To put it bluntly, what are the major differences between the two and whats the deal between the feuding?
I'll admit, as far as I know I have not read any explicit "Masonomics" books, but my understanding of the difference is that George Mason tends to stress Hayek more along with more "mainstream" (hopefully I'm not angering anyone with that) monetary theories and methdological approaches. They also seem to cite Mises as supporting their views (FRB etc) while downplaying Rothbard. Mises Institute is more Rothbard (who they say is more in tune with Mises) and the "traditional" Austrian approach. Am I missing any other significant distinguishes?
So whats the drama between them all? Judging by various posts on the internet they appear to have different academic ideas and some of their arguments can get a little personal at times.
Finally, what happened to Gene Callahan? I remember reading his book along time ago and loved it, and now I hear he isn't an Austrian anymore (although he frequents over at Coordination Problem and generally bashes Rothbard). Then I read on a post here he got mad over his book deal with the MI, but I don't know if this is trash talking or not.
And for a bonus question, if you had to pick a "side", which do you prefer? Honest.
For me, Mises Institute.
Selgin:The equating of "policy" with interventionism (which is what I assume you mean by "statute") is novel in an unhelpful way. So far as I (and I think most people) are concerned, "We should abolish the Fed" is a "policy" recommendation.
I'm not equating policy with anything. I am discussing policy qua policy. Government policy is written in statutes. Statutes are not law.
As far as being unhelpful, I think that's untrue. I am trying to clarify what is becoming an increasingly abstract and vague discussion. As far as what most people think, I don't care. A billion fools can't manufacture a single truth. And I am not calling for the abolishment of the FED so let's abandon the notion that I have made a single policy recommendation in this discussion, because I have not. I do not have the "power" to make policy, and I recognize the futility of central planning by policy.
Selgin:As for FRB being "neutral," do you mean neutral w.r.t prices or neutral in the sense of "non-normative"? If the latter, then of course it depends on the context. The statement "FRB is desirable" is of course predicated on certain values; the statement "Scotland had a FRB" isn't.
The latter. What context? I'm totally unconcerned with your values, although I do like your choice in eyeglasses frames.
Statutes are not law.
I guess I do not share definition of at least one of "statute" and "law" with you. Or I am missing a joke.
My understanding of common definition is that statutes are legislation is law.
'I am not angry at MI, and I never said that they dissallowed criticism of Mises and Rothbard. Obviously I'm posting here so that's not the case. I said that there is a Rothbard (and Mises) personality cult that is not official MI policy but that affects the reasoning of some of the more prominent MI economists, and that it is standing in the way of sound scholarship and setting a bad example for students. I said this was particularly true w.r.t. MI-outlet writings on monetary economics, and I stand by that. Your own comments about banking are good examples of the sort of thinking that this leads to--thinking utterly un-informed by historical inquiry. That of course wasn't the case with MR himself. But it sure is wrt many of his devoted followers.'
I'm still having difficulty understanding you. You state that criticism of Mises and Rothbard is allowed but think we're all under a cult of personality? So the MI allows criticism of Rothbard and Mises...but it doesn't itself criticism them? What is "unsound" about an organization again dedicated to the spreading of the Misesian-Rothbardian tradition not expressly criticizing them every chance they get or when you desire them too? Should each lecture be headed with the warning "Well I like Mises (or Rothbard) but there are many things I don't like about him such as example X...but this lecture isn't about example X...I just wanted to point out that I am not a 'cultist'?"
And what is this nonsense about "My own comments on banking?" I don't care about banking. I only care about economics in its capacity to explain historical events. I follow history with some minor dabbling in other social sciences which is an obvious necessity for history. Do you perhaps mean the MI's comments? Well I am not it and it is diverse so it is somewhat of an effrontery to give the label to one individual.
