Something an Austrian economist send me

[Revolutionair]

Definitions of economic systems from worst to best:
1. Communism = 100% state control or full slavery to that state or collective (North Korea et al)
2. Fascism = State/Corporate hybrids, where the state colludes, interferes and controls the corporate output (like GM).
3. Socialism = all state control (Venezuela, like our Government healthcare takeover).
4. Mixed Economy = a mixture of socialism and capitalism. (Of course, the last 200 hundred years of history proves capitalism is superior to socialism. All economic research and data confirms free markets are always superior to socialist economies. There are no exceptions. All the best places to live are freer.)
5. Laissez Faire = 100% economic and personal liberty (free market and capitalism). Research proves, in a developed economy, the closer to Laissez faire the richer the economy

Show me research supporting increased government intervention, deficit spending, and increase taxation & regulation over free markets. Do not confuse socialist literature with empirical research.
The last 200 hundred years of history proves capitalism is superior to socialism. All economic research and data confirms free markets are always superior to socialist economies. There are no exceptions. All the best places to live are freer.) Research proves, in a developed economy, the closer to Laissez faire the richer the economy
Again, show me research supporting increased government intervention, deficit spending, and increase taxation & regulation over free markets, or acknowledge leftwing philosophy is irrational.


Apparently, the countries with the most protectionism (the west) are way poorer than the countries without protectionism (Africa).
Austrian cult of economics strikes again.

[Invincible Summer]

Not to mention that "mixed economy" nations have very high standards of living

[Revolutionair]

He also says that Hitler is a socialist.
That people killed by capitalist Japan are not really killed by capitalism because they were un-American.
And that America is free market economy.

[mikelepore]

As soon as the other person is a conversation says something as loony as "Hitler was a socialist" or laissez faire means "personal liberty", you know right away that any continued conversation will go nowhere. Perhaps you have another reason for carrying on the conversation, say, if you want to make a list of examples of false beliefs, or to get some practice writing rebuttals, or in the case of a public forum you want to talk past the ignoramus for the sake of explaining things to the wider audience -- in those cases there may be a reason to continue the conversation. However the conversation for its own sake is going to be a waste of time.

[Agnapostate]

There are no "free markets." The capitalism that he credits for prosperity was built on state intervention. I doubt that this person is an Austrian economist (they are very few and far between and are mainly concentrated at George Mason University), so much as some Internet pseudo-libertarian who's picked up a few talking points.

[Sir Comradical]

Find out where lives, we'll deal with him later.

Hehehe.

[Revolutionair]

This guy just keeps on giving and giving:


Basically, if your philosophy cannot be substantiated by scientifically derived research supported by empirical data, then your philosophy is false, no matter how smart you think you are,

Yes, an Austrian economist asking for empirical evidence.:laugh:

[Agnapostate]

Silly Billy; doesn't he know the value of deductive reasoning from self-evident logical axioms?

[Agnapostate]

I should probably add that some misinterpret the Internet Misesians' use of fairly verbose economic terminology as an indication of sound economic reasoning. It's not. In fact, it's similar to the principle that the better a person speaks a language, the better ability you have to gauge their intelligence, since a lack of fluency could mask feeble intellectual capacities. As with it being better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt, it's better to remain incoherent and be thought an economic illiterate than to clearly articulate your illiteracy and remove all doubt.

[BAM]

on the topic of Austrian economics and empirical evidence, it would be helpful to see what one of their number says about the criticism


This is the criticism empiricists most frequently directed at the Austrian school. Though Austrians attach enormous importance to the role of history, they recognize that their scientific activity takes place in a very different area, that of theory, and theory must be known before it can be applied to reality or illustrated with historical events. In fact Austrians see an overproduction of empirical analyses and a relative shortage of theoretical studies which facilitate the understanding and interpretation of real life. Moreover, though the methodological assumptions of the neoclassical school (equilibrium, maximization and constancy of preferences) appear to aid empirical studies and comparisons between certain theories, they often conceal the true theoretical relationships, and thus they can lead to serious errors in theory and in the interpretation of what is really occurring at any specific moment or in any particular set of historical circumstances.

The Austrian School: Market Order and Entrepreneurial Creativity (2008) p. 108

Even though I am diametrically opposed to the Austrian School, there's a lot in that criticism of neo-classical economics that I actually agree with.

[Widerstand]

First off, one thing I find noteworthy is how he's talking of "better" and "worse" without ever defining what aspects of an economical system he is comparing.


Definitions of economic systems from worst to best:
1. Communism = 100% state control or full slavery to that state or collective (North Korea et al)
2. Fascism = State/Corporate hybrids, where the state colludes, interferes and controls the corporate output (like GM).
3. Socialism = all state control (Venezuela, like our Government healthcare takeover).
4. Mixed Economy = a mixture of socialism and capitalism. (Of course, the last 200 hundred years of history proves capitalism is superior to socialism. All economic research and data confirms free markets are always superior to socialist economies. There are no exceptions. All the best places to live are freer.)
5. Laissez Faire = 100% economic and personal liberty (free market and capitalism). Research proves, in a developed economy, the closer to Laissez faire the richer the economy


Here he assumes/defines, that the value of an economical system lies within the surplus it produces, irrelevant of who ultimately gets that surplus. You could also say, I guess, that he's stating: "the better an economy, the more it grows".

But, as the underlined part indicates, he is also talking about the "best places to live in". I guess he's talking about standard of living here?

According to the Wallstreet Journal, the IMF, the Worldbank, the CIA and the United Nations, he is wrong in both aspects, as indicated by comparing the Wallstreet Journal's "Index Of Economic Freedom" to GDP per capita lists from CIA/IMF/World Bank, the GPD growth rate list from IMF and the UNDP's Human Development index.
According to him the lists should more or less be identical, but they are far from it. This proves that there is more needed to create both, a healthy economy and a high standard of living, than the absence of regulations. In fact, it even shows that the opposite is true to some extent. It's also fairly mainstream sources, so he can't refute it by labeling it "socialist literature".

Wikipedia Articles: "Index of Economic Freedom historical rankings", "List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita", "List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita", "List of countries by Human Development Index" and "List of countries by nominal GDP growth rate".

Also, his examples are dipshit, the American "healthcare takeover" makes the USA a mixed economy, if anything.

[Agnapostate]

Even though I am diametrically opposed to the Austrian School, there's a lot in that criticism of neo-classical economics that I actually agree with.

Any heterodox tradition will be somewhat critical of the neoclassical approach, but the eccentric Austrian contingency doesn't have the fully synthesized critique of the institutionalists or Marxists.

[BAM]

Any heterodox tradition will be somewhat critical of the neoclassical approach, but the eccentric Austrian contingency doesn't have the fully synthesized critique of the institutionalists or Marxists.

I would argue that they certainly do (I am not all that familiar with "institutional economics" so I can't compare it to them). They may be eccentric, but Hayek for instance makes the useful distinction between "science" and "scientism". Mainstream economics can be said to be scientistic, merely aping the methods of natural sciences, and not making any progress at all. That's certainly something Marxists and Post Keynesians would agree with the Austrians on.

[Agnapostate]

I would argue that they certainly do (I am not all that familiar with "institutional economics" so I can't compare it to them). They may be eccentric, but Hayek for instance makes the useful distinction between "science" and "scientism". Mainstream economics can be said to be scientistic, merely aping the methods of natural sciences, and not making any progress at all. That's certainly something Marxists and Post Keynesians would agree with the Austrians on.

Hayek is the only influential Austrian thinker with theory relevant to modern economics, and he's also the closest to a neoclassical among the major Austrian thinkers. But this seems to validate exactly what I said; Austrian thinkers, heterodox economists that they are, can offer some legitimate criticisms of neoclassical economics, but they do not have any systematic or comprehensive theory comparable to institutionalist or Marxist approaches.

[BAM]

Hayek is the only influential Austrian thinker with theory relevant to modern economics, and he's also the closest to a neoclassical among the major Austrian thinkers.

do you mean with regard to equilibrium theory? That's probably becuase he drew more from Wieser than Mises in that reagrd.


But this seems to validate exactly what I said; Austrian thinkers, heterodox economists that they are, can offer some legitimate criticisms of neoclassical economics, but they do not have any systematic or comprehensive theory comparable to institutionalist or Marxist approaches.

well, they have a different theory, but it is a comprehensive one. If you don't believe me, just say to an Austrian economist that they don't have a systematic theory and see what response you get! (You'll probably get whacked over the head with a copy of Human Action or something :D )