!

[AustrianPunk]

Sam,

""There are others within Joe's circle that I would have absolutely no qualms fighting with in an intellectual nasty manner."

I just wonder if this is ever sensible, even if justifiable. And which members anyhow?!
"

I'm not really Dr Boettke's spokesperson so I'm don't get the wrong impression. But I'm Hans-Hermann Flop is amongst them.

[AustrianPunk]

Oh, that went a bit wrong. It was meant to read:

I'm not really Dr Boettke's spokesperson so don't get the wrong impression. But I'm guessing Hans-Hermann Flop is one of them.

[Lee Kelly]

Pete and Dave,

Just give it up, you're not real, genuine, proper Austrian economists. You're, at best, pretenders, and, at worst, traitors. The council of elders has spoken, and your writing, attitude, and views have been judged--they stray too far from doctrine. Now you must pray for forgiveness from the holy trinity of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. Sumbit thyself, surrender to the apodictic certainty of praxeological reasoning. Perhaps, in time, you will be healed of you're unconscious left-wing postmodern ways. But, for now, you will be stripped of your ranks, and cast into the dreaded Mainstream. It is for the good of the Austrian economics tradition, which obviously cannot survive meddlesome critics within its fold.

[Dave Prychitko]

Lee:

I was stripped of my ranks over twenty years ago when I withdrew my charter membership of the Mises Institute.

[Steven Horwitz]

Hey Lee... I want to be stripped of my rank too!

[GilesStratton]

Now, this sort of hit piece may have made sense before Leeson, Coyne, Stringham etc. but what is Salerno doing publishing this after "The Invisible Hook" was published?

Dr Horwitz, I'd think before wanting to get stripped of your rank, and opposed to merely repenting, Doktor Hoppe has some powerful connections (the prince of Liechtenstein) whose wrong side you wouldn't want to be on.

[Doug Thorson]

Pete,

Well said and done with specificity, unlike Joe, so that folks can at least understand the problem with Joe's sniping. Now take a deep breath and don't forget why you became a teacher of economics and liberty, to produce other passionate lovers of freedom like yourself. Let that get you out of bed everyday. There is too much at stake to get side tracked with those who have nothing better to do than shoot those who are on the same team.

Keep envisioning, teaching and producing rational arguments for the advancement of individual liberty. Grace to you.

[Riele]

Oh, you mean we cannot all spend grad school reading Roland Barthes and interpreting photographs?! Tant pis!

[Greg Ransom]

Isn't all the matters whether or not Salerno's article was peer reviewed?

If it passed peer review, who is anybody to argue with peer review.

Peer review = science.

Right?

[Steven Horwitz]

C'mon Greg, stop strawmanning the argument. Peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish something as good scholarship. It is, however, a strong indicator thereof. And people whose work has consistently not passed the peer review test bear a large burden of proof for demonstrating why it should be taken seriously.

[Nikolaj]

Gunar Myrdal routinely passed peer review, and he even was awarded Nobel Prize for economics. He nevertheless believed that advanced technology should not be introduced in Africa because it would decrease demand for labor!

On the other hand, Einstein published his paper on general relativity in the journal that was not peer reviewed, but only editor-reviewed. Heizenberg published his seminal paper in which he established quantum mechanics as a science in a completely non peer reviewed journal where every member of German society of physicists could published anything he/she wanted without any control and review. Do you believe that Heizenberg and Eistein really bear "a large burden of proof" that they should be taken seriously? Peer review is indicator of nothing (except it is constantly being used by the people lacking arguments as an insult against opponents, for example in climate research where peer review became a complete joke - tool the gatekeepers, politicized scientists controlling once leading journals as Sience and Nature to exclude any research not-fitting their political agenda).

In economics, peer review is also a joke, as we have seen with Myrdal (and many others as well). Hayek's and Mises's papers NEVER would pass peer review today in leading economics journals. Which journal today would publish "The meaning of competition" for example? Or "Economic calculation is Socialist Commonwealth". Where is the model, where is the "empirical evidence"? Where is the "review of literature"?

[Gabriel Zanotti]

Peter, very interesting. Sorry to know there are these kinds of allegations against you and such distinguished scholars like Don Lavoie, Prychitko, Horwitz, etc. I worry about the future of the Austrian School when I read these things.

Gabriel Zanotti
Argentina.

[Jeremy H.]

This image seems relevant:

http://b5.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00132/59/29/132609295_l.gif

[Daniel J. D'Amico]

and this one:

http://twitpic.com/ctu3v

[Steven Horwitz]

I've been called much worse by much much better.

[Jonus T]

This example of "Rothbarian" research seems relevant:

http://danieljdamico.com/Working%20Papers/Working%20Papers_files/The%20Day%20the%20Music%20Lived%20FULL%20DRAFT.pdf

[Lee Kelly]

While I think Austrian economics is great, I also think it has a lot wrong with it. If Austrian economics is to progress and become a stronger program, I think it needs to evolve some of its core propositions. But if the teachings of "the masters" -- worts and all -- are to define it forever, then I hope Austrian economics dies so that something better can replace it.

Perhaps Masonomics presents such a development.

[Joshua M.]

"Peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish something as good scholarship. It is, however, a strong indicator thereof."

With all due respect Prof. Horwitz, choose a side. If peer review is unnecessary and insufficient it isn't a valid measure of the quality of one's work. At the least, it's unreliable. If you, Prof. Boettke, and others wish to believe that "staying in the conversation" equals "real" scholarship that's your business. However, duplicitous (and frankly, cowardly) statements like the above do little to advance your position. The top of the fence is not the intellectual high ground.

[Stewart]

Professor Horwitz is not cowardly because he chooses to avoid a straw-man. Was Einstein an imbecile because his school marks were so poor? Do school marks equal intelligence? Of course not; however, it is a strong indicator thereof.

[Joshua M.]

Stewart,

If we can ignore Einstein's grades when measuring his intelligence, why can't we ignore Prof. Y's CV when measuring the quality of his or her work? Ultimately, we want to know if the scholarship is good or not. A "strong indicator" can only predict the likelihood of whether it will be good or not. But we don't want to know if it's likely to be good scholarship. We want to know if it is good scholarship.

If you want to know if it's raining outside do you consult the forecast or do you look out the window?

[Steven Horwitz]

Joshua,

My apologies if I cannot give you an objective formula for determining the quality of someone's scholarship. All I can do is list the things that matter, with peer review being one of them. Saying peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient is not cowardly; it's the truth. I think it matters a lot, but there's enough false negatives and false positives for me to say it's not foolproof.

Asking for something more hydraulic than that is asking for the impossible.

[Joshua M.]

Prof. Horwitz,

Thank you for addressing my comments. My "cowardly" remark was in reference to you on the one hand calling Greg's comment a straw man and then defending the alleged straw man with your caveat "but, it's a strong indicator thereof." You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

I'm guessing we would both agree that, at best, getting an article published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal indicates the scholar is more likely to have done "good" scholarship than if the article had been published on a personal blog for example. The peer review process may involve valid and objective measures of scholarship, e.g., verifying the author's data set; but, peer review, per se, is not such a measure. Sometimes an article is published simply because all 3 reviewers agree with the author's premise or methodology. This obviously does not mean all 4 aren't guilty of the same sloppy methods or faulty assumptions.

All I'm saying is the fact that a scholar's work appears or doesn't appear in peer-reviewed journals cannot tell us anything about the quality of the scholarship, itself. It can possibly predict the likely quality of the scholarship, but that's all it can do. Thus, one cannot make a claim that peer-approved scholarship is qualitatively better than other types of scholarship. Prof. Boettke frequently seems to argue otherwise which I find to be argumentum ad verecundiam.

I admit that your and Prof. Boettke's position is likely more subtle (well, yours at least). However, I also believe it's a slippery slope regardless. For this reason, I find nothing wrong with Prof. Salerno's position of advocating less-conventional career paths for would-be Austrian theorists and Prof. Boettke's criticism of it unfair and unjustified.

[Xavier M]

"Joe actually has the gall to cite Hans Hoppe's unpublished comment from the MPS meetings on Lavoie where Hoppe actually suggests that Lavoie's paper must have been written when he was on drugs. That is supposed to be an argument of professional quality to counter punkism! "

To set the record straight, Hoppe's paper has been published on his own site: http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_lavoie.pdf
Now everyone can read the paper and check for oneself, not only the LSD comment but all the actual arguments presented.

[Gene Callahan]

"In particular, I believe the paper identifies counterproductive attitudes peculiar to proponents of a heterodox intellectual movement. Such attitudes are always liable to recur and must be vigilantly guarded against because they are likely to impede the movement's further progress, if not threaten its very survival."

Notice that Salerno shows no concern here for the truth -- what is vital is that heretics be stopped from deviating from Rothbardian dogma in order to protect the "movement".

[Jake McCloskey]

Why even use the term “Austrian” anymore? I mean that as a serious question. I’m not sure there is much left of the school that hasn’t been assimilated into mainstream thinking. By Pete’s own admission the only thing left to distinguish Austrianism is its emphasis on knowledge and entrepreneurship. But is adherence to a specific intellectual tradition necessary to promote those ideas? I mean this with no disrespect for established economists self-identified as Austrians, but I think squabbles such as these just go to show that the Austrian school, as a freestanding paradigm, is effectively dead.

Speaking as an attendee of Mises University and the NYU Colloquium on Market Processes, I know many young scholars, myself included, have found it very difficult to even deviate from the intellectual tradition tied to the term. We become trapped- wary of exploring the ideas of other economists for fear of having our established views challenged while at the same time eager to get away from what we have begun to perceive as an outdated set of beliefs. In an earlier post, Pete said that he would abandon the term if it stopped being useful. I’m left wondering if that time has come.