At the moment I'm reading an insane amount of journal articles on the transition in Europe from the European Monetary System to the Economic and Monetary Union, i.e., the European Central Bank.
Who got off thinking that you could have a single monetary policy for almost two dozen countries with radically different fiscal policies, but all sharing the same currency?
It's madness, I say. I'm really starting to deeply understanding the panic of the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain).
Would you mind providing me with some links to those journal articles? I would highly appreciate it if you do.
vaduka:Would you mind providing me with some links to those journal articles? I would highly appreciate it if you do.
I second this.
Borders declaring bankruptcy means store closings and blow-out sales. Wandering around the Park Avenue store, I picked up:
The Fatal Conceit by FA Hayek.
The Politics of Freedom by David Boaz. Stumbled upon it and after looking through the table of contents, felt it was worth the $9.
The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates published by Signet Classic.
And, as a ridiculous guilty pleasure, Final Fantasy and Philosophy.
I found but passed on de Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the Revolution and Woods's Rollback. My whole purpose for going there was to get Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy at 60% off, but apparently someone got their last copy before me. Or it's hidden in the Romance section or something.
I can't help but start reading The Fatal Conceit, though I still have a good 200 pages in Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. It's quite an achievement by Hülsmann; my biggest problem is that every time he addresses one of Mises's works, I want to put his book down and pick up the corresponding work by Mises.
Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics by Nick Herbert - Extremely interesting book that covers 8 different possible quantum realities. I bought this book to further understand the third book and the list and more importantly to make sure the author of the last book on this list is being truthful.
The Crazy Wisdom of Ganesh Baba by Eve Baumohl Neuhaus - The guy that this book is about was a fascinating character. What I have read so far has me wanting to learn more about HInduism. My favorite piece of 'wisdom' learned thus far is the idea that marijuana without meditation is like a boat without a rudder. Now I need to learn to meditate to discover what he is getting at...
How Quantum Activism Can Save Civilization by Amit Goswami - Not sure I agree with the premise that civilization needs to be saved, but this guys ideas are mind bending to say the least. Can't wait for the chapter on economics. I have listened to an interview where the author talks about economics and he is not well versed on the subject and makes some rudimentary mistakes, but his other ideas have sent me off on some forays into thought on economics and I will be working on a synthesis of his ideas and Austrian economics.
Unfortunately I can't give you direct access to the articles because my college has directly negotiated access to them--it costs money per article otherwise.
I can, however, upload one right now that I thought was incredibly useful in analyzing the geo-political motives for Germany's (puzzling) decision to join the EMU in light of its monetary dominance through the Bundesbank.
http://rapidshare.com/files/454892259/The_Political_Economy_of_the_European_Economic_and_Monetary_Union_Political_Sources_of_an_Economic_L
Also, I can't recommend enough Philipp Bagus' book The Tragedy of the Euro. It's absolutely top notch.
I am not reading anything at this time. But yeah last time i gonna enjoy Vampire Diaries book series storyline. Actually after enjoy the brilliant storyline of Vampire Diaries season 1 episodes, i've a good time to go for enjoy it's book.
I'm reading the Mises Discussion Forum at the moment.
I'm reading this, and my girlfriend's expressions. : /
I miss book learnings.
The only thing I'm reading into/learning for fun or even a little more seriously is ABM and econ. I'm just getting to know a few different software platforms for ABM. It's fun. :)
I listened to audiobooks covering the German Historical and American Institutional schools of economics. After learning about the positions of such shallow thinkers, listening to an audiobook on Alfred Marshall was a cool breath of fresh reason. And I just finished listening to an audiobook on Adam Smith's ideas. People here weened on Rothbard need to learn about Smith from other sources too. Judging, not just from the audiobook author's interpretations, but the actual quotes of Smith, Rothbard's characterization of Smith in Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought was altogether a skewed and ungracious misreading of a great man, a great thinker, and one of the most important champions of liberalism who ever wrote and taught. It's a shame, because APHET was the first Austrian treatise I ever read, and I loved it. But now seeing how off-base were Rothbard's characterizations of Bacon, Hume, and now Smith, it really casts a pall of doubt over his readings of other major thinkers in that expansive work. Some day I'm going to write up a defense of both Hume and Smith.
I also finally finished Hume's splendid Essays, Moral, Political, Literary. Now I've read all of Hume's major philosophical works, except for his works on religion.
Especially because my Nook is still out of commission, and I have precious few physical books here in Taiwan, I'm going to take a break from whole-tome reading, and instead focus on writing.
I am listening to Garret G. Fagan's excellent 3 lecture series' from the Teaching Company: Great Battles of the Ancient World, The History of Ancient Rome and Emperors of Rome. I am currently re-reading the Pauline epistles and a lot of strategy guides for Rome: Total War.
I'm reading a book on job-hunting as a side job for the local Career & Technical School:
What Color is Your Parachute?
It basically just rehashes what anyone should know through common sense. But it's been out since hte 70s and constantly updated and known as one of the best job hunting books, so... some people must be getting some benefit out of it.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I have a stupid question and I don't want to make a new topic for it, so I'll just present my question here.
How many books have you guys read in total? How many books have you read about libertarianism? I don't need exact answers, approximations are good enough.
Halfway through Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard by now.
Answering the question above, I only started reading books and essays since about last year, so I haven't read much, considering the fact, that I am only reading e-books on my 17" monitor which is not very comfortable way to read.
So far I have read about 5 books (I mean here on libertarian philosophy) and from ten to twenty essays (not speaking about countless articles and audio/video lectures).
I also read books on psychology and other philosopical spheres, not just political (which are only meant to be for my own educational purpose).
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Almost finished "That which is seen, and that which is not seen" by Frederick Bastiat. I must say that Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson" was more interesting to read for me.
Daniel James Sanchez: [...] People here weened on Rothbard need to learn about Smith from other sources too.[...]
[...] People here weened on Rothbard need to learn about Smith from other sources too.[...]
This reminds me of the guy in Metropolitan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100142/) who dislikes Jane Austin's novels but has never read any of them, claiming, "You don't have to have read a novel to have an opinion on it. I prefer good literary cristicism."
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."
Economic Controversies by Murray N. Rothbard. I'm over 200 pages in, and I'm certain now that I can never be an Austrian (seriously, his arguments for free will are a joke, right?).
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Must not be enough pictures for you.
StrangeLoop: Economic Controversies by Murray N. Rothbard. I'm over 200 pages in, and I'm certain now that I can never be an Austrian (seriously, his arguments for free will are a joke, right?).
Didn't you with this post of yours prove him right? Performative contradiction? Non-falsifiable statement?
The determinist v free will debate would have ended a long time ago if that were the case.
The economic/sociological debate over free will is different to the metaphysical debate. One can hold complete determinism and yet support the Austrian position. For the Austrians, all that matters is that we cannot account for the causes of human choice - not that physical causes do not exist. If we could account for them, just maybe mathematics would be of some use in economics.
You mean a Rothbardian on philosophy, right?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I always have to pause when I read comments like these. Is the significance of Austrian economics really reducible to what some would call an obscure and esoteric philosophical question? Even if we disagree with particular Austrians on some things such as free will or whether praxeology is the way to do economics or whatever, can't we still appreciate everything that Austrian economics "gets right"? That is, can't we appreciate its distinctive emphasis on disequilibrium and the dynamic nature of markets and exchange, subjective preferences, the role of time and interlocking stages of production, entrepreneurial discovery and search, the essence of knowledge as dispersed, tacit, and situated, the non-neutrality of money, the spontaneous order of institutional structures and social norms, the heterogeneity of capital, economic calculation, etc. Are including these things in our economic analyses really such an "ideological" thing to do like many Austrian critics charge? I don't think it is. Hopefully this wasn't said tongue-in-cheek, or I'll feel rather stupid.
In any case...
To answer this thread. I just finished Israel Kirzner's An Essay on Capital. I encourage every student of Austrian economics to read it. I also just finished Truth Versus Precision in Economics. There aren't too many books on economic methodology worth reading, in my opinion, including this one.
Tomorrow I'll be beginning Understanding the Process of Economic Change by Douglas North. AAAhjhhbhbhbddddhhhhhjhhjhhhhhh
Douglass North is a bit of a joke. I've never seen him cite/refer to Mises or any other Austrian except for Hayek (and even then he only knows Hayek's middle and later work), and virtually everything North tries to dicuss was already done by Mises (as well as other Austrians), but in a much more accurate way. Ironically, he apparently said that Hayek was the most important economist of the 20th century!
Aristippus: The economic/sociological debate over free will is different to the metaphysical debate. One can hold complete determinism and yet support the Austrian position. For the Austrians, all that matters is that we cannot account for the causes of human choice - not that physical causes do not exist. If we could account for them, just maybe mathematics would be of some use in economics. Actually, economics does not depend on our not knowing the causes of human decisions any more than the laws of logic depend on our not knowing the mechanics of orbital bodies. They are separate domains. Any comprehensive explanation of human psychoactivity would be an accounting of the causal processes that lead to intentionality and existential awareness; economics would still be a true discipline separate from the mathematical natural sciences even if we were somehow able to calculate the actions of men. Value would still be subjective experience, even if the experiential processes is made up of precisely demarcated quantaties of energy and specific materials, etc. Value would still not be interpersonally comparable because value is only value within the framework of bounded rationality. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
Aristippus: Douglass North is a bit of a joke. I've never seen him cite/refer to Mises or any other Austrian except for Hayek (and even then he only knows Hayek's middle and later work), and virtually everything North tries to dicuss was already done by Mises (as well as other Austrians), but in a much more accurate way. Ironically, he apparently said that Hayek was the most important economist of the 20th century! I agree. Usually when North starts talking about the financial crisis he shows that he doesn't understand economics. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
I'm reading John Taylor Gatto's Undergroung History of American Public Education. I grabbed the chapters from LRC and made an epub.
Danny,
People here weened on Rothbard need to learn about Smith from other sources too. Judging, not just from the audiobook author's interpretations, but the actual quotes of Smith, Rothbard's characterization of Smith in Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought was altogether a skewed and ungracious misreading of a great man, a great thinker, and one of the most important champions of liberalism who ever wrote and taught.
To some extent I agree. If you haven't already, I would take a look at Nicholas Phillipson's biography of Adam Smith. However, I think Rothbard may be correct in certain respects, although something I've always been skeptical about is the notion that without Smith the writings of the Scholastics or Cantillon would have flourished.
Honestly, it feels as if Rothbard was so ideological that most of his treatment of other people's work is extremely unfair. I hate to say this on an Austrian forum, but this may also be true of his treatment of Keynes (which is more of an attack on Keynes than Keynes's work, but even putting that aside my point holds true). I'm not saying that Keynes was a great economist, but just that even when it came to Keynes Rothbard was very extreme and prejudice.
Are you talking about "Keynes the Man" or something else?
That and the notes in his copy of The General Theory.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Are you talking about "Keynes the Man" or something else? That and the notes in his copy of The General Theory.
Where those meant to be published? My notes look like exercises in obscenity, yet I’d never get those on line.
Inspired by that other thread, and knowing that I'm not getting anywhere in Man, Economy, and State (too soon after Human Action, honestly), I'm just going to go ahead and read Keynes's The General Theory (cover to cover, this time). I'll prob. be live blogging my thoughts on economicthought.net.
Just read The Real Frank Zappa Book, Ancient Gonzo Wisdom (book of Hunter Thompson interviews), and Cleopatra: A Biography by Duane W. Roller.
Started a little bit on House of Wittgenstein: A Family at War by Alexander Waugh.
@Bert
How can you read Sartre? I think he might be the only writer more boring to read than Heideggar. Jeez, I don't miss those days in Philosophy class, lol.
btw, I'm reading Rollback. I recommend people check out Trickle Up Poverty by Michael Savage. It's pretty good.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
To be honest, I haven't read a whole book on Austrian Economics. I have read many journal articles, essays, chapters from books, but not an entire book from cover to cover. Every time I find something problematic with other people's theory I start formulating an opposing theory. In my journey of doing so I try to find what an Austrian has written about it.
I almost finished "My Life with Ludwig von Mises". :)
In September 2010 I told myself that I will adopt a more systematic approach to the theory. I started my inquiry with the theory of value. I did well with that. From then on I got back to my previous practice of reading this and that. Now I am reading in a more advanced manner what the early Austrians wrote about capital, capital structure and interest. I fear that without writing about what I have read the reading is pointless. It becomes some kind of a mess in my head. I have noticed that the more time I spend reading the less time I think, it's like when I try to think of a solution to a problem with a theory about something, I am too lazy to think it through but rather merely try to remember what an Austrian has written. I am not saying that AE does not help me, of course my contra-argument is always based on AE, but when I do not use my brain I can not sufficiently formulate an argument that covers all the aspects. I am looking forward to reading and writing and hopefully one day mises.org will publish my own article. :)
I am trying to read up on Sraffa. Apparently Sraffa and Hayek had a few major debates, and half of the people I speak to claim Hayek won, while the others claim Sraffa was right. From what I can gather the debate caused Hayek to reformulate some of his ideas regarding monetary equalibrium and capital structure. Although I am not sure about this and I cannot find a good place to start reading on the subject.
Vaduka, I want to say how right you are. Reading makes me a lazy thinker. If you run to books everytime you need a solution to a problem, you never have the ability to increase your knowledge or your philosophy/thinking skills.
Debating is an excellent way to solidify a concept or to practice or even just to mess around if you're trying something out. Usually I put books last if I absolutely cannot solve a problem. Most of the time I can solve a problem if I just give it time and listen to some good music.
The entire debate between Sraffa and Hayek is available in Liberty Fund's Contra Keynes and Cambridge, and the articles can be found on JSTOR. IIRC, it's three or four articles long (split between the two). I don't think you can say anybody "won", since Sraffa's criticisms missed the point. But, you'd also have to read Prices & Production for background on what Sraffa is trying to critique. Sraffa probably influenced Hayek to some degree when writing The Pure Theory of Capital,but I wouldn't say it was in a fashion that changed Hayek's views. Rather, Hayek reformulated his theory to make it more comprehensive for his opponents (which as not just Sraffa, but also Kaldor and Knight, and others).
Thanks, thats exacly what I was looking for. I read Prices and Production and thought it was pretty good, although I am not sure if I am a big fan of hayekian triangles. Didn't Sraffa beleive in the LTV? I find that odd for an economist of his time.