Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Food for Thought

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 1 verified answer | 36 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
337 Posts
Points 7,660
EconomistInTraining posted on Mon, Aug 16 2010 2:29 PM

Austrians often say that mainstream economists are systematically wrong (and corrupt, but lets leave that out of the question for now) my question to you is quite simple. Research institutes aren't profit maximisers in the narrow sense. On the other hand, firms are usually modelled as such, now, why don't firms employ Austrian economists? Presumably if Austrians have correct analysis more often than other economists firms would profit from employing them. So why don't they?

  • | Post Points: 110

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,255 Posts
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

He's almost as generous in making broad, sweeping (baseless) assertions as you are. ;)

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 25

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775
Suggested by Mike

I'm not sure, but my guess is that a businessman's area of competence is not in evaluating economists. So he goes to people who are considered experts at evaluating economists, meaning top universities, and asks them to provide him with an economist.

So the question has changed to why do universities not recognize AE as being superior? And I think the answer is because they are paid by the govt to encourage those who believe the govt should spend spend spend and thus save the world.

My humble blog

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
366 Posts
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Tue, Aug 17 2010 6:46 PM

 

your confusing Austrians beef with economic theory vs the work that a economist AS A business person does!

No austrian (i think) would have problems with a econometrician using his model to try to predict demand for apples. What they have problems with is calling the prediction economic theory.

In regards to austrians predicting better. We are again talkbing about broad MACRO issues. IE an austrian might say "due to xyz i see the market crashing eventually (2,5, maybe 20 years). That is largly useless for business folks.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
366 Posts
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Tue, Aug 17 2010 6:47 PM

 

It is also better to be more specific...which economist in what position at which firm?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
194 Posts
Points 4,315
Mike replied on Tue, Aug 17 2010 7:28 PM

there is a long long list of "mainstream" economists with incredibly wrong predictions. the most famous I believe was Irving Fisher weeks before the crash of 1929 saying that the business cycle is a thing of the past and that there is nothing but prosperity for as long as the eye can see. let us not forget about the dozens of totally ridiculous predictions of the maestro amongst so many others

Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.

We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Aug 17 2010 8:27 PM

EconomistInTraining:
Presumably if Austrians have correct analysis more often than other economists firms would profit from employing them. So why don't they?

To ensure success/profit, first you must make sure you're in the minority. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
753 Posts
Points 18,750

Many reasons,

  • Over half of all the economists employed are employed for government, or government sponsored,  think tanks or bureau’s
  • The facts that big companies higher mainstream economists does not correlate to the statement that mainstream economic analysis makes big companies money, wealth seems to  float in and out of large companies pretty fast. Just look at the S&P of 30 years ago compared to today.
  •  You can cloak a lot in mathematics and confused MBA’s are forced to acquiesce to their opinions since they don’t have the tools to debate them
  • But the biggest reason is that there is money in playing the game of faulty economic policy. Inflation is not dispersed equally and if, through mainstream economic policy, a company can position itself to inherit new wealth before inflated they stand to win.
  • Aside, establishing barriers  to trade via government intrusion is an excellent way to solidify a monopoly and income…why would any big company seeking rents want to hear about Austrian Economics theory of free markets?    

Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
265 Posts
Points 4,725
Suggested by cognitivist

Mainstream economist = less risk of appearing wrong to the competition which also employs mainstream economists to judge market conditions. </thread>

"If you want to lift yourself up, lift up somebody else." Booker T. Washington
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 3 of 3 (37 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS