Many of us at the Institute get asked this kind of question all the time — more and more in light of current events. Beginners often don’t quite know what to make of all the resources here, or how exactly to start dipping into them.
The resource list I’ve put together for the Campaign for Liberty might be of some use. It features many items from the Mises Institute, but arranged in a logical progression for someone interested in self-education. The sections on economics in general and sound money in particular are especially relevant, though visitors to this site will likely be interested in all the subject areas covered.
{ 36 comments }
The newbies should have to start the hard way by reading Human Action, like we did.
The hard way? That’s like saying opening a birthday gift is difficult.
Reading Human Action is not disutility.
I started with Hazlett. I’m moving to Rothbard. I lack either the intellect or the attention span for Mises at this point. The media section is great. Watching presentations and interviews maintains my attention while conveying meaning.
The most helpful thing I have done to understand the material is to bounce arguments off of willing friends.
Reading essays is always a great place.
I’d start with Rothbard’s Man, Economy & State over Human Action. It’s easier to read.
I read Man, Economy and State first. For me, Human action was more enlightening because it is an excercise in pure logic. A metaphysician will probably better grasp Human Action, and one more oriented to practical, mathmatical logic will probably be more influenced by Man, Economy and State.
Would anyone advice against or in favor of starting with Menger’s Principles of Economics?
Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
The world becomes a whole new place after learning “the lesson”. It is like learning to read.
The illiterate man looks at a book and sees a sea of confusing, complicated, and (as far as he is concerned) irrelevant ink stains. He is dependent on reading “specialists” to tell him what the mysterious markings mean. Similarly, the economically uninformed rely on “specialists” to tell what the economic “ink stains” mean. They can only know what they are told. Learn “the lesson” and the world will change at leasts as much as if you had just learned to read.
Economics In One Lesson was Hazlitt’s effort to be the Frederic Bastiat of the 20th century, a feat he pulled off admirably. Read Bastiat first. His theory of value lacks depth, and contains some confusion, due to the stage of economic science he lived in, but he sums up the classical liberal model as understood in the mid 1800s. Knowledge is a progression, and it is very benefitial to understand the foundation of a building before trying to understand the more nuanced architecture.
Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
The world becomes a whole new place after learning “the lesson”. It is like learning to read.
The illiterate man looks at a book and sees a sea of confusing, complicated, and (as far as he is concerned) irrelevant ink stains. He is dependent on reading “specialists” to tell him what the mysterious markings mean. Similarly, the economically uninformed rely on “specialists” to tell what the economic “ink stains” mean. They can only know what they are told. Learn “the lesson” and the world will change at leasts as much as if you had just learned to read.
is no one going to write an article about alan greenspan’s recent comments?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah5qh9Up4rIg&refer=home
I started with Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression. The blogs, forums, daily articles and further searches have already filled my hard drive with 20 other titles that are waiting for my avalaibility to read during the next few weekends.
I knew nothing about real laissez faire two weeks ago.
I personally believe order is secondary. What is important is your eagerness to learn and your motivation on any particular topic at a given time
A great effort, or a great first step at least. You know, I’ve been thinking about this precise thing since April, when I discovered the Austrians – how to convey what I learned to my friends and family. And I realized it’s not easy.
First, I’ve studied economics for five years (obviously, they didn’t tell us anything about the Austrians back then) so that helped a lot. And second – you just cannot start with feeding them reading lists, let alone anything by Hayek or Mises.
I agree with Chris, but I would go even further – reading is great, but only as a second or even third stage.
First you need some really simplified and easy to understand movie or graphical presentation. Money as Debt or Money Masters come to mind, but there’s a major problem with such amateurish attempts backed by little more than enthusiasm – they’re usually wrong and misleading in many respects (interest in Money as Debt or the gold standard in Money Masters).
We DESPERATELY need a movie which is:
a] reasonably professionally made and with a reasonable production value to make it attractive enough for a wide audience
b] factually 100 % correct
c] simple and easy to understand
I guess with all that money streaming to C4L and Ron Paul it shouldn’t be a problem. I’m certain such a movie would make a huge difference as far as spreading the word process is concerned.
Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson
Callahan’s Economics for Real People
I have become very interested in money matters due to recent current events. I have read Rothbards What Has Gov’t Done To Our Money and The Case Against the Fed. I am looking for more and considering these for my next reads in this order:
The Mystery of Banking, Rothbard
The Ethics of Money Production, Hulsmann
Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, deSoto
For those who know, Is this a good natural progression?
Is there an article or lecture that helps me understand how to square Mises´thinking with Catholicism? I am a Catholic, and I know that Woods, Tucker, and Rockell are believing Catholics. How do they reconcile the Faith with Mises’ direct critique of the Faith in the chapter “A Critique of the Holistic and Metaphysical View of Society”?
I am not a Catholic, but know that there are Catholic defenders of Austrian economics. There are also Evangelical defenders (my own niche), though they are mostly from the Reformed perspective (which may mean nothing to you). I’ve been wrestling with the human sciences and my faith for years. I was an atheist when my first exposure to the edges of the Austrian school came through Ayn Rand. Since I came to faith, I could not reject what I saw as good science. It created problems for me following the leadership of churches I belonged to, because many of them took a very non-political, non-economic point of view that I could not agree with.
I recently started reading the work of Dr. Gary North, and find that he came to most of the same conclusions as I have myself, but backed by a much more rigorous study of the Bible. I’m glad his work exists. However, I think I can give a basic Biblical defense:
1)The ten commandments are basically negative commands, telling us what not to do. They do not explicitly spell out rights of humans that violating them infringe upon, because all sin is first of all against God. They do however demonstrate the implied rights of humans in the order God planned for the world before sin perverted it. The first four and last commands are specifically of the heart, but the others are of interhuman relations. They presuppose the sanctity of life, of property, of truth, and of family, though all are stated as prohibitions instead of affirmations. My own view is that this makes perfect sense in light of the fact that we are owned by God, and violations against us are first and foremost violations of Him. I see our rights as a matter of designed order, not as any absolute rights in and of themselves. God is just disposing of us, or using us, in any matter He chooses. If He purposes to use us as victims to human treachery for His glory we, as recipients of prevenient grace in each breath we take, have no platform from which to protest.
2)Governemnt by humans is not intrinsically good. 1 Samual makes this very clear, when Israel sought a human King “like other nations”. God is the authority, not man. Human governance will lead to what we now call tyranny, a tradeoff of very dubious value. Samuel warned israel about a tithe of their production being claimed, their men being taken for war, their women taken for labor. This is portrayed as a negative aspect of them choosing human rule. God condemned them for this desire, and counted the cost for them. With hardened hearts, they rejected God and chose Saul as their King.
3) Israel entered the realm of the “other nations”, where God ordained government (as St. Paul tells us) to punish evildoers. I believe this is much like what Jesus taught about divorce and Moses. God is longsuffering, and establishes less perfect institutions in light of the hardness of human hearts. His ultimate standards do not change, but His grace makes allowances until the times are complete.
Regarding chapter VIII, Mises makes some substantial generalizations. It does not seem to me that the Bible teaches that we deem the market economy evil and selfish, corrected by another external standard. It seems that we are to work, or not eat, to work, so that we have something to give to the poor. The market economy is assumed. It is the given order. It is only the values that we pursue through it that are corrected by God’s word. We do not only love ourselves. We love others like ourselves, and care for them as we care for our own body. We are expected to produce, and to support those who labor in ministry. There is no conflict with the Austrian perspective, or with von Mises, here. In the science of catallactics, what we value is subjective. God’s word teaches us what to value the highest in our hierarchy. Praxeology is only a logical description of how we act to best obtain what we value, as a composite human society, with each of us seeking to obtain the values we have chosen. It is a study of the fact that human enterprise will flourish most when all are the most free to pursue their own goals. Not all the goals will be good, and not all of the progress will be morally good (to judge value choices), but the greatest material wealth will come from such a system. The more material wealth we produce, the more physical suffering we can relieve. The more we work, individually or corporately, the more we have to give. Also, the less intervention by government we have, the more that people, of whatever physical or mental ability, can find a place in a peaceful division of labor. We all benefit, in the temporal realm, because we are all productive. In the moral realm, we will still have a field ripe for harvest, because physical ease and Spiritual comfort are far apart.
Lucius: “Is there an article or lecture that helps me understand how to square Mises´thinking with Catholicism?”
You need to visit the acton.org web site. They promote Austrian econ with Catholic morality. They defend the morality of free markets from an historically Christian viewpoint.
As for Mises’s dilike of religion, he softened that quite a bit after moving to the US and finding Christians who understood and supported free markets and liberty. Most of the Christians he knew in Europe were devout socialists. He even became an admirer of Karl Barth.
Lucius asks: “Is there an article or lecture that helps me understand how to square Mises´thinking with Catholicism?”
Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.
Exodus 20:15 You shall not steal.
Exodus 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
The list of economic/social systems that conform to that standard is left as an exercise for the reader.
Karlos:
Try this one.
Fundmaentalist, from what I can gather, the Acton Institute seems also to espouse liberalism (i.e., religious liberty; separation of church and state; an atomized, individualistic society; etc.). Traditional Catholicism, which is negatively summarized in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, opposes all that.
The followers of Mises and Acton seem to subscribe to this condemned error, for example:
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.
At least the Acton Institute doesn’t advocate the abolition of the state (as the Misesians and Rothbardians do), but admits its existence is perfectly natural.
Horst, the commandments cannot possibly lead exclusively to the Austrian School.
Until this election cycle, I have to admit, I have been politically, socially, and economically apathetic. Ron Paul’s bold honesty in the debates and his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto” have inspired me and engaged me like never before. I discovered “Mises” through his campaign and have enjoyed reading the daily articles…..
Because of this website and its resources I am now dominating the conversation and crushing the shallow apologetics of my STATIST friends! I am having so much fun and learning so much. Thank You.
Yeah, that would be maybe second stage. You know, most of the TV watching crowd would probably switch to something else after like 5 seconds of wathing this
)
For my part, I started with Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, and The Fatal Conceit. I also read Menger’s Principles of Economics (Subzero, I am not speaking for anyone else except me, I would recommend reading the book). Other than that, articles and working papers were what really led me to Austrian economics. I must say it is thought-provoking.
The newbies should have to start the hard way by reading Human Action, like we did.
What’s so hard about it? Other than that, I agree.
Lucius,
Perhaps Horst is right, and these commandments do lead to the Austrian school. These laws could be seen the basis for libertarianism with private ownership of property, free trade, and non-aggression, and only a higher law to answer to. In the Bible, God told us what a state (a king) would bring…
1 Samuel 8
Israel Asks for a King
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
I started with L. Neil Smith’s _The Probability Broach_.
Economically speaking, it confronts someone who accepts “government intervention” as normal, with a system that works without any intervention at all. It then explains why the lack of intervention didn’t lead to poverty and chaos.
Rothbard’s _For A New Liberty_ is featured, disguised, as suggested reading material for the protagonist.
It may not be “Austrian” economics specifically, but it is an eye-opening introduction to the idea that intervention causes problems rather than solving them.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn
Lucius: “The followers of Mises and Acton seem to subscribe to this condemned error, for example: 3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God…â€
Probably can’t reconcile everything. But I don’t think the Acton Institute subscribes to that particular error. They follow natural law, which which said that without God reason and morality would not exist. Man can discover many of the truths about God and morality through reason and there should be no conflict between what reason discovers and what the Church teaches. And they demonstrate that modern liberty and free markets arose from traditional church teaching, especially that of the Scholastics.
Mises and Hayek tried to keep religion and morality out of the discussion, as do most Austrian economists. They stick to the purely scientific aspects. In the sense that Austrian economics finds support in traditional Christianity from the Biblical and traditional Christian attitude toward property, justice and human rights, it is moral.
Rothbard dragged ethics into the discussion and those who bought into his ethics became anarchists, but you don’t have to accept his ethics to appreciate his economics. Nor do you have to be an anarchist to be libertarian. I’m not and neither were Mises or Hayek.
There are certainly some Catholic teachings that are anti-free market. Michael Novak comments on some of them in his books. I don’t know how Acton handles those. It would be interesting to see. I happen to be Protestant, so I don’t have to reconcile my beliefs with anything but the Bible, and like the Acton Institute, I not only don’t find any contradictions with Austrian economics, I think traditional Christianity gave us modern capitalism and liberty from which Austrian econ grew. But I sympathize with your dilemna.
It’s great reading how other mises.org visitors have their planned reading lists, like I do, over the course of however long.
I read Hazlitt’s ‘The failure of the ‘new economics” before listening to an audio version of his ‘One lesson,’ which made the latter even easier to grasp.
It’s cool that Robert Murphy has the study guide for ‘Human action,’ up to Chapter 20-something so far. I’m reading that before going to the actual book.
I think economics is too dry. Passion needs passionate reasoning and what is more passionate than Ayn Rand. I know I am a heretic (here).
Rand started me down this path long ago. Her essays though first taught me to think, which led me to philosphy, and eventually economics. When I later came to theology, I did so with a better mental reserve. Now when I have passion, it’s my own, not Ayn’s. You may come to that too.
“How do I Get Started With Austrian Economics?” … sounds a bit like “how do I get started with stamps collecting or table tennis?” Not the associations I’d prefer.
If “Austrian Economics” is to ever gain respectability it needs to get out of the secterianism expressed by such usage. It sounds too much like a cult, too little like a measured, scientific contribution to the discipline of economics.
Sebastian, please. If everyone were suddenly interested in the Constitution, I’d just as readily post something about where to get started in studying the Constitution. If people suddenly became interested in libertarian ideas, I’d post about how they can get started in libertarianism. Lighten up, man.
I first started by reading countless articles on this website in no particular order, trying to fit it all together in my head. Eventually it all made sense. The key is to be inquisitive, questioning and open-minded. By far the best book as an introduction to Austrian economics is ‘Economics in One Lesson’ by Henry Hazlitt.
i think jesus huerta de soto’s “money, bank credit and economic cycles” should be up on the doctor’s list.
in my opinion it’s the most thorough treatment on the distortions created through the fiat money/fractional reserve banking model.
John,
I can’t say I buy your argument. For two millenia the Church has taught the virtue of submission to civil authority. Indeed, in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, the following idea is condemned: “It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.”
Fundamentalist,
You’re right that the Acton people base their case in the natural law, and that through the natural law one can know the existence of God. The passage from the Syllabus I quoted did not hit the nail on the head with respect to the Acton Institute’s liberalism. Their principles are essentially liberal in that they do not admit the necessity of revelation for the flourishing of society. Leo XIII stated in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae:
“We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church.”
I find much to commend the Austrian School. My hope is that the secularism and anti-statism so often espoused is not an essential part of it.
Lucius,
don’t fear. Austrian economics is value free. It does not espouse a particular set of actions, or a particular form of organization of society. With that having been said, an understanding of economics will quickly lead one to the conclusion that the government which is best for the application of scarce means towards the production of goods is that which governs least. The application of force in exchange can not help but reduce the satisfaction of wants of one party of the exchange. Mises (a liberal minarchist) summed it up succinctly, “Government is the negation of liberty.” You will of course find articles and books written on the subject of the state and ethics on this site, but these expand beyond the scope of pure economic theory. They may utilize the findings of economics and do fall into the larger realm of praxeology, but they are not essential or fundamental to Austrian Economics.
That was well said, Stanley.
Economics is the study of human action, the way that we move toward the satisfaction of our desires. What we desire is something else, and is outside the realm of economics. Austrian economic constructs have nothing to say about them.
However, truth about the environment we inhabit can’t be chaotic. What we believe in one discipline has to be corrected by the other disciplines, and vice versa. If one can’t resolve economic science to other sciences, one or the other must need revision.
Comments on this entry are closed.