Liberal Forums [Archive]

Red Commissar

13th September 2010, 08:47

As far as a token liberal goes (in the American sense), democraticunderground is your best bet as its the most active one I've seen. News sites like Huffingtonpost could work too. Conservative ones? Those guys mostly go on sites like freerepublic (or the Canadian spawn, freedominion), and some at the worldnetdaily forums or prisonplanet. Many just spam comment sections on news sites, or email their friends stuff.

But generally every forum has a mixture political ideologies, even if it seems at first glance it's not a politically active site. Even ones that commit themselves to gaming or some hobby will have a forum for political chat and many times those tend to be frequented. Just join a fairly active one so you won't be yelling in the dark and you'll probably get something going.

#FF0000

13th September 2010, 08:57

Got a better one?

Oh, they're all terrible but what has Hailtothethief done to deserve being sent to Freerepublic!?

GPDP

13th September 2010, 09:03

Lt. Ferret

13th September 2010, 16:45

www dot conpunk dot com

Revolution starts with U

13th September 2010, 17:02

Mises.org
austrian website with a lot of anti-state capitalists (I refuse to call them anarchist, they are in no way against authoritarianism, just when it stops businesses from lowering wages). Trolling will quickly get you banned, and they will not tolerate anything to emotional or maybe violent.
Nevertheless, it is a site I like to stop in on and show what their policies would do to the common man.

Jazzratt

13th September 2010, 17:16

Mises.org... it is a site I like to stop in on and show what their policies would do to the common man. The thing is that Austrians do not and never have given a fuck about the "common man" they don't even begin to pretend to give a soy-based fuck alternative in fact. Their politics are the ultimate expression of bourgois class interests so it's irrelevent to them what hap[pens to the common man.

Skooma Addict

13th September 2010, 19:19

The thing is that Austrians do not and never have given a fuck about the "common man" they don't even begin to pretend to give a soy-based fuck alternative in fact. Their politics are the ultimate expression of bourgois class interests so it's irrelevent to them what hap[pens to the common man.

What about Ropke?

Tatarin

14th September 2010, 04:12

For conservatives/Republicans, try freerepublic.com

You liberal! You should know that true conservatives hang out at abovetopsecret.com!!!

:P

Dean

14th September 2010, 04:36

What about Ropke?

Find self-styled Austrians today who adhere to his ideas and you have a point.

I think its pretty clear that the adherents to the Austrian school have changed drastically. Just look at you - you do nothing more than argue inane points which don't serve to expand your or others' knowledge of economic activity - mostly just to defined the moral character of capitalism or to assrt that any insult to the Austrian school is "untrue" (though you're too arrogant to ever explain why, or to propose any theories from the school yourself - real safe, sterile position there).

But we both know the Austrian school is a fraud since it relies on the ridiculous "praxeology" model of economic theorization, which roughly translates to economic theories whose basis is only assumed "rational" human compulsions - never statistics or historical data, which the school views as 'flawed' (and would prefer obscure prejudices).

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 05:05

Find self-styled Austrians today who adhere to his ideas and you have a point.

Um...No. The beliefs of Austrians today have nothing to do with Ropkes beliefs.

But we both know the Austrian school is a fraud since it relies on the ridiculous "praxeology" model of economic theorization, which roughly translates to economic theories whose basis is only assumed "rational" human compulsions - never statistics or historical data, which the school views as 'flawed' (and would prefer obscure prejudices).

AE existed before praxeology.

anticap

14th September 2010, 05:05

None of these are really forums in the vBulletin/phpBB sense, but, as suggested already, democraticunderground.com for liberals, freerepublic.com for conservatives.

Also, to engage with party-line Democrats in blog style, check out the extremely active dailykos.com; and for party-line Republicans, try redstate.com.

Be warned that freerepublic.com is even less tolerant than mises.org. You WILL be banned. I registered there during the Ron Paul hoopla, pretending to be a loyal conservative Republican who was intrigued by Paul's campaign (I figured I'd try to soften their hawkishness using the Republican Paul's anti-war stance). I was banned before I knew what hit me, for merely suggesting that Paul's position appeared to be logically sound. The deal at that site is, during the primaries there is an ironic hive-mind mentality where nearly everyone supports the "ideal" candidate, with all other candidates reviled as "liberals." Then, as candidates drop out, they move on to the next lesser-evil, and everyone circles the wagons to defend the person they formerly condemned. This continues until the Party has its candidate, who they support without question. So unless you're willing to play that game, and only very, very carefully introduce ideas to the left of Reagan, then you might as well skip it.

dailykos.com is the Democratic equivalent of this (but is less ban-happy). It's even in their charter (or whatever it's called): the site exists to support Democrats and to see them elected. They are constitutionally opposed to Independents and third-party candidates. At the same time, however, they claim to be devoutly progressive. (My mother, not knowing any better, bought me Kos's book, Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era. It is absolutely hilarious to read him talk about Democratic politics in radical terms. Some of the insights are actually pretty good, if only they were applied to actual radical politics.) They seriously believe that the Democrats are the path to radical progressive change, and you're not going to change their minds, because their minds are already made up and codified. Press too hard about alternatives to Democrats, and they'll be constitutionally bound to ban you.

Edit: The top non-specific political forums, which are actual forums, appear to be politicalforum.com and politicsforum.org. The former leans conservative (they used to have demographic data available, but I don't see it now), but is basically a liberal/conservative split, with a spattering of sputtering propertarians; the latter has sections devoted to several ideologies, including liberalism (and even dictatorial ideologies like fascism). Those are probably the best places to find long-running discussions, because they use proper forum software.

scarletghoul

14th September 2010, 05:36

I joined this a while ago but havnt posted i dont think. they still send me annoying emails sometimes asking to help with some Democrat campaign

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/

Rusty Shackleford

14th September 2010, 09:08

jesus christ democraticunderground has the layout of a drunken projectile vomit splatter pattern.

NecroCommie

14th September 2010, 09:14

AE existed before praxeology.
How is this a defence? Would this logic mean that religion is correct because it existed before the realization of the empiric method?

Dean

14th September 2010, 12:46

Um...No. The beliefs of Austrians today have nothing to do with Ropkes beliefs.

Ropkes beliefs have nothing to do with the beliefs of Austrians today. But the latter is the one that matters since we're discussing internet forums and the ideas expressed therein.

Your posturing is really getting tiring. I wish you'd make more substantive posts because the actual ideas and theories of a self-styled Austrian could be interesting.

But all you do is retreat to try to defend an ideology, rather than engender productive discussion.

I found Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx interesting, if flawed. It'd be nice if you could articulate your opinions yourself, though.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 15:31

Ropkes beliefs have nothing to do with the beliefs of Austrians today. But the latter is the one that matters since we're discussing internet forums and the ideas expressed therein.

Your posturing is really getting tiring. I wish you'd make more substantive posts because the actual ideas and theories of a self-styled Austrian could be interesting.

But all you do is retreat to try to defend an ideology, rather than engender productive discussion.

I found Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx interesting, if flawed. It'd be nice if you could articulate your opinions yourself, though.

Of all the people that adhere to AE, I am sure there are some Ordoliberals. Also, aren't you getting tired of making this same baseless criticism every thread? Especially in a thread where you mischaracterized Austrian Economics because apparently you didn't know that it predated praxeology?

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 15:36

How is this a defence? Would this logic mean that religion is correct because it existed before the realization of the empiric method?

That is not what I am saying at all. I was simply pointing out a mischaracterization of AE.

Revolution starts with U

14th September 2010, 15:53

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 15:56

Yes, skooma, but for how long did it exist before praxeology? 5 years... 10? Did it exist before ABCT, cuz I thought that was its major tennant that seperated it from other schools of economics?
I mean, you could say, like Rothbard, that it goes back to 15th ce. spain. But I don't think they considered themselves austrians.

Idk the exact number of years. But it was far far more than 5 or 10. Anyways, not all Austrians believe in praxeology. Take Hayek for example. Also, not all Austrians believe the ABCT is a general theory.

Revolution starts with U

14th September 2010, 16:09

austrians are very slippery they're like an atom, try to pin them down here and they say "ya, but our momentum is a wave." I have seen yourself post that ABCT is a staple of austrianism, but I guess we can throw that out now.
So, are they just philosophers who reject empiricism? What exactly is an austrian?

heres my attempt; a school of thought that rejects traditional scientific methodology in economics (which they believe to be the expression of human action; praxeology, tho this is not a neccessary belief) and claim a value free starting point that always leads them to the same conclusion of get regulatory agencies off the market, and workers should be happy with what their bosses provide them, no matter the disparities in income.
Close? :confused:

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 16:14

austrians are very slippery they're like an atom, try to pin them down here and they say "ya, but our momentum is a wave." I have seen yourself post that ABCT is a staple of austrianism, but I guess we can throw that out now.
So, are they just philosophers who reject empiricism? What exactly is an austrian?They don't reject empericism. It is difficult to give any kind of definition for an entire school of thought. This isn't anything specific to AE. Maybe you could apply some version of proptotype theory to AE. That might work.

heres my attempt; a school of thought that rejects traditional scientific methodology in economics (which they believe to be the expression of human action; praxeology, tho this is not a neccessary belief) and claim a value free starting point that always leads them to the same conclusion of get regulatory agencies off the market, and workers should be happy with what their bosses provide them, no matter the disparities in income.
Close? :confused:Okay. That is probably the second worse definition of AE which I have ever seen. But you are going to convince yourself to believe what is convenient for you, so idc really.

Dean

14th September 2010, 16:18

Of all the people that adhere to AE, I am sure there are some Ordoliberals. Also, aren't you getting tired of making this same baseless criticism every thread? Especially in a thread where you mischaracterized Austrian Economics because apparently you didn't know that it predated praxeology?

Praxeology was first developed in 1824. As far as I'm aware, the Austrian school dates to about 1870 at the earliest (though it was named as such in the Methodology Struggle around 1890).

Praxeology is only one theory in a broad trend of unscientific assertion:

ritics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor,[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-Caplan-9)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-white1-11) which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form,[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-105) but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms. Mainstream economists believe that this makes Austrian theories too imprecisely defined to be clearly used to explain or predict real world events. Economist Bryan Caplan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan) noted that, "what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) or econometrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics)." A related criticism[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-tremble-4)[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-106) is applied to Austrian School leaders; these leaders have advocated a rejection of methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Characterizations) which involve directly using empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) data in the development of (falsifiable) theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Pedagogical_definition); application of empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) data is fundamental to the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-107) In particular, Austrian School leader, Ludwig von Mises, has been described as the mid-20th century's "archetypal 'unscientific' economist."[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-108)

And the best part:

Additionally, the prominent Austrian economist, F. A. Hayek, stated his belief that social science theories can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#cite_note-111) Such rejections of empirical evidence in economics by Austrian School leaders have led to the school being dismissed within the mainstream.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 16:27

Praxeology was first developed in 1824. As far as I'm aware, the Austrian school dates to about 1870 at the earliest (though it was named as such in the Methodology Struggle around 1890).

Praxeology is only one theory in a broad trend of unscientific assertion:Okay fine, Austrians never relied on praxeology up until Mises. Also, Mises' praxeology was significantly more complex and developed than anything before it. Praxeology never really developed up until Mises.

If you want to go by curent beliefs. More people agree with Hayek than Mises on the issue of praxeology in economics.

I also don't take wikipedia criticisms of AE to mean anything.

Dean

14th September 2010, 16:45

Okay fine, Austrians never relied on praxeology up until Mises. Also, Mises' praxeology was significantly more complex and developed than anything before it. Praxeology never really developed up until Mises.

If you want to go by curent beliefs. More people agree with Hayek than Mises on the issue of praxeology in economics.

I also don't take wikipedia criticisms of AE to mean anything.
You can criticize the sources all you want, but actual refutations might prove your point. Seems like the scientific underpinnings that Praxeology follows are rampant in the school.

I also meant to respond to this, but didn't:

Of all the people that adhere to AE, I am sure there are some Ordoliberals. Also, aren't you getting tired of making this same baseless criticism every thread? Especially in a thread where you mischaracterized Austrian Economics because apparently you didn't know that it predated praxeology?

As usual, you try to reframe the debate. We were discussing the prevalent ideas on forums online.

Your response?
First there was "Ropke."
Now there are "some Ordoliberals":

But they don't seem to characterize those forums. In fact, the closest adherent to Austrian Economics with a socially-conscious moral framework is our own Havet.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 16:54

As usual, you try to reframe the debate. We were discussing the prevalent ideas on forums online.

Idk what the prevalent ideas on forums are.

But they don't seem to characterize those forums. In fact, the closest adherent to Austrian Economics with a socially-conscious moral framework is our own Havet.

I didn't know you searched through the entire interned, read though posts to get an in depth belief of everyone who adheres to AE, and then determined that Havet is the most socially conscious.

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 17:43

If you want to go by curent beliefs. More people agree with Hayek than Mises on the issue of praxeology in economics.

Of course, the Hayekians are wrong and the Misesians are correct.

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 17:54

austrians are very slippery they're like an atom, try to pin them down here and they say "ya, but our momentum is a wave." I have seen yourself post that ABCT is a staple of austrianism, but I guess we can throw that out now.

ABCT is NOT a staple of Austrianism. There were plenty of Austrians before 1912 when The Theory of Money and Credit was published which included the theory.

So, are they just philosophers who reject empiricism? What exactly is an austrian?

Austrians are disciples of Carl Menger and his thought.

heres my attempt; a school of thought that rejects traditional scientific methodology in economics

In economic theory, yes, because it is not applicable. This has been part of Austrian Economics from the beginning, starting with the Methodenstreit.

and claim a value free starting point that always leads them to the same conclusion of get regulatory agencies off the market

Austrian Economics is value-free and as such cannot make any normative claims. If, however, you want prosperity, you should eliminate that which would harm your cause.

and workers should be happy with what their bosses provide them, no matter the disparities in income.

This is not a tenet of Austrian Economics. A number of Austrians hold this position, because they are vulgar bourgeois douchebags, but it has nothing to do with Austrian Economics.

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 17:55

"New experience can force us to discard or modify inferences we have drawn from previous experience. But no kind of experience can ever force us to discard or modify a priori theorems. They are not derived from experience; they are logically prior to it and cannot be either proved by corroborative experience or disproved by experience to the contrary. We can comprehend action only by means of a priori theorems. Nothing is more clearly an inversion of the truth than the thesis of empiricism that theoretical propositions are arrived at through induction on the basis of a presuppositionless observation of "facts." It is only with the aid of a theory that we can determine what the facts are." - Ludwig von Mises

http://mises.org/epofe/c1p2sec2.asp

CleverTitle

14th September 2010, 18:03

jesus christ democraticunderground has the layout of a drunken projectile vomit splatter pattern.
Agreed. Both democraticunderground and freerepublic are really hard to look at. It's like stepping into the internet in the mid-late '90s.

Dean

14th September 2010, 18:20

Idk what the prevalent ideas on forums are.
Ok, but that was the initial point. A simple "I don't know" or ignoring the topic would have sufficed.

Or you could have posted some theories or arguments of Ropke's and we could have a discussion about that - while still not proving the initial argument, we could have at least explored his ideas.

I didn't know you searched through the entire interned, read though posts to get an in depth belief of everyone who adheres to AE, and then determined that Havet is the most socially conscious.
Fair enough, fixed:

But they don't seem to characterize those forums. Of those I've seen, the closest adherent to Austrian Economics with a socially-conscious moral framework is our own Havet.

If you seriously think that there is some significant tendency in the Austrian forums today contradicting Jazzratt's model, it shouldn't be hard to find them. My own readings of the Mises Institute's forums (and some other forum I can't recall the name of atm) rather support his characterization.

Dean

14th September 2010, 18:21

Austrian Economics is value-free and as such cannot make any normative claims. If, however, you want prosperity, you should eliminate that which would harm your cause.

You're hilarious.

Revolution starts with U

14th September 2010, 19:39

They don't reject empericism. It is difficult to give any kind of definition for an entire school of thought. This isn't anything specific to AE. Maybe you could apply some version of proptotype theory to AE. That might work.

Okay. That is probably the second worse definition of AE which I have ever seen. But you are going to convince yourself to believe what is convenient for you, so idc really.
Idk, it seems pretty easy to pin down most schools; chicago, keynesian, neo-keynsian, marxist, empiricist, humanist, christian, etc. Most schools are pretty easy to pin down actually. It is just austrians that are not, I attribute this to their rejection of a postiori knowledge.
Im not convincing myself of anything. I didn't know what austrians were (except for limited references in economics texts) until I started debating them, and I base my views off what they say.
Your friend left-libertarian (of course, being a leftist) has laid out a much better definition than any traditional austrian I have seen.

[QUOTE=Left-Reasoning;1863894]ABCT is NOT a staple of Austrianism. There were plenty of Austrians before 1912 when The Theory of Money and Credit was published which included the theory.

Okay, see I did not know that.

Austrians are disciples of Carl Menger and his thought.
And that is?

In economic theory, yes, because it is not applicable. This has been part of Austrian Economics from the beginning, starting with the Methodenstreit.
I disagree with that. I would posit that 40-80% sure is not the same thing as "not applicable."

Austrian Economics is value-free and as such cannot make any normative claims. If, however, you want prosperity, you should eliminate that which would harm your cause.
That's what I mean, they say it is value free, yet it always leads you to the same conclusions; regulations create mal-investment of capital, and workers bargaining for higher wages restricts capital flow. You say...

This is not a tenet of Austrian Economics. A number of Austrians hold this position, because they are vulgar bourgeois douchebags, but it has nothing to do with Austrian Economics.
... But really I have yet to see an austrian (other than you maybe) that does not hold the belief that higher wages = stagnation.

New experience can force us to discard or modify inferences we have drawn from previous experience. But no kind of experience can ever force us to discard or modify a priori theorems. They are not derived from experience; they are logically prior
But are they correct? Of course we have to use a priori reasoning, but what says the applications that you (plural) posit are accurate representations?

to it and cannot be either proved by corroborative experience or disproved by experience to the contrary. We can comprehend action only by means of a priori theorems. Nothing is more clearly an inversion of the truth than the thesis of empiricism that theoretical propositions are arrived at through induction on the basis of a presuppositionless observation of "facts." It is only with the aid of a theory that we can determine what the facts are."
- Ludwig von Mises

Absolutely incorrect philosophical nuttery. Only useless knowledge like God cannot be verified. Of course, being a subjective mind you make presuppotions (that things exist and can be interacted with, etc) but it is only through observation of facts that you actually learn anything about the world.
Mises sometimes makes some good points, this is far from one of them.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 20:09

Of course, the Hayekians are wrong and the Misesians are correct.

Not in my opinion.

Ok, but that was the initial point. A simple "I don't know" or ignoring the topic would have sufficed.

I don't know and I don't think you or anyone else here does either.

If you seriously think that there is some significant tendency in the Austrian forums today contradicting Jazzratt's model, it shouldn't be hard to find them. My own readings of the Mises Institute's forums (and some other forum I can't recall the name of atm) rather support his characterization.

Actually, the Mises forums do contradict Jazzratts model. A lot of people there are libertarians because they believe it will provide for the best society. I mean yea there are going to be some people who fit Jazzratts characterization.

Idk, it seems pretty easy to pin down most schools; chicago, keynesian, neo-keynsian, marxist, empiricist, humanist, christian, etc. Most schools are pretty easy to pin down actually. It is just austrians that are not, I attribute this to their rejection of a postiori knowledge.
Im not convincing myself of anything. I didn't know what austrians were (except for limited references in economics texts) until I started debating them, and I base my views off what they say.
Your friend left-libertarian (of course, being a leftist) has laid out a much better definition than any traditional austrian I have seen.

Not that easy in my opinion. People argue over whether Keynes was a keynesian all the time. Also, Ausrians dont reject a posteriori knowledge. You continually mischaracerize AE.

That's what I mean, they say it is value free, yet it always leads you to the same conclusions; regulations create mal-investment of capital, and workers bargaining for higher wages restricts capital flow. You say...

You do realize the examples you just provided are value free statements, right?

Revolution starts with U

14th September 2010, 20:19

Yes, I do. But I think the whole concept of value-free is anything but. Logically, if you take those statements to their conclusion it would be, you shouldn't regulate, nor raise wages. It is not coincidence that 90% of austrians hold the same anti-regulatory stances.
How can I accurately characterize austrians, if, as you admit "It is difficult to give any kind of definition for (the austrian) school of thought?"
It would seem to me that they are nothing more than bible-thumpers. Standing on their soap-box they scream about their New New Testament, the gospels of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al, proclaiming their admittedly unverifiable stances as the one and only truth.
Rothbard may have been cool, if he wasn't a right-wing apologist for elites.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 20:28

Yes, I do. But I think the whole concept of value-free is anything but. Logically, if you take those statements to their conclusion it would be, you shouldn't regulate, nor raise wages.That is not the logical conclusion of those statements. That is the logical conclusion of those statements combined with beliefs about what a just society would look like (and the latter are not part of AE). From the statements you provided alone, there are no logical conclusions about what policy ought to be taken.

How can I accurately characterize austrians, if, as you admit "It is difficult to give any kind of definition for (the austrian) school of thought?"
It would seem to me that they are nothing more than bible-thumpers. Standing on their soap-box they scream about their New New Testament, the gospels of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al, proclaiming their admittedly unverifiable stances as the one and only truth.
Rothbard may have been cool, if he wasn't a right-wing apologist for elites. I admit that it is hard to characterize however it is not that difficult to avoid such blatant mischaracterizaton. But historically it is the communists who are far more guilty of worshiping idols.

anticap

14th September 2010, 21:15

I'm a huge fan of watching Misesites get the shit beaten out of them, but this stuff should be split off to another thread, starting with Jazzratt's post.

Dean

14th September 2010, 21:36

I don't know and I don't think you or anyone else here does either.

...

Actually, the Mises forums do contradict Jazzratts model. A lot of people there are libertarians because they believe it will provide for the best society. I mean yea there are going to be some people who fit Jazzratts characterization.
"Provide for the best society" can apply to almost any ideology, if it disregards the poor or not.

But its a fair point that nobody can say for sure how "all" of any given tendency thinks. But that wasn't really the point of Jazzy's post.

Not that easy in my opinion. People argue over whether Keynes was a keynesian all the time. Also, Ausrians dont reject a posteriori knowledge. You continually mischaracerize AE.
Again, not all of AE follow the same model. But many do, and the school in general is characterized by a contempt for empirical data as far as I've seen.

A point for which I've provided evidence, at that. I'll "assume you've conceived the point" (just to play your childish games) if you refuse to provide evidence to the contrary.

You do realize the examples you just provided are value free statements, right?
You could just as easily say "Black people are criminals" is value-free because, after all, it's not explicitly making a moral argument. But it fits into a specific moral model.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 21:46

"Provide for the best society" can apply to almost any ideology, if it disregards the poor or not.

But its a fair point that nobody can say for sure how "all" of any given tendency thinks. But that wasn't really the point of Jazzy's post.Okay I will rephrase it then. People at the Mises forums and many supporters of AE in general hold libertarian beliefs because they believe it will in the long term provide an increase in prosperity and individual freedoms for the masses.

Again, not all of AE follow the same model. But many do, and the school in general is characterized by a contempt for empirical data as far as I've seen.Correct, not all adherents of AE agree. There are disagreements over when emperical data is necessary and what it proves. But the school does not condemn empirical data in general.

