Updates to _Human Action_ for the twenty-first century? \ stacker news ~econ

Updates to _Human Action_ for the twenty-first century?

8971 sats \ 12 comments \ @elvismercury 21 Jan econ

When I first got into btc I became aware of the Austrian school of econ. My general attitude is to not opine on stuff that I don't understand, and so I read Human Action, which seemed about the most foundational and canonical work from that school. It took a year or so, because I read slow and annotate heavily. Then a bit of time passed, and I re-read about half of it. Eventually I stopped because I didn't want to spend the rest of my life studying Human Action like it was a holy text.

Anyway, I got a lot out of it, and highly recommend the book, although I'm not sure exactly who I'd recommend it to. It's certainly not something to read lightly. I have a ton of beefs and arguments with various parts of it, and I think it (like many of the Libertarian canon) falls down in a bunch of ways; which I mention only so that you'll be able to properly weigh my advocacy when I say that it's definitely a wide and deep book that will reward your attention immeasurably.

However! I come, hat in hand, with a different question.

Human Action is like 90 years old. It's been massively influential. The nature of the Austrian school is that, like Euclid, you would expect its foundational texts to require less 'revision' as time passes. (Or at least: you would expect that Austrians would believe this to be the case; which is one of the fundamental points of departure between them and basically everyone else.) And this is the heart of my question, to anybody that might have an informed opinion on the matter: what's the postscript to Mises? Insofar as the school is cohesive and even still a school, where has the vision laid out in HA been revised, or found wanting?

Most other schools / fields have a robust (even, some might say, psychopathic) degree of self-critique. As best I can determine, this isn't the case w/ the Austrians, which shouldn't be a surprise, given that the principal vector for dissemination of their discipline / philosophy takes Mises as its namesake, so it would sort of be like expecting hard looks at Jesus from the Vatican.

Nonetheless, I figure there might be something that discusses where Mises went wrong or came up short or that updates his body of work for the next century, and that someone here might be able to orient me to what that is. The other week @scottathan posted a review article on contemporary activity in the Austrian school, which is in the right ballpark, but I'm wondering if there is something that specifically addresses Human Action in a modern context.

Suggestions appreciated.

view all related items

1167 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 21 Jan

When I first got into libertarianism I fell in with a group of local hard core anarcho capitalists for whom Human Action was the bible. These guys literally would use reading the entire text as a litmus test for your commitment to the cause. You couldn't fake it because they would quiz you. I remember sitting at my desk at night after working all day, staring at the gigantic book. I read it, and I enjoyed it, but it took me a very long time to get through it. You're right. It was worth it.

I don't know if what you're looking for us out there.

796 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 21 Jan

I didn't mention that my less-admirable motivation for picking up HA in the first place was that I wanted to be sufficient to an examination like the one you described.

My sense was (and is) that most economic blatherers on crypto-twitter and elsewhere have no fucking clue and have never read HA, nor much of anything else, probably, except the warmed over bullshit that passes as doctrine in this space. So the plan was to read HA with great attention and flex on them, quoting verse, about how dumb it was, and then what could they say?

Except I accidentally wound up loving the book and thinking it was brilliant. Oops.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 21 Jan

This was the late 1980s and it was an all male crowd. It was almost like the peer pressure I felt to smoke a joint in middle school.

1129 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 21 Jan

In Man, Economy, and State (which is also quite old at this point), Rothbard makes some updates and corrections to Mises and other early Austrian tradition writers. That is probably the book that most accurately expresses the conclusions of the Austrian School, although it's not as philosophically interesting as Human Action.

I couldn't quickly find a summary of what topics specifically get updated, though.

To a pretty significant degree Saifedean's work is a modern update (or contextualization) of Austrian thought. At least that's my impression, I haven't actually read his books yet.

674 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury OP 21 Jan

Rothbard makes some updates and corrections to Mises and other early Austrian tradition writers.

I made an attempt at Rothbard after my Mises era, but it wasn't clear to me to what degree he was updating Mises, to what extent attempting to re-state Mises in (what he thought was) a clearer explanatory style, and to what degree he introduced his own strains of anarcho-capitalism into the mix, which would be (to my mind) less an update of Mises than an additional set of independent claims / theoretical foundation.

To a pretty significant degree Saifedean's work is a modern update (or contextualization) of Austrian thought.

Ugh, if that's the case then it's a sorry state of affairs. To go from Mises's careful, articulate, extremely thorough and scholarly magnum opus, to Saifedean's verbal tantrums, stupid vendettas, ad-hominem attacks, and pop culture hot-takes seems about the most abrupt fall-off in intellectual rigor that I can imagine. It's like following up Michael Jordan w/ Harold Miner. Or J.R. Rider, actually.

1092 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 21 Jan

I see our opinions of Saifedean overlap considerably. I was basing that view on some of the interviews I've heard him give about his books and the fact that every time someone quotes one of "his" economic insights on nostr it's pretty standard Mises/Rothbard stuff.

My understanding of Man, Economy, and State is that Rothbard was initially just trying to make a more accessible version of Human Action. In the process, he found some errors and corrected them, which led to some new insights to write about. He also extended the analysis a bit into some of the libertarian topics he's interested in. Most of the libertarian stuff is in Power and Market, though, which is sometimes treated as a supplement to Man, Economy, and State (and which I didn't think was as good).

For what it's worth, I think Man, Economy, and State is an extraordinary economics treatise. I thought the presentation of many economic principles were much clearer than other writers, while also maintaining technical accuracy.

The reason there haven't been any major serious updates of those books is that they're still considered very good introductions to the Austrian School. More contemporary writers have focused on specific areas to apply the theory to. That leads to occasional updates to the older theory, but nothing that necessitates a new treatise, so far.

653 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 21 Jan

That's a really great elaboration, thank you.

I was basing that view on some of the interviews I've heard him give about his books and the fact that every time someone quotes one of "his" economic insights on nostr it's pretty standard Mises/Rothbard stuff.

Same. Insofar as he has anything to say, it's cribbed, usually without attribution, from an actual thinker. And then he convolves it with his kindergarten-level name-calling. There's a lot of "thought leaders" in the space who do the same -- a comparably annoying example is Mark Moss, who re-packages Carlota Perez and passes her framework off as his own insights. So gross.

For what it's worth, I think Man, Economy, and State is an extraordinary economics treatise. [...]

Maybe the next time the urge strikes instead of refreshing on HA, I'll read the two of Rothbard's you mention, since I own them already; and maybe pick up Bob Murphy's notes on it. Ironically, I seem to be one of the few who has less trouble with Mises than w/ Rothbard, whom I find kind of opaque as a writer. Mises is a bit stilted and weird sometimes, but also elegant and straightforward to follow.

Anyway, appreciate the details.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 21 Jan

I haven't read any of Bob's summaries, but he's such a great explainer of complex ideas that I'm willing to recommend that approach.

I agree with you about Mises>Rothbard as a writer, but I also see why some people find him indecipherable. I was so hooked by Human Action that I read it on my iPhone 3 back in undergrad.

101 sats \ 0 replies \ @Atreus 22 Jan

For anyone viewing 👁️ this thread with interest, you can find free copies of Human Action at the Mises Institute — EPUB, PDF versions available.

You're welcome!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 22 Jan

HA is considered one of the most important works in the Austrian tradition. Going back to the foundation of the school, there is "Principles of Economics" by Carl Menger. Going even further back before the school, you have Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" which is a timeless classic. Moving forward, you might want to look at "Choice in Currency: A Way to Stop Inflation" by Friedrich A. von Hayek. For shorter more digestible works: "The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays" edited by Richard Ebeling.

Keynesians have brought us so far away from the principles of sound money that there is no modern context. We are neck deep in the Zimbabwe School of Economics.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @solidus 22 Jan freebie

I can highly recommend Rothbard's MES. I found it easier than Human Action. Not only in writing style, but also because Rothbard dares to finish some of the conclusions that Mises left open.

For example: Mises left the entire question about the size of the state open. He advocates for minimizing the state, but did not finish the thought on what a society without a state would look like as he still considers protection services best to be provided by the state.

MES gives you the theoretical basis that there is no need for the state. Several other books by Rothbard go into more detail how a society without a state functions (both predictive and with plenty of historical examples).

I'm still learning and reading. In terms of modern Austrian's, I can recommend Hoppe with some new refreshing takes.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Anonymous_Hodler 22 Jan

Never heard of the book before, but you sparkled my curiosity, so I will probably be looking for it on my next visit to Powells or Barnes & Noble… Thank you