I think it makes perfect sense that government intrusion of the free markets causes unsustainable periods of bust-and-boom. It's not so much that we don't have periods of bust and boom. It makes perfect sense to mek that the government intrusion of the market is what causes these artifical ones to happen more than they would have happened if the banks couldn't just extend more credit out to businesses than they would without the central bank's help. I think that the central bank shouldn't be manipulating the private market. And, that interest rates should be set on the free market. I'm not ready for the complete abolition of the federal reserve because I think it would cause too much panick. However... I think the austrian theory provides a lot of insight to what causes these artificial boom-bust theory and I think that it stands the test of time. I don't know why people seem to think that it doesn't make sense, or, that it's just nonsense.
Wilmot of Rochester: nirgrahamUK: better to be stubborn than wrong.If only Rothbard were...
nirgrahamUK: better to be stubborn than wrong.
better to be stubborn than wrong.
if only he were...wrong? ....
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
Fried Egg:4) Harshness. Even those who generally believe the markets need to be left to get on with it, many believe that the government should be doing all it can to help alleviate the ill effects and suffering caused in a recession. Ok, unemployment is an innevitable consequence of a recession but shouldn't we be doing all we can to give people jobs so that they can feed themselves until the economy recovers?
If by "harshness" you mean realism, as in "there's no free lunch", than yes, people don't like to be reminded of it.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
The Austrian theory makes claims like 'economic theory can be derived from self-evident first principles', while mainstream economics observes behavior and attempts to make models which explain this behavior under simplifying assumptions.
Fundamentally it doesn't make sense that anything about human behavior should be derivable a priori unless you think we're created by God or something whose nature and choices about our nature can be derived.
you don't know what praxeology is do you?
Judicator: The Austrian theory makes claims like 'economic theory can be derived from self-evident first principles', while mainstream economics observes behavior and attempts to make models which explain this behavior under simplifying assumptions. Fundamentally it doesn't make sense that anything about human behavior should be derivable a priori unless you think we're created by God or something whose nature and choices about our nature can be derived.
Have you read Human Action in the first place?
It's because of this!
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
There are many reasons why people don't take the Austrian school seriously.
I've seen people mention things like the lack of math, statistics, etc., that is correct.
I've also seen it written that mainstream media is an issue, that is also correct.
I've also seen it mentioned that people aren't educated enough and don't know the Austrian school, again, correct.
But there is one underlying factor which trumps all other factors and that is the fact that no free rights Austrian society has ever been created and maintained. Until this is accomplished the conversion of the populace is extremely unlikely to occur. It's like trying to make lemonade without having the lemons first. We need to create such a society through a properly created constitution which can trap the leviathan in it's place and then and only then do I believe the masses can be taught and converted to the Austrian school of economics.
Remember that the constitution is merely a piece of technology; a technology which still eludes economic thought.
~words are merely the beginning of thought, but never the end of it
Fundamentally, this is an assertion with no grounding. Perhaps you should try read up on Austrian methodology before posting on it? Would help...
To darkness I condemn you...
People did take Austrians seriously. In fact, most of the major Austrian propositions hav already been incorporated into mainstream thinking. Hayek was considered a mojor mainstream economist. People don't take Rothbard seriously because he was wrong. He knew he was wrong too. That is why he was eventually forced to argue on moral grouds rather than on economics. If you push any modern Rothbardian on the issue, they will eventually admit that fractional reserves are more efficient but less moral.
Even the ABCT has become mainstream now. People have know that an excess suply of money can lead to malinvestment for years, they just don't say it the same way Austrians say it. Praxeology is a joke, sorry to say. Most Austrians don't even believe it. Only the people who followed Rothbard still believe it, meaning th people at the Mises Instutute.
consequentialist.wordpress.com
there is no such thing as an Austrian in the modern sense without praxeology. if you mean to say that most neo-classicals dont believe it, you would be correct, .... boring. .... but correct.
Jake McCloskey: People did take Austrians seriously. In fact, most of the major Austrian propositions hav already been incorporated into mainstream thinking. Hayek was considered a mojor mainstream economist. People don't take Rothbard seriously because he was wrong. He knew he was wrong too. That is why he was eventually forced to argue on moral grouds rather than on economics. If you push any modern Rothbardian on the issue, they will eventually admit that fractional reserves are more efficient but less moral. Even the ABCT has become mainstream now. People have know that an excess suply of money can lead to malinvestment for years, they just don't say it the same way Austrians say it. Praxeology is a joke, sorry to say. Most Austrians don't even believe it. Only the people who followed Rothbard still believe it, meaning th people at the Mises Instutute.
I'm going to have a stab in the dark: you haven't read anything of Hoppe regarding epistemology or read any of the modern literature on why fractional reserves cause business cycles by Hulsmann or Block.
On a related issue, I know I'm extreme but, I can't consider an economist who rejects praxeology as a truly Austrian economist.- the method was at the heart of Menger's economics.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Praxeology is a joke, sorry to say. Most Austrians don't even believe it.
This is an assertion, sorry to say. Dunno which are these "most" Austrians you're referring to either.
Jake McCloskey:Praxeology is a joke, sorry to say. Most Austrians don't even believe it.
Physiocrat:I can't consider an economist who rejects praxeology as a truly Austrian economist.- the method was at the heart of Menger's economics.
Please proceed!
Brian (aka: MrLiberty): no free rights Austrian society has ever been created and maintained.
no free rights Austrian society has ever been created and maintained.
I thought that Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of Austrian economics. She was in power for quite a while. Do people here approve of what she did?
I don't think she was a supported of Austrian economics despite being influenced by Hayek. She was the first prime minister in decades who started trying to reign in inflation. She started the reversal of the trend of nationalisation with a broad programme of privatisation and she challenged and weakened the union stranglehold that it had on the British economy. But besides these things she wasn't very "Austrian" in her policy making.
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