Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Economics Questions
 »
What do you guys think of this?

What do you guys think of this?

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 6 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
2 Posts
Points 40
Logan Arnest posted on Mon, Aug 2 2010 6:39 PM

Hi,

I recently got into Austrian economics through a few people I met involved in the Camaign for Liberty and I began searching for more information online. I eventually came across this critical piece: A Final Renunciation

It seems to be written by someone who was interested in the school but then began to get into mainstream econ. I'm still sort of undecided and I want to learn more so I decided to come straight to the source and ask you Mises Institute guys. Is this guy completely off base?

  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
304 Posts
Points 4,860
Reply
Consultant replied on Mon, Aug 2 2010 6:58 PM

Like I posted in the comments: I'd be interested in to how philosophy did away with a priori deductive knowledge, and if so how these arguments (not) also apply to mathematics.

In general, the author doesn't back up many claims, does he?

I'd be interested in to how philosophy did away with a priori deductive knowledge, and if so how these arguments (not) also apply to mathematics.
I'd be interested in to how philosophy did away with a priori deductive knowledge, and if so how these arguments (not) also apply to mathematics.
I'd be interested in to how philosophy did away with a priori deductive knowledge, and if so how these arguments (not) also apply to mathematics.
The older I get, the less I know.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
366 Posts
Points 5,635
Reply
yessir replied on Mon, Aug 2 2010 7:19 PM

That wasn;t a critique, the guy just stated that he doesn't believe in something....

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775
Reply
Smiling Dave replied on Mon, Aug 2 2010 7:32 PM

A Final Renunciation

 

This post is my effort to convince young students of economics that modern day "Austrian" economics has nothing substantial to offer them.


He is making a distinction between modern and older AE. OK. So what does that tell us? That the old stuff is good, just the new stuff is bad.

This is not a detailed argument as to why each aspect of Austrian economics is unjustified. Rather, it is a wakeup call to those who have been lured by the promise of Truth. It will be harsh because I am frustrated at seeing libertarianism corrupted by the backward logic of a defunct school of quasi-theologians.

So far nothing substantial.

I am not presenting anything new here; Austrian economics has become something of a religion.

Is this proof that the assertions of AE are wrong? No. It's a complaint about the personalities of the current AE guys. How does this prove what he is after? 

Instead of developing new ideas and furthering our knowledge of economics, "Austrians" often get bogged down in mindless in-group battles. What did Ludwig von Mises really mean? Are Mises and Hayek compatible? Which branch Austrianism is the True successor to Mises' vision? Was Murray Rothbard the second coming of Mises?

Are these the topics you see in the Mises.org videos and daily articles? Nope. They discuss current events in the light of AE.

To this day Austrians cite 100 year old tomes as if no progress has been made in the field of economics.
Hmm. To this day Physicists and Mathematicians cite 300 year old tomes, Newton's works. So I guess they have nothing to offer either.
 
They chastise "mainstream" economists for not reading Mises or for not understanding that "human action cannot be described mathematically."
He makes it sound like this is something bad. Note he presents no evidence for this assertion.
 
They've developed their own way of doing science, so called "praxeology," that immunizes them from criticism because it is "a system of pure deduction based on a priori knowledge;" everything they say must be 100% correct no matter how the real world works.
Notice that he does not give an example of when the real world has contradicted prax.
 
Never mind that philosophers did away with such nonsense hundreds of years ago.
Really? Which philosophers? Did they do away with geometry as well? Or all of Mathematics?
 
Of course, some will criticize me for focusing on the so called Auburn branch of the Austrian school. "The more Hayekian branch has made strides outside of the Mises Institute," they might say. Well, I'd like to see that progress. No self-styled Austrian has generated a testable model for years.
Nor have they sent  a man to the moon. It's not the area of knowledge they have chosen.
 
The Austrian Business Cycle theory doesn't make the cut because it is just a vague ex post narrative, used by Austrians to shout "we told you so" when anything goes wrong in the economy.
Actually, no. Google "Peter Schiff was right".
 
In their world, every problem is the result of excess inflation.
Not every problem, but many problems. Note how he does not prove his implied assertion that inflation is harmless.
 
Many refuse to even acknowledge the existence alternate business cycle theories to weigh the evidence against.
Life is short. There is not time to look at every single thing, is there? So that alternate theories will have to prove themselves.
 
This is not to say that Mises and Hayek did not produce anything of value. Hayek is one of my favorite economists and Mises was a valiant warrior in the battle against socialism in the early 20th century. I would recommend that young scholars read through books and articles by Austrian influenced writers like James Buchanan. But economic liberalism needs to move forward and base itself on sound philosophy and modern research.
Where is the unsound philosophy? This is an assertion with no proof. As for modern research, see above about Newton.
 
So, I beg of anyone stumbling onto this blog looking for information on Austrian economics: step back, read some mainstream philosophy of science, some mainstream economics, some mainstream political theory and then decide if you want to continue down the road to ideological entrapment.
This just claims that the mainstream is right, and disagrees with AE. Again, an assertion with no evidence.
 
If you, dear OP, had trouble with this pretty flimsy bit of writing, it's time to sharpen your thinking and anlayzing abilities. There are threads here about which books help with that. I like Rudolph Flesch's Art of Clear Thinking.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,055 Posts
Points 41,895
Reply
Caley McKibbin replied on Mon, Aug 2 2010 8:33 PM

The name under it is Jake McCloskey.  He posted here often a long time ago.  He probably just got sick of getting pwned here on the forum and decided to trick newbs into not "looking for information about AE" with a standard trick bag of rhetorical scares.  It says all you need to know when someone recommends listening to only one side in a debate.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
300 Posts
Points 5,325
Reply
NewLiberty replied on Mon, Aug 2 2010 9:02 PM

Yeah, as somebody previously said, his whole argument was:

" Never mind that philosophers did away with such nonsense hundreds of years ago."

Convincing!

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
2 Posts
Points 40
Reply
Logan Arnest replied on Tue, Aug 3 2010 2:52 PM

Thanks for your input guys! Ive got a lot to think about.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS