Guys,
I'm looking for official Econ textbooks used in american colleges that have references on Mises and\or Austrian school. Could you help me out?
Thanks in advance!
I have my old micro textbook. "Principles of Microeconomics" 4th edition by N. Gregory Mankiw. Only one mention of any Austrian (Doesn't mention Austrian school or anything). Which was F.A.Hayek. its half a page about Hayek vs John Kenneth Galbrith on advertising. Its mentions his book Road to Serfdom and that he won the nobel prize in 1971 (doesn't mention why). Krugman and keynes get more exposure. I didn't care for the book. Still own it. read it once. It will be butt wipe or fire starter when SHTF lol.
What exactly do you mean by "have references on"? I have a book that makes a few references to the Austrian school, Economics 13E by Ragan and Lipsey. There's a little biographical history of the economics profession at the back done in short blurbs which mentions Menger and Hayek. In the bit on Menger they mention that there is a heterodox school founded on his thought. On Hayek, they say that though his business cycle theory was "eclipsed by the Keynesian revolution" (as if this is a criticism!), his work on knowledge and information has been influential.
Hayek received the prize in 1974. And Galbraith was an idiot.
(Just trying to keep everything straight)
well, i mean, any textbook with any mentions of Mises...
because when I attended an american college, he (my econ teacher) mentioned him a couple of times.. but now I can't find him in textbooks...
Good luck with that quest.
My Econ 201 Syllabus mentioned the Austrian Scool and when I asked about it the professor literally said, "Ha, I don't teach that shit." Nothing from the book.
Ron Paul got a shout out by my Money and Banking professor in Econ 305. He mentioned him and the gold standard people to offer an alternative to the "policy" section of the book (the book was baaaaad - written by Mishkin). Nothing was mentioned in the book. I should add here that Fractional Reserve was dressed up so as to be unrecognizeable to a logical analysis. It just said "multiply deposits by 10" with no explanation as to why. And it hHad a very useful citation to a pamphlet authored by Greenspan and published by JPMorgan entitled, "Rethinking Glass Steagall; did we really need it."
E308, Public Policy, only really talked about Coase, JS Mill (for his horrendous social welfare function) and a few obscurants of the contemporary Neoclassical school, Stephenson, Krugman, etc. Nothing from the book. The class was more there to justify to education majors (not econ majors) intervention in the market for any and every reason imaginable. Does mixing 'social', a euphemism for objective or all, mix well with 'margin', a euphemism for single or subjective, work? A social margin? I feel like it would be difficult to calulate where everyone's threshold for eveything is.
I have taken two classes that have taught Rothbatrd's For a New Liberty, and one class that taught Hayek (Use of Knowledge in Society) and Mises' Human Action, but they were both Poly Sci classes. Y281 taught all three, Modern Political IDEOLOGY (Taught with Roussau, Tocqueville, Mill, Marx, Plato, Thucydides, Schumpeter, Solzhenitsyn, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke, Burke) and Y384 is the other called 'Developments in American Political Thought', and teaches Rothbard alongside, the Federalists, Lincoln/Douglass, KY & VA resolutions of 1799/1800, all the welfare stuff, MLKing Jr, Henry David Thoreau.
Very little mention of Thomas Jefferson in the curriculum at all.
Y281 and Y382 were my favorite classes (same prof. same basic structure), Y384 comes in second (or third). Aurelian Craiutu was my professor for the two better classes. He tried to mimic the "great books" methodology and really forced the students to read the documents if they wanted to pass (half of the class dropped in one of them). He has a few books published (one is at liberty fund), a few essays in various books and a few things written on Tocqueville.