Psychlogical Theories of the Cycle

By -
As long ago as 2003, in response to some Austrians whom I saw mocking "psychological" takes on the business cycle, I was stressing that there is no reason to view structural or monetary theories and psychological theories as rivals: they can complement each other, as Roger and I argued in the paper linked to above.

But, once again, Gottfried Haberler beat me there:

"But the distinction between the writers who give prominence to these 'psychological' factors and the writers so far reviewed is, taken as a whole, a distinction of emphasis rather than of kind. The 'psychological' factors are put forward as supplemental to the monetary and other economic factors and not as alternative elements of causation, while on the other hand they are in no sense overlooked by the writers of the other group, or most of them, though they may be assigned a less prominent place in the chain of causation." -- Prosperity and Depression, p. 150

Comments

  1. Olivier Braun2:56 AM

    Dear Professor Callahan,

    I would like to take advantage of that post to ask you a question. I understand you were an austrian-school economist associated with the Mises Institute, before breaking with them.
    Does that mean that you changed your views on economic analysis, and that you repudiate your former works ? I mean, if I want to read you book on economics for real people, does it still represent your thoughts ? Or you just altered your political philosophy ?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:04 AM

      I update my views all the time. I don't think I would say I've "repudiated" my earlier views, just improved them.

      Delete
  2. Unknown10:09 AM

    I hope the Mises Institute didn't screw you over badly. It's a shame that they lost such a great economist, but blind dogma and worship of any economic figure is not healthy in any sense and does a great disservice to their legacy, in my opinion. Such idolatry serves as a distraction from the issues that actually matter and a source of division within the economics community.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more