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.
what is the purpose of the challenge?
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
Human action is purposeful.
Exchange reveals instantaneous preference.
Ceteris parabis, people prefer more expedient means.
To prove that a priori reasoning is purely tautological, thus not generating new knowledge.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Sieben:Human action is purposeful.
That's like saying, "All bachelors are unmarried." It's playing with words, a tautology.
Neoclassical:To prove that a priori reasoning is purely tautological, thus not generating new knowledge.
Mathematics, in my opinion, is purely syntactical.
Neoclassical:Mathematics, in my opinion, is purely syntactical.
New knowledge?
No. Simply rule-following, pasted onto the world to emphasize patterns.
why bemoan the absence of 'new knowledge' when 'old knowledge' works fine?. and haven't you laid a trap for all knowledge increasing endeavours, that rely on the rational mind?. for at the point when you want to begin to use your deductive faculties, and do logical theorising,from your premises (which include your data and beliefs on the data), you are not going to be generating 'new knowledge', just representing what you already knew in a 'different way' ?
let me ask you this. suppose that there is an apriori-truth, that you had not considered, i will call it proposition A. you don't know what is is so it will not play a role in your interpretational schema. if i tell you the content of proposition A, and therefore cause you to consider it, and you recognise the truth in it, and recognise it is apriori true, have you not 'learned' something 'new' from me?
Neoclassical: New knowledge? No. Simply rule-following, pasted onto the world to emphasize patterns.
But to move the conversation forward, you can't make apodictic statements about the future of the market. You can say that we observed X ocurring in the past etc... I don't know what your criterion for knowledge is.
nirgrahamUK:why bemoan the absence of 'new knowledge' when 'old knowledge' works fine?. and haven't you laid a trap for all knowledge increasing endeavours, that rely on the rational mind?. for at the point when you want to being to use your deductive faculties, and do logical theorising,from your premises (which include your data and beliefs on the data), you are not going to be generating 'new knowledge', just representing what you already knew in a 'different way' ? let me ask you this. suppose that there is an apriori-truth, that you had not considered, i will call it proposition A. you don't know what is is so it will not play a role in your interpretational schema. if i tell you the content of proposition A, and therefore cause you to consider it, and you recognise the truth in it, and recognise it is apriori true, have you not 'learned' something 'new' from me?
You're right that I'm casting a doubt on all rationalistic knowledge as genuine knowledge about an external world. I'm very Quinean, actually.
For your second paragraph, I believe someone might believe that he or she has attained new knowledge by pondering a pearl of a priori reasoning; however, whether or not new knowledge was actually attained is not proven simply because a person believes so.
Sieben:But to move the conversation forward, you can't make apodictic statements about the future of the market. You can say that we observed X ocurring in the past etc... I don't know what your criterion for knowledge is.
I don't believe in apodictic statements, period!
My "criterion for knowledge" is replacement naturalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_epistemology.
>>You're right that I'm casting a doubt on all rationalistic knowledge as genuine knowledge about an external world. I'm very Quinean, actually.
So it seems you aren't putting any opposing methodology or body of knowledge regarding economics above the Austrian tradition after all? you are rather calling economics a dismal science, and all science.. dismal science.
it seems that you are a pessimist and rather nihilistic on the question of knowledge altogether....have I misunderstood you?
nirgrahamUK:>>You're right that I'm casting a doubt on all rationalistic knowledge as genuine knowledge about an external world. I'm very Quinean, actually. So it seems you aren't putting any opposing methodology or body of knowledge regarding economics above the Austrian tradition after all? you are rather calling economics a dismal science, and all science.. dismal science. it seems that you are a pessimist and rather nihilistic on the question of knowledge altogether....have I misunderstood you?
Yes, you have misunderstood me. I stated I was Quinean, who is chiefly remembered as being one of the fiercest advocates of natural science within the tradition of analytic philosophy.
I am placing neoclassical (empirical) methodology above the Austrian tradition. I am not calling economics a dismal science at all, since I consider it to be one of the most elucidating and eye-opening fields of study one could explore.
I am not nihilistic on the question of knowledge. But let me quote Quine, Epistemology, or something like it, simply falls into place as a chapter of psychology and hence of natural science. It studies a natural phenomenon, viz., a physical human subject. This human subject is accorded a certain experimentally controlled input – certain patterns of irradiation in assorted frequencies, for instance – and in the fullness of time the subject delivers as output a description of the three-dimensional external world and its history. And, let me add, whatever evidence there is for science is sensory evidence.
"The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." -- Milton Friedman
Friedman later admitted that the ABCT may be, at least partially, valid.