Here
lulz
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Best one imo pg 2 Here
fezwhatley: Here lulz
My head hurts after reading that.
This man has a following, why?
Mises was a radical empiricist!!
Those people obviously never read Mises.
They characterization is nothing but slander.
Reminds me, I met two Larouche followers in Berlin about two years ago who were handing out pamphlets. Not knowing what exactly they were promoting, I walked up and recommended looking into Ron Paul. They promised to research him.I guess I'm part of the Austrian conspiracy to confuse truth seekers now.
Fortunately the most crackpot conspiracy theorists mention 'Austrians' very rarely because in contrary to chicagoans such as Friedman, 'austrians' are very unaffiliated with the power structure.One other rare case when Mises and Hayek have been tried to be linked to the general "conspiracy theory" is a book 'The World Order' written by a legendary anti-FED antisemite Eustace Mullins. One pro-Ron Paul monetary crank actually linked to this book and claimed that it shows how horrible the 'austrians' are. But just read these parts and you'll recognize how horrible the alleged 'research' about the Austrian school in this book actually is.
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=WorldOrder
"Milton Friedman became the protege of Arthur Burns at Rutgers and Columbia. Their economic principles stemmed from the "Viennese School" founded by Karl Menger and Eugen von Bauwerk... Von Mises’ pupils, Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman...[Friedman] and his consort, Murray Rothbard, dominate a closely interlocked network of “hard money” "conservative" groups... Milton Friedman and his protege Murray Rothbard...The National Review is considered the most influential CIA publication. It consistently puffs Jean Kirkpatrick, Milton Friedman, and other cognoscenti of the intelligence community and the Viennese School of Economics."After these easily noticeable errors only one thought can come into your mind: "does this Eustace Mullins no one thing about the subject he is writing about?"To Mullins' defence I might add that his book on the Federal Reserve contains at least some valuable original research.
Thank you Aragon. You mention this attempt to try to link the Viennese School with the National Review. That statement is rather amazing given the numerous conflicts that existed between Rothbard and the National Review. In his article, National Review Isn't Right, Daniel McCarthy documents the gigantic difference between libertarianism in the Rothbardian-Misesian tradition and what the National Review does. They are not the same. Was there ever a time when National Review was conservative? Certainly conservatives were once published in its pages, especially in the early years when National Review was seeking to establish itself as the voice of the American Right and American conservatives were in desperate need of a journal. But once National Review had counterfeited its credentials it soon began to purge anyone on the Right who disagreed with its line, from the John Birch Society to Murray Rothbard, and later Joseph Sobran.
From the beginning, however, National Review was chiefly concerned with foreign policy, and espoused a militarism thoroughly unlike anything that had previously existed on the American Right. Over time the magazine's positions on other issues have changed, but where war and the warfare State were concerned it remained constant. It has tolerated dissent from its line elsewhere, but when it comes to war National Review likes to excommunicate the perceived heretics; that's what it did with Murray Rothbard during Vietnam, and it's what the magazine is trying to do now to anti-war conservatives.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy47.html
Rothbard certainly was not a fan of imperialist wars. Neither was Mises. The constant theme in their writing was that war destroys the division of labor and makes everybody poorer. So it is really a wild accusation to try to link them to imperialists.
From memory, I believe it was Hans-Hermann Hoppe who wrote somewhere that the Chicago school was actually a leftist-radical school of economics at least in its earlier days. Garrison in his book Time and Money makes a big distinction between labor-based macroeconomics, capital-based macroeconomics (Hayekian model with the triangles), and the monetarist models. So they are not the same and shouldn't be lumped together like this. Rothbard himself points out a number of differences between his position and that of Friedman. The link is: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html
Rothbard writes:
Extreme trust-busting, egalitarianism, and Keynesianism: the Chicago School contained within itself much of the New Deal program, and, hence, its status within the economics profession of the early 1930s as a leftish fringe. And while Friedman has modified and softened Simons’s hard-nosed stance, he is still, in essence, Simons redivivus; he only appears to be a free-marketeer because the remainder of the profession has shifted radically leftward and stateward in the meanwhile.
And, in some ways, Friedman has added unfortunate statist elements that were not even present in the older Chicago School.
Rothbard also mentions something else...the monetary theories of the Chicago School are certainly not Misesian. There is no logical reason to try to associate the Austrian school with the Chicago school.
In keeping with this outlook, Irving Fisher wrote a famous article in 1923, "The Business Cycle Largely a ‘Dance of the Dollar’ " – recently cited favorably by Friedman – which set the model for the Chicagoite "purely monetary" theory of the business cycle. In this simplistic view, the business cycle is supposed to be merely a "dance," in other words, an essentially random and causally unconnected series of ups and downs in the "price level." The business cycle, in short, is random and needless variations in the aggregate level of prices. Therefore, since the free market gives rise to this random "dance," the cure for the business cycle is for the government to take measures to stabilize the price level, to keep that level constant. This became the aim of the Chicago School of the 1930s, and remains Milton Friedman’s goal as well.
The red flag here is that Rothbard mentions Irving Fisher. If you look up Irving Fisher in Glossary to Human Action, you find that he appears in the section on the "equation of exchange." And the first criticism mentioned is that the "equation of exchange" is a "holistic" concept. No Austrian will advance a case for "holistic" concepts. In this example the "price level" is the "holistic" concept. And Rothbard himself attacks this idea of "price stabilization" in his book America's Great Depression. It is in chapter 6 called: "Theory and Inflation: Economists and the Lure of a Stable Price Level."
I like how the article by Meza tries to link Mises to the SS... he fled from the damn Nazis because he was Jewish! In the very next breath, he attempts to connect him to the Rothschilds which leaves me wondering how it's relevant. And wouldn't a school that gets support from anti-semites be loathe to get support from Jews and vice-versa??
Clayton -