674 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury OP 21 Jan \ parent \ on: Updates to _Human Action_ for the twenty-first century? econ
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.
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.
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply