laminustacitus:you can only know their arguments, and insights - not the "character" (whatever that's supposed to mean) of their knowledge
If you don't know what is even meant by "character", how can you be so sure that one can never know it?
laminustacitus:define who they are shown to be for we can never know truly "who" someone is.
I'm talking about "knowing one's character" in the usual sense. I'm not talking about Platonic forms here.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
laminustacitus: liberty student:I've seen Lam do this to thread after thread. Rather than attack the premise, or to contribute to the debate, he, like Giles has to engage in self-aggrandizement and ego stroking, by making ad hominem arguments against the thread starter. Quotations, please. Seriously, time to back up that assertion, LS.
liberty student:I've seen Lam do this to thread after thread. Rather than attack the premise, or to contribute to the debate, he, like Giles has to engage in self-aggrandizement and ego stroking, by making ad hominem arguments against the thread starter.
Quotations, please. Seriously, time to back up that assertion, LS.
ok,i got this one.
laminustacitus:I ensure the quality of knowledge here
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
LOL! And you accuse me of arrogance!
laminustacitus: I ensure the quality of knowledge here, if that means that I have to rain on your parade, so be it.
I ensure the quality of knowledge here, if that means that I have to rain on your parade, so be it.
lol.... that's fairly a subjective statement for a person who on one side of the mouth talks about delivering facts and how being as scientifically precise as possible is your goal. So where's the "quality knowledge" in that statement I quoted above?
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Lilburne: laminustacitus:I ensure the quality of knowledge here LOL! And you accuse me of arrogance!
How arrogant of you to point out the arrogance of others.
Do you have a PhD, or do you just point out arrogance without any training or direction?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: How arrogant of you to point out the arrogance of others. Do you have a PhD, or do you just point out arrogance without any training or direction?
No, but I have had relevant experience on the Congressional anti-arrogance commission. You should see the list of books I've written!
Lilburne:Someone who believes new units of money can increase general prosperity does not fully accept scarcity, and therefore, to the extent that he accepts that fallacy, is not an economist.
Such people are called Central bankers, they tend to increase liquidity and promote inflation so they help governments with their financing and in turn receive attractive wages for themselves. All the extend of the regular consumer and producer who deals with scarcity on a daily basis.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
@laminustacitus and LibertyStudent's discourse:
To defend Ron Paul: he may not hold a PhD; he is, however, the holder of an MD. So he does not lack in education.
But, I have to agree with LibertyStudent, education is not the be-all and end-all of one's ability to question, refute, or otherwise critique widely held beliefs. Many people on this forum are not PhD-holding Economists, myself included. Sometimes, one can learn more through self-education than they can through a structured academic environment.
@Lilburne:
I like the idea of questioning mainstream economists, but I would word it less-strongly to avoid coming off as a "crank" yourself. The easiest way to become marginalized in a published, peer-reviewed writing is to be charged with an ad hominem from the beginning--and I'm making this assumption since you said you were planning on writing an article, so it is something that you may face after publication.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
liberty student:It begs the question, does a man learn from exposure to knowledge, or does he learn by passing through systems of education? To infer that a PhD conveys more knowledge, or more righteousness and correct knowledge than one who does not have a PhD seems to be an argument to the credential, not the argument itself.
And the argument to the credential is the fallacy of argument from authority (can also be ad hominem fallacy).
Knight_of_BAAWA:I must correct you here. It doesn't beg the question--it raises the question.
You're right. Sloppy use of language by me.
I'm largely in agreement with Laminustacitus, so I'll try to rephrase what he's saying, if he disagrees than he'll correct me. But these are my views, and to the best of my knowledge, his also. I think a lot of people are taking what is an entirely reasonable position and twisting it.
If you wish to denounce the entire (or most of) the economics profession as "crank scientists", you're going to have to provide some criteria for doing some. And as far as I can tell, the only set of guidelines I've seen in this topic is the implicit criterion that a crank scientist is an economists who does not adhere to the teachings of the Austrian school. So here's the thing, I'll agree with you Lilburne, that 95% of all economists in the last century have been cranks if you can give me some way with which we can classify who is, and who is not, a crank. This system must be fair, it must be consistent and it must not be ad hoc.
There's literally thousands of professional trained economists out there who have spent their whole lives investing in human capital to be able to do better economics. So off the cuff statements that all professional economists (except those affiliated with the LvMI) are cranks seem to be somewhat grand. I think it's only fair that we ask for some sort of support for such grand assertions. Perhaps a PhD is not required, I don't think anybody assumes having PhD after your name makes you a better economist, what is assumed is that the intense study for a prolonged period of time that is required to gain a PhD and the consequent teaching and researching will ensure that one has a decent knowledge of economic science. The regular holder of a PhD spend 4 years doing undergraduate work, another year attaining their masters, and 5 or 6 years getting a PhD. Which adds up to 10 - 11 years in total that is spent studying economics, to claim that you know more than these people about economics is perhaps a little unfair to them.
More to the point, it's not fair to your reads, nor to other economists to dismiss the entirety of the profession as cranks unless you can substantiate such a claim. I think that all Laminustacitus asks for is that you do substantiate that claim, and that in order to do a PhD is more than likely necessary. As Peter Boettke has pointed out, there have not been any serious advances in economic science made by the layman for over a century. Hazlitt may have written a nice criticism of Keynes, but he added very few insights of his own whilst doing so. Compare this with Hutt's fantastic book on Keynes, and notice which one of the two was a journalist and which one was a professional, trained economist. I know from experience that Austrians go up in arms when they're called cranks by people they perceive to have little knowledge of the Austrian school. On a level that is perhaps less important, but not significantly so. It simply isn't strategically wise to go around calling those with whom Austrians should be interacting "cranks". Especially since it displays arrogance, ignorance and simply makes you look doctrinaire. Those are three "qualities" that mainstream economists already percieve to be preveland amongst Austrians.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Lilburne:omeone who believes new units of money can increase general prosperity does not fully accept scarcity, and therefore, to the extent that he accepts that fallacy, is not an economist.
Well, the definition of economics you're using came from Lionel Robbins' seminal piece. So, you're going to have to admit that a great deal of economists before Robbins, simply weren't economists. I'm sorry if this seems self evident, it's just that I find it difficult to accept that economics started with Robbins. Also, your attack is simply a strawman, even Keynesians admit that there exists a point when extra injections of money will simply cause inflation without increasing production. Let alone most modern macroeconomists such as new classicists who believe that money has no effect on the economy. IOW, the AS curve is vertical in both the long run and the short run.
Since you seem to be attacking Keynesian economics and yet begin your post with "Much of what is today" called macroeconomic, I'm going to have to ask you if know anything about the economics profession? Very few academics are Keynesians, much less traditional ones. In any case, a fair few Austrians will tell you that Keynes highlighted important questions in economic theory such as radical uncertainty. Bob Murphy has commented that his own dissertation would probably be dismissed as Keynesian by many Austrians.
Also, there is a traditional of Austrian thought that says that rigid prices may exacerbate the problem of scarcity, it is therefore necessary that the supply of money fluctuates according to the demand in the short run. Would you say these individuals aren't economists, if so you're denouncing quite a few Austrians that came before Rothbard, notably Mises, Hayek and Robbins. And to my knowledge, these individuals aren't denying scarcity, it's central to their theory.
Liberty Student:Do you have a PhD in economics? Should Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell stop criticizing macro and Keynes because they do not have PhDs in economics?
I don't think he said for second that one needs a PhD in economics to be taken seriously on an internet discussion board. On the other hand, when one is publicly criticizing economists, it's perhaps not such a bad idea for them to be very educated in economics. Which is what a PhD acheives. If Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods are still criticizing Keynes, then yes, they should stop. Because nobody is Keynesian anymore. And they should also stop because as countless Austrians have noted, there is some worth in the writings in Keynes.
Liberty Student:People are confronting Keynesianism on larger fronts than the halls of government and academe. There is a real world, outside the state and academe with billions of constituents who do not have credentials, and particularly in the internet age, have less use for credentialed experts when information is closer at hand. It begs the question, does a man learn from exposure to knowledge, or does he learn by passing through systems of education? To infer that a PhD conveys more knowledge, or more righteousness and correct knowledge than one who does not have a PhD seems to be an argument to the credential, not the argument itself.
It begs the question, does a man learn from exposure to knowledge, or does he learn by passing through systems of education? To infer that a PhD conveys more knowledge, or more righteousness and correct knowledge than one who does not have a PhD seems to be an argument to the credential, not the argument itself.
