Austrians often say that mainstream economists are systematically wrong (and corrupt, but lets leave that out of the question for now) my question to you is quite simple. Research institutes aren't profit maximisers in the narrow sense. On the other hand, firms are usually modelled as such, now, why don't firms employ Austrian economists? Presumably if Austrians have correct analysis more often than other economists firms would profit from employing them. So why don't they?
He's almost as generous in making broad, sweeping (baseless) assertions as you are. ;)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
All they know is the cookie cutter business model they were taught. AE, at least in the past, was not well advertised, but well disparaged. I've seen this same stupidity manifest in other ways. Like software companies complaining en masse that they are going under due to file sharing. You are supposed to think of these things before you start, not after you've lost money.
But even successful firms don't employ Austrian economists. It looks to me like you're suggesting that entrepreneurs are systematically misguided and have been for a long time because entrepreneurs are consistently finding profit opportunities that "aren't well advertised".
Firms don't typically hire Austrian-School economists because most people in business either don't believe, or don't want to believe, that Austrian-School economists are right more often than other economists.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
But even successful firms don't employ Austrian economists.
Whether they are successful overall is irrelevent.
It looks to me like you're suggesting that entrepreneurs are systematically misguided and have been for a long time because entrepreneurs are consistently finding profit opportunities that "aren't well advertised".
I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
Go argue with your boss that the phd from harvard should be fired and one from this place called the ludwig von mises institute is better.
It is argument from incredulity. The assumption is that everyone will always instantly choose the most profitable action.
Man, I really like the way this new kid thinks.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Presumably I wouldn't need to convince my boss of anything if he saw profit in employing Austrians then he would do so. I'm not arguing that they would exploit such profit opportunities instantly, but Austrians have defined themselves apart from the mainstream for, what, thirty odd years now? Even if no Austrians are employed for ideological reasons, why are mainstream economics employed? Presumably if econ PhDs are being paid hundreds of thousands a year (and they are) then they must be bringing something to the firm.
Probably because much of their training consists in statistical methods that are useful regardless of the economic theory attached to them, and it isn't their theoretical background they are hired for but market analysis of trends as established via statistical techniques?
Presumably if econ PhDs are being paid hundreds of thousands a year (and they are) then they must be bringing something to the firm.
Feel free to prove that they are.
Most people do not know the difference between financial statistics and economics. The mainstream of economics does a lot to cause that conflation. The reasoning is: economics has numbers and graphs. Finance has numbers and graphs. What is the difference?
The mainstream of economics does a lot to cause that conflation. The reasoning is: economics has numbers and graphs. Finance has numbers and graphs. What is the difference?
Most schools have entirely different departments for finance and economics (with the former earning considerably more). Moreover the two have separate journals, PhD programmes and meetings. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that they get confused, of course, there's work on the border of macro and finance currently being done, but that's a little different to getting them completely confused.
I just mailed you my father's pay check, enjoy.
Prove that they "bring something in", not that they get paid. It's a rhetorical challenge because it is impossible to prove even if true. But you believe it nonetheless.
I didn't say that finance and economics are considered entirely the same by everyone. There is a lot of accidental overlap between the statistical models used in businesses and the models used in economics because they don't conceive of a clear distinction between the fields.
Sorry? I can assure you that my father really does get paid what's written on his pay check. Of course it's possible to know what the going rate is for an academic economist, just look at what firms are willing to offer them. Even for those not from a great grad school, firms are willing to shell out somewhere in the hundreds of thousands p.a.
There is a lot of accidental overlap between the statistical models used in businesses and the models used in economics because they don't conceive of a clear distinction between the fields.
Well, financial econometrics is a different from regular economics that uses completely different tools.
I can assure you that my father really does get paid what's written on his pay check.
You said that they must bring something to the firm. I'm not talking about their wages.
The pertinent point is that financial econometrics is not what Austrians would call economics. Professional Austrian economists know that stuff. But they would not be doing it in the name of AE.