Quote:
Originally Posted by Seos  They where ignored and they slowly gained more influence politically away from the world of economic study until they had the influence they have today (or in the 80s) and they couldn't be ignored anymore. Is that what you want to happen with the Austrian School? Because it would suit them perfectly for none of their theories to be challenged and they can, like the Chicago school gain political influence. Then they can have their own Thatcher, Regan and Pinochet.
They were the consequence of ignoring the Chicago School, it may be the same for the Austrian School.
Either way, you're not doing a good job of ignoring them yourself. |
Errr, you realise the Austrianists came BEFORE the Chicago School, right?
The Chicago school grew from them, as the CS guys decided to take the broad anti-state thrust of the Austrianists, but strip it of the contradictory waffle, and place the system on a slightly steady mathematical basis, that had some vague connection to reality.
Austrianism has been around for almost a century, longer, depending on which books you consider to be part of the school.
It's taking a MIGHTY long time to gain adherents among people with postgraduate economics degrees.
You are obviously into philosophy. If a philosophical (non-economic) school started in the 1920s, was briefly popular for a few years, and then was widely criticised on dozens of seperate grounds, before being gradually dumped by all philosophy departments, would you be wildly interested to read up all about this philosophy, with a mind to seeing if it was spot on? Or would you approach with a touch of caution?