Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

16 Apr 2012, 12:59 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
The guy probably should've done something like "Rothbardians, Miseans, Hayekians" and lump them all into a box named "Austrians"and then show the box partially within and partially outside mainstream economics.

Not really. Those three figures are all clearly Austrian. They all believed in ABCT, and the related frameworks.

The issue is that not all libertarians do that. So, Bryan Caplan is put in the neoclassical libertarian category in the blog post, but he couldn't really fit as an Austrian as he's explicitly disavowed Austrian economics and has been critical towards the ABCT, and only a very very broad brush could ever put Caplan in that category.

Not only that, but none of those figures are really in mainstream economics. Hayek is the closest in that he maintains the legitimacy of mainstream economic frameworks in their narrowly defined domains, but he just considers these frameworks pointless in that they miss the larger picture, however, it isn't as if the mainstream really accepts Hayek much, save a few inspirational writings of his.


That's sorta the point.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Apr 2012, 2:43 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
The guy probably should've done something like "Rothbardians, Miseans, Hayekians" and lump them all into a box named "Austrians"and then show the box partially within and partially outside mainstream economics.

Not really. Those three figures are all clearly Austrian. They all believed in ABCT, and the related frameworks.

The issue is that not all libertarians do that. So, Bryan Caplan is put in the neoclassical libertarian category in the blog post, but he couldn't really fit as an Austrian as he's explicitly disavowed Austrian economics and has been critical towards the ABCT, and only a very very broad brush could ever put Caplan in that category.

Not only that, but none of those figures are really in mainstream economics. Hayek is the closest in that he maintains the legitimacy of mainstream economic frameworks in their narrowly defined domains, but he just considers these frameworks pointless in that they miss the larger picture, however, it isn't as if the mainstream really accepts Hayek much, save a few inspirational writings of his.


That's sorta the point.

There's a confusion then somewhere.



gotwake
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

18 Apr 2012, 3:00 am

I was in such a bad mood and then I saw this thread. Thank you
I just did a "presentation" ( i looked like I was seizing) on keynesian school vs Austrian School.

In front of a class full of comm majors who probably didn't know currency from money.

Anyway, hooray for obsessing over economics lol.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 Apr 2012, 2:57 pm

gotwake wrote:
I was in such a bad mood and then I saw this thread. Thank you
I just did a "presentation" ( i looked like I was seizing) on keynesian school vs Austrian School.

In front of a class full of comm majors who probably didn't know currency from money.

Anyway, hooray for obsessing over economics lol.


I hope you like the improvements I made over the blogger's diagram.

[img][800:768]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m534/Warehouser/SchoolsofEconomicThought.jpg[/img]


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

20 Apr 2012, 2:59 pm

Give rich people a tax break and the economy will flourish.