I presume you mean sources like the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Now, forget for a second that one of the Institute's biggest aims is to put Austrians in universities and give them support once they're there. But which people are associated with the Institute exactly, people with PhDs, that who.
You present a false dichotomy in your second paragraph, if you wish to understand mainstream economics, I suggest that you study it for quite a few years in an intense environment surrounded my your peers. If you don't wish to understand mainstream thought, fine, but don't dismiss them as cranks. Here's the thing, you won't understand Austrian economics if you don't understand mainstream economics, Austrian and mainstream thought are simply two strands of the marginal revolution that have far more in common than most Austrians realise.
Liberty Student:The elitists were co-opted and produce plenty of bad science and ideas to serve those who pay their bills.
I'm going to let your rhetoric slide, and focus on this. Now, do you have any proof of what you're saying, or is it just a baseless assertion. I don't think you understand the nature of science. You don't question math when you do your calculations, you don't question the rules of logic when you argue, you take them as given. This is exactly what mainstream economists do in regards to the formalism and positivism of modern economics, they take various parts of mainstream thought and regard them as necessary to make progress in economic science. Of course, you wouldn't know this, because you don't know much about the sociology of scientific communities. You'd rather adopt Hoppe's absurdly simplistic view of "good" and "bad" scientists, which might as well be synonomous with "Austrians" and "everybody else" respectively. Here's the thing, the fact that mainstream economists are pro-State has very little to do with the fact that it signs their paycheck and everything to do with the way that modern science has developed.
Also, for you to say that they produced "bad" science, I'm going to have to ask you for some sort of criteria with which we can evaluate whether or not science is good or bad. I think you're confusing goodness with correctness, which is a very big mistakes.
Lilburne:In addition, you could get it from autodidacts who make sound arguments; it may not be quite as likely, but it is not impossible.
I don't think he has denied this, his point was that if you're going into a debate with somebody with a PhD when you don't even have an MSc/MA, there should be a bias against you.
LibertyStudent:I've seen Lam do this to thread after thread. Rather than attack the premise, or to contribute to the debate, he, like Giles has to engage in self-aggrandizement and ego stroking, by making ad hominem arguments against the thread starter.
Is that really what it is? Because, I could say the same to you. It's all very well for you to assume that the layman can contribute just as much as the professional, because you're a middle aged man without so much as a bachelors degree, who is neither very well read nor particularly intelligent from what I can tell. So it makes perfect sense for you to bash professional economists. Now, I would have refrained from making such comments, but it appears to me that if you're going to make this personal, so will I. So if you really wish to question my motives for putting forward an opinion, I'll question yours.
Liberty Student:But there are a handful of flies in the ointment who constantly poison pill honest (if un-credentialed and in-expert) debate. And who wants to invest hours each day, reading and writing, to have some ill-intentioned third party interject and rain on their parade?
How unfortunate for you that people do not always agree with you. Once again, I don't see the value in such statements. I only see an attempt to call for back up. I'm pretty sure both Lam and I would say that you're raining on our parade by making some of the uninformed, ignorant comments you do. But there we go.
As a brazilian who saw some of the destruction that keynesian economics do, I would change "crank" for "criminal".
GilesStratton: Well, the definition of economics you're using came from Lionel Robbins' seminal piece. So, you're going to have to admit that a great deal of economists before Robbins, simply weren't economists. I'm sorry if this seems self evident, it's just that I find it difficult to accept that economics started with Robbins. Also, your attack is simply a strawman, even Keynesians admit that there exists a point when extra injections of money will simply cause inflation without increasing production. Let alone most modern macroeconomists such as new classicists who believe that money has no effect on the economy. IOW, the AS curve is vertical in both the long run and the short run. Since you seem to be attacking Keynesian economics and yet begin your post with "Much of what is today" called macroeconomic, I'm going to have to ask you if know anything about the economics profession? Very few academics are Keynesians, much less traditional ones. In any case, a fair few Austrians will tell you that Keynes highlighted important questions in economic theory such as radical uncertainty. Bob Murphy has commented that his own dissertation would probably be dismissed as Keynesian by many Austrians.
1) your first paragraph is a fallacy. That before a particular definition of what defines a field of knowledge is settled upon, even those whose views are compatible with the definition that is ultimately offered, can not be considered to have been working in that field of knowledge.
2) are we saying that 'new keyensians' and 'post keynesians' are not kenyesians?. well...... yes and no. qua what lilburne was talking about; then yes.
GilesStratton:If you wish to denounce the entire (or most of) the economics profession as "crank scientists", you're going to have to provide some criteria for doing some.
Again, the OP provides criteria; it is not a mere assertion denunciation. I'm asking if people think it is valid. Although you don't do so here, thank you for actually addressing the actual argument in your second post. I'll respond to them separately from my response to your first post.
GilesStratton:And as far as I can tell, the only set of guidelines I've seen in this topic is the implicit criterion that a crank scientist is an economists who does not adhere to the teachings of the Austrian school.
Not the teachings, plural. One particular teaching: that of scarcity. And the emphasis of that teaching as the essence of economics is hardly peculiar to the Austrians. I have a textbook co-authored by Bernanke; I'm away from home, so I don't have it in front of me, but I remember that it too identified scarcity as the essence of economics.
GilesStratton:So here's the thing, I'll agree with you Lilburne, that 95% of all economists in the last century have been cranks if you can give me some way with which we can classify who is, and who is not, a crank. This system must be fair, it must be consistent and it must not be ad hoc.
Again, while your next post actually addresses my argument, this bit seems to ignore its existence altogether. Also don't put figures in my mouth.
GilesStratton:There's literally thousands of professional trained economists out there who have spent their whole lives investing in human capital to be able to do better economics.
That has no bearing on whether the argument is sound.
GilesStratton:So off the cuff statements that all professional economists (except those affiliated with the LvMI) are cranks seem to be somewhat grand.
I never said anything about LvMI. It's not an off the cuff statement: it's a formulated argument that is either sound or unsound.
GilesStratton: I think it's only fair that we ask for some sort of support for such grand assertions.
It's not a bare assertion. It's an argument.
GilesStratton:Which adds up to 10 - 11 years in total that is spent studying economics, to claim that you know more than these people about economics is perhaps a little unfair to them.
My argument doesn't address volume of learning. It addresses principles. One can spend a whole lifetime of study and never correct false principles.
GilesStratton:More to the point, it's not fair to your reads, nor to other economists to dismiss the entirety of the profession as cranks unless you can substantiate such a claim. I think that all Laminustacitus asks for is that you do substantiate that claim, and that in order to do a PhD is more than likely necessary.
Not if the argument is sound.
GilesStratton:As Peter Boettke has pointed out, there have not been any serious advances in economic science made by the layman for over a century. Hazlitt may have written a nice criticism of Keynes, but he added very few insights of his own whilst doing so. Compare this with Hutt's fantastic book on Keynes, and notice which one of the two was a journalist and which one was a professional, trained economist.
None of this has any bearing on whether the argument is sound.
GilesStratton:On a level that is perhaps less important, but not significantly so. It simply isn't strategically wise to go around calling those with whom Austrians should be interacting "cranks". Especially since it displays arrogance, ignorance and simply makes you look doctrinaire. Those are three "qualities" that mainstream economists already percieve to be preveland amongst Austrians.
This is moot. If the global order, and thereby faith in all mainstream social science, collapses, an entirely uncompromising outsider status may actually be a boon to the Austrian School.
GilesStratton: if you wish to understand mainstream economics, I suggest that you study it for quite a few years in an intense environment surrounded my your peers. If you don't wish to understand mainstream thought, fine, but don't dismiss them as cranks. Here's the thing, you won't understand Austrian economics if you don't understand mainstream economics, Austrian and mainstream thought are simply two strands of the marginal revolution that have far more in common than most Austrians realise.
T DiLorenzo:Harold Demsetz coined the phrase "Nirvana Fallacy," which refers to the tendency of economists to compare the real world with some idealized version that exists only in mathematical models. Joseph Stiglitz will probably receive the Nobel Prize someday for doing precisely that. His models are designed to show that the market fails everywhere because real-world markets are not omniscient. It is for this reason that a former colleague of mine called much of modern economics "exquisite trivia." Yes, but the power of inertia in academe is very strong. The powers that be, the elite universities and the folks that run the American Economic Association, have a lot of capital built up in this way of doing economics. They aren't going to let go until they have to. Deep down, they must know that it is a lot of baloney. I just wrote a review of a new book by Robert Solow. Here's a man who won the Nobel Prize sixteen years ago. He is a gray eminence of the economics profession. He is still trying to build models of the economy that don't mention capital markets or labor markets. The math looks impressive but there is little economic content. Surely, he must realize that this is a foolish endeavor. When I was in graduate school, a Big Shot was invited to give a lecture. He gave a paper on the hamburger market, which was all math. Gordon Tullock said: well, you know, this doesn't operate at all like the real hamburger market. The lecturer responded that he wasn't interested in the real hamburger market; he was interested in the consistency of his mathematical model. That is not an isolated anecdote. That is mainstream thinking.
