I am a YouTube junky and have found this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydh5jW-dCC0
I've read various articles that deal with this common "Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor" claim. However he seems to be asking for exact empirical proof of any kind. Outside of the fairly successful austrian business cycle theory, are there any other empirical examples of Austrian econ showing success? I mean even if there isn't it seems pretty damn fruitless given that one of the major points of Austrian Economics is that human action really can't be put on some mathematical scale.
Thoughts?
Yes, this scientistic (as opposed to scientific) critique of AE is very common, since today most other schools of economics try to emulate the method of the physical sciences, believing it makes their work scientific.
Mises' critique is that the rejection of the use of a priori theory in the real world is self-contradictory, since the theory of falsification is itself taken a priori by the positivists.
A few links on this and the issue of mathematics in economics:
http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.pdf
http://mises.org/daily/3638/A-Note-On-Mathematical-Economics
http://mises.org/resources/4950/Economic-Science-and-the-Austrian-Method
Do I smell a performative contradiction on the part of the scientistic criticism? This is pure win. :D
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I figured you guys would get a few laughs.
This is just kind of the average "criticism"of those of us who spawned off the Youtube libertarianism I am sure you are far aware of.
He has blocked me from further discussion about his nonsense on how supply side economics and the Austrian school are leated.
I seriously laughed out loud by the time he finished the first sentence. To answer your question, no this is not typical. This is especially laughable.
Just a few things I noticed:
"I got on to my school database to look up articles"
What is this school database? What does it contain? Why is it a better resource for articles than "the Internet"?
"I wanted to find out the merits of the system [of the Austrian School of Economics?]"
A school of thought is a "system" now?
"Turns out this is funded by the Koch brothers"
It is? That would be quite interesting. I'd like to know where he got this information.
"Plutocrats that want supply-side Austrian School economics to take over"
Can you say "oxymoron"?
"One thing I couldn't find was any serious scientific endeavor concerning the Austrian School"
Huh? Could you define that please? Would would a "serious scientific endeavor" be, exactly? And not only one concerning economics, but a school of thought. I'm quite interested to hear this.
"This is why we are going to put forward this question to you now..."
We?
"If this is indeed a sound scientific and economic principle there should be evidence to support your claim."
I really hope he is referring to some previous discussion he was too dumb to mention in his 8 renditions of the video, because it would be quite embarrassing if he were referring to a school of thought as a "principle" and a "claim" that needs evidence to "support it".
"[the collapse] was very blatent to most people."
You mean like, in 2009?
"[predicting the collapse] didn't make them special, it just made them part of the majority at that point."
At what point? 2007? 2006? 2004? 2003? 2002?
"Because there is this incredible lack of scientific evidence devoted to finding out whether or not this idea is actually true, it forces me to reject the idea entirely."
Again, what the hell is he talking about?
"So that's what we want. [...] Give us the evidence."
Again, who the hell is he talking about?
"You're taking information that you don't understand, have little or no understanding of in terms of scientific understanding, and probably don't even have such an understanding the economic sense"
The irony is almost palpable.
"the system that we have now, supply-side economics"
And if he hadn't already, I think it's safe to say he totally proved his ignorance.
"Do wealthy people, like the Rockefellers or the Koch brothers, have they ever been known for giving up their money willingly?"
Gee I don't know. You tell me, chief.
But yes, even aside from all that, the scientism is obviously prevalent, as well as his ignorance of the Austrian School. I guess you could say the hostility and the ignorance is typical of "critiques" you might hear, but I'm not sure I've ever heard many people get so emotional about it. I mean, he might argue he was completely calm throughout, but I found it quite obvious how affected he was. And he began the whole thing mentioning how he'd already filmed it 7 times before.
I actually feel kind of sorry for people who get so emotionally affected as a result of their own ignorance. I think in large part it stems from a feeling of helplessness. And maybe a bit of jealousy. But mostly powerlessness. The thought that there's nothing he can do and he'll always be fat and poor and lonely. It can make people quite bitter. Much like not understanding how the world works and why things happen the way they do....Where wealth comes from and why some people are poor and others are not. Being that ignorant can very easily lead to a lot of fear. Not being able to explain things, and just putting all your faith in overlords is not a very cozy place to be. But it's all most people know. And as a little green guy once said, "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate..." And I think that's what we're seeing in our generously proportioned friend here. He's come to hate rich people (notice in his world they're "plutocrats"), and he developes his own theories to explain everything based on that view.
This is what many people have done for a long time to explain things they don't understand, so that they don't have to feel so confused. Kind of like how people long ago used angry gods to explain bad weather, or large lumberjacks dragging enormous axes to explain the Grand Canyon.
This doesn't always help the feeling of helplessness though. Even if it gets to that point of theorizing that everyone who has a lot of money is evil and everyone who defends a free market is funded by evil people with a lot of money, it still doesn't change his not being able to do anything about his own situation. It just gives him someone to blame. Which, in some ways might actually make it worse, as it puts a face to his misery and makes him feel the human ego element of another person getting the best of you, or taking advantage of you.
This is why people like this rotund gentleman have the time to remake (8 times, no less) a youtube video "calling out" a nameless, faceless youtube user. A video that will likely not get seen more than a few hundred times, if he's lucky. (I noticed this particular video has gotten around 760 views thanks to this thread and the resulting sharing...which is more than twice as many as almost any other video he's made.)
But people do things like this because it helps them get through the day...makes them feel just a bit more powerful...like, at least they told that guy off. But ultimately they'll never gain satisfaction in the long run. Because their only solution is to keep giving away more power. It's quite the ultimate irony in a way. They feel so powerless, so they give away more and more of their power so that their superiors might keep people from gaining too much power over them. It's a bottomless pit that provides no solution at all, but they just don't see it. And that's why no matter how much they demonize wealthy people, and advocate for more and more oppression of them, they will only find they themselves end up being more and more screwed...and more and more disappointed, and more and more angry and fearful. Which is exactly what we see.
P.S.
Just as a side note...did anyone else get a major Creepy mcCreeperson vibe as he kept getting closer and closer to the camera?
Yes this is typical in the sense that AE is "not scientific" is the most common one line attempt at refutation and the person trying to disccredit AE is completely ignorant of what AE is. Although it is long and the words are probably too big for guys like this, this piece by Hoppe is an excellent answer to the "it is not science" claim:
https://mises.org/pdf/ESAM.pdf
John James:But yes, even aside from all that, the scientism is obviously prevalent, as well as his ignorance of the Austrian School. I guess you could say the hostility and the ignorance is typical of "critiques" you might hear, but I'm not sure I've ever heard many people get so emotional about it. I mean, he might argue he was completely calm throughout, but I found it quite obvious how affected he was. And he began the whole thing mentioning how he'd already filmed it 7 times before. I actually feel kind of sorry for people who get so emotionally affected as a result of their own ignorance. I think in large part it stems from a feeling of helplessness. And maybe a bit of jealousy. But mostly powerlessness. The thought that there's nothing he can do and he'll always be fat and poor and lonely. It can make people quite bitter. Much like not understanding how the world works and why things happen the way they do....Where wealth comes from and why some people are poor and others are not. Being that ignorant can very easily lead to a lot of fear. Not being able to explain things, and just putting all your faith in overlords is not a very cozy place to be. But it's all most people know. And as a little green guy once said, "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate..." And I think that's what we're seeing in our generously proportioned friend here. He's come to hate rich people (notice in his world they're "plutocrats"), and he developes his own theories to explain everything based on that view. This is what many people have done for a long time to explain things they don't understand, so that they don't have to feel so confused. Kind of like how people long ago used angry gods to explain bad weather, or large lumberjacks dragging enormous axes to explain the Grand Canyon. This doesn't always help the feeling of helplessness though. Even if it gets to that point of theorizing that everyone who has a lot of money is evil and everyone who defends a free market is funded by evil people with a lot of money, it still doesn't change his not being able to do anything about his own situation. It just gives him someone to blame. Which, in some ways might actually make it worse, as it puts a face to his misery and makes him feel the human ego element of another person getting the best of you, or taking advantage of you. This is why people like this rotund gentleman have the time to remake (8 times, no less) a youtube video "calling out" a nameless, faceless youtube user. A video that will likely not get seen more than a few hundred times, if he's lucky. (I noticed this particular video has gotten around 760 views thanks to this thread and the resulting sharing...which is more than twice as many as almost any other video he's made.) But people do things like this because it helps them get through the day...makes them feel just a bit more powerful...like, at least they told that guy off. But ultimately they'll never gain satisfaction in the long run. Because their only solution is to keep giving away more power. It's quite the ultimate irony in a way. They feel so powerless, so they give away more and more of their power so that their superiors might keep people from gaining too much power over them. It's a bottomless pit that provides no solution at all, but they just don't see it. And that's why no matter how much they demonize wealthy people, and advocate for more and more oppression of them, they will only find they themselves end up being more and more screwed...and more and more disappointed, and more and more angry and fearful. Which is exactly what we see. P.S. Just as a side note...did anyone else get a major Creepy mcCreeperson vibe as he kept getting closer and closer to the camera?
Excellent analysis here, John. It's so sad, and yet it's so true.
It really does make you wonder when people will actually realize that giving away power is not a way to gain power. It's like the old Einstein/Franklin adage about insanity. They keep bitching and whining for more rules and regulation, and when they get them, things just continue to get worse, giving them more reason to bitch and whine...for more of the same, no less. I think part of the problem is they're actually dumb enough to be convinced that they didn't get what they wanted. Films like Inside Job (thread here) convince people "deregulation" occured, and that that is the reason things got so bad.
This is why it always comes back to education. The only way to put a stop to it is to have a more knowledgable public. That's why Ron Paul is such an important figure. He's done more to educate and get people interested and looking into things on their own than any other single person, and possibly even any other organization. (Of course the organizations, like the LvMI, provide most of the educational material and resources, but people got there because of Paul.)
I actually just spoke to a school teacher from the Los Angeles school district this week who told me that he tells his kids there are two unspoken objectives he is charged with by the government...one is to keep them off the streets and from creating trouble. Basically to keep them from inconveniencing the elites in their personal lives...in their communities and public areas. (I don't think he actually says that second part, but that's the basic idea). And the second objective is to not get them too independent...to make sure he doesn't make them too knowledgable...too questioning...too thinking.
He said the kids really respond to this.
Bwahahahaha. I take it this guy has not walked around New York City.
Someone so caught up on cold hard evidence should probably speak more carefully.
Latest video from our genius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ok968ad_Iw&feature=related
Seriously, this is high school--nay, middle-school--level debating tactics. I don't even know where to begin with this guy.
EDIT: Oh, I guess he posted this prior to his main "refutation." Either way, the point still stands.
LOL. I really hope he makes more videos.
What are the odds that he would watch this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3FdvqZFHG0&feature=player_embedded#!
What are the odds that he would actualy comprehend it and realize he is wrong?