David Friedman, an economist and legal scholar known for his book 'The Machinery of Freedom,' engages in a lively debate with Gene Epstein, former economics editor at Barron's. They tackle the stark contrasts between Austrian and Chicago economics, discussing the relevance of economic intuition versus empirical data. Topics include the interpretations of utility, the critiques of government policies, and the complexities of non-rational behavior in economic predictions. Their exchange challenges listeners to reconsider entrenched economic doctrines.
Gene Epstein argues that Austrian economics provides essential insights like ordinal utility and the entrepreneurial role, lacking in Chicago economics.
David Friedman counters that both schools apply concepts like ordinal utility effectively, disputing the exclusivity of Austrian economic intuitions.
The debate reveals fundamental methodological differences, with Austrians favoring a priori reasoning compared to the empirical approach of Chicago economists.
Deep dives
Overview of the Debate
The debate focused on whether the Austrian School of Economics, represented by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, is superior to the Chicago School of Economics, represented by Milton and David Friedman. The resolution asserted that Austrian economics contains valuable economic intuitions that are both important and absent from Chicago School thought. Each side was represented by Gene Epstein defending the Austrian perspective, emphasizing its unique insights such as ordinal utility and the role of the capitalist entrepreneur, and David Friedman countering with critiques that claimed these insights were not exclusive or were fundamentally flawed. The debate was moderated by Dennis Pratt and included historical references and individual economic contributions from both schools.
Austrian Economics: Key Insights
Gene Epstein highlighted several pivotal insights provided by Austrian economists, such as the theory of ordinal utility which prioritizes consumer preference without attempting to assign cardinal values to satisfaction. He argued that unlike the Chicago School, which may rely on quantitative data, the Austrians understand utility through subjective experiences that reflect real-world complexities. For example, Epstein described how consumer preferences can shift based on various factors, underscoring that ordinal utility accurately represents these fluctuating values. Additionally, he emphasized the significant role of the capitalist entrepreneur in creating economic value, a concept he feels is inadequately addressed by Chicago economists.
Critique of Cardinal Utility
David Friedman challenged the relevance of Austrian economic intuitions by contending that both schools effectively use ordinal utility in their analyses, particularly in the context of consumer choices. He argued that the concept of cardinal utility is also valid in certain scenarios, especially under conditions of uncertainty as reflected in von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theory, which originated from Austrian economists. Friedman presented that indifference curves, often associated with Chicago economics, demonstrate that ordinal utility can equally serve economic analysis without resorting to quantifying preferences. Hence, he asserted that the Austrian arguments regarding utility were overly simplistic and dismissive of useful analytical tools found within the Chicago framework.
The Role of Capitalists
A significant point of contention in the debate was the role of capitalists in the economy, with Epstein arguing that Austrians provide a more profound understanding of their function and compensation compared to the Chicago School. He pointed to the concept of time preference and how it explains why capitalists earn interest as compensation for their waiting period before receiving returns on their investments. Epstein referenced Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk's work, which argues that wage exploitation accusations against capitalists ignore the complexities of collaborative production and the essential waiting involved in capital investment. In contrast, Friedman questioned whether the emphasis on waiting was as crucial as presented, suggesting both schools fairly acknowledge the multifaceted nature of capital and its associated risks.
Contrasting Methodologies
The debate illuminated a fundamental methodological difference between the two schools: Austrians typically utilize a priori reasoning to derive economic principles, while Chicago economists lean heavily on empirical testing. Friedman defended the Chicago approach as more empirically grounded, suggesting that their theoretical conjectures are evaluated against observable data to ensure relevance and applicability. Conversely, Epstein maintained that the Austrian framework promotes deeper intuitive understanding by focusing on individual experiences and human actions, which he believes cannot be accurately captured through purely statistical analysis. This core divergence in methodology highlights how each school interprets economic phenomena and approaches policy discussions differently.
Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein and Chicago school economist David Friedman debate the resolution, "The Austrian economics of Mises and Rothbard contains economic intuitions that are important, correct, and missing from Chicago School economics."
Taking the affirmative was Gene Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor at Barron's. His last published book was Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University, and he has worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange.
The debate occurred on June 19th, 2024 at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire, and was moderated by libertarian writer and Free State Project activist, Dennis Pratt.