Hi Walter, I think interpersonal utility comparisons should get 500! ;P

More seriously, I’m not a practicing or teaching economist(yet…), but the nature of this poll stoked my curiosity. In your description above, I was at first fooled into thinking that you were asking participants to rank their preferences in reverse order starting from 10. Was that your intention, or even was it to give the impression of such? If so, it would probably work well on someone like me, messing the thing up putting 10s and 9s on every category otherwise!

This is also the reason I probably could never take “happiness” economics very seriously, even if I was pig ignorant of economics and the Austrian School.

Anyway, awkward comment aside, good luck with the poll!

I have no idea what is meant by “trust and unit if value measurement,” so I marked zero for that item. I probably should have not marked anything for it.

Shoe size and musical taste were the biggies for me.

Since I do not think I understand the survey correctly, I shall place my answers here instead of submitting them in the fashion desired.

NAME: Alexander S. Peak
EMAIL: Ask Mr. Tucker.
AFFILIATION: Student at Towson University, about to graduate with a B.S. in political science.

business cycle theory

Well, as Austrians, we have a well-defined business cycle theory, so, how wouldn’t it be extremely important to this school of thought? 10

calculation

Mises pointed out that you need to have competition for the ownership of the means of production in order to calculate how to allocate resources, so again, 10, right?

capital theory

I unfortunately don’t know much about this, other than some very basic stuff about Hayek and a triangle, but wouldn’t the answer again be 10?

My problem here is that I’m judging how “important” these things are to Austrian economic theory, when it seems there is no Austrian economic theory without them. But if I’m to judge how important it is to focus on this or that topic in order to promote Austro-libertarianism, I may give very different answers. And if I am to judge how important these Austrian theories are to the general Academia of economists, I may give still more different answers.

I’ll continue to assume that the question means to ask if there would even be an Austrian school without our contributions to these subjects.

capitalism/free market

Either ten or zero?

I don’t call myself a capitalist for the same reason Harry Browne didn’t call himself one: too many people define it in too many different ways.

There seem to be three different definitions, one value-free and two value-laden.

- The value-free definition: private ownership in the means of production.
- The good value-laden definition: a purely free market, without a shred of interventionism.
- The bad value-laden definition: the American system as we know it.

When I use the term, I try to simply use it in its value free sense. If I ever use the term in one of its value-laden senses, I make sure to define what sense I’m using it in, and to point out that there also exists the other value-laden definition. I tend to eschew positive usage of the word completely when talking with modern “liberals” and socialists, but I tend to go ahead and use the positive definition of the term when talking to conservatives. It’s all about knowing your audience, and when in doubt, I simply try to eschew the word altogether.

Now, I think you made the point, Dr. Block, that the free market is advocated by libertarians, but that one doesn’t have to advocate it in order to be an Austrian. You said that one could be an Austrian, could know that interventionism is bad for the economy, but advocate interventionism anyway. I think this is a valid argument.

So, the free market is very important to Austro-libertarianism; but because one could be an Austrian without being a libertarian (assuming she or he wants to see society crash and burn), one can be an Austrian while working to destroy what little freedom we have in the market.

Now, I shall use the term capitalism in its value-free sense. I have nothing against capitalists (private owners of the means of production) so long as they acquired and maintain their ownership through legitimate, Rothbardian means. (Those firms that cozy up to the state should be seized by their workers, as Rothbard explained in “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle.”) Rothbard correctly explains in The Ethics of Liberty that the capitalist actually serves a useful role for the workers by taking on the risks associated with doing business so the workers don’t have to. So, they serve a useful role, and if workers wish to work for capitalists, nobody has the right to stop them (save for the owner herself).

With that said, while I have no ethical arguments against capitalism, I would hope to see worker-owned firms displace capitalist-owned firms on the free market, not through violence, but through free competition. So, I have no ethical (legal) opposition to capitalism in its value-free sense, but I do have a subjective desire to see it “wither away.”

Either way, however, I’m completely dedicated to the free market, and should it turn out that capitalist-owned firms are better suited to provide consumers the highest quality products at the lowest costs, and should it turn out that free competition leads to the capitalist-owned firm displacing the worker-owned firm, then so be it. As long as violence is not employed, I have no ethical (legal) argument against such an evolution.

central planning

Well, naturally, central planning is un-libertarian, and Austro-libertarians will naturally reject it. But Austrians can analyse it nevertheless, and in fact do analyse it whenever we bring up the calculation debate or the tendency of interventionism to lead invariably toward totalitarianism. So, I’d say 10, but not because any Austro-libertarians would ever advocate it. (A non-libertarian Austrian, however, could advocate it. Again, perhaps we can put Greenspan in this category?)

comparative economic systems

Again, 10? I mean, when we discuss central planning, do we not often compare it to those places with semi-free enterprise?

competition and monopoly theory

Again, 10?

The reason competition leads to higher quality goods and services at lower costs is precisely because of subjective value, which is perhaps the most important contribution of the Austrian school. Because I subjectively desire higher wages over lower wages, I will work for the firm that provides me the highest wages at the lowest opportunity costs (the difficulty of the labour, the working conditions themselves), and so firms must compete with one another via wage rates for the best labourers. In acquiring the best labourers, they’re better able to make high quality goods and provide top-quality services, which are in turn produced to satisfy subjective consumer demand.

coordination problem

I’m unfamiliar with this.

demonstrated preference

I’m not positive precisely to what this refers.

economics of taxing and government spending

I am unaware of the Austrian contributions to this area, but I think it quite clear where libertarians fall.

entrepreneurship

I can see this one also being high or low. I mean, Austrian theory insofar as it deals with opportunity costs again lead us to realise that if the state places a bunch of impediments in the road toward entrepreneurship, the higher the opportunity cost will be of becoming an entrepreneur. So, in that regard it would certainly be high. But I’m not positive that this is what you’re really asking.

equilibrium/equilibration

I recall Mr. Tucker saying that Bastiat makes no mention of equilibrium, that he instead focused on economic “harmony.”

As a non-economist, I don’t think it would even be appropriate for me to speculate on this one.

expectations

10? We have expectations which lead us to calculate (consciously or subconsciously) the opportunity costs of doing certain things.

fractional reserve banking vs full reserve

I used to support full reserve, a la Rothbard, until I audited a class on money and banking with the Austrian professor Dr. Howard Baetjer. Now my view is more similar to Selgin & White on that matter.

With that said, 10.

gold standard

Same response as above, more or less.

harmony of economic self-interest

10?

hermeneutics

No clue what this is.

History of thought

10?

interest theory

10?

Interpersonal utility comparisons

10?

interventionism and its types

Sure. 10?

knowledge problem

10? I mean, these all have something to do with Austrian economics, which is why I don’t think I understand the question.

law and economics

If we’re asking the nominal question, What should the law be?, then 0. If we’re asking the positive question, What are the consequences of legal restraints on economic phenomena?, then 10.

marginalism

I did bring this up above, although I referred to it as opportunity costs. But, absolutely, 10.

market process

I’m not positive I understand what this refers to, but I’d be inclined to say 10.

methodology

10? After all, we do employ methodological individualism in our analyses.

money

10.

monopoly and antitrust

This goes back to the impact of laws on economic phenomena, so 10.

musical taste

Either 10 or 0.

Musical tastes are subjective, and insofar as they are, that seems to make it a ten.

ordinal not cardinal utility

10.

praxeology

10?

probability theory

I’ve actually never heard this referenced in regards to Austrian economics. Except…I did read one thing by Rothbard on chaos theory which had been published in The Free Market–perhaps that relates.

rationality

All actions are based on one’s rational self interest, a libertarian economist once taught me. How are we defining “rationality” here? Either ten or zero.

shoe size of the economist

0.

socialism

As with the term capitalism, this term has a variety of definitions. If we define it as Mises did–state ownership of the means of production–then we analyse it in the process of analysing the calculation problem.

If we define it as Mises did, then 10. But if we define it as Spangler fancies, then it applies to Austro-libertarianism but not not the Austrian school itself; thus, 0.

speculation

I don’t know enough about it.

structure of production

This is the Hayek triangle I referenced, isn’t it? 10.

subjectivism

11.

theory of the firm

I don’t know what this is.

theory of the state

I don’t know what this is, either.

The state is a violent criminal gang, but this analysis is libertarian, not Austrian.

time

As in physics? What is time? Einstein and all that? 0.

time preference

10.

trust and unit of value measurement

No clue what this is.

uncertainty

Either very high or very low.

utility

10?

welfare economics

10?

I hope these answers are helpful, but I suspect they’re not. In the event that they are not, my apology for wasting your time.

Best,
Alex Peak

Economic calculation deserves the 10.