Austrian School vs American Founding Fathers(read OP)

[BamaAla]

I voted Austrian. I can't help but wonder...whatever could the choice of phrasing mean?

One is a school of economics...the other a complete body of conflicting ideas. I mean which founders? I liked Jefferson, but Hamilton was an economic dunce. I liked the one party, but not the other. Freedom, that's cool...slavery, that's a no go.

I cannot simply say "the founders", as I disagreed with them all on certain issues, and with half on another whole host of issues. This means I'm less than 50% influenced by the founders, no matter how you look at it.

I voted Austrian, because it was something I don't have a problem with overall. I may disagree with Hoppe's immigration analysis, or some explanation for lack of spending by those with reserve capital in a economic downturn (they largely say tentativeness by investors due to insecurity or unsureness in taxes a and regulation that may or may not be forthcoming, whereas I see differential accumulation and monetary circuit theory at work which keep credit markets tight and encourage low risk by large market share holders in order to monopolize with the least risk involved), but overall, it's harder to criticize than slavery, women's treatment, and mercantilism (and therefore oligarchy).

Maybe asking founders or the western philosophers...or Austrians or Keynesians (or Hamiltonians, cough cough, John Hay fans) might be better...

I voted the other way for the opposite reason. Collectively, the founders influenced me more because they offered broader and conflicting views. The Austrians don't really offer that. If the question were simply on economics, my answer would be different.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I voted the other way for the opposite reason. Collectively, the founders influenced me more because they offered broader and conflicting views. The Austrians don't really offer that. If the question were simply on economics, my answer would be different.

Austrians wrote on more than just economics. History, Law, Philosophy, Sociology/Psychology, etc. If you include Proto-Austrians like the School of Salamanca the breadth of work covers even more! The only Founders that ever interested me were the radical Anti-Federalists like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Clinton, Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan, Melancton Smith, and Mercy Otis Warren (God Bless her soul). The Federalists and the lukewarm middle-of-the-roaders can go soak in the Atlantic for all I care.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

Very interesting poll results.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

James Madison's essay 'Money', written in 1779 is the gold standard.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Austrians wrote on more than just economics. History, Law, Philosophy, Sociology/Psychology, etc. If you include Proto-Austrians like the School of Salamanca the breadth of work covers even more! The only Founders that ever interested me were the radical Anti-Federalists like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Clinton, Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan, Melancton Smith, and Mercy Otis Warren (God Bless her soul). The Federalists and the lukewarm middle-of-the-roaders can go soak in the Atlantic for all I care.

+a zillion

 

[Fox McCloud]

Austrians.

The founding fathers are political figures...and while some were noble, they're still beholden to political ideas...and therefore special interests--while some of them were better than modern day politicians (some just as bad if not worse....ie: Hamilton), they were still politicians.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Austrians.

The founding fathers are political figures...and while some were noble, they're still beholden to political ideas...and therefore special interests--while some of them were better than modern day politicians (some just as bad if not worse....ie: Hamilton), they were still politicians.

you misread Hamilton as the modern liberals and mainstream economists, do. Hamilton's bank did not help the economy, it simply helped the very weak nascent government become functional and pay off liberation debts. The US is a unique nation in that it did not immediately become a military dictatorship after gaining independence. Mexico, for example, had a Constitution that lasted one year and then a dictator took over. When oppressed people have to fight for liberty in an empire, they always build up war debts. So in the rare case where the secessionists win, the banks and the military forms a partnership to take over. But it didn't happen here. With Hamilton, there was no partnership between the military and the banks.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The founding fathers are political figures...and while some were noble, they're still beholden to political ideas...and therefore special interests--while some of them were better than modern day politicians (some just as bad if not worse....ie: Hamilton), they were still politicians.

Perhaps they warrant a bit more than being called just "politicians". Since they devised the best form of government that defended liberty, in the history of mankind. All those that signed the Declaration of Independence risked their very lives. I'm not thinkin' I've seen too much like that come out of many "politicians" in recent times.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Founders, although I appreciate the Austrian economists.

The Austrian economists are more brilliant, but that is only because they have had the tradition of liberty to build their works off of. The Founding Fathers paved the way for the Austrian Economists by contributing so much to the cause of liberty, and that is why I agree that the Founding Fathers have influenced me more.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Money by James Madison

U.S. President, 1809–17

Abstract

This essay, written around 1779, challenges the simple quantity theory of money.

From the perspective of the paper money issued to pay for America’s Revolutionary War—bills of credit, or continentals—the essay rejects the idea that the value of money is determined by the number of pieces of paper issued. That idea ignores the fact that an individual nation is just a small part of the world economy. More relevant than quantity, the essay argues, are two other features: the date the government promises to exchange the pieces of paper for specie and the credibility of that promise.

This essay originally appeared in a 1791 Philadelphia newspaper. The version reprinted in this journal is the edited and annotated version from The Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). It is reprinted with the permission of the University of Chicago Press.

Observations written1 posterior to the circular Address of
Congress in Sept. 1779, and prior to their Act of March,
1780.2

READ THE PAPER:

http://minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2141.pdf

Here is a Founding Father who gets it!

