I am a beginner and I want to read some seminal works of Austrian School. It seems that Human Action and MES are the most comprehensive seminal woks of Austrian School. Some of my friends suggest me to read Wealth of Nations, although it is not Austrian. So which book do you suggest me to read for basic and comprehensive understanding of real Economics?
ps, I have read Meltdown, The Case Against the Fed, What Has Government Done to Our Money, Crash Proof for Austrian Economics. Other books I have finished are The Ascent of Money and The Return of Depression Economics. I am currently reading The Bankers who Broke the World, An Economic History of China (in Chinese) and A Monetary History of the United States. Now I think it is the time to read a real thick work~~
I appreciate any helpful suggestion.
Erickk:It seems that Human Action is more like a book for the advanced economic readers
Ironically, Human Action is far less advanced than MES. Human Action is only for advanced readers in the sense that it doesn't prove every single possible implication of the action axiom. Sometimes it states implications, and proceeds onward. Rothbard proves every implication from the ground up, and each time shows why the one currently being discussed is in line with previous implications so you are constantly reminded of how you got to where you are right now, rather than be told "this is how it is." MES is far more advanced in the sense that it covers more material (Power and Market, Theory of Production), and it doesn't include flaws previously taken for granted in the Austrian tradition.
Erickk:but can you show me an example how difficult Human Action is?
It's not difficult at all, I swear. It's not even 1000 pages, whereas MES is 1500. It can be misunderstood as "advanced" in the sense covered above, but it isn't difficult at all.
Erickk:Also, I do not know what you guys think of Rothbard, but I think he is a little bit too radical
If you read MES from beginning to end, you'll understand his point of view. In fact, as he points out the implications of the action axiom, if you believe the premises, then you will necessarily arrive at the same conclusion. There is nothing taken for granted, everything is proved piece by piece, constantly taking a look back to make sure al the pieces fit together. He doesn't just state what's been previously believed, which is why he differs on a few points from previous Austrian Economists -- indeed, which is why is so radical. Once you understand the whole picture instead of just believing what you are told because it makes more sense than everything else, you will be radical too. This is why Mises was a utilitarian and wrote Human Action -- because it was "the best alternative", whereas Rothbard was a hardcore natural rights anarcho-capitalist and wrote Man, Economy, and State, and Power and Market -- because it conformed to justice, it was the only consistent position.
Erickk:Ok, so if Human Action is really that hard to understand, I ll go for MES, thanks again
It's not hard to understand, but its not as accurate, as comprehensive, or as consistent as MES, and it doesn't include the important knowledge of Power and Market or the necessary Theory of Production. MES is "a book for the laymen" ONLY because Rothbard is such a genius and incredibly clear writer that laymen can comprehend its immense complexity with ease.
Ok, thank you a bunch Rothbardian, guess I m goin for MES.
ok, thanks Rothbardian, I m goin for MES
No problem man. I too am going through MES with it's study guide. I am considering it like a college course, by taking lots of notes and writing a short essay on each chapter as I finish them -- then comparing my essays with the chapter summaries from the study guide.
"Never give up, never surrender!" -- Pineapple Express
It's a stupid question asking which is "better", it's similar to asking whether to read Menger's Principles of Economics or Bohm-Bawerk's Capital and Interest, Bohm-Bawerk and Rothbard both had the advantage of coming after Menger and Mises respectively, and have therefore had the priviledge of using their insights and extending them. As such, neither Bohm-Bawerk nor Rothbard was a better economists simply because their works are more advanced and "correct", they both used the method pioneered by their predecessor. Bohm-Bawerk used Menger's exposition of price formation in individual markets to explain "macro" phenomena such as capital and interest, Rothbard used Mises' praxeological method and extended it. Moreover, both the books of Rothbard and Bohm-Bawerk are more specific, whereas the Principles of Economics and Human Action are more general.
To put it in neoclassical terms: the two are complimentary goods, not substitute goods.
To say Rothbard was a better economist because MES is more advanced in terms of its account of economic phenomena than HA is silly, Rothbard had the luxury of using the two strands of Bohm-Bawerks capital theory, the PTP theory of interest of Mises and the structure of production theory of Hayek and Wicksell (that Mises eschewed). Whereas Mises had to develop the entirety of praxeological science by himself, Rothbard used insights of numerous Austrians and integrated them, but did not contribute much of his own analysis, save for his monopoly theory which was only an extension of Misesian thought where it had been unsufficiently subjectivist.
So no, Rothbard was not half the economist Mises was, and I think of many occasions he let his political beliefs get in the way of his economics (such as his discussion of self ownership), people need to realise MES and HA are treatises on economics and not discussions of ethics, so stop the libertarian bullshit.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: So no, Rothbard was not half the economist Mises was, and I think of many occasions he let his political beliefs get in the way of his economics (such as his discussion of self ownership), people need to realise MES and HA are treatises on economics and not discussions of ethics, so stop the libertarian bullshit.
There is one thing I m worried about which is whether MES does have many political beliefs which might get in way of my understanding of Economics.
Erickk:There is one thing I m worried about which is whether MES does have many political beliefs which might get in way of my understanding of Economics.
No. There are no beliefs in the book. It is an economic book, and everything in it is proved through implications of axioms (mostly, the action axiom). If there are beliefs, it is in the third -- and perhaps most powerful -- volume Power and Market, but these points are still factual implications drawn from economic laws.
Once you start reading it you will see. Rothbard did not ruin his greatest work by injecting opinion into his treatise on economics. If there are beliefs, again, they are in Human Action, as points are sometimes presented without being proved.
GilesStratton:Rothbard used Mises' praxeological method and extended it.
Yes.
GilesStratton:To say Rothbard was a better economist because MES is more advanced in terms of its account of economic phenomena than HA is silly
The point is not who is a better economist. The point is which book is better for learning economics. MES doesn't have the mistakes of Mises, and he adds his Theory of Production. MES was even designed as a textbook. You can learn economics a thousand times better and more clearly from MES. Further, the economics you will be learning won't use any opinion, while even GilesStratton admits that Mises monopoly theory was "unsufficiently subjectivist". Unsufficiently subjectivist is a politically correct term for "not fact."
MES is an extraordinary textbook on economics. As already stated, it takes all the greatest works of his predessecors, fixes them here and there, polishes the rest, and adds the massively important Theory of Production. You don't have to worry about opinion (unsufficiently subjectivist) or any mistakes made by being the pioneer of praxeology. Rothbard loved and reveered Mises. MES is a better textbook on economics.