General

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

John James — Fri, 27 May 2011 07:22:40 GMT

Andrew Cain:
Well going off your comment to Matticus, "So what?," I don't think you have the proper definition of a charity so I am skeptical about you thinking Mises is a "chartity."

Quite the opposite...

"The Mises Institute is a 501(c)(3)" [1],

"Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations." - IRS.gov/charities/charitable

"All 501(c)(3) organizations are further categorized as one of five types under IRC 509(a):" [2][3]

Public charities: 509(a)(1), 509(a)(2), 509(a)(3), 509(a)(4)
Private Foundations: All 501(c)(3) organizations that don't qualify as public charities.

In terms of legal definitions—which is the logical forum to use, as we're talking about categorizing a legal entity—the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a public charity. It is Matticus (and evidently you) who don't "have the proper defition of a charity".

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

Andrew Cain — Fri, 27 May 2011 00:51:44 GMT

"October 1982."

Well going off your comment to Matticus, "So what?," I don't think you have the proper definition of a charity so I am skeptical about you thinking Mises is a "chartity."

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Mon, 23 May 2011 03:02:11 GMT

Their curriculum doesn't fit the typical mold, but the closest thing is a double major in philosophy and theology with a quintuple minor in math, science, history, Latin, and literature.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

Joseph F — Mon, 23 May 2011 02:10:44 GMT

Jeez, man. I asked a simple question that implied a simple answer. I am not sure what any of that other stuff has to do with my question, therefor I ignored it (tl;dr).

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:35:38 GMT

There are no majors or electives at Thomas Aquinas College. The reason I wrote the bit about knowledge and my year there were because they read lots of the works of Aristotle, whose writings, by the way, are a big part of the basis of the Austrian school. They study classics there, and though I don't agree with everything about the school - it's a specialized place - it's a good place. Unlike virtually all Americans with diplomas, they know what education is and what it isn't.

Many graduates of this college, if prodded, forced, or somehow persuaded to give their honest opinions, would say that Paul Krugman isn't educated - and certainly not liberally educated. It's an acknowledged fact that professors from Harvard don't have a clue as to what education is. I'd take it a step further and say that Krugman's just a prestigious thug with credentials. I'd bet many students of the Austrians would agree wholeheartedly. So, I propose: Paul Krugman is a thug committing fraud; it just wouldn't be capable of prosecution in a modern court.

People want 'educations' to look good, to winnow, because it's our culture, or because it's what is done in America, but they don't know what education is.

Bush went to Yale and Harvard, and smarties knows his intelligence is not very high. What good is the stamp of Yale and Harvard? Bush, Krugman, and a host of other lightweights dilute the value of the stamp.

Gary North has a similar idea - get a Bachelor's degree by the time that one is 18, and do it for less than $15,000. I'm proud of having gone to Thomas Aquinas College for a year. They know what knowledge is and what it isn't. They know what they don't know. Probably all of Gary North's graduates won't. So, if one doesn't intend to get a liberal education - to read the classics, and not claptrap about race, "psychology", "business administration" and the rest of the ludicrous pseudo-subjects, why not learn something lucrative, like engineering, "finance", or nursing? There's nothing wrong with not being a scholar.

Don't just consider Gary North or Thomas Aquinas College, an obscure place. The British prior to the Reform Act of 1832 had a similar idea. Either you got a liberal education, reading the classics, or you weren't a scholar. They never would have awarded degrees in "Business Administration", and perhaps not even Bachelor's of Chemistry, despite the fact that they might have studied Chemistry. They gave a lot of respect to a man who was 18 who, being from a respected family, was commissioned a 2nd Lt. in the army. Yes, America rebelled against the British of that age; please don't misunderstand me, which would be extremely easy, given the great nuance of my views and the slowness with which I type. Irrespective of your opinion of those British, their culture was relatively rich, elevated, and moral compared to our current culture, and they were successful, for whatever its worth, at bossing much of the world for a while.

The British were not alone in this idea. Guess from whence it came.

Both groups, viz, this college and the old British, looked ultimately to the ancient Greeks, who considered economics to be a matter analogous to accounting - emphatically not a difficult or complicated subject in a just world. (Yes, our world is not just.) They thought economics was mainly a matter of counting: this one has $2 trillion of credit; this one OOOOH has $14.2 trillion of debt. The creditor is RICH! The debtor is POOR! It isn't rocket science - or as tough as understanding the nuances of Aristotle.

The Chinese are beating us because their costs are lower. If a young man can cut six years of time out of his time twiddling his thumbs in school and ask employers for a much lower salary in the meantime, he'll be doing something like what the Chinese do - lower costs would make him more competitive. Today's employers are concerned about costs.

Obviously, an I-bank isn't going to hire a 16-year old with any kind of diploma, but a law firm might hire him as a secretary, particularly if he has, say, one or two years experience in menial work/shopkeeping, etc. From there, he could become a secretary in the financial markets, then an officer, a trader, whatever. Alternatively, he could work in a retail bank for a couple of years. If he's constantly discussing the Austrian theory of the business cycle with bank VPs who may not have finished college majors in ludicrous subjects, they'll think he's nerdy - not a bad qual for getting into Wall Street or I-banking.

Point is, smart employers can look at a young man who knows a lot about the markets, has an independent mind, is well-motivated, and so forth, to do a good job, rather than some nobody out of college who doesn't know something, or worse, some moron-tyrant with an MBA. A bachelor's degree in psychology, sociology, African studies, etc. is junk - a "diploma mill" D. Econ. that actually indicates exceedingly useful knowledge would be preferable if I were the one doing the hiring for a broad variety of jobs - just about everything except mathematical/scientific work and Hollywood/entertainment. Does this "diploma mill" D. Econ. deserve honor in America? The answer is yes. The difficulty is overcoming ignorance, bitterness, etc.

ADDENDA - Wall Street is corrupt, the British were corrupt, and a man with a "diploma mill" D. Econ. would still have quite a scramble getting a job today in America. I condemn the bailouts and those who work for companies receiving them. Ideally the capital markets wouldn't be in bed with Washington and the Fed.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

Joseph F — Sun, 22 May 2011 08:29:31 GMT

InHongKong,

Just out of curiosity, what was your major at St. Thomas Aquinas College?

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 22 May 2011 03:01:43 GMT

Diplomas from LvMI would indeed by worthless on the job market. The only reason that you can take to the bank for attending formal schooling is credibility. For the purpose of learning formal schooling is a disadvantage.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sat, 21 May 2011 20:58:09 GMT

I have beaten around the bush. Sell it to sixteen year old males and tell them to use it to get jobs in banks and law firms. Eventually, someone will buy the knowledge, and someone will hire them when they keep insisting, "I have a doctorate. Hire me. I'll work cheap."

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sat, 21 May 2011 20:43:46 GMT

Peter Schiff and the rest of them are terrible at promotion. It has been ten decades and they still haven't gotten through. Simple: take a picture of a geeky young guy with gorgeous women on his arms kissing him, with the message, this could be you! Don't let the women look like sluts; just make them beautiful and kissing him.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sat, 21 May 2011 20:23:55 GMT

I really am sorry for having been irreverent, but I ask you: what good is modern microeconomics? Isn't it only supposedly good for statists? Maybe there is a use. Please tell me.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

Walden — Sat, 21 May 2011 20:19:25 GMT

In fact Walter Block's department might offer an M.A. in AE. http://www.business.loyno.edu/master-economics

You can't just expect Austrian economics degrees to be offered everywhere just because it's the right idea. It's a slow process to create a new paradigm- and hopefully we won't need to make the distinction "Austrian" and we can just call it "economics."

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sat, 21 May 2011 19:44:34 GMT

You guys are Austrians, like me, and perhaps you don't believe in your own economic theory. Is Austrianism far superior to Keynesianism? So award a degree. The difficulty is marketing, and no one prominent in the Austrian movement knows marketing - at least, the American public hasn't bought it yet.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sat, 21 May 2011 19:23:53 GMT

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.... whoooooooo

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

InHongKong — Sat, 21 May 2011 19:21:07 GMT

Sir Daniel Donohue; other knights of Malta; David Schippers, the Democrat who prosecuted Clinton; the Pope; and numerous Cardinals know about Thomas Aquinas College and think it superior in ways to the Ivy League, but then, most of them might be said to be prejudiced.

Re: Why wouldn't the Mises Institute started an M.A. in economics?

John James — Sat, 21 May 2011 19:18:45 GMT

InHongKong:
I'm going to talk crazily...

Truer words were never spoken.

Maybe it is completely crazy, but I don't know anyone in the regular Austrian movement who is flamboyant and great at marketing. For instance, Peter Schiff, Gary North, Ron Paul, Porter Stansberry, and maybe even the Mogambo Guru, are honorable men, but they are not marvels at persuading. None is very handsome, well-spoken, or mediagenic. Such things shouldn't be important in persuading good men, but good men are all too rare, of course. Someone with smart marketing skills and a grasp of the pertinent target markets might have an opportunity. For instance, I think that Porter Stansberry, who is no doubt rich, might have the wrong marketing strategy and the wrong audience.

And a fake "diploma" from a charity is going to change that?

Start a (legal) "diploma mill" and show these clowns up for what they are.

How in the world does the first part accomplish the second?

I know nothing of microeconomics or its uses.

And why does that not surprise me in the slightest.