Rubén:or will the most valuable resources of this forum be permanently wasted toward attacking a political development agreed upon by the rest of the world as benefitial?
And a million Elvis fans could not be wrong (referring to the belief that he did not die). What does it matter what the rest of the world thinks? It does not make it truth just because of what they believe.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
I apologize for having used Germany as an example. Perhaps I should have written Norway or Sweden. But still my point remains.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Rubén: I apologize for having used Germany as an example. Perhaps I should have written Norway or Sweden. But still my point remains.
A point that exists regardless of the facts is called an emotion. Sorry if we don't consider your feelings to be a sound argument.
Juan:The thing is obama supports war...
While posing at the anti-war candidate...
Juan:...and welfare for the rich...
While promising to "redistribute wealth" and provide "Economic Justice".
Juan is dead on! Obama and the other Socialist Democrats want to:
This is socialism on a grand scale. Juan is also right that Obama is exactly:
Juan: ...like bush, mccain and the rest of the establishemt...
If that's not enough reason for an Austrian Economist to bash Obama, I don't know what is.
TexasChris: Juan:The thing is obama supports war... While posing at the anti-war candidate... Juan:...and welfare for the rich... While promising to "redistribute wealth" and provide "Economic Justice". Juan is dead on! Obama and the other Socialist Democrats want to: Confiscate 401k's Draft all 18-25 year olds for "Civil Defense" training Raise Taxes across the board Continue unconstitutional wars Confiscate guns Continue to bail out and nationalize entire industries This is socialism on a grand scale. Juan is also right that Obama is exactly: Juan: ...like bush, mccain and the rest of the establishemt... If that's not enough reason for an Austrian Economist to bash Obama, I don't know what is.
I think by "Austrian Economist" you mean libertarian. But at this point, why hold onto any pretense that they aren't the same thing? Perhaps there was a time when Austrians weren't libertarians, but ever since Rothbard it seems that Austrian economics simply exists to support libertarian ideology instead of simply increasing our level of understanding of economies. I think this is the main reason why mainstream economists don't take Austrians seriously.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Too bad one can't take them seriously, either.
To darkness I condemn you...
ryanpatgray:Bush had many, many, many faults and did much wreck the free market in this country.
Just because "the rest of the world" rejoices in human sacrifice at the altar of the state doesn't mean we should be happy about it.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Solid_Choke:I think by "Austrian Economist" you mean libertarian. But at this point, why hold onto any pretense that they aren't the same thing? Perhaps there was a time when Austrians weren't libertarians, but ever since Rothbard it seems that Austrian economics simply exists to support libertarian ideology instead of simply increasing our level of understanding of economies. I think this is the main reason why mainstream economists don't take Austrians seriously.
I think it is because most people are stupid.
Solid_Choke: I think by "Austrian Economist" you mean libertarian. But at this point, why hold onto any pretense that they aren't the same thing? Perhaps there was a time when Austrians weren't libertarians, but ever since Rothbard it seems that Austrian economics simply exists to support libertarian ideology instead of simply increasing our level of understanding of economies. I think this is the main reason why mainstream economists don't take Austrians seriously.
The problem is that too many people in the social sciences adhere to bankrupt idea that somehow social sciences can be divorced from normativity. Promoting a particular methodology to study a phenomena and suggesting that is better for studying truth, implies valuation of a better way to pursue the truth. Austrian economics does not exist to simply support libertarian ideology; it is a methodology and approach that differs from the mainstream in terms of stating how we should pursue the study of economics, and implict from this the ideas that flow from the Austrian School support different things from the mainstream.
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/
Solid_Choke: but ever since Rothbard it seems that Austrian economics simply exists to support libertarian ideology instead of simply increasing our level of understanding of economies.
It's not our fault that AE yields the truth.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Spideynw: I think it is because most people are stupid.
Robert Barro, Paul Krugman, Paul Romer, Alan Krueger, Gergory Mankiw, and Joseph Stiglitz are stupid?
aestheticbend: The problem is that too many people in the social sciences adhere to bankrupt idea that somehow social sciences can be divorced from normativity. Promoting a particular methodology to study a phenomena and suggesting that is better for studying truth, implies valuation of a better way to pursue the truth. Austrian economics does not exist to simply support libertarian ideology; it is a methodology and approach that differs from the mainstream in terms of stating how we should pursue the study of economics, and implict from this the ideas that flow from the Austrian School support different things from the mainstream.
This may be the case, but why aren't Austrians making any ground on the methodological issue in the major journals? Do you know of any Austrian economists that are attempting to get published in Philosophy of Science journals? Academic journals are how you get ideas in front of other professionals in the field and unless you are getting published in the mainstream ones your ideas will never be seriously considered. What is the hold up?
GilesStratton: It's not our fault that AE yields the truth.
I agree that the Austrain paradigm has valuable things in it that should be absorbed into mainsream theory, but it isn't as simple as you make it sound or else it should be easier to convince others in the field of its superiority. Obviously it isn't the number of people that believe a paradigm that make it true, but the economics profession has many thoughtful people that understand the flaws of the neoclassical paradigm and are open to alternatives. Austrianism is failing to reach these people and I don't think it is the fault of the mainstream journals either. As far as I can see, the fault lies with the Austrian economists themselves.
Paul Krugman is definitely stupid. The man is a political fanatic.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Paul Krugman is definitely stupid. The man is a political fanatic.
Krugman is partisan, but stupid he is not.
Solid_Choke: Krugman is partisan, but stupid he is not.
Have you seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher? He's a political fanatic, and allows it to cloud rational thought.
Mises was a minarchist. Forget libertarianism for a minute. Are you telling me Krugman is a minarchist? Is he a small government economist?
Not only does he not have an accurate view of the Depression, he is encouraging FDR's policies. Libertarian or not, Mises would not approve.
Rubén: I have noticed that, since the election of Barack as the 44th President of the United States of America, the tone of this forum has shifted from educational debates in the economy to emotional bashing for the results of the will of the people, and a general state of pessimism that highly contrasts with the feasty and hopeful mood one can perceive elsewhere. Is this a temporary grief, or will the most valuable resources of this forum be permanently wasted toward attacking a political development agreed upon by the rest of the world as benefitial?
I have noticed that, since the election of Barack as the 44th President of the United States of America, the tone of this forum has shifted from educational debates in the economy to emotional bashing for the results of the will of the people, and a general state of pessimism that highly contrasts with the feasty and hopeful mood one can perceive elsewhere. Is this a temporary grief, or will the most valuable resources of this forum be permanently wasted toward attacking a political development agreed upon by the rest of the world as benefitial?
Rubén, you're absolutely right. How can 22% of the population, not to mention the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD, be wrong? When has a democratically elected leader ever led any nation, anywhere astray?
How can anyone not be hopeful? Obama's senate voting record is a clear indicator of how much optimism should be filling the air here. Sure, he missed a lot of those votes, but so what? He's all about change, and change is good.
Look, he supported rescuing our economy when the mean Mr. McCain wanted to stop it and let the "free market" fix things. Bush is just like Herbert Hoover, and Barack will be the new FDR we need to solve EVERYTHING! All we need to do is to believe in our new Leader and let him take the reins.
Look at what he's done already! He's appointed Timothy Geithner to be our new Hank Paulson. Go look at his resume on wikipedia. It's a pretty impressive list of who's who on his credentials: Kissinger, Larry Summers, the CFR, the IMF, and now the FED itself. Heck, Kissinger was a Republican. Already Barack makes bipartisan moves. And who would know better how to fix the economy than a regional FED president? Now, that's CHANGY!
These old curmudgeons on mises.org don't know what they're missing. This is the most important political event since, well, ever! Just like 9/11, this changes everything. And haven't we already established that change is just plain good?
Feast big, Rubén. Don't listen to anyone when they tell you that your eyes have grown larger than your stomach. Remember, as an ambassador to these libertarians for Barack Obama, you speak with authority for all true members of the human race. Go forth, march on, and soldier away in the army of General Will. Don't worry about these so-called "intellectual" snipers. Denial will provide you shield you need!
~jaq
Solid_Choke:I think this is the main reason why mainstream economists don't take Austrians seriously.
And not because they are owned by inconsistent and nonsensical fallacies?
Edited: because sometimes I type nonsense.
Solid_Choke: This may be the case, but why aren't Austrians making any ground on the methodological issue in the major journals? Do you know of any Austrian economists that are attempting to get published in Philosophy of Science journals? Academic journals are how you get ideas in front of other professionals in the field and unless you are getting published in the mainstream ones your ideas will never be seriously considered. What is the hold up? .
.
This is my plan; that is to at least be able to come up with convincing reasons to endorse a praxeological approach in the social science. But you will find the odd defense of the praxeological methodology or praise for it in Philosophy of Science journals, but the philosophy of the social sciences is largely a subordinate issue in the philosophy of science to the issues of explanation, realism vs.antirealism, and reduction.
Just a couple of articles I recommend; although, they are not defenses in the full meaning of the word, they presuppose that the austrian tradition has something meaningful and important to say about social theory and the social sciences.
http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/255
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092218
http://economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/pubs/articles/wrong.htm I am not sure where this was published but it has solicited a response from a proponent of the neoclassical tradition
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791286558~db=all
aestheticbend: This is my plan; that is to at least be able to come up with convincing reasons to endorse a praxeological approach in the social science. But you will find the odd defense of the praxeological methodology or praise for it in Philosophy of Science journals, but the philosophy of the social sciences is largely a subordinate issue in the philosophy of science to the issues of explanation, realism vs.antirealism, and reduction. Just a couple of articles I recommend; although, they are not defenses in the full meaning of the word, they presuppose that the austrian tradition has something meaningful and important to say about social theory and the social sciences. http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/255 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092218 http://economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/pubs/articles/wrong.htm I am not sure where this was published but it has solicited a response from a proponent of the neoclassical tradition http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791286558~db=all
I appreciate the links. This is fairly close to what I was looking for.
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