Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.
The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.
The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.
The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.
In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.
The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.
This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.
Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.
The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?
Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.
In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Well.................I fear more the bringer of truth than standing armies at my door step.
If you really have an Eco degree............you already have 50% of your question answered.
You shine the most when your enemy is defeated. That being said.......we have seen in this recession how mainstream Keynesian thought have failed.
That's why people have turned to guys like Friedman, Hayek ........among others............for answers and guidance.
As of AE itself................I dont think it will gain more acceptance.
Have you seen any "big" recognition for AE since fall 2007 (as a school of thought)??? (Aside Ron Paul and few others).
Hope this helps.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
wolfman:As of AE itself................I dont think it will gain more acceptance.
By who?
Can I get a proper indicator from you, (alexa stats etc.) as to what you are using as your benchmark.
I think it will, and I also think you're going to end up eating your own words.
wolfman: Well.................I fear more the bringer of truth than standing armies at my door step. If you really have an Eco degree............you already have 50% of your question answered. You shine the most when your enemy is defeated. That being said.......we have seen in this recession how mainstream Keynesian thought have failed. That's why people have turned to guys like Friedman, Hayek ........among others............for answers and guidance. As of AE itself................I dont think it will gain more acceptance. Have you seen any "big" recognition for AE since fall 2007 (as a school of thought)??? (Aside Ron Paul and few others). Hope this helps.
Are you faulty Chinese proverb machine?
Anyway why do you fear the bringer of truth? Do you dislike the concept of truth?
I do not oppose AE in anyway. I actually hope it gains more acceptance. AE is a great school of economics and I hope it makes it every eco textbook.
Unfortunately, AE is not only about economics, it is a philosophy all of its own. Such philosophy wont find acceptance and clouds all great success in economics.
Thats why I only hear people talking about Hayek, Friedman and other libertarian anti govt-fed economists. I am sorry but no one knows AE.
Conza88:I think it will, and I also think you're going to end up eating your own words.
I tend to agree with the Hoppeian analysis that classical Western (european) civilisation committed suicide on the fields of France during the 1914-1918 period. The social, economic and cultural destruction of the old order led to the frenzied adoption of the democratic ideologies of the nazis, the bolsheviks, the fabians (etc) which were guided by anyone from nilhists to populists.
The main reasons for their success? Appeal to the lowest common denominator and whip people into a constant emotional state; suppress critical thought.
I think we have to accept that the Austrian School will appeal to a limited number of people and probably won't be adopted overnight by the masses. Sadly a majority of them are much more emotionally and financially invested in how much they can rob Peter to pay Paul – particularly those in British housing estates (ghettos). The middle-classes are scared little lambs who are programmed to feel guilt for existing, do as they are told, and in Britain's case, they all work in Labour's soviet bureaucracies anyway, now.
The traditional moral guardians, the establishment, are too busy living hedonistic and self-destructive lifestyles from the family trust fund since they have no role or purpose in society anymore.
People are fickle and will chop and chance their attitudes; how many can really define what free-market means? Does it mean total freedom or simply partial freedom? Have they read Friedman's works, or Hayek's, cover to cover? The moment the economic outlook looks grim, are they going to clamour for less oversight… or more? That's the fundamental challenge Austrian adherents face, I believe.
How can you convince someone so heavily committed to the welfare/populist mentality to adopt a new attitude? (What about the ones who admit you are right, but nonetheless maintain their allegiance to flawed logic?)
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
AndrewR: I tend to agree with the Hoppeian analysis that classical Western (european) civilisation committed suicide on the fields of France during the 1914-1918 period. The social, economic and cultural destruction of the old order led to the frenzied adoption of the democratic ideologies of the nazis, the bolsheviks, the fabians (etc) which were guided by anyone from nilhists to populists. The main reasons for their success? Appeal to the lowest common denominator and whip people into a constant emotional state; suppress critical thought. I think we have to accept that the Austrian School will appeal to a limited number of people and probably won't be adopted overnight by the masses. Sadly a majority of them are much more emotionally and financially invested in how much they can rob Peter to pay Paul – particularly those in British housing estates (ghettos). The middle-classes are scared little lambs who are programmed to feel guilt for existing, do as they are told, and in Britain's case, they all work in Labour's soviet bureaucracies anyway, now. The traditional moral guardians, the establishment, are too busy living hedonistic and self-destructive lifestyles from the family trust fund since they have no role or purpose in society anymore. People are fickle and will chop and chance their attitudes; how many can really define what free-market means? Does it mean total freedom or simply partial freedom? Have they read Friedman's works, or Hayek's, cover to cover? The moment the economic outlook looks grim, are they going to clamour for less oversight… or more? That's the fundamental challenge Austrian adherents face, I believe. How can you convince someone so heavily committed to the welfare/populist mentality to adopt a new attitude? (What about the ones who admit you are right, but nonetheless maintain their allegiance to flawed logic?)
very insightful indeed.
Wolfman: Physiocrat:Anyway why do you fear the bringer of truth? Do you dislike the concept of truth? No disrespect ....this is childish comment.
Physiocrat:Anyway why do you fear the bringer of truth? Do you dislike the concept of truth?
No disrespect ....this is childish comment.
The dislike of truth comment could have been better phrased however it seems that you do since it leads to:
Wolfman: In the name of truth we had the catholic church (worse than USSR), communism, and rampant tyranny.
In the name of truth we had the catholic church (worse than USSR), communism, and rampant tyranny.
Guilt by association.
Wolfman: What is truth?? Its a personal perspective only.
What is truth?? Its a personal perspective only.
Is that a personal perspective too or are you claiming objectivity with the statement?
Physiocrat: Is that a personal perspective too or are you claiming objectivity with the statement?
So what is truth my friend??
People from a young age build mental constructs of the world around them. Anything the deviates, too far, from this mental picture becomes difficult to accept or to incorporate into their understanding of the world. The truth is difficult in any aspect of our world.
The “truth” is even difficult in the sciences. For instance, I sometimes help molecular biologist and biochemist in solving unknown structures of molecules they study. Now these scientists have a pretty good understanding on how molecules behave at a macro scale but hardly any understanding of molecular or sub atomic physics. When they step into our x-ray laboratory and our team uses complicated mathematical techniques and physics to recreate actual images of the molecule under study, they are amazed and perplexed by these techniques. They are always curious and always in awe because we can attain further information, based on these images, using quantum mechanics on how the molecule will behave in vitro.
While these biologists accept our data, they never accept the science behind it because they won’t accept the probabilistic and wave nature of the subatomic world. The quantum world is far too complicated and bizarre for them to accept. Yet they know our data is accurate and correct in determining scientific parameters.
While new to economics, it’s been easy for me to understand why the Austrian School is the correct path to understand this complicated machine called the economy. It seems to be the only school that asserts its own limitations and is able to predict soundly.
Excellent Post. I hold all, if not, nearly all of those same sentiments.
And as to *truth*. Couldn't have framed it better myself.
Free-thinking, ie. thinking for oneself, and all the encouragement that goes with it from the public school system and the gov't intervention in and of itself - is the herd's worst nightmare.
I know all about the public schools. I get great insights almost daily. The biggest program they seem to have is 'critical thinking'. That's mainly what all the teachers meetings consist of for at least three years now. Over and over again, critical thinking this and that. The big shot that wrote a book gets invited to the school to give a lecture to the teachers (already no signs of critical thinking, ie. lecture). The lecturer repeats over and over how important critical thinking is, and great it is for the student, etc.... Then when asked what could the teachers do to improve critical thinking - silence. Never an answer. Never. One big non-creative, lecture by a lecturer who can't even get the teachers to involve themselves during the meeting in any critical thinking hypocritically turns around and says you got to get the students critically thinking. It's a joke. The meetings NEVER offer anything of value that will be implemented in the classroom. It's dead air and wasted time. But the guy wrote a book about how important critical thinking is, so....[sarcastic].
The question by the teachers is valid. How? In the face of all the regulations and prerequisite knowledge that needs to be spoon fed to the students because of the growing number of mandatory exams in order to pass high school (around here the mandatory tests by the state are up to 6 or 8 before graduation can be accepted). If the schools don't meet the grading requirements then the gov't takes over the school and one consequence of that is the child is thereby considered owned by the gov't when it comes to anything that is considered proper to the school such as a lawsuit involving a school that become owned by the state, I believe West Virginia. The mother didn't want the child to take the swine flu shot being given at the school. Mother lost because the court ruled the mother can't sue herself, ie. the state. Her daughter had to get the swine flu shot. That's all thanks to Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' that I don't know of one teacher that likes such a regulation. It only hurts the students. It doesn't benefit them one bit due to various reasons.
The classroom is a meat machine. No creativity. No examined life. No thought about truth. I am generalizing because there are far and few in between teachers that are able to sneak that into the classroom still. But it is an exhausting effort as so much piles up on the teachers desk that has nothing to do with the individual students in the classroom that the extra mile anymore might be detrimental to the health of the teacher (added stress conditions).
Good post!
czelaya:While new to economics, it’s been easy for me to understand why the Austrian School is the correct path to understand this complicated machine called the economy. It seems to be the only school that asserts its own limitations and is able to predict soundly.
I believe you are right. As I said...........psychology is a big factor in the quest for "truth". But truth is a state of personal awareness. Like being in love. I guess.
However, can you take a little of your time and explain me how AE asserts its own limitations and possibly imperfections??
wolfman: Physiocrat: Is that a personal perspective too or are you claiming objectivity with the statement? So what is truth my friend??
It would seem self evident that you already know the answer since you have consistently pre-supposed it with your arguments.
Back to my OP has anyone got any thoughts on the current education system and its influence or am I completely off base?
Physiocrat:why is the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality
Fear, stupidity, and lack of education.
End thread.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Physiocrat: It would seem self evident that you already know the answer since you have consistently pre-supposed it with your arguments. Back to my OP has anyone got any thoughts on the current education system and its influence or am I completely off base?
Your avoidance is not justified.
wolfman:...
quit derailing the thread. start your own if your so interested in your topic
wolfman: czelaya:While new to economics, it’s been easy for me to understand why the Austrian School is the correct path to understand this complicated machine called the economy. It seems to be the only school that asserts its own limitations and is able to predict soundly. I believe you are right. As I said...........psychology is a big factor in the quest for "truth". But truth is a state of personal awareness. Like being in love. I guess. However, can you take a little of your time and explain me how AE asserts its own limitations and possibly imperfections??
AE is limited because it doesn't try to incorporate equations to mimic the economy. Personally, that's its greatest strength. The study of trying to mimic the economy falls under the mathematics of schoastic dynamics (non linear differential equations to be exact). This is what many economist attempt to do. I've worked enough with this mathematics in chemistry/physics to comprehend that it's not possible. The mathematics itself is the limiting factor because it gives a large number of answers (almost an endless number if your system is large enough). You can't predict chaotic systems because they are chaotic. You can't create an equation that will foretell how a human will behave.
Any good scientist realizes the limitations of science. Science is an attempt to understand, it doesn't have all the answers. However it strives to better understand so it can make better predictions. You can say the same for AE. It limits itself to the realm of what is known and doesn't try to go beyond its scope like many other schools of economics. It can predict trends but can’t say exactly when they will happen.
czelaya: AE is limited because it doesn't try to incorporate equations to mimic the economy. Personally, that's its greatest strength. The study of to trying to mimic the economy falls under the mathematics of schoastic dynamics (non linear differential equations to be exact). This is what many economist attempt to do. I've worked enough with this mathematics in chemistry/physics to comprehend that it's not possible. The mathematics itself is the limiting factor because the it gives a large number of answers (almost an endless number if your system is large enough). You can't predict chaotic systems because they are chaotic. You can't create an equation that will foretell how a human will behave. Any good scientist realizes the limitations of science. Science is an attempt to understand, it doesn't have all the answers. However it strives to better understand so it can make better predictions. You can say the same for AE. It limits itself to the realm of what is known and doesn't try to go beyond its scope like many other schools of economics. It can predict trends but can’t say exactly when they will happen.
AE is limited because it doesn't try to incorporate equations to mimic the economy. Personally, that's its greatest strength. The study of to trying to mimic the economy falls under the mathematics of schoastic dynamics (non linear differential equations to be exact). This is what many economist attempt to do. I've worked enough with this mathematics in chemistry/physics to comprehend that it's not possible. The mathematics itself is the limiting factor because the it gives a large number of answers (almost an endless number if your system is large enough). You can't predict chaotic systems because they are chaotic. You can't create an equation that will foretell how a human will behave.
I agree with you.Specially this:
"Science is an attempt to understand, it doesn't have all the answers"
Because the left conquered the world, and because the left is wrong.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
wolfman: Physiocrat: It would seem self evident that you already know the answer since you have consistently pre-supposed it with your arguments. Back to my OP has anyone got any thoughts on the current education system and its influence or am I completely off base? Your avoidance is not justified.
By what criterion?
wolfman:Unfortunately, AE is not only about economics, it is a philosophy all of its own.
No it's not. You're conflating AE with anarcho-capitalism.
wolfman:Such philosophy wont find acceptance and clouds all great success in economics.
What success? Economics has failed to provide any meaningful or important theoretical breakthrough's since the 1930's. There are no mainstream successes. New Keynesian economics is an amalgamation of previously understood concepts alongside confusions and already refuted doctrines re-introduced by economic mystics.
wolfman:So what is truth my friend??
Do you exist? Global skepticism is unforgivably moronic. Why even waste your time commenting? We don't exist; your computer doesn't exist; you don't exist!
wolfman:Thats why I only hear people talking about Hayek, Friedman and other libertarian anti govt-fed economists. I am sorry but no one knows AE.
And how did you reach this stunning conclusion? Life must be great when you're not bound by pesky little things like truth or logical consistency. You get to bombard those around you with baseless assertions while simultaneously denying the existence of truth.
"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."
So what is THE truth and how do you think it should affect society?
Also, I've gotta say, I really didn't see the point of college as being anything other than getting accreditation. Just saying. I dropped out because I decided I'd rather spend the money on other things, but getting a good job would probably be pretty tough for me because I lack accreditation.
Esuric: wolfman:Unfortunately, AE is not only about economics, it is a philosophy all of its own. No it's not. You're conflating AE with anarcho-capitalism.
Ok, quite literally - he's been told this about 6 times by different people.
Physiocrat: Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west. The question is why?
The question is why?
I think it's important to remember that human beings are first and foremost driven and dominated by jealousy and the fear of failure. Such motivations, in the aggregate, dwarf the quest for truth and honest inquiry. This is why society is quick to embrace and propagate the move towards "perfect equality," where failure, and therefore the consequences of failure, are entirely removed. The asymmetric results of freedom reveal to men that they are not equal, and that some are indeed better than others. This is simply a condition many people are unable to accept. They will blame the entire world before they blame themselves. Mises makes a similar point in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, where he elucidates the appeal of romanticism which wishes to return to the "good old days" (perpetual famine, strife, war).
In a society based on caste and status, the individual can ascribe adverse fate to conditions beyond his own control. He is a slave because the superhuman powers that determine all becoming had assigned him this rank. It is not his doing, and there is no reason for him to be ashamed of his humbleness. His wife cannot find fault with his station. If she were to tell him: "Why are you not a duke? if you were a duke, I would be a duchess," he would reply; "If I had been born the son of a duke, I would not have married you, a slave girl, but the daughter of another duke; that you are not a duchess is exclusively your own fault; why were you not more clever in the choice of your parents?" (ACM, pp. 11). Thus, failure is eliminated, and jealousy is minimized.
This is why, in my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is an untenable doctrine, which will always be relegated to various philosophers who are bound by the rigid rules of logic, and who refuse to acknowledge (or over-look) the evils of human nature (an assertion substantiated by all of human history). A species which yearns for socialism (at one point 3/4 of the world lived in the miserable and yet relatively equitable condition known as socialism), and which places emotion above reason, can never accept anarcho-capitalism (only 53% of Americans, the richest and most privileged society on earth, say that capitalism is better than socialism). You cannot force freedom upon the masses; they simply don't want it.
Esuric:You cannot force freedom upon the masses; they simply don't want it.
That is impossible.
bloomj31: Also, I've gotta say, I really didn't see the point of college as being anything other than getting accreditation. Just saying. I dropped out because I decided I'd rather spend the money on other things, but getting a good job would probably be pretty tough for me because I lack accreditation.
Just to be clear I'm not decrying colleges being practical with accreditation as a signal for employees. My point is they haven't really thought why they are doing what they are and that they aren't great at being at all practical.
As an aside I greatly dislike this qualifications culture we have; it reduces the individual to letters after his name. It's not to say they aren't useful but there is way too much emphasis on them. My friends Dad left school at 16 and has 20 years experience in sales; he was made redundant and then couldn't get another job because he wasn't qualified enough. So he went to night school to learn absolutely nothing he didn't know already so that he was qualified.
bloomj31: So what is THE truth and how do you think it should affect society?
A very pertinent question. Before I answer I'd like to say my OP's main thrust was that a lack of any metanarrative destroys the search for truth- in previous ages there was Enlightenment humanism, cyclical animism/pantheism and Christianity to name a few however post-existentialism the search for a metanarrative is over: the only metanarrative is that there isn't one.
So what do I believe the truth is? Now if you are referring to an over arching metanarrative then THE truth is creation, fall and redemption- the story of Christianity. As with any metanarrative it will impact the way you live: you goals, apsirations, how you spend you money etc. So Christianity should, I'm not saying always has, manifest itself in society by representing the triune nature of God: unity and diversity- an absolute respect for the individual since God is three persons but also absolute respect for the community since there is one God.; diverse cultural expression reflecting the persons yet with a form representing the unity; hierarchy- Father, Son and Sprirt - but equality of worth of man etc.
Caley McKibbin: Esuric:You cannot force freedom upon the masses; they simply don't want it. That is impossible.
What is impossible? You mean impossible to accept? The fact that some people's ideal of freedom is to rob Peter to pay Paul? Why does anyone think socialism and its democratic cousins have such a death-grip on the minds of the masses? Individually people can see reason and logic and are (in my experience) very receptive to the Austro-libertarian line, but as part of a group they immediately revert to the 'it's us or them!' mentality.
Esuric:No it's not. You're conflating AE with anarcho-capitalism.
Maybe........but it is irrelevant to me how you name it. I do stand by my words
Esuric:What success? Economics has failed to provide any meaningful or important theoretical breakthrough's since the 1930's. There are no mainstream successes. New Keynesian economics is an amalgamation of previously understood concepts alongside confusions and already refuted doctrines re-introduced by economic mystics.
Totally wrong. I would question your concept of economics as well as success. Keynesianism is not economics.
Esuric:Do you exist? Global skepticism is unforgivably moronic. Why even waste your time commenting? We don't exist; your computer doesn't exist; you don't exist!
The consciousness of truth lies within the individual. Each and everyone of us has a different level of such consciousness.
Esuric:And how did you reach this stunning conclusion? Life must be great when you're not bound by pesky little things like truth or logical consistency. You get to bombard those around you with baseless assertions while simultaneously denying the existence of truth.
I did not denied the existence of truth. My assertions are not baseless...............but I really dont care if you refuse to grasp the truth about AE popularity and acceptance.
Conza88: Esuric: wolfman:Unfortunately, AE is not only about economics, it is a philosophy all of its own. No it's not. You're conflating AE with anarcho-capitalism. Ok, quite literally - he's been told this about 6 times by different people.
I think I wrote in plain english..............no comments.
wolfman: I did not denied the existence of truth.
I did not denied the existence of truth.
I thought you said it was merely personal preference and lead to the catholic church?
A personal level of consciousness. The word preference changes all meaning. I doubt I mentioned the catholic church. It is irrelevant to the question on "truth".
