April 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad

« Rewriting Protectionism | Main | My Latest at the NBR Blog »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I will be there too.

Let me know what they say!

I certainly will. It won't be taped? I will take notes and report back.

One of the great influences at the LSE in the early part of the 20th century had been Edwin Cannan. He was the teacher of such people as Lionel Robbins and W.H. Hutt.

What he helped to create was a climate of inquiry exactly along the lines that Peter is suggesting.

Robbins once said about him, "Cannan was a great teacher. He was a fine economist; he gave one a sense of the sweep and the power of the subject and its relevance to human happiness . . . I do not know anyone who sat under Cannan in those years who was not powerfully affected by his teaching."

What Cannan instilled in his students was a deep appreciation for the "miracle" of the market economy, which integrated a multitude of global participants in a spontaneous process of coordination.

In the open chapters of his book on, "Wealth," for example, he leads the reader to appreciate the importance of the division of labor, how it brings to our door the goods of the world, and how it all works without central direction, but by the simple motivatation of self-interested improvement.

He could explain that, "Modern civilization, nearly all civilization, is based on the principle of making things pleasant for those who please the market and unpleasant for those who fail to do so." The alternative, he pointed out, was command and control, a method far more unpleasant.

He could remind people of Adam Smith's emphasize that it is the market arena that helps generate the social habits and institutional behavior of trustworthiness, honesty, and reliability -- and all spontaneously because individuals first begin to act in such ways out of the self-interested benefits from doing so; they finally become the social routines and rules of life.

This is the type of legacy that it would be nice to see restored at the LSE.

Richard Ebeling

There was also Harold Laski!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Laski

The key being profit and LOSS. Profits are great because they tell you when you're doing something right. If losses are eliminated, then you don't know if you're doing something wrong. Doesn't that describe the last year or thereabouts?

Austrian Economics must be more than a restatement of the 1930s if it is to be a viable alternative.

Two things.

First, Mario is exactly correct Harald Laski (a prominent socialist of the interwar period) was at the LSE. (The recent biographies of Ayn Rand both point out that Harld Laski was Rand's model for her Ellsworth Toohey character in "The Fountainhead.")

In fact, the LSE was brought into existence under the influence of the Fabian socialists. It was unintended consequences that made at least part of the faculty at the LSE in the 1920s and 1930s far more free market than any of the institution's founders would have planned or desired. (Hayek actually wrote an interesting monograph on the history of the LSE.)

And Bogdan is correct, also. The goal is not to go back and freeze Austrian Economics into some form that it represented at that time.

My point in mentioning Cannan and his influence, was to emphasize an approach and outlook with which to introduce and educate students about the nature and workings of the spontaneous market order. To show them the "wonder of it all," and that that appreciation should not be forgotten as one then develops more deeply an analysis of how the market process works in all its complex detail.

Richard Ebeling

I may just drop the name of Lord Dahrendorf, who wrote the most comprehensive work on the LSE I know.

The comments to this entry are closed.