Yes, but the power of inertia in academe is very strong. The powers that be, the elite universities and the folks that run the American Economic Association, have a lot of capital built up in this way of doing economics. They aren't going to let go until they have to. Deep down, they must know that it is a lot of baloney.
I just wrote a review of a new book by Robert Solow. Here's a man who won the Nobel Prize sixteen years ago. He is a gray eminence of the economics profession. He is still trying to build models of the economy that don't mention capital markets or labor markets. The math looks impressive but there is little economic content. Surely, he must realize that this is a foolish endeavor.
When I was in graduate school, a Big Shot was invited to give a lecture. He gave a paper on the hamburger market, which was all math. Gordon Tullock said: well, you know, this doesn't operate at all like the real hamburger market. The lecturer responded that he wasn't interested in the real hamburger market; he was interested in the consistency of his mathematical model. That is not an isolated anecdote. That is mainstream thinking.
Lilburne: GilesStratton:On a level that is perhaps less important, but not significantly so. It simply isn't strategically wise to go around calling those with whom Austrians should be interacting "cranks". Especially since it displays arrogance, ignorance and simply makes you look doctrinaire. Those are three "qualities" that mainstream economists already percieve to be preveland amongst Austrians. This is moot. If the global order, and thereby faith in all mainstream social science, collapses, an entirely uncompromising outsider status may actually be a boon to the Austrian School.
The world order won't collapse, and whenever the status quo collapses the historical precedent is that an authoritarian faction that seizes control, an authoritarian environment is not one where Austrian economics can flourish; however, as Keynes himself testified, it is one where Keynesian economics can. Furthermore, if trust in the current Neoclassical social sciences collapses, then it is the Keynesians that will be able to take the initiative, and once again be accepted as the "mainstream" paradigm. The collapse in faith won't be one in government regulators, but it will be one in the market's capabilities.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
I hate quote bombs, but here goes:
Lilburne:Not the teachings, plural. One particular teaching: that of scarcity. And the emphasis of that teaching as the essence of economics is hardly peculiar to the Austrians. I have a textbook co-authored by Bernanke; I'm away from home, so I don't have it in front of me, but I remember that it too identified scarcity as the essence of economics.
Yes, I know this, almost all textbooks I've read say the same: an economic problem is one that involves scarce means to acheive ends. In one word: scarcity. However, it's important to remember that this definition of economics began with Robbins' essay An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, now, whilst there may have been some economists working with this definition before it was put into words by Robbins (this is aimed also at nirgrahamUK) the majority of them didn't. Would you be so bold as to say that the greater number of economics before Robbins, was in fact, "crank science"?
Also, to say that mainstream economics is "crank science" doesn't make much sense when you admitted in your first post that it is primarily mainstream macroeconomists are those which ignore the issue of scarcity. I agree with you, there are many issues in macroeconomics that are unresolved, but to say that those who adhere to the teaching of Keynes aren't economists is a bold statement, even if at some level you can substantiate it. Perhaps it might be more correct to simply state that they adhere to teachings that are somewhat flawed and deviate from the basic principles of economic science. But such a bold statement as they're all "cranks" will get nowhere in creating the necessary dialogue between Austrians and the mainstream community.
Also, statements like this at completely out of tune with the developments of economic science since the days of Keynes. As I've said, Keynesian thinking simply doesn't dominate academia like it did in the days of Mises and Hayek. In one sense modern macro is far more "pro market" than it once was. Whilst some Austrians would no doubt say that modern macro is entirely meaningless and irrelevant, I don't think they'd go so far as to say that it is crank science because the mathematical sophistication involved is not something one can dismiss so easily.
I hear a lot of Austrian caricatures of mainstream economics because they put what makes perfect sense in mathematical terms into verbal logic.
