And is unimpressed. We need the “pork” spending to get “spending” going again. The Fed had nothing to do with the housing bubble. Etc.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9751/a-progressive-meets-the-austrian-school/
A Progressive Meets the Austrian School
Previous post: Advanced Thinking on Intellectual Property
Next post: Reply to Klein and Rothbard on Agorist Organization
{ 19 comments }
It is obvious that the socialists will continue to repeat ad populum and appeal to authority arguments. We need to kindly remind them that even George Soros admitted in his new book that the Fed caused the crisis. Everywhere in the world besides the U.S. people are talking about getting rid of the dollar standard. Can someone explain to these liberals that there is a REASON as to why this is an issue during a financial crisis alledgedly caused by greedy bank loans? Hmm, guess those cranks at the U.N. along with the Chinese and Russian are just making things up.
Progressives are still caught in the Marxian muddle of how to resolve their two main (political) “a priori” logical preclusions.
Capital = Evil
Job = Prosperity
@Jason
I never thought of it that way. Thanks. It quickly illustrates the progressive/populist/marxist mental disconnect.
Many a populist/progressive has stated we need “spending” to get jobs back.
Jason:
Progressives attempt to resolve the muddle by advocating a governmental take-over of all decision-making about who gets jobs, what those jobs are, where they will be, what they will pay, etc.
Of course, they still need capital’s money to pay for all of it.
Magnus:
Indeed.
Season liberally with Hobbes, add a pinch of Max Weber — and you’ve got yourself a nice batch of dangerous thinking.
“Rich Garder himself responded to my comment very quickly and courteously, and took great pains to consider my questions and concerns.”
And then with no pain dismissed each question and concern with typical leftist nonsense. This was a reasonable debate only in the sense that they weren’t screaming obscenities at each other.
I am pleased with the efforts Tim G. made though.
I think Gardner is typical Socialist and incapable of accepting a sensible, and rational alternative to central planning. In his defense, he does deserve a very small bit of credit for taking the intitiative to consider the divergent viewpoint. It is far too common to see the “other side” dismissed whole-heartedly with no consideration for the actual merits of the “other side.”
Using socialist assumptions, anything free market sounds just plain silly. Free market conclusions can’t possibly follow from socialist assumptions. For Gardner to understand and critique real economics, he would have to put aside his socialist assumptions and take Austrian assumptions as valid. Then the Austrian viewpoint on state intervention would make sense and Gardner would realise that he needs to discuss assumptions, not conclusions. But as with most socialists, even what I have written so far makes no sense to them.
The mainstream perception is a focus on jobs instead of productivity.
If they took their understanding to it’s conclusion it is full blown state socialism, because it is best to have a planned economy where everyone has work.
I’m looking forward to the day when computers do most of my labour, and my prosperity continues to rise as I labour less but labour more efficiently.
He should disagree for many reasons, chief among them is the fact that Austrian economists create the illusion that technological innovation begins with the individuals whose societal role is the marshaling and exploitation of productive forces, failing to capture that, in reality, the extent of their innovation pertains mainly to their specialization – the production process. Even the recognition that large firms which have extended their innovative capabilities to actual introduction of new products have large sectors devoted to research and development is beyond Austrian analysis. Austrians chooses not deal with the question of where technology actually comes from. Instead, they takes this fundamental question as given and focuses on the role of entrepreneurs and consumers. Ultimately, even if this holds true as an active role in growth and innovation, it is one piece of a much larger puzzle. Focusing on a single tree does not change the fact that you are standing in a forest.
WOW! That blog post received hundreds more hits in the last 16 hours than than all of my other blog posts combined. I’m truly honored and flattered.
@Robbie Clark:
PhillyIMC is such a rabidly anti-capitalist site that any half-way decent discussion is an accomplishment to celebrate. It’s almost like talking to someone down from the ledge of a building. You want them to stay with you. You don’t want to set them off and lose them for good.
He’s seen the video. That’s a victory for the free market. He wasn’t even aware of the argument before that discussion. Perhaps in the coming weeks, the ideas will ruminate and he will begin to see the meltdown in a new light. If not that, then perhaps he will address the argument in further articles, and be open to further discussion.
Tim, I’m glad you engaged him in the discussion. Even if he’s not going to come around, people like this need to address the arguments as a matter of intellectual honesty. That he was unaware of the existence of such arguments is really stunning, so the very fact he knows they’re out there is a good thing.
Bob Stafford: What would you like the Austrians to include in their analysis, exactly, that they do not already include? R&D is one of the stages in the structure of production, and hardly something an Austrian is at a loss to account for.
Bob: “Austrians chooses not deal with the question of where technology actually comes from. Instead, they takes this fundamental question as given and focuses on the role of entrepreneurs and consumers.”
If you can show where that is true, I would be interested in reading it, but I have read a lot of Austrian economics and think you’re wrong. There is no aspect of economics that Austrian econ misses as far as I can tell.
@ Bob Stafford: Even if (for the sake of argument) what you say is true, how is this in any way related to the Austrian explanation of the housing bubble and the parallel asset security ‘market’ as an illustration of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
While I’m interested to hear more in the gaps you perceive in positive Austrian economic theory, I cannot really see why your remark is not totally besides the issue at hand.
Tim G.,
Say’s Law is where you have to begin with the Keynesians. If you can not get them to grasp it, the rest is hopeless…He is simply weighing conclusions by how he feels about them. He doesn’t understand the Austrians because he doesn’t understand Say’s Law.
Sag,
I entirely agree with your suggestion in regards to economic theory debates involving the Keynesian ilk. Lord Keynes simply avoided Say’s Law by purposefully misstating it. The Keynesians follow this very same path in every economic theory debate they find themselves in. Krugman is a perfect example as he routinely has misstated Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Krugman then simply turns around and refutes his own corresponding misstatement. For an acclaimed academic such as Krugman to use such pathetic and childish tactics is considerably astonishing and alarming. You are also correct in stating Gardner does not have a fundamental understanding of Say’s Law. Honestly, I do not believe it is even consistently taught in undergraduate economics. I know I was not taught this law. 85% of my Advanced Macroeconomics class was entirely Keynesian and Monetarist theory. For me, it is easy to comprehend how so many economists lack a fundamental understanding of Say’s Law as they were probably never presented the appropriate material during their macro courses. Moreover, if many economists lack a fundamental understanding of Say’s Law, it can feasibly be understood that others without any education in economics would more than likely have little to no conceptual understanding of this significant economic Law. Nonetheless, I digress.
Gardner does not at anytime provide clear or intelligible answers to the questions Tim G. provided. In almost every instance his response consisted of “baloney”, “full of it”, or “incoherent”.
“No, Wall Street Watch doesn’t blame the Fed for any such thing. Dean Baker does indeed discuss the Fed, but more in a “dereliction of duty†manner than as an active player”
He is trying to illustrate that Fed was being a negligent parent when the ‘free market’ was greedy and consuming too many ‘oreo cookies’ (innutritious garbage).
The argument flawed in that it demonstrates that the Fed was in-fact to blame; because it was the sole provider of ‘thin air’ credit or oreo cookies.
The title was completely naive and I believe dewind had it right. Speaking as a strict liberal and a lover of austrian economics, austrian economic theory is the only politics the liberals should love, because the democrats are just creating corruption like the republicans did, at least the poor get something back this time other than inflated home values.
@Sag.
Thanks for the tip. I’ve never heard of Say’s law myself, so I’ll be looking forward to that. I learn more and more every day….
As long as you can keep somebody talking and listening, it isn’t hopeless. I guess what you have to do is show an interest in their concerns, and try to understand them. Don’t talk down to them. Let them lead the discussion, and then ask simple yet poignant questions. If they don’t have an answer, it sends them to the drawing board for a bit. Even that little bit helps.
And it’s a two way street. They may bring up something you’ve never thought of, and send you back to the drawing board. I can’t think of an example right now, but I’m sure there’s something. jaja!
Oh yeah! Say’s law. I need to look that up.
Comments on this entry are closed.