A point for which I've provided evidence, at that. I'll "assume you've conceived the point" (just to play your childish games) if you refuse to provide evidence to the contrary.I am not sure what evidence you are talking about.

You could just as easily say "Black people are criminals" is value-free because, after all, it's not explicitly making a moral argument. But it fits into a specific moral model. The statement "black people are criminals" is value free. That is a value free statement.

Dean

14th September 2010, 21:53

Okay I will rephrase it then. People at the Mises forums and many supporters of AE in general hold libertarian beliefs because they believe it will in the long term provide an increase in prosperity and individual freedoms for the masses.
Actually, none of us can be sure - in any way shape or form - that they hold beliefs as a consequence of a belief that it will provide the "prosperity and individual freedom for the masses."

I highly doubt that very many people hold beliefs for the reasons that they say they do. And the libertarians I have spoken to have only agreed about the "benefits of the masses" you mention when pressed by leftists to that end.

Correct, not all adherents of AE agree. There are disagreements over when emperical data is necessary and what it proves. But the school does not condemn empirical data in general.

I am not sure what evidence you are talking about.
Then you concede that there is no evidence for your position. ;)

The statement "black people are criminals" is value free. That is a value free statement.
That's all I had to hear to prove the following:

Yes, I do. But I think the whole concept of value-free is anything but.
...
It is not coincidence that 90% of austrians hold the same anti-regulatory stances.

IcarusAngel

14th September 2010, 21:58

Unbelievable stupidity. Any scientific statement must have a reason for the investigation. I could sit around and study chaos theory all day, looking for patterns in Mandelbrot sets, Koch snowflakes and other factals and its meaningless unless I have some ultimate purpose, such as predicting weather patterns or what have you (how chaos theory may have been discovered).

People who study "race" do so for a reason, to claim one race of men is inferior to another. Mises himself was a racist who believed in this "racialist science" and believed all of human history could be explained by it.

These Austrian schoolers are promoting basically 14th century methodologies and philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Even to enter into a debate with these clowns is akin to discussing holocaust denial and flat earth theories.

Hoppe and Mises believed that the "property owners" or "more capable set of men" were the natural rulers of society and were therefore to be worshipped as Gods. It's an even more extreme form of Randianism. Thus, a bunch of idiots spend all their time using made up axioms to justify the property ownership - which of course leads to conspiracy theories about how the economy works and why even the CATO institute writes these guys off as cranks.

Opposing Austrian economics has nothing to do with politics. It's a matter of being pro-human being or anti human being.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 22:00

Actually, none of us can be sure - in any way shape or form - that they hold beliefs as a consequence of a belief that it will provide the "prosperity and individual freedom for the masses."

I highly doubt that very many people hold beliefs for the reasons that they say they do. And the libertarians I have spoken to have only agreed about the "benefits of the masses" you mention when pressed by leftists to that end.

From my encounters there are two main groups.

1. People that believe that it is wrong to "initiate aggression," and so they are Libertarians for this reason. They may or may not believe in objective ethics.

2. People who are just concerned about achieving a prosperous society where people are free to live as they please.

That's all I had to hear to prove the following:

The statement "Black people are criminals" is value free. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 22:03

You're hilarious.

This is true, but I don't know how you learned of this. Do you stalk me? o.0

IcarusAngel

14th September 2010, 22:06

I'm a huge fan of watching Misesites get the shit beaten out of them, but this stuff should be split off to another thread, starting with Jazzratt's post.

You might enjoy this topic then:

http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/thelowlyphilosophers-foolish-defense-of.html

It's Mike Huben pointing out the obvious crack pottery of the Austrian "methodology" with an Austrian schooler that sounds just like our Austrian schoolers.

The austrian schooler received such a beating even I felt bad for him, and his fellow Austrians even jumped into the discussion to tell him to shut-up.

He even uses the argument that Chomsky's "innate grammar" is akin to Austrian economics and a priori logic. Huben destroys him with this comment:

The innate capacity for language is part of our development process. It has nothing to do with a priori knowledge. Development is a form of experience. We have a special capacity for linguistic models the same we we have capacities to make other sorts of models. We’re talking physical structures in the brain which enable us to create a multitude of models: but those structures have nothing to do with a priori knowledge. Without experience, we will not create those models, just as without early experience of language, we will not develop language. Apparently you know nothing of development either.

This is accurate. The process of language acquisition is akin to imprinting, an innate process which begins to play out along certain lines when triggered by OUTSIDE STIMULI.

For example, when a birc harches from its shell at birth and forms the parent/young bond with the first organism it sees, it is called imprinting. Its behavior that is trigged by some outside stimulus, but plays itself out in a standard, predictable way, and is the same from one individual to the next.

It follows by logic that this is how language works. For example, as Chomsky says if you bring a Japanese baby up in Boston, it will speak Boston English. And if you bring up an American baby in Japan, it will speak Japanese. We all have the same innate structures of language.

Furthermore, a priori reasoning isn't even relevant. It's a question of nature versus nurture, of what is inherited genetically versus what is acquired through experience and environmental influences, and is an old of questions as physics of mathematics.

If the Austrian had any brains he would have argued from Chomsky's mathematical work, but the fact is he did as best as he could with the limited knowledge Austrian economics provides a person.

Austrian economics is a cult and it shouldn't even be entertained.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 22:07

Dean

14th September 2010, 22:11

From my encounters there are two main groups.

1. People that believe that it is wrong to "initiate aggression," and so they are Libertarians for this reason. They may or may not believe in objective ethics.

2. People who are just concerned about achieving a prosperous society where people are free to live as they please.
So they say. But I've found that most take on the first of your models after hearing rhetoric about "initiation of force" or the "NAP." And the second one is completely applicable to the arguments any communist would give for his opinions.

The statement "Black people are criminals" is value free. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.
And this proves just how useless the "value free" characterization of any model is.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 22:14

So they say. But I've found that most take on the first of your models after hearing rhetoric about "initiation of force" or the "NAP." And the second one is completely applicable to the arguments any communist would give for his opinions.

I have found that most take the second, especially among academic Austrians.

And this proves just how useless the "value free" characterization of any model is.

How?

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 22:18

And that is?

I'll get back to this.

I disagree with that. I would posit that 40-80% sure is not the same thing as "not applicable."

40-80% sure about what?

That's what I mean, they say it is value free, yet it always leads you to the same conclusions;

It is value-free. However, you can use what you have learned from Economics to see what measures would be useful in attaining your goals and which measures would be detrimental.

regulations create mal-investment of capital,

That's a bit of an oversimplification but I can understand how such statements can come across as nuttery used to promote pro-capitalist policies.

and workers bargaining for higher wages restricts capital flow.

This is a subject I'm not well versed in.

... But really I have yet to see an austrian (other than you maybe) that does not hold the belief that higher wages = stagnation.

That is unfortunate.

But are they correct? Of course we have to use a priori reasoning, but what says the applications that you (plural) posit are accurate representations?

Could you please expand on this?

Absolutely incorrect philosophical nuttery. Only useless knowledge like God cannot be verified.

It's not necessarily that it can't be verified, it's just that we can know it to be true without necessarily needing to test it. And if we do test it and it contradicts the theory, we should check the theory, but if the theory is still logically sound, we should not immediately abandon the theory. Instead, we should check to make sure that there were no outside variables in the test. In the case of economic activity, it is difficult to properly control for an experiment.

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 22:20

Hoppe and Mises believed that the "property owners" or "more capable set of men" were the natural rulers of society and were therefore to be worshipped as Gods.

Comparing Mises to Hoppe is a travesty. Regardless of the political faults of the Austrians, their Economic program is essentially correct, though misapplied.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 22:22

Comparing Mises to Hoppe is a travesty. Regardless of the political faults of the Austrians, their Economic program is essentially correct, though misapplied.

He doesn't care about the truth value of his statements. The purpose of the post was to spew hate. That is why he drops by, makes 1 or two dogmatic posts, and then leaves the discussion.

Left-Reasoning

14th September 2010, 22:28

Yes, I do. But I think the whole concept of value-free is anything but. Logically, if you take those statements to their conclusion it would be, you shouldn't regulate, nor raise wages.

2+2=4. This is true and value free. Whether 2+2 should equal 4 is irrelevant. We can lament the sad fact that 2+2 equals 4 but we cannot change the fact that 2+2 equals 4.

In the same way, the Minimum Wage, usually, causes unemployment, especially among teenagers and minorities. If this were not the case, I would be all for it as a way to take from the capitalists and give to those who have earned it. Sadly, I cannot change the laws of Economics, I can simply use what I have learned from Economics to help me accomplish my goals more efficiently.

Rothbard may have been cool, if he wasn't a right-wing apologist for elites.

Rothbard actually wrote some fairly radical Left-Wing stuff at one point. Of course, it wasn't nearly as radical as it should have been but he's much better than all the other Austrians.

Also, he expanded the Socialist Calculation Argument into an attack on Corporations! Exposing their vast inefficiencies just as Mises showed the inefficiencies of the Socialist State.

Properly understood, I think Austrian Economics is the best weapon we socialists have against the capitalists and I think it's a shame that instead of embracing it, we bludgeon it.

Conquer or Die

14th September 2010, 22:51

Libertarians can have their 10% representation in the Dumas. I care about labor controlling the means of production exclusively; not to engage in the ethical debate over seat belts.

IcarusAngel

14th September 2010, 23:06

He doesn't care about the truth value of his statements. The purpose of the post was to spew hate.

You're the one claiming that "black people are criminals" is not a value-judgment, which is apparently the latest trend used by Austrian assholes to justify their racism.

nzsleAkABoY

(Although to be fair this idiot is so nonsensical it's hard to figure out what he is even saying in his incoherent rambling, but it sounds like that racism is nothing more than "value judgments" regardless of what the facts itself say.)

And we've already been through all of these "Mises axioms" on revleft - publius shows what happens when an Austrian meets a philosopher - and the link above shows what happens when Austrians try and talk of science.

2+2=4. This is true and value free. Whether 2+2 should equal 4 is irrelevant. We can lament the sad fact that 2+2 equals 4 but we cannot change the fact that 2+2 equals 4.

It depends upon the application. 2 cups of water and 2 cups of popcorn does not equal 4 cups of popcorn-water.

"But," you might say, "none of this shakes my belief that 2 and 2 are 4." You are quite right, except in marginal cases -- and it is only in marginal cases that you are doubtful whether a certain animal is a dog or a certain length is less than a meter. Two must be two of something, and the proposition "2 and 2 are 4" is useless unless it can be applied. Two dogs and two dogs are certainly four dogs, but cases arise in which you are doubtful whether two of them are dogs. "Well, at any rate there are four animals," you may say. But there are microorganisms concerning which it is doubtful whether they are animals or plants. "Well, then living organisms," you say. But there are things of which it is doubtful whether they are living organisms or not. You will be driven into saying: "Two entities and two entities are four entities." When you have told me what you mean by "entity," we will resume the argument.
Quoted in N Rose Mathematical Maxims and Minims (Raleigh N C 1988).

Let's see, who am I going to take more serious? Left Reasoning who's never been through a college algebra course or a logician such as Bertrand Russell.

Mathematics is about modeling. And furthermore, due to the incompleteness-theorems of Gödel, all of arithmetic cannot even be reduced to logic and some theorems are unproven.

Properly understood, I think Austrian Economics is the best weapon we socialists have against the capitalists and I think it's a shame that instead of embracing it, we bludgeon it.

Classic cultism.

What does Austrian economics even mean - well, Austrian economics means whatever you want to mean. It can mean socialism, capitalism, and everything in-between. I've even debated with an Austrian economist who claimed that since fairy tales such as Austrian a priori reasoning and scientific theories are both man made, that they are essentially the same and one is no more correct than another.

One Austrian tells me humans are "too complex" to ever be modeled mathematically, like quantum theory (which actually does have a very accurate system of mathematics, so that's an ignorant statement), the next Austrian tells me that, oh no, Austrian economics is about human behavior and applying mathematics to human behavior, so long as they're guided by the proper Austrian assumptions.

If this clown his so convinced that Austrian-economics is socialism, why doesn't he go go Mises forums and promote socialism through austrian economics. Why does he only troll here (probably someone under an alterego account) and why doesn't he tell us what background he's coming from or anything else?

He apparently he is convinced that he can get others to waste their lives dabbling in Austrian economics just as he does so as to prevent them from seeking progressive change for the future.

IcarusAngel

14th September 2010, 23:11

2 + 2 = 4 is also based upon natural numbers, which is the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, and is a model. Modeling is not a priori reasoning; numbers exist.

Libertarians can have their 10% representation in the Dumas. I care about labor controlling the means of production exclusively; not to engage in the ethical debate over seat belts.

"The Libertarian has no clothes." --User on reddit.

They've been promoting their tripe on reddit to, some people there have degrees in mathematics/physics/etc., and so they were soundly rejected there as well.

The fact that they're using 14th century philosophy/methodology shows just how far Libertarians have sunk in the rational discourse.

IcarusAngel

14th September 2010, 23:24

Comparing Mises to Hoppe is a travesty. Regardless of the political faults of the Austrians, their Economic program is essentially correct, though misapplied.

I was actually referring to Mises himself, who said the following in a letter to Ayn Rand:

You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.

So I'm actually supposed to fucking believe that I'm inferior to the capitalists who can expropriate my labor, but not only my labor but the labor of all doctors, engineers, computer scientists, programmers, and hard laborers like miners, construction workers and so on and so forth that actually build society?

And that isn't even the only example.

Basically, Hoppe is just an extreme form of Mises who just repeats this nonsense more often. He even makes fun of the mentally handicapped in society that they should be exterminated and we shouldn't help them. It's basically a worse form of Hitler as not even Hitler went after the homeless.

According to Robert Murphy the Austrian "Rothbardians" in the "Mises University" classroom ask him if it's morally ethical for parents to eat their babies.

I actually was arguing in my online class about whether parents would have the legal right to eat their children in a Rothbardian world. Note, I’m not saying the people who were holding this position were moral monsters, I’m just saying you can go easily astray if you focus exclusively on one set of principles to the exclusion of others.

This is the classroom discussion? Don't these people have anything better to do?

I guess you could say that early humans often abandoned (I don't know about cannibalism) their children to survive. But do we want to go back to that? And of course it's immoral. It's been proven through psychology that we're wired up to see one another's pain. And so a society where people ate their children would cause immense reaction among the populous and it would just tear it apart.

It's amazing what Libertarians get away with. Eat your children? "Oh, that's just Libertarians promoting their 'freedom.'" But what about the freedom to not want to live in a society that is officially worse than hell?

This has got fraud written all over it. Come on guys, GET REAL.

Skooma Addict

14th September 2010, 23:28

You're the one claiming that "black people are criminals" is not a value-judgment

Because the statement "black people are criminals" is a value free statement. That is a fact. The fact that this bothers you is an issue you need to resolve yourself.

(Although to be fair this idiot is so nonsensical it's hard to figure out what he is even saying in his incoherent rambling, but it sounds like that racism is nothing more than "value judgments" regardless of what the facts itself say.)

And we've already been through all of these "Mises axioms" on revleft - publius shows what happens when an Austrian meets a philosopher - and the link above shows what happens when Austrians try and talk of science.

Not sure why I should care about what some guy on youtube says, or what exactly you are trying to prove. Although I didn't watch the video nor do I plan to.

The video above is just some dude on youtube. It means absolutely nothing.

But again, not all Austrians believe in praxeology.

Dean

14th September 2010, 23:53

I have found that most take the second, especially among academic Austrians.
I have found very few people who don't take the second - regardless of whatever other models they present for their values.

How?
By nature of the incredibly skewed arguments which can be presented as value-free. Any ideology can be re-framed into value-free statements. It doesn't seem to serve a distinct purpose besides linguistic posturing.

Although, you previously argued that Austrian Economics are value-free (we had a long back-and-forth about this). Are you willing to claim - as we have established in reference to models like 'praxeology' - that no Austrian economist ever promoted values in his economic arguments or theories?

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 00:06

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 00:34

By nature of the incredibly skewed arguments which can be presented as value-free. Any ideology can be re-framed into value-free statements. It doesn't seem to serve a distinct purpose besides linguistic posturing.

Although, you previously argued that Austrian Economics are value-free (we had a long back-and-forth about this). Are you willing to claim - as we have established in reference to models like 'praxeology' - that no Austrian economist ever promoted values in his economic arguments or theories?

I mean I guess you could attempt to skew arguments into value free statements to fit a dogmatic ideology. However, those value free statements are going to be false. So it just makes refuting the ideology that much easier. For example "all black people are criminals" is an incorrect value free statement. So making your claims value free means nothing if they are false. If they are true, then all the better for everyone.

I am not willing to make that claim. Economists can and do make policy proposals. But those proposals are derived from A. Economic theory and B. their personal subjective value judgments.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 00:35

A "fact" can be demonstrated. It is a fact that apples fall from trees. It is a fact that I exist. Facts have some kind of evidence: they are not blanket statements. He should provide evidence that "black people are criminals" is not a value judgment, which is a fact.

If you think "black people are criminals" is not a value free statement, then you just don't know your definitions.

anticap

15th September 2010, 01:03

1. People that believe that it is wrong to "initiate aggression," and so they are Libertarians for this reason.

They don't mean it, though, because they base their entire worldview on private property, which is sheer aggression through-and-through. It's not a law of nature, written in the stars. It's a human convention, which can be instituted either by force or agreement. In either case, it must be maintained by force (barring the impossible scenario where everyone, in every generation, always endorses the initial agreement, forever). It's an aggressive imposition on those opposed, initiated by those in favor.

The forceful abolition of this convention does not constitute the initiation of aggression -- it constitutes defense. Our species did not fall from the sky already practicing this convention.

So, no, right-"libertarians" (i.e., propertarians) do not believe that it is wrong to initiate aggression. To the contrary, they believe that the initiation of aggression, in the form of private property, is the proper foundation for human interaction.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 01:05

They don't mean it, though, because they base their entire worldview on private property, which is sheer aggression through-and-through. It's not a law of nature, written in the stars. It's a human convention, which can be instituted either by force or agreement. In either case, it must be maintained by force (barring the impossible scenario where everyone, in every generation, always endorses the initial agreement, forever). It's an aggressive imposition on those opposed, initiated by those in favor.

The forceful abolition of this convention does not constitute the initiation of aggression -- it constitutes defense. Our species did not fall from the sky already practicing this convention.

So, no, right-"libertarians" (i.e., propertarians) do not believe that it is wrong to initiate aggression. To the contrary, they believe that the initiation of aggression, in the form of private property, is the proper foundation for human interaction.

I don't agree with them either. What constitutes "aggression" (in the ethical, not the legal sense) depends on background beliefs.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 01:58

It depends upon the application. 2 cups of water and 2 cups of popcorn does not equal 4 cups of popcorn-water.

Correct. 2X+2Y=/=2XY

"But," you might say, "none of this shakes my belief that 2 and 2 are 4." You are quite right, except in marginal cases -- and it is only in marginal cases that you are doubtful whether a certain animal is a dog or a certain length is less than a meter. Two must be two of something, and the proposition "2 and 2 are 4" is useless unless it can be applied. Two dogs and two dogs are certainly four dogs, but cases arise in which you are doubtful whether two of them are dogs. "Well, at any rate there are four animals," you may say. But there are microorganisms concerning which it is doubtful whether they are animals or plants. "Well, then living organisms," you say. But there are things of which it is doubtful whether they are living organisms or not. You will be driven into saying: "Two entities and two entities are four entities." When you have told me what you mean by "entity," we will resume the argument.
Quoted in N Rose Mathematical Maxims and Minims (Raleigh N C 1988). Correct.

Let's see, who am I going to take more serious? Left Reasoning who's never been through a college algebra course or a logician such as Bertrand Russell.Both because we are saying the same thing. Also, ad hominem.

Mathematics is about modeling. And furthermore, due to the incompleteness-theorems of Gödel, all of arithmetic cannot even be reduced to logic and some theorems are unproven. I'm not a Math major, I can't tell you much about math.

What does Austrian economics even mean - well, Austrian economics means whatever you want to mean.False. Austrian Economics does not mean dentistry, for one. Austrian Economics is founded on marginal utility and subjective valuation.

It can mean socialism, capitalism, and everything in-between.Austrian Economics does not mean Socialism, nor Capitalism. It is a value free framework.

If this clown his so convinced that Austrian-economics is socialism, why doesn't he go go Mises forums and promote socialism through austrian economics.Austrian Economics =/= Socialism. Austrian Economics =/= Capitalism. Austrian Economics = economic theory.

I don't think I'd enjoy the company of the Mises trolls.

Why does he only troll here (probably someone under an alterego account) and why doesn't he tell us what background he's coming from or anything else? I don't troll, I speak only what I know, or what I believe to know. You want my background? What else do you want to know?

He apparently he is convinced that he can get others to waste their lives dabbling in Austrian economics just as he does so as to prevent them from seeking progressive change for the future.I'm convinced that Austrian Economics is the correct course of economic theorizing and that, taken to it's logical conclusions, leads to the conclusion that radical decentralization and worker-based cooperatives are the most efficient forms production.

Austrian Economics also explains the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 02:09

The video above is just some dude on youtube. It means absolutely nothing.

SpawkTalk is very intelligent. You should watch some of his vids. Recently he's come under the belief that the borders *should* be closed and all hispanics *should* be deported. I think he is wrong, but nevertheless he is quite smart, generally.

But again, not all Austrians believe in praxeology.

The good ones do.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 02:18

SawkTalk is a bumbling idiot and a racist on Youtube. with absolutely no training in logic or economics. The fact that you think he is "intelligent" pretty says everything about you that we need to know.

Rph7DIA_uKI

54bA1mcusgA

Basically the "Austrian community" is a bunch of 19-22 year olds who live in their parents basement and spew racial hatred all over youtube.

Left-Reasoning is apparently from that group.

Conquer or Die

15th September 2010, 02:18

SpawkTalk is very intelligent. You should watch some of his vids. Recently he's come under the belief that the borders *should* be closed and all hispanics *should* be deported. I think he is wrong, but nevertheless he is quite smart, generally.

Future member of the Cannon Fodder of America Coalition.

anticap

15th September 2010, 02:19

Austrian Economics ... is a value free framework.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*deep breath*

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 02:24

Correct. 2X+2Y=/=2XY

There is a principle in mathematics that says you wouldn't times x and y together to get x + y - this holds for cardinal values. In higher mathematics, these "axioms" and "rules" no longer apply. Furthermore, depending upon the values of x and y, we could indeed solve the equation above for certain cases.

Both because we are saying the same thing. Also, ad hominem.

Lol. Sure.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 02:26

Future member of the Cannon Fodder of America Coalition.

The funny thing is that other Austrians on Youtube beg me not to associate them with Spawktalk. Since I'm a nice guy, I generally don't bring it up when I debate other Austrians at places such as reddit etc.

By the way, in my war against Austrian, we got Cockshott's (who posts on this forum) into wikipedia where he refutes Murphy. I want to get some more Anti-Austrian stuff (like Schweikert's refutation of the calculation argument) in there but it's locked atm due to Austrians creating alternative accounts and so on.

We're being trolled here.

anticap

15th September 2010, 02:32

ad hominem

ad hominem fallacy fallacy (http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html)

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 02:33

The good ones do.

Praxeology was the worst thing to happen to AE in its entire history.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*deep breath*

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Explain how he is wrong.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 02:36

The funny thing is that other Austrians on Youtube beg me not to associate them with Spawktalk. Since I'm a nice guy, I generally don't bring it up when I debate other Austrians at places such as reddit etc.

Who cares what some guy on youtube thinks? Is this supposed to prove anything. Obviously you can't just associate people with some guy on youtube.

anticap

15th September 2010, 02:36

Praxeology was the worst thing to happen to AE in its entire history.

Or the best, depending on your perspective. But yeah, praxeology is twaddle.

Explain how he is wrong.

*waves hand in an arc covering the entirety of the Misesite school as evidence*

Dean

15th September 2010, 02:45

I mean I guess you could attempt to skew arguments into value free statements to fit a dogmatic ideology. However, those value free statements are going to be false. So it just makes refuting the ideology that much easier. For example "all black people are criminals" is an incorrect value free statement. So making your claims value free means nothing if they are false. If they are true, then all the better for everyone.

In what way does rephrasing a model into the "value free" format make them "all the better" for everyone?

I am not willing to make that claim. Economists can and do make policy proposals. But those proposals are derived from A. Economic theory and B. their personal subjective value judgments.

If you are unable to make that claim than you must concede the point that Austrian Economics are not, in fact, value free - while some of the theories are probably value free, some are not (or you suspect as much, given your unwillingness to claim otherwise).

So Austrian Economics are not, as a rule, value free, have we established that?

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 02:45

*waves hand in an arc covering the entirety of the Misesite school as evidence*

Seriously though.....

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 02:50

Who cares what some guy on youtube thinks? Is this supposed to prove anything. Obviously you can't just associate people with some guy on youtube.

The internet and social media sites are where Austrians primarily exists. I've never run into them anywhere else - work, school, etc. Furthermore, our own Austrians here have linked to their videos. I believe one of them - some dumb-ass named thor - even came here to the forum when Havet linked one of his videos. They are representative of Austrian economics just as you are. They often quote from Austrian sources just as I quote from leftist/liberal sources.

We have now learned left-reasoning is a part of that clique, and so it was a useful exercise.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 02:51

In what way does rephrasing a model into the "value free" format make them "all the better" for everyone?

Because they would be very easy to disprove.

If you are unable to make that claim than you must concede the point that Austrian Economics are not, in fact, value free - while some of the theories are probably value free, some are not (or you suspect as much, given your unwillingness to claim otherwise).

All of the theories are value free. However, lets say a person opposes unemployment. They believe that "unemployment is bad." This is a value laden belief. They then take what they know from AE, combine it with their belief that unemployment is bad, and this leads them to oppose the minimum wage.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 02:54

The internet and social media sites are where Austrians primarily exists. I've never run into them anywhere else - work, school, etc.

Who cares if you haven't run into any? I know I don't. It means absolutely nothing to me. I personally have run into Austrians if that means anything to you.

Furthermore, our own Austrians here have linked to their videos. I believe one of them - some dumb-ass named thor - even came here to the forum when Havet linked one of his videos. They are representative of Austrian economics just as you are. They often quote from Austrian sources just as I quote from leftist/liberal sources.

You can't just take some guy from youtube and say he is representative of AE. I am not representative of AE at all. I only agree with Austrians on some issues.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 02:58

Who cares if you haven't run into any? I know I don't. It means absolutely nothing to me. I personally have run into Austrians if that means anything to you.

Yes, which is why you dwell in the world of Austrian economics as you do not know anything useful. Austrian economics is not above 1% in any discipline, and so they exist primarily on the net.

You can't just take some guy from youtube and say he is representative of AE. I am not representative of AE at all. I only agree with Austrians on some issues.

It is my opinion he is representative of austrian economics. If you disagree that's fine, but present valid reasons why he is not - as some here seem to think he is "brilliant."

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 03:02

Yes, which is why you dwell in the world of Austrian economics as you do not know anything useful. Austrian economics is not above 1% in any discipline, and so they exist primarily on the net.

What do you mean I don't know anything useful? I know a good amount about logistics, and that is useful. Stop making baseless claims.

It is my opinion he is representative of austrian economics. If you disagree that's fine, but present valid reasons why he is not - as some here seem to think he is "brilliant."

Based on prior experience, it is my opinion that your opinion of what is representative of AE means absolutely nothing.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 03:07

Then it should be pretty easy to show something that I've said that misrepresents Austrian economics.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 03:11

Then it should be pretty easy to show something that I've said that misrepresents Austrian economics.

I seriously do not care enough to sit through his videos to make such a determination.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 03:42

Praxeology was the worst thing to happen to AE in its entire history.

Correction. Praxeology is the best thing to ever happen to AE in its entire history.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 03:45

I believe one of them - some dumb-ass named thor - even came here to the forum when Havet linked one of his videos.

Thorsmitresaw is also a smart guy.

We have now learned left-reasoning is a part of that clique, and so it was a useful exercise.

A part of what clique?

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 03:45

The intellectual back and forth debate between Austrians is intimidating it is so fact based and well thought out.

Olaf is correct in one thing. For free-markets to exists, the government must exist. If corporations use government power to their favor, the government should stop that. Or the people should stop it by voting in leaders that would stop it. Or they should take direct action. Or we should keep fighting to make the government work with the markets. It's really that simple.

Anarchism is another whole framework that would implement many different systems just as not every tribe traded in the same way pre-history.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 03:46

I seriously do not care enough to sit through his videos to make such a determination.

He has some good stuff on Moral Error Theory. If your interested in the subject, I'd suggest you check it out.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 03:47

For free-markets to exists, the government must exist.

No, the opposite.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 03:48

Basically the "Austrian community" is a bunch of 19-22 year olds who live in their parents basement and spew racial hatred all over youtube.

The youtube Austrian community, yes. They are generally quite intelligent though, if a bit ignorant and stubborn.

Left-Reasoning is apparently from that group.

This is not the case.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 03:55

So you don't have a youtube account, facebook account, myspace account?

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 03:57

So you don't have a youtube account, facebook account, myspace account?

I don't have a youtube account. My social networking is private and none of your concern.

Revolution starts with U

15th September 2010, 05:16

Could you please expand on this?
Kings, if they rule, rule forever. This is an a priori postulation. It is incorrect, but still a priori. (I use this example because "If King John ruled, he ruled for a finite period" is generally the example used to define a priori)

And Skooma, no. "Black people are criminals" is not value free (generalizing a whole set of people, instead of individuals, would imply criminal to be a part of their nature, rather than just the aspect of commiting crimes). "Black people commit crime" would be a value free statement (a largely incorrect one).

Dean

15th September 2010, 08:08

Because they would be very easy to disprove.

How so? I've seen absolutely no proof for this; just your repeated insistence that there is something special about the model.

All of the theories are value free. However, lets say a person opposes unemployment. They believe that "unemployment is bad." This is a value laden belief. They then take what they know from AE, combine it with their belief that unemployment is bad, and this leads them to oppose the minimum wage.
So you are willing to make blanket statements when they support the school. How childish.

Let's revisit the methodology issue:

Praxeology was the worst thing to happen to AE in its entire history.

Okay fine, Austrians never relied on praxeology up until Mises. Also, Mises' praxeology was significantly more complex and developed than anything before it. Praxeology never really developed up until Mises.

In fact, you're wrong - the school has always been marred by what appear to be the seeds of this blatant pseudoscience:

Carl Menger's 1871 book, Principles of Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Economics) was the catalyst for this development; while marginalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism) was generally influential, there was also a more specific school that grew up around Menger, which came to be known as the “Psychological School,” “Vienna School,” or “Austrian School.”

...

The Historical School contended that economists could develop new and better social laws from the collection and study of statistics and historical materials, and distrusted theories not derived from historical experience. Thus, the German Historical School focused on specific dynamic institutions as the largest variable in changes in political economy. The Historical School were themselves reacting against materialist determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism_in_Western_tradition), the idea that human action could, and would (once science advanced enough), be explained as physical and chemical reactions.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodenstreit#cite_note-0)

The Austrian School by contrast believed that economics was the work of philosophical logic and could only ever be about developing rules from first principles — seeing human motives and social interaction as far too complex to be amenable to statistical analysis — and purporting their theories of human action to be universally valid.
http://mises.org/hsofase/ch2sec3.asp

This "psychological assumption" has been alive and well since the birth of the school; one might say the school itself was always the worst thing to happen to itself.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 14:40

How so? I've seen absolutely no proof for this; just your repeated insistence that there is something special about the model.If a racist says "black people ought to be exported," that is not something you can "prove" or "disprove." That is just a belief arising from the racists subjective value judgments. However, if he tries to make a value free claim such as "all black people are criminals," this claim can be definitively refuted, whereas the former claim cannot.

So you are willing to make blanket statements when they support the school. How childish.
What? I was using an example to show how AE is value free.

Dean

15th September 2010, 14:56

If a racist says "black people ought to be exported," that is not something you can "prove" or "disprove." That is just a belief arising from the racists subjective value judgments. However, if he tries to make a value free claim such as "all black people are criminals," this claim can be definitively refuted, whereas the former claim cannot.
Those are completely different statements - they are not a rephrasing, but two completely separate claims.

I don't see how either is easier to argue. But the value statement without backing actually sounds weaker.

What? I was using an example to show how AE is value free.
I know what value-free models are. MY point is that you are willing to make blanket statements on AE when they are positive.

I didn't know you had read every theory by every Austrian scholar. That's very interesting.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 16:26

Those are completely different statements - they are not a rephrasing, but two completely separate claims.

I don't see how either is easier to argue. But the value statement without backing actually sounds weaker.

The point was that you can definitively refute the latter. You cannot "refute" the former.

I know what value-free models are. MY point is that you are willing to make blanket statements on AE when they are positive.

I didn't know you had read every theory by every Austrian scholar. That's very interesting.

There is no portion of any part of AE theory which isn't value free. If you think otherwise, present one.

Dean

15th September 2010, 16:33

The point was that you can definitively refute the latter. You cannot "refute" the former.
But that isn't because one is value free. Take the following:

A. Blacks are all criminals; they should be jailed.
-Not value free, but refutable.
B. Blacks are all criminals.
-Value free, refutable.
C. Blacks should be jailed. (value-only)
-Not value free, no theory to refute.

You see, it is not the "value free" character that makes your argument testable. It is the claim to material fact that makes it testable. Your example is not a theory, so it cannot be seen as a "harder" theory to test.

There is no portion of any part of AE theory which isn't value free. If you think otherwise, present one.
Ah, so you've read it all. Just making sure.

Dean

15th September 2010, 16:59

Lets take a different example. Is this a value-free statement?

Anyone with a genuine sense of moral values experiences no hardship in
deciding between honor and livelihood.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 17:05

Anyone with a genuine sense of moral values experiences no hardship in deciding between honor and livelihood.

That statement is value free. Yes.

Dean

15th September 2010, 17:23

That statement is value free. Yes.

How about this?
People believe that socialist institutions might evolve without further ado from those of a capitalist economy. This is not at all the case. And it becomes all the more grotesque when we talk of banks, banks management, etc. in a socialist commonwealth.

Dean

15th September 2010, 17:56

Also, Mises explicitly rejects history as a means to economic knowledge:

No general rules about the effects of various modes of action and of definite
social institutions can be derived from historical experience. In this sense
the famous dictum is true that the study of history can teach only one thing:
viz., that nothing can be learned from history. We could therefore agree with
the historicists in not paying much attention to the indisputable fact that no
people ever raised itself to a somewhat satisfactory state of welfare and
civilization without the institution of private ownership of the means of
production. It is not history but economics that clarifies our thoughts about
the effects of property rights.
Theory of History, pp 216

Dean

15th September 2010, 18:11

Bad policies can disintegrate our civilization as they have destroyed many other civilizations. But neither reason nor experience warrants the assumption that we cannot avoid choosing bad policies and thereby wrecking our civilization.
Who designates a bad policy? Sounds like a value.

There is no harm in comparing different historical events and different events that occurred in the history of various civilizations.
No harm to what? What is valued by Mises, of course.

We need not deal with the lunatic fringe of this movement, such as German attempts to revive the cult of Wodan. Neither do the sartorial aspects of these tendencies deserve more thin ironical comments.

Splitting up big business is all right if you are prepared to put up with the consequences.

Theory of history, to pp237.

Revolution starts with U

15th September 2010, 18:44

Define AE, and I will see if I can find a value-free statement. You, nor none of your compatriots have been able to do that.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 19:15

Dean, my argument is not that no Austrian has never made a value laden statement in their life.

Dean

15th September 2010, 20:25

Dean, my argument is not that no Austrian has never made a value laden statement in their life.
These are two theoretical works with some explicit value-statements.

You said:

There is no portion of any part of AE theory which isn't value free. If you think otherwise, present one.

To be fair, the presence of value-statements doesn't refute the work. But it does refute this quote of yours. Furthermore, it refutes the relevance of "value free" as a significant theoretical characteristic.

And, value freedom doesn't disprove the prejudices of any theoretician, which is an issue that at least once compelled your "value freedom" tangent. The racist statement is a good example of this fact.

Also, how do you feel about the fact that Mises rejects Historical evidence as a means for economic theorization?

No general rules about the effects of various modes of action and of definite
social institutions can be derived from historical experience. In this sense
the famous dictum is true that the study of history can teach only one thing:
viz., that nothing can be learned from history. We could therefore agree with
the historicists in not paying much attention to the indisputable fact that no
people ever raised itself to a somewhat satisfactory state of welfare and
civilization without the institution of private ownership of the means of
production. It is not history but economics that clarifies our thoughts about
the effects of property rights.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 22:33

These are two theoretical works with some explicit value-statements.Value statements which are not part of AE theory. Any value free statements Mises made in that book are not part of Austrian economic theory. As Mises himself said, even though he is a liberal his economics contain only value free propositions. For example...

"We need not deal with the lunatic fringe of this movement, such as German attempts to revive the cult of Wodan. Neither do the sartorial aspects of these tendencies deserve more thin ironical comments."

This has nothing to do with AE theory.

To be fair, the presence of value-statements doesn't refute the work. But it does refute this quote of yours.No, as you did not present any portion of the Austrian theory which is not a value free proposition. Right now, provide one example of Austrian Economic theory which is not a value free proposition.

And, value freedom doesn't disprove the prejudices of any theoreticianCorrect. But who cares?

Also, how do you feel about the fact that Mises rejects Historical evidence as a means for economic theorization? I disagree with him to an extent, although I disagree with the historical school as well.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 23:37

Also, how do you feel about the fact that Mises rejects Historical evidence as a means for economic theorization?

He is absolutely correct. In fact, that is one of his more brilliant statements.

It is also value free as it simply states a fact and does not say whether this fact is good or bad.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 23:38

Austrian Economics = Wertfrei

Austrian Economists =/= Wertfrei

Dean

16th September 2010, 03:01

No, as you did not present any portion of the Austrian theory which is not a value free proposition. Right now, provide one example of Austrian Economic theory which is not a value free proposition.
Where can I find them? Apparently, a work title "History and Theory" with explicit theorization is not "theory" in your book.

So, where are these elusive theories?

Value statements which are not part of AE theory. Any value free statements Mises made in that book are not part of Austrian economic theory. As Mises himself said, even though he is a liberal his economics contain only value free propositions. For example...

...

This has nothing to do with AE theory.

Mises is attempting to explain and characterize different tendencies and historical facts from the vantage of his theory of value. That much is evident after reading significant portions of the book.

What makes that statement external to theory? I'm willing to bet that your ultimate conclusion is going to be to only characterize specific theoretical arguments as theory (which you've all but explicitly stated in the above); if this is the case, then there is in fact no such beast as a "value laden" theory, or it is little more than a Chimera, since your definition will be so narrow.

Of course, we'll have to let you clarify the definition yourself, since you will neither condescend to appreciate the models presented by anyone else here, nor will you accept the characterization of any particular objectively defined model unless it fits into your predetermined ideological framework.

Dean

16th September 2010, 03:04

He is absolutely correct. In fact, that is one of his more brilliant statements.
So you also feel that the historical manifestation of particular models bears no consequence for the validity of implementing them? What a pretentious tool.

What is so hilarious about Austrian economics is its complete and willing disassociation from reality. But its a bit scary to find a contemporary "leftist" promote the same insane, mystical view of the world.

It is also value free as it simply states a fact and does not say whether this fact is good or bad.
No shit. The point is that value freedom is a fairly meaningless term which is inapplicable to most serious theory (probably all, depending on how one defines it).

Revolution starts with U

16th September 2010, 03:09

The problem for you 2 is you relate value-free to fact (as you just did). But the racist statement clearly shows that value free != fact. As Dean has said, it is largely irrelevant, and philosophical David Blainism.

Left-Reasoning

16th September 2010, 03:39

So you also feel that the historical manifestation of particular models bears no consequence for the validity of implementing them?

Wait, on implementing them? I thought we were talking about Economic Theory. One does not, and can not, implement Economic Theory.

No shit. The point is that value freedom is a fairly meaningless term which is inapplicable to most serious theory (probably all, depending on how one defines it).

That's absurd. All non-moral theory must necessarily be value-free.

Dean

16th September 2010, 04:04

Wait, on implementing them? I thought we were talking about Economic Theory. One does not, and can not, implement Economic Theory.
Please re-read the quote (though your grandstanding is patently false - there are plenty of economic theories regarding fiscal policy).

Contrary to elitist Austrian models, economic theory is not a "grand model of worldly doctrine" which is uniformly "untestable" or "un-implement-able." To narrow yourself to that kind of model is to shoot oneself in the foot.

That's absurd. All non-moral theory must necessarily be value-free.
By this definition (and I've accepted it for the sake of argument long ago) value-freedom is a bullshit model which says nothing about a theory.

I may as well claim that "my model is solely stated in if-then premises" as if that were some great characteristic that proved its impartiality.

And impartiality has always been the argument from the Austrians here.

And that impartiality has always been a fiction, and a useless one at that.

How about this: what does it prove that a model is "value-free?" (note that I completely demolished the "easier to argue" notion put forth by Skooma above:)

The point was that you can definitively refute the latter. You cannot "refute" the former.
But that isn't because one is value free. Take the following:

A. Blacks are all criminals; they should be jailed.
-Not value free, but refutable.
B. Blacks are all criminals.
-Value free, refutable.
C. Blacks should be jailed. (value-only)
-Not value free, no theory to refute.

You see, it is not the "value free" character that makes your argument testable. It is the claim to material fact that makes it testable. Your example is not a theory, so it cannot be seen as a "harder" theory to test.

So, what's so special about it? (this question is for Skooma as well, by the way).

Skooma Addict

16th September 2010, 04:15

what does it prove that a model is "value-free?"That the theory can be objectively proven or disproven. If a theory contains both value free and value laden propositions, it can only be refuted by refuting the value free portions of the theory. For example...

Blacks are all criminals; they should be jailed.

Also, if a theory is not value free, then it is only "true" for people who hold the same values. So for example Marxist Economics is only true for people who subjectively approve or Marxism to the extent that it contains normative claims.

Lets say it were true that all black people were criminals. It would still be impossible to "prove" or "disprove" whether or not they should be jailed, as that simply depends on personal values.

You still haven't given any portion of Austrian Economic theory which is value laden. Mises' personal beliefs on what is bad is not part of AE theory.

It is the claim to material fact that makes it testable.Not all claims to material fact are testable.

Revolution starts with U

16th September 2010, 07:46

No. ALL claims to material fact are testable, with the right knowledge/equipment, up to a certain percentage (which even absolute material things are really only like 99.99).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics
Go to any one of those and it easily lays out the theory of the school. Go to austrian (and chicago, their statist cousin) and you get;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
There are really no claims at all, it is less a theory than it is an argument about methodology (of which they stand on a pre-scientific stance of anti-empiricism).
It says nothing anywhere about what is central to the theory, just generally what stances they take.
It would seem austrian "theory" is;
1. Empirical testing of the market is virtually impossible
2. Economic theory should be deductively developed a priori
3. Collectives do not act, only individuals do (which strangely enough contradicts the spontaneous order of the market it wants to ally with)
4. Value is subjective
5. Prices arise spontaneously through flow of capital

Would this be a good place to start? 1 is testable, 2 is a value statement, 3 and 5 can also be tested. 4 is obviously true, to a certain extent.

Or, you could just make this easier and stop claiming every criticism of AE is a misunderstanding/mischaracterization of it. And just spell the theory out for us, since, as you claim, you are so knowledgeable in it. ;)

IcarusAngel

16th September 2010, 08:13

You make good points.

But how did you get mixed up in this Austrian economics mess.

Left-Reasoning

16th September 2010, 08:15

No. ALL claims to material fact are testable, with the right knowledge/equipment

With the right equipment, certainly. In fact, that is tautologically true. Whether the right equipment exists to test everything that is true I'm unsure. Certainly there are certain facts about logic that we can be sure are true and I don't know how you would go about testing them anyway.

Take for example the law of the excluded middle.

There are really no claims at all, it is less a theory than it is an argument about methodologyAustrian Economics is a theory about what the proper methodology is, yes. But by proper I am not implying a value, I am meaning what is the factually correct way to understand economics.

Go to austrian (and chicago, their statist cousin)

The Austrian Methodology and that of the Chicagoites is not related whatsoever. The Chicago School much more closely resembles Keynesian thought. Also, a school of value-free economic thought cannot be statist nor anarchistic. You can have economic theories about the functionality of different societal structures, however.

(of which they stand on a pre-scientific stance of anti-empiricism).The Austrians are the ones that are smart enough to realize that the scientific method and empiricism are not applicable to economics. After all, economics is a branch of logic.

It would seem austrian "theory" is;
1. Empirical testing of the market is virtually impossibleThis isn't necessarily a tenet of Austrian thought, though all Austrians I know believe that it is very difficult to test certain theories in the real world due to all of the variables that are hard to control.

2. Economic theory should be deductively developed a prioriIt's not so much that economic theory SHOULD be deducted a priori, as that economic theory can ONLY be deduced a priori.

3. Collectives do not act, only individuals doThis one is obvious.

(which strangely enough contradicts the spontaneous order of the market it wants to ally with)Austrian Economics doesn't want to ally with anyone as it is value-free. Furthermore, Austrian Economics is not an individual and so it cannot act. Austrian Economists, who are individuals, do think that many things that have been identified as problems could be solved through the market process, as Austrian Economics would show. This does not contradict the fact that only individuals act.

4. Value is subjectiveYes.

5. Prices arise spontaneously through flow of capitalI've never heard this one before.

You forgot to mention that decisions are made on the margin, that all costs are opportunity costs, that value is imputed backwards, etc.

Left-Reasoning

16th September 2010, 08:27

Please re-read the quote (though your grandstanding is patently false - there are plenty of economic theories regarding fiscal policy).

Sure there are. If you do X, Y will happen. Is Y good or bad? That's a value judgment that pure economic theory cannot comment on.

Contrary to elitist Austrian models, economic theory is not a "grand model of worldly doctrine" which is uniformly "untestable" or "un-implement-able." To narrow yourself to that kind of model is to shoot oneself in the foot.

Economics is a branch of logic.

By this definition (and I've accepted it for the sake of argument long ago) value-freedom is a bullshit model which says nothing about a theory.

Value freedom is embraced by all schools of economics, to my knowledge.

I may as well claim that "my model is solely stated in if-then premises" as if that were some great characteristic that proved its impartiality.

That doesn't prove that it's impartial, it could be false. You could have intentionally or unintentionally made an error in reasoning and thereby skewed the results into making the actions you ideologically favor look more palatable.

IcarusAngel

16th September 2010, 08:35

Economics is a branch of logic.

Holy christ.

Left-Reasoning

16th September 2010, 08:50

Holy christ.

For all the time you spend on Austrian Economics, I'm surprised this is new to you. All of economics is, and can only be, derived through the use of chains of logic, and only chains of logic.

"Praxeology says that all economic propositions which claim to be true must be shown to be deducible by means of formal logic from the incontestably true material knowledge regarding the meaning of action."[1]

1 http://mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp

Dean

16th September 2010, 13:01

Dean

16th September 2010, 14:39

That the theory can be objectively proven or disproven. If a theory contains both value free and value laden propositions, it can only be refuted by refuting the value free portions of the theory. For example...

Blacks are all criminals; they should be jailed.

Also, if a theory is not value free, then it is only "true" for people who hold the same values. So for example Marxist Economics is only true for people who subjectively approve or Marxism to the extent that it contains normative claims.
It's not a theory if it is a value. In the above example, there are two claims, only one of which is a theory. This is the problem. Values simply don't exist in any bona fide theories.

As Left Reasoning points out:

Sure there are. If you do X, Y will happen. Is Y good or bad? That's a value judgment that pure economic theory cannot comment on.
He's absolutely right. When you engage in a value judgment, outside of specific value theory (wherein values are relative to the theoretical framework anyhow), you are exiting the realm of theory itself.

Not all claims to material fact are testable.
True, but value-statements are, by definition, not testable. They are outside the realm of theorization and have no business being judged by theory (except insofar as the theory is the study of values).

You still haven't given any portion of Austrian Economic theory which is value laden. Mises' personal beliefs on what is bad is not part of AE theory.
This is the problem. Value judgments are, by definition, external to theory. It's a false dichotomy to describe a "value-free theory" in the same way it is false to seriously talk of "empty outer space." Space is, by definition, the empty portion of our universe. When someone describes a lamp floating in space, they are in fat describing a portion of space which has ceased to be space (ignoring the nuances of mass theory, of course).

Since you are only willing to accept explicit theories as testable toward the value-free model, you will never find any theory which has values in it. The best one can hope to do (as I have) is to find theories which are proposed in conjunction with values.

Your dichotomy means nothing, as with many narrow Aristotelian models, it fails because it rejects any encroachment by real historical or material data into the model. Its only so much useless word-games.

Dean

16th September 2010, 14:56

For all the time you spend on Austrian Economics, I'm surprised this is new to you. All of economics is, and can only be, derived through the use of chains of logic, and only chains of logic.

"Praxeology says that all economic propositions which claim to be true must be shown to be deducible by means of formal logic from the incontestably true material knowledge regarding the meaning of action."[1]

1 http://mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp
There is no incontestably true material knowledge on action.

Furthermore, you're right that it is all logical - but you ignore a particular fact, that Austrian models follow only deductive logic, which places it in the realm of philosophy at best. The fact that inductive logic is consistently renounced, and yet the Austrians consistently demand certain human traits (that they feel they have witnessed) as axiomatic, says loads about their intellectual fraudulence.

anticap

16th September 2010, 15:46

The problem with limiting ourselves to "is" statements is that we can never change the world. We can only stand idly by and observe. Whatever happens, so be it; we're just watching and describing it. This is why the ruling-class and its apologists are so enamored with value-freedom.

Those at the bottom want to change the world, because people are not born as rulers and ruled.

Left-Reasoning

16th September 2010, 21:27

Economics are more than that.

Economic Theory is economic theory and that is all.

The actual manifestation of economic activity is far more valuable as a model to study.

That's a value judgment. Besides, you can't understand economic activity without first understanding economic theory.

Revolution starts with U

16th September 2010, 21:44

[QUOTE=Left-Reasoning;1865592]With the right equipment, certainly. In fact, that is tautologically true. Whether the right equipment exists to test everything that is true I'm unsure. Certainly there are certain facts about logic that we can be sure are true and I don't know how you would go about testing them anyway.
You kill Socrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) (if he dies it is true that he is mortal).

Austrian Economics is a theory about what the proper methodology is, yes. But by proper I am not implying a value, I am meaning what is the factually correct way to understand economics.
And how are you so sure that economics is only a branch of logic, because Mises said so? Plenty of economists (you know, the ones that actually get paid for their work on the free market, not by benefactors willing to eat the cost; Koch bros) use math and material data to practice economics.

The Austrian Methodology and that of the Chicagoites is not related whatsoever.
That is false. It is true that they are seperate schools, and they don't reject math and empiricism, but they are very close to each other in outcomes.

The Austrians are the ones that are smart enough to realize that the scientific method and empiricism are not applicable to economics.
That is a pretty big claim that economics cannot be tested. Are they "smart enough" to realize this, or just "stubborn enough" to reject it?

It's not so much that economic theory SHOULD be deducted a priori, as that economic theory can ONLY be deduced a priori.
That is a testable position. Has anyone ever predicted what will happen in a market based on previous data? If so, that position is false.

This one is obvious.
Sure, if you define action like Mises did. Really tho, only praxeologists do (http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define%3A+action&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1)

Yes.
Agreed, value is subjective, to a certain point. Value of non-material goods is completely subjective (God, compassion, hatred, etc). Material goods are valued objectively by oppurtunity costs, and supply, and only within that does it become subjective.

I've never heard this one before.
Took it straight from wikipedia. If I am not mistaken they call it the "price mechanism" or something.

You forgot to mention that decisions are made on the margin, that all costs are opportunity costs, that value is imputed backwards, etc

Hey, at least you try to lay out the theory, unlike Skooma who just claims noone but austrians understand it. :thumbup1: But you're a leftist, so that is not unexpected.

Dean

16th September 2010, 22:07

Economic Theory is economic theory and that is all.
The sky is the sky and that's all. Real proof there, chief.

Theories rely on logic and inductive logic describes the bulk of economic theory past and present. The Austrian school is notable in its rejection of inductive logic and obsession with black-white models.

That's a value judgment. Besides, you can't understand economic activity without first understanding economic theory.
So what if its a value judgment? Its also not an economic theory. But this is a classic example of the rephrasing problem I discussed earlier:

"The actual manifestation of economic activity is far more telling as a model to study. "

This is more or less the same statement: 'valuable' in this context would refer to the magnitude of facts that manifestations can give us. 'Telling' provides the same dynamic.

Value Freedom is therefore a chimera in terms of theoretical evaluation. Perhaps it has some use in abstract discussions of logic. But once you've come to the point of studying economics, such semantical issues should have been taken care of.

Skooma Addict

16th September 2010, 22:19

The sky is the sky and that's all. Real proof there, chief.

Theories rely on logic and inductive logic describes the bulk of economic theory past and present. The Austrian school is notable in its rejection of inductive logic and obsession with black-white models.

I think you would benefit from reading this. It will clear up some misunderstandings.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf

Dean

16th September 2010, 23:38

I think you would benefit from reading this. It will clear up some misunderstandings.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf
I thanked your post because you finally provided some substance - albeit in the form of another person's words.

I'll look over it, but I really wish you'd start reading theory and arguing it in your own words. It's pretty disappointing, for instance, that you consistently ignore my criticism of value-free statements - when I provide distinct models and arguments which elucidate the issue, you refuse to acknowledge them.

Dean

16th September 2010, 23:51

http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf

See, for instance, Rothbard (1957, 1972). Rothbard (1957), however, defends apriorism on slightly different
grounds than Mises. He maintains that while the starting point of economic theory—the proposition that
all humans behave purposively—may be known via introspection (per Mises), it can also be defended as
aprioristic if it is learned by appealing to ‘‘broad empirical’’ observation. In this way, Rothbard introduces
what he calls an ‘‘Aristotelian’’ derivation of the action axiom’s aprioristic status. Also on this issue, see
Smith (1996) who defends the view of an ontological a priori—a ‘‘deep-lying a priori dimension on the side
of the things themselves.’’ Kirzner (2001) recounts a story in which Mises allegedly told him that the action
axiom was derived from ‘‘experience’’ as well. In his first book and doctoral dissertation (1960) written
under the direction of Mises, however, Kirzner maintains the traditional Misesian argument that we know
humans act by way of introspection.

Boehm-Bawerk (1884 – 1921: II 212 – 213) divides price theory into a first part, which is pure theory of
exchange and price, and a second part of price theory which incorporates into that analysis different
individual motivations, differing empirical circumstance and alternative concrete institutions.
‘‘The amount of attention devoted by economists to each of these two parts of the theory of price
has varied with the prevailing phase in methods of research. As long as the abstractly deductive phase
characteristic of the English school was in the ascendancy, the first part of the price problem was almost
the only one to be treated, and much too nearly to the complete exclusion of the other. Later on, the
historical method, originating in Germany, took over the lead. It was characterized by a fondness for
emphasizing not only the general, but the particular as well, for noting not only the influence of broader
types, but also that of national, social and individual peculiarities.’’ While Boehm-Bawerk saw his own
main contributions to the area of pure theory, he argues that ‘‘I acknowledge that what I am
offering indubitably calls for complementary treatment of the second part of the theory of price . . .’’

So, Left-Reasoning, it would seem that your own theoreticians refute the claim that deductive logic is the only valuable model. Furthermore, this does directly contradict the quote from Mises regarding history and its "uselessness" for understanding economic systems.

Dean

17th September 2010, 00:24

In fact (as I have pointed out), Mises' entire framework was based on what he called Praxeology:

According to Mises our nature as actors—beings who purposefully act—is
known through introspection. Refection on what it means to be human
reveals that purposeful behavior is our primary and distinguishing feature.
This knowledge is aprioristic. We do not become aware of our uniquely
human characteristic through experience because we cannot, in fact,
‘‘experience’’ without purpose. Thus, ‘‘man does not have the creative
power to imagine categories at variance’’ with the category of action
(Mises 1949: 35). In taking action as the starting point for all of economic
theory, Mises roots the logic of choice in the broader logic of action he calls
praxeology.
Not only does this confirm what I earlier pointed out, but if Skooma does indeed believe that Praxeology is the "worst thing to happen" to Austrian economics, he should completely mistrust the entire framework postulated by Mises - after all, Mises' Praxeology is the "root" of his framework per the above.

Left-Reasoning

23rd September 2010, 14:50

Revolution starts with U

23rd September 2010, 15:11

It's funny you have to use a quote about Mises, when Dean showed quotes from Mises.

Dean

23rd September 2010, 17:05

"When Mises claimed that economics was a science a priori, he did not mean to assert that there was no evidence whatsoever for the laws asserted by this science. He did not believe that economics was based on the more or less fictional assumptions of a community of scholars and that “apriorism” meant the loyalty of these scholars to their common faith. Neither did economic analysis rely on some arbitrary set of hypotheses that were not themselves subject to verification or falsification, so that economics would be “aprioristic” in the sense of a mere tautological wordplay." - Jorg Guido Hulsmann

http://mises.org/etexts/episintro.pdf

The fact that Mises even thinks these childish philosophical points can compete with real material analysis of the means of production, value and the like is absurd. These thinkers are both bordering on complete irrelevance with the above statements, which serve as nothing but complete abstractions and mystifications of real world phenomena.

Demogorgon

23rd September 2010, 17:07

Also, a school of value-free economic thought

Value freedom is embraced by all schools of economics, to my knowledge.

I have studied economics on and off for about a decade now and I have never found any value free forms of economic thought. I have found plenty claiming to be value free but they are not, they all have very strong biases based into their assumptions. That is natural of course, we are human and can not simply divorce ourselves from our values. It is not acceptable to pretend we don't however.

Economics is a branch of logic.

Good gracious no! What economics actually is more often than not is a branch of rhetoric. Joan Robinson once remarked that the best reason for studying economics was so as not to be deceived by economists. Oh boy was she right. You see economists typically take models based on unrealistic assumptions and attempt to convince people based on them that their favoured policy proposals will get the desired result. The fact that they pick the precise premises that will lead them to the conclusions they want ought to be enough to tip you off that you are not dealing with a value free science here, though admittedly it is often cloaked in very sophisticated language hiding what is going on.

