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.
Neoclassical:Why would Friedman have opposed the view if the evidence was available? He had just as much incentive to believe the ABCT, given his laissez-faire ideology. Frankly, when it comes to confirmation bias, the Austrians are guiltier than most.
He had just as much incentive to believe the ABCT, given his laissez-faire ideology. Frankly, when it comes to confirmation bias, the Austrians are guiltier than most.
This has the potential for being an interesting discussion if you can dig up what Milton thought was the proper evidence for his case against?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Why would Friedman have opposed the view if the evidence was available? He had just as much incentive to believe the ABCT, given his laissez-faire ideology. Frankly, when it comes to confirmation bias, the Austrians are guiltier than most.
Why would Friedman have opposed the view if the evidence was available?
Your first contention is an appeal to authority. Friedman would first have to dislodge Mises's epistemological arguments to show "evidence" could contradict an economic theorem; he never did. He utterly misunderstood the Austrian methodology and his own has been hacked to pieces by Austrian and non-Austrian anti-positivists alike (Hollis and Nell's Rational Economic Man, Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian method etc.) Secondly, supposing he did, please refer to this evidence provided it has not already been contradicted by Austrians.
To the latter, he was married to positivism and its use in economics, so he would strenuously dislike a theory built on rationalist premises. Conversely, Austrians believe in laissez-faire too. Why would they be so eager to defend the ABCT against him, then, hm? Perhaps it's because they genuinely think he is wrong. It's not an ideological question but an economic one.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Much of Friedman's philosophy is based on the one hand solving problems with more liberalism. But on the other hand, still needing something for him to advise people about. It doesn't take long to explain a political belief or reasoning behind it, whether it is liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., but you can get a lot of mileage out of something like monetarism and positivist economics. With charts that most don't understand, the necessity to collect new and more data, and the need to form new mathematical formula.
Both Friedman and Keynes seem to believed that bank runs happen for no reason; probably irrationality. And that deflation fighting is the proper role of government. They both believed that the Fed 'let the Great Depression happen'. On the flip side, they both think that controlling the money supply and getting people take money out of the banks, too, in the aftermath of fighting a great Depression is necessary. But differ only in how this is done. But in effect both separate macro and micro spheres.
Austrian methodology overly relies upon folk psychology, as far as I'm concerned. I would like to see an Austrian economist seriously grapple with Paul and Patricia Churchland's eliminative materialism.
Their reluctance to accept empirical, econometric studies is anti-scientific and backwards.
Ultimately, though, if Austrians are right, then empiricists should arrive at the same conclusions, only using a more roundabout, data-gathering process.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Austrian methodology overly relies upon folk psychology, as far as I'm concerned.
Hehe. That looks like troll bait.
I would like to see an Austrian economist seriously grapple with Paul and Patricia Churchland's eliminative materialism.
It doesn't have to grapple with any theory of psychology. Economics is a branch of praxeology.
>>Ultimately, though, if Austrians are right, then empiricists should arrive at the same conclusions, only using a more roundabout, data-gathering process.
I guess David Friedman and Bryan Caplan are examples of such.
Praxeology, as "the study of human action," has serious presuppositions--namely, folk psychology! Just consider Mises's "methodological dualism," for instance.
nirgrahamUK:>>Ultimately, though, if Austrians are right, then empiricists should arrive at the same conclusions, only using a more roundabout, data-gathering process. I guess David Friedman and Bryan Caplan are examples of such.
Yes. All of us found satisfactory reasons to adopt anarcho-capitalism. However, Friedman and Caplan definitely don't agree with all of the conclusions (e.g., they actually discuss market failture, aggregate demand, etc.)
Their process for arriving at the truth is so roundabout it will take them both a while longer to fully arrive :-p
Neoclassical:Praxeology, as "the study of human action," has serious presuppositions--namely, folk psychology! Just consider Mises's "methodological dualism," for instance.
I can't think of a good response to this.
not because I find it packed with truth and convincing. but because it reads like unconnected half thoughts. What are you trying to say? can you find different words to say it?
Haven't listened to it yet myself, but its hot off the press.
http://mises.org/media/5260
Showing that Milton Friedman’s criticism of Austrian apriorism and his criticism of the Austrian rejection of unrealistic economic models are rooted in the same philosophical mistake. Recorded 30 July 2010 in Auburn, Alabama. [59:48]
Awesome timing!
P.S. My earlier thoughts, called "half thoughts" by you, simply mean this: Mises advanced an entire philosophy (praxeology) based on a conception of mind that is now being criticized by philosophers (e.g., Paul Churchland) and neuroscientists.
Vernon Smith, the famous "experimental economist" (thereby disproving the claims made by Mises and Rothbard that economics can't be studied experimentally), had a very thoughtful review of Human Action that brought into focus some serious methodological failings: http://www.indytruth.org/library/journals/catojournal/19/cj19n2-1.pdf.
And, so far as I know but have yet been able to confirm, Smith is an anarcho-capitalist.
philosophers were anti-economics and anti-mises in the past. Mises wrote openly about such tensions.
Do modern philosophers reject statements such as that voluntary trades occur due to ex-ante value inequalities of agents whereby they both benefit?If they do so much the worse for them.
It seems you have two approaches if you want to continue in this vain.
Have a go at actually presenting a definite argument against Mises that you pull from one of the philosophers you place stock in.
or
Have a go at showing what 'superior' truth and insight follows from the 'new philosophers' approach to answering questions of economics
calling yourself an experimental economist somehow proves that economic truth can be learned experimentally like a physical science?