To put it bluntly, what are the major differences between the two and whats the deal between the feuding?
I'll admit, as far as I know I have not read any explicit "Masonomics" books, but my understanding of the difference is that George Mason tends to stress Hayek more along with more "mainstream" (hopefully I'm not angering anyone with that) monetary theories and methdological approaches. They also seem to cite Mises as supporting their views (FRB etc) while downplaying Rothbard. Mises Institute is more Rothbard (who they say is more in tune with Mises) and the "traditional" Austrian approach. Am I missing any other significant distinguishes?
So whats the drama between them all? Judging by various posts on the internet they appear to have different academic ideas and some of their arguments can get a little personal at times.
Finally, what happened to Gene Callahan? I remember reading his book along time ago and loved it, and now I hear he isn't an Austrian anymore (although he frequents over at Coordination Problem and generally bashes Rothbard). Then I read on a post here he got mad over his book deal with the MI, but I don't know if this is trash talking or not.
And for a bonus question, if you had to pick a "side", which do you prefer? Honest.
For me, Mises Institute.
Modus Tollens: I dislike the methodological puritanism of MI. It reminds me of irritating Christians who believe that all worldly wisdom can or must be traced back to The Bible.
I think this is the perfect place and time to compliment Daniel on his superb article from yesterday: From Mises on Mind and Method:
Daniel James Sanchez: There is something dystopian about a member of the government saying to a dissenting intellectual, in essence, "Isn't it true, sir, that you are part of a group of thinkers who uses [cue the scary music] … logic?" Not even the obtuse inquisitors of Socrates, Abelard, and Galileo would have been so bold.
There is something dystopian about a member of the government saying to a dissenting intellectual, in essence, "Isn't it true, sir, that you are part of a group of thinkers who uses [cue the scary music] … logic?" Not even the obtuse inquisitors of Socrates, Abelard, and Galileo would have been so bold.
Modus, do please have a look at the Yeager article I referred to earlier concerning the matter of definitions. Apart from the points made there, it's important to stress that despite its original latin meaning, the term "deposits" eveolved long ago to take on a distinct meaning when preceeded by the word "bank." Words do that, and it would be anachronistic at best to force banks to make "bank deposits" they handle conform to a meaning that the phrase has long since ceased to convey to anyone in the banking business, including the vast majority of deposit holders.
A very good thing to read on this, besides Yeager, is those sections of Henry Dunning Macleod's Theory and Practice of Banking dealing with these matters, esp. pp. 143ff. (Though he wrote long ago, Dunning might have been responding to Huerta de Soto!)
No hard copy reprint plans, aals, Othyem; but you can read Theory of Free Banking for nothing, on the Online Library of Liberty.
DD5,
Your comment is so uncomprehending of the meaning of what I wrote that I hardly even know how to begin responding. The problem is not logic. Incidently, I am more of a deductivist than Mises or Rothbard. I don't even believe in induction -- a statement which requires more qualification than I care to give here. I have actually spent quite some time studying logic; what passes for "logical reasoning" among some ametuer Austrians betrays an utter naivety on the matter. For many, like yourself, the word "logical" is as meaningless as the word "freedom" from the lips of a politician on campaign day -- it is nothing but a rhetorical tactic used puff up oneself and belittle opponents.
George Selgin,
My comment about the meaning and origin of "deposit" was intended as a parody. You may know me as Lee Kelly on the Coordination Problem blog. I am also a big fan of Yeagar: I just received his Essays on Monetary Disequilibrium as a gift this last Christmas -- good stuff. Unfortunately, I cannot access his recent article, but I'll check out Macleod's work (I have been meaning to for sometime anyway).
The Fluttering Veil is an excellent book Modus.
And to your earlier point about the emergence of fractional reserves, I completely agree. 100 percent reservists by arguing against free banking, whether they realize it or not, are making a case against a completely unhampered market.
Lee, every once in a while someone like you tricks me with such a "parody" of 100-percent reservist reasoning. of 100-percent reof The trouble is, the parody's aren't obviosuly different from the real McCoy! What's more, they're just as capable of contributing to the impression that the FRB view is a moinority one. So please refrain, on this site anyway: I want to hear more sound argument here, not more bad stuff, whether for real or 'just kidding"! So
Modus Tollens:The problem is not logic. Incidently, I am more of a deductivist than Mises or Rothbard.
I don't have much time right now to frequently go back and fourth, but I will eventually respond if the debate is worthwhile.
You have about 160 posts on this forum. Most of them are either on this issue or on monetary equilibrium. Can you please point me to a single post of yours that you think represets an argument that you think you can defend on the basis of solid deductive reasoning.
Selgin:Lee, every once in a while someone like you tricks me with such a "parody" of 100-percent reservist reasoning. of 100-percent reof The trouble is, the parody's aren't obviosuly different from the real McCoy! What's more, they're just as capable of contributing to the impression that the FRB view is a moinority one. So please refrain, on this site anyway
Just another quick response.
Selgin, You are arguing against insulting by further insulting. And you have been appealing to ridicule through out this thread. It doen't prove you are wrong, but it doesn't help your argument very much in my opinion.
All of them?
I strongly suspect that you do not understand what it means for an argument to be deductive.
In any case, why do you always use meaningless adjectives, like in the phrase "solid deductive reasoning"? Can deductive reasoning be unsolid? Wouldn't that just be invalid and, therefore, non-deductive. Do you mean "sound deductive reasoning"? That would at least make sense, though it would remain pointless.
Calumny, DD5: Where did I claim to be opposed to insulting or ridiculing people?
But what, I wonder, provoked your mistaken characterization? Surely it wasn't my saying that Modus' parody seemed to me the real thing itself? That, I assure you, was said in all sincerity!
Modus Tollens:I strongly suspect that you do not understand what it means for an argument to be deductive.
So can you please explain it to me by making an argument for whatever topic you wish and you know we disagree on. You can just continue whatever you left off the last time, or make a few opening statements expecting to later defend them.
Modus Tollens:Can deductive reasoning be unsolid? Wouldn't that just be invalid and, therefore, non-deductive.
So you would oppose also the use of invalid in "invalid deductive reasoning"? since that would just be non-deductive accoridng to you.
Selgin:Calumny, DD5: Where did I claim to be opposed to insulting or ridiculing people?
Fair enough. But it's not fair for you to complain about a lack of "solid arguments" presented here thus far.
I don't know about that, DD5: I've mentioned historical episodes, given figures, and referred to relevant sources concerning a number of substantive points. I consider these to be the trappings of "solid argument." But I haven't seen much of that coming from the other side of the debate.
DD5:So can you please explain it to me by making an argument for whatever topic you wish and you know we disagree on.
In other matters, "invalid deductive reasoning" doesn't make sense.