This forum is big enough for libertarians and non-libertarians alike. I don't think this true believer dogmatism is conducive to a healthy, growing community and certainly doesn't advance economics.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
GilesStratton: In any case, the fact that Callahan and Murphy ripped Hoppe a new one when neither of them are trained philosophers only makes the case against AE even stronger.
In any case, the fact that Callahan and Murphy ripped Hoppe a new one when neither of them are trained philosophers only makes the case against AE even stronger.
"Ripped Hoppe a new one" is a little strong...a bit like saying "nyah, nyah, is not!" is a knock-out argument! They clearly don't understand his argument.
Paul: GilesStratton: In any case, the fact that Callahan and Murphy ripped Hoppe a new one when neither of them are trained philosophers only makes the case against AE even stronger. "Ripped Hoppe a new one" is a little strong...a bit like saying "nyah, nyah, is not!" is a knock-out argument! They clearly don't understand his argument.
How don't they understand his argument? What are the mistakes they make?
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Paul:"Ripped Hoppe a new one" is a little strong...a bit like saying "nyah, nyah, is not!" is a knock-out argument! They clearly don't understand his argument.
No, there's nothing strong about claiming that they ripped him a new one, they really did.
I mean, it was like watching Tupac and Biggie join forces to compete in a rap battle against Fiddy. I suppose Kinsella could be likened to Soulja Boy, he tried dropping some rhymes to beat the the Pac and B.I.G. but at the end of the day he was just frontin', he's no philosopher.
Now, of course, long after being refuted Kinsella decided to get all up in the grills of Callahan and Murphy by talking smack and Hoppe bounced up on outta there. I pity the next foo' who tries to take down the Callahan Murphy combo. Although, since then they've been beefin', so I don't know.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: ...hip-hop analogy (text mine)...
...hip-hop analogy (text mine)...
proves nothing
A.L.Pruitt: GilesStratton: ...hip-hop analogy (text mine)... proves nothing
What are you talking about? I looked over the post preceeding yours and am further convinced that the logic is impeccable. I beg no questions, make no ad homines or anything of that sort. In fact, I must conclude that my post takes Hoppe, Kinsella and all their buddies out in one humorous swipe.
Oh, crap, wait... I just realised I commited the argumentum ad hiphopinem, thanks ever so much for pointing that out! I think I actually would have continued writing under the impression that a hip hop analogy is a real way to win a debate. Your remark was deep, perceptive and above all, insightful.
Way to go pal.
Using humorous metaphors is now considered a logical fallacy? Wow.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
GilesStratton: Physiocrat: I think I'll only start taking the Nobel Prize seriously when Hulsmann wins for his work on equilibrium theory- he put an obviously useful concept onto essentialist and realistic grounds thus sidestepping all the normal criticism and gaining new insights at the same time. Right, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement.
Physiocrat: I think I'll only start taking the Nobel Prize seriously when Hulsmann wins for his work on equilibrium theory- he put an obviously useful concept onto essentialist and realistic grounds thus sidestepping all the normal criticism and gaining new insights at the same time.
Right, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement.
Ok Giles. If you could give the nobel prize to any living economist who would you give it to?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat:Ok Giles. If you could give the nobel prize to any living economist who would you give it to?
Ideally I'd love Kirzner to win, but he's the only Austrian I can think of who'd deserve it. Other than him, I'd have to nominate Gordon Tullock.
Other Austrians are undeserving because...?
To darkness I condemn you...
Well, I suppose first you're going to have to tell me who you'd nominate, then I'll tell you why I'd consider them unfit. Let me anticipate one answer. Without getting into the merits of his economics or philosophy, most of his work is done in the latter subject, so I don't think he qualifies simply because of that (and I think for other reasons, but let's not go there).
Who else would you nominate? Huelsmann? Same applies to him as it does to Hoppe, not to mention, he's not really done any significant work in economics (and let me make this clear, I don't think putting "equilibrium on realist and essentialist grounds" is a revolutionary or even notable advance in economics?). And if we're going to be giving awards for methodology, does Huelsmann rank above guys like Dan Hausman? Don't think so for a second. Block's work on privatizing roads might be nice for those of you who like debating "the statists" on how anarchism might work, but it's not exactly a breakthrough. We could give one to Reisman, but then again we'd be giving one to a guy who still thinks value is objective (that doctrine was refute how long ago?)
As far I can see who would be worthy of being nominated: Klein is a great economist, but he's too young and Higgs has done some good work, but if you're going to give an award for work done in the Public Choice tradition, Tullock comes out on top. Salerno is probably the most competant economist (along with Klein) associated with the LvMI, but he's not really made any original contributions.
I think perhaps Selgin and White (maybe along with some other free bankers) might be worthy of prizes for some of their stuff on free banking, so to some extent I take my statement about Kirzner being the "only" worthy economist back.
