"Most disappointing fact I've learned from this forum: Austrians hate that they are neglected by mainstream economics, but they have little to no understanding of mainstream economics. "
You've already exposed your sheer ignorance in Austrian theory, and particularly Capital theory in the other thread. This ignorance has been actually summed up by you very nicely with your 3 (numbered 1, 2, 3) questions in one of your recent posts in the other thread.
DD5:You've already exposed your sheer ignorance in Austrian theory, and particularly Capital theory in the other thread. This ignorance has been actually summed up by you very nicely with your 3 (numbered 1, 2, 3) questions in one of your recent posts in the other thread.
Ignorance? Or disbelief? Those are two different things.
I would recommend you and your ABCT posse go and read Robert Lucas. He won a Nobel prize--that doesn't mean he's right, but it does mean he's someone you should explore.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
I wouldn't disagree with you, except for the stubborn hostility to alternative economic viewpoints. It's either Austrian or it's wrong. No need to look into it.
By actively engaging you in debate, instead of dismissing you, a large number of posters here are looking into it. And a number of them have expressed how much they appreciate the opportunity to have a stimulating debate with a knowledgeable person from another school of thought. Why are you providing such a stark contrast to them by being so ungracious here?
'Cause I'm a dick?
Neoclassical:'Cause I'm a dick?
And that's certainly not welcome here.
"Ignorance? Or disbelief? Those are two different things."
Yes they are different but in your case it's ignorance. The implicit assumptions behind the questions make no sense if one is familiar with capital theory and ABCT in depth. If there was full understanding of ABCT and only disbelief on your part, those questions would not have been asked in this way.
Now there's nothing wrong with being unfamiliar with the material, however, you are trying to pass along as some expert who is offering valid criticism of what you are an expert in. That won't work here. And frankly, it's annoying and dishonest.
DD5:And frankly, it's annoying and dishonest.
Then ignore it rather than feed it.
@everyone, this thread is about David Friedman, not the same bickering that is ongoing in other discussions. Please stay on topic and start new threads for personal debates.
Thread was split from David Friedman??Austrian discussion.
It is easy for the good posters to get lost in the intellectual equivalnet of "L2P noob sauce. fail more"
Many people on these forums are more than willing to explain there position civilly (though I have not seen much willingness to acknowledge ever being wrong). But some of them are still sophomoric, with a senior's vocabulary.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I will admit to being wrong twice before. However, I won't acknowledge what I was wrong about.
I thought I was wrong
But I was wrong
~ keller Williams