Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
- Jan 8, 2010
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
This pdf presents its own analysis, but I am curious what the posters opinions are.
So you consider this school to be dreary and desolate?
If anything, though, this chart and following review show a new up-tick in interest in this area.
There was a drop that lasted for 30 years - and it's slowly on the rise, which is good . . . so they're heading in the right direction, whatever that is.
Austrian economics is fine when discussing purely economics, but in comparison to other schools of economics, it fails to address the sociological aspects of it's particular ideology.
It is a cold and heartless school, where the weak and old would be put out to pasture to die. As anything else would be harmfull to the economy
I think that is a bit of an embellishment.
That didn't happen before we adopted a mostly Keynesian economic policy.
We never had a fully austrian economic policy either. The closest being the UK in the 1800's.
You know the country that ruled over Ireland during the great potato famine, a country that sent childern who were orphans, or from poor families to work in Cananda or Australia as indentued servants
A sign of the times and not an economic system.
It was perfectly acceptable before then to send your children off to work like that.
You can't blame Austrians for that.
I wasnt blaming the Austrians, just the economic system that only values people as factors of production nothing more
That isn't true at all.
People value other people.
It was completely socially acceptable at that time, to send children off to work.
During the height of the Depression my grandmother quit school, in the 8th grade, to work for her family.
Was that Austrianism in action, as well?
Great Famine (Ireland) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reading up on it, the problem mostly stems from government discrimination of the Irish more than anything else.
They put "theory" and deductive conclusoins above rigorous scientific methods.
Quite they were not highly valued factors of production and were left to starve or move. Allowing for the English lords to reorganize the estates free of the lazy Irish tenants
Böhm-Bawerk was a better social philosopher than he was an economist. For instance, he writes, “We may define social capital as an aggregate of products which serve as a means of the acquisition of economic goods by society” (1959, v. 2 p. 32). He specifically excludes the means of subsistence of productive workers as a part of social capital. This focus on definitions may seem pedantic until we read that “There is but one basis for a contrary conclusion. That would be to classify workers, not as members of a civil society for the benefit of which the economy is conducted, but to regard them as objective labor machines. In that case – but only in that case – the workers’ maintenance would be in the same class as fodder for beasts of burden and fuel for machines; it would be a means of production; it would be capital” (1959, v. 2 p. 71). Böhm-Bawerk denounces “the tendency among English economists – often and quite justifiably censured – to regard workers as producing machines; that view made their wages a component part of production costs, and counted them a deduction from national wealth instead of a part thereof” (1959, v. 2 pp. 72-73).