"The ultimate cause of the poor scholarship I refer to is insularity. Read HHH and Hulsman and Block and Bagus and Howden: you will see how little they read or refer to that's not from from each other and other treu believers; you will see that they refer to other stuff only scornfully and in order to attack it. You will see that they hardly ever publish anything except on the MI cite or the QJAE. They have never really rumbled with other economists, and they never learn a damn thing from those of us who enter their own forums to tell them where they are full of baloney. Instead, the same tired old criticisms just get repeated again and again: Scotland didn't really have free banking; a "deposit" can only mean a bailment; bank's multiply property titles; no one would voluntarily put money in an uninsured FRB; 100-percent money "certificates" could circulate just as readily as fractionally-backed ones, etc. etc, etc. All crap; all painstakingly refuted, sometimes in several places; all ever recurring. Yecch. It makes me ill to realize how many people are taken in by this amateurish and silly stuff."
And what would you have them do? Tell tales of Keynes and his nonexistent Austrian views? These theorists are developing (or redeveloping, or continuing to develop if you wish) the economic theories of the Austrian school. They will naturally cite other Austrian economists because they are developing the same mode of thought. Sometimes they even break this tendency. I know that all the historians at MI at one time cited Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism as a great source of information on the Progressive era and Anti-Trust law. Kolko is a Marxist.
They attack a great deal of things outside their theories because they see a great deal wrong with it and again is the natural course of the development of a school of thought in this case Austrian economic theory. Concerning your point on journals, with the development of internet based journals (which greatly reduces their cost and their ability to be dispersed) and the ability to create one's own journal why must Austrians try to publish outside of their own? Why are you dead set on going into other spheres and tweaking their noses? In the history community (I know there are differences in economics and history as a discipline) there are multiple journals, thousands even. Some are so esoteric as to be about a year or decade in time. There is the Annales journal, The History of Agriculture, etc. Why are you so fervent in your push toward a concentration of journals? And if you're not then why are you angry that Austrian scholars mainly write in Austrian journals?
I don't see how you can connect the idea that they are constantly attacking theories that are not their own yet have "never really rumbled with other economists." You will have to further explain that to me. Concerning you comments about the "same old tired criticisms," people usually have them because they feel you are missing something vital and are not recognizing it. If this turns your stomach, the idea that you will have to reiterate your position to others, then you have two options: Steel yourself if you care enough, or give into a defeatist attitude and withdraw from academia. Honestly, I sometimes wonder which to choose. Do you know that Marx's method of historical materialism which looks at historical events as being the product solely of economic values is still followed today in 2011? I mean a theory that was basically proven inadequate over 130 years ago is still being held up as correct by a group of people. Bad philosophies of history is like the broken window fallacy in economics. It is like knowledge in general. Bad knowledge does not just shimmer away into the night. It sticks around and gets rediscovered. You may think this of those you are discussing but they probably think it of you too.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew, I don't think that anyone who reads the initial passage you quote from me, and then your "gloss" on it, with open eyes will believe you have read the first passage with any reasonable care. Where do I say that "all" MI participants are involved in a personality cult? Were did I say that none of them ever criticize Mises or Rothbard.
As for my claim that insularity marks some MI scholarship, I stick by it. Indeed, your suggestion that HHH and company couldn't possibly make any positive use of the views of economists beyond their own cadre without having to "tell tales of Keynes and his nonexistent Austrian views" shows that you share that insularity, that is, that you think there's just two kinds of economics: hard-core MI Austrian and "Keynesian"!
>>As for my claim that insularity marks some MI scholarship
insularity marks some non-MI scholarship.
Some non-MI scholars are also cultish.
Any sufficiently large collection of people will contain people that some people won't like.
I think these petty issues are beneath discussion. Best stick to scholarly topics.
I'm enjoying rereading The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland by Murray N. Rothbard at the moment, have you read it?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Selgin: As for my claim that insularity marks some MI scholarship, I stick by it. Indeed, your suggestion that HHH and company couldn't possibly make any positive use of the views of economists beyond their own cadre without having to "tell tales of Keynes and his nonexistent Austrian views" shows that you share that insularity, that is, that you think there's just two kinds of economics: hard-core MI Austrian and "Keynesian"!
This is where I call foul. Nowhere in his post did Andrew claim that there were only two schools of economic thought, Misesian and Keynesian. I am sure that he is well aware, as are most people here, that there are dozens of other schools, from Marxist to monetarist to German historical and so on. This claim of "insularity" is nothing more than ad hominem.
Moreover, I don't see the problem with Austrian economists citing other Austrian economists. Is it "cultish" for one economist to cite another economist who utilizes the same methology? Isn't it commonplace for Keynesians to read other Keynesians? Or going out of economists entirely, an evolutionary biologist to read other evolutionary biologists? Are they "cultish" for not sufficiently quoting creationists? So far as I can tell, it is incosequential where you get your ideas from as long as they are correct.
"Andrew, I don't think that anyone who reads the initial passage you quote from me, and then your "gloss" on it, with open eyes will believe you have read the first passage with any reasonable care. Where do I say that "all" MI participants are involved in a personality cult? Were did I say that none of them ever criticize Mises or Rothbard. "
Well you assign many titles to those you are aiming against. You stated what they were doing was akin to theology and not serious scholarship. Perhaps I am seeing the full implications of your writings. You stated that all "Rothbardian monetary theorists" participate in this Catholic-like dogma at the MI. Now I could be wrong about my following statement but isn't the vast majority of the MI "Rothbardian monetary theorists." I do understand that there are Misesians and Hayekians but this whole argument seemed to center on Rothbard and to some degree Mises but only in his capacity as a cult of personality. You never did say none of them ever criticized Mises or Rothbard but you seem to be going out of your way to say that they should do it more or at least be gleeful at the opportunity to do it. That is what all this talk of cult of personality means to me. It is the veneration of an individual or individuals to a godlike status. How do you prove someone isn't a God? Show their faults. So following this line, to get rid of the "cult of personality" you suppose is at the MI, one would have to either increase the criticism ( My lecture note comment see above) or be happier about criticism (My stepping on toes comment on page 3) to counter act the cultist behavior.
"As for my claim that insularity marks some MI scholarship, I stick by it. Indeed, your suggestion that HHH and company couldn't possibly make any positive use of the views of economists beyond their own cadre without having to "tell tales of Keynes and his nonexistent Austrian views" shows that you share that insularity, that is, that you think there's just two kinds of economics: hard-core MI Austrian and "Keynesian"! "
How you can be affronted by my supposed glossing over of your comments while you gloss over mine concerning the dispersion of journals is rather bizarre. I never stated that economists at MI can't find positivity outside their school. They can find a great deal wrong but that doesn't infer they can't find something right. In fact I made the example of historians in MI who utilize a Marxist work in order to shed light on Anti-Trust law. My comments were thus: That Austrians should write in Austrian journals. Publication of journals is at a watershed moment with the coming of internet based journals and printed journals are so numerous now that one asks why Austrians should publish in journals that are contradictory to their held views. Can Austrians read other journals? Of course if they so desire. I would not presume to tell them what they are to read and my comments about writing habits are squarely my own. I am no so petty as to think that everyone should read what I read or write where I write....are you?
I think what Selgin is trying to say in terms of current Austrians being insular is that they are only have dialogues within the community and you rarely ever see them having one with the rest of the profession. Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard routinely did this and got published into journals. And despite the rise of the internet and how it gives people the ability to access blogs, when it comes to peer reviewed journals , the prestige of the journal does matter within an academic community especially if you want to get your ideas across to other academics(along with having more influence in top schools). Making it more "sellable" to the rest of the public isn't what academics set out to do(see Bryan Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter) nor should it by the foundation for whether or not something is correct.
