Where has Noam Chomsky violated economic principles?

[IcarusAngel]

I thought this would be an interesting question for the ancaps here.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/6541.aspx

In this thread, they claim that Chomsky misunderstands politics, history, and that he has violated a "law" of economics. Like a typical Mises forum thread, they provide no evidence, and offer a handful of made up axioms. They go off into straw men about the validity of Libertarian-Socialism and that Jefferson was right-wing because he owned slaves (perhaps true, bur irrelevant to the points being made about the intellectual framework they operated under).

So, what is an example of a supposed "economic law" that Chomsky has violated in his discussions?

[Conquer or Die]

I'm pretty incompetent when it comes to any discussion of economics and barely literate in philosophy but when it comes to History I'm relatively well versed. It's funny listening to this discussion on Noam Chomsky's character while quoting the same tired line of Rothbard and then understanding one of Lew Rockwell's racist Klanman Thomas DiLorenzo not having a History degree and claiming that the whole known world has been lied to by a group of secret Collectivist agents who perpetuate Abraham Lincoln's false mythos on the world. Hilariously, Thomas Dilorenzo uncovers no new information but does a hypocritical wash job over Abraham Lincoln's policies and character while certainly not paying attention to any historical context.

These stupid fuckheads accept this as an ultimate historical truth and then know MORE than history professors and writers because they are all "statists," and therefore not as smart as they are. Dumb motherfuckers are dumb.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Like a typical Mises forum thread, they provide no evidence, and offer a handful of made up axioms.
Icarus, you have your answer right there. Austrian "Economics" is entirely based on made up axioms. They are right because they say so. Providing evidence goes against their principles.

[trivas7]

Austrian "Economics" is entirely based on made up axioms. They are right because they say so. Providing evidence goes against their principles.
As opposed to Marxian economics which is entirely based on a fantasy?

[Raúl Duke]

So, what is an example of a supposed "economic law" that Chomsky has violated in his discussions?

I'm also intrigued...

Are they claiming he actually violated a "law of economics" or that the stuff that he said is wrong or impossible/wrong to implement because it would violate a "law of economics?"

[Trystan]

As opposed to Marxian economics which is entirely based on a fantasy?

As wrong as Marxism may or may not be, it is still far more sophisticated than Austrian Economics. Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2R5txO28

[trivas7]

As wrong as Marxism may or may not be, it is still far more sophisticated than Austrian Economics.
Mayan mythology is sophisticated. Hindu theology is sophisticated. Nevertheless, both are nonsense.

Yes, Austrian economics derives from an a priori basis, but I deny that sociology and economics can be derived from experiment or qualify as hard science, as the narrator of this video casually assumes.

[Nwoye]

Yes, Austrian economics derives from an a priori basis, but I deny that sociology and economics can be derived from experiment or qualify as hard science, as the narrator of this video casually assumes.
why would psychology not fall under this as well?

[Trystan]

but I deny that sociology and economics can be derived from experiment or qualify as hard science, as the narrator of this video casually assumes.

Why not?

[revolution inaction]

Mayan mythology is sophisticated. Hindu theology is sophisticated. Nevertheless, both are nonsense.

Yes, Austrian economics derives from an a priori basis, but I deny that sociology and economics can be derived from experiment or qualify as hard science, as the narrator of this video casually assumes.

there's a lot of astronomy that doesn't comes from experiments, are you claiming that is not science either?

[trivas7]

there's a lot of astronomy that doesn't comes from experiments, are you claiming that is not science either?
Yes, speculation isn't the scientific method.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yes, Austrian economics derives from an a priori basis, but I deny that sociology and economics can be derived from experiment or qualify as hard science, as the narrator of this video casually assumes.

Then you deny that our minds are part of the material world.

[revolution inaction]

Yes, speculation isn't the scientific method.

it's not a choice between speculation and experimentation though is it? you've completely left out observation. and speculation is a necessary part of science.

[trivas7]

it's not a choice between speculation and experimentation though is it? you've completely left out observation. and speculation is a necessary part of science.
OTC, hypothesis and observation are intrinsic parts of the scientific method, but neither of which alone constitute the scientific method. Many experiments verify astronomical theories, but wildly speculative theories, e.g. string theory, have not been yet been tested in the laboratory. There is no laboratory to test the Marxian theory of historical materialism (indeed, it is a philosophical construct therefore unfalsifiable) or the speculations of Weber and other sociologists. Ergo they aren't scientific.

[IcarusAngel]

There are many scientific methods that are used for certain situations. The scientific method is not all "experimentation," I don't know who says that other than someone who is not a science. Oberservation, data collecting, and even serendipity play a role in the scientific method.

For example, when we observe our solar system, we discover certain principles that scientists extrapolate on and apply to other parts of the Universe. Only if conflicting data came in would the theory be invalidated, which is what makes it scientific - it is falsifiable. Evolution is much the same way; in evolution, scientists make observations about bones, determine dates from carbon dating, and so on, and collect this data into their theories, which thus explain it. Thus, some theories come to be established without "experimentation."

I don't think anybody has ever seen electrons directly, but they exist, based upon our observations, not necessarily demonstrations.

String theory hasn't been completed but if it could be shown to be correct it would be like relativity - it would be accepted. Astronomy has all the trappings of science, data about the universe, standards of measurement, observations, and some testing as well it is a science.

I agree economics isn't a science but it can be deductive and scientific thinking can be applied. They do this in psychology, where they come to learn more facts about the human mind. For example, it has been shown that certain parts of the brain cause humans to feel sympathy for other humans, and this would invalidate any theory that says humans are completely selfish. The reason why economic is because it is based upon many things like "the most rational choice" and "most effective system" when these things can vary from person to person, and are not concrete like scientific laws. And of course, there is also the fact that what happens in economics largely depends upon what the government is doing and how the government has created the laws (laws aren't 'created' in real science, they just exist).

But either way you look at it, Austrianism fails. It fails if economics is more deductive and experimental social science that attempts to determine the best way to run an economic system, and it fails if it is considered a hard science that would combine the input of the other sciences like psychology, because in real science you don't ascribe what you can't explain to some mythical force. It is just nonsense.

If humans were robots though, then economics could be a science, much like a computer robot can be analyzed and you know what a robot will do in nearly every situation, or at least, you know exactly why he will do it, what makes him do it. That is another big thing that separates real science from social science.

[trivas7]

why would psychology not fall under this as well?
No one claims psychology is hard science.



But either way you look at it, Austrianism fails. It fails if economics is more deductive and experimental social science that attempts to determine the best way to run an economic system, [...]

I don't know what you mean to say. Austrian economics is deduced from an a priori. How is this a failure?

I deny that there is a social science that attempts to determine the best way to run an economy. Marxism is an ideology, not economics.

[Nwoye]

No one claims psychology is hard science.
but psychology is quite literally the study of human action (or cognition at least). if praxeology argues that we cannot rely on observation of past human action (completely rejecting empirical evidence), and that we must rely entirely on a priori concepts, then we naturally have to completely disregard the entire study of psychology - a field of study completely dependent on the scientific observation of human thought and action, and lacking any a priori concepts.

so if you accept praxeology, you must reject any psychological study ever done ever in the history of ever.

[trivas7]

[...] so if you accept praxeology, you must reject any psychological study ever done ever in the history of ever.
No, this doesn't follow at all.

Like other Austrian economists, Mises rejected the use of observation, saying that human actors are too complex to be reduced to their component parts and too self-conscious not to have their behaviour affected by the very act of observation. Observation of human action, or extrapolation from historical data, would thus always be contaminated by overlooked factors in a way that the natural sciences would not be.

To counter the subjective nature of the results of historical and statistical analysis, Mises looked at the logical structure of human action. In other words, he built on the methodological aspect of economics, the synthetic a priori.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_a_priori)

[Nwoye]

No, this doesn't follow at all.

Like other Austrian economists, Mises rejected the use of observation, saying that human actors are too complex to be reduced to their component parts and too self-conscious not to have their behaviour affected by the very act of observation. Observation of human action, or extrapolation from historical data, would thus always be contaminated by overlooked factors in a way that the natural sciences would not be.

To counter the subjective nature of the results of historical and statistical analysis, Mises looked at the logical structure of human action. In other words, he built on the methodological aspect of economics, the synthetic a priori.
This is a direct quote from the wikipedia article for praxeology. really pro stuff there. In any case, the study of psychology has no a priori concepts to work from, in fact the whole field is based on applying the scientific method to human action. Therefore, praxeology invalidates the entire feild of psychology.

I found a Mises.org article on this very subject, which you can find here (http://mises.org/story/1351). Unfortunately, it sucked, and didn't address the argument at all. But I guess that's what you get from Mises.org. His conclusion went like this:
[T]he Austrian methodological position remains solid. It is true that other disciplines dealing with human beings, such as psychology, can make use of the experimental method. However, insofar as one believes (as Mises did) that economics proper is a subset of praxeology, then it is clear that all economic theorems must be logically deduced from the action axiom. From the Austrian perspective, to copy the methods of the physicists is to entirely misconceive the nature and purpose of economic theory.
His conclusion did not address why psychology may use the scientific method, and his argument that economists can is a massive assumption.

[trivas7]

In any case, the study of psychology has no a priori concepts to work from, in fact the whole field is based on applying the scientific method to human action. Therefore, praxeology invalidates the entire feild of psychology.

This is nonsense.


I found a Mises.org article on this very subject, which you can find here (http://mises.org/story/1351). Unfortunately, it sucked, and didn't address the argument at all.
You didn't make an argument, just a statement: praxeology invalidates psychology.

[Nwoye]

You didn't make an argument, just a statement: praxeology invalidates psychology.
"but psychology is quite literally the study of human action (or cognition at least). if praxeology argues that we cannot rely on observation of past human action (completely rejecting empirical evidence), and that we must rely entirely on a priori concepts, then we naturally have to completely disregard the entire study of psychology - a field of study completely dependent on the scientific observation of human thought and action, and lacking any a priori concepts.

so if you accept praxeology, you must reject any psychological study ever done ever in the history of ever."

...

[More Fire for the People]

http://mises.org (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/6541.aspx)
I stopped reading here.

[PRC-UTE]

Yes, Austrian economics derives from an a priori basis, but I deny that sociology and economics can be derived from experiment or qualify as hard science, as the narrator of this video casually assumes.

there's a difference, though: Marxists study material conditions and exisitng struggles, they learn through mistakes and alters future practice accordingly.

whereas libertarians just whine that economics should go back in time to the 18th century.

[trivas7]

there's a difference, though: Marxists study material conditions and exisitng struggles, they learn through mistakes and alters future practice accordingly.
OTC, "material conditions and existing struggles" are code names for philosophical constructs that have no basis in reality.

[Pogue]

OTC, "material conditions and existing struggles" are code names for philosophical constructs that have no basis in reality.

Huh? No they are not, material conditions are just that, the material conditions, i.e. whether or nota region is isolated, poor, etc.

Existing struggles are struggles which exist. Simple really. These are not philosophical concepts.

[trivas7]

Huh? No they are not, material conditions are just that, the material conditions, i.e. whether or nota region is isolated, poor, etc.

Existing struggles are struggles which exist. Simple really. These are not philosophical concepts.
Ah, I see your conditioned training took, comrade! :)

[Octobox]

When speaking of Austrian Economics firstly there are many different schools -- lots of disagreement. So, why lump the whole system of ideas?

When speaking of the Mises Institute you are addressing many arguing factions: 1) Mises vs Rothbard and 2) Paul vs All. Mises appears to be a pretty big house.

I agree DiLorenzo's conclusions on Abraham Lincoln are false -- yet a few of his premises ring true. To defeat his argument is simple fact that the North did not want to subsidize slavery (he was right there), north did not want England to gain control of the south (economically speaking) - right again, the north was overtly taxing the south, and the north ABSOLUTELY did not want to adopt all the freed slaves. I agree with him that Lincoln wanted a stronger Central Authority and wanted to usher in Centralized Banking (zero competing currencies).

Chomsky is of no consequence (he'll be dead soon). I like a lot of his ideas regarding psychology and linguistics. His socio-economic commentary should be no more powerful (given credence too) then Jackie Mason "The Ultimate Jew" (youtube).

I try to argue as much from my own view point as possible -- creating terms as needed and never locking down to one system of thought.

I can say Marx was not 100% wrong can you guys say that Rothbard or Mises got some principles right -- or does absolutism create for better blood-sport in these forums?

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky's research on the Vietnam and Third World Wars has found its way into mainstream American academia, in the so-called humanities. We studied Chomsky as part of International Relations in a social science class I took in college. He's widely regarded as one of the most famous critics of US foreign policy in history.

His continued slamming of right-wing Libertarianism and corporate fascism is a big reason why it is not accepted by anybody at the intellectual level. His refutations of them are clear, logical, and are agreed to by most reasonable people.

His revolution in linguistics has had implications from everything from computer science to psychology.

Mises on the other hand is a fading star in economics and even in the pseudo-sciences and nobody remembers anything he or the other pseudoscientists did, except for a few trolls online, like at Mises forums.

He did nothing of consequence, and made no useful contributions to humanity.

Hack historians like DiLorenzo aren't even worth paying attention to either.

[Conquer or Die]

I agree DiLorenzo's conclusions on Abraham Lincoln are false -- yet a few of his premises ring true. To defeat his argument is simple fact that the North did not want to subsidize slavery (he was right there), north did not want England to gain control of the south (economically speaking) - right again, the north was overtly taxing the south, and the north ABSOLUTELY did not want to adopt all the freed slaves. I agree with him that Lincoln wanted a stronger Central Authority and wanted to usher in Centralized Banking (zero competing currencies).

My main problem with Dilorenzo is that he used no original research or claims for his book. He just adapted mostly pro-racist treasonous thought for a pernicious brand of libertarianism.

My second problem is that his argument hinges primarily on two critical things: the speeches/letters of abraham lincoln and the unconstitutionality of the war. To the latter point; he never seems to adequately defend its unconstitutionality. To the former point; he is selective in what speeches and letters he chooses to villify Lincoln with and this is dumb for obvious reasons (like the fact that Lincoln had mixed opinions on everything, that people change their mind, that Lincoln was a politician).

He also fails to address the initial success of the reconstruction and how former slaves came into some major political power after the war. If it wasn't for the republican party's corruption in the middle of the 1870s then we would be looking at a very different south.

For what it's worth I actually find southern populism sort of a good thing (the racism being a critical component of why it's flawed) and I also looked to the Claremont Institute and the Hoover Institution for my first forays into alternate views of this negativity on Lincoln. Lincoln was a complex man in complex times and Dilorenzo is a walking douchebag.

[Octobox]

My main problem with Dilorenzo is that he used no original research or claims for his book. He just adapted mostly pro-racist treasonous thought for a pernicious brand of libertarianism.

My second problem is that his argument hinges primarily on two critical things: the speeches/letters of abraham lincoln and the unconstitutionality of the war. To the latter point; he never seems to adequately defend its unconstitutionality. To the former point; he is selective in what speeches and letters he chooses to villify Lincoln with and this is dumb for obvious reasons (like the fact that Lincoln had mixed opinions on everything, that people change their mind, that Lincoln was a politician).

He also fails to address the initial success of the reconstruction and how former slaves came into some major political power after the war. If it wasn't for the republican party's corruption in the middle of the 1870s then we would be looking at a very different south.

For what it's worth I actually find southern populism sort of a good thing (the racism being a critical component of why it's flawed) and I also looked to the Claremont Institute and the Hoover Institution for my first forays into alternate views of this negativity on Lincoln. Lincoln was a complex man in complex times and Dilorenzo is a walking douchebag.


Hahahahaha -- Nice dismount at the end there.

I agree with everything you said save one thing. The War was un-constitutional in the sense that it was within the rights (given each state) to succeed. The North was putting ever progressive taxes on the South.

I have no "proof" of this (yet history rings it true) -- The "masters" of North and South made out very well from all wars and all taxes -- Just as corporations benefit from every enviromental law, fines, and taxes.

The tobacco industry has reaped massive profits and all the fines heaped on them were paid by the consumer and tax payer.

Big Gov't Intervention lacks the Entrepreneurs Moxy (it's the swill of non-competitive thinking) and the Consumers Wisdom (if allowed to fully suffer the consequences).

My point is Corporatist and Big Gov't always collude.

The rare "good intentioned politician" will have his/her movement hijacked -- Ron Paul's HR 1207 will be hijacked. They will use it to usher in IMF Bank Management as more of US Military Authority is being transferred to U.N.

760 Military Bases in 130 Countries and we wonder where our purchasing power is going.

hahahahaha *sob* *snot bubble*

[Conquer or Die]

Hahahahaha -- Nice dismount at the end there.

If it wasn't for Fat Tommy I wouldn't be a communist. So maybe I should be thanking him.


I agree with everything you said save one thing. The War was un-constitutional in the sense that it was within the rights (given each state) to succeed. The North was putting ever progressive taxes on the South.

Lysander Spooner's No Treason was a compelling argument for the right of states to succeed but Lincoln's move had historical precedent and a firm constitutional basis. The south's secession moves were hotly contested in border states and the fact that the south created a klepto fascist state reduced the idea of rebellion to a mere idealogical outburst of the power structure.

In short, the whole thing is incredibly complex on philosophical and legal grounds. It's impossible to reject any position out of hand. Even Spooner recognized this.

The idea of overtaxation of the south by the north is incredibly overplayed. Dilorenzo "disagrees" with the assessment in Roll, Jordan Roll yet the south's economy in the 1830s and 1840s was incredibly strong. Moreover, the real reason for the aggression of the democrats was to expand the power of the slaveocracy into the west, perhaps to challenge parts of Mexico in addition to strengthening alliances with slave owning indian territories.

If the south succeeded it meant an extension of the slaveocracy and more war with the north. If we follow this path then we not only include Mexico into the picture, but also Russia, France, and Great Britain.

The south succeeding fucks up a whole lot of things.


I have no "proof" of this (yet history rings it true) -- The "masters" of North and South made out very well from all wars and all taxes -- Just as corporations benefit from every enviromental law, fines, and taxes.

Black people made out pretty well from the Civil War. There's no denying that the Republican party completely failed the progressive motives of the Civil War; and this is the real failure of "big government."



Big Gov't Intervention lacks the Entrepreneurs Moxy (it's the swill of non-competitive thinking) and the Consumers Wisdom (if allowed to fully suffer the consequences).

I don't really agree with the state/non state diametric that libertarians believe so I can't really agree with the notion that "big government" north somehow violated "revolutionary" south in any way.


My point is Corporatist and Big Gov't always collude.

I don't disagree with this. I just disagree with the notion that state = automatically evil and unregulated capitalism = automatically good.


The rare "good intentioned politician" will have his/her movement hijacked -- Ron Paul's HR 1207 will be hijacked. They will use it to usher in IMF Bank Management as more of US Military Authority is being transferred to U.N.

