I saw that debate and thought Murphy talked much too much about praxeology. It would’ve, as an undergrad science major, been VERY off-putting for me to hear him droning on about philosophy when I came to hear about “what happened to our economy”.
Yes, I believe in praxeology and yes I believe philosophy is important for the understanding of economics. But I feel the austrians are making a mistake by making pushing action axioms front and center. Murphy would’ve done better by picking a simple topic (IMHO: the failures of the monetarists’ predictions) and repeatedly reinforcing it. Pound Friedman on his failures, again and again and again.
Here are some examples:
1. As a potential convert to ABCT would I rather watch Peter Schiff’s or Tom Wood’s versions of educational entertainment -OR- hear about action axioms and subjective marginal utility?
2. From my business: Would a new student be more interested in seeing MRI images of grotesque tumors -OR- learn about the real and imaginary components of the longitudinal magnetization (MRI) vector. Hint: If you don’t know the answer: 1. you’re a nerd and 2. the answer is the former. (Once we’ve drawn you in–then we can hit you with the boring nuts and bolts)
Hey austrians: When in a public forum SELL YOURSELVES!!! It may be beneath you…but I discovered Mises because of the charisma of Peter Schiff. Mark Thornton is a super-great guy, but seriously, (call me a Philistine), but I wouldn’t be giving away money to Lew Rockwell and buying Tom Woods’ books because I happened to find a Thornton lecture on the net.