Tyler Cowen on the GOAT of Economics 11/27/23 

I wonder if it is progression or regression. I recommend Rothbard's 'An Austrian Perspective On The History Of Economic Thought'. It should be available for free on the Mises Library. We seem to discount Rothbard as some taboo figure in Economics but his unique insights are to be reckoned with.

@@kockorzo thanks for the recommendation; I’ve skimmed it before for fun; I’m trying to find time to read Lionel Robbin’s history first and may come back to Rothbard later

@@Libertyfudge I have not read any of Robbin's work but 'An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Sciences' which then introduced me to the misean track, a debt I owe greatly to. But I would still recommend you read Rothbard first since he is more ruthless and extreme. From that kind of a writing, I find you receive greater insights. That text I also believe is more widely-encompassing and includes a more diverse set of discussions. And given the similar nature of both texts, there will be some repetition. Rothbard may also be more easily understood than Robbins but still, I have not read Robbins's book so am not qualified to speak any further in regards to the matter. Though I will still make a last comment. No one but those from the austrian-tradition (arrogant, I know) understand where value comes from and while I regard Robbins as heavily influenced by that tradition, he is no distinct scholar of it and in those regards, Rothbard is by far a better teacher. I won't spoil it but some of what he writes in that book will certainly change the way you perceive the world and the economics profession at large. Though in those regards, his 'Anatomy of the State' is a stronger contender.

Is that a Japanese economist, what are some of his main works?

In fairness, English is the lingua franca because of geopolitical power, not because Shakespeare did wonderful things with the language and with human psychology. Consider: Homer was the best poet in the West at least until Dante. This did not make Homeric Greek a lingua franca (it never was in historically attested time). No one knew much about economics in 1600, partly because you can only learn so much from primitive economies and limited data collection. Could William the Conqueror have learned given the chance? Dr. Johnson's opinion: Boswell's Hebrides, Aug. 15, 1773':-JOHNSON. 'I could as easily apply to law as to tragick poetry.' BOSWELL. 'Yet, Sir, you did apply to tragick poetry, not to law.' JOHNSON. 'Because, Sir, I had not money to study law. Sir, the man who has vigour may walk to the east just as well as to the west, if he happens to turn his head that way.' 'The true genius,' he wrote (Works, vii. 1), 'is a mind of large general powers, accidentally determined to some particular direction.' Shakespeare should have been top of mind when Roberts asked about writers. My favorite praise of him remains Dryden's: he had "the most comprehensive mind" of any writer who ever lived.

@@kreek22 "No one knew much about economics in 1600, partly because you can only learn so much from primitive economies and limited data collection. " The French philosopher Jean Bodin beat David Hume to the QTM by a century and a half. He observed two things; the price level in Europe quadrupled during the 16th century and Spain was importing huge quantities of gold and silver from the New World. He put two and two together and came up with four.

I'm no so sure about that proposal but most of Cowen's commentary (in this video at least' is best described as problematic. Especially when he regards Keynes as 'original' or even Adam Smith as 'one of greatest economists of all time'. His mistakings would be far too many to count but as Cowen says, this is from the POV of a fan and not some rigorous assessment of the 'greatest economists of all time'. If you ask me, i'd ignore all traditional boundaries and put Cantillon on the podium. It isn't anything serious, that is what I hope at least. I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out but Cowen's recent assessment of AI as some 'fifth factor of production' is certainly problematic. He may have had since corrected his stance (I don't follow his blog and am speaking purely from what he said in an event at the lse). For starters, there is no apparent reward demanded by AI to maintain its employment so I would regard it as a kind of total factor productivity rather than a 'new factor of production'.

I'll quote Mark Blaug, "His writings on economics are so cranky and idiosyncratic that one can wonder if anyone even takes his seriously", Paul Krugman regards it as a false doctrine (even though he doesn't understand it) and most mainstream economists simply dismiss it as something based on a false and 'intellectually bankrupt' Kantian epistemology requiring 'synthetic a priori knowledge'. It isn't easy to accept such "radicalism" once you aren't acquainted with the literature. An application of economics, the perceived marginal cost is simply too high. Most people are content with dismissing it as a 'false' and 'extreme' doctrine. Hayek I believe is somewhat to blame. Especially once you consider his discharge of Mises as having 'correct conclusions but unsatisfactory explanations'. His book, 'Constitution of Liberty' is taking it too far. If even this student of Mises believes this then Mises is obviously but some defunct philosopher. Even when people read Mises, I do not think they study Mises. It is a sort of lucid reading, especially when most of his ideas are so unintuitive. In those regards, I don't think most people study Hayek as well, they simply read him. Most of his writings are a sort of intellectual journey rather than some absolute aggregation. I also maintain that no more than a hundred people have read and comprehended his 'collective writings', especially 'The Pure Theory Of Capital'.

Thank god for the Mises institute.