If you want a reference, check out Roger Garrison's essay "ASAD: A sad development in macroeconomic pedagogy" and the work that he references in that piece.
Lilburne:That has no bearing on whether the argument is sound.
No, it doesn't, but the word "crank" is a pejorative, at least as I understand. To say that economists whose entire lives have been spent investing in the human capital necessary to do their work are "cranks" is something of a sweeping statement. That was all that was meant by my statement, you're reading too far into it.
Also, whether or not the argument is sound, is one question. Another question entirely is that of whether or not a piece of economics is good. Perhaps the two are related, but I can certainly see how, working from flawed beginnings, an economist can do work that is good. Look, whether or not you like it, studying economics for many years will give you some insights into the subject. A PhD is just the chance to do such research, look at the most productive Austrians, they're not self taught, they're educated. They have PhDs and most of the time at mainstream schools (meaning not NYU, GMU etc.), if you wish to understand Austrians economics, you need to study mainstream economics. At the end of the day, they're not too dissimilar.
I'm not denying that the layman can contribute something to economic science, I'm saying that it hasn't happened in the past 100 years and there's a reason for that. Studying, teaching and being around academics contributes far more to ones understanding of science, whether or not you like it.
Lilburne:This is moot. If the global order, and thereby faith in all mainstream social science, collapses, an entirely uncompromising outsider status may actually be a boon to the Austrian School.
What sort of "victory" (for lack of a better word) would it be for the Austrian school if their economics were to become dominant due to political reasons? Surely this is the same objection that many here level against the Keynesians, that their economics is adhered to (it isn't anymore, but forget that) because it's in favour with the politicians. For me, the only way I could possibly be satisfied with increases interest in the Austrian school would be the result of Austrian economics by and large being synonomous with good economics.
And nirgrahamUK, yes, I think you can make a very good case that post Keynesians are truer to Keynes than most other Keynesians.
GilesStratton:You'd rather adopt Hoppe's absurdly simplistic view of "good" and "bad" scientists, which might as well be synonomous with "Austrians" and "everybody else" respectively.
We frequently compromise because we're do not value logic over love or compassion or sensation. But that doesn't mean logic is not simple. Logic is simple, life is not. Don't conflate an irrational existence as a refutation of a logical existence.
GilesStratton:Here's the thing, the fact that mainstream economists are pro-State has very little to do with the fact that it signs their paycheck and everything to do with the way that modern science has developed.
I have refuted this with a source last week. Mainstream science is completely corrupted by the state, and actually diminished in it's aggregate resources due to crowding out. The reality is that you and others can get a university degree due to subsidization that you may not deserve, and because you are divorced from the true costs, may not strive to earn. It's a waste of resources. It's inefficient. Who says we need economic science in its current form and direction? Certainly the market has made no such determination or offered any endorsement of such.
So before you and Lam argue for state science, at least have the intellectual honesty to own up to the fact that the science you argue for is insulated from, and likely never to be challenged within, the market. Then as economists, tell me how this is rational.
GilesStratton:Well, the definition of economics you're using came from Lionel Robbins' seminal piece. So, you're going to have to admit that a great deal of economists before Robbins, simply weren't economists. I'm sorry if this seems self evident, it's just that I find it difficult to accept that economics started with Robbins.
That Robbins was the first to formulate the criterion it does not imply that he was the first to adhere to it. Much of the writings of economic theorists since the scholastics did adhere to the notion of scarcity.
GilesStratton:Also, your attack is simply a strawman, even Keynesians admit that there exists a point when extra injections of money will simply cause inflation without increasing production.
Yes, Keynesians accept the reality of scarcity to some extent; but they also do not accept it to some extent. Note that I specifically said "to a greater or lesser extent" as opposed to saying that they did not accept it absolutely.
BTW, since names are like talismans to you, Roger Garrison has written that in Keynes' doctrine "the perennial problem of scarcity never comes into play. And F.A. Hayek wrote:
Yet it is some such world as this which is treated in Mr. Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, which in recent years has created so much stir and confusion among economists and even the wider public. Although the technocrats, and other believers in the unbounded productive capacity of our economic system, do not yet appear to have realised it, what he has given us is really that economics of abundance for which they have been clamouring so long. Or rather, he has given us a system of economics which is based on the assumption that no real scarcity exists...
(excerpt included in A Tiger by the Tail: The Keynesian Legacy of Inflation)
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