Historian VS Economists

[Pisces Axxxxx]

I found some articles.

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/04/duelling-academics?page=1#

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/why_are_economists_more_promin.html

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/28/what-use-economic-history/

 

http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2009/06/economists-v-historians-cats-v-kings/

 

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/06/11/evaluative-cultures-history-vs-economics/

 

 

What do you all think?As someone who recently got into Economic History as a prime hobby I think Economic Historians are the ones who are best in making an analysis. I agree with Ferguson that Krugman lacks basic knowledge of Economics. I do agree with the articles that Historians as a whole (except for Economic Historians) lack the basic knowledge of Economics 101 to come to a conclusion about Economic events in the past.

[guy]

What do you all think?

 

Wow, I don't do modern politics and I don't know enough about economics to comment.

 

But relating this to Ancient Rome....

 

Here's an interesting article comparing Krugman's economic policies with those of Diocletian:

 

 

http://mises.org/daily/6076/Of-Krugman-and-Diocletian

 

It is certifiably true that Krugman doesn't "defend" Diocletian's economic policies; rather, those advocated by him match those tried by Diocletian almost precisely. The Nobel Prize economist calls vociferously for higher taxes, which was a specific policy objective of the Roman emperor. He goads policy makers to create more money and target higher levels of inflation

Edited November 28, 2012 by guy

[Virgil61]

...I agree with Ferguson that Krugman lacks basic knowledge of Economics...

 

You got that reversed, Krugman--a Noble Prize winning economist--said that Fergusan "hasn't bothered to understand the basics of economics...". Ferguson started out as a promising historian but he's become a bit of a pandering hack. I've read a few of his histories and found a lot of contradictions & poor analysis mixed up with some admittedly pretty good stuff.

[Virgil61]

http://mises.org/dai...-and-Diocletian

 

It is certifiably true that Krugman doesn't "defend" Diocletian's economic policies; rather, those advocated by him match those tried by Diocletian almost precisely. The Nobel Prize economist calls vociferously for higher taxes, which was a specific policy objective of the Roman emperor. He goads policy makers to create more money and target higher levels of inflation

Edited November 29, 2012 by Virgil61

[guy]

The Mises Institute holds to a general economic theory (Austrian) rejected by most (but not all) economists but espoused by the likes of Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.

 

I don't know enough about economics to comment with any authority, but are you sure?

 

Murray Rothbard was important in articulating the Austrian school. And Ludwig von Mises is still respected and studied. And Friedrich A. Hayek's arguements are still cited as a counterweight to the manipulations of Keynesian ecomonics (central governmental planning, cheap money, etc.).

 

If anything, the Austrian school has been reevaluated during this recent economic mess.

 

 

guy also know as gaius

[Virgil61]

The Mises Institute holds to a general economic theory (Austrian) rejected by most (but not all) economists but espoused by the likes of Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.

 

I don't know enough about economics to comment with any authority, but are you sure?

 

Murray Rothbard was important in articulating the Austrian school. And Ludwig von Mises is still respected and studied. And Friedrich A. Hayek's arguements are still cited as a counterweight to the manipulations of Keynesian ecomonics (central governmental planning, cheap money, etc.).

 

They're certainly popular among the far-right and they've all added something to the field but their contributions and influence pale in comparison to the Keynsians or "monetarists" from the Chicago school. Few economists believe in Rothard's suggestion that we end the Fed, return to the gold standard, close the US Mint and end government backing of deposits or of banks in general, in fact quite a few would say it borders on the insane.

 

I've taken graduate level micro and macro economics as well as an econometrics class (never again) and I've never heard or read any of these guys (and I know who they are) more than maybe in passing at that level.

 

If anything, the Austrian school has been reevaluated during this recent economic mess.

 

There's a good argument to be made that the recent mess highlighted how unprepared the Austrian school would have been either to prevent it or to successfully recover from it.

 

I subscribe to about fifteen blogs by economists and I haven't found that any have 're-evaluated' it for the better or the worse. Those who support it still do, those who think it can make some contributions still feel the same and those who think it's filled with a lot of bunk still think it is.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Virgil61

[guy]

 

I subscribe to about fifteen blogs by economists and I haven't found that any have 're-evaluated' it for the better or the worse. Those who support it still do, those who think it can make some contributions still feel the same and those who think it's filled with a lot of bunk still think it is.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I feel the Austrian school of economics has much to offer, however :

 

(Here's a funny video about that horrible and pedestrian Austrian economist F. A. Hayek and the uber-enlightened Lord Keynes)

 

 

Edited November 30, 2012 by guy

[Maty]

To some extent it can be argued that history is demographics and economics. History is simply trying to understand how the interactions between these two played themselves out.

 

To understand that it's also necessary to hold one's nose and wade through the effusions of modern sociology. The modern historian has to be a jack of all trades.