Bob Murphy has called out Paul Krugman to debate and has engaged Brad DeLong. Walter Block has plenty of videos on this site and on the youtube where he debates non-Austrolibertarians. Art Carden blogs for Forbes. DiLorenzo testfied in front Congress recently. Most prominent LvMI scholars are professors within non-Austrolibertarian schools; and I don't pressume to know whether they engage their collegues at those school.
EDIT: Would I like to see even more engagement with non-Austrolibertarians? Certainly.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm afraid I'm saying much more than that, pentahedron: I'm saying that they 9that is, the bunch I have in mind) aren't interested in learning anything from "non-Austrian" economists, and even from what they consider the wrong sort of Austrians. Or rather: they are convinced that non-Austrians have nothing to offer, except to serve as objects of contempt. Again: I speak of monetary economics especially. Salaerno is a good historian of monetary economics, so I don't count him among the insular ones. But there's a lot of good non-Austrian monetary economics, and the crowd I have in mind shows no evidence of knowing it. Laidler, Warburton, Friedman, Timberlake, Goodhart, Schwartz, Gorton, Clower, Howitt..the list of excellent monetary economists who aren't at all "Austrian" is very long, yet for some hard-core Rothbardians the are apparenetly useless, or worse.
Consider a typical specimen--Hulsmann's article on "Optimal Monetary Policy." I chose it because the topic is one that countless economists of many schools have written about, so that one would expect a lot of delving into and drawing upon non-Austrian works even despite the article's being aimed at an Austrian audience. But check out the biblography: a few works by classical and early neoclassicals, and then two or three refs to contemporary or near contemporary non-Austrians. Look at the text, and you can confirm that the actual use made of the latter is fleeting. Now, it happens that (as you might expect) the article argues the advantages of delfation. So you would at least expect it to mention important works dealing with the specific question of deflation's optimality. Instead, you get the following footnote: "24It is a revealing fact that there is virtually no literature on deflation in modern economics." Friedman on the "Optimum Quantity of Money" perhaps the most famous of all contributions on the subject of "Optimal Monetary Policy" in the last 50 years, and one that in fact argues for deflation? No mention of it! Nor of critical responses it inspired. The article also makes claims about the meaning of monetary "laiseez faire," but doesn't cite Samuelson and Gramm's work on this very subject, even to criticize them. And no mention, by the by, even the many articles (and one pamphlet) yours truly wrote and published in relatively prominent places on the "productivity norm." Yet the reference list is crowded witrth cites to the usual crowd of 100-percenters. Might the author have perhaps improved his understanding of his chosen topic, or the accuracy of his argumernts, by drawing on any of the omitted literature? I don't doubt that he might have. But even if not, he most certainly would have made the work that much more scholarly.
That is what I mean by insularity.
Selgin:Consider a typical specimen--Hulsmann's article on "Optimal Monetary Policy." I chose it because the topic is one that countless economists of many schools have written about, so that one would expect a lot of delving into and drawing upon non-Austrian works even despite the article's being aimed at an Austrian audience.
Is the argument put forward by Hulsmann sound, substantiated, convincing, etc.....? These are the relevant questions, and as such, I believe were the goals Hulsmann was aiming at. A bibliography should be just as long as it should be to make the argument and not an inch longer.
It just so happens that most "scholars" are not making arguments at all in their work, although they think they are. Then I suppose a fancy and extensive bibliography becomes the focal point of their work. (btw, I don't mean you, despite some of my harsh criticism, just so there is no misunderstanding)
Yes I have read MR's essay. Have you read White's reply, written long ago?
DD%: I'm not recommending that more works be added to bibiographies as window dressing! I'm saying that relevant woprk shouldn't be entirely overlooked--that real use should be made of it!
I don't think so. Is it on the web?
nirgrahamUK: I don't think so. Is it on the web?
It's basically in the latest version of "Free Banking in Britain". If I recall, it's an entire chapter dedicated to some of the critics. It is on the web.