4 ms·

Though I have strong Austrian sympathies myself, this tree drastically overemphasizes their importance (and misclassifies Tyler Cowen, who hasn't been an Austri

Though I have strong Austrian sympathies myself, this tree drastically overemphasizes their importance (and misclassifies Tyler Cowen, who hasn't been an Austrian since his first year in grad school if I remember correctly). There are a dozen economists who should have been listed on the other side before Pascal Salin, and many dozens in the modern era before Reisman and Salerno. As much as I love Boettke, he's influential primarily as a teacher, which sets him apart from the rest of this group.

drcode 8y ago
Well, there's no arrow on the diagram connecting "Austrian Economics" with "Modern Mainstream Economics", so the diagram doesn't really make them look all that important.
- notahacker 8y ago
  It makes them look important in the sense that Boettke is included and literally hundreds of people with more influence on the history of economic thought are omitted. As an illustration of where the diagram creator's favoured economists sit in relation to mainstream thought that's fair enough, but as a guide to the overall field of economic thought it's akin to a family tree of "entrepreneur philosophies" which includes Carnegie, Ford, Welch, Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Musk and your friends' early stage startups.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  Just the amount of space devoted to them exaggerates their importance to the field (though Menger, Kirzner, and Hayek -- possibly Mises as well -- would still make my cut. But a list that has Salin and not Akerlof or Arrow (just to start with the A's)? He mentions Coase as being on there, but I don't see him, and Coase is literally the most-cited economist of all time.
naravara 8y ago
This family tree is just objectively bad. Huge omissions and most of the modern characters included are known more for their pop-econ than real developments in theory. I mean, say what you will about the moral and structural claims of Marxism but there was actually a tradition of economic thought there that was at least as coherent as whatever nonsense the Rothbard/Mises fetishists like to indulge in. There aren't even any of the more mainstream, Marxist adjacent theorists like the Georgists. Also, everything past Keynes just looks like pop-economists or broad categories and just misses most of the early to mid 20th century. There is no Galbraith, the architect of the New Deal? There aren't any notable Behavioral Economists mentioned, which is one of the most interesting expansions of the field in a generation and will probably have far reaching influence in how the discipline develops in the future. No Piketty, who wrote one of the most influential works of the past decade? NOTHING at all about development economists like Stiglitz, Easterly, or Sachs even though they've had a huge role in shaping how we understand emerging markets and will be even more important as we start trying to figure out how to deal with climate change?
- yellowbuilding 8y ago
  Absolutely. In philosophy, and plenty of other fields with central concerns of theory, it’s common that an influence is also someone who one disagrees with, and is responding to. Most the middle area of this chart should be under Marx, and it is outright laughable that Keynes is not.

drcode 8y ago

Well, there's no arrow on the diagram connecting "Austrian Economics" with "Modern Mainstream Economics", so the diagram doesn't really make them look all that important.

notahacker 8y ago
It makes them look important in the sense that Boettke is included and literally hundreds of people with more influence on the history of economic thought are omitted. As an illustration of where the diagram creator's favoured economists sit in relation to mainstream thought that's fair enough, but as a guide to the overall field of economic thought it's akin to a family tree of "entrepreneur philosophies" which includes Carnegie, Ford, Welch, Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Musk and your friends' early stage startups.
Matticus_Rex 8y ago
Just the amount of space devoted to them exaggerates their importance to the field (though Menger, Kirzner, and Hayek -- possibly Mises as well -- would still make my cut. But a list that has Salin and not Akerlof or Arrow (just to start with the A's)? He mentions Coase as being on there, but I don't see him, and Coase is literally the most-cited economist of all time.

naravara 8y ago

This family tree is just objectively bad. Huge omissions and most of the modern characters included are known more for their pop-econ than real developments in theory. I mean, say what you will about the moral and structural claims of Marxism but there was actually a tradition of economic thought there that was at least as coherent as whatever nonsense the Rothbard/Mises fetishists like to indulge in. There aren't even any of the more mainstream, Marxist adjacent theorists like the Georgists. Also, everything past Keynes just looks like pop-economists or broad categories and just misses most of the early to mid 20th century. There is no Galbraith, the architect of the New Deal? There aren't any notable Behavioral Economists mentioned, which is one of the most interesting expansions of the field in a generation and will probably have far reaching influence in how the discipline develops in the future. No Piketty, who wrote one of the most influential works of the past decade? NOTHING at all about development economists like Stiglitz, Easterly, or Sachs even though they've had a huge role in shaping how we understand emerging markets and will be even more important as we start trying to figure out how to deal with climate change?

yellowbuilding 8y ago
Absolutely. In philosophy, and plenty of other fields with central concerns of theory, it’s common that an influence is also someone who one disagrees with, and is responding to. Most the middle area of this chart should be under Marx, and it is outright laughable that Keynes is not.