Physiocrat: wolfman: I did not denied the existence of truth. I thought you said it was merely personal preference and lead to the catholic church?
The truth is overrated.
Brainpolice: The truth is overrated.
Please elaborate.
Esuric: I think it's important to remember that human beings are first and foremost driven and dominated by jealousy and the fear of failure. Such motivations, in the aggregate, dwarf the quest for truth and honest inquiry. This is why society is quick to embrace and propagate the move towards "perfect equality," where failure, and therefore the consequences of failure, are entirely removed. The asymmetric results of freedom reveal to men that they are not equal, and that some are indeed better than others. This is simply a condition many people are unable to accept. They will blame the entire world before they blame themselves. Mises makes a similar point in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, where he elucidates the appeal of romanticism which wishes to return to the "good old days" (perpetual famine, strife, war). In a society based on caste and status, the individual can ascribe adverse fate to conditions beyond his own control. He is a slave because the superhuman powers that determine all becoming had assigned him this rank. It is not his doing, and there is no reason for him to be ashamed of his humbleness. His wife cannot find fault with his station. If she were to tell him: "Why are you not a duke? if you were a duke, I would be a duchess," he would reply; "If I had been born the son of a duke, I would not have married you, a slave girl, but the daughter of another duke; that you are not a duchess is exclusively your own fault; why were you not more clever in the choice of your parents?" (ACM, pp. 11). Thus, failure is eliminated, and jealousy is minimized.
Esuric: This is why, in my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is an untenable doctrine, which will always be relegated to various philosophers who are bound by the rigid rules of logic, and who refuse to acknowledge (or over-look) the evils of human nature (an assertion substantiated by all of human history). A species which yearns for socialism (at one point 3/4 of the world lived in the miserable and yet relatively equitable condition known as socialism), and which places emotion above reason, can never accept anarcho-capitalism (only 53% of Americans, the richest and most privileged society on earth, say that capitalism is better than socialism). You cannot force freedom upon the masses; they simply don't want it.
To quote Le Fevre: "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
I'm not sure what you are meaning by forcing freedom here.
Physiocrat: To quote Le Fevre: "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
I'm not saying that we need government because men are evil.
wolfman:but I really dont care if you refuse to grasp the truth about AE popularity and acceptance.
Ahh! So truth does exist!
AndrewR: Caley McKibbin: Esuric:You cannot force freedom upon the masses; they simply don't want it. That is impossible. What is impossible?
What is impossible?
In the most overarching sense, not wanting freedom really means having no wants whatsoever. Stepping into a cage, locking it and throwing away the key, for instance, is not not wanting freedom. It is wanting to be a in a cage. Also wanting the freedom to be in a cage. Now, if you think that people want to pay taxes, ask the IRS how many donations they receive. Nobody really believes statism. They expect a benefit, which they want.
Caley McKibbin:Nobody really believes statism. They expect a benefit, which they want.
I certainly believe that the state is pretty good, I'm quite glad that it exists really.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hayekianxyz: I certainly believe that the state is pretty good, I'm quite glad that it exists really.
If you have the time, I would definitely like to hear why.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Physiocrat:The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.
I do not think societal nihilism in and of itself is to blame. Nihilism can lead to really any type of aesthetic, "the left" just happens to be making the best use of nihilism (even though it shouldn't really work for them). Intellectuals may be a bit more to blame, but I would put more weight on something like "fashionable hierarchies" that build momentum off themselves. My guess; nihilistic beliefs got absorbed by some other fashionable hierarchy earlier on (probably communism), so actual social nihilism kind of lost it's meaning and is just one of the many mouth peices and tools the fashionable "left" can use to its advantage without any one being able to question it much (as their intellectuals and methods of relasing info is firmly in their hands).
As far as where did all this start? If I had to guess, an easy connection and beeline of The Reformation - The French Revolution - WW1 - The 60's seems plausible. They all seem to naturaly progress from one to the other with the intellectual hipsters taking old ideas and making cooler new ones (to be hip) therby entrenching deeper and deeper the batshit crazyness of the day. Humans seem to be slaves to fashion.