How do you argue against Austrians?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

And I don't mean people from Austria, I mean people who follow the doctrines of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises, the Austrian School of Economics.

Basically anytime you bring up any shortcomings of the capitalist economy, they blame that failure on government intervention.

Recessions and depressions?
"It's a result of government intervention, not anything inherent in unregulated free market capitalism."

How about monopolies and extreme wealth disparities?
"Government causes them, not free market capitalism."

Market Failure in general?
"Ever heard of government failure?"

Just to name a few examples.

So how do you folks debate them or respond to their claims?

[Annie K.]

I usually spit in their faces.

[RedScare]

Try telling them to look at the terrible standard of life that US workers had in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, due to almost zero government intervention and excessive monopolies.

[Demogorgon]

Ask them for empirical evidence to their claims. They hate that because there isn't any and their theory consequently says that analysing empirical evidence is useless. They claim that certain knowledge is a priori, but when you come down to it, they tend to just be arguing that they are right "just because".

Very few people actually think the Austrian School is worth much, amongst mainstream economics it is thought of as laughable, with Marxism actually commanding more respect, simply because it follows sensible methodology.

Austrians go for grand unverifiable statements that deliberately leave out details that they can be tripped up upon. If you wish to debate them, rather than just point out how hopeless their theory is, you have to pin them down on specific points and get them to make detailed arguments. As soon as they do that, you can rip them apart so long as you understand economics.

Be careful if you don't know much about economics however because they will try and bamboozle you with complicated terms and claim that their views are generally regarded as correct, and this can be intimidating if you are not wise to it. Always remember though, they are a ridiculous fringe group in the science of economics who can't even get published in journals most of the time, their arguments are so weak, don't let them pretend otherwise.

[Liberte ou la Mort]

The history of transport in the USA is an excellent vehicle for debating the existence of interventionism and how it has in turn strengthened the US economy.

Air travel in the USA was only brought about by private companies with huge intervention and assistance from the state. The same goes for rail.

The recent bailout shows that capitalism needs interventionism to prop itself up when people get too greedy.

"The market will correct itself" is the mantra of these people. Its similar to taking the steering wheel off your car.

[Dimentio]

And I don't mean people from Austria, I mean people who follow the doctrines of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises, the Austrian School of Economics.

Basically anytime you bring up any shortcomings of the capitalist economy, they blame that failure on government intervention.

Recessions and depressions?
"It's a result of government intervention, not anything inherent in unregulated free market capitalism."

How about monopolies and extreme wealth disparities?
"Government causes them, not free market capitalism."

Market Failure in general?
"Ever heard of government failure?"

Just to name a few examples.

So how do you folks debate them or respond to their claims?

Its hard to debate against people who are using circular logics and don't like empirical evidence.

[Charles Xavier]

Bring up examples of Africa, Asia and Latin America for examples of unregulated capitalism.

[Yehuda Stern]

The three least regulated capitalist economies in the world's history are Israel and the USA, where neo-liberal ideology has become very popular amongst the ruling class since the 1980s, and Pinochet's Chile, where Milton Friedman's economists were let loose. Israel has the lowest standard of living among imperialist states, the USA is heading towards a depression and Chile ended up with almost half the population under the poverty line. That should pretty much be enough. Of course, free-market zealots are like any other religious person: facts have no effect on them because they don't make a theory out of reality but force their theory on it.

[deLarge]

I like to show them the 180 that the American economy did after the new deal. Then I laugh at them telling me that it prolonged the great depression..

[Dimentio]

The three least regulated capitalist economies in the world's history are Israel and the USA, where neo-liberal ideology has become very popular amongst the ruling class since the 1980s, and Pinochet's Chile, where Milton Friedman's economists were let loose. Israel has the lowest standard of living among imperialist states, the USA is heading towards a depression and Chile ended up with almost half the population under the poverty line. That should pretty much be enough. Of course, free-market zealots are like any other religious person: facts have no effect on them because they don't make a theory out of reality but force their theory on it.

