Daniel Kuehn objects to my referring to Austrian economists testifying in Washington as “Misesians in Mordor.”
After the last House monetary policy subcommittee hearing (which featured several prominent Austrian economists), the Mises.org blog had several posts titled “Misesians in Mordor“, riffing on the idea that Austrians are somehow strangers in a strange land when they come to Washington D.C., confronting an evil menace which is not very welcoming to them.
Is that really the case? Hardly. It’s more like Misesians in the Shire lately. I was going to tabulate it all out, but instead I’m just going to invite people to poke through the subcommittee’s hearings while Ron Paul has been at the helm. There are basically three groups of people that are asked to testify during these hearings (and usually any given hearing is exclusively composed of one of these groups):
1. Fed officials or other government employees the subcommittee has oversight over
2. Private industry - often people like gold dealers or others involved directly with monetary affairs, and
3. Academic economistsUnder Paul’s chairmanship, all of the academic hearings have been dominated by Austrian economists. It’s hard to think of a single prominent Austrian monetary thinker friendly to the Auburn crowd that hasn’t been invited to testify (guys like Steve Horwitz haven’t, but that’s largely because of Paul’s relationship with the Auburn group, I imagine).
Congressional discussions of monetary policy are very, very friendly to the Austrian school.
So, a handful of Austrian economists testify in the last year and 5 months, and that makes the Washington environment qualify as “friendly” to the Austrian school, even though virtually everything else that happens in Washington is completely antithetical to what Austrians call for?
An astounding claim. In the comments, “Patch” tried to put thinks in perspective for Kuehn:
Huh? You might have jumped the gun on that one. Better to say “Congressional discussions of monetary policy [run by Ron Paul] are very, very friendly to the Austrian school.” My memory may not serve me well, but I don’t believe Austrian economists were invited before Ron Paul (on policy legislation, during the banking crisis, etc etc).
“If you’re a Keynesian or a Monetarist you need international renown and decades of seminal publications to testify on monetary policy before Congress. If you’re an Austrian you don’t even need to be a freaking monetary economist – you just need Ron Paul in charge. And yet we’re often told that it’s Keynesians who have the ear of politicians and it’s Keynesians that get the special treatment.”
Under Ron Paul it is undeniable that he chooses Austrians over others. But there were plenty of well qualified Austrian economists that could have been chosen for other events but were not invited. And while they may not have had the credentials of seminal publications and international renown, that was because they were Austrian. You can’t get the types of publications, writing textbooks etc, as an Austrian economist.
Morevoer, as Patch pointed out, Kuehn’s “guys like Steve Horwitz haven’t” statement is contradicted by the fact that Horwitz’s free banking and GMU colleague Lawrence White testified in the very video Kuehn linked to in his post.
Follow Circle Bastiat
Well Daniel, that’s why I made sure to say it’s been that way “lately”.
Tell me honestly – were the same standards applied in selecting Salerno, Cochrane, DiLorenzo, Vedder, Parks, Ebeling, and Klein as were applied in selecting Mishkin, Meltzer, Taylor, and Meyer in the previous Congress? The only one that comes close to being comparable is White.
Do these guys live up to the same standards of qualified commentators on monetary policy – is that why so many of them are testifying – or is it because they have a political connection?
Yes, as I said – the change has come “lately” – i.e., it’s only been in this Congress.
But no honest person can deny that the composition of the hearings has been a function of political connections and friends in Washington – not success in the field of monetary economics.
That’s the point and that’s very unfortunate.
The following statement is either apt or not apt:
“After the last House monetary policy subcommittee hearing (which featured several prominent Austrian economists), the Mises.org blog had several posts titled “Misesians in Mordor”, riffing on the idea that Austrians are somehow strangers in a strange land when they come to Washington D.C., confronting an evil menace which is not very welcoming to them.
Is that really the case? Hardly.”
By saying it’s hardly the case, you are saying that Washington is welcoming to Austrians. Not that a single sub-committee chairman, during a brief span of time, is welcoming to them.
It’s rather like Gandalf managing to establish a little camp in Mordor, and then someone saying, “Boy, Mordor has sure been welcoming to hobbits lately. It’s practically the Shire!”
And what is Ron Paul’s friendship with Salerno, Herbener, Klein, etc based on? You make it sound like they’re family friends or old college buddies. The primary reason they became friendly in the first place is because they agree on economics. Ron Paul honestly believes in Austrian economics. He honestly wants what’s economically best for the country. So OF COURSE he’s going to invite Austrian economists. And you’re going to impugn him for that?
