hoffmanjohn: //Before debating a subject one needs to discuss the nature of the subject and how it is to be analysed. If you cannot get the method right the truth value of your answers are indeterminate. It's like saying tin cans are unopenable whilst only using a plastic fork. // it is rather Orwellian to suggest that only one method should be used to do research on a subject such as economics.
//Before debating a subject one needs to discuss the nature of the subject and how it is to be analysed. If you cannot get the method right the truth value of your answers are indeterminate. It's like saying tin cans are unopenable whilst only using a plastic fork. //
it is rather Orwellian to suggest that only one method should be used to do research on a subject such as economics.
What I've said does not necessarily entail just one correct method, some can be complementary- electric tin opener and the hand operated one. However this ground work must be done before embarking on the subject proper. Having said that given that economics is the study of human action the only method applicable is praxeology.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
// Having said that given that economics is the study of human action the only method applicable is praxeology.//
do you really think that economics is value free?
and what do you mean by Praxeology?(i have a clue of what it is,but rather have you explain to me what it is).
Jon Irenicus: Here's a suggestion: how about the state let people secede and try it for themselves, rather than dictating what lives they are to lead? There are works on past anarchist/quasi-anarchist/minarchist societies, but until we're actually allowed to secede and go try one, I doubt anyone will be satisfied. That also goes for the massive swathes of empty land states hold to and claim title to.
Here's a suggestion: how about the state let people secede and try it for themselves, rather than dictating what lives they are to lead? There are works on past anarchist/quasi-anarchist/minarchist societies, but until we're actually allowed to secede and go try one, I doubt anyone will be satisfied. That also goes for the massive swathes of empty land states hold to and claim title to.
I would LOVE to see one of your socities in existance. It would be like a controlled experiment and we would get some great results out of it.
But... I have a prediction. You would quickly find the same problem and excuses that the communists had. That outside States were disrupting your society. The communists when trying to explain initial failings in the Soviet Union, came up with the theory, that it would work if ALL the world were commie, but would not work until suck time. Which is why they were major players in the cold war.
In your anarchy society, it would be horrible and the problem may or may not be due to outside influence. (example: Our society sucks because government oil monopolies in the ME are hurting us, due to lack of oil reserves. ) I think there would be some validity to that assertation, but I also maintain the society would collapse regardless. So I predict, we won't know if anarchy works until the hold world is not only anarchist but also, committed to that ideology. So in the invent your dream comes true and the world decends into anarchy, I think you will quickly find that some people will try to reestablish states by force with authoritarian dictatorships coming to dominate the globe.
On a side note. If you pooled all your resources how much do you think your believers could come up with? If the amount is sufficient enough, you might be able to find a plot of land somewhere on earth, or build and Island like they are doing in dubai?
Ixtellor
Physiocrat: I love how you keep avoiding the question. 1) You say there is no truth 2) You advocate Keynesianism. 3) Thus you can give no justifiable reason why you hold that position.
I love how you keep avoiding the question.
1) You say there is no truth
2) You advocate Keynesianism.
3) Thus you can give no justifiable reason why you hold that position.
I have answered this several times now. We can only guess or aproximate what constitutes truth based on our own observations. Clearly those can be skewed (see Alagory of the Cave), but using what empirical evidence we have, Keynes and his disciples offer a lot of useful information to firms. Do you think Exxon is more competitve because it uses economists in its prediction and courses of action or less competitive?If you feel government is too interventionist in that industry, pick an industry with less government intervention like candy. The big successful firms all employ Keynesian predictions to one degree or another, because to ignore, the consistancy and level of accuracy that some of those predictions can produce, would be to go into a market with less information than your competitor.
Provided that Keynesian economic models and predictions are the best on the block, they are a useful tool, and defendable for that usefulness. (There is one particular monatarist model that I think holds tremendous weight, but I can't think of the name and will get back to you on it).
Because Austrian's dont make economic forcasts other than "The fed is messing it up", it is not providing the empirical evidence that it should be utilized.
My clients don't give a "flying &*%$" about libertarian freedom, they want to make more money. GDP and other indicators and models help them accomplish that. If Austrians had information that would make them more profit every corporation in America would adopt your philosophy in regards to making money. (On a side note, there are several business owners who would utilize slave labor and forced labor camps if they could get more profit - if only the damn government would get out of their way... )
The Problem with abolishing government is that the system of exploitation would still be in place,and getting rid of government will not get rid of income inequality.