Boettke, Prychitko (I admit, I've not read any of his work), Horwitz, Coyne, Caplan (yes) and Leeson (along with others) have all done great work in the Austrian tradition, but they're all too young.
i'd vote for George Reisman
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
but not for the nobel, for a good economics prize
If we're going to exclude economists based on certain errors in economics then we might as well exclude every single one so far. Reisman has done awesome work on revitalising classical economics (and his theory on value is essentially subjectivist, though being a die-hard Randian he sticks to the objectivist lingo.) If one wishes to exclude prize winners for lacking "originality" in their thought where does that leave Krugman (again, amusing how a person who believes so many stupid things could get a prize, mirite?) When Physiocrat mentions Huelsmann's work on equilibrium I think he means he showed how it can be put on a sound basis and reconciled with praxeological reasoning ergo justified a position in economics (a controversial matter; as for methodologists there are definitely better than he, but the prize is not usually given for that anyway), but no, I had Garrison, Klein, Kirzner, Selgin, Boettke, Salerno, Huerta, Rizzo and yes, Reisman in mind (and Mises if he were still alive.) There's more I can name but who elude me presently. And no, I wasn't going to say Hoppe because as I've said before he is a political economist/philosopher.
Prychitko I'm not familiar with, neither Horwitz nor Coyne and Leeson to a limited extent. I'll assume they're self-identified Austrians, neo or otherwise?
GilesStratton: A.L.Pruitt: GilesStratton: ...hip-hop analogy (text mine)... proves nothing What are you talking about? I looked over the post preceeding yours and am further convinced that the logic is impeccable. I beg no questions, make no ad homines or anything of that sort. In fact, I must conclude that my post takes Hoppe, Kinsella and all their buddies out in one humorous swipe. Oh, crap, wait... I just realised I commited the argumentum ad hiphopinem, thanks ever so much for pointing that out! I think I actually would have continued writing under the impression that a hip hop analogy is a real way to win a debate. Your remark was deep, perceptive and above all, insightful. Way to go pal.
Wash the sand out of your vag Giles. I never said your post wasn't humorous, I will freely admit it was.
It doesn't matter what analogy you used, it may very well appear to you that the analogy is a replica of what occurred, but that does not prove to me, that in fact it did occur in such a manner. Understand?
GilesStratton:I know what all three terms mean, my point was that I'm not sure how they can be connected. More specifically, I'm not sure what it means for an "anarchocapitalist" to be "rooted in" Austrian economics. Economic science is value free (and this is one thing Mises put a lot of stress on, by the way), it makes no policy recommendations, the only thing I can make sense out of this statement would be something along the lines of "a large number of contemporary, self described, anarchocapitalists believe the teachings of economics working within the Austrian tradition help enrich their positive understanding of the market economic from which they make their normative judgements".
Well AC being his political conclusion as a result of the combination of a certain economical and ethical methodology. BTW economic science is not value free, which even though I'm sure Rothbard very much wanted to side with Mises, his conclusion was that it was in fact unavoidable. Mises was also not a value free economist. He was a utilitarian. He simply tried to make his work appear value free, but in the end failed. You could say it's comparable to being able to formulate objective ethics. That is, both may be impossible.
You can pretend to read more about it here http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentysix.asp
and then refute it with "Rothbard wrote it." : )
GilesStratton:Is it really all that suprising that Nozick philosophized instead of being a political agitator?
Please explain.
GilesStratton:Really? Because, as far as I know, James Otteson and David Schmidtz (sp?) have been published by Cambridge, the latter is the head of the best political philosophy department in the US (or something like that). Den Uyl, Rasmussen and Sciabarra have had books published by Penn State Press. I could probably think of more if I really tried, I'm just going off the books on my book shelf.
And what percentage would you say they make as a total of the economical/political works published? How many unis have them on their reading lists in relevant classes
GilesStratton: Hoppe, Rothbard and the like are ignored because they put foward bad arguments.
Hoppe, Rothbard and the like are ignored because they put foward bad arguments.
Your argument is circular. They make bad arguments so they are ignored. They are ignored because they make bad argument. However, you have failed to prove they made bad arguments, and you have failed to prove they are ignored because they make bad arguments.
GilesStratton:My point is, the idea that libertarians or people who go against the status quo are ignored is silly.
Why? Seems like common sense to me.
GilesStratton:And this is the crux of the issue. Yes, perhaps I'm a leaker, a statist and a socialist. Or whatever other pejoratives you wish to use to show my "lack of principles".
It is the crux of the issue. But I brought it up not to say that your arguments, ideas or the like counted for less. Nor to name call. But merely to demonstrate why you might believe there to have been more progress made then I have. That was all.
