Austrian economics as an infallible source

[The Black Plains]

There in lies the rub. The US government in the 1800s was literally as Laissez Faire is it could get. And yet you still find a reason to blame them.

The problem was specifically with the railroads and silver inflation, still it isn't as if Austrians deny that recessions would occur under a free market, they believe they would be minimal in scope and less common.

It's also a huge difference in the response to recessions. Austrians believe that the government response should be a freeze at worst, a deregulation/privatization at best. Keynesians believe in huge government action in an effort to stimulate. Austrians believe in saving money during a recession and investing it (hopefully without inflation) while Keynesians believe in spending it... the whole paradox of thrift jawn. Basically, don't use the money press during a recession... all it will do is cause a foreclosure bust.

[The Adrian Empire]

The problem was specifically with the railroads and silver inflation, still it isn't as if Austrians deny that recessions would occur under a free market, they believe they would be minimal in scope and less common.

It's also a huge difference in the response to recessions. Austrians believe that the government response should be a freeze at worst, a deregulation/privatization at best. Keynesians believe in huge government action in an effort to stimulate. Austrians believe in saving money during a recession and investing it (hopefully without inflation) while Keynesians believe in spending it... the whole paradox of thrift jawn. Basically, don't use the money press during a recession... all it will do is cause a foreclosure bust.

Aye. That.

[Natapoc]

Objectivism is NOT a branch of philosophy. It is the invention of a storybook author. If Objectivism is a philosophy then so is tlhIngan tIgh: SuvwI' DevmeH paq (The klingon way) or Jedi knight philosophy.

I think it is popularly followed by enough people to classify as a philosophy, Ayn Rand wrote non-fiction too. Now if Worf (only Klingon name I remember) or Obi-Wan writes a novel concerning their personal philosophies in practical application, perhaps. However until then Objectivism does have a place in philosophy.

Hmm, I guess the Klingon way is a philosophy also then.

http://klingonska.org/tkw.html

"Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'u'_(opera)

[The Cat-Tribe]

Does anybody on this topic even know what Austrian Economics is?

You really should try to remember that your past posts are recorded and retrievable (emphasis added):

1. These claims are misleading at best. Even though the Mises institute and Austrian Economics are both on the intellectual fringe, you don't actually agree with the vast majority of work presented by either. You are Rothbarian voluntaryian. Much of the work of the "giants" (so to speak) of Austrian Economics is rejected by Rothbard, as is much of the libertarianism endorsed by the Von Mises Institute.

Thats a natural part of economic schools of thought. Even though Rothbard may reject certain concepts, it dosn't necessarily mean they didn't in some way influence his work.

2. Aside from its slavish devotion to Rep. Ron Paul, the Mises Institute is a less than ideal source of inspiration. As the Southern Poverty Law Center has noted the Mises Institute is heavily entangled in the Neo-Confederate Movement and Civil War revisionism. See, e.g., link, link. Further:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises. It publishes seven journals, has printed more than 100 books, and offers scholarships, prizes, conferences and a major library at its Auburn, Ala., offices.[*snipped by Bendira*]

Although I think aligning themselves with the neo-Confederates may be a bad P.R. move, its staying true to their beliefs. Their beliefs being that the South had the right to secede from the Union, and after the Civil War we saw a major increase in the power of the federal government.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

Lol. Money would accumulate in an ancap society, but not as much as in ours. Because the reason for the death of the middle class in ours, is because of government intervention in the market, which establishes monpolies, guarenteeing the rich freedom from competition.

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

I think even you would agree with what Hoppe said on a factual level.

A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."

Soure? So we can have some context?

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.

Again, source?

Institute scholars also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation.

Thats odd, considering 99% of the Mises Institute are anarcho-capitalists, who don't believe in border enforcement.

3. Austrian Economic is, of course, fringe economics much criticized, including by by economists such as Bryan Caplan, Jeffrey Sachs, and Nobel laureates Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, and Paul Krugman. Austrian Economics is notoriously non-scientific. Austrian economists argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory, and advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible. See, e.g., Wikipedia: Austrain School; Bryan Caplan, Why I am Not an Austrian Economist; Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology; Paul Krugman, The Hangover Theory; Parable of the ship: why Austrian Economics fails.

Im not an Austrian Economist, so I can't sit here and poke holes in all of these dudes theories. But I do know that Paul Krugman is considered a laughing stock at the Institute. Not only does he not understand Austrian Economic theory, but he reportedly also does not understand his own accepted theory of Kaynesian Economics.

Thats a natural part of economic schools of thought. Even though Rothbard may reject certain concepts, it dosn't necessarily mean they didn't in some way influence his work.

Although I think aligning themselves with the neo-Confederates may be a bad P.R. move, its staying true to their beliefs. Their beliefs being that the South had the right to secede from the Union, and after the Civil War we saw a major increase in the power of the federal government.

Lol. Money would accumulate in an ancap society, but not as much as in ours. Because the reason for the death of the middle class in ours, is because of government intervention in the market, which establishes monpolies, guarenteeing the rich freedom from competition.

I think even you would agree with what Hoppe said on a factual level.

