As another econ grad student and former self-professed Austrian, I’ll concur with Matt Simpson. Some economists have a good handle on these topics and others don’t, but there aren’t clear demarcating lines. Except for in macro, there aren’t clearly identifiable schools, which is a good sign. By field of study, micro theorists are more likely to use rationality jargon, be familiar with probabilistic logic, and know a few H&B classic like the Allais or Ellsberg paradoxes. Whether micro theorists actually apply this knowledge better than other economists is another question.
If you are interested in macro, check out Snowden and Vane’s Modern Macroeconomics. It presents the full gamut of perspectives, steel-manning mainstream and heterodox schools chapter by chapter.
Assuming you are referring to Austrian-style business cycle theory, the book has a chapter written by Roger Garrison on the subject. While the theory might not be applicable in general, he make a good case that a boom/bust cycle could be generated by credit expansion.
Oops, I wasn’t clear. Monetary Disequilibrium is “Austrian” but is not the same thing as “Austrian Business Cycle Theory” (I think it’s mostly orthogonal and I think some Austrians discuss both as important).
Monetary Disequilibrium theory might more accurately be called a monetary economic theory rather than a macro economic theory.
Hey badger, thanks for the information. All of that is good to hear, especially since I’m mostly interested in micro. Down the line I may study finance, possibly get a CFA.
But if/when there comes to time for me to learn advanced macro, I’ll be sure to check out Modern Macroeconomics. Steel-manning all the perspectives sounds like it would be very useful to me. Thanks for the suggestion!
As another econ grad student and former self-professed Austrian, I’ll concur with Matt Simpson. Some economists have a good handle on these topics and others don’t, but there aren’t clear demarcating lines. Except for in macro, there aren’t clearly identifiable schools, which is a good sign. By field of study, micro theorists are more likely to use rationality jargon, be familiar with probabilistic logic, and know a few H&B classic like the Allais or Ellsberg paradoxes. Whether micro theorists actually apply this knowledge better than other economists is another question.
If you are interested in macro, check out Snowden and Vane’s Modern Macroeconomics. It presents the full gamut of perspectives, steel-manning mainstream and heterodox schools chapter by chapter.
Out of personal interest: does Modern Macroeconomics discuss the “Monetary Disequilibrium” approach to macro?
Assuming you are referring to Austrian-style business cycle theory, the book has a chapter written by Roger Garrison on the subject. While the theory might not be applicable in general, he make a good case that a boom/bust cycle could be generated by credit expansion.
Oops, I wasn’t clear. Monetary Disequilibrium is “Austrian” but is not the same thing as “Austrian Business Cycle Theory” (I think it’s mostly orthogonal and I think some Austrians discuss both as important).
Monetary Disequilibrium theory might more accurately be called a monetary economic theory rather than a macro economic theory.
Hey badger, thanks for the information. All of that is good to hear, especially since I’m mostly interested in micro. Down the line I may study finance, possibly get a CFA.
But if/when there comes to time for me to learn advanced macro, I’ll be sure to check out Modern Macroeconomics. Steel-manning all the perspectives sounds like it would be very useful to me. Thanks for the suggestion!