Why you should read things before saying they support your position
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Joseph Osako
Apr 19, 2016, 1:20:10 PM4/19/16
to Objectivism Discussion
Ayn Rand, and her devotees, often claim that their positions are based on those of the Austrian School of economic theory. Too bad Rand herself doesn't seem to have understood that school before she said that. Her claim to have actually discussed economics with several Austrian school theorists - including Menger, who *died before she escaped the Soviet Union*, and Mises, who later said he hadn't even heard of her until after she was claiming all this - would be far more plausible.
Basically, it is clear that Rand never bothered to read what Menger, Mises, etc. said, and just assumed that their focus on transactions between individuals was based on an ethical stance. The problem? Their whole goal was to *eliminate the entire idea of applied economics*, and focus on making it an empirical science; they were studying individuals, not because they thought individualism was great, but because they thought that macroeconomic behaviors were fundamentally too complex to model accurately. They explicitly disavowed any and all ethical, moral, and ideological aspects of the field, including political capitalism.
There are even anecdotal stories - though I do not know if they are true - that Mises would begin each course he taught by telling his students that if they wanted to use economics for practical purposes, they should leave school and become either politicians or businesspeople. He would state flat out that he only wanted people who were looking to *study* economics, not apply it.
That, plus the fact that they rejected out of hand the concept of objective value, which Rand was really, really hot for. The subjective nature of value was and remains a core part of their research methodology.
Basically, it is clear that Rand never bothered to read what Menger, Mises, etc. said, and just assumed that their focus on transactions between individuals was based on an ethical stance. The problem? Their whole goal was to *eliminate the entire idea of applied economics*, and focus on making it an empirical science; they were studying individuals, not because they thought individualism was great, but because they thought that macroeconomic behaviors were fundamentally too complex to model accurately. They explicitly disavowed any and all ethical, moral, and ideological aspects of the field, including political capitalism.
There are even anecdotal stories - though I do not know if they are true - that Mises would begin each course he taught by telling his students that if they wanted to use economics for practical purposes, they should leave school and become either politicians or businesspeople. He would state flat out that he only wanted people who were looking to *study* economics, not apply it.
That, plus the fact that they rejected out of hand the concept of objective value, which Rand was really, really hot for. The subjective nature of value was and remains a core part of their research methodology.
Elliot Temple
Apr 19, 2016, 6:24:18 PM4/19/16
to Objectivism Discussion, FI
On Apr 19, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Joseph Osako <josep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ayn Rand, and her devotees, often claim that their positions are based on those of the Austrian School of economic theory. Too bad Rand herself doesn't seem to have understood that school before she said that. Her claim to have actually discussed economics with several Austrian school theorists - including Menger, who *died before she escaped the Soviet Union*, and Mises, who later said he hadn't even heard of her until after she was claiming all this - would be far more plausible.
Could you give citations for your claims?
> Ayn Rand, and her devotees, often claim that their positions are based on those of the Austrian School of economic theory. Too bad Rand herself doesn't seem to have understood that school before she said that. Her claim to have actually discussed economics with several Austrian school theorists - including Menger, who *died before she escaped the Soviet Union*, and Mises, who later said he hadn't even heard of her until after she was claiming all this - would be far more plausible.
> Basically, it is clear that Rand never bothered to read what Menger, Mises, etc. said, and just assumed that their focus on transactions between individuals was based on an ethical stance. The problem? Their whole goal was to *eliminate the entire idea of applied economics*, and focus on making it an empirical science; they were studying individuals, not because they thought individualism was great, but because they thought that macroeconomic behaviors were fundamentally too complex to model accurately. They explicitly disavowed any and all ethical, moral, and ideological aspects of the field, including political capitalism.
So FWIW I have read Mises in addition to Rand. I'm not alone in finding a lot of compatibility, e.g. see http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
> There are even anecdotal stories - though I do not know if they are true - that Mises would begin each course he taught by telling his students that if they wanted to use economics for practical purposes, they should leave school and become either politicians or businesspeople. He would state flat out that he only wanted people who were looking to *study* economics, not apply it.
> That, plus the fact that they rejected out of hand the concept of objective value, which Rand was really, really hot for. The subjective nature of value was and remains a core part of their research methodology.
What have you read about this stuff? You gave no cites, and don't indicate what you've read, while complaining about what others have read. Have you read this? http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
Some notes on _Capitalism_
- Mises and Objectivism compatible economics book
- from student of Mises and Rand both
- shows how their ideas work great together
Anyway, big picture, Objectivism is compatible with capitalism and not with rivals to capitalism. Is there some non-Austrian economist you think understands capitalism better, who Rand should have preferred over Mises?
Have you read Mises' _Liberalism_ book? It has lots of overlap with Objectivism. For example, like Rand (in VoS ch4), Mises talks about the harmony (not conflict) of men's interests.
Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages