LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Austrian school of economics

K

KingOrfeo

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Posts
39,182
The Austrian school is entirely pseudoscientific and non-falsifiable, working from axioms and rejecting empirical evidence as irrelevant. You get to do that in math, but not in science. Scientists base their theories on what they observe, not on what they assume, and not on what they want to believe.

"Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith."

—Paul Krugman, "Fine Austrian Whines"[1]

Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is a school of economic thought that eschews mathematical modeling and empirical testing in favor of a narrative approach termed "praxeology."[2][3]

Libertarianism is a very simple idea, backed up by a mountain of econobabble for the purpose of shoehorning that simple idea into every situation possible. Enter the Austrian school. Some, like Gary Becker, thought basic economic models could and should be applied to everything in life, no matter how mundane.[4]

As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify through empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), it is generally considered to be a heterodox approach[5] or outright pseudoscience. Austrian arguments as to why statistical methods cannot adequately describe human behavior can seem intuitively compelling, but they fail to provide the mathematical proof demonstrating why normally unbiased estimates suddenly become biased simply because they are dealing with people who make decisions. In this sense, the Austrian school is to economics as a certain other Austrian school was to psychology. Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding,[6] and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Schiff (an Austrian economist) was one of the few economists to warn about the the Tech bubble and the housing bubble prior to them bursting. Paul Krugman and every other Keynesian economist did not see it coming. In fact, there are videos of them laughing at Schiff when he was warning everyone.

Another interesting thing. Krugman's blog used to get comments from Austrian economists that systematically tore apart his Keynsian positions. It weirded out his supporters because Krugman couldn't counter. Eventually, he just ended up erasing the comments.

That probably explains why Krugman refused to debate an Austrian economist Bob Murphy for charity.
 
Last edited:
Mello_SixtyNine said:
Peter Schiff (an Austrian economist) was one of the few economists to warn about the the Tech bubble and the housing bubble prior to them bursting. Paul Krugman and every other Keynesian economist did not see it coming. In fact, there are videos of them laughing at Schiff when he was warning everyone.
Click to expand...

"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote." If I'm right when a scientist is wrong, that does not make me a scientist.
 
I have no clue about economics and the only one whose speeches sounded less like gibberish to me and I enjoyed listening to was Mark Blyth. He uses layterms in his speeches and is easy to understand.

He's the one who came to fame after he predicted Brexit and Trump's victory, and was also critical of the austerity policies in Greece.

On which camp does he sit? (4est or someone else?… ..thx..)
 
hashtag46 said:
I have no clue about economics and the only one whose speeches sounded less like gibberish to me and I enjoyed listening to was Mark Blyth. He uses layterms in his speeches and is easy to understand.

He's the one who came to fame after he predicted Brexit and Trump's victory, and was also critical of the austerity policies in Greece.

On which camp does he sit? (4est or someone else?… ..thx..)
Click to expand...

Mark Blyth:

He is best known for his critique of austerity, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, described by Salon and AlterNet as "necessary reading" and as simultaneously functioning as an economics explainer, a polemic, and a history book offering "insight into austerity’s lineage, its theories, its champions and its failures." Blyth characterized the argument advanced by austerity advocates as "a canard" and "complete horseshit."[1][2]

Using the term "Trumpism", Blyth argues that there are similar anti-establishment movements in the developed world.[3][4]
Click to expand...

What school of economic thought he subscribes to is not mentioned, but I'm sure it's not the Austrian school.
 
You just proved in one opening sentence that your knowledge of math is as weak as your understanding of economics.




:(
 
And that is why I remained on lit.

Mello 69 for example, is posting porn and and other stuff all day, some you'd never see otherwise, and then, discusses Keynesian economics.

Then they keep wondering "why EF, why do you keep following whever your dick leads?".

:rolleyes:

Good morning :)
 
KingOrfeo said:
The Austrian school is entirely pseudoscientific and non-falsifiable, working from axioms and rejecting empirical evidence as irrelevant. You get to do that in math, but not in science. Scientists base their theories on what they observe, not on what they assume, and not on what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

Quotes from Paul Krugman are no longer credible. His writings are more political than economic and when they are about economics they're full of weasel words. Here's a fact checking article on the subject:

https://mises.org/library/fact-checking-paul-krugmans-claim-be-right-about-everything
 
Rightguide said:
Quotes from Paul Krugman are no longer credible.
Click to expand...

The premise of this thread is not based on the Krugman quote, it is based on the content of Austrian-school economics. Do you think you can seriously defend its status as a science?

As for predictive ability, we should know by now that supply-side economic policies, despite the predictions of economists who recommend them, never, ever accomplish anything but to make the rich richer.
 
I am going to post some comments and they are not being directed at KingO because he is the smartest person in every thread and not open to any possibility that someone else may know more on a subject than he, this is for people who will listen and decide upon the merits of the case I make.

On the topic of Krugman. Yes he is an economist by training. If you read his early works, on the microeconomic level, he differs little from the Austrian School. On the macroeconomic level he has taken up with the schools that believe that money supply and mathematical models can best dictate how to manage the economy. In fact, all he is doing is reverting back to the economic thought of The Socialists of the Chair and the Historical Model of Economics.

The Historical Model looks backwards, analyzes what occurred in the past and then puts it into math-like terms and these formulas are applied to the present and the future. This is what happened with Bush and Obama, they listened to the Krugmans of the world and instituted their ideas on how to restore the economy based upon their math and observations. They did not succeed. They failed miserably enough that Krugman and people who post here stopped proclaiming the return of robust growth and instead took up the fall-back position of, well, we "saved" the economy. They did not.

Why?

Because the economy is not a linear equation or a set of linear equations. What happened in the past has no bearing whatsoever on what will happen in the present or in the future.

Why?

The economy is a chaotic system and its strange attractor is human nature. The Krugmans (Chicago School, etc.) believe they can become Hari Seldon and create a perfect mathematical model that can predict the fall of the Empire and the rise of the Foundation and boy, are they a helluva long way from being able to do that, if it is even possible.

During the time of Obama, I patiently pointed out the reasons as to why he would not succeed. He was left a large pile of money and was granted even more to stimulate the economy. Did he put it where it was needed, were it would fix infrastructure, where it would create growth? No! He put it into people with the proper behaviors, people who wanted to build parks, turtle crossing and bike paths. Then he violated an absolute maxim of Economics, if you throw a lot of money at something the consumer does not want (think green, renewable energy) then the Capital is wasted for the industries wrongly stimulated will fail just as soon as the subsidy ends (think Solyndra, cash for clunkers, etc.).

The other main reason was his background and his inclination. He made people afraid to invest because they were made nervous by his former Communism, his Community Organizing and his stated remarks about going to war on the energy industry as well as his unleashing of the regulatory bureaucracy on the business community.

So, when the government dropped interest rates to zero and put money into the system for loans, nobody wanted them because of the uncertainty that he created. The banks ended up playing with the money to make money for themselves. I talked about this and pointed out that this was addressed even in The Federalist Papers by our Founders: Who will take risk in a time of uncertainty?

Now you see the Nation surging, you see confidence restored, you see optimism because people with Capital and people willing to take loans, risk and expansion see an element of certainty and a pro-business attitude with the new Administration. This is at the heart of the Austrian model and it was written about by Ludwig Elder von Mises in his magnificent work Human Action.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/economists-family-tree_0.jpg?itok=fIK72qCp
 
Last edited:
KingOrfeo said:
The premise of this thread is not based on the Krugman quote, it is based on the content of Austrian-school economics. Do you think you can seriously defend its status as a science?

As for predictive ability, we should know by now that supply-side economic policies, despite the predictions of economists who recommend them, never, ever accomplish anything but to make the rich richer.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why the Economics chair is located in the Sociology Department...

:rolleyes:

There is no such economic term as "supply-side." It is a political pejorative.
 
KingOrfeo said:
Mark Blyth:



What school of economic thought he subscribes to is not mentioned, but I'm sure it's not the Austrian school.
Click to expand...

I'm only commenting because I'm temporarily pissed off with your latest attitude.

Your answer is typical of how you behaved over the last few days:

You gave me a Wikipedia quote (a source fit for the more ignorant.) which explains what Mark Blyth is saying.
What? Even if I agree that I don't know ecenomics, do you think I'm an idiot and I wasn't able to suss that out by myself?

Then you made a vague and dismissive comment.

You're either smug and condescending and take some of us for idiots, or you avoid the issue because you're trying to avoid being chalkenged by other posters more informed anout the topic.
 
I'm starting to suspect that your attitude stems from a superior attitude combined with an awareness that you know less than others do, in certain disciplines like economics, history or so on (Which us ok, since your strengths lie in law, others' in economics and so on. One can't know everything).


I happened to read a lot about what Mark Blyth was talking about, so I'm not the idiot that you take me for.
In saying that, I acknowledge that I lack knowledge and skills in economics and mine was a polite question.

Your superior yet avoidant attitude over the last few days (off topic condescending answers) makes me suspect that you avoid being pinned down by the other posters who know a bit more than you do, about certain topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TwystedDzyre
Word Combos That Show The Rot In Our Society
Replies
0
Views
181
TwystedDzyre
TwystedDzyre
J
One time recently I went to the theater
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
John_Smith123
J
S
Please help me find a story
Replies
0
Views
189
SirMoistalot
S
B
From Silly To Serious
Replies
2
Views
356
Bigbobnc
Bigbobnc
J
The day time stopped for me.
Replies
5
Views
1K
bobb64
B
Back
Top