760 Military Bases in 130 Countries and we wonder where our purchasing power is going.

hahahahaha *sob* *snot bubble*

Of course the American military is more privatized than ever.

[trivas7]

I can say Marx was not 100% wrong can you guys say that Rothbard or Mises got some principles right -- or does absolutism create for better blood-sport in these forums?
Apparently that's the intent of RevLeft's cookie-cutter version of it.

[Idealism]

Marxism is an ideology, not economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_economics

[trivas7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_economics
Don't believe everything you read. :D

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Don't believe everything you read. :D

So why do you continue to spout Misean drivel?

[Judicator]

They see "libertarian socialism" as a contradiction in terms if libertarianism implies the protection of exclusively negative rights, while socialism implies coerced transfers of wealth.

[Judicator]

Read before spouting nonsense.

I guess I'd be interested in knowing how you have a socialist revolution without removing wealth from the hands of the capitalists. Even if they acquired it unjustly you still have to coerce them to get it back.

Sure, maybe under the socialist system you don't have private property and therefore private transfers of wealth would be meaningless. But then of course this might violate libertarian ideas about individual rights to have private property if you're actively preventing it.

[Nwoye]

I guess I'd be interested in knowing how you have a socialist revolution without removing wealth from the hands of the capitalists. Even if they acquired it unjustly you still have to coerce them to get it back.
If it was acquired unjustly (which even guys like Nozick have conceded) then there is nothing wrong with taking it back or redistributing it - with force if necessary.


Sure, maybe under the socialist system you don't have private property and therefore private transfers of wealth would be meaningless. But then of course this might violate libertarian ideas about individual rights to have private property if you're actively preventing it.
There are other schools of thought within the broad umbrella term libertarian. Hell libertarianism was originally an anarchist (therefore socialist) movement.

[Judicator]

If it was acquired unjustly (which even guys like Nozick have conceded) then there is nothing wrong with taking it back or redistributing it - with force if necessary.

Right so then I guess the debate is about whether or not it was acquired unjustly. Socialists say yes, Mises-style Libertarians say no.


There are other schools of thought within the broad umbrella term libertarian. Hell libertarianism was originally an anarchist (therefore socialist) movement.

Liberalism was originally Libertarianism - I guess everyone steals/borrows other peoples' terminology.

[Nwoye]

Right so then I guess the debate is about whether or not it was acquired unjustly. Socialists say yes, Mises-style Libertarians say no.
I think it would be almost idiotic for Right-Libertarians to deny that a significant amount of modern day property was originally acquired unjustly, or at least not according to the "mix your labor" criterion that they hold up as proper justification. I'll quote Mos Def to illustrate:
Don't hate me, my folks is poor, I just got money
America's five centuries deep in cotton money
You see a lot of brothers caked up, yo straight up
It's new, Y'all living off of slave traders paper
In addition to the family fortunes created through the slave trade there was the government literally just giving land to railroad companies, granting monopolies to oil companies, and allowing various companies to manipulate market forces via intellectual "property" law (which is still going on today). Going back even further you have the forceful expropriation of the native americans from their land and the resulting economic exploitation. In cases where we have documented evidence of unjustly created wealth, Libertarians have no argument against immediate seizure and redistribution. Robert Nozick has in fact conceded this point and in an attempt to right past wrongs has supported a Rawlsian approach to wealth redistribution.


Liberalism was originally Libertarianism - I guess everyone steals/borrows other peoples' terminology.This is slightly misleading. The american liberals of the 19th century who are today characterized as libertarians (the "classical" liberals) did in many cases recognize the concepts of wage slavery and the crippling effect of generational poverty. Many supported governmental policies to curb the effects of poverty that resemble the welfare-capitalist policies that modern day liberals have instituted.

So there is a line of continuity between "classical" and modern liberalism, although I won't deny that the philosophy has changed significantly.