Some thoughts on a new Mises Daily article from Jonathan that I haven't even read in its entirety yet...

Jonathan has a Mises Daily article on "The Foremost Austrian Contribution to Economic Science", which centers on the price mechanism and references a lot of what he's been thinking through with the Prices and Production reading group. I've only read the first couple paragraphs and cannot finish it now, but I want to recommend it to readers based on what I've read so far. A few thoughts:

1. First, it's kind of funny because I was thinking of this on the way to work. Don Boudreaux recently accused me of defending "dumbshit" (his words) ideas from any Keynesian out there and always taking issue with Austrians/libertarians. This, I hope I don't have to explain to my regular readers, is patently untrue. But it was disconcerting enough to read that I thought of what I like in Austrian and libertarian thought. One thing that dawned on me is similar to - although not exactly - what Jonathan is saying here. I think by far the greatest victory for the Austrians was their position in the socialist calculation debate. Nobody today thinks or talks like Abba Lerner (much less Oskar Lange). The Mises-Hayek position on the price mechanism is implicit in everything any economist says. That's a huge achievement on a crucial specter that was haunting not just nineteenth century Europe, but the entire world in the twentieth century. The socialist calculation debate position of Mises and Hayek was, of course, grounded in their understanding of the price mechanism. Austrians like to embrace a bunker mentality. It's romantic. It attracts angsty internet surfing teenagers. But they can't escape from the fact that they scored a major victory not just against a socialist (that's relatively easy), but against a left-Keynesian (who, admittedly, was much farther left than the Keynesian center of gravity).

2. Nevertheless, my caution from reading the beginning of the article is that it seems like Jonathan is putting out the idea that the Austrians came up with the price mechanism (as opposed to providing a particular version of it with particular emphases, or as opposed to applying it in particular ways - as in the socialist calculation debate). Like I said, I haven't read the whole article but I hope this is not what he is arguing. I hope he ends up highlighting the particular Austrian spin on the price mechanism, but if he's claiming the price mechanism is somehow an Austrian idea that the mainstream rejects, that of course would be deeply wrong. The same goes for his discussion of intertemporal coordination. This simply is not an Austrian "contribution". It is pre-Smithian. I hope in reading it in more detail than I have gotten a chance to (I don't want people to think I'm passing judgement right now), I hope he will emphasize Hayek's new contributions to an old idea and not attribute the price mechanism or intertemporal coordination to the Austrians. Sentences like this: "This contribution, which is in present day almost always ignored in all forms, is the explanation of a working price mechanism" make me wary, but I will give it a full read first.

3. But aside from some cautions I mean this to be a positive referral, so let me get out another positive point: this article is extremely well written. The quality of the writing is much better than earlier Mises Daily's by Jonathan. That is not an easy feat to improve your writing so substantially that readers actually notice, but he did. I struggle with this a lot, usually when I compare my writing to my brother's. He used to write with a lot of flowery flourishes that I didn't care for - and I teased him for it - but he's clamped down on that and in my opinion he writes very well. I do my best too, and don't think I'm an especially bad writer - but it's something you always have to work at. The trick is to just keep doing it (and to read a lot). Jonathan is clearly working on his writing. This brings me to...

4. This really should not have been published as a Mises Daily article. Jonathan commented on a recent post of mine that: "I'd like to get published (as in, really published - in the way you mean it), but the hard part is coming up with the original idea. It's still too early for me anyways.". I think he sells himself far too short. Not every piece has to be an earth-shattering discovery. Is this American Economic Review material? By no means (nor is anything I'm coming up with). But this is better than a blog post that Mises.org churns out six a day of. The article is a little over six thousand words, which means it has room to grow. My advice: (1.) drop everything else you are writing, (2.) add qualifications and nuance to claims about the price mechanism or intertemporal coordination as a "contribution" (or don't qualify if you disagree with me, of course), (3.) find articles by people like Rowe and DeLong to cite, not blog posts and sub those in for your blog links, (4.) find something you want to develop a little more - the Stiglitz point may be interesting to delve into in more depth, (5.) circulate it to myself, Mattheus, Lee, and anyone else for thoughts, and (6.) submit this thing (modified, inevitably) to either the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics or the Review of Austrian Economics. I really see no good reason for you not to take this advice in its entirety (including my point #2, but that's up to you - and if you don't take that advice that leaves me latitude to submit a reply!).