I was looking through my old laptop and I found these three scraps of thoughts that were by themselves and saved:
‘The endeavors of psychology to dissolve the Ego and to unmask it as an illusion are idle"
-Mises
"hermeneutics, ‘as a polemical term in contemporary philosophy’, is a name for the attempt to set aside epistemologically centred philosophy."
-Richard Rorty
Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics said that every science should adapt its method to its object, that the object under study should determine the method of studying it.
- Source unkown (maybe my own)
I have no clue where these thoughts and quote came from, but they are almost undoubtably from the same source (be it a book, article, or interview). What they do is show an "ontological irreducability" that tends to get ignored in the onslaught of formalism and positivsm that people seem to take a sadistic pleasure in applying where it need not be applied.
There is no need to study Human Action (or history or psychology) as "man-apes": the category of "human" , "conscience", economic transaction, or "I" are irreducible unique human entities and self-justifing - and are (like it or not) based off of intersubjective relations of intelligibility and understanding - not formalistic causal approaches. This may sound like a crazy-ass Stirnerite / Husserl / Scholastic type of ontology, and it is, but the fact that it gets ignored or written off baffles the shit out of me.
In the sense that the words "objective", "naturalistic", or if they are really stupid "mechanistic" are used (there are obviously many ways to use the words) by "scientism" type of people in the social science - they are merely flavors, and appeals to no authority greater than themsleves and the institutions that support them. Of course, that they have such an appeal: that is, that they are so popular is their biggest strength - but that is the only point they have (and it is a legit and strong point).
Even still, and this is something I realized quite early in my life, whatever statistics or graph a social scientist uses to call a fact - is not a fact: it is a specific orientation with an interpretation of facts that is presented: this leads to the obvious question: why is it done in such a way, and why is it supposed to be my concern?
What I realize:
I am almost certainly not a "Rothbardian-Misean" in the way people of Mises.org are, and I think this post just declared that fact. While I obviously started with Mises.org type of reading for heterodox economics, even early on I noticed certain tensions in my thought (chiefly on the nature of applications of subjectivity, determinism, equilibrium, institutions: basically my inherent Aristotelianism and Lachmannia). EIther way, in total sum over the past 2 - 3 years, I have read "Mises.org" types less than other Austrians, Lachmannites, Post-Keynesians. Not that that means much, because I'm not a professional social scientist or philosopher - and I am still prone to forgetting and even misreading basic basic concepts some times (as I am not utilizing this info for anything other than long term personal amusment).
Other than Lachmann and Weber: in so much as I can gauge and grasp things I have an underdeveloped appreciation for: aspects of the "historical school, Keynes (gasp!), Hayek, Institutional Economics, Post Keynesianism, and certainly George Shackle.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
"why study PK price theory when Austrian and Neoclassical (once you realize that there's more to price formation than just supply and demand in a perfectly competitive market) price theory is clearly more sophisticated and internally coherent?"
Johnathan,
I didn't realize there was a uniquely PK approach to price theory. I would be interested in seeing how it differs. Any particular authors worth checking out?
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
@ Jon, out of interest have you read Hulsmann's the Structure of Production Reconsidered?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Try read this. Plauche, Barry Smith and Roderick Long are all Aristotelians who nonetheless find great affinity with Mises's works. Mises often speaks in Kantian terms but these can be readily translated into Aristotelian ideas.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Vive,
Yea, if you can get through it, Epistemics and Economics is an interesting book. I've read around a third of it, but I had to postpone it because it was taking too long to read. His sentences tend to be hard to follow. The subject matter is very technical, but you don't need complex language to communicate complex ideas. It's strange, because many of Shackle's articles are far easier to read. And, I say all of this as someone who has never had a problem reading anything by Keynes or Hayek, two people who are said to have written poorly.
On Hicks, if you like capital theory, I also suggest taking a look at one of his later books, Capital and Time. It's where he starts to develop what is now known as "Neo-Austrian" capital theory. The book is technical and mathematical, but it's not too bad (I haven't read it cover-to-cover, though).
I think R.H. Coase is a great starting place. I'm frustrated that I didn't turn to him sooner. His articles aren't too long, but they're so rich and insightful. There are some collections of Alchian's articles available: one published by Liberty Press ("Economic Forces at Work") and a two-volume set published by Liberty Fund. The latter is a bit more expensive, but it's more complete (I have both, and I think there are articles in the former that aren't in the latter). Douglass North is the New Institutionalist guru (influenced by Coase); Understanding the Process of Economic Change is a good primer, and it's recent enough so that it's based on North's knowledge after three or four decades of working on the topic. From there, you might be interested in going into North's other work (I actually haven't had much of an opportunity to do so, yet).
There's such a rich tradition out there, full of things you won't get if you stick to a narrow band of Austrian authors. I'm not saying that these Austrian authors aren't worth reading. I read them. But, there's so many other things to talk about. For example, I've recently become involved with Gary Gorton's work, because there are ideas in Gorton's work that aren't available anywhere else.
Post Keynesianism can be similar to Austrianism in that there's a group of them that like to stick to a narrow range of subjects, and they don't know the outside literature too well. So, in a sense, a movement from Austrian economics to PK economics isn't progressive. Like the Austrian tradition, there's a lot of very good stuff in the PK literature. But, sooner or later, you're going to have to branch out to the "mainstream," which isn't bad at all once you get to know it.
_______________
Student,
I honestly don't know to what extent PK price theory is completely different from Neoclassical price theory. I think it depends on the PK economist. A lot of PK price theory looks to be based on Joan Robinson's work on imperfect competition. As you know, all of this has been internalized by the mainstream -- how many weeks do people spend in an intermediate macro class learning perfect competition? One or two weeks, at most? Then there's a heavy emphasis on cost plus mark-up price theory, which is fine, but, in my opinion, missing much of the sophistication of better price formation models. There's also work on "flex" price vs. "fix" price, and I'm not totally sure how it differs from price stickiness. It's been a while since I've read on (Lachmann talks about it in The Market as an Economic Process, and he gets it from Hicks). Post Keynesian Price Theory is probably the best book on the topic.
Physiocrat,
I actually haven't had a chance to, yet. People tell me I should, though.
@Johnathan
Thanks for the suggestions
I haven't been able to find ANY Shackle 's articles online for free: is there a book that I should order where there is a decent collection of them? It would be kind of nice getting him in small portions to get acclimated with him, rather than jump into the manifesto - but as I said I found nothing, and so I am just kind of hoping Lachmann will prepare me for Shackle.
@Jon
Yeah I read a lot of the Smith and Long stuff: it's really good - I still go back to it time to time. Thanks for the link
I think the point Jonathan is trying to make is read broadly. Mises and Rothbard both did. I am in favour of the Austrian methodological approach, but like Jonathan said, the school tends to focus on certain issues, and there are other economists out there who, while not openly Austrian, can be considered 'fellow travellers' in their methodological approach or who contribute works which are complementary to the school's own.
Here's a direct link to a .zip file I uploaded with some of Shackle's article's: www.economicthought.net/shackle.zip.
"I didn't realize there was a uniquely PK approach to price theory. I would be interested in seeing how it differs. Any particular authors worth checking out?"
Wasn't that what the "Unlearning Economics" guy was promoting when he was here talking about marginalist price analysis a while ago? I know that he identifies himself as a post-Keynesian or something like it.
thanks for the zip Jonathan
Hey Vive...
The forum could use some moderating vive...
I'm not going to be around my computer much this week. Next week hopefully I can pick up some slack.
You can PM me some of the more annoying stuff - and I'll try to get to it ASAP, no promises though
I also recommend branching out in the other direction: R.H. Coase, J.M. Buchanan, A.A. Alchian, D.C. North, et cetera. Post Keynesianism is fun, but its usefulness, in my opinion, is limited. Thanks Johm I'll do that. DO you know a good starting point
I also recommend branching out in the other direction: R.H. Coase, J.M. Buchanan, A.A. Alchian, D.C. North, et cetera. Post Keynesianism is fun, but its usefulness, in my opinion, is limited.
Thanks Johm I'll do that. DO you know a good starting point
If you are one for buying books, the Liberty Fund has all of Buchanan's stuff in very nice editions (they sell nice Mises' books too - and the LvMI sells some of their books). Buchanan is great and pretty funny. Coase I am sort of familiar with. he is an odd type of apologist (market failures can be avoided when/if the state decides on property rights).
as well as post Keynes and Institutional econ?
The Post-Keynesians have their own academic journal. I've only read a few of their articles, but they are highly critical of the US (and world) monetary system.
Coase I am sort of familiar with. he is an odd type of apologist (market failures can be avoided when/if the state decides on property rights).
This is not Coase's argument. Coase's argument is that when transaction costs are high, externalities can't be solved through bargaining. Instead, those involved use the legal system. If the courts are to decide the distribution of property rights, Coase's argument is that they should be as well informed as possible. Coase is extremely skeptical that government can solve market failure. He argues that it's more probable that the government solution will have a higher net cost than the externality.