Anyone ever read anything by this guy? I read on his wikipedia that he was recognized for reaching Keynesian conclusions based on Austrian methodology. Apparently Ludwig Lachmann 'switched sides' so to speak after getting in with him. Any tidbits about him are appreciated, like if he had any debates or rebuttals to Austrians, I'm only curious.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/search?q=george+shackle
You may also want Lachmann's Article "From Mises to Shackle" - couldnt find it on the internet - hopefully someone here can send you a copy - its a great article
Here is also an amazing Lachmann lecture that touches on some of those points throughout the lecture (including some of Lachmann's political position's which seem classicaly liberal and market oriented)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdymByxT1Gg
That said Lachmann never "switched"; he was always an Austrian (and he seems to think Shackle was an Austrian as well. It seems we may be closer to certain strands of post Keynesianism than any other economic school out there.
"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
Also of interest:
http://mises.org/journals/aen/shackle.asp
What I find the most interesting:
AEN: If one takes that position, then a question could be asked of you: Given what you have said, what should economists do?
SHACKLE: I think they should give up giving advice, except on the most hesitant, the most broad grounds. I think they should introduce an ethical element, a more than ethical element. If a man is asked whether public expenditure should be cut or not, he perhaps should say, "Well, if we cut it, we shall cause a great deal of misery; if we don't cut it, we don't know what the consequences will be, but we can't at least have this misery on our consciences". This sort of argument is not an economic argument, it's an argument with one's conscience.
For very many years I've not believed in welfare economics as a scientific construction. My idea of welfare economics is that you choose an administrator, a man with a conscience himself, and broad sympathy, with a generous mind and then you say, "Leave it to him!" I don't believe you can do any better. Those economists who are going to give advice, or who are going to be advisors either to government or to business, should have their training based in economic history, and they only need as much theory as you find up to the second year textbook.
AEN: How would you respond to the rebuttal that, aren't you, in a sense, suggesting that economics become historicism. General theory may exist, at a very simple or fundamental level, e.g., the concept of marginal utility, but, beyond that, all we ever have is the historical record and what was historically relevant in the past may not be for our period.
SHACKLE: No, it may not. And it won't be. Well, it's a very nihilistic position and I realize that.
AEN: In a sense, what you're suggesting is that a very large proportion of what has been built up in over two hundred years in economics as a discipline needs to be set aside, that it throws into question the very notion of what most economists view as what is required of economics to be a science?
SHACKLE: I've been saying for almost forty years that economics isn't a science, and we ought not to call it a science.
The man's voice is hypnotizing.
I would pay money to listen to more lectures by that man.
Simply put - off that one lecture, I can tell he was one of the all time greatest lecturers' / teachers in the social sciences. It's a shame that aspect of his genius is essentially lost.