Austrian Vice # 11

First, let me say that I greatly appreciate everyone's comments on my Austrian vices post (even you, Pearl). I am delighted that it provoked interest.

Although I have not responded to most comments, I am reading them. And my reading reminded me of an additional Austrian vice I wanted to quickly raise.

11. No more "I'm more hardcore than you" contests.

This is fun over a beer. And let me assure you, no one takes more delight in calling my libertarian friends pinkos than I do. Having said that, keep it in the bar.

Hardcore contests are not something that should be vented in the professional arena. So, papers about how Hayek and Simons were sellouts, whether or not Mises was an anarchist, etc. are a no go. This is not helpful and no one (except for you and your friends) actually cares.

This injunction goes double for discussions about whether or not (insert Austrian no one knows) is hardcore.

And it goes triple for discussions about whether not (insert name here) is "really an Austrian." None of the "greats" (Menger, Mises, Hayek, etc.) cared about this. They didn't worry about "deviating" or focus their energies pointing out potential "impurities" in X's work.

Mises and Hayek were inspired by the work of those who came before them and built on their ideas. Often, this involved departing from what their predecessors said. After all, without departure, there can be no building. So let the greats be your muse and then be yourself. Who cares if (insert Austrian-litmus test giver here) doesn't think you're Austrian? Mises and Hayek would.

Comments

[Steve Miller]

This is my favorite one so far. I can't think of anything more counterproductive than to dismiss others simply because they aren't "pure" enough.

[ChrisB]

Yes, surely excellent advice. The silliest example I've seen of this is when an academic who I guess likes to think of himself as the hardest of the hardcore and the purest of the pure dismissed Ludwig Lachmann as a "former Austrian and neo-historicist-hermeneutician-nihilist." Not so much who cares, as who could even begin to imagine why he felt it necessary to write that?

[Vienna Vice]

Ironically--or perhaps not--today's article at Mises.org is: "Was Jean-Baptiste Say a Market Anarchist?"; posted by an econ student.

http://mises.org/story/2519

[Adam]

Steve-

That's just because you're a sellout! Why don't you go drool over your t-stats?

In all seriousness, though, I agree entirely, as long as I don't have to believe that indifference curves are a useful heuristic.

[Pearl]

You don't get the point at all. That's the funny thing about discussion on the internet, nobody is eager to change their point of view.

[xyz]

So oh great Pearl of wisdom (could not resist that one!) - please explain the point to us all

[Steve Miller]

Actually, Adam, because of the nature of the data I'm working with, I mostly do ordered logits. So I'm drooling over z-stats.

[Pearl]

Ironically--or perhaps not--today's article at Mises.org is: "Was Jean-Baptiste Say a Market Anarchist?"; posted by an econ student.

http://mises.org/story/2519

This is not a paper. And actually I think it's pretty interesting, even if it's not helpful according to some people.

[Anon]

Maybe this vice stems a little from Mises' comment at the Mont Pelerin Society? Ehh? Ehhhhh?

[Carl Marks]

A #12 from 10 years in the future: Doing economic history because the Austrian strain limits your ability to make any real progress in the field

[Milton]

There is no Austrian economics. Just good economics and bad economics.

[Bogdan]

I think Austrians must begin to accept that within the Austrian tradition there are different strains of thought, the two most important are the misesian and hayekeean strains.

It's a fact that must be accepted and this diversity is positive. The debates over "purity" are irrelevant in so far as they are based on personal quarrels and nothing good comes out of them, but discussions about different approaches within the Austrian tradition are necessary and can be very fruitful.

Remember it all started with Menger's critique of Böhm-Bawerk's Capital Theory, the greatest error ever made, he called it I think.

[David Peterson]

Amen! Reading mises.org I sometimes feel like I should feel guilty that I think Milton Friedman was a champion of liberty because 99% of what he advocated was significantly in the right direction (at minimum).