If there was an award for whiny nitpicking, the heterodox “post-autistic” economics movement would win every year.

Huh? I don’t get this. One can consistently believe that it is better for certain firms to be unregulated monopolies than regulated monopolies and still believe in the concept of market failure too. To do so, one need only judge the likelihood and outcome of government failure (i.e. regulatory capture) as worse than the disease it was meant to be curing.

Tyler Cowen recently wrote a NYTimes magazine piece arguing in favor of deregulating water companies in developing countries on the grounds than an unregulated monopoly would be less bad than what they currently have. Cowen is certainly not blind to the concept of market failure in this instance.

The prize you are talking about, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, was instituted by the Swedish Central Bank and deliberately conflated with the Nobel Prizes to make economics look like a science rather than a combination of science and ideology. The bias in awarding these prizes has been noted (which is great, if you’re a Chicago School economist).

I’ve often considered whether George Soros might consider funding the George Soros Prize in Selfserving Bullshit in Memory of Alfred Nobel to get the point across. A Nobel Prize in Bullshit would come in very handy (for example, back in 2003, it would be a tossup between George Bush and Comical Ali).

Also, please note that “market alternatives to ill conceived policy initiatives” is not the same thing as “market solutions to social problems.” Friedman was no Hayek, after all. Consider that the “unethical” nature of Social Security makes it ill-conceived regardless of whether it’s a working solution to a social problem or not.

2. Friedman is much more famous than Mises, and, as far as economics scholarship – like JS notes – Chicago is much more noteworthy than Auburn, AL. Hence, the folks at the Friedman Institute will be much less likely to mess with Friedman’s legacy than Rockwell, et.al. have with Mises’, if only because they’re more likely to be caught doing it, and more (and more important) people will care if they do.

3. This one isn’t related to your point, but FWIW, Mises really wasn’t interested in open dialogue and debate with his intellectual opponents.

Yeah, uh, can anyone find the logical loophole here?

Hint: the Ludwig von Mises Institute is stuffed with social conservatives who endorse militant restrictions on immigration.

I yelled “Zing!” out loud at my computer while reading this line. ZOL?

Further, Friedman never seemed afraid to tangle with an intellectual opponent. Assuming the Institute’s founders want to act consistent with Friedman’s spirit, it’s ridiculous to pretend that the Institute named for him wouldn’t “have room for true academic debate.”