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.
nirgrahamUK:calling yourself an experimental economist somehow proves that economic truth can be learned experimentally like a physical science?
No, but earning a Nobel prize and the esteem of colleagues sure makes you wonder...
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Makes you wonder how someone like Krugman can propound the boken window fallacy and not have his prize revoked
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
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.
Could you tell me why they would have to? I'd seriously like either of them to grapple with the problems their own philosophical tripe faces.
Vernon Smith, the famous "experimental economist" (thereby disproving the claims made by Mises and Rothbard that economics can't be studied experimentally
Wow, got us there. I can't tell if you're trolling or just over-excitable. The fact that Vernon delves in a field called "experimental economics" no more proves its possibility than the existence of astrologers proves the veracity of astrology. Now I don't mean to say they're on par, but that is effectively that to which your argument reduces.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Neoclassical,
Care for a one-on-one debate over methodological dualism?
Why wonder? All economics prizes are awarded by central banks.
It's even funnier because Vernon Smith calls himself a Hayekian, and he most certainly would never dare call himself a neo-classical in the same vein of the poster bearing the same name.
Vernon Smith is a Hayekian because he advocates "ecological rationality" over "constructivist rationality," and he has a particular interest in Hayek's psychology.
Of course, that no way is the same as endorsing a Misesian methodology, which you seem to imply. And, furthermore, what makes Smith a Hayekian is what makes him at odds with Rothbard.
Grayson Lilburne, think you can handle it?
I know where you'll go... "The physical sciences study non-human phenomena, but you wouldn't describe a train stop as a movement of elementary particules, would you? You'd decide the motives and purpose action of the people present. QED."
My big question: can Austrian economics, conceived as praxeology, be reformulated in purely positivistic terms?
Let me be plain: all patterns can be formalized mathematically; can Austrian economics conform to that? Quoting Rothbard, "Moreover, even if verbal economics could be successfully translated into mathematical sysmbols..." Can it?
Jon Irenicus:Wow, got us there. I can't tell if you're trolling or just over-excitable. The fact that Vernon delves in a field called "experimental economics" no more proves its possibility than the existence of astrologers proves the veracity of astrology. Now I don't mean to say they're on par, but that is effectively that to which your argument reduces.
You don't believe Smith actually performs economically-related experiments that reveal insightful outcomes?
Astrology is more comparable to Austrian economics than to experimental studies, my friend.
Insightful outcomes =/= economic theorising.
No, considering it deals with predictions it'd find its sister "science" in positivist economics, ironically.
Physics experiment also reveal insightful outcomes, but only if backed by solid mathematical reasoning.
Vernon Smith is a Hayekian because he advocates "ecological rationality" over "constructivist rationality," and he has a particular interest in Hayek's psychology. Of course, that no way is the same as endorsing a Misesian methodology, which you seem to imply. And, furthermore, what makes Smith a Hayekian is what makes him at odds with Rothbard.
I never said that he endorsed a Misesian methodology. Though, Vernon Smith most certainly is not a neoclassical so I still don't see why you're endorsing him.
What would you call his methodology?
nirgrahamUK: Haven't listened to it yet myself, but its hot off the press. http://mises.org/media/5260 Friedman and Mises on Method 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] Roderick T. Long Friday, July 30, 2010 How disapppointing! In nearly an hour, all he did was make the same point repeatedly. He was right when, at the beginning, he stated that the audience members picked the wrong lecture. Here is the argument made by the short-on-breath Long: 1. The map is not the territory. 2. Abstracting certain details (such as trees) is okay, so long as you are not explicitly stating there are no trees. 3. Stating there are no trues when there are trees is false. The debate on methodology has many threads; I can't believe Long didn't explore them (since I usually appreciate his thinking). "I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman | Post Points: 5
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]
Let me pose a challenge to all of you (made originally by Bryan Caplan to Bob Murphy): Name any absolutely certain non-tautological claim about the economy, and I'll be happy to wager a fractional penny against everything you'll ever own - even if I think you're almost certainly right.