Hacker News Reader

Comment by Locke1689 | Hacker News Reader

Do not do this. The Austrian school of economics is neither scientific nor respected in the wider economic sphere.

If you want a good introduction to economics that is 1) amenable to the perspective of an engineer (i.e., mathematical theory and significant amounts of modeling and game theory) and 2) close to how actual professional economists approach economic problems, the best free textbook is one originally authored by an economist at CalTech who is also Yahooo!'s head of an economic research team.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Introecon/IEA.pdf

View on HN

> The Austrian school of economics is neither scientific

This is a somewhat vague statement but I'm assuming you're referring to the Austrians' "a priori" approach to economics.

> nor respected in the wider economic sphere.

Given the adversarial stance that the Austrians take toward government intervention in the economy it is no surprise that their ideas are not endorsed by academics.

Individuals should make their own judgement about the persuasiveness of the Austrian arguments and not dismiss them because they are unpopular.

If you have the time, I'd welcome a critique of any argument contained in that Hazlitt book quoted above.

I assume that the complaint was not "no one should ever read the Austrians" but rather that it's not appropriate introduction to economics.

One may think that string theory is sound, but still think it unwise to introduce someone to physics starting with string theory.

"Individuals should make their own judgment about the persuasiveness of Austrian arguments"

I agree with this, but it seems wiser to do so once you have some basic knowledge of more mainstream economics so that you can critically compare the two schools of thought.

But that's a gross mischaracterization of Austrian economics. It's nothing like the 'string theory' of economics and is indeed rather simple.

All the seminal works (especially "Economics in One Lesson") are very elementary. You need no prior exposure to economics.

They say you can identify an Austrian work by flipping through it, as it will undoubtedly contain no graphs or formulas.

The only goal of the comparison to string theory was that it's an alternative theory that an educated observer should judge on its own merits. I'm saying that the background of one's introduction to economics should be based in the mainstream, just as one's intro to physics should not be based in mainstream physics vs string theory (saying nothing of how advanced the intro curriculum need be).

My fundamental point is that alternative theories are invaluable and essential, but being conservative and sticking with the mainstream is generally well-advised for beginners. Once you're confident in your grounding in the mainstream, you can approach alternatives with a critical, well-informed eye.

Astrology has no formulas. Astronomy has lots of formulas.

Whether you prefer Austrian or Keynsian approaches, FORMULAS ARE A GOOD THING.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com