Adam Smith, Austrian economics DEBUNKED

[☭World Views]

Who else is tired of people bashing Marxism based on disinformation given out by the mass media monopolized by corporate oligarchs?

Some say "Marxism is a pseudo science" or "Marxism doesn't account for human nature". Obvious lies that have been exposed elsewhere on here.

What I suggest we do is that we compile info in this thread(or in another thread) to thoroughly expose Adam Smith and Austrian economics!!!


Please, let info in this thread be factual, and not based on disinformation like the kind given by the capitalists about revolutionary leftism. WE MUST HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE MURDEROUS CAPITALISTS! Things to avoid, vague statements like these:

"Adam Smith was an okay guy, the problem is that he didn't know what he was talking about. His theories are unworkable in practice and go against human nature. All of his predictions were wrong and were refuted by Marxian economics a long time ago"

If someone were to elaborate on facts, then it could be used.

[ontheyslay]

Anarchist Faq has loads of stuff debunking Austrian and other Free Market economic theory. Pretty much everything you could think of. I would suggest looking there as well.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well one argument that could of course be used is the one about a true free market being devoid of government intervention. This is troublesome since if you lose your job you're pretty much fucked. I'm not sure where you would find actual facts and details about that one though.

[Demogorgon]

Adam Smith is a long way from Austrian Economics. In many ways the Austrian School was specifically about refuting many of Smith's theories. Theories that heavily influenced Marx, I must say.

As for the Austrian School, well it is (literal) pseudo-science owing to being no more than a priori dogmatics. YOu can find a pretty good refutation of it here
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

It isn't taken very seriously as a school of thought. You won't find many articles from an Austrian perspective in economic journals for instance.

[9]

Does anarcho-capitalism even need "debunking"? I mean, was it ever "bunked" to begin with? The flaws and fallacies are glaringly evident, and I don't think there was ever a time when this was not the case. So "debunking" something that is obviously bullshit is sort of a pointless endeavor. I don't think this should be a focus of revolutionaries at all, it is a waste of time.

[Lymos]

I'm biased towards the free market but that's kind of a bad summary.

Have you forgotten that it was Ron Paul who broke the news of a recession in the mainstream before any major news outlet did? Have you also forgotten that this was the same guy who fought tooth and nail against the Federal Reserve before most people knew why that was worth going against?

That's all Austrian economics right there.

And please an anarchist supporting fiat money over hard assets?

An anarchist who doesn't admit that government bureaucracy doesn't have a huge impact on business cycles?

An anarchist who rely on statistics when there is more statistical proof of government than anarchy?

Kinda hypocritical for any anarchist to feel more offended by Austrian economics than the rest that is out there.

[Demogorgon]

I'm biased towards the free market but that's kind of a bad summary.

Have you forgotten that it was Ron Paul who broke the news of a recession in the mainstream before any major news outlet did? Say what? It was reported pretty much instantly. What you might mean is that he predicted it, but we will come to that in a minute. Suffice to say others had more accurate predictions.


Have you also forgotten that this was the same guy who fought tooth and nail against the Federal Reserve before most people knew why that was worth going against?The problem with central banks in general is that they have not been flexible enough with the money supply. Paul's proposed solution is to remove all possible flexibility altogether. In other words, making things worse.


That's all Austrian economics right there.What you mean is that it supposedly predicted it. The problem is it constantly predicts crises that never happen. If I predict that I will die today every single day, I will eventually be right, but that won't mean there is anything sound in my methodology or that I am doing anything else than making blind stabs at what is going on.


And please an anarchist supporting fiat money over hard assets?

An anarchist who doesn't admit that government bureaucracy doesn't have a huge impact on business cycles?

An anarchist who rely on statistics when there is more statistical proof of government than anarchy?

Kinda hypocritical for any anarchist to feel more offended by Austrian economics than the rest that is out there.
I'm not an anarchist, but all the same what the hell does half that crap even mean. "More statistical proof of Government than anarchy", say what?

I love this dismissal of empirical evidence though. It is the reason your dogma will never be anything more than an object of ridicule.

[Lymos]

Say what? It was reported pretty much instantly. What you might mean is that he predicted it, but we will come to that in a minute. Suffice to say others had more accurate predictions.

I think a minute has passed by your time and you still haven't come back to it.

Also in terms of mainstream media, it wasn't reported instantly. Instantly would be reporting it before the recession got this bad since a recession isn't just a magical storm you just wake up into.


What you mean is that it supposedly predicted it. The problem is it constantly predicts crises that never happen. If I predict that I will die today every single day, I will eventually be right, but that won't mean there is anything sound in my methodology or that I am doing anything else than making blind stabs at what is going on.

Yes, it did predict it. You can say it supposedly predicted it IF it just suddenly jumped on the bandwagon.

Your criticism also applies to all of economics.

Again, your analogy is once again a bad example because a recession is a gradual shift and not a magical Hurricane that one day swept you and Dorothy to the Land of Oz.


I'm not an anarchist, but all the same what the hell does half that crap even mean. "More statistical proof of Government than anarchy", say what?

It means that if you look at statistics, more people live and believe in governments than anarchy.

It's in the same boat as anarchy and oh you're not an anarchist but the post was directed at the general populace of RevLeft. Kind of a low blow for you to point that out.


I love this dismissal of empirical evidence though. It is the reason your dogma will never be anything more than an object of ridicule.

I'm the one dismissing empirical evidence? You're the one who basically just equated Austrian economics with Astrology while giving "mainstream economics" a free pass.

Oh and as for being ridiculed? Most anarchists are used to people ridiculing the idea of anarchy so that's nothing new for most of the members of this forum. Alot of things become object of ridicule.

Before this recession, the idea of a recession was an object of ridicule.

[Demogorgon]

I think a minute has passed by your time and you still haven't come back to it.Yes I did. I pointed out that Austrians predict crises constantly. The fact that one finally came along doesn't mean the predictions were accurate. Recessions are part of the capitalist economic cycle, we all know they will come, Austrians however constantly claim there will be disaster. Claims that are not exactly borne out.


Also in terms of mainstream media, it wasn't reported instantly. Instantly would be reporting it before the recession got this bad since a recession isn't just a magical storm you just wake up into.

I recall about a year to eighteen months of discussing the looming downturn before the banking crises hit. Anyone who failed to see the warning signs was either uninterested in the subject or only seeing what they wanted to see. You certainly didn't need to read any economic journals or anything to see what was coming. Hell I made a bunch of posts here discussing looming problems and I'm not exactly at the cutting edge of the field.


Yes, it did predict it. You can say it supposedly predicted it IF it just suddenly jumped on the bandwagon.No, because it has made random claims of disaster for its entire history. The fact that there is a problem now (that doesn't much look like the Austrian version of disasters) doesn't say much about the theory. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.


Again, your analogy is once again a bad example because a recession is a gradual shift and not a magical Hurricane that one day swept you and Dorothy to the Land of Oz.

No, it is part of a cycle, but it does happen quite quickly because once the lenders started losing confidence, things spiraled out of control. Nevertheless my point stands. For decades Austrians have claimed economic apocalypse is looming, but it has never happened. Each time there is a recession they think they have been vindicated and each time they are proven wrong. Now if we had the Gold Standard, we probably would collpase into depression, but that is the opposite of what they believe.


It means that if you look at statistics, more people live and believe in governments than anarchy.And? Would that make those statistics false. You seem to be saying that facts should be discarded when they are inconvenient.


It's in the same boat as anarchy and oh you're not an anarchist but the post was directed at the general populace of RevLeft. Kind of a low blow for you to point that out.
This is a leftist site, with leftists of different varieties. Not just anarchists. And besides the anarchists here certainly won't consider you an anarchist given you back Austrian economics.


I'm the one dismissing empirical evidence? You're the one who basically just equated Austrian economics with Astrology while giving "mainstream economics" a free pass.I have been accused of many things, but giving mainstream economics a "free pass" must be a new one. I have criticised it over and over for a whole number of things. However the fact that it is willing to take into account facts and use mathematics still makes it vastly superior to the Austrian school.


Oh and as for being ridiculed? Most anarchists are used to people ridiculing the idea of anarchy so that's nothing new for most of the members of this forum. Alot of things become object of ridicule. You certainly are not an anarchist.

Anyway, Austrianism is ridiculed because it is hopelessly unscientific. It is the equivalent of approaching astronomer and telling them the Sun orbits the Earth and that all their evidence to the contrary is meaningless as only a priori knowledge counts (and that this knowledge happens to be that the Sun orbits the Earth).


Before this recession, the idea of a recession was an object of ridicule.
What on earth is this nonsense? Recessions come around with every economic cycle (about once every ten years), who thought that was ridiculous?

[Lymos]

Yes I did. I pointed out that Austrians predict crises constantly. The fact that one finally came along doesn't mean the predictions were accurate. Recessions are part of the capitalist economic cycle, we all know they will come, Austrians however constantly claim there will be disaster. Claims that are not exactly borne out.That's not coming back to the specifics of what Ron Paul did. That's creating a straw man.


I recall about a year to eighteen months of discussing the looming downturn before the banking crises hit. Anyone who failed to see the warning signs was either uninterested in the subject or only seeing what they wanted to see. You certainly didn't need to read any economic journals or anything to see what was coming. Hell I made a bunch of posts here discussing looming problems and I'm not exactly at the cutting edge of the field.Lol @ months. How about you do it in years like the Austrians did?

Also if you just discussed it instead of warning everyone about it, you really have very little sympathy for the people around you or you didn't quite predict it as well as the Austrians did.


No, because it has made random claims of disaster for its entire history. The fact that there is a problem now (that doesn't much look like the Austrian version of disasters) doesn't say much about the theory. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.Again, until you can create a decent analogy that doesn't involve equating the recession with a horoscope reading, your reasoning is weak.


No, it is part of a cycle, but it does happen quite quickly because once the lenders started losing confidence, things spiraled out of control. Nevertheless my point stands. For decades Austrians have claimed economic apocalypse is looming, but it has never happened. Each time there is a recession they think they have been vindicated and each time they are proven wrong. Now if we had the Gold Standard, we probably would collpase into depression, but that is the opposite of what they believe.You lost credibility when you made the nevertheless part. Looks like even if there's a bit you agree with Austrians, you're willing to pull back to your straw man so that you don't have to admit that there's a little bit of validity in what the Austrians say.

Also way to transform your analogy of an instant "they just happened to luck out" metaphor with a "it is part of a cycle but a quick one".

Makes it less obvious that Austrians aren't total bunk as you would like everyone else to think.


And? Would that make those statistics false. You seem to be saying that facts should be discarded when they are inconvenient.Maybe the fact that there are lots of people here who are anti-government and pro-anarchy?

Unless you suddenly want to claim that just because most anarchists are anti-anarchocapitalism here that said statement doesn't apply to them.

If anything, you are the one who seems to like turning predictions that become facts and discard them as convenient luck.

I'm not saying throw out stats. I'm saying there's more to facts than statistics and the Austrians are not wrong just because they are highly skeptical on relying on such statistics.


This is a leftist site, with leftists of different varieties. Not just anarchists. And besides the anarchists here certainly won't consider you an anarchist given you back Austrian economics.Like I said low blow and you missed the point.

Like any forum, I didn't claim that only anarchists are here although you're right, I did think this was an anarchist site.

The point however was that it was unnecessary to say you weren't an anarchist or to say that anarchists might not believe I am one in the context of the post.

That was still showing how many people statistically believe in governments than anarchy. Doesn't automatically make those people correct just because the statistics back them nor does it make all anarchists absolutely wrong.

That was why the summary was poor. It kept making it seem that just because you were the majority or the mainstream, it automatically makes a minority incorrect 100% even if they got some things right.


I have been accused of many things, but giving mainstream economics a "free pass" must be a new one. I have criticised it over and over for a whole number of things. However the fact that it is willing to take into account facts and use mathematics still makes it vastly superior to the Austrian school.Vastly superior enough not to make a recession worse or warn people earlier before it got this bad?

If that's a new one, welcome to hearing new opinions.

Math is not perfect. As for facts, that's a loose and vague term in this context.


You certainly are not an anarchist.

Anyway, Austrianism is ridiculed because it is hopelessly unscientific. It is the equivalent of approaching astronomer and telling them the Sun orbits the Earth and that all their evidence to the contrary is meaningless as only a priori knowledge counts (and that this knowledge happens to be that the Sun orbits the Earth).Whatever you want to tag me as.

Still another poor analogy.

For one thing, not all astronomers are anti-hearing others' opinions/facts.

Another thing is that only a poor scientist would believe anything on hearsay.

Of course, that's kind of what you were banking on with that analogy. The idea that I or other people will give you a free pass on the superiority of common knowledge as if anything that's scientifically proven immediately becomes dogma. Like say there's zero chance that one day quantum physics would exist because science already knows all about physics in a certain era.

Another thing you ignore is that most of humanity can also be very unscientific or did that "mysterious business cycle that is deep and poorly understood" went over your head?

Economics is not polling. There is no linear superiority over one or the other. It's about what it can contribute and predict correctly (regardless of whether you want to give the system credit or no credit.)


What on earth is this nonsense? Recessions come around with every economic cycle (about once every ten years), who thought that was ridiculous?Hmm... I don't know. Probably like someone who knew it months ago but felt it was just worth "discussing".

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I'm biased towards Austrian economics myself as well. I think it all comes down to the fact that government intervention in the economy always benefits and expands the power of the ruling class. Plus, mainstream economists think of themselves as scientists which is obviously laughable.

[Demogorgon]

Before I begin, I must ask, do you actually know any economics? I mean beyond a few articles on the Mises.org website? Because a lot of what you are saying is just bizarre. It's not even like the usual mistakes people make when it comes to economics. It is just plain left field craziness.

Lol @ months. How about you do it in years like the Austrians did?Oh, so they predicted it would happen in 2007/8 years ago, did they? Predicting economic trouble isn't just saying it will happen at some unspecified date. A toddler can do that. It is about predicting exactly when it will hit and how the nature of the trouble will play out. Austrians can say all they like that they predicted this, but the fact is they did not. It is like predicting there will be a solar eclipse but giving no specifics as to when it will happen or from what part of the world it will be visible and then claiming you are a good astronomer when it comes around.

There is not an economist on earth of any persuasion who has ever claimed there will be no economic crisis. Indeed much of the study of economics is based on studying the patterns that emerge between boom periods and recessions. Giving predictions that were actually less accurate than everyone else's is not very impressive.


Also if you just discussed it instead of warning everyone about it, you really have very little sympathy for the people around you or you didn't quite predict it as well as the Austrians did.What? :lol: The fact that there would be a recession at some point in the not so distant future was undisputed. This is what I mean about you making utterly left field claims. I made posts explaining what would happen when there was next a recession. I did not do this based on any particularly prodigious ability in economics but simply from knowledge of how the economic cycle works out. Something that everybody who has ever studied economics knows.


Again, until you can create a decent analogy that doesn't involve equating the recession with a horoscope reading, your reasoning is weak.But that is what the Austrian School is. Because it refuses to use empirical evidence, soothsaying is pretty much all it is.


You lost credibility when you made the nevertheless part. Looks like even if there's a bit you agree with Austrians, you're willing to pull back to your straw man so that you don't have to admit that there's a little bit of validity in what the Austrians say.

Also way to transform your analogy of an instant "they just happened to luck out" metaphor with a "it is part of a cycle but a quick one".Again you show your lack of knowledge of the subject. If you knew anything at all about economics, you would know the economic cycle was a fact of life in our current economic model and that recessions keep coming around. It is one of our main criticisms of capitalism. I pointed out that Austrians simply predict crises constantly, are usually wrong, and when recession comes around proudly proclaim they were right all along before things move on again and they are left looking like fools. Yet again.

At any rate what they predict is actually the reverse of what happens. What they want is to vindicate the gold standard by showing that these downturns cause a monetary disaster (which is actually what happened under the Gold Standard). The opposite happens however because the money supply can be expanded and the edge is taken off the crisis. Indeed, as an aside, that is why countries whose Governments acted quickly are already out of recession. Not exactly what would happen if the Austrians were right.


Maybe the fact that there are lots of people here who are anti-government and pro-anarchy?Well the "statistics" you cite don't disprove anarchy in any way, they are about current public opinion, not the results of anarchical society. However if there were a set of statistics that rubbished anarchist theory then (if correct) it would mean anarchism was useless, not that the statistics were irrelevant. See the difference?


I'm not saying throw out stats. I'm saying there's more to facts than statistics and the Austrians are not wrong just because they are highly skeptical on relying on such statistics.They ignore empirical data in favour of "a priori knowledge". That is just dogmatism and the reason why Austrian economics is not scientifically valid.



The point however was that it was unnecessary to say you weren't an anarchist or to say that anarchists might not believe I am one in the context of the post.It was necessary to point out I am not an anarchist because it is necessary to establish that I cannot speak for them. I don't see why you are taking that so personally. As for how they will see you. Well that is just fact. They'll treat you the same as every other "anarcho-capitalist" who has ventured here before.


Vastly superior enough not to make a recession worse or warn people earlier before it got this bad?Like I say, go and read what has actually been written on the subject and what has been done before you make stupid comments like that. Of course mainstream economists have made a mess of things, but they have still done better than the Austrians and at any rate have somewhat mitigated the crises. And in countries like Norway and France that acted quite decisively they are already out of recession.


If that's a new one, welcome to hearing new opinions.Oh for heaven's sake, that's not an opinion, just an idiot accusation thrown out by somebody who doesn't know my views but still thinks he can spout off about them. I have made hundreds, perhaps even thousands of posts here attempting to debunk mainstream economics and the conventional assumptions in the area. Saying I give it a free pass is ridiculous.

I just don't happen to be of the opinion that you should replace something bad with something far worse.


Math is not perfect. As for facts, that's a loose and vague term in this context.:lol:


For one thing, not all astronomers are anti-hearing others' opinions/facts.
I doubt many astronomers would pay the slightest heed to someone claiming the sun orbits the earth and presenting no evidence other than "intrinsic knowledge". Same with the reaction of real economists to the Austrians.
[quote]
Of course, that's kind of what you were banking on with that analogy. The idea that I or other people will give you a free pass on the superiority of common knowledge as if anything that's scientifically proven immediately becomes dogma. Like say there's zero chance that one day quantum physics would exist because science already knows all about physics in a certain era.[quote]Quantum physics was developed through rigorous science and was tested against empirical data. If somebody came along one day presenting no evidence and simply claiming to know that it was correct, no one would pay the slightest heed.

[Demogorgon]

I'm biased towards Austrian economics myself as well. I think it all comes down to the fact that government intervention in the economy always benefits and expands the power of the ruling class. Plus, mainstream economists think of themselves as scientists which is obviously laughable.
You are aware that not only is it a load of bunkum, but it is specifically engineered as intellectual justification for the extreme right?

[Paul Cockshott]

What I suggest we do is that we compile info in this thread(or in another thread) to thoroughly expose Adam Smith and Austrian economics!!!

"Adam Smith was an okay guy, the problem is that he didn't know what he was talking about. His theories are unworkable in practice and go against human nature. All of his predictions were wrong and were refuted by Marxian economics a long time ago"

If someone were to elaborate on facts, then it could be used.

Go easy here, you are attacking one of the founders of historical materialism!

[Durruti's Ghost]

Adam Smith doesn't need debunking; a good portion of socialist economic thought is based on his work. The Austrian School does not use the scientific method and, thus, is to the science of economics what alchemy is to chemistry.

[Lymos]

Before I begin, I must ask, do you actually know any economics? I mean beyond a few articles on the Mises.org website? Because a lot of what you are saying is just bizarre. It's not even like the usual mistakes people make when it comes to economics. It is just plain left field craziness.Sorry not biting your bait for an ad hominem.


Oh, so they predicted it would happen in 2007/8 years ago, did they? Predicting economic trouble isn't just saying it will happen at some unspecified date. A toddler can do that. It is about predicting exactly when it will hit and how the nature of the trouble will play out. Austrians can say all they like that they predicted this, but the fact is they did not. It is like predicting there will be a solar eclipse but giving no specifics as to when it will happen or from what part of the world it will be visible and then claiming you are a good astronomer when it comes around.

There is not an economist on earth of any persuasion who has ever claimed there will be no economic crisis. Indeed much of the study of economics is based on studying the patterns that emerge between boom periods and recessions. Giving predictions that were actually less accurate than everyone else's is not very impressive.Bingo on the underlined part.

Which is what again confirms your giving of free pass to "mainstream economics"

...and of course everything is less accurate if you raise Austrian Economics to the pedestal of Nostradamus to bring it down but don't hold the same standard to "everyone else's"


What? :lol: The fact that there would be a recession at some point in the not so distant future was undisputed. This is what I mean about you making utterly left field claims. I made posts explaining what would happen when there was next a recession. I did not do this based on any particularly prodigious ability in economics but simply from knowledge of how the economic cycle works out. Something that everybody who has ever studied economics knows.That's not a left field claim. You know perfectly well that even Austrian economists didn't dispute that but they disputed the severity and they also predicted what the government would likely do to worsen it.

Their model of predicting THIS recession and the previous "Great" Depression was something the "economic cycle" didn't fully address UNTIL it happened. (and then mainstream took over and revisions anything that is anti-mainstream justification although that's more of a governmental and schooling issue)


But that is what the Austrian School is. Because it refuses to use empirical evidence, soothsaying is pretty much all it is.No, this is what makes your reasoning flawed. Notice how you suddenly and conveniently went from explaining and instead just rehashed your previous "straw man"?


Again you show your lack of knowledge of the subject. If you knew anything at all about economics, you would know the economic cycle was a fact of life in our current economic model and that recessions keep coming around. It is one of our main criticisms of capitalism. I pointed out that Austrians simply predict crises constantly, are usually wrong, and when recession comes around proudly proclaim they were right all along before things move on again and they are left looking like fools. Yet again.Again, you twisted the context of my words. Big surprise.


At any rate what they predict is actually the reverse of what happens. What they want is to vindicate the gold standard by showing that these downturns cause a monetary disaster (which is actually what happened under the Gold Standard). The opposite happens however because the money supply can be expanded and the edge is taken off the crisis. Indeed, as an aside, that is why countries whose Governments acted quickly are already out of recession. Not exactly what would happen if the Austrians were right.That version of course being your views while conveniently twisting the Austrian economic view of what happened.


Well the "statistics" you cite don't disprove anarchy in any way, they are about current public opinion, not the results of anarchical society. However if there were a set of statistics that rubbished anarchist theory then (if correct) it would mean anarchism was useless, not that the statistics were irrelevant. See the difference?Yup...kinda similar to some guy above just stating... "that is why countries whose Governments acted quickly are already out of recession."


They ignore empirical data in favour of "a priori knowledge". That is just dogmatism and the reason why Austrian economics is not scientifically valid....and you don't ignore empirical data. Yes, yes. I read.


It was necessary to point out I am not an anarchist because it is necessary to establish that I cannot speak for them. I don't see why you are taking that so personally. As for how they will see you. Well that is just fact. They'll treat you the same as every other "anarcho-capitalist" who has ventured here before.Because you kinda still are speaking for them?

...and so much for me taking it personally but you just appealing to a majority to establish a fact.


Like I say, go and read what has actually been written on the subject and what has been done before you make stupid comments like that. Of course mainstream economists have made a mess of things, but they have still done better than the Austrians and at any rate have somewhat mitigated the crises. And in countries like Norway and France that acted quite decisively they are already out of recession.Pretty much sums it up.

You went from Austrian being bunk into mainstream economists having "done better".

You may not realize it but I'll just spell it out for you. I wasn't making the claim that Austrians were superior, I was defending the validity of Austrian economics.

By pretty much stating the underlined portion above, my goal is done whether you agree or disagree with me so this is my last reply to this thread.


Oh for heaven's sake, that's not an opinion, just an idiot accusation thrown out by somebody who doesn't know my views but still thinks he can spout off about them. I have made hundreds, perhaps even thousands of posts here attempting to debunk mainstream economics and the conventional assumptions in the area. Saying I give it a free pass is ridiculous.

I just don't happen to be of the opinion that you should replace something bad with something far worse.Kettle meet pot.


Quantum physics was developed through rigorous science and was tested against empirical data. If somebody came along one day presenting no evidence and simply claiming to know that it was correct, no one would pay the slightest heed. Once again, way to twist the context of my post

...but anyways goodbye. It's been a nice chat.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You are aware that not only is it a load of bunkum

Of course I'm aware, it is capitalist economics after all.


but it is specifically engineered as intellectual justification for the extreme right?

I don't see why this is relevant, even if it was true. I just find it to be more reasonable than the Chicago school. The state sucks, and so does their intervention in the economy. The state and capitalism work together to consolidate power. At least Austrian economists are opposed to the state. That's closer to us leftists than mainstream economists are.

[Demogorgon]

I don't see why this is relevant, even if it was true. I just find it to be more reasonable than the Chicago school. The state sucks, and so does their intervention in the economy. The state and capitalism work together to consolidate power. At least Austrian economists are opposed to the state. That's closer to us leftists than mainstream economists are.
No, they aren't opposed to the state really. They want it to protect property rights after all.

And what I mean by it being for the extreme right is that it is solely there to argue against socialism and to justify social authoritarianism. It has no theoretical credibility of its own, that is its claims boil down entirely to "because I say so" which means it can't claim to be part of economics proper. It is just right wing posturing with no intellectual credibility.

If you find anything about them reasonable, I suggest you read a bit more about it. You'll soon find there is nothing at all about it acceptable to leftists.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

No, they aren't opposed to the state really. They want it to protect property rights after all.

True, but they believe property can be protected through private means. Which it can be and already is. Even if their theories still require a state and are flawed in that sense, they are still ideologically anti-state. Personally I would take completely free market capitalism over imperialistic hegemony and globalized exploitation perpetrated by the states of the world that we see today, with armies of mainstream economists lobbying away for more corporate and ruling class profit.


And what I mean by it being for the extreme right is that it is solely there to argue against socialism and to justify social authoritarianism.

Eh? Most Austrian economists I know are libertarian. It's solely there to argue against THE STATE (something us leftists are opposed to as well), not socialism. Many Austrian economists just erroneously believe that socialism is the same as extreme statism. Just because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to socialism, doesn't mean they don't know anything about capitalism and geopolitics.


It has no theoretical credibility of its own, that is its claims boil down entirely to "because I say so" which means it can't claim to be part of economics proper. It is just right wing posturing with no intellectual credibility.

Again, I don't disagree with your criticism of their theory. I just find it silly that many leftists tend to defend neoclassical economics when both schools are obviously highly delusional.


If you find anything about them reasonable, I suggest you read a bit more about it. You'll soon find there is nothing at all about it acceptable to leftists.

Reasonable as compared to neoclassical economics that is. How can you possibly defend all the actions taken by states throughout history that have used force and coercion to control their economies, gain resources, and enslave people? At least Austrian economists aren't as oblivious to the world as their mainstream counterparts. even if they are oblivious in other regards. That is my point.

[#FF0000]

At least Austrian economists aren't as oblivious to the world as their mainstream counterparts. even if they are oblivious in other regards. That is my point.

You're either totally ignorant of what Austrian economists actually believe, how economies work, or both.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You're either totally ignorant of what Austrian economists actually believe, how economies work, or both.

You're right, I'm just talking out of my ass right now. Austrian economists are a folk punk electro metal band from Zimbabwe right?

[Demogorgon]

True, but they believe property can be protected through private means. Which it can be and already is. Even if their theories still require a state and are flawed in that sense, they are still ideologically anti-state. Personally I would take completely free market capitalism over imperialistic hegemony and globalized exploitation perpetrated by the states of the world that we see today, with armies of mainstream economists lobbying away for more corporate and ruling class profit.
I think once again that you should check what Austrians believe. They sometimes (not always though, Mises was part of a fascist state government after all) talk about opposing the state, but what they mean is the democratic state that operates by claiming legitimacy thorough popular mandate rather than private property. Let's as Lew Rockwell:

"As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I’m with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I’m completely against that idea."

They call for privately owned hierarchical Government making laws for the benefit of the elite that owns it. And if you look at Mises.org (the main Austrian website, that also doubles as the site for the Von Mises Institute, which is the main intellectual centre of the Austrian school) you see many go further and call for the private owners to come together to form a feudal monarchy to replace the democratic state. It is essentially extreme reaction.


Eh? Most Austrian economists I know are libertarian. It's solely there to argue against THE STATE (something us leftists are opposed to as well), not socialism. Many Austrian economists just erroneously believe that socialism is the same as extreme statism. Just because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to socialism, doesn't mean they don't know anything about capitalism and geopolitics.

You don't understand what Libertarianism means in this context. It means opposition to intervention in the workings of capitalist markets. Basically opposition to (certain) taxes, correction of market failure and social welfare. In social terms they are often Conservative and in the case of Austrians, especially so. They often support racial segregation, banning homosexuality and so forth. It varies of course, not all of them go that far, but almost invariably it calls for an adherence to "traditional values".

But really, claiming it is not inherently against socialism is just ridiculous. That is the whole point. The claim that markets do not adhere to cost of production, that values change based on time, the capitalists make production possible, that a free market inherently rewards people fairly is all meant to explicitly debunk socialist theories of exploitation.


Again, I don't disagree with your criticism of their theory. I just find it silly that many leftists tend to defend neoclassical economics when both schools are obviously highly delusional.

Nobody defends neoclassical economics any more than to say it does at least follow the scientific method. What we defend are the original classical economic theories, that though outdated, form the groundwork for Marxist economic theory. We believe we have better adapted classical economics to the modern era than neoclassical economists have.


Reasonable as compared to neoclassical economics that is. How can you possibly defend all the actions taken by states throughout history that have used force and coercion to control their economies, gain resources, and enslave people?Where on earth have I defended that?


At least Austrian economists aren't as oblivious to the world as their mainstream counterparts. even if they are oblivious in other regards. That is my point.
At this stage claiming Austrians are an electro punk band from Zimbabwe would be more accurate. They are rationalists, that is they follow pre-enlightenment methods of investigation and rely on supposed a priori knowledge. They explicitly reject empirical evidence. That is why nobody takes them seriously. Owing to their failure to examine the real world they cannot be considered a real part of the science of economics (unlike both mainstream and Marxian economists) and are instead nothing more than right wing ideologues attempting to proclaim the moral-as opposed to technical-superiority of capitalism. So while mainstream pro-capitalists claim that capitalism maximises utility or achieves the greatest pareto-optimality, Austrians resort to empty claims of moral superiority.

[SpudsMcGee]

You're either totally ignorant of what Austrian economists actually believe, how economies work, or both.

Well then elaborate as to what Austrian economists actually believe and how economies work.

[maya]

They explicitly reject empirical evidence. That is why nobody takes them seriously. Owing to their failure to examine the real world they cannot be considered a real part of the science of economics (unlike both mainstream and Marxian economists) and are instead nothing more than right wing ideologues attempting to proclaim the moral-as opposed to technical-superiority of capitalism. So while mainstream pro-capitalists claim that capitalism maximises utility or achieves the greatest pareto-optimality, Austrians resort to empty claims of moral superiority.

Talking to Ron Paul supports and Peter Schiff fans they always, always talk about how things should be as it exists in their imaginations, and not how things actually are.

Even when republicans talk about reagan as being the best thing since sliced bread, they are talking about something that did exist.

Austrians pretty much just say everything has always been bad, even democracy, and if only the police and army were privately owned and anthrax were available at the corner store we would be living in paradise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Shouldn't this be in "Research"?