Roger W. Garrison delivers a lecture on "capital-based macroeconomics" at the 2010 Mises University.
Between that and me finishing the first chapter of Rothbard's MES, I'm learning to respect Austrian theory.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
I. Ryan:Didn't that already happen (with Human Action)?
Well, I have always had admiration for Ludwig von Mises. Reading HA can only affirm his brilliance. But, after sifting through mainstream economics, I lost more and more appreciation for Austrian economics. At this point, though, I'm more willing to give Austrians credit on their scholarship. (But don't count me as a convert just yet.)
Now that you're reading the material though, your critiques and issues will have a quality to them. I don't expect people to agree with Mises and Rothbard, but only to be knowledgeable enough to make a critique based on their work than a second hand perception or regurgitation of it.
StrangeLoop: but I was surprised to see "comparative advantage" missing (I find this idea instrumental when discussing protectionism, etc., but I never articulate it convincingly).
but I was surprised to see "comparative advantage" missing (I find this idea instrumental when discussing protectionism, etc., but I never articulate it convincingly).
It might be under the title "Law of Association", which was what Mises also referred to the law as. Admittedly, I did find Rothbard a little shallow on comparative advantage. What do you think of the following as an exposition of the law?
http://mises.org/daily/4635
"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."
And comparative advantage, all though important, really isn't that big of an idea.
WTF?! The law of comparative advantage is probably the most surprising and important conclusion reached in all of the social sciences let alone economics. It is kind of a big deal.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Solid_Choke: And comparative advantage, all though important, really isn't that big of an idea. WTF?! The law of comparative advantage is probably the most surprising and important conclusion reached in all of the social sciences let alone economics. It is kind of a big deal.
Subjective value statement versus subjective value statement?
Yes, yes, Ricardian law of association makes society possible, but when Rothbard wrote MES comparative advantage was a well settled idea. No need to go on and on and on about the reason why it is true. (As opposed to his chapters on production.)
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Solid Chock, word.
i think pk says it best in his essay "ricardo's difficult idea".
"The idea of comparative advantage -- with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both -- is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it. Yet anyone who becomes involved in discussions of international trade beyond the narrow circle of academic economists quickly realizes that it must be, in some sense, a very difficult concept indeed."
http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
I read about it in chapter 2, so I knew it must be in the index somewhere. I found it under Law -> economic -> comparative costs.
AdrianHealey:Yes, yes, Ricardian law of association makes society possible, but when Rothbard wrote MES comparative advantage was a well settled idea. No need to go on and on and on about the reason why it is true. (As opposed to his chapters on production.)
I'm not sure I've read one original idea in Rothbard, yet. Frankly, he is excessively repetitive and dumbed-down for my taste (although, I'm sure MES is incredibly clear and helpful to econ newcomers). I mean, marginal utility is "a well settled idea" and look how long he discusses that! I would almost call MES a "Principles of the Principles of Economics" book (if that makes sense).
The more I read him, the more I want him to express relationships in an equation and then move on (now that is what I would call an application of Occam's razor, not his claim that verbal logic is simpler).
But, to Rothbard's credit, it is obvious that he will not release a concept until he has looked at it from every angle and attempted to dissolve any predictable misunderstandings. I appreciate that, even though it is making the book many times longer than it might need to be.
StrangeLoop: I'm not sure I've read one original idea in Rothbard, yet. Frankly, he is excessively repetitive and dumbed-down for my taste (although, I'm sure MES is incredibly clear and helpful to econ newcomers). I mean, marginal utility is "a well settled idea" and look how long he discusses that! I would almost call MES a "Principles of the Principles of Economics" book (if that makes sense). The more I read him, the more I want him to express relationships in an equation and then move on (now that is what I would call an application of Occam's razor, not his claim that verbal logic is simpler). But, to Rothbard's credit, it is obvious that he will not release a concept until he has looked at it from every angle and attempted to dissolve any predictable misunderstandings. I appreciate that, even though it is making the book many times longer than it might need to be.
You are aware of the fact that marginal utility, as Rothbard explains it, is completely different than the Gossen's laws as they are explained in introduction to economics, right? You are aware that utility necessarily goes down and that there is no such thing as a increase in marginal utility?
If you are aware; good! When Rothbard wrote MES the idea was that this was a general rule, and not a praxeological truth. That's, probably, why he explains it so exhaustive.
The idea of 'putting it into an equation' totally misses the point. It doesn't help to say; well, utility is marginal, so let's take the derivate of his utility function and be done with it! It doesn't explain the process of why and how.
AdrianHealey:You are aware of the fact that marginal utility, as Rothbard explains it, is completely different than the Gossen's laws as they are explained in introduction to economics, right? You are aware that utility necessarily goes down and that there is no such thing as a increase in marginal utility?
The difference, in my opinion, is negligible. If I remember Rothbard's counterpoint, then he claimed that a recipe might need four eggs to produce a dessert, but that the fourth egg doesn't increase the marginal utility, but rather that it's a different good entirely. This might interest those more inclined to doctrinal quibbling, but not me.
Other than that argument, though, I fail to see how Rothbard's version is "completely different" from the mainstream (but perhaps I am failing to notice the fuller discrepancy).