Who has the authority to define Austrian economics? (1 Viewer)

[Onion Eater]

T. Mosley (2009) writes:

Austrian economics is based off of observations (i.e. empiricism) of human behavior for several hundred years. Based off of those observations, it is possible to make certain predictions as to what the result of similar behavior today will be. From that same empiricism, it is possible to construct a logical framework which can be used to explain most or all human social behavior and decision making, and what effect any number of events might have on such decisions.

Certain axioms might also become apparent during such study.

Ludwig von Mises (1949) writes:

Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events. Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle.

 

[phattonez]

Mises explains the a priori nature of the assumptions of Austrian economics much better than T. Mosley. What Mosley writes sounds more like modern Keynesianism than Austrian economics.

 

[Onion Eater]

Mises explains the a priori nature of the assumptions of Austrian economics much better than T. Mosley. What Mosley writes sounds more like modern Keynesianism than Austrian economics.

You're half right. What Mosley writes doesn't sound the least bit like Keynesianism. The Austrian's teenage followers are like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day except that they're re-living the year 1931 over and over again. They don't realize that Keynesianism went out of vogue in the late seventies when it failed to explain stagflation. Nothing written today sounds the least bit like Keynesianism because, except for Paul Davidson, there are no modern Keynesians.

And the Austrian's teenage followers especially don't realize that, for their current leadership, Mises and Hayek are just figureheads. The modern leadership of the Austrian movement has endorsed Theodore Burczak.

Theodore A. Burczak's Socialism after Hayek is a thoroughly researched and thoughtful examination not only of the ideological debate that framed the twentieth century, but of Hayek's intellectual framework. Burczak hopes for an economic framework that is both humanistic in its approach and humanitarian in its concern while being grounded in good reasons. The book should be on the reading list of every comparative political economist and in particular anyone who wants to take Hayek seriously, including those who would like to push Hayek's classical liberal politics toward the left in the twenty-first century. Burczak has made an outstanding contribution to the fields of political and economic thought and to Hayek studies in particular.

I was banned from the Ron Paul Forums for this post because it is embarrassing for the modern Austrian leadership to be reminded that their own posts are exactly the opposite of what Mises actually wrote.

Thus we have the absurd spectacle of Austrians banning someone for quoting Mises at them.

 

[phattonez]

Only the Phillip's Curve was really modified because of stagflation. Keynesianism kept on going and fused itself with monetarism to an extent to get our modern economic consensus.

 

[Goshin]

Who has the authority to define Austrian economics?

I tell you, in the small farming community from which I hail, this question forms almost the sole topic of conversation.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I tell you, in the small farming community from which I hail, this question forms almost the sole topic of conversation.

And here I always thought it was

Who was diddling the horse over in old Joe's Barn

Who tipped over the cows last night

And which dumb city folk got lost snipe hunting

 

[masonkiller]

I honestly consider one of the best authorities on Austrian economics to be Murray Rothbard. I never fully grasped it until I read Man, Economy, and State

 

[phattonez]

I would say not though. Sure, the guy was intelligent, and his works are great, but you don't have to be an AnCap to follow Austrian economics.

 

[masonkiller]

I would say not though. Sure, the guy was intelligent, and his works are great, but you don't have to be an AnCap to follow Austrian economics.

Yeah I guess. I'm an anarcho-capitalist though haha. But I think Austrian economics is kind of a proof that governments provide no benefit to citizens.

 

[phattonez]

I wouldn't say no benefits, I mean, police are useful. But net benefit? That's a different story. Just read some of Human Action; Mises has plenty of room for police and even government sponsored education, roads, etc.

 

[masonkiller]

I wouldn't say no benefits, I mean, police are useful. But net benefit? That's a different story. Just read some of Human Action; Mises has plenty of room for police and even government sponsored education, roads, etc.

I'm planning on it sooner or later. But to be honest I don't see how giving other people the right to initiate force upon others is as useful as private arbitration and fairness through competition.

 

[phattonez]

I'm planning on it sooner or later. But to be honest I don't see how giving other people the right to initiate force upon others is as useful as private arbitration and fairness through competition.

If the authority for that force comes from all people then it's fine. AnCap always seemed to me a system that basically would develop into countries as well since the only institution that could use force against you would be something you choose to participate in. A competing police force cannot touch you.

 

[masonkiller]

If the authority for that force comes from all people then it's fine. AnCap always seemed to me a system that basically would develop into countries as well since the only institution that could use force against you would be something you choose to participate in. A competing police force cannot touch you.

I don't understand if you are supporting a private police force or not here hahaha. Government police forces are most definitely not supported by everyone, and government police forces do arrest innocent people, like in America arresting people for having the wrong plant in their pocket.

 

[phattonez]

I don't understand if you are supporting a private police force or not here hahaha. Government police forces are most definitely not supported by everyone, and government police forces do arrest innocent people, like in America arresting people for having the wrong plant in their pocket.

I have plenty of complaints about the way our current law enforcement system is used, since it should only be deployed to protect basic rights and not go after harmless drug users. That said, how would the AnCap ideal be any different from state-sponsored police forces? Eventually it would just evolve to be the same except for maybe a tie to land.