Bob Murphy might be being somewhat tongue and cheek here, but he has a good point. The very title of Austrian economics makes little sense. Very few Austrian-nationals are still studying it (its based in the US now) and many of the actual original Austrians (from the Vienna school) did some of their most important work in England or America.
This amusing story demonstrates the point:
And then Stephan Kinsella relays this anecdote about Tom Woods’ debate with ING Chairman Tom McInerney (HT2 Bob Roddis):
McInerney had mentioned that Bernanke was a diligent and knowledgeable student of the Great Depression. So, when it came time for the Q&A, one audience member asked Woods to briefly explain the Austrian view of Great Depression and how it might differ from Bernanke’s view. After Woods did this, McIerney took the stage, and as if he were about to unload a devastating blow against Woods, said to him, “this might seem like a bit of an attack. Don’t take it too personally.” And then…. he began to rant about … the relatively small size of the country of Austria. I kid you not.
Some audience members began to laugh; others cringed, as McInerney dug his hole deeper while under the illusion that he was unleashing a deadly zinger. Woods kept trying to stage whisper that Austria had nothing to do with the school of Austrian economics, but McInerney, undeterred, plowed on. Thus, when Woods took the stage he said, “this might seem like an attack, but don’t take it too personally…” And then Woods commented that we may as well say we shouldn’t listen to Milton Friedman, since the GDP of Chicago is pretty low.
On the other hand, maybe if we can make Austrian economics obscure enough, we can make all opponents look like fools during debates!
Actually, the more important thing is to become mainstream enough that the average economics-interested person knows at least something of your ideas before-hand.
That is, if you care about Austrian economics at all.
I wonder if the post-Keynesians have this problem at all.