>From: Mark Steckbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Austrians and markets >Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:32:32 -0500 > >A colleague who had run and managed businesses in a previous life recently >asked me to name a management strategy based on Austrian theory. There are >numerous possible answers such as spontaneous order and all but, after >considering that another colleague who happens to be both a musician and an >avid Austrian once told me that the market for music was wholly inept and >inefficient in that it did not see the best musicians rise to the >top--namely I suppose, him--as well as the recent post by Dan Klein >pertaining to changing the name of the school (let's put the old wine in >new >wineskins), the following struck me:
> If Austrians believe in the sanctity of the market and market >outcomes, >how do they view the fact that the market is repudiating Austrian theory >and >methodology? By "the market," do you mean "the market for economic ideas"? If so, then that's largely untrue. You can't teach econ. above the high school level without marginal utility, for instance. Any serious discussion of socialism, as a means of exchanging goods and services, has to include Hayek's commentary (not a strict Austrian, I know, but still). I would argue that the areas in which Austrian theory has not made headway (business cycle theory, for instance) are, surprise!, areas where Austrian theory is not preferred to other theories. In other words, vindicating the Austrian view, in a meta-economical sense. -JP _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
