Why I Embrace A Non-Austrian Economic Philosophy

I do not consider myself an Austrian economist, but I have been inspired by the Austrian classics over the years, particularly Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action”. I was first introduced to Austrian economics during my senior year in high school, when I first read and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. However, I do not believe that the Austrians have much to offer in terms of the development of monetary theory.

Austrians have little to offer in the development of monetary theory

Bryan Caplan wrote an excellent piece on why he is not an Austrian. While I do not agree with everything Bryan says about the Austrians, I nonetheless think his paper is pretty much spot on in the critique of Austrian thinking.

I do not consider myself an Austrian economist, but I have been inspired by reading the Austrian classics over the years, particularly Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action”. That said, in terms of the development of monetary theory, I do not believe that the Austrians have much to offer. When I talk about "Austrians" that do not include Free Banking theorists like George Selgin or Larry White. In fact, I think that Market Monetarism and the Free Banking schools theoretically is very close.

I was first introduced to Austrian economics during my senior year in high school, when I first read and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. The summer before I began my undergraduate work at UC Berkeley, I was able to attend the 1989 Mises Institute summer seminar at Stanford, where I met Murray Rothbard and many of the leading Austrian economists for the first time. It is now eight years later; I have just completed my Ph.D. in economics at Princeton, and will be joining the faculty of the economics department at George Mason in the fall. I thus find this a natural point in my career to articulate precisely why I no longer consider myself an Austrian economist - as I certainly did eight years ago.

I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that: (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

When I talk about "Austrians" that do not include Free Banking theorists like George Selgin or Larry White. In fact, I think that Market Monetarism and the Free Banking schools theoretically is very close.

Austrians have made valuable contributions to economics

Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Ludwig von Mises's “Human Action” is a classic work that has inspired many economists. Murray Rothbard is another leading Austrian economist who has contributed to the field.

However, Bryan Caplan argues that rebuilding economics along foundations that are substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics is a fruitless effort. He disagrees with some aspects of Austrian thinking, but respects the critique of Austrian economics.

Caplan also mentions that he was first introduced to Austrian economics during his senior year in high school and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. He also attended the 1989 Mises Institute summer seminar at Stanford, where he met Murray Rothbard and many of the leading Austrian economists.

Despite his positive experiences with Austrian economics, Caplan no longer considers himself an Austrian economist. He believes that the development of monetary theory is an area where Austrians have little to offer.

In conclusion, while Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics, there are valid critiques of their ideas and approaches that should be considered.

Austrians' efforts to rebuild economics are futile

Bryan Caplan wrote an excellent piece on why he is not an Austrian. While I do not agree with everything Bryan says about the Austrians, I nonetheless think his paper is pretty much spot on in the critique of Austrian thinking.

I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that: (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

I was first introduced to Austrian economics during my senior year in high school, when I first read and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. The summer before I began my undergraduate work at UC Berkeley, I was able to attend the 1989 Mises Institute summer seminar at Stanford, where I met Murray Rothbard and many of the leading Austrian economists for the first time. It is now eight years later; I have just completed my Ph.D. in economics at Princeton, and will be joining the faculty of the economics department at George Mason in the fall. I thus find this a natural point in my career to articulate precisely why I no longer consider myself an Austrian economist - as I certainly did eight years ago.

When I talk about “Austrians” that do not include Free Banking theorists like George Selgin or Larry White. In fact I think that Market Monetarism and the Free Banking schools theoretically is very close. George do not consider himself to be Austrian, while I think Larry still says that he is Austrian inspired.

I do not consider myself as an Austrian economist, but I certainly have been inspired by reading the Austrian classics over the years – particularly Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action”. That said, in terms of the development of monetary theory I do not believe that the Austrians have much to offer.

Austrians' thinking is outdated

Bryan Caplan wrote an excellent piece on why he is not an Austrian. While I do not agree with everything Bryan says about the Austrians, I nonetheless think his paper is pretty much spot on in the critique of Austrian thinking.

Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. However, I maintain that the effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

I was first introduced to Austrian economics during my senior year in high school, when I first read and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. The summer before I began my undergraduate work at UC Berkeley, I was able to attend the 1989 Mises Institute summer seminar at Stanford, where I met Murray Rothbard and many of the leading Austrian economists for the first time. I thus find this a natural point in my career to articulate precisely why I no longer consider myself an Austrian economist.

I do not consider myself as an Austrian economist, but I certainly have been inspired by reading the Austrian classics over the years – particularly Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action”. That said, in terms of the development of monetary theory, I do not believe that the Austrians have much to offer. When I talk about “Austrians” that do not include Free Banking theorists like George Selgin or Larry White. In fact, I think that Market Monetarism and the Free Banking schools theoretically is very close. George Selgin does not consider himself to be Austrian, while I think Larry White still says that he is Austrian-inspired.

I was first introduced to Austrian economics during my senior year in high school, when I first read and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. The summer before I began my undergraduate work at UC Berkeley, I was able to attend the 1989 Mises Institute summer seminar at Stanford, where I met Murray Rothbard and many of the leading Austrian economists for the first time. I thus find this a natural point in my career to articulate precisely why I no longer consider myself an Austrian economist.

Austrians' thinking is a critique of Austrian thinking

Bryan Caplan wrote an excellent piece on why he is not an Austrian. While I do not agree with everything Bryan says about the Austrians (and children!), I nonetheless think his paper is pretty much spot on in the critique of Austrian thinking.

I was first introduced to Austrian economics during my senior year in high school, when I first read and enjoyed the writings of Mises and Rothbard. The summer before I began my undergraduate work at UC Berkeley, I was able to attend the 1989 Mises Institute summer seminar at Stanford, where I met Murray Rothbard and many of the leading Austrian economists for the first time. It is now eight years later; I have just completed my Ph.D. in economics at Princeton, and will be joining the faculty of the economics department at George Mason in the fall. I thus find this a natural point in my career to articulate precisely why I no longer consider myself an Austrian economist - as I certainly did eight years ago.

I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that: (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

When I talk about “Austrians” that do not include Free Banking theorists like George Selgin or Larry White. In fact I think that Market Monetarism and the Free Banking schools theoretically is very close. George do not consider himself to be Austrian, while I think Larry still says that he is Austrian inspired.

I do not consider myself as an Austrian economist, but I certainly have been inspired by reading the Austrian classics over the years – particularly Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action”. That said, in terms of the development of monetary theory I do not believe that the Austrians have much to offer.

Frequently asked questions