Peter T. Leeson gives what I am sure is very good advice to young Austrian school economists on a blog I'd never noticed before, titled (appropriately) The Austrian Economists. Here I'll take each point and replace his elaborative comment with my comment in response:

1. Stop block quoting Mises and Hayek.

Good idea. Too often such extended quotations strike non-Austrian economists (and even those sympathetic non-economists, like me) as appeals to authority. Like something Rand did with John Galt. Mises and Hayek actually existed, but they aren't the only economists to so exist. If you single these two for extended quotation, you sound like Johnny Two-Note. And for most of the Two Vons' notions there exist both earlier and later economists also worthy of citation. But mainly, keep your references to Mises and Hayek as citations, footnotes, not as huge chunks of reverently quoted material.

2. No more attempts at rewriting "capital theory."

This is sad news. I like capital theory. Standard capital discussion is often silly, useless, or at the very least misguided. But, that being said, this is probably good advice. Arguing about capital theory is like pushing a rock up a mountain in Hades: it's gonna come crashing down on you. I've talked with a number of economists over the years, and when I (a non-economist) mention capital theory, they usually just wave their hands and mention Irving Fisher. Ye gods, what a mess.

Work out your capital theory in fear and trembling. Then, in other work, if the occasion comes to bring it up, do it in the world's best constructed paragraph.

3. Work on topics other than history of thought.

Unless your contribution is going to be an economic alternative to evolutionary epistemology and the sociology of knowledge . . . and even then, do something new and exciting and bring this other in if you have to. Leeson's added advice is not only sound but funny: Set a limit for yourself--say, 1 history of thought paper for every 5 non-history of thought papers.

4. No more discussions about the calculation debate.

Great advice. I was tired of this by the early '90s. And then Don Lavoie's and David Ramsay Steele's books came out, and I thought, OK, stop talking about the calculation debate NOW.

5. Get over the "subjectivism stuff."

Leave it for those of us on the outside of the Academy, who bring it up in part to stick it to capital-O Objectivists.

6. Do not confuse "correctness" for "goodness" in economics and vice versa.

Hmmm. This is probably right. An economist is good who can expand knowledge; an economist who is correct may know nothing more than a few true basics. My interpretation of this rule? The hidden norm in academic life is progress. Nice to know.

7. You are not going to write a treatise that revolutionizes economics.

Well, this is an odd thing for an economist to write. It's not hedged. What he should have written is this: Given the odds, you are not likely to write that revolutionary treatise. So do something useful instead of try. The economists who do revolutionize will do so either (a) inadvertantly, in the course of other work, or (b) will not listen to good advice anyway. There are always exceptions in these things, and every good statistician knows this. (Of course, the correct statistician can make the statement and likely be right, depending on the size of his readership pool.)

8. Do not engage (i.e., make the focus of your research) work that is more than 25 years old.

The problem with this advice is that a few of the deep and abiding problems of Austrian economics are a century out of date! Take public goods. The Austrians got behind on this, and the work trying to catch up is still not there yet, from what I can tell. Give Austrians another five years. After they catch up to work done 90 years ago, then maybe we can nudge them to set their sites even nearer.

9. Don't tell us what Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. "really meant."

This is another issue that reminds even non-economists too much of theology and literature and philosophy. Stick to economics. Leave hermeneutics to French Theorists and Continental theologians.

10. Stick a fork in the "philosophy talk."

This is something that Mises himself should have done more often, too. Though I was deeply impressed with his Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science when I read it at age 20 — and even though, in a pecular way it even changed my life! — I didn't buy his argument that he wasn't doing philosophy, and I didn't buy huge chunks of said philosophy. What he (almost inadvertantly) helped me to understood was the significance of subjective value. But that was almost an extraneous point. His main argument struck me at the time as dubious, and strikes me as more dubious now. Most of his subsequent defenders and friendly interpreters regarding method seem to demonstrate less than half the sophistication they pretend to possess. The whole Austrian school often comes out looking bad for this obsession.

And yes, I say these things even though I am sympathetic to most Austrian positions, even the ones I disagree with.

Of course, it's easy to dismiss me; I'm not, after all, an economist.

Final point: the reason young economists in the Austrian school should avoid these vices is that, in doing so, they will get ahead. They can leave these vices, listed above, to those of us outside the academic world and can't be harmed much by them. No one really cares what we do, or if we come off looking a bit nuts!