Political Crossfire Forums

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Brooklyn wrote: Quote: The velocity of money is rather hard to guage (if not impossible) and its efects are meaningless: what does it mean exactly if V increases? People are holding onto their money for shorter periods of time? gee... so what?

I don't think it is wise to shrug off certain issues because they are "hard to guage". It makes little sense to make the claim anything is "meaningless" when it isn't fully understood. It would seem some economic schools of thought would rather not deal with issues it cannot explain.

That last statement pretty much defines the Austrian school.
hardly! I have never seen or heard of an Austrian not deal with or attempt to deal with any issue

Quote: Externalities? Just ignore them.
I guess this is just a flat out lie - you know that Austrian have proposed methods, free market methods, of dealing with a wide variety of 'externalities: pollution, so-called 'infrastructure', national defense, law and order, pig farms moving into the neighborhood, neighbor shining spotlight from his property onto yours, etc.... name your tune

Quote: Mathematics as a tool for describing complex relationships? Who needs it.
'complex relationships'? Is all you do is mischaracterize or battle strawmen? Mathematics obviously can describe complex relationship (especially where the variables can all be known or controlled...), can mathematics describe human behavior and interaction? Only after the fact, and without certainty of future events - sure, one could find an equation which describes a particular historical behavior, but doing so does not EXPLAIN or predict with any sort of accuracy the future behavior of other (or the same) humans. Sure, use math to figure out the amount of fuel required to drive from point A to B - but to say that everyone drives from point A to B, and will continue to do so in the same manner in the future, solely due to this discovered equation is just foolish. Do people tend to choose to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles if gas is on the rise or expected to? sure! But, just because there was a 10% increase of these type of purchases when gas went from $2.00 to $2.50 per gallon back in year X, in no way means that in year X + 5 that, if gas were to once again rise the same amount (from $2.00 to $2.50), 10% would once again purchase said vehicles... 5 years have passed, lotsa other things have occurred, and time itself has increased the general pool of experience and knowledge of humans living in year X + 5. Math is very useful for alot of things in economics, necessary even, BUT, it is pure hubris to assume that by using these derived formula one can 'plan' an economy or determine the 'perfect' action for others to take.

Quote: Quote:
Quote: If you say so. Does that make it true?
Rue's point is coming straight from an intro economics textbook. Its the paradox of thrift.
Right. Sometimes I feel like arguing economics with internet Austrians is like arguing evolution with young earth creationists. No amount of facts and logic will dissuade them from beliefs that they "just know" are true.
What 'I know' is that these theories make logical sense, that there are many examples in history, that it adequately explains alot of economic events and reaction (actions), and, I know that there is no proof 'against' them - they haven't been 'disproved' in academic circles, or elsewhere.

LOL.

Have you ever heard of this guy?

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/default.asp

He has directly challenged and offered a monetary reward to Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and numerous other prominent Austrians if they can refute his critique of Austrian economics. All have refused.

Here is his specific critique of von Mises and Hayek:

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques.asp

I'm sure you've heard of Bryan Caplan and his paper "Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist". He was a well known Austrian who, while getting his PhD in economics, realized how untenable Austrian economics was and disassociated himself from it.

You are correct that you don't see refutations of Austrian economics in mainstream economics journals. This is for the same reason that you don't see refutations of creation science in mainstream biology journals. It simply isn't taken seriously.

You will however find pretty substantial critiques not only of Austrian economics, but also libertarian political philosophy in Critical Review, which bills itself as an "interdisciplinary journal of politics and society". Have a look sometime - most Barnes and Nobles carry it.

If you want critiques, you just have to know where to look - of course you won't find them on mises.org and lewrockwell.com.

What I find particularly bizarre about your post is your claim that "Austrian economics has never been disproven". I don't think you'll ever find anyone in any other branch of the physical or social sciences or philosophy or any other field making such a claim. Lots of theories in mainstream economics (and other fields) have been disproven. That is how knowledge progresses. It is only the Austrians (and Randroids) who claim their theories have never and can never be disproven. That is not science, it is cultism.

[Whitefields]

Katsumoto wrote: ubikk wrote: Nathyn wrote: Keynesianism = demand-side economics.

Keynes believed that aggregate demand drives the economy. It's kind of hard to argue with that. When people demand something businesses will compete to make it for them. It works a lot better that way then when individual businesses make something and hope people will demand it.

Keynes also believed in a "mixed economy" (as opposed to laissez-faire economics) where the government should manage the economy on a macro level and businesses should manage it on a micro-level. The purpose of this is to moderate the "boom/bust" cycles of capitalism. That's pretty much what we do today. It's just that the people doing the macro-management don't always know exactly what they're doing, or else they're being influenced to do things for political reasons rather than economic ones.

Government interference in the free market is the cause of booms and busts in the first place.

I concur, but there are some natural booms and busts. However they tend to be much smaller then the ones caused by government intervention.

[gavnook]

RueTheDay wrote: Have you ever heard of this guy?

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/default.asp

He has directly challenged and offered a monetary reward to Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and numerous other prominent Austrians if they can refute his critique of Austrian economics. All have refused.

Rothbard died in 1995. It will take me a long time to look at everything there, but I do know that Walter Block, for one, has found reason to reject Hayekian Triangles and I think is working on a better model for the concept presented by them. What this guy's doing looks very interesting and my first thought is that current Austrians (especially Walter Block) should pay attention.

RueTheDay wrote:
Here is his specific critique of von Mises and Hayek:

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques.asp

I'm sure you've heard of Bryan Caplan and his paper "Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist". He was a well known Austrian who, while getting his PhD in economics, realized how untenable Austrian economics was and disassociated himself from it.

Caplan's criticisms are not the same as yours. He makes some good points, but some are weak, and he's really not that far off from the Austrian perspective in many respects.

[RueTheDay]

gavnook wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Have you ever heard of this guy?

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/default.asp

He has directly challenged and offered a monetary reward to Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and numerous other prominent Austrians if they can refute his critique of Austrian economics. All have refused.

Rothbard died in 1995. It will take me a long time to look at everything there, but I do know that Walter Block, for one, has found reason to reject Hayekian Triangles and I think is working on a better model for the concept presented by them. What this guy's doing looks very interesting and my first thought is that current Austrians (especially Walter Block) should pay attention.

The Austrians are correct to point out the critical role of TIME in the production process, however, all their talk about "lengthening periods of production" and "degrees of roundaboutness" is a bunch of complete nonsense. The reality is that economics must move away from a static conception of production (the neoclassical production function and production possibilities frontier), and to a large degree the field is doing just that, but to do so requires the use of dynamics which requires a considerable amount of mathematics. That pretty much rules out any worthwhile contribution ever coming from the Austrian camp.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
Here is his specific critique of von Mises and Hayek:

http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques.asp

I'm sure you've heard of Bryan Caplan and his paper "Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist". He was a well known Austrian who, while getting his PhD in economics, realized how untenable Austrian economics was and disassociated himself from it.

Caplan's criticisms are not the same as yours.

Right, there's so much to criticize, I can't possibly hit upon everything.