March 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 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Powell on Sweatshops and Martin at AidWatch | Main | Institutional Analysis of Development »


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

Looks interesting!

Hey Doc,

Are you gonna post up a link to any notes or powerpoints from the class?

Thanks for posting. I am on the outside looking in at the field, but a frequent reader of the blog.

No monetary economics at all? Really, Chris: its one thing not to be a monetary econ expert; another to leave it altogether out of a course on Austrian economics! It reminds me of Vaughn's history of the school, which did the same thing. If I taught a course on the subject, I don't suppose I'd get away with skipping, say, economic calculation! We're not talking about a minor area.

I agree with George. It looked great to me, but the absence of the monetary and business cycle issues surprised me quite a bit.


If I recall, the Austrian sequence at GMU is two semesters long and historically the second semester has been devoted to money, capital, and cycle theory. So George and Angel can take a deep breath and relax.


I warms my heart to see that the course is being taught as a modern, living school and not as an episode in the history of economic thought.


What Mario said. It is an extremely impressive syllabus.


Given your knowledge of the GMU program, I am surprised by your myopic view of the Austrian I course. As Steve points out, this is a two sequence field with Dick Wagner teaching Austrian II (Pete Boettke is also teaching HoT this semester). But what really surprised me is that you know that Larry White, your mentor and co-author, teaches Macro II and also an entire course dedicated to monetary. So you are right—it is one thing to neglect monetary if there is a single Austrian course being offered. However, it is quite another thing to exclude these topics when Dick Wagner and Larry White sit just a few offices down the hall.

It is a very good time to be a student interested in Austrian ideas at GMU!

I read the Rothbard book when I was an undergrad. My professors were actually Chicago economists, but they gave me a lot of interesting things to read.

That was way back in the late 1970's. Since then I have forgotten much detail, but the basic Ideas have stayed with me. .

Chris: The last time I knew what the sequences at GMU were like was in 1987. So I had no reason to know (and am quite happy to learn) that the "first course in the Austrian field" means the first of two in a sequence rather than the first instance of a field course on Austrian economics.

Of course, the fact that there are also other courses in macro and monetary taught at GMU itself doesn't touch the point that concerned me, which was whether a course in Austrian economics would include a component on Austrian monetary economics.


But George even back in 1987, the course was 2 course and the first focused more or less on micro -- market theory and the price system -- whereas the second focused on macro -- capital, and monetary theory and trade cycle.

Also Larry teaches monetary theory, plus all the students have to take larry's macro II course in the core.

Larry now has I think 5 students writing under him. Dick Wagner, of course, does a lot of work in macro as well, and he also works w a lot of grad students that work on money and macro.

But I should say that one of my students Geof Lea currently teaching at Hillsdale is defending soon and his work is an excellent work in macro.

So lots of money and macro going on here. You would love it here!

Damn you and your awesome reading list that I just emailed myself!

Pete and Chris,

1987 was a long time ago! And if monetary was taught as part of a sequence on Austrian economics, rather than as a separate course only, I can only wonder by whom. In any case I wasn't criticizing GMU or its program generally--I'm at Georgia, not Auburn!--I merely commented on Chris's syllabus, the purpose of which I obviously misunderstood.

That syllabus itself covers capital theory, by the way, along with most of the other key "Austrian" specialties. It looked like Austrian contributions to monetary-macro were the only central contributions of the school not treated. That was part of the reason for my mistaken impression.

What George said.

Hello everybody,

perhaps Prof. Selgin objects, because the first sentence of the course outline suggests a introductory but still comprehensive outline:

"This course investigates the various aspects of the Austrian school of economics."

I like the course outline very much. Since I met Chris only once, I don't have the advantage to benefit from him as others do. Yet, I understand why people are so easily fascinated by him. I like him too!

That said, I play my part: I would skip Ch. 4.2. Austrians have nothing particular to say about the theory of production (besides monopoly and entrepreneur issues).

Indeed, Arash; I took the sentence in question quite literally. Hermeneutics, as Pete and Chris know very well, has never been my bag.

I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to hear about Chris thinks about Acemoglu et al's paper one exogenous institutional change.

And one (even more specifically) for Steve:

The comments to this entry are closed.