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

653 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 21 Jan \ parent \ on: Updates to _Human Action_ for the twenty-first century? econ

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.