The Great Ideas of the Social Sciences

by Gene Callahan

Let’s take social science broadly, in the sense of German wissenschaft, so that The Republic and Politics and The Social Contract are social science. (I would contend that they are, in fact, often much more scientific than the latest regression study of how detergent use correlates with the suicide rate.)

So what, then, are the most important ideas ever put forward in social science? I’m not asking what are the best ideas, so the truth of them is only obliquely relevant: a very important idea may be largely false. (I think it still must contain some germ of truth, or it would have no plausibility.) Think of it this way: if you were teaching a course called “The Great Ideas of the Social Sciences,” what would you want to make sure you included?

Here’s my preliminary list. What have I left off? What have I mistakenly included?

The Role of the Perverse Elasticity of Credit Money

by Andreas Hoffmann

I want to bring a recent comment by Sornette and von der Backe to the attention of the reader (in Nature 471, p. 166, May 2011). Sornette and von der Backe remind us to pay more attention to disequilibria caused by the fractional reserve banking system to explain the emergence of crises. They particularly recommend a reconsideration of the Austrian School of Economics to derive short-term policy solutions. “We should relearn and expand some of the old economic wisdom about the specific role of banks.”

Hayek and Keynes Debating in Wonderland

by Thomas McQuade

Here’s what Alice might have recited to the Caterpillar, had Charles Dodgson been a 20th century economist of sorts:

You are old, Maynard Keynes, and your theory’s askew,
It’s easy for one to see through it –
Yet everyone thinks that you’ve said something new.
Just how did you manage to do it?

In my youth, said the sage, I dabbled in stock,
For serious profits contesting,
And it wasn’t too long but I saw what a crock
Was the classical take on investing.

Further Thoughts on The Sensory Order

by Roger Koppl

Over at Austrian Addiction, Dan D’Amico responds to my recent post on The Sensory Order.  Dan wants to know “what Hayek’s theory of neuorscience is really adding here that a more basic understanding of subjective preferences does not already imply?”  Dan is not the only one with this question.  I think enthusiasts for The Sensory Order have given pretty good answers to Dan’s question, but it seems clear that we need to do a better job.

The Sensory Order

by Roger Koppl

Over at Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen recently said The Sensory Order is “Hayek’s most overrated book.”  In part he was complaining that “many call it his most underrated book.”  Unfortunately, he does not name names.  In any event, Tyler has other gripes including the mistaken suggestion that the science in it was not current.  As I said in a comment, “I don’t understand why TSO gets lukewarm to negative reactions from serious people who are otherwise keen on Hayek.”  The most salient example of TSO bashing may be that of Dan D’Amico and Pete Boettke, who criticize “neuro-Hayekians.” Let me go on record as an enthusiast for The Sensory Order.  The latest expression of my enthusiasm is forthcoming in JEBO.

Old Wisdom for New Year

by Chidem Kurdas

 

New year, new government, new policies, new promises. How about some wisdom distilled from the past? Here is a selection of quotes I find illuminating.

 

Since (the legislature) possesses authority to arrange everything, it cannot refuse responsibility for anything. There will be no particular grievance which it will not be regarded as capable of removing … However, it is a fact that most of the grievances of particular individuals or groups can be removed only by measures which create new grievances elsewhere. …

Friedrich Hayek, Law Legislation and Liberty; v. 1, University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 143-144

Planning and Democracy

by Mario Rizzo

 

 

The Senate could not agree on an auto bailout package. So what may happen now? The Treasury may lend the Big Three about $15 billion under the authority given to it in the TARP legislation to buy any financial instrument necessary to promote financial market stability. This authority was thus not to do any specific thing but to do what in the judgment of Henry Paulson would help fix the system. So Congress basically gave the Fixer an almost blank check.