“It’s rather like Gandalf managing to establish a little camp in Mordor, and then someone saying, “Boy, Mordor has sure been welcoming to hobbits lately. It’s practically the Shire!””
Except Gandalf in this case is a candidate to replace Sauron and is well known and has a lot of power in Mordor.
Come on Danny… the guy was a candidate for President. He was my representative in Texas when I was born almost three decades ago. The man is the ultimate Washington insider. He may have a minority opinion, but don’t act like he’s some kind of Gandalf.
If you’re going to continue demanding “substantive responses” give me something substantive to respond to.
I certainly appreciate having my academic qualifications questioned by someone as, um, accomplished as Daniel Kuehn. But I must point out that he is quite mistaken about how these expert panels are assembled. First, the subjects in question are often quite broad. I testified on a panel dealing with Fed reform (“Improving the Federal Reserve System: Examining Legislation to Reform the Fed and Other Alternatives”). Very little of the discussion dealt with the technical aspects of monetary economics and only one panel member, John Taylor (invited by Ron Paul, BTW), could reasonably be described as an “eminent monetary economist.” Besides Jeff Herbener, Taylor, and me, the others were James Galbraith, a prominent left-liberal firebrand who writes on a variety of subjects, but not monetary economics, and Alice Rivlin, an expert in public finance who served as Vice Chair of the Fed Board of Governors but who is also not a monetary economist. (My own testimony dealt with organization and governance, which happen to be my areas of academic specialization.) Second, expert witnesses are typically invited by the majority and minority leaders of the subcommittees to express certain views, to get certain ideas out into the discussion. It’s hardly the case that before Ron Paul’s leadership of this particular subcommittee, witnesses were chosen based on their number of papers in the AER or their SSCI rank.
I haven’t questioned your academic qualifications at all Dr. Klein.
What I’ve said is that you aren’t a monetary economist of the prominence of who used to be called to testify during before this subcommittee. You do great stuff in entrepreneurship, strategic management, industrial organization, etc.
I am simply pointing out that the fact that you and several other of these witnesses were called to testify before this particular committee is because of a relationship with a very prominent politician.
Don’t trump that up to be something it’s not or put words in my mouth. I haven’t questioned the quality of your work at all. I’m noting that although Danny tries to paint the Congress as hostile territory, the LvMI associated branch of the Austrian school has an unparalleled inside tract with a particularly powerful politician. Is there any other niche school of thought that has anything close to that? Do you see any politicians publicly promoting Keynes the way Paul promotes the Austrian school?
You all have an influential inside track and under this chairman it has impacted the composition of the hearings. That should not be a controversial claim.
Dan, I dont think anyone said that the scholars Paul invited have the same academic credentials as earlier economists who have testified. They can’t publish in top journals or achieve other renowned positions, publish famous textbooks etc, BECAUSE they are Austrian. So if Paul wanted to get some Austrians, he can’t only accept those that teach at Ivy leagues, because there aren’t any.
“They can’t publish in top journals or achieve other renowned positions, publish famous textbooks etc, BECAUSE they are Austrian.”
You sure that’s why?
It didn’t seem to stop Hayek. This sounds like making excuses.
Some of them have – White, for example, has several articles in major venues.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the requirements for getting into the top journals has changed “slightly” since the 1930s.
I can double check google scholar but I don’t think Hayek stopped publishing after the thirties.
In fact I could have sworn there was some major mainstream acknowledgement of him in the 70s too. And he’s still celebrated today.
This is excuse making plain and simple. I hope I can publish in major venues, but if I don’t achieve that I hope I don’t make excuses for myself. And to the extent that the problem is with the Austrian arguments themselves, perhaps that tells you something about the arguments you’ve chosen to make.
You should email your favorite Austrian scholar and ask when the last time they submitted to the AER was, Patrick. This is probably 95% self-imposed exile for a lot of these guys.
They like playing the embattled minority.
I’m pushing this point because I think the discipline would be better if that were not the case.
Just thought I’d post as an “audience member” that I am enjoying the continued discussion. I think both Kuehn and Sanchez have made good points and I personally am interested in reading how it plays out.
It seems only reasonable consider that the Fed itself hires oodles of economists who know little or nothing about monetary economics, and that this is particularly the case w.r.t. the Board economists.
Peter Klein’s testimony, by the way–whether that of a monetary economist or not–seemed to me really very good. I wrote him to say so at the time. But perhaps I don’t qualify as a monetary economist either! (My last AER rejection was several years ago. I suppose I’d better rack up another to keep my credentials in good order.)
Misesians in Mordor! Love the description and I don’t care much for Saruman’s babble!