= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsalvatier comments on I want to learn economics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
And I think LessWrongers are more likely than average to disagree with the "foundations" of the Austrian approach, if not some of their conclusions and emphasis.
I agree, but deny that it matters very much (if by "foundations", you mean methodology). The methodology that economists claim to adhere to does not significantly constrain their actual practice of carrying out economic research. Whether an economist claims to be a Logical Positivist, Critical Rationalist, Bayesian etc... doesn't seem to matter very much in terms of their behavior while doing economics.
It does in the case of the (some) austrians. They don't think economics can be empirical - it's purely a theoretical science for them. And with no math.
And yet, even Rothbard's America’s Great Depression makes hundreds of references to empirical facts (and uses quite a bit of descriptive statistics). My point is that there is a very loose connection between the stated methodological principles of economists and the actual manner in which they perform their research and construct their arguments.
I agree in general, but not for the hardcore Austrians like Rothbard. The facts are illustrative only for Rothbard. His argument doesn't rest on empirical observations.
I apologize for being unclear. I agree with your point that the facts Rothbard uses are "illustrative only", but I deny that this separates Rothbard's work from most of the economics profession. He is simply more upfront about it.
Of course, I agree entirely with your advice not to start learning economics within the Austrian Paradigm, which is why all of the texts I suggested were within the Neoclassical Paradigm.
Ah, I see. My impression of the economics profession as a whole is that there is a large group for which you're description fits and another large group for which it doesn't, but I don't have any communicable evidence for this position. I've personally worked with several economists in the latter category, but they would probably put most of the profession in the former.
Indeed. They have many good ideas, but more than a fair share of bad ones too, and the absolute worst ideas seem to be at the very core of the school of thought. "Awful Austrians" states the case pretty well, also worth looking at is Bryan Caplan's "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist"
There's also an entertaining back and forth between Caplan and Walter Block (an Austrian) which expands on that essay (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ar/awful_austrians/35kn). I'd say Caplan wins decisively.