Austrian "economists" are the worst for this obviously as they reject empiricism in favour of a priori dogmatics and as such are simply a distraction but other schools of economics are just as bad. Neoclassical Economics is extremely sophisticated but at the core of it are a series of assumptions that can most kindly be described as "idealised" and more bluntly referred to as made up. If you look closely at them you see that they have not been tested and are simply assumed without justification and when you do try to investigate them they turn out to be wrong. Neoclassical economists respond of course that they have to simplify, but why have they chosen these simplifications. Moreover surely any attempt to simplify will throw your thinking off? They say that it doesn't matter whether their models reflect the real world so long as they make accurate predictions, but do they make accurate predictions? Hardly. What they make is predictions that suit the policy preferences of those making them. While everyone else is still trying to make their way through the reasoning the economists can come up with a convincing explanation as to why their predictions do not seem to play out empirically.

You may say I am being cynical, and I am a little, obviously I exaggerate a bit too to make the point, but Neoclassical Economics is based on flawed premises and reaches flawed results. Of course it is still better than Austrian Economics.

Any attempt at describing the world that is not based on empiricism and study of what actually is is worse than useless and Hume had some good advice as to what to do with it.

Let's try to focus on some decent forms of economic analysis rather than the flawed Neoclassical School and the comical Austrian School.

Dean

23rd September 2010, 17:47

You make good points.

But how did you get mixed up in this Austrian economics mess.

Was this directed at me?

One Revleft member cited Boehm-Bawerk as one of the few economists which have exhaustively critiqued Marx's Capital. I was also interested in the particular facts of the theories, given the complete dismissal that many resident Austrian-style thinkers have for empiricism.

Upon looking into it, it is indeed horseshit. I think its laughable that some of the quoted points on Praxeology and History are taken seriously by anyone.

Skooma Addict

23rd September 2010, 19:19

I think it's laughable that Historical Materialism is taken seriously by anyone.

Dean

23rd September 2010, 19:25

I think it's laughable that Historical Materialism is taken seriously by anyone.
Skooma Addict once again reasserts his rejection of historical fact in his modeling of economics. You really know how to engender faith in your methodology (that is if you even have one - apparently we don't "deserve" to know what Skooma actually thinks about economics, just what he opposes)!

Skooma Addict

23rd September 2010, 19:31

Skooma Addict once again reasserts his rejection of historical fact in his modeling of economics. You really know how to engender faith in your methodology (that is if you even have one - apparently we don't "deserve" to know what Skooma actually thinks about economics, just what he opposes)!

So all of the economists who reject historical materialism "reject historical fact in modeling economics." Right?

Dean

23rd September 2010, 19:34

So all of the economists who reject historical materialism "reject historical fact in modeling economics." Right?

Not necessarily, but you seem to. I also think its hilarious that you have ignored all the quotes I've posted since your last post, ignored all the other topics I discussed in them, and grasped onto my "hilarious" comment. What are you even trying to do?

Quit wasting our time and post something meaningful, petty child.

Skooma Addict

23rd September 2010, 19:37

Not necessarily, but you seem to. I also think its hilarious that you have ignored all the quotes I've posted since your last post, ignored all the other topics I discussed in them, and grasped onto my "hilarious" comment. What are you even trying to do?

Quit wasting our time and post something meaningful, petty child.

Not Necessarily? Ok, so then I am not sure what me not believing in Historical Materialism has to do with anything....

Foolish Mortal.

Dean

23rd September 2010, 20:35

Not Necessarily? Ok, so then I am not sure what me not believing in Historical Materialism has to do with anything....

Foolish Mortal.
Unsurprisingly, you're not addressing what I said in any way, shape or form. Yawn.

Skooma Addict

23rd September 2010, 21:33

Just wondering how me rejecting Historical Materialism is "further proof" of anything.

Dean

23rd September 2010, 22:04

Just wondering how me rejecting Historical Materialism is "further proof" of anything.
Oblivion Addict is apparently fond of misquoting, as well. It serves your petty semantics-games well, though, so I understand. :)

Skooma Addict

23rd September 2010, 22:37

What does me rejecting historical materialism "reassert?"

Dean

23rd September 2010, 23:45

What does me rejecting historical materialism "reassert?"
Your wholesale rejection of historical materialism constitutes a rejection of the material facts of history in regards to whatever topic is at hand - in this case, economics.

Am I to assume that you reject the material world, or the history thereof? Or do you just reject its ability to provide knowledge relating to the economic models contained therein, like Mises does?

You see, you're vague enough that I can't be completely sure what you're referring to. I found your statement odd, considering that you expressed disappointment in Mises when I produced his anti-historicist quote.

anticap

24th September 2010, 00:25

Joan Robinson once remarked that the best reason for studying economics was so as not to be deceived by economists. Oh boy was she right.

Here's some more of her wisdom:

The fundamental differences between Marxian and traditional orthodox economics are, first, that the orthodox economists accept the capitalist system as part of the eternal order of Nature, while Marx regards it as a passing phase in the transition from the feudal economy of the past to the socialist economy of the future. And, second, that the orthodox economists argue in terms of a harmony of interests between the various sections of the community, while Marx conceives of economic life in terms of a conflict of interests between owners of property who do no work and workers who own no property. These two points of difference are not unconnected -- for if the system is taken for granted and the shares of the various classes in the social product are determined by inexorable natural law, all interests unite in requiring an increase in the total to be divided. But if the possibility of changing the system is once admitted, those who hope to gain and those who fear to lose by the change are immediately ranged in opposite camps. (An Essay on Marxian Economics, Chapter I: Introduction (http://www.questia.com/read/8511626?title=Chapter%20I%3a%20Introduction))

Skooma Addict

24th September 2010, 00:50

Your wholesale rejection of historical materialism constitutes a rejection of the material facts of history in regards to whatever topic is at hand - in this case, economics.

Am I to assume that you reject the material world, or the history thereof? Or do you just reject its ability to provide knowledge relating to the economic models contained therein, like Mises does?

You see, you're vague enough that I can't be completely sure what you're referring to. I found your statement odd, considering that you expressed disappointment in Mises when I produced his anti-historicist quote.

I don't reject historical facts. I reject Historical Materialism (As in the doctrine Popper claimed was unfalsifiable). They are two completely different things.

anticap

24th September 2010, 01:10

You didn't answer Dean's questions (denoted by question marks). In particular I'd like to read your answer to the second one.

Skooma Addict

24th September 2010, 02:21

You didn't answer Dean's questions (denoted by question marks). In particular I'd like to read your answer to the second one.

Are you referring to this?

Am I to assume that you reject the material world, or the history thereof? Or do you just reject its ability to provide knowledge relating to the economic models contained therein, like Mises does?

1. No I do not reject the material world. I mean come on now....

2. I do not reject the material words ability to provide knowledge regarding economics.

anticap

24th September 2010, 02:24

1. No I do not reject the material world.

2. I do not reject the material words ability to provide knowledge regarding economics.

I'm sure Dean will be glad to learn of this. I'll leave it to him to point out the implications to you.

Dean

24th September 2010, 14:09

Are you referring to this?

1. No I do not reject the material world. I mean come on now....

2. I do not reject the material words ability to provide knowledge regarding economics.
So, you don't reject historical materialism, or 'the materialist conception of history'?

If you do, what exactly do you reject about it (outside of those characteristics you approve of per the above)?

Skooma Addict

24th September 2010, 16:52

So, you don't reject historical materialism, or 'the materialist conception of history'?

If you do, what exactly do you reject about it (outside of those characteristics you approve of per the above)?

As I said about 5 times now, I reject historical materialism.

I don't reject historical facts. I reject Historical Materialism (As in the doctrine Popper claimed was unfalsifiable). They are two completely different things. I reject Historical materialism for a number of reasons. Mainly because I see no good evidence to believe it. Also, how would you prove it false?

In case you were interested, here is Mises' critique of it (which I have not read).

http://mises.org/daily/4542

Dean

24th September 2010, 17:05

As I said about 5 times now, I reject historical materialism.

I reject Historical materialism for a number of reasons. Mainly because I see not good evidence to believe it. Also, how would you prove it false?

There is no one "historical materialism." So I can only take your statement in its basic form. But you actually say you don't reject the materialist study of history. That's why I ask what in fact you reject to. Since you repeated the phrase, what the hell am I to think?

Again, you pose a very basic argument and you don't seem to even know what the thing is that you're rejecting.

Dean

24th September 2010, 17:06

Furthermore, falsification does not really apply to the social sciences, as Popper's failed model of social-science inquiry exemplifies.

Skooma Addict

24th September 2010, 17:12

There is no one "historical materialism." So I can only take your statement in its basic form. But you actually say you don't reject the materialist study of history. That's why I ask what in fact you reject to. Since you repeated the phrase, what the hell am I to think?

Again, you pose a very basic argument and you don't seem to even know what the thing is that you're rejecting.

Would this help?

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

That is what I reject.

Furthermore, falsification does not really apply to the social sciences, as Popper's failed model of social-science inquiry exemplifies.

Falsification applies whenever a theory is presented. Doesn't matter if it is social or physical.

Dean

24th September 2010, 17:16

Would this help?

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

That is what I reject.
You reject thousands of different theories you haven't read? You get more intriguing every day, Skooma.

Falsification applies whenever a theory is presented. Doesn't matter if it is social or physical.
Funny, everything I've read of Macroeconomics and Austrian theory is non-falsifiable. Where are these falsifiable theories of yours?

Dean

24th September 2010, 19:44

Yep, that's Skooma Addict: claims he rejects 'historical materialism,' refuses to say what he he rejects about it and then leaves after repeating the point 6 times.

Real compelling.

anticap

25th September 2010, 00:10

At least it's entertaining to watch him agree without realizing it.

Skooma Addict

25th September 2010, 01:36

You reject thousands of different theories you haven't read? You get more intriguing every day, Skooma.

I reject the methodology of historical materialism. I also reject hundreds of religions which I have not read. Are you telling me that you don't reject certain religions because you haven't read them?

Funny, everything I've read of Macroeconomics and Austrian theory is non-falsifiable. Where are these falsifiable theories of yours?

Red herring. But anyways, I believe in many theories which are falsifiable. The regression theorem of money for example.

At least it's entertaining to watch him agree without realizing it.

What am I agreeing with?

Dean

25th September 2010, 13:51

I reject the methodology of historical materialism. I also reject hundreds of religions which I have not read. Are you telling me that you don't reject certain religions because you haven't read them?
What about the methodology do you reject?

Red herring. But anyways, I believe in many theories which are falsifiable. The regression theorem of money for example.
How can you falsify that theory? I see nothing testable in the theorem.

Left-Reasoning

26th September 2010, 22:00

Your wholesale rejection of historical materialism constitutes a rejection of the material facts of history in regards to whatever topic is at hand - in this case, economics.

It's not a rejection of history. It's a rejection of it's relevance to theory.

Left-Reasoning

26th September 2010, 22:01

I think its laughable that some of the quoted points on Praxeology and History are taken seriously by anyone.

How so?

Dean

26th September 2010, 23:46

It's not a rejection of history. It's a rejection of it's relevance to theory.

How so?
Theory is not equivalent to deductive logic. Furthermore, deductive logic which doesn't have a basis in inductive logic (that is witnessed facts) amounts to nothing more than word games.

The reductionist approach taken by the Austrian school only serves to isolate them from the real world of economics. Apparently you endorse this ridiculous approach, too. Probably has to do with why you, also, have absolutely nothing to say about economics, just like dear old Skooma. What a couple of petulant children.

This strict isolation from any real world systems should be enough to prove to any sensible person what a preposterous approach it is to economics.