Boettke, Peter J. (eds.). 1994. The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. E. Elgar, Aldershot.It strikes me that many internet Austrians often do not even understand the economic theory they claim to support, so let this be for their benefit too!
Boettke, Peter J. (ed.). 2010. Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, Mass. 3–13.
Callahan, Gene. 2004. Economics for Real People. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
Murphy, Robert P. 2010. Lessons for the Young Economist. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
Murphy, Robert P. 2011. Study Guide to the Theory of Money & Credit. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
Murphy, Robert P. and Amadeus Gabriel. 2008. Study Guide to Human Action. A Treatise on Economics: Scholar’s Edition. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
Murphy, Robert P. 2006. Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market: Government and the Economy. Scholar’s Edition.. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
Taylor, Thomas C. 1980. An Introduction to Austrian Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
Vaughn, K. I. 1994. Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Some Introductory Books on Austrian Economics
A quick list of some introductory books on, and guides to, Austrian economics, and usually the ones I turn to for quick reference:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From “In Defense of ‘Extreme Apriorism’” By Murray N. Rothbard:
ReplyDeleteThe fourth--and by far the least fundamental--postulate for a theory of the market is the one which Professors Hutchison and Machlup consider crucial--that firms always aim at maximization of their money profits. As will become clearer when I treat the Fundamental Axiom below, this assumption is by no means a necessary part of economic theory. From our Axiom is derived this absolute truth: that every firm aims always at maximizing its psychic profit. This may or may not involve maximizing its money profit. Often it may not, and no praxeologist would deny this fact. When an entrepreneur deliberately accepts lower money profits in order to give a good job to a ne’er-do-well nephew, the praxeologist is not confounded. The entrepreneur simply has chosen to take a certain cut in monetary profit in order to satisfy his consumption--satisfaction of seeing his nephew well provided. The assumption that firms aim at maximizing their money profits is simply a convenience of analysis; it permits the elaboration of a framework of catallactics (economics of the market) which could not otherwise be developed. The praxeologist always has in mind the proviso that where this subsidiary postulate does not apply--as in the case of the ne’er-do-well--his deduced theories will not be applicable. He simply believes that enough entrepreneurs follow monetary aims enough of the time to make his theory highly useful in explaining the real market. p. 4
Whether we consider the Action Axiom “a priori” or “empirical” depends on our ultimate philosophical position. Professor Mises, in the neo- Kantian tradition, considers this axiom a law of thought and therefore a categorical truth a priori to all experience. My own epistemological position rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas rather than Kant, and hence I would interpret the proposition differently. I would consider the axiom a law of reality rather than a law of thought, and hence “empirical” rather than “a priori.” But it should be obvious that this type of “empiricism” is so out of step with modern empiricism that I may just as well continue to call it a priori for present purposes. For (1) it is a law of reality that is not conceivably falsifiable, and yet is empirically meaningful and true; (2) it rests on universal inner experience, and not simply on external experience, that is, its evidence is reflective rather than physical7; and (3) it is clearly a priori to complex historical events. p. 6
"But it should be obvious that this type of “empiricism” is so out of step with modern empiricism that I may just as well continue to call it a priori for present purposes"
DeleteIn other words, Rothbard has half-baked, hare-brained epistemology.
Thanks for sharing this.