I ask this question, because I have not met one opponent who even planned to pick up a book/pamphlet on Austrian Economics. The naked emperors I encountered online would confidently slander it in front of an audience. Term/name dropping ("LOL I'm not impressed with marginal utility/economic calculation/Ron Paul) was the best they could muster up, yet no one was left with a single explanation of the subject. I had no coherent idea of AE, until I found the Mises Institute. This lead to the discovery that the naked emperors had no idea what they were talking about. The propaganda they spew is in spite of what is actually written.
After I had learned the basics of AE, I asked a couple of ridiculers their thoughts on AE. As I had expected, the responses I received were as follows:
Old Australian: "Yes, I know of the Australian Business Cycle, and it bottomed out this year."
(Actually, that one was an interventionist who thought he had economics all figured out)
Young Marxist: "AE has devolved into neo-liberalism, and nobody takes the economic calculation problem seriously!"
I asked the young Marxist to explain ABCT and the calculation problem to me. He was utterly unable to do this and admitted to not having done his research. I was astonished someone would risk destroying his credibility for intellectual dishonesty, until I discovered this Rothbard quote:
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
Then it hit me... The average person thinks he is justified in making conclusions (believing them to be final and infallible) without doing the necessary research.
I wish this post was less tangential, but I wanted touch up on the implications of the first paragraph. The question still stands though.
At university? No. Mostly people aware of 2nd hand criticisms of AE. Luckily one of my profs is Hayekian.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: At university? No. Mostly people aware of 2nd hand criticisms of AE.
At university? No. Mostly people aware of 2nd hand criticisms of AE.
Do they think 2nd hand criticisms are good enough requirements for a scholarly debate?
Yes.
^is why im cautious of critiques i hear of schools im personally unfamiliar with (marxist schools, etc)
I can imagine an evil-snowflake who feels every bit as confident as I do who also believes in supercommunistplanning... maybe its just me.
Who are these people you are talking to???? Are they undergrads or faculty?
If you actually have Marxist faculty members I can only guess you are going to school outside the United States and so I can't say anything about what you might be experiencing.
If your complaints are based on conversations with undergrads, then I'm not surprised. The quality level of the discussion is determined by the quality of people you are talking to regardless of intellectual school of though. Look at mises forum. There are plenty of people on this board shooting their mouths off about "Keynesian Economics" without any apparent understanding of its basic tenants (just check out the "Keynesian Economics Refutation Thread"). Yet, most of these people that don't bother trying to understand Keynesian econ are not trained economists. So I am not surprised when they make mistakes.
Similarly, if you are talking with undergrads, you will likely run into a lot of people that are cocky and dismissive that have no right to be. It has nothing to do with mainstream economics, its just the curse of being young.
Like I said in another thread, if you want to find educated critics of Austrian Economics, look for trained economists that are willing to submit their criticisms to peer-review. Reading journals may not be as fun as late-night dorm bull secessions, but it is probably more educational.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
The user: "Student" on these forums seems to be unconvinced although he knows what he's talking about.
However usually no, the critics of the buisness cycle have little to no real clue.
Although to be fair, alot of Austrians seem to be ignorant as to a fair amount of Neo-classical and Keynsian devices. I think that everyone should study economics either along side or after reading a classical economics textbook.
Snowflake: I can imagine an evil-snowflake who feels every bit as confident as I do who also believes in supercommunistplanning... maybe its just me.
No, I feel like this all the f***ing time, although of course with TLAR in your place.
In the UK it makes little difference, at least where I study, for the professors are relatively oblivious of the Austrian School (and if they know of it it is mostly with regards to arguments regarding the positive traits of monopolies and vaguely the "Hayekian" business cycle theory; if it's a philosophy/social science department it's critiques of Hayek's Road to Serfdom.) I've yet to meet a student who knows of the School by name, though they know some of its arguments and counter with the usual socialist (or conservative) retorts. The exception is the professor I mentioned who's authored some books on Hayek as well as Keynes (G. R. Steele.)
Student: There are plenty of people on this board shooting their mouths off about "Keynesian Economics" without any apparent understanding of its basic tenants (just check out the "Keynesian Economics Refutation Thread"). Yet, most of these people that don't bother trying to understand Keynesian econ are not trained economists. So I am not surprised when they make mistakes.
There are plenty of people on this board shooting their mouths off about "Keynesian Economics" without any apparent understanding of its basic tenants (just check out the "Keynesian Economics Refutation Thread"). Yet, most of these people that don't bother trying to understand Keynesian econ are not trained economists. So I am not surprised when they make mistakes.
The child didn't need to be a tailor or a physicist or a master of political science to know the emperor had no clothes on...
I don't think I've ever met a very informed critic of AE. The only people I ever seem to be able to find to engage in economic debate are either Marxists or people who don't really have an understanding of rationality or economics, but instead take positions based on emotional irrationality. Debating or engaging either is, in a word, painful more often than not... if only because it seems repeatedly smashing my head into a wall might produce the same results. Though admittedly, every now and then, I've been able to get through to a 'non-believer', as it were.
I am an informed critic of AE, but I accept the economic calculation problem as part of the explanation for the failure of socialism and that a modified form of ABCT can explain some business cycles (but not all). It is the mostly the AE methodology that I reject: I think there can and should be exceptions to methodological individualism. Overall, I think Constructive Empiricism is a better methodology of economics.
Student: If you actually have Marxist faculty members I can only guess you are going to school outside the United States and so I can't say anything about what you might be experiencing.
You are mistaken. I attended a state university in the US and had several Marxist professors (although to be fair, I am lumping Classical Marxists, Analytical Marxists, and Critical Theory Scholars into "Marxism"). On the other hand, none were in the economics department.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Student, your arrogance-to-knowledge ratio is JUST as high as any of the people you're complaining about. You just happen to have more of both, but fundamentally you have the same basic problem as they do. You want to talk econ principles and specifics? Great. But enough with the incessant meta-arguments about the alleged generalized deficiencies in the attitudes of pro-Austrians-in-general. It just makes you come off as petty and non-constructive.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Student, your arrogance-to-knowledge ratio is JUST as high as any of the people you're complaining about. You just happen to have more of both, but fundamentally you have the same basic problem as they do. You want to talk econ principles and specifics? Great. But enough with the incessant meta-arguments about the alleged generalized deficiencies in the attitudes of pro-Austrians-in-general. It just makes you come off as petty and non-constructive.
Well, I think I only seem arrogant because my charm and good-natured smile don't always travel well across the internet. So I apologize in advance, old boy, if I ever seem rude or petty.
But I really should correct you on one point. I did not make any argument about the general attitudes of pro-Austrians in this thread. All I said was that the quality of a discussion will be determined by its participants. If you don't find serious people, you won't find serious discussions and that is true if you're talking to Austrians, Marxists, Keynesians, whatever. My comments were directly aimed at the OP's complaint that he could not find any good critics of Austrian Economics (I even threw in the constructive suggestion that he look for criticism in journal articles instead of everyday conversation). So I don't see how I was out of bounds.
Now, you are right that I was treading too far down that road in the thread on why ABCT is not more generally accepted. But I only jumped in *that* fire because I had read two full pages of petty meta-arguments about the generalized deficiencies of Mainstream Economists and was more than a little annoyed by the discussion. You could sum up half the comments in that thread as saying "ABCT is not accepted by the mainstream because most academic economists are either stupid, dishonest, or protecting the imbeded interests of central bankers." Pretty constructive conversation, huh? Funnily enough, you didn't vocalize any problem with *those* meta-arguments. I at least like to think I made a contribution in that thread by deflating the less convincing arguments.
In any case, you are right that these types of conversations generate more heat than light. That's why I normally try to stay out of them. But, as someone that considers them self an (aspiring) member of the dreaded, bowler-hat-wearing establishment, I sometimes feel the need to defend the mainstream against glib insults and shot-gun complaints. Maybe I shouldn't. Either way, I will endeavor to stick to substantive discussions from now on, but I must warn you that I am not always good at keeping promises.
I ran into some stephen zarlenga fanbois once. They were terrible nothing but strawmen and copy pasta of pages from his (and others) books. They never formed their own arguments, and when they did they argued dumb stuff. One guy actually argued that gold is worthless as money because it "Has no intrinsic value" but he was arguing that greenbacks DID.
It was lunacy.
Capital Pumper:Then it hit me... The average person thinks he is justified in making conclusions (believing them to be final and infallible) without doing the necessary research.
Hmm...so that's why people who never open books can seem so smart. They confidently throw out impressive jargon and hope that no one calls them on it. :-)
What would a critic have to know to be "informed?"
bloomj31: What would a critic have to know to be "informed?"
A critic of, say, Marxism, should be able to summarize the Marxist position in such a way that a Marxist will say. "Yep, that is what we Marxists contend." After which the critic is free to declare what he considers the flaws in Marxism.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: A critic of, say, Marxism, should be able to summarize the Marxist position in such a way that a Marxist will say. "Yep, that is what we Marxists contend." After which the critic is free to declare what he considers the flaws in Marxism.
That's a pretty tough standard.
bloomj31:That's a pretty tough standard.
Well, when you want to criticize an entire school of thought, you should at least understand their underlying assumptions/positions.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: Well, when you want to criticize an entire school of thought, you should at least understand their underlying assumptions/positions.
But who's to say whether or not anyone is properly representing another school's positions? Who gets to judge?
bloomj31: Esuric: Well, when you want to criticize an entire school of thought, you should at least understand their underlying assumptions/positions. But who's to say whether or not anyone is properly representing another school's positions properly? Who gets to judge?
But who's to say whether or not anyone is properly representing another school's positions properly? Who gets to judge?
if you are going to debate Person X, he should agree that you have summarised his position correctly before you attack it. And if he says you haven't , he should correct you. Then you restate his position. If he now agrees you have got it right, you now know enough to criticise it meaningfully.
This is not a tough standard to meet. This is the bare minimum required for meaningful discussion. Can you criticise the theory of relativity without knowing what it says?
Of course, if by criticism we mean name calling and insulting, well, anyone can do that.
Capital Pumper: Then it hit me... The average person thinks he is justified in making conclusions (believing them to be final and infallible) without doing the necessary research.
How much research is "necessary?" Since none of us are omniscient, we all arrive at out conclusions based on incomplete research.
I Samuel 8
Smiling Dave: if you are going to debate Person X, he should agree that you have summarised his position correctly before you attack it. And if he says you haven't , he should correct you. Then you restate his position. If he now agrees you have got it right, you now know enough to criticise it meaningfully. This is not a tough standard to meet. This is the bare minimum required for meaningful discussion. Can you criticise the theory of relativity without knowing what it says? Of course, if by criticism we mean name calling and insulting, well, anyone can do that.
Lol, good luck with that.
EDIT: Based on these standards, it's safe to say that you're not going to meet anyone who "truly understands AE" who isn't also an advocate of AE. Therefore, this defense is foolproof.
Jesse: Capital Pumper: Then it hit me... The average person thinks he is justified in making conclusions (believing them to be final and infallible) without doing the necessary research. How much research is "necessary?
How much research is "necessary?
That depends on your aptitude and the topic of discussion. Self-appointed math wizards oblivious to the existence of addition & subtraction obviously don't make the cut. The same rule applies to the Marxist I used as an example in my thread post.
Jesse: Since none of us are omniscient, we all arrive at our conclusions based on incomplete research.
Since none of us are omniscient, we all arrive at our conclusions based on incomplete research.
No, my post refers to people, who base their first and final conclusions on nothing but straw men.
bloomj31: Lol, good luck with that. EDIT: Based on these standards, it's safe to say that you're not going to meet anyone who "truly understands AE" who isn't also an advocate of AE. Therefore, this defense is foolproof.
This is just wrong. If you can't even reproduce the Marxian theory of crises, then you shouldn't be debating a Marxian--it's that simple. In fact, many try to debate Marxists by attacking the LTV, but get ripped into pieces because they fail to understand the complexity of his analysis. Before you enter a debate, there is a certain amount of information you must possess, that is, if you don't want to embarrass yourself.
Capital Pumper: Jon Irenicus: At university? No. Mostly people aware of 2nd hand criticisms of AE. Do they think 2nd hand criticisms are good enough requirements for a scholarly debate?
Most people don't go to university to learn anything. They go because social pressure tells us to raise our credit status in society, to get a bigger paycheck. College is the worst because it is purely vocational training. Yet that evidently doesn't stop the many laughable scrubs that go through it from inflicting intellectual damage on everyone around them before or after graduation.
Esuric: This is just wrong. If you can't even reproduce the Marxian theory of crises, then you shouldn't be debating a Marxian--it's that simple. In fact, many try to debate Marxists by attacking the LTV, but get ripped into pieces because they fail to understand the complexity of his analysis. Before you enter a debate, there is a certain amount of information you must possess, that is, if you don't want to embarrass yourself.
I'm not saying you're wrong in the strictest sense. I know you're right. One shouldn't engage in debate unless one truly understands what one is debating. But then again...
Who are debates for? The two people having them or the people watching the debate? In other words, I could debate a Marxist on this website and I would certainly win. Not because I know their ideas better or even really understand them nor can I necessarily make a good argument against theirs. I would win because the people on this site are decidedly anti-marxist. So I've already won the fight. Whatever I miss out on will be made up by other people on this forum. It works the same way in real life. I could watch a Republican debate a Democrat IRL and even if the Democrat technically "won" the debate, they'd still lose my vote. Why? Because I've already made my mind up going in.
I've already made my mind up because I accept certain premises as true and others as false. AE, just like Keynesian arguments, are based on premises. I just happen to lean more towards agreeing with certain AE premises rather than certain Keynesian premises. Therefore, I tend to side with AE on things. Not all things, but many. This is why I don't think too many people are going to meet the criteria this thread demands for a worthy adversary. You'd have to find someone who at once accepts the premises of AE and at the same time doesn't accept them. It could happen, but it seems like not many are going to live up to that standard.
I also think that I interpreted this thread in a public policy light. Whereas I know many may be speaking of pure economics. We may end up talking past each other for this reason, I don't know.
Esuric: This is just wrong. If you can't even reproduce the Marxian theory of crises, then you shouldn't be debating a Marxian--it's that simple.
QFT. And I'm a bit amazed that anyone should think otherwise.
I'll quote Bloomj31 here as well and comment a bit:
Bloomj31: This is why I don't think too many people are going to meet the criteria this thread demands for a worthy adversary. You'd have to find someone who at once accepts the premises of AE and at the same time doesn't accept them. It could happen, but it seems like not many are going to live up to that standard.
No, you'd have to find someone who KNOWS but does not accept the premises.
Here is a sample debate:
"If I understand you correctly, you are saying that 2+2=5."
"Yep."
"I am pleased that we agree on what your premises are."
"Aha, you lose! You know my premises.'
"Not so fast. I know them, but I disagree with them because bla bla."
As for arguing with someone who has already made up his mind, I agree there is no point in that. But there are still a few people out there who will change their minds if shown logically [and politely] that Side A is flawed and Side B is not. [As you have, Mr Bloomj31]. And when debating in a forum, say, that should be your target audience, not the slavering fanatics whose minds are made up anyway.
I'm not sure what "public policy light" means. If it means "How to convince the unthinking masses", no need at all to know what the other side is saying. Constant slander and name calling will do.
Esuric:In fact, many try to debate Marxists by attacking the LTV, but get ripped into pieces because they fail to understand the complexity of his analysis.
Im a little confused, can you elaborate on the complexity of the LTV?
I thought it was easy to disprove.
So basically, you're saying that AE is just horribly misunderstood and horribly mischaracterized?
bloomj31: So basically, you're saying that AE is just horribly misunderstood and horribly mischaracterized?
http://www.mp3lyrics.org/a/animals/dont-let-me-be-misunderstood/
http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627065027521604
The complexity of economics, in general, is severely underestimated. Neither boiler plate arguments nor appeals to enforcement will get you around that .
Nozick offers a more or less informed critic of AE in his article:
Nozick, Robert (1977): On Austrian Methodology, in: Synthese, Vol. 36, p. 353-392.
Since his normative position is rather close to the Austirans he only refutes AE in some particular points, but its still interesting to read.Especially interesting is the argument that Mises value theory is contradictory to his conception of opportunity costs.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for someone on this thread who actually does have a good working knowledge of Marxism/Keynesianism/Neo-Classicalism/etc. to lay out a concise list of their (accurate) primary beliefs and arguments. Not all of us have had the time or the training to dig into the primary sources.
Felipe: Im a little confused, can you elaborate on the complexity of the LTV? I thought it was easy to disprove.
You calculate the value using the average socially necessary amount of labor needed to produce the good.
Reasoning: Felipe: Im a little confused, can you elaborate on the complexity of the LTV? I thought it was easy to disprove. You calculate the value using the average socially necessary amount of labor needed to produce the good.
Can you define "socially necessary" operationally? How does one know how much labor is "needed" without using references to how much labor is used in a competitive market?
I think the existence of a term like "socially necessary" in the definition should automatically disqualify a theory from serious consideration.
Reasoning:You calculate the value using the average socially necessary amount of labor needed to produce the good.
You don't "calculate" SNLT; it's expressed. Value, for the Marxists (most of which are now Neo Ricardians), is some abstract force determined by production and distribution relations (the division of labor, and bargaining power amongst various classes, which own specific productive forces). They claim that value is a long run frequency which hovers around costs, but is never at its "true value" because market demand (utility) and supply conditions cause divergences. Essentially, it's a stochastic process. Now, it's true that prices and profit will fall towards the cost of production, but this has little to do with value, and more to do with the profit/loss and price mechanisms. Essentially, they conflate market processes with a theory of value, and claim that the former is imperfect (exploitative) and therefore disturbs the latter. They want to eliminate the "chaos of markets" so that the "true value" can be expressed (eliminate exploitation).