Zap Branigan wrote:
There are some problems regarding pollution and public goods in general.
And that is about the unworkable part part of it.
The rest is almost 100% Austrian economics and I am looking forward to your Nobel Prize speech where you explain in broad strokes how you have revolutionized economics by debunking them.
That would impress me.
With resptect, for a change…
I am sure von Mises was a very fine man, a charming teacher ensconced in a his study on New York’s upper west side. He treated his students well. BUt his concerns, as I understand them, in broad strokes, were with questions of value, monetarism, and the impossibility of central planning to adequately assign value to a national economy. (That is, a centrally planned economy is doomed to failure and inefficiency. Looks like the theory worked, but it took 50 years to prove it, practically speaking.)
But I am no economist, and my Nobel Prize was in another field, but I point out that there have been many other countervailing theories in the last 60 years. The only free market is in the market of ideas, and I do not have to buy von Mises ideas to the exclusion of practicality.
So, would you entrust your stock portfolio to Milton Friedman? Is Austrian economics an exclusive and all-encompassing Church?: Would I entrust the economy to a priesthood of economic theorists, working from holy texts 60 years out of date? Gentle reader, no. Look at the steel-trap like thinking engendered elsewhere in these threads, and consider the consequences when a simpleton reads “religion” and writes policy.
First of all von Mises writings are as old as his arch nemesis, Keynes.
So if you are searching for the “modern” version the Chicago school is much, much closer to the Austrian school than to Keynesianism though von Mises considered them to be practically socialists.
So I would not want to Friedman to handle my money because I disagree with him on monetary policies, but Austrian economics is not some fringe sect but the foundation of a lot of modern economy and the ideological background of neoliberalism.
The very reason why there is an Austrian school is because Joseph II wanted his government employees to understand the relationship between law, economics and society.
Until the late 60s most Austrian laws students also took 2 years on top of it to study “Staatswissenschaften”.
When my country took the road to neo-Marxism, um, Keynesianism that course of study suddenly disappeared.
Joseph II idea is still valid, Austrian economics is the only school that always tried to understand the link between economy, government and laws on an axiomatic/deductive level which is why it has the most developed ideas how it all interacts.
Unfortunately a strictly axiomatic approach has disadvantages, like the inability to see when an option that is theoretically sound is way to expensive in the real world.
These are however nuances that will definitely not be discussed in an US presidential election.