I realize that Austrian arguments and style of research is very theoretical and generalized. When I argue with a statist and refer to "Economics in One Lesson" and he uses empirical arguments I feel like I'm speaking a different language. The issue of globalization is especially hard to explain because all a libertarian has are general theories while the statists read Naomi Klein, Fareed Zakaria, Jeffrey Sachs, Thomas Friedman, Walden Bello and they also know statistics. I know that economics should be a praxeological science but it does not mean that it should not address the concretes. Globalization, Food Crises, Environmental Crises, Energy Crises are too loosely and simply blamed on the state instead of explaining the intricacies of how IMF or WTO state policy favors and protects transnational corporations. Maybe that is the new frontier of Austrian economics. Currently, I little or no detailed research on the complex mechanisms of state-policy centerted globalization. In fact, I have seen little or no research analyzing the specific policy of organizations like the WTO and IMF at all. Maybe we need to write books on such things like globalization and how it affects global food supply and the cartelization of oil production instead of studying the connection of literature and economics. Until we can change the narrative in our favor, there persists a "language barrier" hindering open communication. I would like to know your comments.
I wonder how Rothbard would write about this in "Making Economic Sense" if he were still alive
Kenneth:I realize that Austrian arguments and style of research is very theoretical and generalized. When I argue with a statist and refer to "Economics in One Lesson" and he uses empirical arguments I feel like I'm speaking a different language. The issue of globalization is especially hard to explain because all a libertarian has are general theories while the statists read Naomi Klein, Fareed Zakaria, Jeffrey Sachs, Thomas Friedman, Walden Bello and they also know statistics.
Statistics without theory is basically useless. For instance, Naomi Klein counts rent seeking behavior as deregulation. Basically there is always a way to turn statistics around on people. If they mention statistics then basically think about a way that that stat. could imply a free market conclusion. You'd probably be more correct.
Maybe writing statistical austrian books would be useful but I think things like mises daily articles fill that role anyways.
The theory is there to interpret events.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I agree but there are no mises daily articles that analyze various policy and qualify them either as deregulation or as regulation. If there are no concrete examples of how to break the policy down, it becomes very hard for fledgeling Austrians to win the battle of ideas.
It was Hazlitt's own goal that everyone interested in free-market theory would take up specific areas and become a specialist in that area - and there are an unlimited number of these to take on. Perhaps you are being called!
for my own part, I tend to agree with much of what these people say, and go along with it as long as I can, and then wait for the moment to make the central point that these types always want to avoid: the state v human action.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Kenneth: I agree but there are no mises daily articles that analyze various policy and qualify them either as deregulation or as regulation. If there are no concrete examples of how to break the policy down, it becomes very hard for fledgeling Austrians to win the battle of ideas.
Really? There were some on the recent depression which clearly stated that deregulations in a world of regulations caused our current crisis. The Free Market articles are also rather quantitative and "nitty-gritty" too. Jeffrey Tucker himself always posts some stats on the money supply or prices, and Robert Murphy has a lot of examples such as his sushi-economy.
And it's not like there aren't a host of stats on the bad effects of statism: look up articles on cuba before and after the revolution, chile before and after the revolution, the thread on scandanavian "socialism", etc. The list is endless but beware, statistics are not cut and dry.
Kenneth:When I argue with a statist and refer to "Economics in One Lesson" and he uses empirical arguments I feel like I'm speaking a different language.
One of the biggest challenges of Austrian Economics is in method.
In terms of method, their is a bias taught to us in K-12 to cherish "science"/empirical method. Any method that strays from "science" is not valid. With the first 18+ years of our lives embroiled in cherishing science, it is difficult to take on another paradigm of thought and theory. After all, all the science stuff is theory as well.
There's much econometric and statistical work done by Austrians, applying Austrian theory, but it's mostly pertaining to monetary theory. So I see your point. The thing is, other areas of economics are usually handled by Chicagoites or the likes of Stossel. But you're right, it's important Austrians in particular analyse these issues. Chicagoite analysis can be crude, to say the least.
Ralph Raico and Tom Woods have a few audio lectures on foreign aid. They also both recommend Peter Bouer on the topic. It's not much, but it's a start.
I think in essence, the WTO and IMF have a global cartelizing function over trade and monetary policy, respectively, with the U.S. and its main allies as the major stakeholders in these institutions and the U.S. as the military enforcer of these institution's dictates. They do on an international scale what regulatory board does on a national scale.
I find the anti-globalists always half right and half wrong. They broadly label both and expansion of international trade and the expansion of U.S. empire as globalization. The first is good and the second is bad.
The criticisms are at hand already, there is no need for Austrians to concentrate on these issues. Those who quote J Sachs must withstand the criticism of William R. Easterly (and if anyone has read The Elusive Quest for Growth, or The White Mans Burden you would know that there is little intellectual weight left for Sachs). Naomi Klein does well in her analysis of foreign affairs, she serves us a credit. Her economics is abysmal, and her never-ending usage of “Chicago Boys” is numbing, but, alas, there are other contemporary writers that address such issues. Let the key is to also look outside of mises.org for intellectual armor
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah