You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What's wrong with Austrian Economics???
- Thread starter jueco2005
- Start date
I stoopid! I get headakes from trying to think! I tryed the hardist becaus I reely wantd to lern I wantid it more even then pepul who are smarter even then me. Anaconda is nice!Quote from Anaconda:
I am simply stating a fact, which Martinghoul stated prior, probably without fully understanding the reasons behind it.
Quote from sjfan:
The problem with Austrian economics is that it's not falsifiable and thus fails the criterion of being "scientific". It has the same problem as Freudian psychology - attractively intuitive, somewhat descriptive, not at all testable
Is this statement itself "falsifiable" or "scientific"?? No it is not!
In other words the very notion that there are no apriori truths, or that in order for a statement to be true it must be subject to the scientistic positive method, is itself a non falsifiable statement that, using their own logic, cannot say anything true about reality.
Quote from sjfan:
four semesters of calculus... well, then - you clearly have the sufficiently knowledge base to judge... you may want to look up the difference between a sufficient and a necessary precondition.
it's easy enough to point out the "problems" of mainstream economics. Hell, mainstream economists have published various critiques of their own theories and the theories of their peers (see Roll's Critique).
But what does Austrian Economics offer? Nothing. Just a bunch of untestable "principles" and intuitive stories. Oh yes - and common sense (otherwise known as a collection of prejudice collected by the age of 18).
Nobody trained in serious mathematics thinks that the "math" that Keynesians do, is anything but low level parlour games with numbers, so don't flatter yourself.
Quote from Martinghoul:
I stoopid! I get headakes from trying to think! I tryed the hardist becaus I reely wantd to lern I wantid it more even then pepul who are smarter even then me. Anaconda is nice!
Didn't say stupid but maybe a bit ignorant being that you were not even aware of the full-reserve banking concept and posted that maybe you need to go check it out.
That is most certainly not what I said, if you read carefully. I stated that I am not an expert on Austrian economics (I've found that learning more is not worth my time).Quote from Anaconda:
Didn't say stupid but maybe a bit ignorant being that you were not even aware of the full-reserve banking concept and posted that maybe you need to go check it out.
Quote from sjfan:
REally? (I don't know about him), but almost all the mainstream economists I met when I did my phd were quite open and willing to discuss the short comings the our dismal science.
The critiques are there. They are well known. But they are often not the "popular" critiques that people throw around internet forums. And austrian economics doesn't address any of it.
Btw, you will find plenty of sympathy for the austrian school within mainstream. Except no one can do much with it - because it's not much of a theory
The reason why your "science" is dismal is because you fundamentally reject subjective marginal utility. That's why you have "economists" like Jared Bernstein arguing that higher than market wage controls do not lead to unemployment. He uses your method of "empirical-scientific evidence" to make this ridiculous conclusion. If this is true, then there's no law of demand and no law of marginal utility, and economic science has absolutely nothing to stand on.
In addition to this, Keynesians have no capital theory, for them all caital is a unified, homogenous blob. That's why they absurdly pretend that there can be a production function for the whole economy. They also have no interest theory (at least not one that can be taken seriously) they laughably pretend that the natural rate of interest in equilibrium is equal to the marginal productivity of capital. If this weren't enough they also have no theory of money, no idea on how it originates in a market economy, or how any increase in its supply must be non neutral. These people actually believe, following their brain dead master Keynes, that the price of a monetary unit is the rate of interest. The only reason these Keynesians are still around is because "higher education" is a government protected cartel/oligipoly. Year in and year out they consistently embarrass themselves with their forecasts and their "science".
Quote from Martinghoul:
That is most certainly not what I said, if you read carefully. I stated that I am not an expert on Austrian economics (I've found that learning more is not worth my time).
Well right there you already show ignorance. Austrian economics is more of a study of history, rather than theories. You do not have to agree with it to find it interesting to learn about.
As for recent implementations of full reserve banking or free market banking, you can look up Scotland in the 1800s. The nation is mostly immune to the panic that underwent in Britain right prior to the implementation of a central bank.
Either way, you are correct that modern capitalism cannot function under full reserve banking. The problem is that you think that is OK, while Austrians believe that it is a big problem. But hey, why argue, the near future will simply unveil the answer, in case you do not see that the current system is a time ticking bomb.
Quote from Anaconda:
Well right there you already show ignorance. Austrian economics is more of a study of history, rather than theories. You do not have to agree with it to find it interesting to learn about.
As for recent implementations of full reserve banking or free market banking, you can look up Scotland in the 1800s. The nation is mostly immune to the panic that underwent in Britain right prior to the implementation of a central bank.
Either way, you are correct that modern capitalism cannot function under full reserve banking. The problem is that you think that is OK, while Austrians believe that it is a big problem. But hey, why argue, the near future will simply unveil the answer, in case you do not see that the current system is a time ticking bomb.
I do not believe we can not have a full reserve system. Although such undertaking could take decades to avoid harming the economy.
What we can do right now is to increase the reserve %. The lower the reserve requirement, the more dangerous FRL is and vice-versa.