“[sc. Austrians] ... need to deal with the epistemic Keynes that Shackle so rightly emphasized. But the thing is that we have and we do! The O’Driscoll & Rizzo volume certainly does that. My Big Players work with Butos, Yeager, and others is all about engaging the epistemic Keynes as was my HOPE [sc. History of Political Economy] article with Butos on Hayek vs. Keynes. And the Post Keynesian responded [quite] ... a bit to that HOPE article. Butos and I got several published comments from Post Keynesians and responded to them. Steve Horwitz pointed out ... over at Coordinationproblem that this year’s SDAE best-paper prize went to Dave Prychitko’s paper on Minsky, a Post Keynesian. My recent RAE paper with Will Luther addresses Minsky and animal spirits. And so on. If you re-read Karen Vaughn’s book on “Austrian Economics in America,” you will see that it is a story about how, basically, Lachmann won the day. Lachmann taught us that we need to deal with the epistemic Keynes and we got the lesson. It was a huge change in the American branch of Austrian economics. ...”Both Karen Vaughn and Ludwig Lachmann rate highly on my list of Austrians. Indeed, of all the Austrians, Lachmann’s work is the most congenial (as it were) to Post Keynesians. The issues of radical uncertainty and subjective expectations, and how they influence the level of investment are at the heart of Post Keynesian economics and were also taken seriously by Lachmann. Roger Koppl has put his finger on the problem that modern Austrian economics has from the Post Keynesian perspective.
Roger Koppl @December 8, 2011 at 8:09 am, ThinkMarkets
Roger Koppl refers to recent Austrian literature worth reading:
Butos, W. N. and R. Koppl, 1997. “The Varieties of Subjectivism: Keynes and Hayek on Expectations,” History of Political Economy 29.2: 327–359.I am currently reading these and hope to comment on them soon.
Koppl, R. and J. B. Rosser, 2002. “All That I Have to Say has Already Crossed Your Mind,” Metroeconomica 53.4: 339-360.
Koppl, R. and W. J. Luther, 2011. “Hayek, Keynes, and Modern Macroeconomics,” Review of Austrian Economics (July): 1-19.
This paper can also be downloaded through the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).
Prychitko, David L. 2010. “Competing Explanations of the Minsky Moment: The Financial Instability Hypothesis in Light of Austrian Theory,” Review of Austrian Economics 23: 199-221.
"Both Karen Vaughn and Ludwig Lachmann rate highly on my list of Austrians."
ReplyDeleteFor the benefit of your readers, that's because they both wanted government violence to be introduced into the market process, they both supported governmental attacks against capitalism.
It's only because of their ideology, not their intelligence, nor the force of their arguments, nor their logic, that you "rate them highly" or "find them interesting" or "fascinating" or "interesting". They are on "your side" politically, and that's enough for you. That's why you separate Austrians into "good" and "bad." The "good" are all those who support violent attacks of the free market process (Lachmann, et al). The "bad" are all those who are against it (Rothbard, et al).
Vaughn does not want "government violence to be introduced into the market process" (I took her class). Vaughn sees Rothbardian Anarchism as something that is unrealizable, given the current mindset of nearly all of the public. Vaughn aims at more modest-realizable goals. I don't necessarily agree with her strategies, but the claim that she wants violence introduced is false. It is already in the market process! Vaughn wants to aim at modest goals of resisting further intervention.
Delete"It's only because of their ideology, not their intelligence, nor the force of their arguments, nor their logic, that you "rate them highly" or "find them interesting" or "fascinating" or "interesting"."
ReplyDeleteReally? Good to see you're telepathic!
@David
ReplyDeleteIt is people like you that make Austrian Economics look bad. Given what you said, it is in fact you that like Rothbard, or the like, "because of their ideology, not their intelligence, nor the force of their arguments, nor their logic, that you "rate them highly" or "find them interesting" or "fascinating" or "interesting". They are on "your side" politically, and that's enough for you." Your critique on Lachmann is a major straw man... he never wanted government intervention in itself in the market process and was very critical to economic theory that supported that position. If you want to get a legit position on where Lachmann stood on this, read 'Capital, Expectations, and the Market Process', and read closely part 3 and 5 of his book, which should show you how horrible of a strawman your comments on Lachmann are.