If you don’t know about the convenient internet resource, technorati, the world must be passing you by. All you do is plug in your site’s (or any site’s) URL and you can see who has linked to it recently in the blogosphere. So here are the results for:
Austrian Addiction
and
The MISEScreants
I’m posting these links as a way to show thanks for linking to me and a quick easy way to link back.
I was rummaging through some old hard drive space and came across a book summary I had co-authoerd for a class on Constitutional Law in undergrad. I posted it on amazon as a book review and can be read here.
I recently read Vincent Ostrom’s The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies for Pete’s Constitutional Political Economy Class. He wrote up a comment on the Austrian Economists.
I would like to comment on a feature of Vincent Ostrom’s proposed research design for the investigation into political economy. As it has been explained to me the Ostroms (both Vincent and Elinore) assert that the proper structure of intensive education in political economy is one of artisanship over repetitions and reiteration. Graduate students learn best by doing and should view their degree seeking years more as apprenticeships in which they hone the tools and skills of their craft.
First things first, I am proud to announce that I have received confirmation that I have passed my Microeconomics prelim. That’s two for two, and no looking back.
On to other topics, Gordon Tullock and I went butted heads on the issue of collective action in thsi morning’s class on Public Choice. The original queston which professor Tullock posed to me was in reference to aiding the currnet New Orleans catastrophe. He asked whether I thought “we should go in and help them out.” By “we” he meant action resulting from national policy. I answered no, and tried my best to explain how, though I find it noble and commendable for people to spend their own time, effort, and money in helping the poor, the hurt, and the sick, I did not see it as an appropriate avenue of collective action forced by state intervention. In fact few to no scenariosare in my view. Tullock took qualm with this and persisted in presenting anarcho-capitalist sollutions as not sollutions at all and essentially deemed my stance as a do-nothing attitude.
The remainder of this post I intend to address this accusation for I don’t think it is a reasonable attack against laissez faire societal structure. The point I think most worth making is the nature of social problems under a polycentric societal structure. Under polycentric governance people possess a greater cpaacity to provide for themselves and the necessities of their environments. Either we accept that markets provide the needs of society better than states do, or they don’t. I take the former position over the latter. Pete Boettke recently posted, “The bottom line — markets if allowed to operate are amazingly quick at adapting to the changes in the underlying conditions and satisfying the demands of consumers.” I fail to see why the logistical dynamics of the Mississippi should be any different. Yes, it’s a big river but there are far more complex systems in a market economy that don’t require state control to dictate ownerhsip and control priveledges.
Action under the auspices of freedom takes place on the margin. I don’t think such catastrophic events would be as catastrohpic in the first place under a polycentric governance. So to take issue against Anarcho-capitalism as saying that it is incapable of handling state created problems seems silly to me. But then again according to Tullock I must be a crack-pot. I ddin’t take such accusations personally as I’ve been told they’re really signs of endearment.
It is now official, I have passed (fully rather than marginally) my macroeconomics preliminary exam. This is a huge weight lifted from my shoulders as it appears the upcoming class has their work cut out for them with Cowen’s intense grading policies. I still have a few weeks before I’m supposed to hear about microeconomics but I’ll be sure to post as soon as I hear a final word.
Pete Boettke recaps his grad school days and points out the potential of technology to more easily bring insight from the present (soon to be the past) into the future (soon to be the present). His write up includes a much appreciated pitch for The MISEScreants.
September has finally arrived and it marks the official launch of The MISEScreants podcast project. The first episode is being podcast today and each week on Fridays we will be sending out fresh new episodes. So if you’re not set up for the Mises podcast feed, you better get on the ball (click here for instructions).
Feel free to send us comments and suggestions on the existing episodes or requests for future episodes, but most of all enjoy. A subforum has been set up on the Austrian Forum for discussion and comments as each episode airs.
I’ve commonly heard the following argument against Austrian Business Cycle theory. Seeing as how it appears that the majority of the harm caused by the cycle is traced back to the fed increasing the money supply through the credit market, why do businessmen keep falling for it? In other words, everyone knows when and how the money supply changes so rational expectations should set in and alleviate the hazardous cyclical effects.
Defenses against this accusation that I’ve heard and tend to accept include 1) modeling the choice of businesses to accept government dictated loans and interest rates as a prisoner’s dillema and 2) the realization that lots of people are either unaware or do not accept Austrian Business Cycle theory.
What I want to point out here is that the original accusation is a reasonable one to make but less so against Austrian Business Cycle theory and more so against Keynesians uncoordinating markets during liquidity traps and interest inelastic investment schedules (when the Keynes effect does not hold). Keynes tried to point out a discoordinated market condition of underemployment resulting from hording rather than spending. But his distinction between saving and investment spending is in vein and a complete misunderstanding of Say’s Law. The new communication technology of knowledge about the money supply should go further to attack against Keynes than it does against Austrians. Savings without investment spending still sends signals about future production in a modern world where we know the money supply thanks to sources like the internet and newspapers.
Looks like Pete Boettke has finally headed to some of my advice and got himself a blog, and a darn good one if I do say so myself. I’ve added it to my links section and hope to see much more of it to come.
I was recently interviewed by a student reporter for an article on blogging in the Auburn student newspaper; Students go blog wild.