Does Steven Keen think more highly of austrian economics than neo-classical economics? (he has some criticism of the thinking of Austrians in his book Debunking Economics.) He often says he was influenced by Schumpeter, for instance. I think neoclassicals working their way through meadow of greek symbols is a bit better than theories that are not "susceptible to data" which is a quote from one of the Austrian economists on wiki.
In one sense, Steve is right that Austrian econ as a whole is just a close 'cousin' of neoclassical theory, especially when one looks at Garrison's modeling of capital or Hayekian triangles. but nevertheless, there is still that more heterodox branch of Austrians that take influence from Lachmann( which some can argue that Mises can be put in this category), who have a more structured view of economics rather than using equilibrium.
The Lachmann branch of Austrian economics has always been very interesting to me, and Lachmann's writings often contain a lot of sense - certianly as compared to much of the cultish nonsense of Mises and Rothbard.
Works by Lachmann I recommend:
Lachmann, L. M. 1973. Macro-economic Thinking and the Market Economy: An Essay on the Neglect of the Micro-foundations and its Consequences, Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
Lachmann, L. M. 1976. “From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society,” Journal of Economic Literature 14.1: 54-62.
Lachmann, L. M. 1978. Capital and its Structure, S. Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City.
Lachmann, L. M. 1994. Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions: Essays in Economics (ed. by D. Lavoie), Routledge, London
The “From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society” essay is an outstanding one, vital to understanding the history of Austrian economics over the past 60 years.
I actually started reading your blog because of your appreciation for Lachmann... I must admit, you understand Lachmann better than most Austrians, hell I find it hard enough to find Austrians that know who Lachmann is
Does Steven Keen think more highly of austrian economics than neo-classical economics? (he has some criticism of the thinking of Austrians in his book Debunking Economics.) He often says he was influenced by Schumpeter, for instance. I think neoclassicals working their way through meadow of greek symbols is a bit better than theories that are not "susceptible to data" which is a quote from one of the Austrian economists on wiki.
ReplyDelete--successfulbuild
He regards Austrian economics as subject to many of the same flaws as neoclassial economics.
ReplyDeleteSee Debunking economics, pp. 301-305.
And he is supported in that by Paul Davidson:
Davidson, P. 1989. “The Economics of Ignorance or Ignorance of Economics?,” Critical Review 3.3/4: 467–487.
Davidson, P. 1993. “Austrians and Post Keynesians on Economic Reality: Rejoinder to Critics,” Critical Review 7.2/3: 423–444.
In one sense, Steve is right that Austrian econ as a whole is just a close 'cousin' of neoclassical theory, especially when one looks at Garrison's modeling of capital or Hayekian triangles. but nevertheless, there is still that more heterodox branch of Austrians that take influence from Lachmann( which some can argue that Mises can be put in this category), who have a more structured view of economics rather than using equilibrium.
ReplyDeleteThe Lachmann branch of Austrian economics has always been very interesting to me, and Lachmann's writings often contain a lot of sense - certianly as compared to much of the cultish nonsense of Mises and Rothbard.
ReplyDeleteWorks by Lachmann I recommend:
Lachmann, L. M. 1973. Macro-economic Thinking and the Market Economy: An Essay on the Neglect of the Micro-foundations and its Consequences, Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
Lachmann, L. M. 1976. “From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society,” Journal of Economic Literature 14.1: 54-62.
Lachmann, L. M. 1978. Capital and its Structure, S. Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City.
Lachmann, L. M. 1994. Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions: Essays in Economics (ed. by D. Lavoie), Routledge, London
The “From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society” essay is an outstanding one, vital to understanding the history of Austrian economics over the past 60 years.
ReplyDeleteI actually started reading your blog because of your appreciation for Lachmann... I must admit, you understand Lachmann better than most Austrians, hell I find it hard enough to find Austrians that know who Lachmann is
ReplyDeletewhat are some cultish parts in Mises?
"what are some cultish parts in Mises? "
ReplyDeleteI regard the obsession with the gold standard as cultish. Not to mention the inveterate hostility to government intervention.