Then I went here:
http://thepatriotnation.com/Advocates/

Look at the title tag. “Bob Parr’s laws.” Yeah. Bob Parr. Maybe that’s why I can’t find his book on Amazon. lol

The page offers a downloadable version of the book, which is probably also not selling very well. (Pirates ahoy?) And it wants to open a popup window. I’m thinking no thanks.

Peter Orvetti is an idiot? )

And I’m a dumb@$$.

“Does anyone know who is profiting from the books? Are proceeds going to Barr personally, to his campaign, or to the LP?”

Nothing goes from Barr to LP; it’s all one way.

And who was it that accused other nominees of running in order to sell books? (Not EMN)

I’ll confess ignorance. I really haven’t done enough reading on game theory to have formed an opinion.

“…and I seem to recall a whole lot of formal math, which Austrians unfortunately reject out of principle.”

I do seem to recall some math and equations in Austrian writings, but generally it’s pretty limited.

–

Austrians probably never will use math, which I think is a good thing. One of the biggest disputes in economics is what forms the foundation of the science. Austrians contend that it’s praxeology. Others, math, still others, statistics, yet more others, models, etc. For a century and a half the Austrian school has been fighting and actively debunking the methods of the others. To give that up, the Austrian School would lose its defining characteristic.

What is your opinion on the significance of game theory in understanding rational decision making? Personally, I think it’s useful (to an extent) and I seem to recall a whole lot of formal math, which Austrians unfortunately reject out of principle.

If the methods are correct, should the conclusions be also? If that’s the case, why are most econometric-derived conclusions statist fallacies?

“And, hypothetically, if everyone affiliated with Mises actually started using them, they would probably be published by serious journals more often (and get tenure at top-tier universities, etc.).”

Probably not.

“I fully support the Mises folks infiltrating “Establishment Economics,” provided they can do it.”

Again, that may have some value, but it also concedes a lot of points to the establishment economists. Using their methodology against them is to concede their methodology is correct.

I don’t think the methods are wrong (just less useful than their proponents claim). And, hypothetically, if everyone affiliated with Mises actually started using them, they would probably be published by serious journals more often (and get tenure at top-tier universities, etc.). I fully support the Mises folks infiltrating “Establishment Economics,” provided they can do it.

So Austrian economists should use the wrong methods to come to the right conclusions? There might be some value in that, as it might draw the interest of many traditional economist with reject Austrian analysis out of hand. However, such would be a very hollow victory.

Even Wayne Root gets books published and on store shelves ( though the shelf life is short).. and Ron Paul had a best seller through actual physical sales both on Amazon and in actual book stores, not from Choir downloads.

Haha if you search amazon books for “bob barr” the first result is the “A Revolution:.. by ROn Paul” book.

“Winston” is right about 1 thing- ROn Paul supporters are not really the natural base for Bob Barr ( or to a certain extent even the LP), but he was wrong about much else.

I take it you’ve never bothered to “learn” econometrics? I think the same is true for too many Austrians…

I was using a writing technique called “hyperbole.” I thought you would be used to it, at least given the comments that frequently appear on this site. Are you trying to dispute the fact that there is a bias against Austrian academic economists? Well, there is, and for some very good reasons…

Neoclassical analysis has contributed a great deal to economics at large. However, I will say that there is probably too much mathematics and econometrics being inserted into papers and forced upon students of economics. And I’ll admit that Austrian analysis can be very, very useful.

But, in the end, the Austrians lose because they fail to adapt to modern developments. The fact of the matter is that although mathematics and econometrics haven’t, in and of themselves, contributed greatly to the advancement of economics during the past 50 years, formal mathematics is the de facto (if not de jure) language of modern economics. Also, studying recent time periods with econometric tools can be useful if there are sufficient data. The failure of Austrians is to reject these tools out of principle, and is the reason why most hard-core Austrians are regarded more as ideologues (or at best, historians or philosophers) than as economists.

Yep, professors from Auburn, to George Mason, to Pace University, Florida State University, New York University, Suffolk University, Towson University, Grove City College, Hillsdale College, University of Missouri, University of Texas, Loyala University in New Orleans, University of Nebraska, King’s College, Western Carolina University, Western Michigan University, San Jose State University, Loyala University in Maryland, etc etc etc.

It is not the dominant version,that is for sure–but to say it is “confined to Auburn” is ignorant.

Besides, Auburn is one of the bases—but not the only one. George Mason, Grove City College, and Florida State U all have pretty significant Austrian prescences.