Why isn't every economist an Austrian?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because atheism does not follow from the observational evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's using the false definition of atheism that includes agnosticism. Without proof for or against religion, any scientist would remain agnostic.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
The title basically sums it up. People on this forum--some with little to no formal economic knowledge--are able to see with such clarity the economic obviousness of Austrian economics and, following that, the obviousness of AC. So, why then, is not every economist, who undoubtedly has more economic knowledge than any of us, an Austrian, at least in their private lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting article by Bryan Caplan on why he does not subscribe to the Austrian school of thought, FWIW.

(Link found on newly updated Wikipedia page - thanks boro)

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting article by Bryan Caplan on why he does not subscribe to the Austrian school of thought, FWIW.

(Link found on newly updated Wikipedia page - thanks boro)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for this.

[hmkpoker]

In the hard sciences, it is much easier to conclusively and empirically demonstrate your theoretical claims. A biologist wishing to back up his claim that a certain hormone increases the amount of testosterone in a lab mouse can create a very controlled experiment, compare a large experimental group against a large control group under otherwise equal conditions, and demonstrate his claim very conclusively.

Economists, on the other hand, cannot do this. It is far too difficult to construct macroeconomic experimental and control groups to test whether, for example, the gold standard is more conducive to productivity or less, or whether and to what degree price floors are constructive or destructive. You cannot observe the economy under a microscope. With little more than theory to back our claims, it is no wonder that there is more disagreement in the social "sciences" than in the hard sciences.

However, given the funding source, it should be obvious that the state (who provides nearly all the economic funding) would be biased against a school that claims it should not exist and toward a school that advocates its existence.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


However, given the funding source, it should be obvious that the state (who provides nearly all the economic funding) would be biased against a school that claims it should not exist and toward a school that advocates its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow the $, this explains it for me.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, given the funding source, it should be obvious that the state (who provides nearly all the economic funding) would be biased against a school that claims it should not exist and toward a school that advocates its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow the $, this explains it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I expected these types of responses, which is why I added the clause of "in their private lives." Of course, that's foolish because we can never know what they believe in private. Meh.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because atheism does not follow from the observational evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's using the false definition of atheism that includes agnosticism. Without proof for or against religion, any scientist would remain agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll buy that. The definitions of "agnostic" also cover a lot of area, btw.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, given the funding source, it should be obvious that the state (who provides nearly all the economic funding) would be biased against a school that claims it should not exist and toward a school that advocates its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow the $, this explains it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I expected these types of responses, which is why I added the clause of "in their private lives." Of course, that's foolish because we can never know what they believe in private. Meh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the rather extensive work that one has to go through to achieve a high status in academics, it is unlikely that an individual who didn't have a strong belief/passion in what they were studying would go through the rigid educational process. I don't think Borodog would have gone for his PhD in physics if he secretly believed that the world was held up by elephants on the back of a gigantic turtle. A state that funds a neoclassical economics department is going to select individuals who are interested in neoclassical economics as its most successful members.

Libertarians tend to gravitate more towards business than academics anyway (which is fully consistent with their paradigm).

[Felz]

Taken from the linked article.

"Yet all too large a fraction of Austrian research has not been in economics at all, but rather in meta-economics: philosophy, methodology, and history of thought."

Neoclassical theory is far more appealing than the philosophical drama provided by Mises or Hayek.
In most basic microeconomic lectures their thoughts are a starting point of discussion until market failure and redistribution get introduced. Followed by the argument between market and government failure leading to public choice etc.

The argument for AC'ism on this board is mostly based on personal real life experience and the belief that "taxation is theft" not on sound economic analysis.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
tom,

it's naievte, my good man.

[/ QUOTE ]

omfg.

i suck at life.