Here is a post from in 2007 by Peter Leeson warning young Austrians not to make certain mistakes in their intellectual and academic pursuits. In similar vein, here are ten things the Austrians of today would benefit from reconsidering or dropping altogether.

The natural rate of interest isn’t what you think it is. Austrians tend to have a problem with this one. When the Fed artificially lowers market interest rates below that of the Wicksellian natural rate, this kicks off the boom phase of the business cycle which will eventually result in malinvestment and the inevitable bust. But what if the natural rate is already very low due to a rise in real savings and reduced investment demand? Wouldn’t lowering the market rate be appropriate in that case? The truth is we can never really measure the natural rate, yet we always assume that when a central bank increases monetary stimulus, it’s making rates “too low”. But too low compared to what? This applies equally to fractional reserve banking. Austrians need to consider this when looking at monetary policy. ABCT doesn’t explain the entire business cycle. Speaking of Austrian business cycle theory, it’s important to remember that it is merely an explanation of the boom, not the recession that follows. It cannot comment on the supposed length or depth of the ensuing downturn and, further, cannot account for the underemployment of resources and labor, nor the lack of investor confidence. The Great Depression is a good example of this. Instead, other monetary perspectives such as Friedman and Schwartz’s do a better job of explaining specific aspects of the cycle. Analyzing the policies in place during the cycle can also help explain the bust. Robert Higg’s perspective on “regime uncertainty” is another theory that has little to do with ABCT yet can explains why a potentially small recession can turn into a prolonged depression. Know the difference between the Austrian books for beginners, and the more advanced works. – This doesn’t apply to everyone, but there is a significant number of free market supporters who tend to think What Has Government Done to Our Money? or Economics in One Lesson are sufficient in knowing economics, and use the fundamental points in these books in debates on very nuanced topics. Even putting the accuracy of Hazlitt’s or Rothbard’s arguments aside, economists understand the world is not often not so clear. It would help, then, to know when some Austrian writers are merely writing specifically for beginners or the educated layperson, and when they put together more deeply intellectual arguments that are better suited for the advanced thinkers. A good example would be The Economic Way of Thinking by David Prychitko and Peter Boettke. It explains real world examples and gives more detail about the finer points of economic theory. While not a graduate-level textbook, readers would be much more suited for deeper economic debates starting with this than Hazlitt. And for an advanced look at the Rothbardian view on banking and money, try Salerno’s Money: Sound and Unsound. Drop Rothbard and the Mises Institute for 6 months to a year. Seriously, articles on Mises.org have value, but often there are better sources for Austrian research out there. Come to think of it, drop fee.org and lewrockwell.com as well. They’re all pretty simplistic and often hand-wavy. Instead, try ones like marginalrevolution.com, www.cobdencentre.org, and cafehayek.com. There are plenty of others as well, so see what works for you. Put Human Action down. Read an actual economics textbook. This doesn’t mean you can’t ever read Mises, but if you want a basic grasp of the state of economics today, you’ll benefit more by starting with something like Gregory Mankiw’s Principles of Economics. Or if you’re looking for something on a grander scale, then Frederic Mishkin’s book The Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets would be useful for banking and monetary theory/policy. This may seem like anti-Austrian advice, but it’s always good to be informed about the field of study you’re interested in learning about. Get over yourself. Get uncomfortable. Get intimidated. This is for those of you who frequent forums like Reddit. Many of us don’t understand or follow mainstream economics, and resort to calling them all Keynesians, feeling like we have the upper hand in the intellectual debate without ever even engaging them. Yet, if you have any familiarity with the economics field today, there are numerous ways in which economists do not follow Keynes’ teachings. So instead of “playing it safe”, go to a website or forum where non-Austrian economics is being discussed, even if you feel out of your league just by eavesdropping. You’ll learn a good deal. I recommend here and here as far as discussions go. Leave gold alone. Yes, we all like to think that gold is the de facto money in a free market. Whether or not this is so is conjecture, but if you think a gold standard would be the best monetary system, it’s important to realize that it has historically been more volatile and inflationary, which makes economic calculation inherently more difficult. There is also reason to believe that recessions were more prolonged during the classical gold standard. This is not to disparage the benefits of a gold standard that Austrians tend to focus on, but it’s clear that what must be advocated for is currency and banking competition. Let the market decide. Eliminate “praxeology” from your economic vocabulary. The simple fact is this. Mainstream economists are not completely against deduction when theorizing, but find empirical evidence and mathematical models to be useful. Many Austrians including Hayek aren’t far apart, but when someone uses the word praxeology to describe their methodology, economists tend to reject this passionately and take our tradition less seriously. Austrians should value dialogue with other economists highly, and since many Austrians don’t reject empiricism, then there really is no point of using the term praxeology in discussion or debate. It hurts more than it helps. Some Austrians have even misused it to forward their ideological agendas. Even if equilibrium is coherently defined, there is no inherent tendency towards it at any given moment. This one isn’t very controversial among Austrians but sometimes some forget that you cannot know if the tendencies towards market equilibrium outweighs the tendencies away from it. In other words, we cannot say ex ante that the market will correct itself using theory alone. This is an empirical question. Ludwig Lachmann and even Israel Kirzner knew this. There is, of course, the fact that individuals and entrepreneurs are attempting to equilibrate the market due to the profit incentive, but this alone does not prove they will succeed. Do your best to remove your political ideology from your economic theory. This one is self explanatory. The more you look at economics in a positive way rather than normative, the richer your understanding of economic reality will be. You can still have your ethical positions, but sometimes it’s best to be “outside of oneself” to get a good grasp of the world around us. This is admittedly easier said than done. Yet, it’s best to simply take off our libertarian goggles to really get a good look at economic cause and effect.