First, I'm not sure if I understand what is so uniquely Austrian about the calculation argument. As I understand it the point is that entrepreneurs maximise profits by putting goods to their most valued uses and the price system is exactly what allows them to do this by means of relative price adjustments and profit and loss accounting (very briefly put). My first point is that this implicitly assumes some sort of harmony of interests, in some cases where this assumption doesn't hold, I don't see how the calculation argument is valid. In the case of asymmetric information, externalities or monopoly power entrepreneurs maximise profits by going against what is in the public interest (yes, Austrians will find this term objectionable). But the other point I'd like to make is that this is a pretty standard point in even principles level micro...
Second, in reality firms costs are highly interdependent and often inextricable from one another. What implications does this have for profit loss accounting? Well, as far as I can tell a lot of big firms don't actually know exactly how to maximise profits so they resort to rules of thumb. My can't government do this? And more importantly, in firms still exist and are efficient, clearly there are some other considerations as to what serves consumers best, why shouldn't they be applied to governments as well?
Third, one of the big arguments against math that I've noticed is that it isn't necessary, something along the lines of "we can express these arguments in verbal logic". I think this is completely besides the point, identifying correct arguments and saying, ex post, that we can say what is in mathematical terms in verbal logic misses the point. The math was useful in fleshing out these arguments in the first place.
Four, I've asked this before, but I want to ask it again: what justifies the large salaries of econ PhD in the private sector? Their model building abilities and econometric skills are often used so what causes firms to be so systematically misguided (that is, according to Austrians).
Five, what is wrong with the concept of willingness to pay?
StrangeLoop:Your disagreement with Austrian economics is evidence that you are ignorant about Austrian economics.
Close. Ignorance about Austrian economics can mean disagreements are baseless. Surely you don't think arguments based on ignorance are robust?
StrangeLoop:Don't mind that your references to Stiglitz and Akerlof are met with silence.
Ah yes, the famous Austrian critic Stiglitz!
StrangeLoop:Rather than engaging you in debate, all Austrians need to do is quiz you on how well you know their knowledge!
I ask that people criticizing AE be familiar with Austrian methodology. I don't think that is unreasonable.
StrangeLoop:Even if you demonstrate sufficient familiarity with their beliefs, you are an unbeliever, and so that must mean you don't know all of their perfectly convincing ideas.
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Austrian ideas. I don't have an issue with Bryan Caplan. The difference between Bryan Caplan and a wannabe critic, is that Caplan has some idea of what he is talking about.
When every debate with non-Austrians degenerates into, "You just dont know our arguments!" then I find it completely unproductive.
Rather than quizzing another person (a person, by the way, who is consistently polite and intelligent), just present your counterarguments. Rather than trying to highlight ignorance, offer better evidence.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Coincidentally, today Arnold Kling brings us, "The Socialist Calculation Debate, 2010 Edition."
StrangeLoop: When every debate with non-Austrians degenerates into, "You just dont know our arguments!" then I find it completely unproductive.
In philosophical debates, once both people know what the other is talking about, there isn't much room for disagreement anymore. It isn't unproductive to say that somebody who is disagreeing with you about something philosophical just doesn't understand what you are saying, simply because that is almost always the reason why there is a "disagreement" in the first place.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Wouldnt if be fun if an admission criteria was introduced?
"Guys you can criticize AE or ABCT, anything you want, but first you have to summarize what it says. That way we are all on the same page, ready to hear you. Then you may have at it."
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
StrangeLoop:When every debate with non-Austrians degenerates into, "You just dont know our arguments!" then I find it completely unproductive.
That doesn't happen with every non-Austrian. That happens with people who are ignorant of Austrian methodology.
Also, if you found it completely unproductive, you would leave. But you must find productivity in it, because you remain.
StrangeLoop:Rather than quizzing another person (a person, by the way, who is consistently polite and intelligent), just present your counterarguments. Rather than trying to highlight ignorance, offer better evidence.
When people make assertions or state incorrect premises, they get questioned. It is an occupational hazard of debate.
The counterargument to ignorance is definition.
liberty student:Also, if you found it completely unproductive, you would leave. But you must find productivity in it, because you remain.
I find Esuric, for example, to be an informative commentator (even if he can be caustic at times). However, to be frank, you and I could never exchange words again, and I wouldn't mind. Esuric brings knowledge to the table; you have only attempted to undercut non-Austrians as ignorant. That may or may not be true, but it would be much more compelling if you actually discussed ideas like intertemporal disequilbrium and other staples of Austrian thought--at this point, I'm not even sure you do know any more than me.
I. Ryan:In philosophical debates, once both people know what the other is talking about, there isn't much room for disagreement anymore. It isn't unproductive to say that somebody who is disagreeing with you about something philosophical just doesn't understand what you are saying, simply because that is almost always the reason why there is a "disagreement" in the first place.
To claim that another doesn't know is one thing, to prove it with counterarguments is another. I would readily concede, for instance, that Jon Catalan knows a heck of a lot more on ABCT than I do, and so I respect his opinion on the matter. However, it seems to me that most of the "You don't get it!" arguments come from people that don't usually demonstrate expertise, either. Furthermore, a debate is useful when all parties are exchanging information, not when it gets dead-ended by "You don't get our methodology!"
Honestly, I'm not here to propose an etiquette for debate. Go ahead and say what you want to say however you want to say it. But, personally, if you're attempting to enter this debate without addressing any of the points that EconomistInTraining was actually discussing, then I have very little respect for what you're bringing to the discussion.
StrangeLoop: To claim that another doesn't know is one thing, to prove it with counterarguments is another. I would readily concede, for instance, that Jon Catalan knows a heck of a lot more on ABCT than I do, and so I respect his opinion on the matter. However, it seems to me that most of the "You don't get it!" arguments come from people that don't usually demonstrate expertise, either. Furthermore, a debate is useful when all parties are exchanging information, not when it gets dead-ended by "You don't get our methodology!" Honestly, I'm not here to propose an etiquette for debate. Go ahead and say what you want to say however you want to say it. But, personally, if you're attempting to enter this debate without addressing any of the points that EconomistInTraining was actually discussing, then I have very little respect for what you're bringing to the discussion.
It looks like we are in agreement. I was just making sure that you understood that most philosophical disagreements do simply boil down to people misunderstanding each other. If you were just saying that you think that it is unproductive when somebody just tries to stifle the debate by saying "you don't understand what we are saying, try again!", without any further explanation, then I agree with you.
ls and others keep implying that i was or am ignorant about something, but as far as I can tell that has never been demonstrated.
and i don't think "guess which counter argument i'm thinking of" is a particuarly good way of deciding who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. as i noted earlier, the entire approach is flawed. for example, flic didn't at all mention the notion held by some austrians that the concept of market failure is flawed, which seems like an like an important objection some austrians would have to the way i phrased my question--does that mean he was unaware of the concept?
honestly, i am kind of annoyed we are even having this discussion. when i see someone saying something i believe is incorrect about mainstream econ, i try to correct them. i would expect others to do the same to me if i said something incorrect about austrian econ. is that really too much of a burden??? i wouldn't think so. and thus far no one has said i actually said anything incorrect about austrian economics, they are just trying to infer if i am ignorant about one topic or another.
of course, the fact is you can't demonstrate ignorance unless we actually has austrian "admissions" exams. but do we really want to even entertain that silly notion? how many of you would be willing to take similar mainstream econ "admissions exams" before running off at the mouth about the flaws of "neoclassical" or "keynesian" economics?
again, this is really all kind of silly.
PS* This isn't to say I am *not* ignorant of somethings about austrian econ. I am sure I am. I just don't think I have shown ignorance of any of the topics thus far discussed.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
StrangeLoop:I find Esuric, for example, to be an informative commentator (even if he can be caustic at times). However, to be frank, you and I could never exchange words again, and I wouldn't mind. Esuric brings knowledge to the table; you have only attempted to undercut non-Austrians as ignorant. That may or may not be true, but it would be much more compelling if you actually discussed ideas like intertemporal disequilbrium and other staples of Austrian thought--at this point, I'm not even sure you do know any more than me.
So basically, you were not accurate when you said you find these discussions COMPLETELY unproductive.
I have challenged a lot of people, Austrian and otherwise. Your issue (and also of your 2 peers in this thread) consistently seems to be, (as pointed out by Esuric, the informative commentator) that you think the discussion always revolves around you. You're unable to de-personalize a critique, and when your arguments are weak, frequently retreat to victim mode. While it makes good theater, it is lousy debate.
Claiming I am mean or bad, or I have motives A, B or C do nothing to increase your veracity or capability in debate. You're trying to stand on the shoulders of someone as you drown them. It's a self-defeating endeavor.
Btw, there was a debate on staple Austrian thought, and you seemingly wanted little part of it.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20406.aspx
StrangeLoop:Oh, man... I had no idea you were going to provide such a long-winded argument. (That's not an insult, but I did not realize my participation would be so demanding.)
StrangeLoop:I am most certainly in the opposing camp, but I am incredibly busy, so expect my response to be a bit delayed (essentially, I'll be taking cues from Daniel Dennett and Paul Churchland, if you're familiar with them).
StrangeLoop: Adam Knott:Do you mind if other people to contribute to the discussion? I absolutely do mind; I've noticed that the minority of intelligent debaters here are quickly drowned out by throngs of mean-spirited, dim-witted cheerleaders.
Adam Knott:Do you mind if other people to contribute to the discussion?
I absolutely do mind; I've noticed that the minority of intelligent debaters here are quickly drowned out by throngs of mean-spirited, dim-witted cheerleaders.
StrangeLoop:I must admit I'm already bored of this debate. Not your fault, but I simply fail to understand several of your points. I find them incoherent.
Complaints about effort, time, others (what else is new, blaming others, deserved or not, is standard fare) and disinterest. This is what you brought to the table when there was a serious debate about methodology (praxeology) offered by arguably one of the most capable Misesians today.
liberty student:...you think the discussion always revolves around you.
You explicitly made it so.
liberty student:I think you may have been trying to be too clever, but I was referring to SL, student and EIT. They constantly have *something* to say about Austrianism, even though it has never been apparent they understand what it is they are criticizing in the first place.
liberty student, I willingly consented to a debate; of course, I had no anticipation that my fellow debator would be so long-winded. And, frankly, regurgitating arguments from John Searle doesn't really captivate me. Furthermore, the argument had little to do with Misesian methodology. Searle, so long as he acknowledges third-person objectivity (which he does), never denies that economics can be approached from an empirical methodology. More than anything else, all Adam Knott was doing was arguing for qualia.
Furthermore, I have already engaged in that debate with Grayson Lilburne, so you can see my fuller responses from there.
it seems to me that liberty student is engaging in what looks like sincere trolling. like normal trolling, he isn't actually contributing to the substance of the discussion, he's just derailing the thread into personal attacks. but, unlike typical trolling, he seems to really care about what he's saying. making snide comments about sl/eit/etc *matters* to him.
there should be a name for this behavior.
"nipping at the heels" is taken.
"trolling on the square" maybe?
Oh give over already Student. Enough of the trolling accusations.