1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11618/top-ten-free-market-economists-list/

Top ten free market economists list

February 5, 2010 by

Geoff Lawrence, the Fiscal Policy Analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute has penned his top-ten list on the NPRI blog.

The list is very Austrian, with two economists that spent a good deal of time in Nevada.

{ 33 comments }

Daniel Bjorndahl February 5, 2010 at 7:23 pm

I think Walter Block could have made the honorable mentions too.

Justin February 5, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Walter Block certainly over Art Laffer. Wasn’t Dr. Block a student under Gary Becker?

Dante Bayona February 5, 2010 at 11:48 pm

Art Laffer?

do you mean “Art Laffer” the guy who does not have a clue about ABCT?!

Peter Schiff v. Art Laffer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkFYdLTTw8&feature=related

.

Bruce Koerber February 6, 2010 at 10:11 am

It Is No Coincidence That The Best Economists Use The Subjectivist Methodology.

First of all I applaud you for identifying the true masters of free market economics.

It is no coincidence that at least six of the ten made their great contributions because they used the subjectivist methodology.

Once subjectivism is investigated it becomes clear that there is only one scientifically valid methodology for studying the human sciences and economics is a human science. Backtracking with that insight to the original quest of finding the top ten free market economists would bring about a need to modify the list. The empiricists would drop out and be replaced by some of the other great free market economists who used the subjectivist methodology.

Eric M. Staib February 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Daniel Bjorndahl

“I think Walter Block could have made the honorable mentions too.”

I think Walter Block should have made the top ten instead of Milton Friedman. Friedman had a greater impact on the mainstream of free-market thought than some of our guys on the list, but nobody has applied Mises and Rothbard’s framework to more diverse (and radical) topics than Block and Hoppe.

At the very least, he should have been put in the mentions instead of that clown prince Arthur.

EIS February 6, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Ricardo’s rent theory should have prevented him from making this list.

Eric M. Staib February 6, 2010 at 3:58 pm

Other than that omission, the list and short descriptions were a good read.

The author should consider submitting a newspaper article to the dominant Las Vegas paper. It could be about the tradition of free-marketeers at UNLV and their impact on the libertarian movement, from Rothbard through Hoppe and now to President French.

Russ February 6, 2010 at 11:12 pm

I was surprised that Hoppe made the cut. I consider Hoppe more a political philosopher than an economist, and not a very good political philosopher, at that. The author must be either very Austrian, or very Nevadan, or both.

vincent leho February 7, 2010 at 6:42 am

I would have put Georges reisman at the top of the list, alongside Mises

1)Mises Reisman

3)ricardo
4)eugen B B
5)A Smith
6)the Mills
8)Hayek
9)Menger
10)Bastiat

Laurence Vance February 7, 2010 at 8:59 am

Hoppe is not a very good political philosopher? Is Russ trying to make a joke, and not a very good one at that?

mpolzkill February 7, 2010 at 9:37 am

Laurence,

No, he’s just a major advocate of State “defense.”

Inquisitor February 7, 2010 at 12:11 pm

LOL Russ must be pretty deluded.

Russ February 7, 2010 at 9:58 pm

No, Russ is not trying to make a joke. I don’t really consider him a very good philosopher, period, really. His Argumentation Ethics is the joke, as far as I am concerned.

As for my being deluded, maybe I am, but I believe what I believe.

Andre G February 7, 2010 at 11:05 pm

Agree that George Reisman should be top 3

Bala February 8, 2010 at 1:00 am

Russ,

” His Argumentation Ethics is the joke ”

Couldn’t agree more. Not joking at all.

newson February 8, 2010 at 1:11 am

to russ:
care to spin out your argument a bit?

Mike February 8, 2010 at 1:29 am

I agree, Walter Block should be in there. He takes Austrian theory to places where most people dare not tread.

And Peter Schiff would have to get the ‘most brutal’ award. He’s been fantastic at clubbing Keynesians over the head with Austrian theory and bringing the school to the masses.

Kerem Tibuk February 8, 2010 at 3:09 am

Not a good list at all.

First of all I don’t accept the concept of “free market economist” as if there is another valid type of economists.

There are good economist, bad economist and some charlatans. Good economist tend to favor free markets but this doesn’t make them “free market economists”. I don’t even like the term “Austrian economists”. Maybe this term is useful for some one who studies the history of economic thought but that is about it. No economist should call himself an Austrian in my view. It legitimizes charlatans calling themselves “other type of economists”.

Coming back to the list, Hoppe being on the list is a joke. He is a good popularizer of some ideas but he has no contribution to the economic science. Regarding political philosophy I agree with Russ. Hoppe is an amateur Kantian who deludes Rothbard’s natural law ethics. His worse offense is his property theory which currently serves as a basis for Kinsella’s IP socialism but also has more potential to cause damage to property rights if taken to logical conclusions.

I don’t even think Rothbard belongs on the list. Rothbard was a brilliant political philosopher, a great historian but not a great economist. He didn’t add much to economic theory except to challenge Mises value free approach. I don’t even think Rothbard himself would put himself on the list and that wouldn’t be due to humility.

I would take out, Rothbard, Friedman, Hoppe and add, Cantillion, Say, Bohm-Bawerk.

I can’t decide on Bastiat. I think he was a great popularizer but I think he is also under rated as an economist.

Paul February 8, 2010 at 4:09 am

I think the opposition to the list – apart from it being subjective to some degree – is that ‘influence’ is a criterion. Surely Smith, Friedman and Ricardo would not figure in the list at all if influence were not a factor, and the French economists Turgot, Say and Cantillon could have otherwise made the list. Bohm-Bawerk too.

With influence as a criterion, Hazlitt ought to have made the list. Hoppe’s influence is too limited.

Russ February 8, 2010 at 5:16 am

newson wrote:

“care to spin out your argument a bit?”

Could you be more specific? What would you like me to expand upon?

mpolzkill February 8, 2010 at 7:29 am

Speaking of jokes, gag-worthy here:

“IP socialism” & “I believe what I believe”

Russ February 8, 2010 at 7:55 am

Oh, I forgot. We aren’t supposed to actually have differences of opinion here. We’re just supposed to be a little group therapy session for disaffected anarchists. Sorry, Polzkill, my bad…

mpolzkill February 8, 2010 at 8:43 am

Small omission by you, Russ (of course). Your quasi-religious beliefs, nay convictions, come with guns from D.C.. No, what you want is not up for discussion, sorry, it’s just up for ridicule.

As to the other joke, Tibuk is free to give his “opinion” and I’m free to laugh at the outrageous and ham-handed propaganda of it.

Kerem Tibuk February 8, 2010 at 11:15 am

I still wonder why IP socialist are offended by being called what they are.

“Everyone should produce IP (or whatever you call it) according to their ability and anyone should consume IP according to their need.”

If that is your motto, and it is, you are an IP socialist. If you want to socialize privately produced property, you are a socialist.

If you do not want to be an IP socialist then don’t be one. And if you are one, then grow some balls and admit you are one. And say it proudly.

Kerem Tibuk February 8, 2010 at 11:16 am

I still wonder why IP socialist are offended by being called what they are.

“Everyone should produce IP (or whatever you call it) according to their ability and anyone should consume IP according to their need.”

If that is your motto, and it is, you are an IP socialist. If you want to socialize privately produced property, you are a socialist.

If you do not want to be an IP socialist then don’t be one. And if you are one, then grow some balls and admit you are one. And say it proudly.

Peter Surda February 8, 2010 at 11:38 am

Dear Kerem,

if I am an IP socialist, then you are an IP fascist. If you dislike that description, maybe you can actually address the objections that have been made towards you, like explain why some immaterial goods can be owned and some can’t, why doesn’t ownership of physical goods extend to externalities, how to objectively determine the boundaries of immaterial goods and so on. And, foremost, provide an actual definition of property, something which IP proponents avoid like plague.

mpolzkill February 8, 2010 at 11:52 am

Who’s offended, Tibuk? I love that you publicly discredit yourself by demonstrating your reasoning powers, as you have in these two posts. Please, keep it up.

Michael A. Clem February 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm

I think the problem with Argumentation Ethics is largely that it’s unpersuasive. Everything Hoppe says in AE is true, after you initially accept the premise that persuasion will be used for a political view, instead of someone simply being frustrated by arguing and using force, anyway. Persuasion and argument only work if someone is willing to forgo the use of coercion, and is open to logical reasoning and not affected by emotional “blockage”.

Russ February 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm

mpolzkill wrote:

“Your quasi-religious beliefs, nay convictions, come with guns from D.C..”

So, you are a pacifist? Or do you believe that there are some cases where the use of force is justified?

If the former, then your position is suicidal and absurd, and that’s the end of the matter.

If the latter, then we just disagree about *when* the use of force is justified.

“No, what you want is not up for discussion, sorry, it’s just up for ridicule.”

Well, at least I won’t get into a disagreement about AE with you. You wouldn’t give other people the benefit of the doubt, and try to persuade them. You would just force ancap on them, because it’s your “right”. Like the Joker said to Batman “We’re not so different, you and I.” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho. He he he he he he he he. Ha ha ha …

mpolzkill February 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm

“We’re not so different”, that’s the worst insult you can come up with. If only it were even slightly true you might have made me angry. What a weird bunch of inventions you just came up with, Russ. (Here we go for the umpteenth time,you must have really been some kind of anarcho-capitalist. Did 9/11 give you a stroke?) Yeah, we disagree about when. I believe it’s justified in self defense, you believe the gangsters whose territory you were coincidentally born in (and who have never been attacked unprovoked) are justified, and you believe they’re justified in robbing us all for their non-stop world offensive.

How many times have I told you now? I’m a panarchist. I realize that millions like yourself will never grow up, you need masters. You may remain in bondage. Even if it were possible, it would be cruel to force freedom on anyone who feels they can’t handle it. What a leap you made: I will not discuss what you think your masters should or should not do. Like “Inquistor” said, that’s delusional (or pointless sport). I just laugh at farm animals who think the farmer really protects them, and that’s all I meant.

Persuade you to stop calling for our being robbed to make war on Muslims? No, Russ, I won’t try to persuade you, you should stop that. If you won’t, nothing will happen to you by my hands worse than being dismissed as a hopeless dupe.

You really do amuse me. This is about the 40th time I’ve seen you express concern or theories on what anarchists would do when they take over. Don’t worry about it, you house slaves have us a thousand to one. You are right to worry about the millions of victims of your government though, I grant you. I am too, that’s why I call on D.C. gangsters to disband and pay reparations to them.

Dante Bayona February 9, 2010 at 2:41 pm

To Russ:

what is a “free market economist”?
Let’s say that:
It is the economist who thinks markets can fix lots of problems [or that martkets can fix them all].
If we consider that, then Prof. Block should be on the list [for his work on private roads, water, etc.].

Rothbard and Hoppe have shown praxiologically that private protection companies and private courts can solve the problem of protection of private property.
[Hoppe definitely has to be on this list for his work on the subject]

I specify “praxiologically” because if Russ does not ‘like’ anarchy he has to prove “praxiologically” what’s wrong with it.
How can Russ prove to us praxiologically that anarchy does not work? That’s the issue.

Friedman was very good, but he did not believe the market could solve the problem of education…

———
Concerning the “IP socialism”

Who is really the “socialist”?

As Kinsella stated in his main work on the subject, Ayn Rand -while defending IP- endorses some kind of theory of “labor value” [something like: the worker 'deserves' the 'value' of his job].
Those theories of labor value are socialism.

If Russ thinks the worker ‘deserves’ the ‘value’ of his work he is the socialist.

If we believe in justifiable claims, if we believe that the legitimate owner of a resource is the person who takes it first from nature, then IP is unjustifiable.
IP is theft of legitimate property.

IP is an attack on legitimate private property.

Kinsella is not a socialist, but a defender of private property.

Dante Bayona February 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Concerning Hoppe’s political theory:

Prof. Hoppe applies praxiology to ethics.

If people “act”, it is very likely that they will have different opinions on how to use a scarce resource, they might have a conflict. What is best and ‘just’ way to solve those problems? Hoppe says “private property”.

Russ, what’s wrong with that?

Hoppe also applies praxiology to kantianism and solves Kant’s problem.

Again… Russ, what’s wrong with that?
are you saying praxiology is wrong?

Las Vegas Injury Lawyer February 5, 2011 at 3:16 am

I don’t even think Rothbard belongs on the list. Rothbard was a brilliant political philosopher, a great historian but not a great economist. He didn’t add much to economic theory except to challenge Mises value free approach. I don’t even think Rothbard himself would put himself on the list and that wouldn’t be due to humility.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: