Who does everybody here hold to be the Austrian economist that contributed the most to advancing liberty?
My own personal choice would be a tie between Menger and von Bawerk.
Aristippus,
Whether or not we like it as Austrians, the fact is that Smith made the economic science what it was. Whether or not you think that he started up good discussion, he did start up economic discussion as "its own thing".
Bawerk and Menger were generally pro-market, but they were nonetheless not extremely libertarian, nor did their ideas necessarily lead to libertarianism as they eventually did.
I think you would have gotten to me a lot more effectively if you wouldn't have been so...aggresive in the manner of your post.
Are you kidding me? What about Cantillon, Quesnay, Turgot, Condillac, Hume?
nor did their ideas necessarily lead to libertarianism as they eventually did.
Marginal utility theory is extremely important as a foundation of economic arguments for libertarianism. Not only that but Menger showed the fallacies of the historicists and contributed to spontaneous order theory, while Bohm-Bawerk took on the Marxists.
"Are you kidding me? What about Cantillon, Quesnay, Turgot, Condillac, Hume?"
None of their work, however important or superior to Smith's, started up economics as a real social science, or had the influence that smith had. Smith was indisputably the founder of of classical economics, and it was ultimately from Smith's works that the work of the classicals originated.
"Marginal utility theory is extremely important as a foundation of economic arguments for libertarianism."
Keynesians accept marginal utility theory, as to all neo-classical economists.
"Not only that but Menger showed the fallacies of the historicists and contributed to spontaneous order theory, while Bohm-Bawerk took on the Marxists."
Neither of these imply a great deal of libertarian, both are important classical liberal works, but they aren't nearly as radical as we would like, nor did they necessarily set AE on individualist libertarian grounds like either Hayek or Mises did
EDIT
Skeptic,
I'm sorry, I did not intend to come off that way
Oh and check out my sig. That scores Menger a point in my book.
None of their work, however important or superior to Smith's, started up economics as a real social science
If you really think that, define the latter and the differences between Smith and the others in that regard. How do they fail to satisfy whatever criteria you're proposing for economics as a social science while Smith satisfied it? Smith was copying their work!!
"Keynesians accept marginal utility theory, as to all neo-classical economists."
Not in a Mengerian fashion, and with all other kinds of things thrown in. I never said that marginal utility theory was sufficient for libertarianism, only that it certainly helps to bolster libertarian arguments.
Neither of these imply a great deal of libertarian, both are important classical liberal works
His question was on "advancing liberty", not strictly libertarianism. Note that classical liberal philosophy promotes liberty. So you agree with us that they were important in that regard, thank you.
nor did they necessarily set AE on individualist libertarian grounds like either Hayek or Mises did
? Menger's conception of economics was based on methodological individualism. Or were you in fact not talking about economics? (though you said 'AE')
Menger -> marginal utility
Bohm bawerk --> capital theory/structure
mises and hayek --> money/human action, capital structure
knut wicksell (stockholm school) : natural interest rate, influenced austrian theory
Frank a fetter: time preference theory
This is overly simplified
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Don't forget about Hamilton, that wonderful creator of the American School!
I'm going to challenge you all by asking which economic school of thought do you think is better, Keynesian economics, or American Economics (National System/Hamiltonian program)
"How do they fail to satisfy whatever criteria you're proposing for economics as a social science while Smith satisfied it? Smith was copying their work!!"
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that Smith's work is what put the debate and science into high gear. There is a very good reason why economists point to smith as the one who spawned economics as a system and that's because it was his work which caused the work of the classical economists. This would be the case if it turned out that all he did was cut and paste the words of the Spanish enlightenment, Cantillon, and Hume
"I never said that marginal utility theory was sufficient for libertarianism, only that it certainly helps to bolster libertarian arguments."
And my point was exactly that nothing within the original Austrian system necessitated libertarianism, as you are admitting right now. Marginal theory is not sufficient, just a good stepping stone.
"Note that classical liberal philosophy promotes liberty. So you agree with us that they were important in that regard, thank you."
Important does not mean most important. Modern day liberals do some things to promote liberty, this does not make them libertarians or great advancers of liberty.
"Menger's conception of economics was based on methodological individualism. Or were you in fact not talking about economics? (though you said 'AE')"
It was not nearly as developed as an individualist system, nor its conclusions necessarily imply individualism.
@Skeptical Metal
Well they're hard to compare because they kind of target two really different areas, growth Vs. recessionary macroeconomics, but I'd have to say the American system since that at least has a much better chance of achieving its goal of industrialization (not prosperity).
There is a very good reason why economists point to smith as the one who spawned economics as a system and that's because it was his work which caused the work of the classical economists.
Not really. It's mainly because most English speaking people couldn't read the works in the other languages well enough and so instead read Smith's compilation of the studies of earlier writers, then repeated the myth ad nauseam that Smith somehow 'spawned economics'.
And my point was exactly that nothing within the original Austrian system necessitated libertarianism, as you are admitting right now.
On the contrary the conclusion to be drawn from it was liberty. That exchange is necessarily beneficial to both participating parties is, for example, a linchpin of libertarianism.
Important does not mean most important.
Meh, that's irrelevant since I was contesting your other claims. Their economic work was clearly based on individual man - in stark contrast to many contemporary intellectuals. The Methodenstreit, and Bohm-Bawerk's critique of Marx were key instances of those two figures engaged in debate against statist intellectuals. I really don't see how Hayek and Mises departed much from them at all.
Economics wise I'd give to Mises for his thesis of the calculation problem and also the unification of micro and macro economics.
Rothbard has the activist edge, all his work on ecomonic history and very foundation of the Mises Institute.
"Not really."
Yes really. The classical economists were influenced in huge smith, even if the single reason was because he happened to write in English
"That exchange is necessarily beneficial to both participating parties is, for example, a linchpin of libertarianism."
And is something which every division of neo-classical economics.
"I really don't see how Hayek and Mises departed much from them at all."
They focused the entire matter firmly an prettymuch exclusively on the matter of individual action. This is similar to Menger, but much more thorough and much more explicit on the causal factors there.
I was clearly talking about the 'spawned economics' part, and as I said if you really think that's true, outline to me the criteria for 'economics' and explain what's lacking in the earlier writings that is present in Smith (you'll find some fallacies at least!). Otherwise just drop it.
What I mean by "founding economics" is that it is clearly Smith's work which inspired the major works, discussions, and philosophers that deal with the subject area which we call "economics". If some guy in an empty room were to divulge all of the laws of mathematics and then never spoke again then we would not attribute the founding of mathematics to him, rather to those who began studying the discipline in such a way that it spawned major debate. This is not to say that Cantillon's work did not influence Smith, merely that it was Smith who inspired economics as broad-reaching, and more importantly independent, discipline and who the first people who called themselves "Political Economists" were responding to and who they were relating their ideas to.
There is a reason why Smith is attributed with the credit, not Cantillon, and this is because the people who first dedicated themselves to studying wealth, exchange, and production in an in-depth and scholarly manner in such a way which would not turn out to be entirely fallacious (physiocrats) were influenced almost entirely by Smith's work.
Well now you're just wilfully ignoring those that came before Smith, especially those who called themselves 'économistes'. Also, it's ridiculous to called the physiocrats "entirely fallacious" - have you even read any of their works??
Anyway, your analogy is flawed since the writers that preceded Smith were not nearly as obscure as you imply (they were well-known enough for Smith to copy the vast majority of his ideas from them!). Sure, Smith's book was famous and influential, but it was just a compilation of ideas well known and a continuation of previous scholarship. It is more accurate to say that he popularised economics than that he spawned it.
Rothbard's question on the matter:
The mystery of Adam Smith, then, is the immense gap between a monstrously overinflated reputation and the dismal reality. But the problem is worse than that; for it is not just that Smith's Wealth of Nations has had a terribly overblown reputation from his day to ours. The problem is that the Wealth of Nations was somehow able to blind all men, economists and laymen alike, to the very knowledge that other economists, let alone better ones, had existed and written before 1776. The Wealth of Nations exerted such a colossal impact on the world that all knowledge of previous economists was blotted out, hence Smith's reputation as Founding Father. The historical problem is this: how could this phenomenon have taken place with a book so derivative, so deeply flawed, so much less worthy than its predecessors?