When it comes down to it, all of Austrian economics - the thousands of pages, the websites, the great thinkers, and everything - it is all just theories. Do you guys, as Austrian thinkers, think AusEcon's are "right" in a sort of absolute sense, or just a valid, well constructed group of theories? I bet before all of you held different political/economic views, and you probably change in views slightly every day even; so, do you guys believe you are "right", and do you see sense in or understand others' acceptance of other views, such as Keynesians or Chicago thinkers?
If I may, I do think that AE is right but I do think that this doesn't eliminate the need for empirical research -just as long as one remembers that such research can't falsify AE. But as far as other pure theories are concerned, actually AE gives me a better appreciation of them and I do think that they are all correct as far as they go but they only describe snapshots and points of reality which are totally elucidated only by AE.
I believe Austrian economics is correct.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I believe Austrian Economics provides the most accurate conceptual model of human economic behavior.
Let me know if that doesn't make sense to you. :P
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Austrian Economics IS Economics. Austrian Economics holds true to economic laws and doesnt try to change them by other means....
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I can only wish that I am never completely "right" and that there's always something significant left to learn.
Z.
At least you did not use the term good vs bad as Economics is supposed to be a value free science although you would not know this by observing economists associated with government or who just use economics to justify social control through violence.
On to right vs wrong, No science concerning human beings can be completely correct in predicting human action. AE is no different. But in my humble opinion, AE theory is by far the most acceptable theory to explain human action. I believe AE also provides superior information on the effects of using force to manipulate people in both the long and short runs.
Austrian Economics is curved.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
The flaws in other economic theories are often so obvious it almost beggars belief that any sane person would believe them. I suppose what AE has, uniquely, is a sound methodoloy. Other theories are no more than empiricism followed by wild guesswork, which absent a basic understanding of economic reality leads to all kinds of errors. More often than not it seems to be attributing the wrong cause to the wrong effect, reversing cause and effect, and so forth. Whereas AE involves sound reasoning about the universal features of economic reality, which when applied to the world allows us to preceive these complex relationships and to deduce cause and effect.
You say you think other theories are right, just dont cover the big picture if I understand you correctly. For example, what accuracy would you credit to Keynesian economics? Even if they are right on some things, their reasoning for being right about those things is probably wrong, correct? And isn't that what causes the other aspects of Keynesian theory to be wrong? I think it comes down to the reasoning being right to be considered correct, because anyone can guess something right. Do you agree?
ABCT is Theory. it does not even hide it.. :)
Taxation is not theft is going to take some explaining.
I like Peter Schiff's epigram. Someday it won't be called Austrian Economics, but Economics.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
fakename:If I may, I do think that AE is right but I do think that this doesn't eliminate the need for empirical research -just as long as one remembers that such research can't falsify AE. But as far as other pure theories are concerned, actually AE gives me a better appreciation of them and I do think that they are all correct as far as they go but they only describe snapshots and points of reality which are totally elucidated only by AE.
"Elucidated"? I would say more or less "invalidated".
'Austrian' Economics, along with some of the Supply-Side, Public Choice and Neo-Institutionalist works, is economics simplicter. The 'mainstream' schools are not economics but a combination of numerology, statolatry and technocratic planning.
It is very easy to check the correctness of AE. Remove force of the state. As long as state imposes its "values" through physical force, no theory can be called "sound", because all we got now is "might makes right". Without the state, some free society could try if AE "works" for them.
I mean, I am ok with keynesians, let them believe in their magic, I am not just ok with their violence against me.
Suppose someone finds out better scientific method and can't use it to create, find things because, well, the state monopolized everything and regulates. How is it even possible to such ideas arise in this condition?
I hope that makes some sense.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
If one's goal is to preserve the agency of man, then Austrian economics is, absolutely, "right." Others might say that it is a valid, well constructed theory, but I am of the opinion that it is absolute.
MaikU: It is very easy to check the correctness of AE. Remove force of the state.
Easier said than done!
Is your avatar Josey Wales?
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
C Le Master:Even if they are right on some things, their reasoning for being right about those things is probably wrong, correct? And isn't that what causes the other aspects of Keynesian theory to be wrong?
I believe this is important. It's like the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" saying. Understanding is important for predictive power. It is entirely possible for an incorrect theory to stumble upon a correct answer. But taking those findings, translating them through incorrect theory, and then trying to predict other events isn't going to work reliably.
In asserting the a priori character of praxeology we are not drafting a plan for a future new science different from the traditional sciences of human action. We do not maintain that the theoretical science of human action should be aprioristic, but that it is and always has been so.
History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.
Do you guys, as Austrian thinkers, think AusEcon's are "right" in a sort of absolute sense, or just a valid, well constructed group of theories?
What's the difference?
do you see sense in or understand others' acceptance of other views, such as Keynesians or Chicago thinkers?
Yes.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Do you guys, as Austrian thinkers, think AusEcon's are "right" in a sort of absolute sense,
I think the word you are looking for is "true". You are asking whether Austrians believe that Austrian economics is true.