Soure? So we can have some context?

Again, source?

Thats odd, considering 99% of the Mises Institute are anarcho-capitalists, who don't believe in border enforcement.

Im not an Austrian Economist, so I can't sit here and poke holes in all of these dudes theories. But I do know that Paul Krugman is considered a laughing stock at the Institute. Not only does he not understand Austrian Economic theory, but he reportedly also does not understand his own accepted theory of Kaynesian Economics.

Aside: I frakin' hate it when I am working on a long post and user/computer/network error causes me to lose it!!!!

1. Non-responsive. The simple fact is much of the work of the Mises Institute and the Austrian School of Economics you disagree with. That makes citing them in some general, desperate appeal to authority particularly disingenuous.

2. If you think lying about history and attempting to justify slavery are "staying true to [your alleged allies'] beliefs," then you should re-examine both their and your beliefs.

3. Laugh if want, but this is a quote from an essay (Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State) from your supposed allies and source of inspiration praising the idea that we should be ruled by natural elites in any society.

4. Um. No. I don't believe in some divine right of rule by "natural elites." I also don't believe civil rights laws (or affirmative action or forced integration or any combination thereof) have (1) almost completely destroyed private property rights (as private property is ubiquitous in the U.S. as are property rights), (2) almost completely eroded freedom of contract (contracts are also ubiquituous and rarely interfered with by government -- but often enforced with aid of the government), (3) almost completely eroded freedom of association (we are generaly free to associate with whomever we want, whenever and wherever we want), and (or even "or') (4) almost completely eroded freedom of disassociation (we are generally free to refuse to associate with anyone). This is rather silly hyperbole at best.

5. The source for the Southern Poverty Law Center's quotes and paraphrasing of Rothbard is this essay, particularly this part. (Note: Despite quotas being illegal long before 1991, Rothbard devotes 1 of 5 chapters to equating egalitarianism to quotas.) Here are excerpts with the SPLC's quotes & paraphrase sources highlighted:

Indeed, one radical change since the writing of this essay has been the rapid and accelerating transformation of old-fashioned egalitarianism, which wanted to make every individual equal, into group-egalitarianism on behalf of groups that are officially designated as "oppressed." ... groups such as women, youth, blacks and Chicanos ...

.. For more and greater varieties of groups are continually being added to the parasitic burden weighing upon an ever-dwindling supply of oppressors. ... Specifically, achieving the label of Officially Oppressed entitles one to share in an endless flow of benefits[--]in money, status, and prestige[--]from the hapless Oppressors, who are made to feel guilty forevermore, even as they are forced to sustain and expand the endless flow.

Rothbard ends this essay by arguing (in a pointed rejection of Adam Smith) that inequality (referred to by the euphamism "division of labor") is a fundamental good. See also Rothbard's Egalitarianism and the Elites (19p pdf) (among other things, defending the "Iron Law of Oligarchy -- "hierarchies and inequalities of decisionmaking are inevitable in any human organization that achieves any degree of success in attaining its goals" -- saying "there is nothing, outside of egalitarian fantasies, wrong with this universal human fact, or law of nature" AND dismissing the notion that blacks, women, Hispanics, American Indians, etc., have been or are "oppressed"); Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature (arguing inequality is biological and genetic (although avoiding mention of race), specifically arguing women are inferior to men, ridiculing the existence of homosexuality and bisexuality, and declaring the idea of egalitarianism "profoundly evil') (also contained in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature (352p pdf, pages 1-20, pdf pp. 29-48)).

6. The first sentence is from the essay quoted above, Rothbard's Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor. The rest is from Rothbard's Origins of the Welfare State in America. Here are excerpts with the SPLC's quotes & paraphrase sources highlighted:

Yankee Women: The Driving Force

Of all the Yankee activists in behalf of statist "reform," perhaps the most formidable force was the legion of Yankee women, in particular those of middle- or upper-class background, and especially spinsters whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of home and hearth. One of the PMPs' favorite reforms was to bring about women's suffrage, which was accomplished in various states and localities long before a constitutional amendment imposed it on the entire country.
...

..the Yankee women progressives provided the shock troops of the progressive movement and hence the burgeoning welfare state. ...

The most prominent of the Yankee progressive social workers, and emblematic of the entire movement, was Jane Addams (b. 1860). ... She had no interest in men, so marriage was not in the cards; indeed, in her lifetime, she seems to have had several intense lesbian affairs.
...

Jane Addams was able to use her upper-class connections to acquire fervent supporters, many of them women who became intimate and probably lesbian friends of Miss Addams. ...

One of Jane Addams's close colleagues, and probable lesbian lover, at Hull House was the tough, truculent Julia Clifford Lathrop (b. 1858), whose father, William, had migrated from upstate New York to Rockford in northern Illinois ... Julia founded the first Juvenile Court in the country, in Chicago in 1899, and then moved on to become the first female member of the Illinois State Board of Charities, and President of the National Conference of Social Work. In 1912, Lathrop was appointed by President Taft as head of the first US Children's Bureau.

Ensconced in the federal government, the Children's Bureau became an outpost of the welfare state and social work engaging in activities that eerily and unpleasantly remind one of the modern era. Thus, the Children's Bureau was an unremitting center of propaganda and advocacy of federal subsidies, programs, and propaganda on behalf of the nation's mothers and children — a kind of grisly foreshadowing of "family values" and Hillary Rodham Clinton's concerns for "the children" and the Children's Defense Fund. ...
...

The founder of the concept of the Children's Bureau, Florence Kelley, who lobbied for both the Children's Bureau and Sheppard-Towner, was one of the few women activists who was in some way unique and not paradigmatic. ... Florence Kelley differed from her colleagues on two counts: (1) she was the only one who was an outright Marxist, and (2) she was married and not a lesbian. However, in the long run, these differences did not matter very much. ...
...

If the female social reform activists were almost all Yankee, by the late 19th century, Jewish women were beginning to add their leaven to the lump. Of the crucial 1860s cohort, the most important Jewess was Lillian D. Wald (b. 1867). Born to an upper-middle-class German and Polish-Jewish family in Cincinnati, Lillian and her family soon moved to Rochester, where she became a nurse. She then organized, in the Lower East Side of New York, the Nurses' Settlement, which was soon to become the famed Henry Street Settlement. It was Lillian Wald who first suggested a federal Children's Bureau to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905, and who led the agitation for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing child labor. While she was not a Yankee, Lillian Wald continued in the dominant tradition by being a lesbian, forming a long-term lesbian relationship with her associate Lavina Dock. Wald, while not wealthy herself, had an uncanny ability to gain financing for Henry Street, including top Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff and Mrs. Solomon Loeb of the Wall Street investment-banking firm of Kuhn-Loeb, and Julius Rosenwald, then head of Sears Roebuck. Also prominent in financing Henry Street was the Milbank Fund, of the Rockefeller-affiliated family who owned the Borden Milk Company.

Rounding out the important contingent of socialist-activist Jews were the four Goldmark sisters, Helen, Pauline, Josephine, and Alice. ...

[note: reading the misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of hatred spread throught this essay makes me ill]

7. Your expectations don't match reality. Just a couple of examples: Here is a fairly positive review of Alien Nation. Here (13p pdf) is "A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders" that frequently cites Alien Nation. See also "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration" (13p pdf).

8. Perhaps you shouldn't complain that other people just don't understand Austrian Economics and cite to it as supporting your views, if you don't actually know enough about it to defend it. Also, the fact that the Austrian School thinks poorly of one of their major critics (who is a Nobel Prize winner) isn't exactly proof of anything.

To be quite honest, this topic isn't about the Austrian school. I myself am not an Austrian economist, and I do not know the entire history of the school. However their are a couple major contributions by the Austrian school in economcis that I personally value enough to call myself a believer in Austrian Economics, mainly the Austrian theory of the Business Cycle and Austrian Monopoly Price Theory.

Note: This is just one of at least a few exchanges we've had where Bendira has asserted belief in the Austrian School but admitted an inability to defend it from basic criticism.

EDIT: Additionally, I question how any group of thinkers that believes in a priori truths from which they can deduce all we need to know about human behavior and how we should organize society and who eschew the use of testibillity, statistics, empirical evidence, experiments, etc. seriously can be called "economists" instead of "preachers" or "cultists." It is essentially a religion.

[Norstal]

Note: This is just one of at least a few exchanges we've had where Bendira has asserted belief in the Austrian School but admitted an inability to defend it from basic criticism.

I can account for this and he got riled up when I asked what Austrian Economics is.

Admittedly, I was flamy, but he completely dodged the question.

[Risottia]

..., I don't hate the guys, I just find it puzzling that people rely on them as a source despite their complete lack of data to support their conclusions. ...

Compare Scientology and Quantum Mechanics. It should show you that, when it comes to complex systems, it's easier to build a religion than a scientifical theory.

(damn, Cat-Tribe beat me to it)

[Maxen von Bismarck]

As opposed to, I'm presuming from the OP, the current 'mainstream' economics which have predicted everything?

Debating economics is a race to the bottom. All systems are pretty crappy.

[Bendira]

Note: This is just one of at least a few exchanges we've had where Bendira has asserted belief in the Austrian School but admitted an inability to defend it from basic criticism.

I can account for this and he got riled up when I asked what Austrian Economics is.

Admittedly, I was flamy, but he completely dodged the question.

Because my answer does not meet your criteria for a successful defense, does not make it wrong. Im sure any answer short of me saying "Yes, Austrian Economics is wrong because it does not use mathematical means to model economic phenomenon" is not going to meet your criteria for a proper answer.

[Bendira]

I tend to avoid sourcing them, just for that reason, though I do subscribe generally to the Austrian theory of economics. Considering any source I give would be little more then showing the reasoning of someone who thinks about economics more then I. I agree with their reasoning, I do follow their theories, but I don't claim it as a source for that reason.

I think it is easy to say "I subscribe to this theory, but I do not source it because it is a theory that is largely criticized". I don't expect anybody to dogmatically follow Austrian Economics, but if you are basing atleast part of your political ideology on it, you must regard it as having some sort of validity.

[Bendira]

Does anybody on this topic even know what Austrian Economics is?

You really should try to remember that your past posts are recorded and retrievable (emphasis added):

Thats a natural part of economic schools of thought. Even though Rothbard may reject certain concepts, it dosn't necessarily mean they didn't in some way influence his work.

Although I think aligning themselves with the neo-Confederates may be a bad P.R. move, its staying true to their beliefs. Their beliefs being that the South had the right to secede from the Union, and after the Civil War we saw a major increase in the power of the federal government.

Lol. Money would accumulate in an ancap society, but not as much as in ours. Because the reason for the death of the middle class in ours, is because of government intervention in the market, which establishes monpolies, guarenteeing the rich freedom from competition.

I think even you would agree with what Hoppe said on a factual level.

Soure? So we can have some context?

Again, source?

Thats odd, considering 99% of the Mises Institute are anarcho-capitalists, who don't believe in border enforcement.

Im not an Austrian Economist, so I can't sit here and poke holes in all of these dudes theories. But I do know that Paul Krugman is considered a laughing stock at the Institute. Not only does he not understand Austrian Economic theory, but he reportedly also does not understand his own accepted theory of Kaynesian Economics.

Aside: I frakin' hate it when I am working on a long post and user/computer/network error causes me to lose it!!!!

1. Non-responsive. The simple fact is much of the work of the Mises Institute and the Austrian School of Economics you disagree with. That makes citing them in some general, desperate appeal to authority particularly disingenuous.

2. If you think lying about history and attempting to justify slavery are "staying true to [your alleged allies'] beliefs," then you should re-examine both their and your beliefs.

3. Laugh if want, but this is a quote from an essay (Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State) from your supposed allies and source of inspiration praising the idea that we should be ruled by natural elites in any society.

4. Um. No. I don't believe in some divine right of rule by "natural elites." I also don't believe civil rights laws (or affirmative action or forced integration or any combination thereof) have (1) almost completely destroyed private property rights (as private property is ubiquitous in the U.S. as are property rights), (2) almost completely eroded freedom of contract (contracts are also ubiquituous and rarely interfered with by government -- but often enforced with aid of the government), (3) almost completely eroded freedom of association (we are generaly free to associate with whomever we want, whenever and wherever we want), and (or even "or') (4) almost completely eroded freedom of disassociation (we are generally free to refuse to associate with anyone). This is rather silly hyperbole at best.

5. The source for the Southern Poverty Law Center's quotes and paraphrasing of Rothbard is this essay, particularly this part. (Note: Despite quotas being illegal long before 1991, Rothbard devotes 1 of 5 chapters to equating egalitarianism to quotas.) Here are excerpts with the SPLC's quotes & paraphrase sources highlighted:

Indeed, one radical change since the writing of this essay has been the rapid and accelerating transformation of old-fashioned egalitarianism, which wanted to make every individual equal, into group-egalitarianism on behalf of groups that are officially designated as "oppressed." ... groups such as women, youth, blacks and Chicanos ...

.. For more and greater varieties of groups are continually being added to the parasitic burden weighing upon an ever-dwindling supply of oppressors. ... Specifically, achieving the label of Officially Oppressed entitles one to share in an endless flow of benefits[--]in money, status, and prestige[--]from the hapless Oppressors, who are made to feel guilty forevermore, even as they are forced to sustain and expand the endless flow.

Rothbard ends this essay by arguing (in a pointed rejection of Adam Smith) that inequality (referred to by the euphamism "division of labor") is a fundamental good. See also Rothbard's Egalitarianism and the Elites (19p pdf) (among other things, defending the "Iron Law of Oligarchy -- "hierarchies and inequalities of decisionmaking are inevitable in any human organization that achieves any degree of success in attaining its goals" -- saying "there is nothing, outside of egalitarian fantasies, wrong with this universal human fact, or law of nature" AND dismissing the notion that blacks, women, Hispanics, American Indians, etc., have been or are "oppressed"); Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature (arguing inequality is biological and genetic (although avoiding mention of race), specifically arguing women are inferior to men, ridiculing the existence of homosexuality and bisexuality, and declaring the idea of egalitarianism "profoundly evil') (also contained in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature (352p pdf, pages 1-20, pdf pp. 29-48)).

6. The first sentence is from the essay quoted above, Rothbard's Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor. The rest is from Rothbard's Origins of the Welfare State in America. Here are excerpts with the SPLC's quotes & paraphrase sources highlighted:

Yankee Women: The Driving Force

Of all the Yankee activists in behalf of statist "reform," perhaps the most formidable force was the legion of Yankee women, in particular those of middle- or upper-class background, and especially spinsters whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of home and hearth. One of the PMPs' favorite reforms was to bring about women's suffrage, which was accomplished in various states and localities long before a constitutional amendment imposed it on the entire country.
...

..the Yankee women progressives provided the shock troops of the progressive movement and hence the burgeoning welfare state. ...

The most prominent of the Yankee progressive social workers, and emblematic of the entire movement, was Jane Addams (b. 1860). ... She had no interest in men, so marriage was not in the cards; indeed, in her lifetime, she seems to have had several intense lesbian affairs.
...

Jane Addams was able to use her upper-class connections to acquire fervent supporters, many of them women who became intimate and probably lesbian friends of Miss Addams. ...

One of Jane Addams's close colleagues, and probable lesbian lover, at Hull House was the tough, truculent Julia Clifford Lathrop (b. 1858), whose father, William, had migrated from upstate New York to Rockford in northern Illinois ... Julia founded the first Juvenile Court in the country, in Chicago in 1899, and then moved on to become the first female member of the Illinois State Board of Charities, and President of the National Conference of Social Work. In 1912, Lathrop was appointed by President Taft as head of the first US Children's Bureau.

Ensconced in the federal government, the Children's Bureau became an outpost of the welfare state and social work engaging in activities that eerily and unpleasantly remind one of the modern era. Thus, the Children's Bureau was an unremitting center of propaganda and advocacy of federal subsidies, programs, and propaganda on behalf of the nation's mothers and children — a kind of grisly foreshadowing of "family values" and Hillary Rodham Clinton's concerns for "the children" and the Children's Defense Fund. ...
...

The founder of the concept of the Children's Bureau, Florence Kelley, who lobbied for both the Children's Bureau and Sheppard-Towner, was one of the few women activists who was in some way unique and not paradigmatic. ... Florence Kelley differed from her colleagues on two counts: (1) she was the only one who was an outright Marxist, and (2) she was married and not a lesbian. However, in the long run, these differences did not matter very much. ...
...

If the female social reform activists were almost all Yankee, by the late 19th century, Jewish women were beginning to add their leaven to the lump. Of the crucial 1860s cohort, the most important Jewess was Lillian D. Wald (b. 1867). Born to an upper-middle-class German and Polish-Jewish family in Cincinnati, Lillian and her family soon moved to Rochester, where she became a nurse. She then organized, in the Lower East Side of New York, the Nurses' Settlement, which was soon to become the famed Henry Street Settlement. It was Lillian Wald who first suggested a federal Children's Bureau to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905, and who led the agitation for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing child labor. While she was not a Yankee, Lillian Wald continued in the dominant tradition by being a lesbian, forming a long-term lesbian relationship with her associate Lavina Dock. Wald, while not wealthy herself, had an uncanny ability to gain financing for Henry Street, including top Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff and Mrs. Solomon Loeb of the Wall Street investment-banking firm of Kuhn-Loeb, and Julius Rosenwald, then head of Sears Roebuck. Also prominent in financing Henry Street was the Milbank Fund, of the Rockefeller-affiliated family who owned the Borden Milk Company.

Rounding out the important contingent of socialist-activist Jews were the four Goldmark sisters, Helen, Pauline, Josephine, and Alice. ...

[note: reading the misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of hatred spread throught this essay makes me ill]

7. Your expectations don't match reality. Just a couple of examples: Here is a fairly positive review of Alien Nation. Here (13p pdf) is "A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders" that frequently cites Alien Nation. See also "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration" (13p pdf).

8. Perhaps you shouldn't complain that other people just don't understand Austrian Economics and cite to it as supporting your views, if you don't actually know enough about it to defend it. Also, the fact that the Austrian School thinks poorly of one of their major critics (who is a Nobel Prize winner) isn't exactly proof of anything.

To be quite honest, this topic isn't about the Austrian school. I myself am not an Austrian economist, and I do not know the entire history of the school. However their are a couple major contributions by the Austrian school in economcis that I personally value enough to call myself a believer in Austrian Economics, mainly the Austrian theory of the Business Cycle and Austrian Monopoly Price Theory.

Note: This is just one of at least a few exchanges we've had where Bendira has asserted belief in the Austrian School but admitted an inability to defend it from basic criticism.

EDIT: Additionally, I question how any group of thinkers that believes in a priori truths from which they can deduce all we need to know about human behavior and how we should organize society and who eschew the use of testibillity, statistics, empirical evidence, experiments, etc. seriously can be called "economists" instead of "preachers" or "cultists." It is essentially a religion.

I stand by everything I said in those quotes. Now please enlighten me as to how that impacts this topic at all?

[Sibirsky]

The Austrians predicted the current mess while mainstream or Chicago School or whatever the fuck you want to call it economists said everything was hunky-dory while doing seemingly everything they could to make the situation worse. What else do you need?

[The Cat-Tribe]

You really should try to remember that your past posts are recorded and retrievable (emphasis added):




Note: This is just one of at least a few exchanges we've had where Bendira has asserted belief in the Austrian School but admitted an inability to defend it from basic criticism.

EDIT: Additionally, I question how any group of thinkers that believes in a priori truths from which they can deduce all we need to know about human behavior and how we should organize society and who eschew the use of testibillity, statistics, empirical evidence, experiments, etc. seriously can be called "economists" instead of "preachers" or "cultists." It is essentially a religion.

I stand by everything I said in those quotes. Now please enlighten me as to how that impacts this topic at all?

1. There is a rather obvious incongruence between your criticism of others for not understanding Austrian economics, when you refuse to explain it and, in fact, have admitted you don't know enough about it to explain it or defend it.

2. Care to respond to the last part of my post?

Additionally, I question how any group of thinkers that believes in a priori truths from which they can deduce all we need to know about human behavior and how we should organize society and who eschew the use of testibillity, statistics, empirical evidence, experiments, etc. seriously can be called "economists" instead of "preachers" or "cultists." It is essentially a religion.

[Norstal]

I can account for this and he got riled up when I asked what Austrian Economics is.

Admittedly, I was flamy, but he completely dodged the question.

Because my answer does not meet your criteria for a successful defense, does not make it wrong. Im sure any answer short of me saying "Yes, Austrian Economics is wrong because it does not use mathematical means to model economic phenomenon" is not going to meet your criteria for a proper answer.

Because you never fucking explained the damn thing! And you still haven't!

So, tell me, what the hell is Austrian Economics? I wanna hear. I promise you that, whatever you type I will agree with. Now give me your explanation.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The Austrians predicted the current mess while mainstream or Chicago School or whatever the fuck you want to call it economists said everything was hunky-dory while doing seemingly everything they could to make the situation worse. What else do you need?

I'm sure you've gone over this before with others, but indulge me:

1. Exactly when and how did the Austrian School predict "the current mess"?

2. Have the Austrian School made other predictions? Were the accurate or not?

3. What evidence do you have that no other economists predicted "the current mess" with at least as much precision or probability as the Austrian School?

Setting these questions aside, if an astrologer correctly "predicts" my days horoscope, would you consider astrology a reliable source/science?

[Lacadaemon]

The Austrians predicted the current mess while mainstream or Chicago School or whatever the fuck you want to call it economists said everything was hunky-dory while doing seemingly everything they could to make the situation worse. What else do you need?

Economic forecasting was created to make astrology look respectable.

[Sibirsky]

The Austrians predicted the current mess while mainstream or Chicago School or whatever the fuck you want to call it economists said everything was hunky-dory while doing seemingly everything they could to make the situation worse. What else do you need?

I'm sure you've gone over this before with others, but indulge me:

1. Exactly when and how did the Austrian School predict "the current mess"?

2. Have the Austrian School made other predictions? Were the accurate or not?

3. What evidence do you have that no other economists predicted "the current mess" with at least as much precision or probability as the Austrian School?

Setting these questions aside, if an astrologer correctly "predicts" my days horoscope, would you consider astrology a reliable source/science?

1. Throughout the 2000s. They wrote and spoke about it.
2. Sure, some yes, some not so much.
3. Others have also predicted it, but not on as wide spread a basis.
4. Damn Austrians always have a knack for coincidentally being right.

[Lacadaemon]

1. Throughout the 2000s. They wrote and spoke about it.
2. Sure, some yes, some not so much.
3. Others have also predicted it, but not on as wide spread a basis.
4. Damn Austrians always have a knack for coincidentally being right.

Hayek also predicted the great depression, way back when everyone was talking about a new plateau of prosperity.

And I think, crazy though Peter Schiff is in other ways, he mapped out pretty well what most of the consequences would be about five years ago.

[Bendira]

1. Throughout the 2000s. They wrote and spoke about it.
2. Sure, some yes, some not so much.
3. Others have also predicted it, but not on as wide spread a basis.
4. Damn Austrians always have a knack for coincidentally being right.

Hayek also predicted the great depression, way back when everyone was talking about a new plateau of prosperity.

And I think, crazy though Peter Schiff is in other ways, he mapped out pretty well what most of the consequences would be about five years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

[Bendira]

1. There is a rather obvious incongruence between your criticism of others for not understanding Austrian economics, when you refuse to explain it and, in fact, have admitted you don't know enough about it to explain it or defend it.

You are telling me what I have said and have not said. There is absolutely nothing incongruent between my criticism of others and my own personal knowledge of Austrian Economics. I am not an economist, nor do I claim to be. I am only familiar with very basic elements of Austrian Economics. When you challenge me to "explain" Austrian Economics, that is a nearly impossible request, given the context it was made in. I am not sure how to explain an entire school of economics. Nor would I be good at it, as I have said before, I am not an economist.

2. Care to respond to the last part of my post?

Additionally, I question how any group of thinkers that believes in a priori truths from which they can deduce all we need to know about human behavior and how we should organize society and who eschew the use of testibillity, statistics, empirical evidence, experiments, etc. seriously can be called "economists" instead of "preachers" or "cultists." It is essentially a religion.

This entire paragraph is based on the assumption that you can accurately predict economic phenomenon using mathematical models and empirical evidence. I will ask you these questions:

1. What makes you believe you can accurately model human behavior with mathematical models?

2. What makes you think it is necessary for a theory to be backed by empirical evidence?

3. As somehow who presumably supports the existence of the state, what school of economics do you "subscribe" too? Can you explain to my why you subscribe to it, what specific theories lead you to this philosophy, and if you feel you could defend this economic theory against someone with extensive knowledge in the field of economics?

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm sure you've gone over this before with others, but indulge me:

1. Exactly when and how did the Austrian School predict "the current mess"?

2. Have the Austrian School made other predictions? Were the accurate or not?

3. What evidence do you have that no other economists predicted "the current mess" with at least as much precision or probability as the Austrian School?

Setting these questions aside, if an astrologer correctly "predicts" my days horoscope, would you consider astrology a reliable source/science?

1. Throughout the 2000s. They wrote and spoke about it.
2. Sure, some yes, some not so much.
3. Others have also predicted it, but not on as wide spread a basis.
4. Damn Austrians always have a knack for coincidentally being right.

Setting aside your other answers for now, your answer to # 1 is so vague as to be a non-answer. Exactly when and how? Give at least one example, please.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. There is a rather obvious incongruence between your criticism of others for not understanding Austrian economics, when you refuse to explain it and, in fact, have admitted you don't know enough about it to explain it or defend it.

You are telling me what I have said and have not said. There is absolutely nothing incongruent between my criticism of others and my own personal knowledge of Austrian Economics. I am not an economist, nor do I claim to be. I am only familiar with very basic elements of Austrian Economics. When you challenge me to "explain" Austrian Economics, that is a nearly impossible request, given the context it was made in. I am not sure how to explain an entire school of economics. Nor would I be good at it, as I have said before, I am not an economist.

2. Care to respond to the last part of my post?

Additionally, I question how any group of thinkers that believes in a priori truths from which they can deduce all we need to know about human behavior and how we should organize society and who eschew the use of testibillity, statistics, empirical evidence, experiments, etc. seriously can be called "economists" instead of "preachers" or "cultists." It is essentially a religion.

This entire paragraph is based on the assumption that you can accurately predict economic phenomenon using mathematical models and empirical evidence. I will ask you these questions:

1. What makes you believe you can accurately model human behavior with mathematical models?

2. What makes you think it is necessary for a theory to be backed by empirical evidence?

3. As somehow who presumably supports the existence of the state, what school of economics do you "subscribe" too? Can you explain to my why you subscribe to it, what specific theories lead you to this philosophy, and if you feel you could defend this economic theory against someone with extensive knowledge in the field of economics?

*sigh*

If you're going to dodge my questions, no reason I should answer yours.

But will try, although I posit counter-questions:

1. I don't necessarily think you can, but I think it is better than nothing or simply making shit up out of thin air. What makes you believe you can accurately model human behavior at all? What makes you believe you can accurate model human behavior based on a priori assumptions better than other methods?

2. Again, I don't, but I am far more likely to believe a theory that is testible and/or supported by evidence than one that is neither. What makes you believe a theory based on a priorI assumptions that are not testible superior to testible theories supported by empirical evidence? How is this different from religious faith?

3. I support the existence of the state and a fairly free capitalist system based on history, human experience, and a long list of copious other factors. I do not believe in any particular school of economics beyond a strong preference for capitalism in general, but a strong objection to a complete absence of government limitations on capitalist excesses. This would be consistent with the works of most major economists I have read, most political philosophers I sympathize with since Adam Smith and John Locke, and with statistics and empirical data I have found/been presented with. Although this position is a bit vague, I believe I could defend it against basic criticisms. I fully admit I would be unlikely to hold my own in a debate with a full-blown economists, but you weren't actually asked to do that -- so that is a cop-out.

My counter-question returns to the same basic issue: Other than it happens to fit your personal paradigm, what basis is there for believing in the Austrian School other than faith? There is no science. No testibility. No experiments. No statistics. No empirical data. There is a fringe school of though harshly rejected in most respects by almost all other economists. How is it authoritative?

[Bendira]

1. I don't necessarily think you can, but I think it is better than nothing or simply making shit up out of thin air. What makes you believe you can accurately model human behavior at all? What makes you believe you can accurate model human behavior based on a priori assumptions better than other methods?

To make shit up out of thin air would be to ignore reality. I am pretty sure Austrian Economics does not do this. I do not believe you can accurately model human behavior at all. A priori knowledge is a positive strategy for making assumptions when dealing with economics for two reasons. I think a priori knowledge is actually quite important in general.

You have a man who walk's into a drug store. When he walks in, a red ball falls off a shelf. Odd. He walks in a different day, and a red ball falls off a shelf. Odd. He walks in a third day, and a red ball falls off a shelf. Odd. This man uses a posteriori knowledge to deduce that every time he walks into this particular drug store, a red ball falls off a shelf. Perhaps he has the ability to move objects with his mind! However, a person using a priori knowledge would be highly critical of this claim. Perhaps it is sheer coincidence? Perhaps some sort of air current from the act of opening and closing the door is causing the red ball to fall off the shelf? I think in this particular case, a posteriori knowledge is the one more likely to lead to an irrational belief. Sure, there seems to be a correlation between this red ball falling and this man entering the store, but it does not mean it is due to mind over matter.

In the same way that a priori knowledge was important in the drug store example, it is important in economics. With so many variables (represented in the example by wind currents or coincidence) it seems foolish to believe that you could collect any sort of empirical evidence from one situation, and be able to apply it to a different situation.

Take, for example, this "empirical" evidence collected from the first mans a posteriori reasoning. The empirical evidence, in his opinion, seems to point to his ability of mind over matter. A similiar case happened to another man in the next town over, with a ball falling in the same way when he entered. Using his "empirical" knowledge he has collected and interpreted, he tells the man it is likely due to his mind over matter abilities. Obviously any rational person would find this absurd. Anybody following a priori reasoning would find this absurd.

Rationalizations and thought experiments made independent of outside influence result in rational results. They do not result in irrational beliefs surrounding the unexplained. When it comes to a field like economics with so many variables, it seems absurd to me to try to collect statistical data, and then predict what will occur next. If you want the equivalent, try to take statistical data now, and predict what the world will be like in 6 months. Try to take statistical data, and predict what the weather will be like in 6 months.

2. Again, I don't, but I am far more likely to believe a theory that is testible and/or supported by evidence than one that is neither. What makes you believe a theory based on a priorI assumptions that are not testible superior to testible theories supported by empirical evidence? How is this different from religious faith?

Austrian Economics is not "untestable". A society that followed the school hasn't existed yet, but it does not make it "untestable". I explained earlier how its actually a posteriori knowledge that leads to irrational beliefs, not typically a priori knowledge.

3. I support the existence of the state and a fairly free capitalist system based on history, human experience, and a long list of copious other factors. I do not believe in any particular school of economics beyond a strong preference for capitalism in general, but a strong objection to a complete absence of government limitations on capitalist excesses. This would be consistent with the works of most major economists I have read, most political philosophers I sympathize with since Adam Smith and John Locke, and with statistics and empirical data I have found/been presented with. Although this position is a bit vague, I believe I could defend it against basic criticisms. I fully admit I would be unlikely to hold my own in a debate with a full-blown economists, but you weren't actually asked to do that -- so that is a cop-out.

So you have absolutely no knowledge of any economic systems whatsoever, without any empirical data to prove your non-existent ideology. Is your faith in the state based on irrational belief alone? Do you have any justification for what you believe whatsoever? Are your criticisms of the "invisible hand" of the free market relevant when you yourself admit you are completely ignorant in the area of economics?

Tell me, what do you base your faith in the current economic system on? And if you do not have faith in the current economic system, then why are you so critical of other school's that claim to hold the answers? If you do not even have a basic understanding of any economic school whatsoever, then where do you get off saying a priori reasoning is not a valid form of thought when pertaining to economics?

My counter-question returns to the same basic issue: Other than it happens to fit your personal paradigm, what basis is there for believing in the Austrian School other than faith? There is no science. No testibility. No experiments. No statistics. No empirical data. There is a fringe school of though harshly rejected in most respects by almost all other economists. How is it authoritative?

People like things that are testable and based on empirical evidence. Yes, I agree. But not everything is testable and can be based on empirical evidence. Whether mathematics hasn't advanced that far, or whether it is just plain impossible, some things simply cannot be accurately modeled mathematically. Economics is one of these. Austrian Economics is a field of thought experiments and a priori reasoning, as it should be. Until mathematics can accurately model particular human emotions and actions, you cannot model economics.

[Bendira]

1. Throughout the 2000s. They wrote and spoke about it.
2. Sure, some yes, some not so much.
3. Others have also predicted it, but not on as wide spread a basis.
4. Damn Austrians always have a knack for coincidentally being right.

Setting aside your other answers for now, your answer to # 1 is so vague as to be a non-answer. Exactly when and how? Give at least one example, please.

http://mises.org/media/4674

[The Adrian Empire]

I tend to avoid sourcing them, just for that reason, though I do subscribe generally to the Austrian theory of economics. Considering any source I give would be little more then showing the reasoning of someone who thinks about economics more then I. I agree with their reasoning, I do follow their theories, but I don't claim it as a source for that reason.

I think it is easy to say "I subscribe to this theory, but I do not source it because it is a theory that is largely criticized". I don't expect anybody to dogmatically follow Austrian Economics, but if you are basing atleast part of your political ideology on it, you must regard it as having some sort of validity.

That isn't the point however, I regard it as correct, and so I base my own personal reasoning on it, I apply that reasoning during debates, I do not source the Austrians because sources my reasoning with yet another person's reasoning is completely inane, logical deduction is indeed capable of proving certain principles, however it is not a proof alone.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I think it is easy to say "I subscribe to this theory, but I do not source it because it is a theory that is largely criticized". I don't expect anybody to dogmatically follow Austrian Economics, but if you are basing atleast part of your political ideology on it, you must regard it as having some sort of validity.

That isn't the point however, I regard it as correct, and so I base my own personal reasoning on it, I apply that reasoning during debates, I do not source the Austrians because sources my reasoning with yet another person's reasoning is completely inane, logical deduction is indeed capable of proving certain principles, however it is not a proof alone.

As I've said I appreciate that line of thought. To be honest it is very annoying to hear people using an appeal to authority by citing some random self-proclaimed economist very few people know who is just saying the same thing you are while being forty times as uselessly verbose. I can argue about logical deduction and your application of it, but it's quite irritating to try this when some people just post a link to the mises institute and claim they're right and there is no room to argue.