Quote:
Originally Posted by feargach  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. |
AS will follow the CS in their political mechanisms. Yes I am aware AS came first that does not stop them copying CS. The whole point is that they don't need a whole load of people with economics degrees to agree with them they just need political power. CSers where never the majority of people with economics degrees (postgraduate or otherwise) but they did gain disproportionate political power to their relatively small number. Real world power of economic policy is all politics and very little economics.
Quote:
|
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?
|
LMAO! You are obviously not into philosophy, it is full of schools of thought that where briefly popular and where then ditched and a good study of philosophy teaches about them all.
But anyway I not only approached AS with a touch of caution but with scepticism, so far I have had a few very interesting discussions with the ASers on this forum and found major personal objections to AS teaching.