|
Jrod, what beer should I drink this weekend? I like lagers and ales with lots of hoppes.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Jrod, what beer should I drink this weekend? I like lagers and ales with lots of hoppes. I think HHH would approve of IPA, both due to the name connection and also for what the P stands for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Gentlemen here's an article I think may get to the heart of things. quote:Mises.org! Now available on audiobook!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I think HHH would approve of IPA, both due to the name connection and also for what the P stands for. I'm sure he'd like it more if it were A(ryan)PA instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:What about humans in a vegetative state? Do they act? What about humans who are comatose? Do they act? What about sleeping humans? Are they acting? What about infants? Do they act? What about people who are not thespians? Do they act? In all of these cases, depending on the definition of the word "act" you use, we could say that these humans are not acting. Acting is an incredibly broad word, and so your statement is meaningless. What no, these questions are dumb. Humans Act is an axiom, just like in mathematics. Let's go to the dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom Webster's Dictionary posted:axiom(noun) In mathematics or logic, an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true most of the time because it is self-evident or particularly useful or kinda convenient maybe, except for those situations when it isn't true or whatever and whatnot. Jeez, this isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is how science evolves in the hard sciences, through continuous testing. This is how Physics work. The social sciences, among which includes economics, are decidedly different and require different approaches. You are claiming not only that the social sciences differ from the hard sciences, but that they are different in a manner unique among areas of human inquiry which apply to observed reality. This is not a trivial claim. That knowledge on the basis of deduction alone is even possible at all is debatable, so good luck. quote:Keynesian theory was blown out of the water in the 1970s when we had stagflation, which was not supposed to be possible according to Keynesian theory. Again and again we are assured that the central planners have solved the boom and bust cycle and we are due for perpetual economic growth. Then inevitably in a few years we suffer through a major recession. Like all other forms of knowledge, Keynesianism is subject to modification on the basis of observed information. quote:There are logical implications of the fact of human action that can be deduced that don't require constant testing to verify or falsify. A hypothesis in the Natural sciences is merely a tentative "law" that is established because we haven't YET seen any evidence that contradicts it. Yet we assume that at any time we might find new information that invalidates our previous hypothesis. Falsifiability is a strength in a hypothesis, not a weakness, and is a requirement in order to consider an argument to be scientific. You (and Hoppe) throw a rhetorical shadow over it, but it is literally the foundation of science. quote:Certain predictions of the Austrians have in fact been invalidated and rejected or modified by subsequent Austrian economists due to observable reality. Like any other science, economics relies upon subsequent generations improving upon the theories and arguments of their predecessors. On what basis are those observations able to modify an argument based on unfalsifiable claims which supersede a posteriori knowledge? This claim contradicts the foundation of your argument. quote:What is baffling is the insistence by some that the rigorous use of reason and logic, the law of non contradiction and the necessary implications of human action are "unscientific" or un-serious or indicative of a cult. This is because the claim that a priori knowledge is able to supersede a posteriori knowledge and is not subject to falsification is unscientific and philosophically un-serious. quote:You just don't understand the difference between social sciences and hard sciences. No, I don't. Please explain why the social sciences are able to be make truth claims on epistemological grounds that are unique among areas of human inquiry. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Did you watch the youtube video I linked to? Austrian economists use empiricism quite often in their research but they know where it is appropriate to use it and where it is inappropriate. No, no one watched your stupid loving youtube video. You've been told this in nearly a dozen threads that we don't watch your links because no one wants to sit through an hour of some smug austrian fucker being wrong without anyone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. quote:Empirical studies can and do support the a priori economic laws regarding human action that the Austrians assert but these laws are still NOT hypotheses. The moment your a priori economic laws become supported by empirical studies they become a posteriori laws. The loving definition of a priori is one in which you can see that it is true without any further study. If you use further study to prove your point then your laws are not a priori. quote:Let us take the first law of economics. Humans act. Now, do we need to do an empirical study to determine whether humans act or not? Obviously everything we do is an action. The fact of human action must be logically assumed because it cannot be denied without engaging in a performative contradiction. THIS IS NOT A loving LAW OF ECONOMICS! Humans Act means nothing. Go back to the last page and you will find multiple people pointing that out. It is a vaccuous statement that holds no value in economics or philosophy, and isn't even universal because not all humans act (Re:Braindead babies). quote:There are logical implications of the fact of human action that can be deduced that don't require constant testing to verify or falsify. A hypothesis in the Natural sciences is merely a tentative "law" that is established because we haven't YET seen any evidence that contradicts it. Yet we assume that at any time we might find new information that invalidates our previous hypothesis. Simply stating that they are decidedly different does not mean a goddamned thing. Argument from assertion. You literally just state that this is so and accept us to take it on fact despite knowing that it is something that we clearly find controversial. You are arguing in bad faith, which is not surprising. quote:Now, once certain economic laws that can be deduced from the fact of human action are established, THEN Austrians use empiricism to evaluate many different kinds of economic phenomenon. Empirical testing can, and has repeatedly, validated and supported the Austrian view on the effects of minimum wage laws, the causes of economic recessions and depressions and many other things. The difference is that the economic laws that are established at the outside are not reliant upon empirical validation, but rather are established through a rigorous logical deductive method. You realize this is how science works right? Most science doesn't just start as "Huh, lets go measure some stuff and do SCIENCE! WOWOWWOWOW *Guitar noises*" Science starts with someone going "I wonder why clouds form." They think about it and they come up with an idea, and then design a test or series of tests to see if that idea is correct. what you are describing here is the scientific method except at the end you are arguing "But even if they find that we are wrong that doesn't mean anything." quote:Central planners rail against economic laws and would love to convince you that they can raise living standards through hikes in the minimum wage, for example. Or they want to convince you that wage and price controls don't have deleterious effects on the economy at large. To assume that ALL of economics merely consists of tentative hypotheses based on the latest round of State-funded empirical testing means that the discipline is merely flailing about, without any direction. You keep saying central planners. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Furthermore I think you are doing so in a naked attempt to bring forth a negative connotation with the word. This is probably not the crowd to do that with, fyi. And yes, people believe that increasing the wages of the people in the lowest rung of society will increase their wages. I wouldn't say they've necessarily made that argument about price controls since we've been on and off again with those for years. I do hate to break it to you, but all of science merely consists of tentative hypotheses based on the latest round of (usually because the private market won't do it) state-funded empirical testing. That is how science works. We have a theory about something, we test it and test it and test it. We are still making tests regarding gravity in an attempt to further peg down its properties and why it is weaker than other fields. Do you not know this? quote:We are merely subject to the whims of the technocrats who happen to be in charge at that particular point in time. We hear endless pronouncements from these "experts" such as "we now understand what caused the Great Depression and it will never happen again" to "we have cured the boom and bust cycle by finding the perfect centrally planned interest rate". Keynesian theory was blown out of the water in the 1970s when we had stagflation, which was not supposed to be possible according to Keynesian theory. Again and again we are assured that the central planners have solved the boom and bust cycle and we are due for perpetual economic growth. Then inevitably in a few years we suffer through a major recession. Your persecution complex is getting old and again, it doesn't work here because we all like having a government. Moreover this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of science. We are subject to the results. If the government pays for a study on gravity that doesn't mean that gravity is whatever the government wants it to be that week. Gravity is still what it has always been, we just might know more about it. It the government pays for a study that finds the minimum wage does not hurt wages, that doesn't mean the study is bought and paid for to get the result (unlike some private studies) it means that clearly the subject might not be as black and white as previously thought. Things like the minimum wage studies have changed a lot because of new innovations in these scientific fields. Better methods, better technology or information sharing. quote:This is because these economists are ignoring economic laws. Through their hubris they think they can subvert objective reality through legislation. You realize how much of a religious zealot you sound like here right? Right? Seriously, replace economic laws with God. Go ahead, I'll wait. Austrians have a garbage record and anything more than basic predictions about things. Why do you think the austrian school is so outside of the mainstream? Do you think its because you're too cool for the other kids? No, its because Austrian economists consistently fail to produce results that are in any way beneficial or informative about economics. You fail to do this because you loving reject science in favor of voodoo. quote:Certain predictions of the Austrians have in fact been invalidated and rejected or modified by subsequent Austrian economists due to observable reality. Like any other science, economics relies upon subsequent generations improving upon the theories and arguments of their predecessors.  You keep arguing that your theories are a priori knowledge. They are something that you can see is true without having to study. But when they get studied they sometimes fail. This is why you need to actually loving study them rather than just assuming "humans act, therefore austrians." quote:What is baffling is the insistence by some that the rigorous use of reason and logic, the law of non contradiction and the necessary implications of human action are "unscientific" or un-serious or indicative of a cult. Oooh, is the law of non contradiction your new Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Did you learn a new word Jrod? Humanity abandoned the idea of using pure reason and logic instead of science literally centuries ago. We did this because it doesn't loving work. You can prove almost anything by thinking things through to their logical conclusion. Clouds look like cotton, ergo, clouds are cotton. This is why we study things and attempt to prove or disprove them. You don't because your entire economic belief system is based on nothing and if you actually subject it to verifiability it falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Wouldn't the vague concept that humans act, if it is this irrefutable law or whatever, also apply to Keynesian economics? Do other economists claim that economies pop up without human action? It seems like you haven't made the case that Austrian economic theory is unique in this concept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Wouldn't the vague concept that humans act, if it is this irrefutable law or whatever, also apply to Keynesian economics? Do other economists claim that economies pop up without human action? It seems like you haven't made the case that Austrian economic theory is unique in this concept. No, you see unlike other economic systems, the entirety of Austrian economics stems from the fact that Humans Act. Thus... asdfasaniegagvasdfgc'thuluaasdfahiernasda,... On another note, I just want to point out that Humans Act does indeed mean all humans. As you see here: Ludwig Von Mises posted:To sum up what we have learned thus far about human action: The distinguishing characteristic of human beings is that all humans act. Action is purposeful behavior directed toward the attainment of ends in some future period which will involve the fulfillment of wants otherwise remaining unsatisfied. Action involves the expectation of a less imperfectly satisfied state as a result of the action. The individual actor chooses to employ elements in his environment as means to the expected achievement of his ends, economizing them by directing them toward his most valued ends (leaving his least valued ones unsatisfied), and in the ways that his reason tells him are most appropriate to attain these ends. His method—his chosen means—may or may not turn out to be inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
For all the "and then X was proven wrong" I have still not heard why Ricardo's iron law of wages is completely wrong. I'm not classical economics's #1 fan, but it is a foundation for further enquiry instead of a dead end. I like people to offer a substantiated critique of classical economics before they make grand claims. Marx did it. Keynes did it. HHH just tells us those dudes are all wrong because gently caress it things is complicated A=A end of story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:For all the "and then X was proven wrong" I have still not heard why Ricardo's iron law of wages is completely wrong. I'm not classical economics's #1 fan, but it is a foundation for further enquiry instead of a dead end. I'd like people to offer a substantiated critique of classical economics before they make grand claims. Marx did it. Keynes did it. HHH just tells us those dudes are all wrong because gently caress it things is complicated A=A end of story. A=A is actually Ayn Rand. Hoppe's claim to crazy is that since I am talking to you instead of mashing your skull in for the blood god, people prefer argumentation over violence. Thus Non-Aggression Principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Easily done. All these economists are Austrians and they predicted and warned about the impending crash caused by an unsustainable housing bubble: Noted social scientist Hari Seldon has already predicted the fall of the Empire. Good News: He believes that Humans Act. Bad News: He believes in a strong government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Wouldn't the vague concept that humans act, if it is this irrefutable law or whatever, also apply to Keynesian economics? Do other economists claim that economies pop up without human action? It seems like you haven't made the case that Austrian economic theory is unique in this concept. Earlier articles posted in this thread by sane people indicate that "humans act" is special for Austrians because they reject most other analyses of human behavior (at least for the purposes of economics.) Like, preferences don't exist unless they're acted upon. This has implications for the rest of their theories that I'm not knowledgeable enough to really suss out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
quote:Let us take the first law of economics. Humans act. Now, do we need to do an empirical study to determine whether humans act or not? Obviously everything we do is an action. The fact of human action must be logically assumed because it cannot be denied without engaging in a performative contradiction. You can deny this without a performative contradiction simply by arguing that humans are capable of inaction and/or action which does not fall under your definition of the term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Caros posted:A=A is actually Ayn Rand. What's the difference between A=A and praxology? I mean, if you told me Murray Rothbard was a Randian objectivist, I don't know what I'd refute that with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:An article by Mark Thornton: This is a hilarious comment because actually we have experimental evidence that the geometry of space-time is not Euclidean in the presence of gravity, so if mathematicians really did measure unbelievably perfectly-constructed circles to unbelievable precision, they really would find, among other things, that depending on the local gravitational field every point is not the same distance from the center and that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is not always pi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox Albert Einstein posted:Imagine a circle drawn about the origin in the x'y' plane of K' and a diameter of this circle. Imagine, further, that we have given a large number of rigid rods, all equal to each other. We suppose these laid in series along the periphery and the diameter of the circle, at rest relatively to K'. If U is the number of these rods along the periphery, D the number along the diameter, then, if K' does not rotate relatively to K, we shall have U/D=π. But if K' rotates we get a different result. Suppose that at a definite time t, of K we determine the ends of all the rods. With respect to K all the rods upon the periphery experience the Lorentz contraction, but the rods upon the diameter do not experience this contraction (along their lengths!). It therefore follows that U/D>π. Mathematicians don't measure their circles because they're not making claims about the real world: they're deriving conclusions that are true within an arbitrarily chosen system defined by whichever axioms they care to select. It's just that Euclidean geometry gets a lot of fame because we have learned from experience that it's a useful approximation to the real world at human scales. When we start talking cosmic or subatomic scales we dispense with the axioms of Euclidean geometry and select other axioms that define a system that we've determined to give more accurate results here. The rest of the article of Thornton's is the tired old objection that the scientific method itself depends on a priori unprovable axioms as well, so if you're going to accept those, empiricists, then why don't you accept the axiom that I'm right about everything?  It's true enough as far as it goes: our a priori axioms are arbitrary and we can build other self-consistent systems of epistemology by picking different ones. But if it's all the same to you, when I'm trying to do things in the real world I'm going to go with the system that includes an axiom saying "If your theory makes a prediction that is the opposite of what really happens, then you done hosed up son". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:This is a good time to point out that actually, I would prefer violence but the consequences out weigh the benefits especially considering that someone out there will out-violence me. I would be a happier person in the long run if instead of reading mises.org I could just beat someone to death with a socket wrench. Ayn Rand A=A stuff is more to do with weird metaphysics. A=A, you can understand that therefore you objectively exist, therefore you should be a selfish prick is more or less what it boils down to, while Humans Act therefore capitalism is the Mises method. They are both stupid, Rand is just more evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:A=A is actually Ayn Rand. Like it matters at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Caros posted:Ayn Rand A=A stuff is more to do with weird metaphysics. A=A, you can understand that therefore you objectively exist, therefore you should be a selfish prick is more or less what it boils down to, while Humans Act therefore capitalism is the Mises method. They are both stupid, Rand is just more evil. Ayn Rand posted:Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. It's unjust for anything you do to benefit someone else. Ever. This has important implications quote:While Rand and Nathaniel Branden were engaging in “the logical extension of our intellectual and emotional connection,” whenever Branden “devoted a long period of time to Ayn’s pleasure,” she would demand, horrified, “You’re not being altruistic, are you?”
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Specifically You know reading these makes me think that Ayn Rand wasn't a sociopath, she was a severely damaged, and stunted autistic women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Hans Hoppe on empiricism: Just going to keep pointing out: we actually did pretty much have to do just this. Even if it weren't very very likely that the relationship of the sides of a triangle were known empirically before anyone set about proving it rigorously (people were building things long before the earliest known proofs), the postulates of Euclidean geometry itself are drawn from "common-sense" observations about the world we experience. Euclid's axioms don't make any truth claims about the real world, and in fact modern physics have shown them experimentally to be wrong. If instead of human beings, we were creatures that evolved to live on the surface of a neutron star where because of the insane gravity, the curvature of space isn't so close to zero that we don't notice it, we would have developed a different set of self-consistent geometric axioms describing our spherical geometry.  And Neutron-Star-Hermann-Hoppe would be huffing about how "we didn't have to go out and measure triangles to know that the internal angles of a triangle always add up to more than 180 degrees or break out our rulers to prove Neutron-Star-Pythagoras's theorem that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is always greater than the sum of the squares of the other two sides! For these laws of geometry are apodictically true and forever valid! Harrumph!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Personally I feel like this is the most important point for which we should lol at jrod now and forever. At some point he took high school geometry, failed to understand it, and now uses it to justify his cultish beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Central planners never tire of reminding you how "scientific" their central plan is. Keynesians LOVE empirical studies. Boy do they love empirical studies. In the first place, the unsophisticated masses are impressed when someone throws around charts and graphs and various "studies" that they have commissioned which provide scientific cover for the State to regulate, control or otherwise use violence or the threat of violence to control human behavior. My god, you're cynical. No, politicians aren't just trying to help people, they're trying to control and enslave the masses. No, the empiricists didn't develop a study that's wrong that you critique on its merits. They're making it up to help the state control human behavior by justifying men with guns shooting you for not paying taxes. Look, I'm cool with being wrong, I'm cool with being stupid, I'm cool with being rude, so long as you sit down at the goddamn table and talk and deal in good faith. Libertarianism isn't refusing to sit down at the table, it's standing back and screaming at everyone around the table how the table is inherently violent and we're being enslaved despite the fact that we're all voluntarily engaging in debate and discussion. Read through Shiranaihito what saying a few pages ago. Realize that the poo poo he's spewing is nominally your philosophy. And see if you can actually argue his case, not by quoting someone else, but through your logic and understanding of the subject (you can make perfect assumptions about all human action, so explaining some stupid internet libertarian's bullshit shouldn't be hard, right?) So sit down at the loving table, ante up, and play your goddamn cards, and be prepared to lose, because ultimately the only simulation that accurately predicts the real world is the real world, and that says that your a priori assumptions are poo poo and don't match up with how the world actually works. You say that you can predict how the world works without looking at it. Tell us how we're wrong, how our studies made mistakes, because if you can predict the world, and the prediction don't match, then some variable, somewhere, must be different. Identify it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Karia posted:My god, you're cynical. Buddy let me tell you something, of all the words you could have picked that is the wrong word.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Wait. Why the gently caress are we talking about a priori truths at all? Didn't jrod create and abandon another thread just a couple of months ago without answering any loving questions about the practical applications of the bullshit he preaches? He shouldn't get to change the subject, even if he disappears for several weeks. Jrod, please answer the questions about the NHS that were asked of you back in August. I'll even do you the courtesy of reproducing the conversation in its entirety, again. This was the first post on the topic: Bozza posted:How does libertarian anarchism explain the success of the great institutions of the state in Europe? For example the NHS? To which jrodefeld responded: jrodefeld posted:European nations are very in debt and are all financed through inflationary paper currencies. By what standards exactly is the socialized healthcare in Europe the best on the planet? Inevitably, the State must ration care under a socialized system. Our Corporate Fascist medicine in the United States is terrible as well but a common occurrence in Canada an Europe is to have people placed on waiting lists for a year or more for a common medical procedure. There are shortages and plenty of problems. Don't kid yourself. I highlighted a few of his specific claims, which were quickly challenged: Bozza posted:Ok, right, sorry. Now I don't expect you to be an expert in the history of socialised medicine within the UK but this is plainly bollocks. Utter, utter bollocks. You know that system of healthcare you're describing? Yeah we had that too. Actually, it's the exact model of healthcare we replaced with the NHS. Quantum Mechanic posted:I have literally never had to wait a year for a necessary medical procedure. Hell, I can decide to go to the GP and AT MOST have to wait until the next day. murphyslaw posted:E: also I'm alive today due to my country's horrible socialized medical scheme. I grind my teeth every day from the bitter knowledge that I owe my life to a filthy socialist healthcare system that is virtually free for anyone who needs it, the shame, the shame. Caros posted:Sleeeeeppppppp. How about finally responding to some of the points?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:How about finally responding to some of the points? I'll give it a go. Much like how Euclid was able to logically deduce what he should have for breakfast each morning by starting with the Parallel Postulate and going from there, we can refer to the First Law of Economics to resolve these objections within a rational logical framework without any need for vulgar facts. 1. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do [First Law of Economics] 2. Aggression is an act whose purpose is to stop (1) [Derived from (1)] 3. Only a state can commit aggression [Definition of a state] 4. A man's gotta get health care [A priori knowledge that I totally didn't need observation to find out] 5. The NHS is state-run health care [Obvious] 6. The NHS is more aggressive than Al Capone multiplied by Pol Pot [Derived from (3), and (5)] 7. The NHS stops man from gettin health care [Derived from (2), (4), and (6)] 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Oh drat it, forgot the conclusion to the argument: Now that you've seen how the proof logically follows, are you prepared to cling to your love of the NHS and therefore deny the axiom that as a man you gotta do what you gotta do, even though to say this you gotta type these words and you're doing it? You invalidate your own argument through this constructive contradiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
So, this is dumb, but why do austrian schoolers have such an obsession with math? I assume they don't understand that the analogies they make are false? Like, I really don't get it. The idea that anything can be determined from axioms that never need to be revised seems pretty dumb!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Honestly, what do we hope to gain by arguing against people who accept the validity of taking "my beliefs are right and cannot be proven wrong, even in the face of direct evidence" as an explicit starting point for their world views? I mean, sure, plenty of people are pigheaded, but to outright codify that your opinions on reality cannot affected by reality is just staggering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, it won't. In fact, it's not. If you go construct a perfect triangle in the real world and measure it any number of significant digits you care to, it will deviate from the Pythagorean theorem. This should be obvious but when we say that people who voluntarily engage in transactions with others expect to be made "better off" that does not have to be in terms of economics. People may get psychic satisfaction from making a transaction that, to them, outweigh the fact that they are made worse off economically speaking. In essence there is a reason why they looked at their available options for action and acted in the way they did. Each of us have preference orders for our possible actions. When we forgo certain potential actions in the economy for others we make a judgment that the action we chose is preferable to our other options. Preferable in a purely subjective sense, to us as individuals. Yes it is true that the potential options for action for different people in different circumstances vary wildly, but that is not what is being argued in this case. We have already established the a priori fact of human action. Similarly, you must be forced to admit that there are certain axioms that logically follow from this fact. There are certain attributes to human action that can be proven through logic and reason, that cannot be refuted. It is unlikely that I can fully explain the Austrian position and all the necessary implications of human action, but suffice to say that these a priori logical statements about action provide concrete laws with which to view economic phenomenon. As another poster already said, many disciplines make certain a priori assumptions that define the scope of their study before they go about their observations and empirical testing. Austrians also use empiricism and observation, but not to refute the logical and necessary implications of human action. So if someone presents us with some study that purports to explain how raising the minimum wage has no adverse effect on employment, immediately we can deduce that there is something amiss with such a study, since it contradicts a basic axiom of economics. The disemployment effects of a marginal minimum wage hike might be small and hard to capture in a given empirical study, but it exists nonetheless and MUST exist. Outlawing jobs below an arbitrary wage rate must necessarily artificially limit the scope of potential economic transaction that humans can engage in. To think otherwise is frankly ridiculous. What this all comes down to is merely a serious ignorance of the Austrian position on economics and human action. I know you would love nothing better than to dismiss libertarianism and Austrianism as a kooky cult that lacks any scientific rigor, but saying such things merely exposes your own ignorance of what the arguments actually are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Austrians also use empiricism and observation, but not to refute the logical and necessary implications of human action. So if someone presents us with some study that purports to explain how raising the minimum wage has no adverse effect on employment, immediately we can deduce that there is something amiss with such a study, since it contradicts a basic axiom of economics. The disemployment effects of a marginal minimum wage hike might be small and hard to capture in a given empirical study, but it exists nonetheless and MUST exist. Outlawing jobs below an arbitrary wage rate must necessarily artificially limit the scope of potential economic transaction that humans can engage in. Austrians also use empiricism and observation, but not if its results would contradict what we already know to be infallible truths. Are you loving kidding me with this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:Christ Jrod, do we really have to do this every loving thread? The Austrians have the only coherent explanation of the business cycle itself. Your side might argue that we simply need to have government regulate the derivatives market more closely or bring back Glass Steagal or curtail corporate "greed" or some variation on such a theme. But, almost to a man, these mainstream economists support the Federal Reserve setting interest rates, they support inflation and credit expansion. Many of them explicitly call for more inflation and lower interest rates. If they truly understood the cause of the business cycle they would advocate the State refrain from doing these things, allow the interest rates to rise and allow the market to reallocate scarce resources and allow the bubble to deflate. If you wait longer, keep interest rates lower longer and continue to "stimulate" the economy and "fight" recessions with Keynesian prescriptions, you merely delay the inevitable and make the pain and suffering much worse when the crash finally comes. The thing that makes the Austrian economists uniquely qualified to claim to have correctly predicted the economic crisis is that they understand the cause of the boom and bust cycle, which starts with the manipulation of interest rates by the central bank. Artificial credit expansion leads to lower interest rates which causing excess borrowing. The savings necessary to finance sustainable economic growth doesn't exist so businessmen undertake long term projects without the sufficient means to complete them. It is like a builder of a skyscraper who is constructing the building out of bricks. However he doesn't have enough bricks to complete the building. Would it be better for him to realize this sooner or later? Would you rather he have laid every last brick then realize he has squandered all that time and money on an unsustainable project and have to demolish the whole building? Of course it would be better for him to recognize the unsustainability of the enterprise sooner and cut his loses early. This is what the Austrians propose as the correct method of dealing with unsustainable booms in the economy. Let me ask you this then. You say that mainstream economists recognize the reality of the business cycle. Where do they think it comes from then? Can it be caused by greed? Surely if greed was the explanatory factor, we would be in a recession perpetually. The market has a way of leading towards some degree of equilibrium. Some businesses fail while others succeed every day. But what causes a whole cluster of error at the same time throughout entire sectors of the economy? Why should such a thing happen in a free market? The answer, clearly, is that there is some other entity that is distorting the market and providing entrepreneurs with faulty signals. That entity is the Federal Reserve. Interest rates are not some thing that technocrats can play with without consequence. The price of money is a vitally important signal to the economy. In a healthy market economy, investments and loans are funded through savings. If there are a lot of savings, interest rates drop and more loans can be made and the economy expands. Importantly though since interest rates actually reflect the true degree of savings, these expansions are sustainable. The projects undertaken can be completed. On the other hand, if the savings and capital accumulation are depleted interest rates rise sharply and it costs far more to borrow money. This means that the brake is placed upon the creation of a bubble at the earliest possible opportunity. The entrepreneur is made aware of the lack of resources and he will choose not to expand his business at that particular time. This is all very basic economics. However, all your favored economic thinkers fail to understand the deleterious role artificially set interest rates can have upon an economy. They don't understand the cause of the business cycle and thus are unqualified to make any recommendations of how to get out of a recession that was caused by central economic planning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
I don't see any reason how the Austrian explanation of business cycles makes more sense then the Marxist explanation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:So, this is dumb, but why do austrian schoolers have such an obsession with math? I assume they don't understand that the analogies they make are false? Like, I really don't get it. The idea that anything can be determined from axioms that never need to be revised seems pretty dumb! (I'm at work on my phone and a good hour or so past between my beginning this post and finishing it. Sorry if this is redunant). The strongest version of rationalism (defined as the belief that a priori knowledge is possible independently of a posteriori knowledge) which has a viable modern formulation is, to my knowledge, Leibniz' argument that one should be able in principle to reach all knowledge based on a priori knowledge from naive intuition combined with logic. However, he admitted that this process is, in practice, impossible for humans in most fields of inquiry; usually it is only claimed to be possible for trivially true and simple statements or at a level of abstraction which does not purport to correspond with observable reality. So the Austrian school advances a very specific and unique claim: that a priori knowledge is, under any circumstances, not subject to empirical verification in a discipline in which observation is possible. To be clear, this is not a claim that any post-structuralist (who comprise many of the schools of thought referred to as postmodernism) would make, for example. Some would not on the basis of strong skepticism, while others such as Foucault are radical empiricists whose truth claims are based on forms of evidence which are not strictly scientific but which are on firm empirical footing; for example, historical evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We have already established the a priori fact of human action. Similarly, you must be forced to admit that there are certain axioms that logically follow from this fact. There are certain attributes to human action that can be proven through logic and reason, that cannot be refuted. No we haven't, no we aren't, and no, there aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:59
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
"jrodefeld" posted:We have already established the a priori fact of human action. Similarly, you must be forced to admit that there are certain axioms that logically follow from this fact. There are certain attributes to human What we are trying to tell you is that this is not only not obvious or irrational to disbelieve, that can be proven through logic and reason, that cannot be refuted. What we are trying to tell you is that this is not only not ridiculous, ignorant, or irrational to disbelieve this, or even that it is merely beyond the scope of truth claims one may make using logic, but that it represents a fundamentally shallow and mistaken understanding of the concept of logic itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Austrians also use empiricism and observation, but not to refute the logical and necessary implications of human action. So if someone presents us with some study that purports to explain how raising the minimum wage has no adverse effect on employment, immediately we can deduce that there is something amiss with such a study, since it contradicts a basic axiom of economics. The disemployment effects of a marginal minimum wage hike might be small and hard to capture in a given empirical study, but it exists nonetheless and MUST exist. Outlawing jobs below an arbitrary wage rate must necessarily artificially limit the scope of potential economic transaction that humans can engage in. You mean you throw poo poo away and spread FUD when the empirical data doesn't fit your ideology. This is the big difference, by the way, between the Chicago schoolers and the Austrians. The Austrians seemed to understand that they were working within the space of theoretical economics. Chicago school added the ability to cite empirical work when it fits the Austrian conclusions, but then wax philosophically about the limits of human knowledge when it came to any empirical work that contradicted the Austrian gospel. Read what you wrote. You admitted that you throw away empirical work when it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion. That's pretty intellectually dishonest. You can theorycraft all you want about the limits of empiricism, but unless you can point out actual flaws in actual studies then you're just full of garbage. This is the thing that pisses me off about you, Russ Roberts, Friedman, et al. You cite empiricism when it suits you, and then suddenly economics becomes an entirely social science/philosphical pursuit when things don't go your way. It is the world's most obtuse rationalization for throwing away data, and you've managed to actually convince people it has rigor. Oh wait, you actually haven't. Chicago-schoolers only get funded because they say things that rich people agree with. Rich people give no fucks about the rigor or the justifications. They know a guy is defending lowering their tax rate, exploiting their workers, and colluding with competitors.. and that's what they're happy with. ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We have already established the a priori fact of human action. We most certainly have not. There are a huge pile of posts arguing against your axiom, and the problem with pure logical deduction nonscience is that it's very Garbage-in-garbage out. If everything in your theory derives from one axiom, then you need to sell us on that axiom for anything else you say to not be gibbering madness. You can't just assert "you disagree with me, therefore I'm right," which is somehow even more preposterous than the "you aren't actively kicking the crap out of me, therefore slavery is okay" nonaggression principle argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
ErIog posted:You mean you throw poo poo away and spread FUD when the empirical data doesn't fit your ideology. This is a fallacy known as special pleading, essentially meaning "making a special exception to normal rules of argument for X propositions which your thesis requires to survive routine scruitiny."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
This might be off topic, but Caro you are really good at deconstructing lovely arguments and you write in a very accessible and entertaining way. Do you have a blog or do you write anywhere that I could read more?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:51
|
|
