We know that it is hated by positivists from Friedman to Keynes. We also know it is criticized for being unscientific and deductive in its formulation. It is not derived by the scientific method, per se. It is a claim about the pretense of knowledge: of price signals, of the how interest rates work, about time preferences, etc. it seems to be that all other theories but this one claim that a man in a building somewhere can masterfully navigate a complex economy. Regardless of polycentric attitudes and increasingly changing and fluxuating interests and demands.
There is also a sense in which the anti-Fed position is in many ways all of these things. It is also criticized for 'destabilizing' markets and undoing rational planning. Both decentering and the opposition to rational schemes of discourse and planning are both hallmarks of the postmodern. It seems to me that people claim that it is modern in that it supposes the superiority of markets in determining interest rates, money supply, which commodities are valued (like gold or silver), etc. But isn't the ABCT not a positive theory, but a negative one?
In the best case scenario, i think, it could be sold to either people who want markets or people who just want a skepticism of the current pretenses in economic discourse. From there, it hardly matters which way they want to take it. Since it is better that they understand it as it is than not to do so. But it might be worth wondering if the ABCT is postmodern in itself. Or if it contributes to that conversation in philosophy. If for no other reason than shining a light on how economic conditions get to be how they are.
One last note: it would seem that the Fed itself has a sort of postmodern ambiguity to it. It seems non-ideological or so we are told. It seems to be private, but at the same time 'private cannot be trusted to do its job the same way.' It is said to be in the public interest, but is not used by the public at all. It interupts the binary discourse about private/public and state/enterprise, because of this ambiguity. Far from demonizing the public for the good of the private, it might be worth exploring the fact that there is no such distinction. But that either terms have been intentionally chosen in order to create distinct spheres. And further emphasize the need never draw a distinction and to hold both as simply aggregates of people who must have the same rules. Again, this seems to be a further decentering; from a binary into perhaps an infinite of spheres. Where each person is held accountable.
Do you believe The Scientific Method exists?
"Do you believe The Scientific Method exists?"
I don't see how it is relevant. But I personally think no. Existence means it has 'a space and a location.' The SM is a concept.
Is it a concept that is used? Yes. Is it a good one? Yes.
But the question is is the ABCT to considered postmodern?
Ive argued for praxeology in a couple of other forums, and both times i got into the fundamental axiomatic nature of it, i got the "postmodern looney" ad hom badge onto me.
Existence means it has 'a space and a location.'
Existence means it has 'a space and a location.'
They don't exist yet I've been heeding my tastes for so damn long.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I always thought it was
Article on this:
Can someone help out a bit? I read through the link Dondoolee provided. I'm still left asking what is the implication if ABCT IS post postmodern, or if it is NOT postmodern?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
The term is very broad (like existentialism), but I think Austrianism falls under the term when taking the term broadly. It is all about subject value, the individual, perspectivism, the impossabilities of calculation, etc after all.
I thought that, that essay was quite interesting. Upon reading it, I was immediatly drawn back to something Hayek said in an interview that in many ways he saw Mises as still being a nineteenth century rationalist, while he (probably under some influence of Karl Popper) moved toward something else. I don't really feel confident enough in the material to present a view of the precise differences though, so for that I apologize. That is also why I find it interesting that the writer focuses on Hayek and Lachmann, though I am in no place to examine Lachmann's work as of yet I have not read it. Also of interest, according to James Miller's book on Foucault in attempting to get his students to think about "the will not to be governed" he suggested that they read Hayek and Mises. I think this could be interesting in attempting to further look at Austrianism through the lens of postmodernism.
"Man thinks not only for the sake of thinking, but also in order to act."-Ludwig von Mises
Hi, I guess the ABCT means Austrian Business Circle Theory. If so, please what can I read on it? I have read something by Mises and Hayek but not on the ABCT. Thank a lot.
Eugene Mayburd:Hi, I guess the ABCT means Austrian Business Circle Theory. If so, please what can I read on it?
Welcome to the forums!
Just go to the home page, search either the Daily Articles or LIterature. Here are a few links to get you started. Please, ask questions! Good luck.
Austrian Business Cycle Theory - A brief explanation - Dan Mahoney
Business Cycle Primer - Lew Rockwell
How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't - Irwin Schiff
Austrian Capital Theory - Roger Garrison
Mechanics of the Business Cycle - Roger Garrison / Audio
Also, go to YouTube, search for Mises Channel, search "macro". You will find Garrison's lecture.
Isn't postmodernism associated with polylogism, the idea that logic itself is dependant on your culture and background?
Polylogism fits right in with Marxism and the multicultural left, so I think postmodernism "overdoes" its rational scepticism.
Edit: Also, I think it are two very different things to oppose FED policy because it is A. based on rationality (postmodernism) or B. based on flaws in its logical reasoning and definition of rationality (AE).
Not an expert at all so please tell me if and where I go wrong.
It is a very broad term. Heidegger and Nietzsche are in the broad definition of post modernism, in the sense that they are post modern, Austrian Economics is post modern. It is not uncommon to hear people call post modernism as a capitalist movement (whatever that means).
P.S. I always wondered if leftists actually knew what the consequences of actual factual polylogism or cosmological nihilism would be, as it would not really help their case.