Post-Austrian, is there even such a thing?

So there is this blog that is quite interesting, click here to view the blog, which the blogger identifies himself as a ‘post austrian.’ according to him, post austrianism is an economic school of thought that revives the Misesian view. More specifically, it is a school of thought that revives the human action part of economics. It takes in consideration individual expectations and preferences, time, the differences in capital, and a general view that the market is a structured system. In a way, this post austrianism is a way to merge the ideas of Carl Menger, Ludwig Von Mises, and of Ludwig Lachmann.

My only problem with the label is that this post austrianism is simply Austrian economics. This was the way Austrian economics was supposed to be viewed in the first place. It was the works of Hayek, Bahm-Bawerk, and Rothbard that went against Austrian principles, mainly because of their equilibrium analysis view on economics. And unfortunately this is the economics that dominate the modern day Austrian school. This is sad… The Austrian school used to praise itself for its hard stance on human action and subjectivism and it’s strong critiques on mainstream economics, but now the modern day Austrian school simply claim that their versions of equilibrium analysis, equations, and modeling are better than the versions of mainstream Keynesians. It is now simply just a battle of the better neoclassical theory. What a shame…

-Isaac Marmolejo

Advertisements

2 responses to “Post-Austrian, is there even such a thing?

  1. I’m a bit confused about this. I’ve never heard the term “post-Austrian” or even considered such a thing could exist. Once the prefixes start getting into vaguely named schools of thought or trends in music/literature/etc I get a bit annoyed.

    I am, however, a fan of Irish proto-quasi-post-punk-dubstep, but only the stuff before 2003. It’s my favorite genre of music

    • Well I get why he uses that label. Most modern Austrians have lost the true meaning of subjectivity and human action by giving into the neoclassical theory. As I said, it is no longer a debate with the mainstream about human action and subjectivism but instead it is a battle of the ‘better’ neoclassical theory. The post austrianism that he is talking about is more or less the same thing as the ‘radical subjectivism’ or ‘fundamental Austrian’ strand of Austrian Economics popularized by Ludwig Lachmann

      I am assuming he took the ‘post’ term from the post-keynesians, who stress that modern day Keynesianism have lost the true meaning of the economics of Keynes, and this guy generally stresses the same thing, that modern day Austrianism have lost the true meaning of the economics of Menger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s