The Austrian School: A Window to the soul of Droopy

[_why me]

What is the Austrian School?

Those of you who have read -- or skimmed -- Droopy's posts have no doubt noticed frequent appeal to "the Austrian School". But what is the Austrian School, anyway? Perhaps, you've thought to yourself, the Austrian School is like the Chicago School, a dominant, conservative way of doing economic research that is loved by the Right and hated by the Left. If you've thought this, then you have thought wrongly.

Right or wrong, the "Chicago School" has had an important if not revolutionizing influence on economics as a science. Milton Friedman became nearly as important as John Maynard Keynes by the end of his career. The Austrian School, on the other hand, is more of a crank tank than an academic institution and it in fact, doesn't even do real economics. It would be virtually impossible to graduate with a degree in economics from anywhere, and not learn a little about the Chicago School, while on the other hand, it would be very easy to find oneself steeped in graduate studies having never heard of the Austrian School. In fact, finding solid critiques of the Austrian School is even difficult because much like FARMS, they are simply ignored.

.

The Chicago School has been a dismal failure. It destroyed Russia in the nineties with its cowboy economics and Milton destroyed a demoncatic chile when he sided with Pinochet against the elected marxist Allende. Pinochet was a big fan of milton. The chicago school was also reponsible for draconian policies in eastern europe. Not much to brag about.

The austrian school went in and out of popularity and yet, it did contain some very respected people such as Hayek. It promotes individualism and self reliance and the market. Its heyday was in the early 20th century and late nineteenth century before the depression. But since then, it has lost influence among established economists. But considering the destruction done by the chicago school the austrian school seems benign.

[_Gadianton]

My dad is from the left because he grew up poor white trash, watching the haves and the have nots, and being hungry most of his life. When The New Deal came to town, it literally saved his bacon

Thanks for your comments PollyP. I'm glad to hear your dad took advantage of the opportunity he was given.

[_Gadianton]

The Chicago School has been a dismal failure. It destroyed Russia in the nineties with its cowboy economics and Milton destroyed a demoncatic chile when he sided with Pinochet against the elected marxist Allende. Pinochet was a big fan of milton. The chicago school was also reponsible for draconian policies in eastern europe. Not much to brag about.

If you say so.

The austrian school went in and out of popularity and yet, it did contain some very respected people such as Hayek. It promotes individualism and self reliance and the market.

My scout master used to promote self-reliance, but that didn't qualify him to be an economist.

Von Mises and Hayek may have been respected, but as the apologists point out, so are any number of MI associates. Nevertheless, the Austrian School is dismissed today as is FARMS. Austrians are fundamentalists. Hey, Keynes also distrusted quantitative economics (most quantitative economists do too, but what can you do?) but that didn't stop Paul Samuelson from pulling the foundations of modern macro from his book and the subject of economics maturing as a science. We're getting well underway in the next century now and Austrians are still writing papers in distrust of statistics because by golly, Von Mises didn't believe in math so neither do we! See, that's what cults do. They spend their existences extracting wisdom from their hero-redeemer rather than joining in the cause of progress.

Sure, all institutions toe their party line to a degree. But there are vast differences in degree. I had a more than one professor trained at Chicago, but I never remember any of them disparaging Keynes. Are there any pure monetarists? My Chicago-trained teachers seemed to buy into Monetarism, but considered themselves neo-Keynesian because they acknowledged in rare circumstances, government spending works, the prime example being world-war II and the depression.

[_Gadianton]

the best I can muster is quoting or sourcing some economist who seems to be agreeing with my point, but that is just playing a weird game of Pokemon, where you try to outdo the others with bigger and smarter experts.

Yeah, I agree. I come out of the woodwork now and again after Droopy files down the firing pin on his AK and goes on a rampage, just for basic concepts.

[_why me]

The Chicago School has been a dismal failure. It destroyed Russia in the nineties with its cowboy economics and Milton destroyed a demoncatic chile when he sided with Pinochet against the elected marxist Allende. Pinochet was a big fan of milton. The chicago school was also reponsible for draconian policies in eastern europe. Not much to brag about.

