is rothbard's masterpiece, along with it's accompanying study guide and 'human action', 'the theory of money and credit', 'capital and interest', and 'principals of economics' for reference, still the definitive and rigorous introduction to praxeological economic analysis?
That depends - do you have a greater familiarity with philosophy or neoclassical economics? Mises's Human Action is the ideal starting point (provided one has grasped some elementary facts) but it is a heavy text that involves more than just economics, but MES is better for someone coming in from neoclassical economics. Reisman's Capitalism is also a third alternative now, and it is a fusion of classical and Austrian economics. Any one of these would make a good introduction.
For the complete notive Menger's Principles and Callahan's Economics For Real People might be better starting points.
thanks for the reply! I hadn't heard of reisman's work, and upon inspecting it, it appears i have stumbled upon a bizarre libertarian rift with this ayn rand controversy. Am i allowed to read 'capitalism', or is it tainted? I am offended at this anti-rothbard sentiment
No, it isn't tainted. Ignore the politics and focus on the economics. That is what matters.
Inquisitor:No, it isn't tainted. Ignore the politics and focus on the economics. That is what matters.
Maybe if it were a book solely devoted to econ... but its not... Its devoted to Murray N. Rothbard's own formalization of anarcho-capitalism with a fusion of praxeology and Austrain economics. For Rothbardians it is the definitive treatise, however when discussing Austrian economics, its hard to declare one book as the definitive treatise.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
i care not whether the work builds upon rothbard's ethics, though since i would say i subscribe to them at least in principal, i balk somewhat at a work that disparages them. (Though as with inquisitor's suggestion, superficial annoyances are easily ignored)
perhaps i mischaracterized rothbard's work as 'definitive treatise' in a discussion of praxeological economics, though regardless of the very specific ethical basis of his analysis, the work seemed to me to be the most detailed and modern treatise, notwithstanding. Though as inquisitor hinted, perhaps 'human action' remains more complete?
Inquisitor:HA is more comprehensive, one could say, in that it deals with far more than economics - it is both a work of philosophy (pertaining to the social sciences) and of economics. I think the two works are both complete in their own way, and should be seen as complementary.
Austrian economics is not a religion.It has no bible.
i don't see how critical reading precludes the existance of essential treatises. Can you name a monograph as instructive as 'human action' or 'man economy and state'?
lojpre: thanks for the reply! I hadn't heard of reisman's work, and upon inspecting it, it appears i have stumbled upon a bizarre libertarian rift with this ayn rand controversy. Am i allowed to read 'capitalism', or is it tainted? I am offended at this anti-rothbard sentiment
Heh. The idea that you might not be "allowed" to read a book because it's "tainted" is very Randian
touché!
Why would you think that Reisman's book is importnat to an Austrian?
It is of course an a priori science and therefore a complete tome of this science can exist by simply identifying all the appropriate deductions. I personally believe the Rothbard identifies and explains the deductions from the axiom "humans act" in a very simple and complete manner which is superior to Human Action.
Inquisitor:Because it has expanded significantly on Mises's ideas on production etc. Reisman is a Misesian, and one of the best. He attempted to fuse the Austrian with the Classical schools in the tome.
You must read this essay that Kirzner made about the book:
http://www.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL12_1_1999/kirzner.pdf
His conclusion:
"Reisman’s book is, given its own perspective, a monumental achievement. One attemptingan appraisal starting from a different perspective, can yet (while uncompromisinglydeploring key elements in the volume) perceive and understand the sheer grandeur of thatachievement. And even from the vantage point of an entirely different (viz. an Austrian)perspective, it is certainly possible to identify superb sections of the book. Regrettably,this Austrian economist, viewing the capitalist economic process through Mengerian andMisesian spectacles, must report that the volume as a whole offers a panorama upon capitalismentirely different from, and decisively less satisfactory than, the rich picture revealedby those spectacles."
I will when I have more time. I'm not sure why one wouldn't consider Reisman important to Austrians though; his tome is ultimately a fusion of classical and Austrian economics, and he elaborates on Mises's own views on certain issues (e.g. costs of production.)
While it certainly appears that Reisman's treatise is worth studying, this book is perhaps not the best place to begin learning about the Austrian School. Before Reisman, it would be better to read works by Menger, Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek, and Rothbard first. Besides, it doesn't really matter which book represents the "definitive treatise." If one were to just read MES or HA and nothing else, that person would be missing a great deal of insights other works have offered. But if I had to choose, HA and MES pretty much define the Austrian School nowadays.
MES is not a very good book for defining the Austrian school. It is a more general textbook, useful for teaching basic economics.
In fact, the Austrian school of economic though is differentiated from the neoclassical mainstream because its view of the market process. And this view of the market process is not developed in MES.
I think that no book has a better definition of this distinctive aspect of the Austrian school than Competition and Entrepreneurship. However this book deals only with this basic aspect of Austrian economics. During the entire length of the book Kirzner defines the concept of market process in its ultimate formulation, but he does not try to apply it to a large proportion of it's possible applications.
However, C&E is the most powerful exposition of the distinctive central principle of the theories developed by Hayek and Mises: That the economic agent does not have complete knowledge of the entire means/ends framework that is available to him. Neoclassical economics always assumes that the agent does have complete knowledge of that framework.
My own introduction to Austrian economics came from Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". MES is wonderfully lucid, and seems to stick to economics. HA, which I am currently reading, seems more philosoophical. But "The Road to Serfdom" seems to show how and why Austrian economics are so important to the man on the street who doesn't want to live under totalitarianism. I read this work written in the mid 40's in 2001, and was amazed that the very phrases and philosophical hypocracies Hayek pointed out were being spewed by the Dem/Rep collectivist politicians and bureaucrats I heard every day. I think Road to Serfdom shows the urgency for adopting Austrian economics (i.e. capitalism) better than the other works. It is the fillip that will drive you to read the other treatises.
I agree with you on Road to Serfdom. Very powerful message. This was also my first experience with Austrian economics. I tried to share this book with a professor of mine, who completely rejected it. He actually called Hayek "an ass clown." This is when I realized how weak most people are in terms of their economic/political understanding.
My introduction with Austrian Economics came with Hoppe's Democracy the God that failed, as back then I was a monarchist, and was looking for a coherent defence of monarchy - which Hoppe did offer - but I was blown away by the content of the book. Amazing stuff, but way above me at the time that I read it. Once I'm done with Callahan's book I will be moving on to Menger's Principles, and then Human Action or MES.
Kirznerian, thanks for the article on Reisman BTW; I can see now why one would want to leave Capitalism for later reading.
Thanks for the article on Reisman from me also. I've had the book now for a number of years but haven't finished it yet. He also has a number of tapes that I have listened to many times, but I was not aware of exactly how he differs from the true Austrian theory. I still think he has a lot of excellent points to make. I disagree with his fundamental philosophy from Rand, but his econ is well thought out. Eventually I will finish his book, but as Kirzner points out, it's very intimidating.
I began with "Economics in One Lesson" back in 1985 and haven't looked back. It always amazes me that there are always more great books to read that I will probably never find the end of them. I've read HA and MES three times each and still am not tired of them. Each time I do, I find some insight I either forgot of missed the other times. I think it's worth it to review them occasionally.
I stumbled upon Reisman when I didn't know much about Austrian economics. I wasn't really aware of Ayn Rand either. I knew she wrote Atlas Shrugged, but that's it. Anyway, Reisman held her in such high regard (the suggested reading section) that I bought all her books. Haven't read them yet, though.
Since Atlas Shrugged is such a huge tome, I'd recommend "We The Living" as a start on Rand. It paints a very realistic picture of what life must have been like under early Stalinism. In some ways, its a more devastating attack on collectivism than Atlas Shrugged, which is a bit far-fetched. Did she really think people would sit by a radio long enough to hear a speech that runs over a hundred pages in the book? Perhaps the best bits are that speech itself, and the hobo's story told to the heroine on the train. I believe these sections are also found in "For the New Intellectual".
A bit off topic, but personally I found Ms Rand's Virtue of Selfishness to be her best nonfiction work. I haven't read her fiction yet.