Ixtellor:I have a prediction. You would quickly find the same problem and excuses that the communists had. That outside States were disrupting your society.
That's simply a matter of psychology rather economics or philosophy. Many libertarians (be it left or right) are still figuring out how the shapes of society, languages, and knowledge evolved. But I would suspect that the same foundation for them would be the fulcrum from which freedom can be made to endure.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Ixtellor:My clients don't give a "flying &*%$" about libertarian freedom, they want to make more money.
If they really wanted to make more money, they would not be apathetic about libertarianism. Austrian economics predicted the housing bust. Keynesian economics did not.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
//If they really wanted to make more money, they would not be apathetic about libertarianism. Austrian economics predicted the housing bust. Keynesian economics did not.//
non-austrian economists also predicted the housing bubble,but unlike austrian economists their predictions were backed by methods that i think are more sound. Furthermore stop cherry picking predictions that were right,and also remember that these same Austrian economists have predicting hyperinflation for years,so yes even Austrian economists have been dead wrong at times.
Making a predictions means nothing unless the methods are sound because sometimes even horoscope's predictions might become true.
Explain what is "unsound" about the methods, and please don't rely on positivist drivel that has been refuted. Concretize your blanket assertions, or else they'll be dismissed for being empty.
No, any more than it would get rid of scaricty.
To darkness I condemn you...
//No, any more than it would get rid of scaricty.//
do you care to elaborate?
i can play with hyptheticals too you know.
I think you're confusing two things: an utter repudiation of econometrics with the claim that it is not the basis of economic theorizing. Austrians are fine with econometrics when it is not confused for economic theory. There's even a group on this site devoted to Austrian econometrics. Firms are free to use whatever methods they wish to in trying to navigate the market, provided they recognize their limitations.
You simply act as if it's our goal to eliminate income inequality. It isn't. No more than it is to eliminate scarcity.
Spideynw: If they really wanted to make more money, they would not be apathetic about libertarianism. Austrian economics predicted the housing bust. Keynesian economics did not.
1) I am replying to you Spideynw, rejoice.
2) Why did they predict a housing bust, when did they do it, and can you give me a link?
3) Economists were discussing a slowdown in the housing market as early as 05. There was a big conference on it a long time ago. I know people that went to that conference and will get back to you with more details.[read "I know 1 person"] ( It might have been habitated by monatarists - but even it it were, they use math models to make predicitions - something Austrians don't subscribe to)
I don't know of anyone predicting a bust, hobbs says they did, but I think this was because nobody knew that the investment banks were tieing EVERYTHING to mortgage backed securities. In addition the highest level traunchs of mortagage backed securities were getting triple A ratings, which was a major ERROR on rating companies. So assuming an economist was even getting the data regarding ABCP mortgage securitizations, they might have been totally fooled by the AAA rating.
But most economists (people with degrees who study economics and test models) were predicting a housing slow down for the same reasons, mainly too much credit.
Ixtellor:I read your snarky comment which I believe you are entitled to,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Jon Irenicus: Ixtellor: Its like Newtons laws of motion. They were INCREDIBLE, they could accuratly predict a large number of confusing phenoms in the world. Then one day we discovered the theory had problems, so it was replaced with Einsteins theorys. Which have further been changed by quantom mechanics, and quantom mechanics are amazingly accurate. However they don't work in certain scenarios (read Big Bang), and thus even quantom mechanics which seems to have near perfect accuracy and predictibility, is UNTRUE. Which is to say man is fallible. Fascinating. Anything you want to inform us philosophers of that we've not heard before?
Ixtellor: Its like Newtons laws of motion. They were INCREDIBLE, they could accuratly predict a large number of confusing phenoms in the world. Then one day we discovered the theory had problems, so it was replaced with Einsteins theorys. Which have further been changed by quantom mechanics, and quantom mechanics are amazingly accurate. However they don't work in certain scenarios (read Big Bang), and thus even quantom mechanics which seems to have near perfect accuracy and predictibility, is UNTRUE.
I don't know if the physicists are to blame for that nonsense - usually it's popularizers of science who cannot get that the entity can be measured either as a particle or a wave, i.e. it possesses properties that both normally exhibit. That isn't to say it is both a particle and not a particle and both a wave and not a wave, it's to say that it is something else and has a mixture of properties. If physicists are championing that nonsense interpretation though, they're being very intellectually irresponsible. Here's a good comment I found on this from comment on a book review:
This reviewer confuses the mathematical formalism of quantum theory with its 'real world' interpretation. All the experimental evidence shows is that 'particle' and 'wave' are not mutually exclusive categories with respect to the properties of objects, or put another way, that a physical object can have properties that resemble both classical particle and classical wave properties. Thinking that the two categories are exclusive is a prejudice of our everyday experience and if you reflect on it for a while, you'll see that you CAN NOT derive this exclusivity by logic or pure thought alone- what reason can you give that something shouldn't be able to exhibit both kinds of properties? The entity is NEITHER PARTICLE NOR WAVE, but something else that has properties that are attributable to both classical waves and particles. Modern quantum field theory thinks of and represents particles as the quanta of specific quantum fields. Since the representation and description of a field carries wave-like properties with it, the quanta, being localized but nonetheless part of the field, have both particle-like and wave-like properties. That the object is in two states at the same time is a confusing and incorrect linguistic description of the fact that in the formalism, the 'state' of that object would be the sum of two vector 'states' in the framework of a Hilbert space- the resultant state of the object being the 'superposition' of the other two states. But no one knows what 'superposition' represents in the 'real' world- indeed, the interpretation of quantum mechanics was a taboo subject from when the theory was founded up until a few decades ago, when physicists and philosophers broke out of positivist hangover and began to try to figure out what's 'really going on.' That an object cannot be red all over and green all over is just as valid today as it ever was- it's just an implicit statement of the law of non-contradiction. One of the main differences in logical propositions verses ones that are empirical is that we can imagine what would falsify the empirical propositions. This seems to be impossible to do for logical propositions. Although I am aware of some who think there are actual mathematically existing contradictions (see books by Graham Priest for example), I find this unthinkable, and since no one has figured out how that could be of any real use yet, it remains a formal proposition with no content. I still agree with Gottlob Frege that the discovery that someone rejects a logical law, like the principle of non-contradiction, would be the discovery of a hitherto unknown form of madness. Most remarks like this are the result of not thinking clearly and not critically examining claims of this type from whoever is making them- I hope it's the popular writers and not the physicists who are doing this. For some reason a substantial proportion of the general public and even a decent number of scientists think that the title 'scientist' allows someone to make ridiculous claims that must be taken as they are, independent of whether they're reasonable or supported by empirical studies, simply because they come from the pen or mouth of a scientist.
Pretty much what I was told in my Metaphysics classes too.
Jon Irenicus:Pretty much what I was told in my Metaphysics classes too.
The article you posted, if you are actually interested I can forward it to physists if you are interested in their rebuttal. I find that they quickly get into math way over my head, but I imagine they would vigrously like to debate your conclusions if you are interested, I would be happy to serve as an intermediary.
Whatever. I'd be interested in seeing someone who actually is so confused as to think that this has anything to do with the law of contradiction.
Jon Irenicus:Whatever. I'd be interested in seeing someone who actually is so confused as to think that this has anything to do with the law of contradiction.
1) Your a lot more educated on philosophy than me, so I defer.
2) Is there a PM function so I don't have to spam this thread?
3) You should get a PhD in economics and develop prediction models based on your a priori. ( I imagine its like a member of Westboro, who would view it as entering into devilhood and thus refuses)
4) Is there a composite list of a priori that Austrians do accept? I saw the NAP, it seems logical and moral. Are there others?
Ixtellor: One of the great developments from Keynes, which I have no interest in discussing because I have 892348 requests for responses, is the ability of large corportaions to whether or better plan for boom bust cycles. Regardless of how it happend, Exxon wants reliable data, so they can make decisions about how to proceed.
One of the great developments from Keynes, which I have no interest in discussing because I have 892348 requests for responses, is the ability of large corportaions to whether or better plan for boom bust cycles. Regardless of how it happend, Exxon wants reliable data, so they can make decisions about how to proceed.
Wow! So you don't think that understanding what caused the boom bust cycle would not help? You don't think having the knowledge of what causes boom bust cycles allows a company to better make business decisions?
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
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