To put it bluntly, what are the major differences between the two and whats the deal between the feuding?
I'll admit, as far as I know I have not read any explicit "Masonomics" books, but my understanding of the difference is that George Mason tends to stress Hayek more along with more "mainstream" (hopefully I'm not angering anyone with that) monetary theories and methdological approaches. They also seem to cite Mises as supporting their views (FRB etc) while downplaying Rothbard. Mises Institute is more Rothbard (who they say is more in tune with Mises) and the "traditional" Austrian approach. Am I missing any other significant distinguishes?
So whats the drama between them all? Judging by various posts on the internet they appear to have different academic ideas and some of their arguments can get a little personal at times.
Finally, what happened to Gene Callahan? I remember reading his book along time ago and loved it, and now I hear he isn't an Austrian anymore (although he frequents over at Coordination Problem and generally bashes Rothbard). Then I read on a post here he got mad over his book deal with the MI, but I don't know if this is trash talking or not.
And for a bonus question, if you had to pick a "side", which do you prefer? Honest.
For me, Mises Institute.
Dr Selgin, unfortunately I can't even access that article using my institution's Athens login. I seriously think Austrians/fellow travellers outside the MI would do themselves a real favour by going open source.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Selgin:I also think this view consistent with Mises' stand--read his Theory and History for more.
No. Mises clearly makes the fine distinction between economic theory and economic history in Theory and History, as well as Human Action.
But it is not a discovery of Mises that historical facts are inappropriate in logical deductive reasoning. I am quite surprised that this is even contested here.
Selgin:The "Praxeology" DD5 seems to believe in is a version that would make most useful economics impossible:
It indeed makes most economic theories useless. I'm sorry this is an inconvenient for you and many others.
But this remark is even more odd given that most of modern Misesian economic theory is grounded on praxeology. And much more progress since Mises is also based on praxeology. I hardly consider such theories as useless. In fact, I would say they offer the only useful set of theories out there.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, instead, I'm saying that is different than the 100-percenter's definition, which makes the debate between you guys futile. After all, the debate isn't about who's got the correct definiton.
I don't think so. Definitions are critical to any argument, however, definitions cannot simply be invented and reinvented if they are to be useful. And this is the core of the problem with the free bankers. A definition that is too loosely defined or that contradicts itself is useless. (Like available anytime, pending supply,..etc, etc....)
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Fractional reserve banking is unethical, which suggests that the bank is committing fraud.
Jonathan,
The argument that the "bank is committing fraud" is not an ethical argument. No more then making the argument that government is coercion and compulsion. An ethical argument would pass judgment on such action. It is true that the person making the argument for fraud can also pass judgment, however, this does not mean that the argument itself is based on such ethical considerations.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I just need to start thinking of ideas that I can actually put into motion.
Find something people want, and then find a way to supply it. It is as simple as that.
Selgin:the real debate is about whether or not it is legally legitimate
Legally legitimate is meaningless George. It is not legally legitimate to smoke pot. It is not legally legitimate to marry someone of the same sex in some jurisdictions, and in others you can be stoned to death for it.
No offense, but when people start talking about legal and legitimate, I roll my eyes back into my head. It's legally legitimate for Truman to nuke two cities. The guy with the biggest club decides what is legal and what is legitimate, and good serfs pretend the system is an adequate substitute for morality and conscience. "Legal and legitimate" almost sounds scientific, objective, value free. What rubbish.
Selgin:and economically desirable
I don't believe you can determine this without abandoning subjectivism. All utilitarian arguments raise the question, "Utility for whom?"
BlackNumero, See Selgin's comment here.
BlackNumero,
See Selgin's comment here.
Thanks for the post, but it still doesn't (or maybe does if that is all to it) answer my question. Is all that Selgin classifies as dogmatic due to FRB quarrels, or other issues as well? He mentions that not everyone at the MI is bad, but I just want to know if all his "bad" experiences deal exclusively with FRB related topics.
As for the question you posted on your blog (openess versus Mises-Rothbard), I'd go with openess. I think most Austrians would go with openess and new scientific development, as Rothbard would, but it all depends on how you go about it. Rothbard's MES was full of references to non-Austrian/Mises works Rothbard applied to his book, and he (like you said) critiqued Mises on a number of issues. But not all developments in science are necessarily "progress", modern economics has "progressed" in the past 50 years but not in a good way. Opening yourself up to new ideas is a great way to learn things and improve one's knowledge/theories, but learning other ideas and applying them to theories does not always constitute improvement in a field.
liberty student: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I just need to start thinking of ideas that I can actually put into motion. Find something people want, and then find a way to supply it. It is as simple as that.
Just make sure it's at a profit, unless you plan to sell at a loss, and make up it in volume.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: Selgin: "So you're defining "deposit" differently than the 100-percenters." Actually Daniel I'm giving the term the meaning it has taken on in the context of banking since the earliest days of FR banking in England. On this see my SSRN working paper, "Those Dishonest Goldsmiths" and sources cited therein. Also, in case he's not among them, see H.D. Macleod's Theory and History of Banking which goes into the very issue in painstaking detail. I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, instead, I'm saying that is different than the 100-percenter's definition, which makes the debate between you guys futile. After all, the debate isn't about who's got the correct definiton.
Selgin: "So you're defining "deposit" differently than the 100-percenters." Actually Daniel I'm giving the term the meaning it has taken on in the context of banking since the earliest days of FR banking in England. On this see my SSRN working paper, "Those Dishonest Goldsmiths" and sources cited therein. Also, in case he's not among them, see H.D. Macleod's Theory and History of Banking which goes into the very issue in painstaking detail.
"So you're defining "deposit" differently than the 100-percenters." Actually Daniel I'm giving the term the meaning it has taken on in the context of banking since the earliest days of FR banking in England. On this see my SSRN working paper, "Those Dishonest Goldsmiths" and sources cited therein. Also, in case he's not among them, see H.D. Macleod's Theory and History of Banking which goes into the very issue in painstaking detail.
I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, instead, I'm saying that is different than the 100-percenter's definition, which makes the debate between you guys futile. After all, the debate isn't about who's got the correct definiton.
Wow, great catch! The timing is impeccable, as we were just discussing this exact thing in another thread. Selgin's reply to you seems like a total *whoosh*. EDIT: Actually not a total woosh, but a partial one. He gets that there is a problem with semantics, but instead of trying to sort out the definitions so that the debate can actually begin, he seems to instead conclude that "semantics" should be avoided (including the sorting out of definitions!). Much more on Selgin's comment here, because I found it a fascinating specimen (though I may mostly agree with his position).
Why anarchy fails
AJ, your post baffles me. I don't claim that definitions and semantics are irrelevant; and my statement clearly shows that I favor a particular understanding of the meaning of a bank "deposit." Generally, I think peoiple ougfht to use words to mean what everyone uses them to mean, and not what they believe they ought to mean. The problem is that the 100-percenters think you can make a substantive case for whether FRB should be banned by playing etymological games. Again, read the Yeager piece for a detailed treatment of this point. (I'm sorry it isn't open source, by the way.)
Relax, liberty student: I only meant to say that the debate is about whether FRB involves fraud or theft, or causes cycles or inflation--all claims made by its critics! I used "legally legitimate" for fraud and theft' "economically desitrable" for cycles and inflation and such. What terms would you use to refer generally to these groups of issues?
Selgin:Relax, liberty student: I only meant to say that the debate is about whether FRB involves fraud or theft, or causes cycles or inflation--all claims made by its critics!
Ok.
Selgin:I used "legally legitimate" for fraud and theft' "economically desitrable" for cycles and inflation and such.
Economically desirable is value laden. Cycles and inflation benefit someone in the short run. The question is, cui bono wrt FRB. Surely you're not going to argue that FRB is completely neutral.
Selgin:What terms would you use to refer generally to these groups of issues?
The terms you substituted for are far superior. The terms you used implied other things you didn't necessarily mean. That's why getting terminology right matters, because I want to understand you. You're obviously a really intelligent guy and an expert on money, I've followed most of your presentations and short form work.
And that said, I want to thank you for participating here, even if it seems contentious at times. Unfortunately, the LvMI main scholars (besides Kinsella) tend to ignore this community, and we're privileged to have you discussing with us on what are fairly high level topics for laymen.
liberty:there's nothing wrong with "value laden" concepts in policy discussions. Of course one must distinguish normative from positive propositions; but the 100-percent versus FRB debate is in fact about both.
George, policy (statute) is based in authority, which again is the club. You're welcome to discuss the latest delusions of Christina Romer or Ben Bernanke, you might find it fascinating and a good use of your time. That's not the discussion.
There seems to be significant goal post shifting going on. We're not having a policy discussion when we talk about FRB. We're trying to nail down terms, and then discuss facts. Who has the club, and what arbitrary rules they make without a market process is completely irrelevant and outside the scope of the discussion, not just here, but probably with the 100%ers at large.
I have to run errands, but I am curious about one thing you didn't touch. Is FRB neutral?
The equating of "policy" with interventionism (which is what I assume you mean by "statute") is novel in an unhelpful way. So far as I (and I think most people) are concerned, "We should abolish the Fed" is a "policy" recommendation.
As for FRB being "neutral," do you mean neutral w.r.t prices or neutral in the sense of "non-normative"? If the latter, then of course it depends on the context. The statement "FRB is desirable" is of course predicated on certain values; the statement "Scotland had a FRB" isn't.