Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

ATWDLimited (< 20)

Are You an Austrian? Mises Institute



June 13, 2008 – Comments (11) | RELATED TICKERS: GE , XOM , X

Are you in the tradition of Hayek and Mises?

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 13, 2008 at 6:12 PM, ATWDLimited (< 20) wrote:

Yup, I am Austrian, got a 91/100, with only 2 wrong answers. this test is a good indicator of your economic intelligence.

Report this comment
#2) On June 13, 2008 at 6:29 PM, ATWDLimited (< 20) wrote:

Wonder what the Fed would score, Obama, McCain, they would probably fail. Take the time to answer the quiz, it is very enlightening.

Report this comment
#3) On June 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM, jsthwrth (30.84) wrote:

82/100. I'm basically half Chicago/half Austrian.

Report this comment
#4) On June 13, 2008 at 7:45 PM, FleaBagger (27.29) wrote:

I am in awe of your embedding skills, but I can't read the text without arduously scrolling back and forth.

Okay, I scored a 91. I didn't understand the difference between the Chicago and the Austrian on a couple of them, and I arbitrarily chose the Keynesian defense one over the essentially equal (though less risibly and therefore less entertainingly explained) Chicago defense one.

Basically, I like the Austrian view, but anarchy (the Austrian view) is almost like socialism in that its practice falls so far short of its theory. Just as those entrusted with ensuring equality of wealth in "socialist" systems keep great wealth for themselves and their cronies, so also the private individuals who are supposed to protect their own property rights and engage each other peacefully would kill, rape, and steal from those who have lesser means of defending themselves. If you think they wouldn't or couldn't in the "Austrian" system, you're in denial. A starry-eyed Utopian denial similar to that of socialist utopianists.

Also, the idea that disputes between large groups of people could be settled peacefully or that, if not, the defense of an "Austrian" society could be handled adequately by private citizens is asinine on its face. Please note that I did not just call von Mises an assface. I'll continue to leave that for Keynesian economics professors and their socialist literature professor buddies.

Finally, I think that many of the Austrian answers would be given by people like Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, and even Milton Friedman, rather than the caricaturish "Chicago" answers. These economists are not that fond of government and politics.

Okay, this is actually the final thing. This is the first time I can remember seeing anyone else propose that roads be paved not by government, but by private enterprise. I came up with that one independently, inspired by the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams.

Report this comment
#5) On June 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM, dwot (29.77) wrote:

I am in agreement that this embedding attempt did not work so well.  How about the link for ease of trying this?  I don't mind an up down scroll, but a line by line left to right to read scroll is beyond my patience.

Report this comment
#6) On June 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM, ATWDLimited (< 20) wrote:

Sorry, I made the width too small, next time I will make it larger so that it fits correctly.

Here is the link. 

True, government must protect from foreign armies, the mafia was a good defense during WWII at our docks, but would never match up against Hitlers war machine. Also, building roads by private citizen is much better, dido for trains and other things, unless nobody wants to make it, but it is absolutely  needed, it can be split up. As for the utopia, I am anti-utopian, no matter how good it sounds. Government can provide security for those unable to defend, and make jails that use the convicts for labor, in order to maintain efficiency. No not brutal labor, but basic useful factory work. The key is small efficient government to keep the society from decaying, not micromanaging it. 

Report this comment
#7) On June 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, FleaBagger (27.29) wrote:


I don't know whether or not you consider yourself conservative, but your views sound pretty much like traditional conservatism: basically, a desire for freedom and a willingness to look at facts and make the best of reality without the headiness of soul-stirring liberal, Marxist, or even libertarian ideas that sound fine if unchallenged. 

I would consider myself a conservative who is often inspired by libertarians to find new things to free from government control (like roads - that was a breakthrough for me). My other controversial thing is airport security. I cannot think of a better way to balance freedom and security at the airport than by turning it over to private airport corporations, which would have to pay terror attack insurance premiums and compete with another airport down the road. Also, air traffic control could be handled easily by a private sector with no incentive whatsoever to have planes collide.

It's always good chatting with you, ATWD.

Report this comment
#8) On June 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, ATWDLimited (< 20) wrote:


It was a pleasure for me as well. Yes, I  consider myself a conservative, because that is what it means to be conservative, anti-utopian, be it socialist or anarchy. The problem is that the public is swooned by the marxists, and some think no government is correct answer. Unfortunately, there are more socialists than libertarians, or conservatives. Remember it is easier to add government that detract from it, the same way it is easier to give the baby a pacifier, than to take it away. But we still must try to instill logic into our government and society.

Report this comment
#9) On June 16, 2008 at 3:13 AM, dwot (29.77) wrote:

Thanks for the link...  Ok, so back when I am not just about ready to nod off...

Report this comment
#10) On June 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, ATWDLimited (< 20) wrote:

No problem, take the full quiz and post your results.

Report this comment
#11) On February 06, 2009 at 3:35 PM, OnionEater (< 20) wrote:

The Mises Institute has distributed a list of 25 questions which purport to sort out Austrians, Keynesians, monetarists and Marxists.  Apparently, in their world view, axiomatic economists do not exist.  Many people have taken this test and almost all of them have been told that they are 80 to 90% Austrian.  This would imply either that Austrianism is far more prevalent in society than hitherto suspected, or that the test takers were hoodwinked.   


 Actually, it is the latter.  The Mises Institute is conflating Austrianism with libertarianism.  Most of their questions are about jurisprudence, not economics, and are really just asking if one is libertarian.  The 80 to 90% represents the prevalence of libertarianism in society, or at least among people who visit their site.  The purpose of the Mises Institute’s test is to convince libertarians that there is no other economic theory compatible with their beliefs, not to convert mainstream or Marxist economists, who are assumed to be irredeemable. 


In contrast to the Mises Institute, my test asks only theoretical, not ideological, questions.  I assume that everybody taking it is more or less supportive of capitalism and the free market.  (If you are a Marxist, you might want to read my Critique of Montagne rather than take this test.)  I intend to sort out followers of the axiomatic, Austrian and mainstream schools of economic thought.  By “mainstream” I mean concepts that are widely taught in the universities, not just Keynesianism.  Austrians tend to assume that the two terms are synonymous, which is not true.


Take the 20-question quiz at


Take the 6-question quiz at

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners