General

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

myhumangetsme — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:45:15 GMT

Conservative-Libertarian:
Thomas Sowell is pretty much an Austrian who doesn't delve into money and banking that much.

I don't think Sowell is even close to being an Austrian, and he probably would never identify as one either. His economics writings are decidedly neo-classicist in the Chicago tradition (big surprise). That doesn't mean Sowell isn't worth reading; the bulk of his writing is nothing short of essential for any economist to read. But an Austrian he's not.

Williams is far closer to being considered an Austrian than Sowell; he has openly admitted his admiration for Mises (although he's more of a Hayekian in practice) and was an early driving force of the economics department at GMU, which is the Austrian home away from Auburn.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Conservative-Libertarian — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:04:37 GMT

Thomas Sowell is pretty much an Austrian who doesn't delve into money and banking that much. He doesn't support a central bank and prefers a gold standard, but I believe he would agree with his mentor Friedman on the rate of monetary expansion.

Anything by him is great. And his colleague, Walter E. Williams, who focuses even less on monetary matters than Sowell but has espoused a clear cut Austrian view in that area.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:14:47 GMT

Well history is experienced so it is empirical but I would not use the word "facts." I mean there are dates which are factual but that is middle-school level history. When you get up into the philosophy of history and the interpretation of it, it is not "facts" persay. I think there can be truth in history but like I said I would not use the word facts.

But then again what is the difference between truth and facts? Hmm maybe I just have a personal distaste for the usage of the word when it comes to history. I mean really history is the debating of opinions regarding the "why" of human action. Everyone has a bias as to why an event happened, but that does not preclude truth from being discovered. I mean I am not a post-modernist who thinks that history is unknowable or unrelatable therefore causing there to be no truth but I do not think that there is a monocausal reason for a specific event.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Vanitas Nomen — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:58:28 GMT

@ Andrew Cain

You say:

"History is not a science by any means. It is not even a "social science."

I am curious, I thought history was a science inasmuch as it deals with the empirical facts of history - - but this is not to say that it is a natural science, but merely that it does deal with facts as they are.

Learn me my man, if you have the spare time.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:55:24 GMT

"Oh no? What was he?"

a communitarian socialist.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

John James — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:53:49 GMT

Scott Angell:
BTW -- economics isn't science.

John James:
O Rly? Do tell us what economics actually is, oh wise scientist.

Scott Angell:
Yes, economics is surely 'a science.'

So, the ideas of these other sciences are quite mature and have been relatively well developed, in some cases for a very long time. You can read a two-hundred year old book on economics or a two thousand year old book on philosophy, and the ideas you will find there are still relevant. It is therefore really kind of stupid to compare them with a silly analogy saying 'ergo, old economics books are irrelevant.' [...] There is no cause or reason to be disdainful of old thoughts, just because they are old.

Please show us where anyone here even suggested that.

This is a very childish attitude.

I agree. Not actually reading what someone writes, and then beating a straw man is quite childish. Pretty effectless too. Unless you count making a fool of yourself.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Fool on the Hill — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:50:51 GMT

Bukharin was not a Marxian.

Oh no? What was he?

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:26:15 GMT

" You can read a two-hundred year old book on economics or a two thousand year old book on philosophy, and the ideas you will find there are still relevant. It is therefore really kind of stupid to compare them with a silly analogy saying 'ergo, old economics books are irrelevant.'"

Ah no they are not. Philosophy leads itself a little better in this instance since many philosophers get a woody from the classics which is understandable. However, if you go back centuries, economics was not the same as we think of it today.

Also you talked of history. History is my field. History is not a science by any means. It is not even a "social science." It is apart of the humanities. It did not become a formalized profession until the late 19th century and it is not an "armchair" profession. You cannot sit and pontificate about the social history of temperance advocates in early republic America. The "tools" are out in the world, not in your mind. There is personal basis toward sources, which is something I personally think historians should relish in, which is not to be in the world of economics.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Scott Angell — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:47:16 GMT

Yes, economics is surely 'a science.' So is sociology, history, and many other subjects which people do not usually refer to as science simply using the word in its common usage. Generally, when people refer to 'science,' they mean the physical sciences.

The neat thing about subjects like economics, philosophy, math and other such 'sciences' is that pretty much all the tools needed to investigate them in a thorough manner have always been around -- which is not true for the physical sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology. There is simply nothing in the investigation of economics to compare to nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy or the Hubble space telescope.

So, the ideas of these other sciences are quite mature and have been relatively well developed, in some cases for a very long time. You can read a two-hundred year old book on economics or a two thousand year old book on philosophy, and the ideas you will find there are still relevant. It is therefore really kind of stupid to compare them with a silly analogy saying 'ergo, old economics books are irrelevant.' Even older writings in the physical sciences are useful to modern scientists, though not nearly to the same degree. There is no cause or reason to be disdainful of old thoughts, just because they are old. There is still much to learn from them, and only very modern people have decided that nobody before their own generation knew anything worth investigating. This is a very childish attitude.

If you ever decide to read some 'old books,' you will find that different ages show different 'attitudes.' Austrian economics is very much a 19th century 'science' in that aspect -- and rightly so, in my opinion. There was more sense about such things in those times.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:39:47 GMT

Bukharin was not a Marxian.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Fool on the Hill — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:34:34 GMT

Here is my current reading list. My goal is to do about four books from each school (titles already read in bold):

Austrian

Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson
Mises: Human Action
Bohm-Bawerk: Karl Marx and the Close of His System
Hayek: Prices and Production (or maybe something by Lachmann instead)

Classical

Smith: The Wealth of Nations
Ricardo: Principles of Political Economy
? (Malthus? Say?)

Keynesian

Keynes: The General Theory
Keen: Debunking Economics
Kalecki: Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations
Robinson: The Accumulation of Capital

Marxian

Marx: Capital (currently reading Vol. 3)
Marx: Grundrisse
Bukharin: Economic Theory of the Leisure Class
Mattick: Marx and Keynes

Neoclassical

Walras: Elements of Pure Economics
Marshall: Principles of Economics
Samuelson: Foundations of Economic Analysis
Friedman: A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960

Other

Schumpeter: ?
Veblen: Theory of the Leisure Class
Sraffa: Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities
Proudhon: The Philosophy of Poverty
George: Progress and Poverty
Something from behavioral economics?

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:28:09 GMT

This is pure gibberish but I guess it would be something that seeks non-truth. I do not know though. It seems so flippant that it is not meant to be taken seriously in which case, why should it be used as a serious example.

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Wheylous — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:24:37 GMT

The Time Cube

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:16:11 GMT

Well I can see problems with that definition because it is so ambiguous. I mean is anyone out there specifically looking for non-truth?

Re: What are the non-Austrian economics texts of importance?

Wheylous — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:10:08 GMT

Eventually it becomes pointless. As soon as we realize economics is the search for truth in how human beings economize scarce resources, the rest is bunk. It doesn't matter whether it's science or not - it's the search for truth.

I would still argue that it's science ;)