If you say so.
.

it is not just me who says so. If you were to speak to Russians about the 1990's when the chicago school was in play, they will tell you about the poverty of many of the russian people. It climaxed in 1998 when the truth of the situation was revealed. Before that, Time, Newsweek and a host of other magazines and journals were focusing on the life style of the new rich as if all russians were benefiting.

And in chile, the situation was terrible after Pinochet came to power. Leftists were rounded up and shot and a harsh neoliberal agenda was put in place all with Uncle Milton's blessing.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The ... Ul-iF7Sl4C

Of course being around at that time, I saw and analysed the situation before Klein did. So, my friend, it is just not me.

[_why me]

My scout master used to promote self-reliance, but that didn't qualify him to be an economist.

Von Mises and Hayek may have been respected, but as the apologists point out, so are any number of MI associates. Nevertheless, the Austrian School is dismissed today as is FARMS. Austrians are fundamentalists. Hey, Keynes also distrusted quantitative economics (most quantitative economists do too, but what can you do?) but that didn't stop Paul Samuelson from pulling the foundations of modern macro from his book and the subject of economics maturing as a science.

.

I don't agree with either schools of thought: the chicago school or the austrian school. What I am saying is that ideas come and go and sometimes they return. At this moment in europe and in america, the chicago school is on top mainly because both american and european elite view the free market as being from the heavens and not to messed with. But we also see the tragedy of the chicago school now when economies are in disarray. Keynes on the other hand brought many people into the mainstream and his policies which were embraced by Europe after the war created the foundations of the welfare state and social democratic policies, something which the believers in the chicago school are now attempting to destroy.

Farms exists to help defend the LDS church. Why would leading theorists put Farms in the top ten or hundred? One can not compare the austrian school with Farms. Now this does not mean that Farms doesn't do a nice job. I think that it does.

[_Gadianton]

the chicago school is on top mainly because both american and european elite view the free market as being from the heavens and not to messed with.

Then why isn't the Austrian School "on top" instead? They are more "free market" than Chicago.

and..

Klein spent much of her teenage years in shopping malls, obsessed with designer logos.[7] As a child and teenager, she found it "very oppressive to have a very public feminist mother" and she rejected politics, instead embracing "full-on consumerism."

In 1995, she returned to the University of Toronto to finish her degree[5] but left the university for a journalism internship before acquiring the final credits required to complete her degree

Just speculating here, but I'll bet Stak, EA, Analytics, or even Droopy might have a Pokemon to play here that could rival Klein.

And Friedman gave his blessing on cold blooded murder? Sure, Why Me.

[_EAllusion]

Naomi Klein's writing on Milton Friedman is one of the worst hatchet jobs I've ever seen by someone who actually has respect in decent academic circles. She quotemines him badly and portrays him as holding views highly different from his actual positions that you would know if you have basic familiarity with his writings.

e.g.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/d ... n-friedman

I could write a lot about the Austrian school types, as they frequent my political circle, but the short of it is that I agree with Gad. They remind me of Ayn Rand Objectivists. Not because they are around the libertarianish area of the spectrum, but because they are not taken seriously by their field of expertise and arguments with the rank and file make you feel like you are challenging a cult.

[_Milesius]

While the Austrian School occasionally has some good insights, their refusal to recognize the applicability of mathematics and statistics to economics is cuckoo for cocoa puffs and certainly does not endear them to me. (Nor does von Mises' letter to Ayn Rand, which EA pointed out to me.)

[_moksha]

Sorry if it was a bit off topic, but I was referring to this post:

Now did he get sick of right-wing rhetoric in general? Only he can answer that. I can tell you that at BYU, oddly enough, the econ professors were anything but spiritual, in fact, they boasted of having the lowest spirituality ratings of any school at the university.

You were right on target for that point. Right-wing rhetoric can suck the spirit right out of anything religious and replace it with a twisted grotesquerie. I am glad to hear that your brand of conservatism still has room for some compassion.