Please note that this essay was written by James Madison just before his first term in the Continental Congress, which began in early 1780. At that time, the monetary situation of the Congress was a disaster, their paper currency "was not worth a continental".

Hence, Madison wrote this paper in an attempt to save the Revolution from disaster.

At the time Madison wrote the essay, he was serving on the Virginia Council of State with Governor Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Carson]

Being ripped off for a life time had more influence than either of the choices and should be on there somewhere.

 

[ProIndividual]

I voted the other way for the opposite reason. Collectively, the founders influenced me more because they offered broader and conflicting views. The Austrians don't really offer that. If the question were simply on economics, my answer would be different.

That's a different way to look at it, and it completely makes sense as well.

 

[ProIndividual]

you misread Hamilton

I know this wasn't for me, but I couldn't resist...

from: Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part II)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41442


11. Hamilton was an economic genius and was just great

Another myth is that the financial genius and economic statesmanship of Alexander Hamilton saved the credit of the infant United States and established the sound financial and economic foundation essential for future growth and prosperity. Ron Chernow's hagiographic biography of Hamilton is now moving up the best seller charts, cluttering the display tables of Borders and Barnes & Noble, and taking up time on C-Span's Booknotes; but its greatest contribution will be to perpetuate the Hamilton myth for another generation.


Sumner's concise and devastating biography of that vainglorious popinjay, written over a hundred years ago, remains the best. He closely studied Hamilton's letters and writings, including the big three - his Report on the Public Credit (1790), Report on a National Bank (1790), and Report on Manufactures (1791) - and came to three conclusions: first, the New Yorker had never read Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), the most important economic treatise written in the Anglo-American world in that period; second, he was a mercantilist, who would have been quite at home serving in the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole or Lord North; and third, Hamilton believed many things that are not true - that federal bonds were a form of capital; that a national debt was a national blessing; that the existence of banks increased the capital of the country; that foreign trade drained a country of its wealth, unless it resulted in a trade surplus; and that higher taxes were a spur to industry and necessary because Americans were lazy and enjoyed too much leisure.


The idea here was that if you taxed Americans more, they would have to work harder to maintain their standard of living, thus increasing the gross product of the country and providing the government with more revenue to spend on grand projects and military adventures. Hamilton was once stoned by a crowd of angry New York mechanics. Is it any wonder why?


The author is sourced at the bottom of the article.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I know this wasn't for me, but I couldn't resist...

from: Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part II)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41442


11. Hamilton was an economic genius and was just great

Another myth is that the financial genius and economic statesmanship of Alexander Hamilton saved the credit of the infant United States and established the sound financial and economic foundation essential for future growth and prosperity. Ron Chernow's hagiographic biography of Hamilton is now moving up the best seller charts, cluttering the display tables of Borders and Barnes & Noble, and taking up time on C-Span's Booknotes; but its greatest contribution will be to perpetuate the Hamilton myth for another generation.


Sumner's concise and devastating biography of that vainglorious popinjay, written over a hundred years ago, remains the best. He closely studied Hamilton's letters and writings, including the big three - his Report on the Public Credit (1790), Report on a National Bank (1790), and Report on Manufactures (1791) - and came to three conclusions: first, the New Yorker had never read Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), the most important economic treatise written in the Anglo-American world in that period; second, he was a mercantilist, who would have been quite at home serving in the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole or Lord North; and third, Hamilton believed many things that are not true - that federal bonds were a form of capital; that a national debt was a national blessing; that the existence of banks increased the capital of the country; that foreign trade drained a country of its wealth, unless it resulted in a trade surplus; and that higher taxes were a spur to industry and necessary because Americans were lazy and enjoyed too much leisure.


The idea here was that if you taxed Americans more, they would have to work harder to maintain their standard of living, thus increasing the gross product of the country and providing the government with more revenue to spend on grand projects and military adventures. Hamilton was once stoned by a crowd of angry New York mechanics. Is it any wonder why?


The author is sourced at the bottom of the article.

this is a myth is is not what I said. The temporary federal bank simply allowed the very small and very weak federal government that had income of only about 2% of the GNP (of a small non-industrial economy) to deal with the $75 million in war debts without sparking a military takeover or a partnership between the military and banking cartels. The Founding Fathers did not want a central bank, and once the national debt was paid off, they got rid of it.

Ron Chernow is way off base and is an apologist for the banking cartels. He think Hamilton helped the economy. I've got his book, although I can't claim to have read all 1000 pages of it.

 

[AuH20]

The founders. They actually hammered their ideas into a living setting as opposed to the Austrians. I think that's where the separation begins as far as prominence is concerned.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Perhaps they warrant a bit more than being called just "politicians". Since they devised the best form of government that defended liberty, in the history of mankind. All those that signed the Declaration of Independence risked their very lives. I'm not thinkin' I've seen too much like that come out of many "politicians" in recent times.

Don't get me wrong--as I said, I think they're better than today's politicians, but I still stand by my statement--especially considering they all expanded the power of the government, quite drastically, at that time--the Constitution, while noble by today's standards, was quite an expansion of power compared to the articles of confederation. I don't think expansion of government or centralization of powers is ever justified on society, therefore, why I classify most of the founders as "just politicians".

 

[JohnRego]

I'm pretty sure that type of hammering is the very thing Austrians oppose.