pull down to refresh

By Conor Sanderson
As we wade through the intricacies of modern society, it becomes all the more imperative to go back to the works of Ludwig von Mises.
How could he not still be the standard in regards to human action. By my name, you can see I am also partial to Rothbard and his analysis of the economy, especially in Power and State.
reply
Most of the econ profession is completely unaware of what the Misesian framework is.
reply
I think that may be because they are statist bound by Keynes.
reply
Keynesianism actually has fairly little explicit support. Most economists aren't macroeconomists and even many of them aren't explicitly Keynesian.
The issue is more that most economists have unexamined statist precepts that they operate under. They even know that many of those are false, but continue acting as though they're true, because they haven't connected the dots.
It's much less malice than it is banality.
reply
I think it is more the source of their income that they are looking towards. If the government, in the form of direct paychecks or the form of grants for research or in the form of salaries from colleges, they know which side of the bread the butter is on. Many people take umbrage with the way GDP is calculated because they use government spending as additive to the economy when it is actually a negative. That was the big Keynesian boo-boo, IMHO. :)
reply
That’s all true, but I’d say it works more as psychological motivation than cynical reasoning.
reply
I agree that the money aspect is a great incentivator for scientists and ScienceTM. It is for everybody. Money seems to be a great reward in any operant condition mode, whether time based or interval based.
reply