"But that's because its not real free market policies", would an Austrian say.

[Drace]

"But that's because its not real free market policies", would an Austrian say.You answered your own question, their not worth debating with.

[Yehuda Stern]

"But that's because its not real free market policies", would an Austrian say.

Which is why I said:


Of course, free-market zealots are like any other religious person: facts have no effect on them because they don't make a theory out of reality but force their theory on it.

[#FF0000]

Well, first off, point out that their claims are bullshit and unverifiable because they're goddamn psychotic rationalists (as opposed to empiricists). There was a link GeneCosta posted not long ago that was a great refutation of Austrian economics. I'm trying to find it right now...

[Demogorgon]

The three least regulated capitalist economies in the world's history are Israel and the USA, where neo-liberal ideology has become very popular amongst the ruling class since the 1980s, and Pinochet's Chile, where Milton Friedman's economists were let loose. Israel has the lowest standard of living among imperialist states, the USA is heading towards a depression and Chile ended up with almost half the population under the poverty line. That should pretty much be enough. Of course, free-market zealots are like any other religious person: facts have no effect on them because they don't make a theory out of reality but force their theory on it.
I'm not sure about that, Britain has less regulation than the US for instance (a larger welfare state, but less regulation) and I think it has less than Israel too.

Besides if you bring up Israel in a debate with an Austrian they will just say its relatively low standard of living is down to all the resources being put into the military and forcing people to spend three years in such instead of doing productive jobs. They may well be right about that too.

That's something you have to be careful with when you argue with pure Austrians, they don't much approve of militarism either, though for different reasons than us, so they can well wrong-foot you by blaming that for low standards of living.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm not sure about that, Britain has less regulation than the US for instance

I'm not too sure about that at all - but for the sake of discussion, replace "regulation" with "regulation and welfare."



Besides if you bring up Israel in a debate with an Austrian they will just say its relatively low standard of living is down to all the resources being put into the military and forcing people to spend three years in such instead of doing productive jobs.

They might say that, but it makes absolutely no sense - the army serves an invaluable function for Israeli imperialism and wages are miniscule. If anything, army service intensifies exploitation (many jobs in the army are technical and social, not combat-related), so if it did have a real impact it should've been in the reverse direction.

[Dimentio]

Well, there is actually an Austrian paradise, which they are endorsing as a positive ideal.

Stateless in Somalia (http://mises.org/story/2066)

[Yehuda Stern]

This is lunacy: Somalia is a nightmare to most of its people.

[Dimentio]

Well, the Austrians seems to think its pretty darn okay.

[#FF0000]

I just found that critique of the Austrian Econ. that GeneCosta posted (it was in the economics subforum, of course).

Now, it isn't written from a strictly socialist standpoint, but it's a good criticism nonetheless.

Here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm)

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe the Anarchist FAQ has a good section on the myths of vulgar economists, as well a section on 'anarcho'-capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

They might say that, but it makes absolutely no sense - the army serves an invaluable function for Israeli imperialism and wages are miniscule. If anything, army service intensifies exploitation (many jobs in the army are technical and social, not combat-related), so if it did have a real impact it should've been in the reverse direction.
It shouldn't have the effect of raising standards of living for most people though. The Israeli army obviously benefits the Israeli elite, that much is obvious, but for the working class it is something they have to sacrifice a fair portion of their income to maintain and also sacrifice 3+ years of their life too rather than do something that might benefit them.

Austrians when faced with the need to explain away the fact that privatisation, welfare cuts and the rest have damaged the Israeli standard of living will say that that had nothing to do with it and that it is forcing people to join the army and pay a large portion of their taxes towards it that does that. To counter that you would have to prove that the Israeli army is benefiting Israel in general rather than just the Israeli elite and it is not at all clear that it is.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you entirely that problems with the Israeli standard of living have come from the free-market fundamentalism of recent years, I am just pointing out that it is not a good country to bring up against Austrians. On the other hand it is brilliant against the Chicago school because they generally support militarism.