The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Doesn't the current crisis give proof to the Austrian business cycle theory?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 8 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
29 Posts
Points 940
Matt posted on Sat, Oct 4 2008 8:31 AM

Its in the topic... In my mind the currenct crisis gives evidence to the theory BUT you still have people bashing the theory. When will the theory get any credibilty? I think never...

  • | Post Points: 50

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
91 Posts
Points 1,375
Moderator

Premise: If A then B

True statement: Given A ergo B

False statement: Given B ergo A

Hence, given the current crises, B, we cannot truthfully infer that the ABCT, A, has been proved.

Also, ABCT is based on praxeology and, as such, cannot be disproven by empirical fact. For this to hold it cannot be proven by empirical fact either.

 

 

Top 500 Contributor
Male
29 Posts
Points 940
Matt replied on Sat, Oct 4 2008 9:25 AM

Well I wasn't looking for a science answer... but I think its commonsensical that artificially low interest rates led to the current financial meltdown.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,503 Posts
Points 28,705
Moderator

Almost every recession is proof of ABCT. It doesn't matter if it is this recession, the 2001 recession, the recession of the early 90s, etc. It's quite clear that the Fed expanded credit, which caused unsustainable overinvestment. However, monetarist, new classical, and Keynesian economists keep on finding illogical explanations and they confuse cause with effect (e.g. thinking that "irrational exuberance" and "credit crunches" cause recessions, when in reality credit expansion causes irrational exuberance and an eventual credit crunch).

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
91 Posts
Points 1,375
Moderator

A retort could be: "... but I think it is commonsensical that illiquidity led to the current financial meltdown"

In this case it would be empirical fact against empirical fact? Who would be right?

I'm sorry to bring science to the table. It is not that I don't agree with you, nor that I disagree with the validity of ABCT. However, when you mention proof, evidence etc. you can't really disregard Philosophy of Science (epistemology, ontology, methodology etc.). ABCT takes this into account which is precisely why it still survives and why it has credibility still.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
35 Posts
Points 650

Wrong Thread

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
71 Posts
Points 955

I have a better question. Have Austrians ever been wrong, starting from the Great Depression to now? I can't recall an instance, but can anyone here?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
6 Posts
Points 135

The answer is no because the general assumption is that there are more credible theories.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,247 Posts
Points 65,050
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Or at the very least, ones less inconvenient to central banks...

-Jon

To darkness I condemn you...

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS

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