Who would you all consider to be the most charismatic economists, particularly in the Austrian school? You can answer in the following categories: charismatic in writing, while speaking, in person, on video, etc.
I only ask because, for me, it was Milton Friedman's friendly old man charisma that got me on a libertarian stint that eventually led me to the Austrian school. It was the one video of him on the Phil Donahue show answering a question about greed that really got me thinking about such things, and perhaps the same words spoken from a nasal and impatient-sounding Murray Rothbard wouldn't have had the same effect, however sad that might be. So who's charismatic in the Austrian school these days?
He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer.
Dr Thomas Woods, while more of an economic historian, is always a thrill to read and listen to.
Jeffrey Tucker, while not an economist, is an enormous turn on to the Austrian school. His speaking and writing is probably the most inviting to the school than anyone I can think of.
Joseph Salerno is great to listen to, too.
Bob Murphy is a pretty funny guy...his blog is a hoot to read.
Since someone has to say it, I'm going to nominate J.M. Keynes. If there was a word to describe him it would be "charismatic".
Irish Liberty Forum
Speaking: Anthony Carilli, Paul Cwik, Steve Horwitz, Peter Boettke, Walter Block
Writing: Bob Murphy, Gene Callahan, Peter Leeson
(and Tom Palmer isn't an economist)
Anthony Carilli and, to the extent you would count him as an 'Austrian', James Buchanan.
And although he is a historian, I find Thomas Woods, Jr. to be quite entertaining.
bastiat and robert murphy are both great.
Jeffrey tucker is very, very good and mike munger is a hoot to listen to! (although the latter is more of a political science guy I think)
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer.
Had him at the Oxford Libertarian society -- he was awesome. He's the kind of guy I want talking to the masses
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
fakename:bastiat and robert murphy are both great.
Where have you heard Bastiat talk? I wanna go!
He's a liar and a demagogue. Not a fan.
In no particular order, Bob Higgs. Guido Hulsmann. Gary North. Bob Murphy. Peter Klein. Art Carden. George Selgin. Hans Hoppe. Bill Anderson. Tom DiLorenzo
Then I would say in the non-economists, Woods, Richman, Rockwell and Tucker.
liberty student: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer. He's a liar and a demagogue. Not a fan.
http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/11/01/norberg-on-the-financial-crisis-great/
"But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis." (Talking about Meltdown)
Thedesolateone: liberty student: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He's not an Austrian, and I don't know how many people here like him, but Tom Palmer is an excellent public speaker and an excellent writer. He's a liar and a demagogue. Not a fan. http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/11/01/norberg-on-the-financial-crisis-great/ "But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis." (Talking about Meltdown)
Let's be honest, Tom Woods' email to Tom Palmer's boss complaining about the book review was a bit extreme. Cringeworthy.
If you're looking for a liar and a blogagogue, Brad DeLong is your man.
Thedesolateone: http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/11/01/norberg-on-the-financial-crisis-great/ "But Mises and Hayek explained a previous boom-and-bust cycle in terms of a lengthening of the capital structure, so we must believe — we must, a priori! — that all boom-and-bust cycles must — they must! — follow the same process. That’s religion, not analysis." (Talking about Meltdown)
Just curious, how does one respond to such criticism?
Write to his boss.
Alex M:Just curious, how does one respond to such criticism?
I suppose, like this, then this, which leads to this. (Palmer does have a point, he just misapplied it)
When people don't spend their money on present consumer goods and save the money, it causes businesses in the consumer goods sector to shrink. At the same time investments that can boost future production of goods offers an opportunity for entrepreneurs. So entrepreneurs borrow the saved money and use it to fund these investments. So there is a growth in the more capital intensive sectors of the economy.
This reasoning is purely logical, not any religious dogma.
Alex M: Just curious, how does one respond to such criticism?
By proving you're right. But, I have to admit that Woods' book was not very good. But, it was never meant to be an exaustive analysis on the current recession; it was only written a readable book on the recession to introduce the Austrian perspective, and hopefully invite the readers to read more thorough texts. In only that sense it was not "very good" (at analysis), but it was almost perfect in terms of advertising the Austrian School (which is just as important). Tom Palmer critisized the theory without actually knowing it, simply basing his opinion on the Austrian theory on what he had read in Woods' book, when he should have figured that only skimmed the surface of it.
Larry Sechrest was an amazing speaker. Hoppe is good too once you get past the thick accent (I actually like it.)
Tom Palmer critisized the theory without actually knowing it, simply basing his opinion on the Austrian theory on what he had read in Woods' book, when he should have figured that only skimmed the surface of it.
He's a nit-picking positivist who has a history of not comprehending what he reads and then launching attacks.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Larry Sechrest was an amazing speaker.
Larry Sechrest was an amazing speaker.
I've only read one of his books (the only one I know of; Free Banking) and it was kind of technical, but besides that it was a very well written book and easy to read.
I LOVE Rothbard's lectures. Murphy is hilarious. Woods is an amazing public speaker. Rockwell is an exquisite writer. Tucker's writing is a delight. Hoppe can be really funny. Roger Garrison actually killed (in the comedic sense) at the last Mises U (although listening to the podcast, it's kind of hard to catch some of the humor which was based on his slideshow, but the audience was loving it). I like Jim Fedako's writing. Milton Friedman, for all his faults, was an effective speaker. Gary North is a good speaker. And Art Carden is a good lecturer.
I just wish there was an Austrian with the on-stage eloquence of Richard Dawkins. Then, we could all go home, because the game would be in the bag.
Peter Klein.
John V. Denson, although he's an historian
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Bastiat is the most charismatic I know of. His writing is very persuasive.
Hazlitt is also a very easy read for laymen.
Mises is not charismatic at all, but nevertheless, his writings are by far my favorite because of their robustness and depth.
baxter:Mises is not charismatic at all, but nevertheless, his writings are by far my favorite because of their robustness and depth.
Reading Mises is a one-of-a-kind experience. While reading him, you feel you're becoming so cultivated. It seems as if he so meticulously pondered every single word he scribed. He tackles subjects in every field of knowledge and effortlessly demolishes what is unsound in all of them. He not only comes off as the most advanced of economists, but the most erudite of philosophers.
Le Master:Reading Mises is a one-of-a-kind experience. While reading him, you feel you're becoming so cultivated. It seems as if he so meticulously pondered every single word he scribed. He tackles subjects in every field of knowledge and effortlessly demolishes what is unsound in all of them. He not only comes off as the most advanced of economists, but the most erudite of philosophers.
I totally agree. Human Action is more discursive than Man, Economy, and State, but I actually love that about it (although I'm glad MES is structured the way it is, because the Austrian school needed a more exhaustive and systematic treatise). Reading Human Action is like swimming in an ocean of wisdom.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I've only read one of his books (the only one I know of; Free Banking) and it was kind of technical, but besides that it was a very well written book and easy to read.
Watch his Anti-Capitalists Barbarians at the Gate presentation on mises.org. It is entertaining and very lucid.
As far as Woods contacting his publisher, there are some things that the libertarian elite do that I don't agree with. Sometimes I don't like that some folks feel the answer to criticism is to complain in private (or threaten legal action), instead of confronting the critique publicly in one of the many prominent venues open to us. I feel men of high character like Mises might have pursued the latter than the former.
It is important to remember that our heroes are still human.