GilesStratton:But, ultimately, philosophers and economists advocated pretty radical things have done well in their professions. Whether they be economists advocation getting rid of central banks or philosopher saying that the state is largely (or entirely) undesirable.
Like who? How do you measure this success?
Have you seen a film called indoctrinated? It's really for conservative, but I think some of its elements can apply to libertarians, Libertarians etc.
GilesStratton:I suppose I don't judge things in terms of how "hardcore" they are, but how true they are.
That is a fine way to judge things. I myself judge the same. I think your missing the point (found above).
GilesStratton: Now, my point is a simple and well established principle. The burden of proof is one person challenging the mainstream. If you wish to say that gravity doesn't really exist and we would fly of the face of the earth if it weren't for God holding us down, I'd tell you to go for it. I think it's fairly clear of whom the burden of proof lies, however. As for Hoppe, he's just jealous.
Now, my point is a simple and well established principle. The burden of proof is one person challenging the mainstream.
If you wish to say that gravity doesn't really exist and we would fly of the face of the earth if it weren't for God holding us down, I'd tell you to go for it. I think it's fairly clear of whom the burden of proof lies, however.
As for Hoppe, he's just jealous.
Which argument am I making that is outside the mainstream? What argument are you making that is inside the mainstream? You can't be Austrian and mainstream. You can be mercantilist conservative and preach free market rhetoric. But I don't think your that. I think your claiming some contradictory positions.
A.L. Pruitt, truth be told I've not got much interest in doing this. Lest I let a few obvious falsehoods go unaddressed, let me make a few remarks:
There is a general consensus amongst Austrians that economic science is value free, Rothbard, agreed with these sentiments. I'm not going to debate this (I know I'm right), read Long and Block for secondary sources, both confirming that Rothbard agreed with Mises' value freedom in economic science but thought Mises' attempts at building some sort of "value free ethical theory" was misguided. There's a tradition of value freedom in "Austrian economics" running from Weber through Mises to modern "Austrians".
You don't know what a circular argument is, when you describe me as saying "They make bad arguments so they are ignored. They are ignored because they make bad argument.", that's two ways of saying the exact same thing, not a circular argument.
I suggest you read up on the history of the Austrian tradition, comments such as "You can't be Austrian and mainstream.", just aren't true. It wasn't until after the 1930s that Mises and Hayek even began considering their economics distinct from that done by their contemporaries. I forget what exactly he said, but Menger said that the Austrian label was essentially irrelevant since all prominent economists believed almost exactly the same thing. Robbins, one of the more important economists in the history of the neoclassical tradition, was heavily influenced by Mises. I doubt economists such as Kirzner and other prominent Austrians would consider themselves distinct from the mainstream (and some of them are quite explicit that they don't believe they are).
Finally, look, you may not think that libertarians are taken seriously in academia and you're free to argue for such a position. But, ultimately, the evidence doesn't weigh in your favour. As I said, the best political philosophy department in the US has Gerry Gaus and David Schmidtz there! Nozick was at Harvard. Sciabarra, Lomasky, Den Uyl & Rasmussen, Otteson, Long, Mack Schmidtz and plenty of other libertarian philosophers are all being published in good journals and by good publishers. Of course, there guys are often not as well known by non-philosophers precisely because they're not sitting around pontificating about the bankruptcy of the establishment, they're doing philosophy and working in the profession.
As for Hoppe, well he sits around claiming his opponents are high and/ or morally bankrupt. Is it any wonder that a crank is treated as such?
Jon Irenicus:If we're going to exclude economists based on certain errors in economics then we might as well exclude every single one so far. Reisman has done awesome work on revitalising classical economics (and his theory on value is essentially subjectivist, though being a die-hard Randian he sticks to the objectivist lingo.)
Let me come clean here, I've really not read much Reisman at all. So perhaps I'm speaking out of ignorance. But I have real trouble accepting the idea that we should give the Nobel prize in economics to somebody who denies opportunity cost! To put things in context to those who have never taken a course in economics, that's usually covered in the first or second lecture (at least for everybody I know) of a principles level class.
Jon Irenicus:Garrison, Klein, Selgin, Boettke, Salerno, Huerta, Rizzo
These are all great economists, to be sure, but I still have two problems:
This applies for names you've forgotten (Yeager, White, Lewin, Koppl), they're great economists, but I don't think they're worthy of the Nobel prize (yet?).
