tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post1228210365490378466..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Forgetting Mises When Doing Comparative Political Economygcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-44488190585298320382014-12-12T10:55:02.027-05:002014-12-12T10:55:02.027-05:00Thanks, Karl. Those look interesting.Thanks, Karl. Those look interesting.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38961997395740467432014-12-10T16:33:59.411-05:002014-12-10T16:33:59.411-05:00(I should have added this to my last comment.) I s...(I should have added this to my last comment.) I suggest reading "Rothbard’s Distorted Image of the Free Market" and "Rothbard’s Critique of Mises’s Value Freedom" as a defense of Gene's comment that the early Austrians had no tenents.Karl W/ A Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478713719075274580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-70450913368051096382014-12-10T16:30:51.857-05:002014-12-10T16:30:51.857-05:00Samson -
Here's a link to some short articles...Samson -<br /><br />Here's a link to some short articles by J. Patrick Gunning on the differences between Mises' and Rothbard's views, both economic and socio-political: http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcsubj#Commentary<br /><br />KarlKarl W/ A Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478713719075274580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53706108446697006952014-12-10T06:17:59.766-05:002014-12-10T06:17:59.766-05:00Samson, I would blame you for thinking Austrian ec...Samson, I would blame you for thinking Austrian economics is a "doctrine" with certain "tenets" if Murray Rothbard himself had not promoted that sort of nonsense so vigorously. Viewed sensibly, as a group of thinkers who approached economics and a roughly similar way, Austrian economics has no "tenets."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-84584008848630926722014-12-10T05:20:01.438-05:002014-12-10T05:20:01.438-05:00Only if one conflates Austrian economics with libe...Only if one conflates Austrian economics with libertarianism. This conflation is done by many proponents as well as opponents, but it is incorrect.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43953902260196852632014-12-10T01:08:14.507-05:002014-12-10T01:08:14.507-05:00Wouldn't socialist beliefs be in direct contra...Wouldn't socialist beliefs be in direct contradiction with the tenets of Austrian economics? That "intervention" in "the market" gives things a "false value"?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-13768534354489736272014-12-10T01:06:26.490-05:002014-12-10T01:06:26.490-05:00An Austrian socialist? Isn't that like a divid...An Austrian socialist? Isn't that like a divide by zero or something? Wouldn't the beliefs of a socialist be in direct contradiction with the tenets of Austrian economics?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-2796365248559536432014-12-06T18:54:11.072-05:002014-12-06T18:54:11.072-05:00Gene, I only skimmed section VI of your paper, so ...Gene, I only skimmed section VI of your paper, so I may have missed something, but you don't be seem to leveling any criticisms of the soundness of "logical economics" or praxeology. You criticize people who unconsciously import logical economics into their mathematical economics work, and you say mathematical economics can be used "to clarify and check the sort of reasoning that characterizes logical economics."<br /><br />But regardless of how you try to check the reasoning of logical economics, what do such checks reveal? Do the complex economic conclusions of Mises and Rothbard really follow logically from the assumption that humans act?Keshav Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754620266852651577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24667530767976592472014-12-06T15:36:58.217-05:002014-12-06T15:36:58.217-05:00Keshav, I answer at length here:
http://econfacult...Keshav, I answer at length here:<br />http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/Fall2009/Callahan.pdfgcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-91177817197290490982014-12-06T13:48:48.667-05:002014-12-06T13:48:48.667-05:001. Wait, what?
2. Email me, then.
3. Yes, but I th...1. Wait, what?<br />2. Email me, then.<br />3. Yes, but I thought he has said is a utilitarian. He supported laissez-faire because he believed that it was the best thing for everyone. Did his radical subjectivism derive from his economics?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-3293219150525760802014-12-06T02:02:06.197-05:002014-12-06T02:02:06.197-05:00Gene, do you think praxeology is a logically sound...Gene, do you think praxeology is a logically sound system? That is to say, do you think that Mises and Rothbard really succeeded in deriving complex conclusions in economics just from the assumption that humans act?Keshav Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754620266852651577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-88859474901607522832014-12-05T16:29:17.638-05:002014-12-05T16:29:17.638-05:00"Gone through and come out of Austrianism&quo..."Gone through and come out of Austrianism"<br /><br />Look at my 2002 book: it explains Austrian ideas, but is by no means saying "only Austrians understand economics."<br /><br />I really don't feel that differently about the topic today.<br /><br />What HAS changed more is my political views. It is only an incorrect identification of Austrian economics with libertarianism that would make people say "oh he's turned against Austrian economics." Weiser was an important Austrian school thinker who was also a socialist.<br /><br />1) No. <br /><br />2) Tough question: can't answer in a combox.<br /><br />3) I would not consider him a utilitarian, precisely because of his moral relativism. Utilitarians quite definitely align morality with the greatest good for the greatest number.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-59248396537327037872014-12-05T15:50:07.925-05:002014-12-05T15:50:07.925-05:00"One of the things Mises was surely correct a..."One of the things Mises was surely correct about is that 'pursuing one's interest,' if it is to be a priori true of all agents, must be interpreted extremely broadly. In this sense, as Mises taught us, "one's interest" must include anything that might motivate an agent to act…"<br /><br />Let's say I grant this. Where does it get me? It seems like something that falls into the "no ****, Sherlock" category. Perhaps an example would help.<br /><br />Since you're someone whose gone through and come out of Austrianism, I feel like you'd be able to give me a fair evaluation. So, I have a few questions:<br />1. Would I be wrong in thinking of Mises as a doddering old crank?<br />2. Would I be wrong in viewing him as someone who is economistic?<br />3. He espoused utilitarianism, so doesn't this conflict with his statements of moral relativism?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62687947084661071832014-12-04T22:33:55.952-05:002014-12-04T22:33:55.952-05:00History provides an excellent kick in the pants fo...History provides an excellent kick in the pants for many economists.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8820778740645713622014-12-04T21:58:41.229-05:002014-12-04T21:58:41.229-05:00Great points, Gene. If I may point something else ...Great points, Gene. If I may point something else out, this is exactly where Rothbard went off-course. Mises, if I have read him correctly, intends to say that praxeological laws are the laws common to all the social sciences, while catallactical laws are specific to economics, sociological laws specific to sociology, etc. (I think he makes this explicit somewhere in Chapter Two of Human Action, but it's clear enough from his repeated use of the phrase "general theory of human action" to describe praxeology.) Rothbard, however, blurred the lines between the lines between praxeology and catallactics, and rarely made a clear distinction between the two. (Anyone know a Rothbard quote where he equates the two?)<br /><br />I hereby deem Rothbard a quasi-Misesian.Karl W/ A Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478713719075274580noreply@blogger.com