How did you come to subscribe to AE?

By using my brain and refusing to take garbage seriously.

I came to AE via Ron Paul.

Jon Irenicus:

By using my brain and refusing to take garbage seriously.

I bet you are a lot of fun at parties. 

 

HA! Well put!

My interest in transhumanism and Extropy led me to Rand, which led me to Mises and Rothbard.

For me it was my studies in complexity and emergence, and AI theory that led me to the Austrian School (and Rand as well). 

Ron Paul.

I'd never heard those ideas formulated before seeing Ron Paul, and they just clicked with me instantly. The book 'Market for Liberty' lead me to mises.org where I found this incredible wealth of information, and I've been devouring it ever since.

I bet you are a lot of fun at parties.

Fun is anti-reason.

(I probably am though)

 

Tyler:

I've already posted 2 other questions and I thank you for the response to them. You're giving me lots of great things for my paper!

 

How did you come to subscribe to Austrian Economics?

I started getting into it when someone told me to watch the Zeitgeist video and I became aware of how the Federal Reserve operated...and here I am today!

 

-Tyler Jewell

My subscription was gradual, yet unintentional.  

RP mentioned it a few times, & in the beginning I was indifferent to economics as a whole, mainly because I never could understand what the hell it all meant (aside from general concepts like supply & demand, but then only well on a micro level), & yet I considered myself reasonably intelligent, so the paradox further stymied me.  

It wasn't until I actually consulted wikipedia on economics while @ work that I begun to understand some important things:

1.) There was more than one school of economics (check)

2.) Economists don't even understand Economics half the time (check)

3.) Keysnesian Economics was never supposed to make sense in the first place (check)

It gradually clicked when I read up on the AE specific entry, and I realized I understood AE & the STV far more than I did with Keynesian Econ & the LTV (Labor Theory of Value), probably because it made far more sense to me, & without using overtly complicated jargon & graphs (AE doesn't need either, but I'm sure in some way they might help). 

AE was also more established (older than Keyenesian Theory), did not generalize vauge fantasies about previous events (such as The Great Depression), had a certain apolitical (insofar as not especially siding with either two major parties, at least when the Old Right died) bent to it, & did not force me memorize absurd mathmatical formulas that went over my head anyways because I found no use in anything beyond basic algebra (one of my aims is/was to be a writer, so consumer math in high school pretty much did it for me). 

AE was also not inherently collectivist, unlikes Keyenesian Econ, & while AE greatly sides with the individual, I do not see it explictly favoring the atomized individual over society or other individuals at all (which is what I would imagine many AE detrators would whine & complain about on their newspaper "blogs"). 

Same with me.

Came across http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Peter Schiff

I came to AE by reading economics (smith,cantillon, bastiat, and turgot specifically) and thomistic theology.  It is interesting to note how the methods of thomism are equal to the methods of AE.  AE is also a more systematic and complete rendering of old classical economics and deserves to be truly called neoclassical.

Nitroadict:

I realized I understood AE & the STV far more than I did with Keynesian Econ & the LTV (Labor Theory of Value)

This was a big turning point for me.  One of the first things I did at Mises.org was stumble on a Rothbard presentation MP3, and he was explaining the STV vs. the LTV.  And it just made sense.  Like a lot of what Ron Paul said, just made sense.  I probably listened to that MP3 three or four times.

And I am one of the least well read and educated people on this forum, but the practical nature of AE makes it so easy for people to learn.  It's very attractive because (I think I might be paraphrasing Lew Rockwell or Tom Woods here), AE has the ability to explain the world in a simple logical manner and its truth telling power is very attractive.

And I suppose that is what happened to me.  So much of my doublethink and confusion just dissolved once I started seeing things as they were, not as I was told to see them.  I can honestly say that AE has improved my life, by empowering me through an epistemological approach to understand Human Action (praxeology).

It is interesting to note how the methods of thomism are equal to the methods of AE.

Insofar as it is an extension of Aristotelianism, right? There is a lot of overlap then, I agree.

By reading Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, and seeing my worldview on how money, banks, and credit works do a 180.  This was after studying a lot of Keynesian and Monetarist crap in undergrad, and after years (wasted) reading the Wall Street Journal, Businessweek, the Economist, and other supposedly informed (about economics, at least) business publications.

Then it was further reading in Austrian economics and Mises.org that made me realize many other liberal views I held were wrong.

But it was a pretty fast journey after realizing the extraordinary chains placed on us by fractional reserve and central banking.