GilesStratton:Let me come clean here, I've really not read much Reisman at all. So perhaps I'm speaking out of ignorance. But I have real trouble accepting the idea that we should give the Nobel prize in economics to somebody who denies opportunity cost! To put things in context to those who have never taken a course in economics, that's usually covered in the first or second lecture (at least for everybody I know) of a principles level class.
its just a semantic disagreement revolving around the word cost. Reisman is fully subjectivist. he understands opportunity costs like you do, and that they are subjective. Reisman merely notes that confusions can arise,. even with economic academics schooled in the proper caveats. Hence he suggests his readers , whilst remaining fully subjectivist, find a distinction between real costs, i.e. actual goods foregone, and imagined costs, like trades fortuitous in hindsight yet foregone etc. particularly when they are looking back at historical events. like judging what costs someone has incurred.
in other words, Reisman prefers to reserve the word cost for a more narrow purpose,
as Larry Sechrest wrote:
If “cost” ought properly to refer merely to an internal mental state of the economic
actor (which would be reasonable if economics is the science of human action), then
Austrians are right. However, if “cost” ought to possess some observable, empirical
dimension (which would be reasonable if economics is the science of wealth), then
Reisman is right.
Bugger, I just lost my reply.
GilesStratton:A.L. Pruitt, truth be told I've not got much interest in doing this. Lest I let a few obvious falsehoods go unaddressed, let me make a few remarks:
I think thats because you don't actually want to understand, almost the entirety of your posts misunderstands what I'm saying.
GilesStratton:There is a general consensus amongst Austrians that economic science is value free, Rothbard, agreed with these sentiments.
Did he?
" For Mises must concede that no one can decide upon anypolicy whatever unless he makes an ultimate ethical or value judgment."
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentysix.asp
From my reading it seems to me that Rothbard is claiming one cannot be value free and recommend free-market policies over others. Which *gasp* is what Austrians do.
GilesStratton:You don't know what a circular argument is, when you describe me as saying "They make bad arguments so they are ignored. They are ignored because they make bad argument.", that's two ways of saying the exact same thing, not a circular argument.
" petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise." Why are the ignored? Because the make bad arguments. How do we know they make bad arguments? Because they ignored.
What is not circular about that? Please explain, regardless of what you believe, I don't know take Rothbard or Hoppe as Dogma, I still haven't made up my mind about this thread, all though you have done a great job leading it of course, still not really to my satisfaction proving Hoppe wrong.
GilesStratton:I suggest you read up on the history of the Austrian tradition, comments such as "You can't be Austrian and mainstream.", just aren't true. It wasn't until after the 1930s that Mises and Hayek even began considering their economics distinct from that done by their contemporaries.
:O Oh were we talking about the 1930s? Oh do forgive me old chum I thought were talking about now 80 years later, the present in fact. My bad. Contrary to what you might believe, I'm aware of this, twas covered in Man, Economy, State :).
GilesStratton:I forget what exactly he said, but Menger said that the Austrian label was essentially irrelevant since all prominent economists believed almost exactly the same thing.
Correct as far as I know.
GilesStratton:I doubt economists such as Kirzner and other prominent Austrians would consider themselves distinct from the mainstream (and some of them are quite explicit that they don't believe they are).
That is irrelevant. What does the mainstream think of them? And if you want to be principled and adhear to your earlier argument we need to take what the mainstream believes as prima facie. I bet $10 that the mainstream does not consider Austrian Economics by any means to be mainstream (Bryan caplan withstanding).
GilesStratton:Finally, look, you may not think that libertarians are taken seriously in academia and you're free to argue for such a position. But, ultimately, the evidence doesn't weigh in your favour. As I said, the best political philosophy department in the US has Gerry Gaus and David Schmidtz there! Nozick was at Harvard. Sciabarra, Lomasky, Den Uyl & Rasmussen, Otteson, Long, Mack Schmidtz and plenty of other libertarian philosophers are all being published in good journals and by good publishers. Of course, there guys are often not as well known by non-philosophers precisely because they're not sitting around pontificating about the bankruptcy of the establishment, they're doing philosophy and working in the profession.
Not only does this completely ignore what I've said so far, the other branches of academia are replicas of philosophy? Once again, you fail to make a distinction. I said I do not believe that Libertarians are taken seriously. libertarians have a much better time since they are merely adhering to the rhetoric of neo-conservatives and the like.
GilesStratton:As for Hoppe, well he sits around claiming his opponents are high and/ or morally bankrupt. Is it any wonder that a crank is treated as such?
Where?
A.L.Pruitt:" For Mises must concede that no one can decide upon anypolicy whatever unless he makes an ultimate ethical or value judgment."
A.L.Pruitt:Why are the ignored? Because the make bad arguments. How do we know they make bad arguments? Because they ignored.
A.L.Pruitt:That is irrelevant. What does the mainstream think of them? And if you want to be principled and adhear to your earlier argument we need to take what the mainstream believes as prima facie. I bet $10 that the mainstream does not consider Austrian Economics by any means to be mainstream (Bryan caplan withstanding).
A.L. Pruitt, you're wrong and you're making stuff up. That stands for the entirety of your post, but, in the spirit of being receptive, a few more remarks:
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap