I think that we can all agree that it's essential to understand and read about other points of view in order to avoid dogmatism, so I was wondering what websites, people around here used to get in touch with other viewpoints. Few like to admit it but any point of view can be incorrect, we could all be wrong and never know it unless we actually go out and search for truth in alternative locations.
I've been unable to obtain many really good websites thusfar, for the most part all I've seen when browsing for alternative sites it's just "side X is stupid and Z is their fault just like everything else on earth" or *small and unsubstantial tidbit about issue Y*. It really makes me appreciate the quality of the usual (though not all) Mises daily.
Recently the main sites that I've been able to stand and actually glean something from are "truthout.com" and "thenation.com", both of which are fairly quality sites.
Any suggestions for myself or for others?
Hmmh. counterpunch.org — Hard left online newsletter. I've been reading them for ever. Chronicles — online magazine from mysticist ancien regimists. Read them a few years ago. Takimag — "alternative right" magazine. Read them briefly a few years ago. Alternet — Never read them, but often run into them. I believe they are a more radical and gutsy version of The Nation. You're asking for alternatives so I won't put TAC there, as they agree with us to a ridicilous degree. Also Asia Times is generally superb and does a lot of work on economic goings on too, albeit I don't follow that section of theirs so you'll have to judge for yourself.
There's the ancomm website http://libcom.org/
Thanks for the links guys, I especially like libcomm, they have a good library
What literature interests you there?
Phaedros: What literature interests you there?
I like that it has a wide variety of fairly in depth articles (much more so than you'll see on the average news site or blog which is the most which the average online reader will ever read) which offer an interesting viewpoint. I like their chomsky collection in particular. The fact is that for a good deal of this stuff the libertarian communist and the anarchistic capitalist are not opposed, as soon as you sidestep the constant glorification of unions (which unfortunatly takes up half of the content and which never goes beyond glorious workers struggling against capitalist dogs) then a good deal of the material there can be usefully absorbed. Indeed much of the material on education and foreign policy can be taken straight out of many of their articles without further assessment.
As for the rest of their stuff they lack a basic grasp of economics with one overarching saving grace, the fact that the rich are likely paid far too much as they are often defended from competition in one way or another, either by true scarcity brought about by modern education or by government restrictions upon trade and unequal tax policy. For this reason one may well be able to argue that labor unions might actually serve a valuable role, one which they would admittedly not serve in the free market. I swear to god that practically all of the arguments of the far left in particular wither away with Mises' term "consumer's democracy" and another fourth vanishes with the phrase "productivity of labor".
So there is some quality content there and it gives me a definite door into another perspective which I have been seeking for a fair deal of time now.
Have you read much from> http://www.tbr7.info/
Here is a taste> http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Shays.htm
Neodoxy:we could all be wrong and never know it unless we actually go out and search for truth in alternative locations.
I'm not so sure this applies to a lot of people in here. I know very very few who were raised around anarcho-capitalist ideas. Virtually everyone I've ever met who shared an interest in Austrian economics and/or voluntarist principles got there through a journey from somewhere else. In other words, this was their "alternative location." They found this place after doing more or less what you're saying, in one way or another, and ended up here.
In fact there's a couple of threads about it...
The road to Austrian school
How were you first introduced to Austrian Economics?
Those are just the ones I know of off the top of my head. And that seems to be a conversation virtually everyone has when they meet someone of our same persuasion, "how did you first learn about these ideas? What's your story?" It's almost a given that everyone has been around other points of view...their whole life in fact...and in getting in touch with other viewpoints they found this one.
And it seems to me every week there is at least one or two threads created by people who are not familiar with these ideas and are asking questions about them (meaning more people are making the same journey...as I wouldn't be surprised if a large number end up becoming regular site visitors and possibly end up identifying with the Austro-libertarian philosophy).
Neodoxy:I think that we can all agree that it's essential to understand and read about other points of view in order to avoid dogmatism, so I was wondering what websites, people around here used to get in touch with other viewpoints.
I think there's a valid reason most of our persuasion are not very enthusiastic about doing this. It's because we have heard these other points of view...our whole lives. Most of us grew up being raised to agree with them, and in fact, many of us were proponants of them. There is only so much you can take hearing the same nonsense over and over. This sounds biased but I think if you want to do the most to help people become less dogmatic, you might encourage leftists who have never even heard a libertarian idea in their life to look into other points of view. Everyone accuses everyone they disagree with of being dogmatic, but I don't think it can be denied that people of our persuasion are much more aware of (let alone understanding of) the opposing view point...again, if for no other reason than there's almost no way to get away from it (nevermind the afore mentioned fact that most of us were raised into it, or at least around it, in one way or another).
But I know of PhD students...hell, even university professors...who have never even heard of Hayek. (No exaggeration. They didn't even recognize the name.) If you want to find dogmatists, you have a much easier time finding them in another camp.
I'm reminded of a passage from Ayn Rand...
If you keep an active mind, you will discover (assuming that you started with common-sense rationality) that every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions, that the conscious, reasoned rejection of false theories will help you to clarify and amplify the true ones, that your ideological enemies will make you invulnerable by providing countless demonstrations of their own impotence. You will not have to keep your mind eternally open to the task of examining every new variant of the same old falsehoods. You will discover that they are variants of attacks on certain philosophical essentials – and that the entire, gigantic battle of philosophy (and of human history) revolves around the upholding or the destruction of these essentials. You will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory’s stand on these essentials, and to reject the attacks without lengthy consideration – because you will know (and will be able to prove) in what way any given attack, old or new, is made of contradictions and ‘stolen concepts’.
Neodoxy:Few like to admit it but any point of view can be incorrect
I think this goes to another part of that same passage:
["Open mind"] is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.
What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.
John James: They found this place after doing more or less what you're saying, in one way or another, and ended up here.
They found this place after doing more or less what you're saying, in one way or another, and ended up here.
I agree, I always value radical positions because they indeed must be sought, they cannot simply emulate them from others thoughtlessly, and I understand exactly what you're talking about in relation to the Mises Institute, you're talking to an ex democrat whose favorite president was Roosevelt who is now an individualist anarchist with strong Austrian roots. With this being said it is far too easy to simply "hear the good word of Mises" and then to cease any further search for truth. I would daresay that most socialists/leftist anarchists are also converted not raised, but they then dogmatically cease their search for truth.
If we abstract the situation it becomes clear. X grows up with ideology A which goes mostly unquestioned. Eventually X is faced with alternative ideology B which he finds to be superior to A and he adopts B. Especially considering the fact that X was uneducated as to general ideologies before adopting ideology B? No, X should continually challenge his beliefs open and honestly to ensure that he really know what he talks about. After all these are ideas which, if implemented, would affect literally all aspects of human life dramatically, such judgements should not be taken lightly.
John James:I think there's a valid reason most of our persuasion are not very enthusiastic about doing this. It's because we have heard these other points of view...our whole lives. Most of us grew up being raised to agree with them, and in fact, many of us were proponants of them. There is only so much you can take hearing the same nonsense over and over. This sounds biased but I think if you want to do the most to help people become less dogmatic, you might encourage leftists who have never even heard a libertarian idea in their life to look into other points of view. Everyone accuses everyone they disagree with of being dogmatic, but I don't think it can be denied that people of our persuasion are much more aware of (let alone understanding of) the opposing view point...again, if for no other reason than there's almost no way to get away from it (nevermind the afore mentioned fact that most of us were raised into it, or at least around it, in one way or another).
Most libertarians understand the basic ideas which are thrown around to the masses in public education, they do not have a very firm concept of many important mainstream economic ideas (I myself from the section in Man, Economy, and State am not totally certain that Rothbard ever fully understood the public goods argument) as well as a firm grasp upon ethics, recent economic history, and a lot of political theory. Their "education" is based almost entirely upon the refutation of certain popular arguments which are believed much more by "the masses" than by actually intelligent people. The fact of libertarianism's "undergroundness" gives it the advantage of being fairly intellectually pure and free of the stupid which any ideal that the masses reach.
John James:But I know of PhD students...hell, even university professors...who have never even heard of Hayek. (No exaggeration. They didn't even recognize the name.) If you want to find dogmatists, you have a much easier time finding them in another camp.
That really is pathetic, and I do agree that libertarians are generally less dogmatic. With this being said I think it's easy to think that people around here have a better grasp on things than they really do, I believe that the average libertarian is still quite dogmatic and many of his beliefs aren't fully substantiated.
John James:I'm reminded of a passage from Ayn Rand... If you keep an active mind, you will discover (assuming that you started with common-sense rationality) that every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions, that the conscious, reasoned rejection of false theories will help you to clarify and amplify the true ones, that your ideological enemies will make you invulnerable by providing countless demonstrations of their own impotence. You will not have to keep your mind eternally open to the task of examining every new variant of the same old falsehoods. You will discover that they are variants of attacks on certain philosophical essentials – and that the entire, gigantic battle of philosophy (and of human history) revolves around the upholding or the destruction of these essentials. You will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory’s stand on these essentials, and to reject the attacks without lengthy consideration – because you will know (and will be able to prove) in what way any given attack, old or new, is made of contradictions and ‘stolen concepts’.
A good quote certainly, with this being said one must make sure that one really does examine alternative ideals first and truly and logically qualify one's arguments. Something I believe that Rand herself never did (irrelevant to validity of the reasoning)
John James:I think this goes to another part of that same passage: ["Open mind"] is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.
I agree with this as well except for the fact is that the prerequisite to such a position as is described is indeed an intelligent reasoning through alternative viewpoints, and I disagree with the conclusion in that there is always the chance of error, however slim.
Everyone should be more than eager to test their viewpoints and compare with others. If their ideals truly are superior
Thanks for your considered responses. Always appreciated.
Neodoxy:With this being said it is far too easy to simply "hear the good word of Mises" and then to cease any further search for truth.
I find this to be a stretch. I do get where you're coming from, as I have encountered some (even in here..I won't link threads, but you may very well have seen at least some) who quite obviously have very little to almost zero knowledge of actual Austrian theory or libertarian theory, and yet speak with this aire of certainty as if they have studied for years (which, ironically, those who have done so never quite sound like). You can tell by the juvenile sound of their words, and the sort of jingoist attitude they present...as if being better is more important than being reasoned. But those are few I feel.
And then there are some who may be more reserved, more considered, and more intelligent and understanding, but yet also feel content to simply conclude they've found the right philosophy and don't do much to study it further. But for the most part, I can understand this tendency...as, again, if you're a remotely intelligent person, with an active mind, I can certainly understand "hearing the good word" not only of Mises, but of liberty in general, and feeling like you've found the holy grail. I think almost all of us can relate to that. In fact I bet most of us can recall their first major spark...the passage they read, or the lecture they heard, or the film they saw, that started them on their journey. I can. (And you'll even hear similar stories from Mises scholars talking about some of their first experiences with a specific text or author...like Riggenbach recounts here, or Doug French does here.)
And as a critical, thinking, questioning, person, it's a big deal when you finally hear some sense after years (and possibly decades) of nonsense. I know there are plenty who say "where was all this when I was (half they age they are now)" or "man I wish I had heard some of this a long time ago." In fact, there's a story floating around here on the forum somewhere from one guy who had a friend or acquaintance that was an economics PhD student who had just gotten his degree and the guy gave him a copy of Prices & Production I think it was, and graduate was like "wow...I wish they taught us some of this stuff."
My point is, I can't completely fault someone who gets a little comfortable after discovering these ideas, and the fact that there is an entire community dedicated to furthering them from an economic/academic perspective as well as a politcal/intellectual one. I know for a fact so many will tell you how they felt so many of these ideas, and on some level just kind of "knew" them...but had never actually heard them articulated, so they couldn't identify or focus them. And when you finally hear things vocalized that before you had only carried inside as a faint feeling, it's a bit easy to feel vindicated. Like "I always knew there was something not right about copyright...I never felt like I was doing anything wrong by downloading a movie." And when you finally hear Hoppe and Kinsella, it all comes together. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Block...you hear what these guys have to say on so many different topics and the world starts to make sense. You're finally able to connect the dots between reality...because you've finally come across a comprehensive theory to make sense of everything you've felt, observed, and gleaned from conversation.
And I think you have to admit it's pretty damn good theory. I obviously don't think anyone is wrong for being confident in it. And I'm not foolish enough to think everyone will read Human Action or be able to explain capital-based macro using Hayekian triangles. And they don't have to. Not everyone is cut out to be an economist, or even devote a significant portion of their time to studying such things. And I think we'll all be a lot better off if they don't try to. It's like mathematics...not everyone has to be a mathematician...or even know what differential equations are. But everyone's gotta be familiar with the subject to a fairly decent degree, and be proficient in a decent range of basic principles...or the group is pretty screwed.
Neodoxy:I would daresay that most socialists/leftist anarchists are also converted not raised, but they then dogmatically cease their search for truth.
I have to disagree here. I really don't see a lot of libertarians converting to socialist philosophies. In fact I'm not sure I've even heard of it. To be honest I have a hard time seeing how that's possible. But I could find plenty examples of the opposite. Thomas Sowell is a famous one. While I do agree most hardcore communists, at least these days, don't start off that way, I do believe they don't have to go very far to get there...meaning I don't think there's much of a "conversion" taking place...but more of a refining. And while the same may be said for a lot of libertarians (as in, people who are raised generally "conservative" and end up moving farther and farther away from state acceptance), there are also plenty who have come from the complete other side of the fence. I don't really think the same can be said for socialists. I would dare say virtually all of them were raised with some considerable degree of lean in that direction and have virtually never had any significant and considered exposure to liberty oriented ideas. I think that's really the only way they can get to that level of statism. That's also why they're so dogmatic. It's the only way you can be so statist.
Again I don't know if it's really possible to be an ancap and end up a statist. It's like being an astronaut, traveling through space, and walking on the moon, and then joining the Flat Earth Society.
X should continually challenge his beliefs open and honestly to ensure that he really know what he talks about. After all these are ideas which, if implemented, would affect literally all aspects of human life dramatically, such judgements should not be taken lightly.
This I don't disagree with. I have no problem with challenging your philosophy and constantly being open to the possibility of superior ways of looking at things. I think that's a large part of what Rand was talking about. But as she also pointed out, this doesn't necessarily mean constantly reading and reanalyzing and reassessing the same old flawed conjectures that have been debunked time and again. Personally I think that's a waste of time and I see almost no point in it. Constantly testing your theory against reality however, is rarely a waste of time, and I don't think you'll find many austro-libertarians who have a problem with that (as Murphy shows here and here, for example).
As I said before, I don't think libertarians aren't interested in hearing statist points of view because the libertarians are just dogmatic. I actually think a large part of the fuel for dogmatism is a fear of being proven wrong. And I don't think libertarians generally have to worry much about that (which is why you don't tend to see them getting frustrated and emotional and resorting to insults and logical fallacies and then running away (unlike virtually every leftist I've ever seen in a debate.)) On the contrary, I think libertarians don't have a lot of interest in analyzing Marxist theory for the same reason few people find it useful to read science books from the 1840s. Sure it can be interesting to see what uninformed assumptions people are operating under, and it can give you a greater appreciation for your own understanding, but outside of a purely historical or anthropological interest, I see little value in it. Again I think time would be better spent testing your theory against reality, and spreading the ideas of liberty.
Their "education" is based almost entirely upon the refutation of certain popular arguments which are believed much more by "the masses" than by actually intelligent people.
While I don't disagree that for many, much of what they know is not much more than the refutation of popular Keynesian and statist arguments...but I do disagree that these arguments are only really supported by "the masses" and not so much by "intelligent people." If most "intelligent people" didn't buy into those things, public opinion would be much more easily changed. In fact it would have happened by now. It is from intellectuals that "the masses" get these ideas.
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them." -George Orwell
The man knew what he was talking about. If the masses ever took a second to stop and think, and weren't so preoccupied with other things (like the politcal kabuki theatre) then they wouldn't be buying into and going along with it. (Of course the shitty education and indoctrination doesn't help much for critical thinking either.) People tend to be kind of lazy, and the more difficult they find it to do something the less likely they are to do it...so the harder it is for someone to reason and think critically, the less they are going to even pay attention to anything that requires it. (Which, as I pointed out, explains the success of Michael Bay films.) So for people who want to feel informed, it's much easier to just go along with whatever the "experts" say. I really don't see some big divide between public opinion and intellectual opinion, as I think one is essentially derived from the other. (Of course the Tea Party Movement is an exception.)
But I also don't really see what it really matters if most of what people know about economic or political theory is just how one proves the other bunk. In fact, if we're talking about the most minimal amount of education, as in the one bit that should be learned if nothing else, I would argue that may be it. Of course deeper understanding is always better, but if you could only be educated to a certain degree, I think understanding how one theory is right and others are wrong is possibly most important. For one thing it makes you at least somewhat educated on multiple theories...so you are at least acquainted with differing points of view. This is more than can be said for Leftist dogma. But for another, understanding where these mainstream explanations and recommendations go wrong and why, is of the utmost importance...if for no other reason than people won't be fooled into backing them.
Neodoxy:I do agree that libertarians are generally less dogmatic. With this being said I think it's easy to think that people around here have a better grasp on things than they really do, I believe that the average libertarian is still quite dogmatic and many of his beliefs aren't fully substantiated.
I could see that. But I would still argue the fact that they're libertarian and they're here is proof in itself that they at least have a better grasp on reality than their statist peers.
I do concede she and her followers were quite dogmatic (and certainly wrong on IP), but how do you mean?
I agree with this as well except for the fact is that the prerequisite to such a position as is described is indeed an intelligent reasoning through alternative viewpoints
But again the main point is once you're acquainted with these opposing views and "every challenge you examine strengthens your convictions" and "helps you to clarify and amplify the true ones" because your ideological enemies "provide countless demonstrations of their own impotence", "you will not have to keep your mind eternally open to the task of examining every new variant of the same old falsehoods."
I disagree with the conclusion in that there is always the chance of error, however slim. Everyone should be more than eager to test their viewpoints and compare with others. If their ideals truly are superior.
Again, as I said, being acquinted with opposing views is important and I have no problem with constantly testing one's theories against reality, but there is opportunity cost in everything...and I really don't think it's worth it to start reading anti-Tom literature because "there's a chance we got it wrong" about slavery, and "it's important to look into over viewpoints."
John James: Thanks for your considered responses. Always appreciated.
Of course, and you too
John James: My point is, I can't completely fault someone who gets a little comfortable after discovering these ideas, and the fact that there is an entire community dedicated to furthering them from an economic/academic perspective as well as a politcal/intellectual one. I know for a fact so many will tell you how they felt so many of these ideas, and on some level just kind of "knew" them...but had never actually heard them articulated, so they couldn't identify or focus them. And when you finally hear things vocalized that before you had only carried inside as a faint feeling, it's a bit easy to feel vindicated. Like "I always knew there was something not right about copyright...I never felt like I was doing anything wrong by downloading a movie." And when you finally hear Hoppe and Kinsella, it all comes together. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Block...you hear what these guys have to say on so many different topics and the world starts to make sense. You're finally able to connect the dots between reality...because you've finally come across a comprehensive theory to make sense of everything you've felt, observed, and gleaned from conversation.
This makes the entire state of affairs as dangerous as it is positive, Marxist ideology tends to make a fair amount of sense to people as well, this does not make it correct, it makes one complacent and unexamining.
John James:And I think you have to admit it's pretty damn good theory. I obviously don't think anyone is wrong for being confident in it. And I'm not foolish enough to think everyone will read Human Action or be able to explain capital-based macro using Hayekian triangles. And they don't have to.
Well yes, I am an Austrian if only for the methodology (although I am unsure of much of the historical heterodoxy usually associated with it), and whilst I don't expect people to be experts on the subject they should not only have a reason in believing that which they believe, but also in not believing other things, somthing I'm not sure jonny libertarian does.
John James: While I do agree most hardcore communists, at least these days, don't start off that way, I do believe they don't have to go very far to get there...meaning I don't think there's much of a "conversion" taking place...but more of a refining. I don't really think the same can be said for socialists. I would dare say virtually all of them were raised with some considerable degree of lean in that direction and have virtually never had any significant and considered exposure to liberty oriented ideas. I think that's really the only way they can get to that level of statism. That's also why they're so dogmatic. It's the only way you can be so statist.
A conversion process to communism is quite difficult especially becuase of the fact that it's so demonized in schools. Libertarianism has aspect going for it that it is against force, just as communism has the idea going for it that it would bring about utopia.
John James:Again I don't know if it's really possible to be an ancap and end up a statist. It's like being an astronaut, traveling through space, and walking on the moon, and then joining the Flat Earth Society.
I'm sorry but that is an assumption from your personal worldview, there are pleanty of people who would argue the same about the "anarchy" of the market.
John James: Constantly testing your theory against reality however, is rarely a waste of time, and I don't think you'll find many austro-libertarians who have a problem with that (as Murphy shows here and here, for example). On the contrary, I think libertarians don't have a lot of interest in analyzing Marxist theory for the same reason few people find it useful to read science books from the 1840s. Sure it can be interesting to see what uninformed assumptions people are operating under, and it can give you a greater appreciation for your own understanding, but outside of a purely historical or anthropological interest, I see little value in it. Again I think time would be better spent testing your theory against reality, and spreading the ideas of liberty.
On the contrary, I think libertarians don't have a lot of interest in analyzing Marxist theory for the same reason few people find it useful to read science books from the 1840s. Sure it can be interesting to see what uninformed assumptions people are operating under, and it can give you a greater appreciation for your own understanding, but outside of a purely historical or anthropological interest, I see little value in it. Again I think time would be better spent testing your theory against reality, and spreading the ideas of liberty.
I would actually argue, in the Misesean tradition, that testing one's theories against empirical evidence when the subject is economics should be the least of one's worries because of the shere magnitude of history and historical evidence. I would also argue that the cause of the current recession, whilst aided by an expansion of credit, does not totally fit usual ABCT as the extent of the expansion in the money supply does not seem to correlate to the magnitude of the recession, I believe that a large part of it was the risky loaning practices encouraged by the government.
John James:While I don't disagree that for many, much of what they know is not much more than the refutation of popular Keynesian and statist arguments...but I do disagree that these arguments are only really supported by "the masses" and not so much by "intelligent people." If most "intelligent people" didn't buy into those things, public opinion would be much more easily changed. In fact it would have happened by now. It is from intellectuals that "the masses" get these ideas. "There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them." -George Orwell But for another, understanding where these mainstream explanations and recommendations go wrong and why is of the utmost importance, if for no other reason than people won't be fooled into backing them.
But for another, understanding where these mainstream explanations and recommendations go wrong and why is of the utmost importance, if for no other reason than people won't be fooled into backing them.
This first of all seems to require a thorough understanding of the actual arguments. How many people here have honestly read much modern economics? How many have read Keynes' general theory? They begin with Austrian Economics and deal merely with refutations of things which they never fully understand. And also the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public, many leftists might have some basic understanding of collective goods but no full understanding of the theory and its implications, once again, something I don't think that Rothbard every really grasped.
I'm mostly talking about Rand's "objective ethics" which are utterly foolish as they don't answer the is/ought problem. Other than that I'm mostly in agreement with her although I have to admit that I haven't read quite as much as I should. As soon as I read the section in "the virtue of selfishness" where she supposedly overcame the is/ought problem I became so discouraged that I put the book down and I haven't come back to it yet.
For some historians it might well be valuable to look over certain materials, no matter how nonsensical. With this being said we are dealing with modern theories that should be dealt with as such and the perspectives should be understood.
Neodoxy:This makes the entire state of affairs as dangerous as it is positive, Marxist ideology tends to make a fair amount of sense to people as well, this does not make it correct, it makes one complacent and unexamining.
I can understand that, and in hindsight I can see how what I said could sound that way, but again, I never said it was good for anyone to blindly accept something. My point was that it's easy to understand how people who were raised to believe one thing, that didn't seem to jive with reality, and then were then exposed to something else that did, would be quite apt to support such a theory, even without being on a constant search for something else.
they should not only have a reason in believing that which they believe, but also in not believing other things, somthing I'm not sure jonny libertarian does.
Really? You don't think the average libertarian has a reason for not believing in the labor theory of value?
Of course there's a stigma attached to communism, but it's not exactly as if someone can go around calling himself an anarchist and be taken any more seriously. And depending on the conversation and the audience, even "libertarian" isn't too easy to say without some notion of "fringe radical" at least going through their minds, if not coming out their mouths. I seriously doubt the first thing people think of when they hear "libertarian" is "oh they're against force"...let alone when they hear "anarchist". Take a survey and I bet your top two answers will be "what's 'libertarian'?" and "Oh you want to legalize heroin."
But what's more, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my point that there are very few (if any) communists who are former libertarians or ancaps...but I know for a fact there are people who have gone the opposite way.
Seriously? You really think there exists anyone who could understand subjective value and then reject it for labor theory of value?
I would actually argue, in the Misesean tradition, that testing one's theories against empirical evidence when the subject is economics should be the least of one's worries because of the shere magnitude of history and historical evidence.
I'm not sure I see what you're suggesting. Are you saying history and historical evidence are in the Austrian favor, so testing the theory against reality isn't as important as reading other thoeries and "explanations"? I'm not sure that makes sense.
I would also argue that the cause of the current recession, whilst aided by an expansion of credit, does not totally fit usual ABCT as the extent of the expansion in the money supply does not seem to correlate to the magnitude of the recession, I believe that a large part of it was the risky loaning practices encouraged by the government.
You think those two things are mutually exclusive? You don't believe Austrian economics allows government distortion through moral hazards into its theories? Did you read any of those articles?
This first of all seems to require a thorough understanding of the actual arguments. How many people here have honestly read much modern economics? How many have read Keynes' general theory?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Plenty of others have commented on the difference between Keynesian economics and the economics of Keynes. (Austrians and Keynesians alike.) The fact that you would conflate reading The General Theory with understanding "modern economics" would suggest your own understanding is quite lacking.
They begin with Austrian Economics and deal merely with refutations of things which they never fully understand.
Here again I think you're really reaching, even to a point of falsity. How many people have you ever known whose beginning instruction in the subject of economics was Austrian-centered...or for that matter contained any Austrian theory at all? I have never in my life met such a person. Again, it seems you are forgetting that just like with politcal theory, the vast majority of Americans' (and others') first exposure is from a statist perspective. It's called "mainstream" economics for a reason. Again, I don't see many people starting off with instruction from an Austrian perspective, let alone moving from an Austrian viewpoint to accepting a Keynesian one or otherwise.
And also the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public,
"It is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who beguiled by the author's previous reputation, bought the book was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad tempered, polemical and not overly generous in its acknowledgements. It abounds in mares' nests and confusions... In short, it is a work of genius."
-Paul Samuelson on Keynes' The General Theory
?
many leftists might have some basic understanding of collective goods but no full understanding of the theory and its implications, once again, something I don't think that Rothbard every really grasped.
I can't tell if you're saying Rothbard didn't understand the theory, just like the leftists don't understand it, or if you're saying Rothbard didn't understand the fact that leftists didn't understand it. But either way I wasn't under the impression Rothbard was considered the pathbreaking Austrian in terms of refuting Keynesian economic theory. It sounds like your entire implication is that almost anyone who criticizes Keynesian or mainstream economics lacks the understanding to truly do so. But I'm wondering if you've even read Keynes' work (and observed how inchoate and mercurial he was over his years)...or even the technical refutations of his work produced by Hayek...someone who not only had more than the capacity to understand what Keynes wrote, but who personally discussed it with him.
This sounds quite like the behavior that you are condemning. Reading what you've presented so far, it would seem it is you who is being "foolish" by calling Rand foolish...for one thing, you freely admit you haven't read enough of her even for your own standards...and another, even if you felt you had read enough to be confident in such an assessment, it would seem according to you that you should read still more, as there is a "possibility you are wrong, however slim"...and Rand could actually not be foolish, but exactly right.
For some historians it might well be valuable to look over certain materials, no matter how nonsensical.
You mean kind of like for "a purely historical or anthropological interest"?
With this being said we are dealing with modern theories that should be dealt with as such and the perspectives should be understood.
Again, I did not disagree that other perspectives should be understood...what I disagree with is the notion that one has to be constantly looking into the same old nonsense into purpetuity before they can even be said to possibly understand what it is they are rejecting, as well as the notion that one must do so "just in case" what they (and plenty of others) have concluded (for decades, even centuries) is wrong, was somehow right.
A conversion process to communism is quite difficult especially becuase of the fact that it's so demonized in schools.
John James: Really? You don't think the average libertarian has a reason for not believing in the labor theory of value?
The average libertarian actually probably not, and for many things I would doubt the average libertarian's full ability to really give a justification of what he wants done as opposed to other things
John James: I seriously doubt the first thing people think of when they hear "libertarian" is "oh they're against force"...let alone when they hear "anarchist". Take a survey and I bet your top two answers will be "what's 'libertarian'?" and "Oh you want to legalize heroin."
I should have been more clear, the attraction is that the rhetoric of our day glorifies the idea of freedom, something that libertarianism is all about and which therefore makes it quite attractive.
John James:But what's more, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my point that there are very few (if any) communists who are former libertarians or ancaps...but I know for a fact there are people who have gone the opposite way.
No I'm not because of the fact that I do sincerely believe that generally the position is more convincing and correct. With this being said I am sure that there are some, you're just in an environment where you're more exposed to their opposite.
John James:Seriously? You really think there exists anyone who could understand subjective value and then reject it for labor theory of value?
I don't pretend to know that but you're conflating the existence of an obviously false hypothesis, LTV, to all matters. There are many more issues that are not as clear cut.
John James:I'm not sure I see what you're suggesting. Are you saying history and historical evidence are in the Austrian favor, so testing the theory against reality isn't as important as reading other thoeries and "explanations"? I'm not sure that makes sense.
Almost all of Mises' theories and indeed the entire Austrian method is based off of the rejection of empirical evidence as a justification for the proof of an economic theorem. Whilst I find this pure position to be slightly radical, the basis certainly holds, what really matters is theory as the world is an exceedingly complex place. With this being said I've never heard a justification by an Austrian to explain the massive wealth inequalities of our day. I've formulated my own hypotheses on the subject but I'd appreciate other contributions.
John James:You think those two things are mutually exclusive? You don't believe Austrian economics allows government distortion through moral hazards into its theories? Did you read any of those articles?
That is not what I said, I said that it does not fit the normal ABCT description which revolves entirely around credit expansion.
John James:The fact that you would conflate reading The General Theory with understanding "modern economics" would suggest your own understanding is quite lacking.
James I don't mean to be rude but have you ever opened a modern macro textbook? Keynsianism did indeed evolve into something different from what Keynes exactly said but the fundamental underconsumption/aggregate demand principles are the same, indeed reading the general theory would give one a basic insight into the fundumental reasons for modern Keynesianism. You did not answer my actual question of how many average libertarians or followers of AE read or have a solid understanding of mainstream economic thought?
John James:Here again I think you're really reaching, even to a point of falsity. How many people have you ever known whose beginning instruction in the subject of economics was Austrian-centered...or for that matter contained any Austrian theory at all?
The vast majority of people on this website (in terms of economic thought) to begin with, and those are the people I'm talking about, libertarians who generally have little to no grasp of mainstream economics because they know Austrian economics first and foremost. For every college economics student who stumbled across AE and took it up after an understanding of modern mainstream economics there are 10 libertarian Austrians with whom it was their first major and exposure to real economics (not the psuedo economic B.S that happens in history classrooms. )
John James:-Paul Samuelson on Keynes' The General Theory ?
The theory itself made a lot of sense and was fleshed out by various followers.
John James:But either way I wasn't under the impression Rothbard was considered the pathbreaking Austrian in terms of refuting Keynesian economic theory. It sounds like your entire implication is that almost anyone who criticizes Keynesian or mainstream economics lacks the understanding to truly do so.
No I believe that Rothbard understood Keynesianism quite well, in that instance I was talking about collective goods. I'm saying I don't believe Rothbard ever had a good grasp on the concept and at the same time that most leftists have a tentative grasp on it (worse than Rothbard's understanding but still there) but most mainstream economists have a firm and clear theory about it. In this instance I'm not talking about Keynesianism, however I do not believe that the average libertarian fully understand Keynes
John James:But I'm wondering if you've even read Keynes' work (and observed how inchoate and mercurial he was over his years)...or even the technical refutations of his work produced by Hayek...someone who not only had more than the capacity to understand what Keynes wrote, but who personally discussed it with him.
I don't fully understand the original debate (moslty Hayek's position especially concerning the liquidity trap and the effect of stimulus) I know how Keynesianism has evolved into modern macro (macroeconomics 101 is practically all Keynesian theory with a little bit of monetarist influence) but I want to read the general theory, maybe something by Samuelson and then read Prices and Production, another book that I never finished because at the time I realized it was out of my depth. Then I might read "The failure of the New Economics" because I really like what I've seen of Hazlitt's work and it seems pretty definitive.
John James:This sounds quite like the behavior that you are condemning. Reading what you've presented so far, it would seem it is you who is being "foolish" by calling Rand foolish...for one thing, you freely admit you haven't read enough of her even for your own standards...and another, even if you felt you had read enough to be confident in such an assessment, it would seem according to you that you should read still more, as there is a "possibility you are wrong, however slim"...and Rand could actually not be foolish, but exactly right.
I don't disagree, I should read more of Rand, but I do have a good grasp upon her metaethics which was outlined in everything that I read, from then on the book made conclusions from the principle of value she had just outlined, the basic discussion of metaethics was over and she displayed an obvious misunderstanding of the very issue. This is also something that I'm quite confident about, the subjectivity of value and the failure of an objective ethic, so I'm less likely to take seriously the idea that someone has found the missing link. If someone claims that the world is flat then I'm far less likely to take them seriously, but if they present solid evidence then I will listen. Also I would like to make it clear that I'm not exactly a Rand noob, I read Atlas Shrugged twice and Anthem
John James:Again, I did not disagree that other perspectives should be understood...what I disagree with is the notion that one has to be constantly looking into the same old nonsense into purpetuity before they can even be said to possibly understand what it is they are rejecting, as well as the notion that one must do so "just in case" what they (and plenty of others) have concluded (for decades, even centuries) is wrong, was somehow right.
Others have concluded that many of the things they disagree with were right for centuries, that shouldn't matter, what should matter is an individual understanding and refutation of an idea which must first be developed before refutation is made. No one should say "well Mises believed X so it's true". I believe that Rothbard was an extremely good economist, but I differ with him on some major points. As for continually reaffirming a belief I'm not saying that one should fully question it indefinitely, just seek that one really has looked at all major alternatives and most significant arguments, as well as understanding the perspective held by others. I may have misunderstood you above, I'm not saying that we should continually be attempting to ensure that a circle is round, but we must make sure that we have firmly ascertained that principle in the first place.
Neodoxy:The average libertarian actually probably not, and for many things I would doubt the average libertarian's full ability to really give a justification of what he wants done as opposed to other things
I'd be interested to talk to these libertarians you've met.
I think my point still stands. As Stossel has shown (albeit with simple, unscientific surveys...but they still surprised the heck out of me) a lot of people don't even really know what libertarianism is...and those that think they have some idea (and of course don't identify with it) go straight to the drug thing. And others go straight to the "anarchy" thing...which of course to them equates to "chaos" (because of course being libertarian means you're in favor of anyone doing anything they want.) I don't think it really matters how attractive and politically correct "freedom" is if people don't associate libertarianism with being all about it. And I would argue virtually the only people who do make that association are libertarians.
Well of course, just as I'm sure you can find some broken clocks that are right sometimes (some even twice a day). But again my point still stands.
I think it's pretty safe to say LTV is a pretty big part of Marxism. And if you'd like, we can use a different example. The point is you claimed my analogizing going from ancap to statism to having been in space and then joining the Flat Earth Society is "an assumption from my personal worldview" and that "there are pleanty of people who would argue the same about the "anarchy" of the market." And your refutation was that LTV is "obviously false" (implying that an average person would not accept it...despite the fact that plenty, seemingly intelligent people do), but that other issues aren't as clear cut (implying that someone may not go from subjective value to LTV but they might go from some kind of free market belief to a statist persuasion in some other way).
And my assertion is that I don't think it has anything to do with my personal worldview. I think it has to do with how human beings reason. Just pick another one. Welfare? Egalitarianism? Public health care? All these things stem from the very same root of it being better (even in a utilitarian sense) to force some people to do things..."that the way to improve society is to have men with guns force people to follow what the anointed want, rather that let people do what they themselves want to do."
I find it very hard to imagine someone understanding the true nature of government in those kinds of terms (especially from a utilitarian perspective), and then deciding that more government is better...not because of my personal worldview, but because of how human beings behave. Humans do not tend to understand something from a correct viewpoint, and then reject it for a falsity. Unless you wish to argue that statist economic dogma is "possibly correct"...which, I guess it sounds like you kind of were suggesting...the notion that it's possible centralized planning can lead to prosperity, as "there is always the chance of error, however slim."
(I'm not trying to be cute. It really sounds like you really are arguing in some kind of existential way that you can never really be sure of anything, that there is no real "true" or "false"...that someone has to be constantly searching for "truth", because they can never be certain they've found it. Which, to me, per reductio ad absurdum translates to: "You may think 2+2=4...but there is always the chance of error, however slim. Therefore you should constantly be looking at alternatives, and open to the possibility that 2+2 equals something else." Please tell me if this is accurate.)
Neodoxy:Almost all of Mises' theories and indeed the entire Austrian method is based off of the rejection of empirical evidence as a justification for the proof of an economic theorem. Whilst I find this pure position to be slightly radical, the basis certainly holds, what really matters is theory as the world is an exceedingly complex place. With this being said I've never heard a justification by an Austrian to explain the massive wealth inequalities of our day. I've formulated my own hypotheses on the subject but I'd appreciate other contributions.
For one thing, I'm not sure this addresses my question. But for another, what specific questions do you have about wealth inequalities? I'm curious to know what hasn't been answered to your satisfaction.
But it sounded like you were using that to try to claim a shortcoming of Austrian economics. If you weren't, and you concede that AE can explain more or less every facet of the recent recession (i.e. the facts jive with the theory), then I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
James I don't mean to be rude but have you ever opened a modern macro textbook?
Yes.
Keynsianism did indeed evolve into something different from what Keynes exactly said but the fundamental underconsumption/aggregate demand principles are the same, indeed reading the general theory would give one a basic insight into the fundumental reasons for modern Keynesianism.
Yes, it may very well provide a nice background to someone as to where many ideas/methods were popularized, but again, reading The General Theory does not equate to "reading modern economics". You seemed to be implying it did.
Neodoxy:You did not answer my actual question of how many average libertarians or followers of AE read or have a solid understanding of mainstream economic thought?
I didn't realize you asked that. You asked how many had read much "modern economics" and then specifically asked how many had read TGT. And my whole point was TGT is not a very good representation of "modern economics" and reading it is certainly not a requirement for having an understanding of the subject (at least that's what most mainstream economists would say). (And if you want to argue it is, that only furthers my point that it is a waste to dedicate significant amounts of time into studying such things from anything other than a purely historical viewpoint...as TGT was largely nothing new, and as Hayek points out, in fact reverted to a much older idea which had already been refuted in the century prior.)
Almost everyone takes at least an economics class in high school...they don't learn about the law of diminishing returns in history class. And the entirety of that class is more or less "mainstream economics". (Again, it's mainstream for a reason.) And while, yes, no one would consider high school econ a thorough study into the subject, I still think the IS/LM models and the underconsumption/aggregate demand principles (which you spoke of as being fundamental) offer a decent enough introduction to feel safe in saying they didn't "begin with Austrian Economics and deal merely with refutations of things which they never fully understand."
And even if AE is the first flavor that actually gets them to start studying on their own and reading enough to a point where they become more familiar and understanding of it than the mainstream stuff they learned elsewhere, I still don't think you can say they just blindly follow AE without any knowledge of other schools of thought because they "began with it" and "dealt only with refutations".
But what's more, even if that were the case, at least they've got some exposure to other ideas and theories. That's a lot more than I think can be said of the mainstream crowd, which, as I pointed out, the vast majority doesn't even know opposing opinions exist...which again, proves my original point about where the true dogmatism lies.
Neodoxy:The theory itself made a lot of sense and was fleshed out by various followers.
Whom might I ask? And to what works are you referring?
But more importantly, the point was you said "the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public". Obviously it can't be too clean if the supposed mastor of the theory can't relay it in a coherent manner. (Not to mention if he changes his views quicker than anyone can write a rebuttal.)
And this also doesn't even mention the question of how exactly a "pure theory" can be so clean and sensible and yet not only need economic experts to even translate it into something conherent, but that even then it ends up getting more complex and complicated as it gets relayed to the public. That doesn't exactly make sense to me. Do you have a specific illustration of this? I mean you're arguing how difficult it is to have a true understanding of what the mainstream theory is, but at the same time you're claiming the reality is that the "pure theory" is actually quite clean and sensible and that it is only what "trickles down to the public" that is not. This would imply it in fact wouldn't take the kind of serious study you are suggesting is necessary to simply understand the mainstream viewpoint enough to reject it without you accusing the person of being "dogmatic".
I do not believe that the average libertarian fully understand Keynes
But even if that were true, do you think that's really an issue? Is that not like saying "I don't think the average doctor fully understands the theory behind using leeches and juju beads to cure the sick?"
I'll be interested to see if after that you still believe you can't gain a sufficient understanding of Keynesianism through the popular refutations of it.
Neodoxy:I don't disagree, I should read more of Rand, but I do have a good grasp upon her metaethics which was outlined in everything that I read, from then on the book made conclusions from the principle of value she had just outlined, the basic discussion of metaethics was over and she displayed an obvious misunderstanding of the very issue. This is also something that I'm quite confident about, the subjectivity of value and the failure of an objective ethic, so I'm less likely to take seriously the idea that someone has found the missing link. If someone claims that the world is flat then I'm far less likely to take them seriously, but if they present solid evidence then I will listen. Also I would like to make it clear that I'm not exactly a Rand noob, I read Atlas Shrugged twice and Anthem
But my point was you called her foolish. (a) At what point is one knowledgable enough about something to make that determination, (b) How can one ever make that determination if there is always a chance they could be wrong, and they are supposed to be on a never ending search for "the truth"?
No one should say "well Mises believed X so it's true".
I've never in my life heard anyone say that.
As for continually reaffirming a belief I'm not saying that one should fully question it indefinitely, just seek that one really has looked at all major alternatives and most significant arguments, as well as understanding the perspective held by others. I may have misunderstood you above, I'm not saying that we should continually be attempting to ensure that a circle is round, but we must make sure that we have firmly ascertained that principle in the first place.
If that's the case, then I'm confused as to the call to action in the OP. You stated "any point of view can be incorrect, we could all be wrong and never know it" and then asked for websites that present alternative viewpoints. I'm not quite sure how much one has to gain from reading statist propaganda and debunked economic nonsense on a regular basis. Again, I don't see a lot of value in constantly looking into the same old tired philosophies (that are more or less based on economic as well as moral fallacies). Even you yourself said you've only really found 2 sites that you've "been able to stand and actually glean something from". How much nonsense does one have to expose himself to and for how long before he can avoid being accused of dogmatism?
John James: I'd be interested to talk to these libertarians you've met.
I'm sure that you've talked to some who fit the bill.
John James:I think my point still stands. As Stossel has shown (albeit with simple, unscientific surveys...but they still surprised the heck out of me) a lot of people don't even really know what libertarianism is...and those that think they have some idea (and of course don't identify with it) go straight to the drug thing.
I didn't say that there wasn't some stigma related to the word, but if you think it's nearly as great as with communism then IDK what to say. I know I and many of my old highschool friends were attracted to the term because of the meaning and rhetoric of freedom that it granted one.
John James:I think it's pretty safe to say LTV is a pretty big part of Marxism.
And? Since when are all non-austrian ideologies Marxism? It's a non-sequiter
John James: The point is you claimed my analogizing going from ancap to statism to having been in space and then joining the Flat Earth Society is "an assumption from my personal worldview" and that "there are pleanty of people who would argue the same about the "anarchy" of the market." And your refutation was that LTV is "obviously false" (implying that an average person would not accept it...despite the fact that plenty, seemingly intelligent people do), but that other issues aren't as clear cut (implying that someone may not go from subjective value to LTV but they might go from some kind of free market belief to a statist persuasion in some other way).
There are old users on this site who have gone from ancap to a more statist position, and from Austrian to Keynesianism. What you did was to pick an especially false belief, the LTV, and conflate it to all statist ideas, that's fallacious at best.
John James:I find it very hard to imagine someone understanding the true nature of government in those kinds of terms (especially from a utilitarian perspective), and then deciding that more government is better...not because of my personal worldview, but because of how human beings behave. Humans do not tend to understand something from a correct viewpoint, and then reject it for a falsity.
That entire point of view relies obviously upon your understanding of government and I would definitly argue that there are certain conclusions which a fair minded libertarian could come to, such as the idea of government action in the healthcare industry and basic welfare, which might make sense.
John James:(I'm not trying to be cute. It really sounds like you really are arguing in some kind of existential way that you can never really be sure of anything, that there is no real "true" or "false"...that someone has to be constantly searching for "truth", because they can never be certain they've found it. Which, to me, per reductio ad absurdum translates to: "You may think 2+2=4...but there is always the chance of error, however slim. Therefore you should constantly be looking at alternatives, and open to the possibility that 2+2 equals something else." Please tell me if this is accurate.)
No, make sure you know why two plus two is four, understand the major opposition, and then do not pass by any alternative explanations.
John James:For one thing, I'm not sure this addresses my question. But for another, what specific questions do you have about wealth inequalities? I'm curious to know what hasn't been answered to your satisfaction.
It should address your question, empirical evidence has little with economic validity. I'd like an explanation of why since the Reagan administration the wealth holdings of the top 20% have skyrocketed while the other 80% have stayed relatively stagnant.
John James:But it sounded like you were using that to try to claim a shortcoming of Austrian economics. If you weren't, and you concede that AE can explain more or less every facet of the recent recession (i.e. the facts jive with the theory), then I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
Just a sidenote based upon observation
John James:Yes.
Then I would expect you to understand the general ignorance of liberarians upon mainstream economic thought.
John James:Yes, it may very well provide a nice background to someone as to where many ideas/methods were popularized, but again, reading The General Theory does not equate to "reading modern economics". You seemed to be implying it did.
No, it is not but it is a good starting point. As much as anything else I'm arguing that it's a different and important economic perspective.
John James:.as TGT was largely nothing new, and as Hayek points out, in fact reverted to a much older idea which had already been refuted in the century prior.)
Say's law was never (as far as I've been able to glean) given any major challenge, despite the fact that Malthus opposed the idea, until Keynes came along and I think that a very important part of his refutation there was his idea surrounding savings V. investment which had never been brought up to the same extent pre Keynes
John James: I still think the IS/LM models and the underconsumption/aggregate demand principles (which you spoke of as being fundamental) offer a decent enough introduction to feel safe in saying they didn't "begin with Austrian Economics and deal merely with refutations of things which they never fully understand." And even if AE is the first flavor that actually gets them to start studying on their own and reading enough to a point where they become more familiar and understanding of it than the mainstream stuff they learned elsewhere, I still don't think you can say they just blindly follow AE without any knowledge of other schools of thought because they "began with it" and "dealt only with refutations".
Highschool courses on economics are pathetic and at least here in New York they consist of a half year course that is somehow supposed to cover macro and micro as well as having a major focus upon finance. There is no major understanding gleaned of modern economics. And I believe that a generally blind approach is exactly what usually happens.
John James:But what's more, even if that were the case, at least they've got some exposure to other ideas and theories. That's a lot more than I think can be said of the mainstream crowd, which, as I pointed out, the vast majority doesn't even know opposing opinions exist...which again, proves my original point about where the true dogmatism lies.
No, that would show that the other side was more fallacious, this would not mean that libertarians would not be dogmatic, the fact that you do not know an alternative exists and so you don't go and challenge it is not a sign of dogmatism, but if you know one exists then why would you not examine it unless you are dogmatic?
John James:Whom might I ask? And to what works are you referring?
I forget if I knew actual names at some point but certainly the Keynesians at the time.[/quote]
John James:But more importantly, the point was you said "the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public". Obviously it can't be too clean if the supposed mastor of the theory can't relay it in a coherent manner. (Not to mention if he changes his views quicker than anyone can write a rebuttal.) [quote user="John James"]And this also doesn't even mention the question of how exactly a "pure theory" can be so clean and sensible and yet not only need economic experts to even translate it into something conherent, but that even then it ends up getting more complex and complicated as it gets relayed to the public. That doesn't exactly make sense to me. Do you have a specific illustration of this? I mean you're arguing how difficult it is to have a true understanding of what the mainstream theory is, but at the same time you're claiming the reality is that the "pure theory" is actually quite clean and sensible and that it is only what "trickles down to the public" that is not. This would imply it in fact wouldn't take the kind of serious study you are suggesting is necessary to simply understand the mainstream viewpoint enough to reject it without you accusing the person of being "dogmatic".
[quote user="John James"]And this also doesn't even mention the question of how exactly a "pure theory" can be so clean and sensible and yet not only need economic experts to even translate it into something conherent, but that even then it ends up getting more complex and complicated as it gets relayed to the public. That doesn't exactly make sense to me. Do you have a specific illustration of this? I mean you're arguing how difficult it is to have a true understanding of what the mainstream theory is, but at the same time you're claiming the reality is that the "pure theory" is actually quite clean and sensible and that it is only what "trickles down to the public" that is not. This would imply it in fact wouldn't take the kind of serious study you are suggesting is necessary to simply understand the mainstream viewpoint enough to reject it without you accusing the person of being "dogmatic".
I'm sorry I don't even really understand what you're saying here. For an example I gave the case of collective goods, another could be more universal healthcare and preventative care, these things need not be fully understood by the common person but they are fairly well developed in the first place.
John James:But even if that were true, do you think that's really an issue? Is that not like saying "I don't think the average doctor fully understands the theory behind using leeches and juju beads to cure the sick?"
If it were a major belief at the time and you claimed to have a knowledge of medicine then I'd expect that you would.
John James:I'll be interested to see if after that you still believe you can't gain a sufficient understanding of Keynesianism through the popular refutations of it.
I'd be amazed if you could glean a coherent understanding of modern economics by the Marxist critique.
John James:But my point was you called her foolish. (a) At what point is one knowledgable enough about something to make that determination, (b) How can one ever make that determination if there is always a chance they could be wrong, and they are supposed to be on a never ending search for "the truth"?
That's something for the individual to decide, there is no objective yardstick on the subject. I have my definite ideas about believing why her specific theories are false, I realize I need to do some minor further research to ensure my understanding, because I could be wrong. If I am further reassured then I will make a conclusion that I'm not going to go out and attempt to disprove, but I will continue to keep track of the objectivist perspective and if a new piece of evidence were to somehow come to light and were presented to me (I would not necessarily seek it out myself) then I would be converted. Anything else is either mild presumption or outright dogmatism.
John James:I've never in my life heard anyone say that.
I never claimed you did I'm saying what others believe shouldn't matter, however I think a lot of reading person X and then thinking their smart and therefore their position must be right goes on in every ideology.
John James: Again, I don't see a lot of value in constantly looking into the same old tired philosophies (that are more or less based on economic as well as moral fallacies). Even you yourself said you've only really found 2 sites that you've "been able to stand and actually glean something from". How much nonsense does one have to expose himself to and for how long before he can avoid being accused of dogmatism?
I can't be the judge of that, it's not about the same old fallacies, it's about ensuring one understands a specific ideology and set of ideas, that's a fairly large point of the sites, though not the only one.
My entire point is that we must ensure that we fully and truly do understand other viewpoints in the first place. I do not claim to be an expert on any form of economics, or liberalism or conservatism, so I am attempting to improve my own understanding of their basic beliefs and then prefferably (not essential this part is personal) understand these perspectives as they continue to evolve. I am saying I doubt that 90% of people here have ever done this.
Neodoxy:I didn't say that there wasn't some stigma related to the word, but if you think it's nearly as great as with communism then IDK what to say.
I never said the stigma was as great as with communism (speaking of non sequitur), I was simply refuting your notion that "libertarianism" has the fact that it's associated with freedom going for it. Again, your argument was that "communism is demonized in schools", and that that is why a conversion process to it is difficult, whereas "the rhetoric of our day glorifies the idea of freedom, something that libertarianism is all about and which therefore makes [libertariansim] quite attractive."
And once again, "I don't think it really matters how attractive and politically correct "freedom" is if people don't associate libertarianism with being all about freedom. And I would argue virtually the only people who do make that association are libertarians." In other words, you're claiming that people are attracted to libertarianism because people associate it with freedom, which has a glorified status in our culture. I'm saying people in general do not make that connection until they are more or less already libertarians. (Otherwise, more people would identify as libertarians...as, if freedom is so great, and everyone equates libertarianism with being all about freedom, why are so many not interested in what libertarians have to say?) So you can't exactly claim such an association is a major factor of attraction, because I think it's pretty obvious such an association is not really made by the non-libertarian public.
What's more, you claim the conversion process to communism is difficult, but at the same time claim that conversion is where the majority of its adherents come from. I find this to be a strech. As I said, I completely agree that a conversion is difficult, but not simply because of the stigma in schools. I think it is difficult because it is like being raised in the United States and being taught the truth about Kim Jong Il, learning about Austrian economics and the NAP, becoming ancap, and then defecting to North Korea and believing Kim is not a ruthless dictator, but an all-powerful and all-giving godking who doesn't even urinate. My point is it is much more difficult to make that journey (a conversion from one extreme to the other) than it is to make the opposite one.
It seems like you're saying it's just as easy to go one way as the other, because "there are pleanty of people who would argue the same about the "anarchy" of the market." I said going from ancap to North Korea supporter is like being in space and then joining FES. You said plenty would say the same thing about coming out of North Korea and end up being ancap. I seriously doubt the odds are the anywhere near equivelant.
Again, I would argue that there are very few, if any, "converts" to communism (i.e. coming from one extreme, or even one side of the fence, to the other), and that virtually all communists started off with a pretty strong background rooted in Leftist ideals and principles, and simply refined them to more and more statist ways. This is not the case with libertarianism and ancap.
While, again, as I said, there are plenty of libertarian/ancaps who are in a similar boat: raised generally "conservative" and end up moving farther and farther away from state acceptance (meaning they didn't "convert" either, but were instead simply "refined"), there are also plenty who have come from the complete other side of the fence. I don't really think the same can be said for socialists/communists/marxists. I would dare say virtually all of them were raised with some considerable degree of lean in that direction and have virtually never had any significant and considered exposure to liberty oriented ideas. I think that's really the only way they can get to that level of statism. That's also why they're so dogmatic. It's the only way you can be so statist.
You seem to be arguing it's just as crazy to suggest a North Korean could eventually become ancap, as it is to suggest an ancap would end up considering North Korea their paradise. And my point is I've heard multiple North Koreans say things like "I hate the state" and "Now that I've tasted freedom I'm never going back"...but I've never in my life heard anything anywhere near the opposite.
Huh? For one thing, we're talking about making a "conversion"...and in particular from one extreme to the other. I assumed Marxism (which to me includes socialism and communism, as one communist around here has insisted they are exactly the same thing) is as pretty far along the spectrum as you can get and still have people promote it. Not to mention, you brought it up:
--"Marxist ideology tends to make a fair amount of sense to people as well, this does not make it correct, it makes one complacent and unexamining." --"A conversion process to communism is quite difficult especially becuase of the fact that it's so demonized in schools. Libertarianism has aspect going for it that it is against force, just as communism has the idea going for it that it would bring about utopia."
Not only am I simply using the only viable example of an extreme and opposite end of the spectrum, I'm using your example. I really don't see how it could be said that does not follow.
Neodoxy:There are old users on this site who have gone from ancap to a more statist position, and from Austrian to Keynesianism. What you did was to pick an especially false belief, the LTV, and conflate it to all statist ideas, that's fallacious at best.
How can you claim LTV is "especially false" when "there is always a chance you're wrong, however slim?"
I think these are addressed above.
But does "no passing by any alternate explanations" mean you have to be constantly seeking out alternate explanations as to what else 2+2 could equal, on a never ending quest to find "the truth"?
It should address your question, empirical evidence has little with economic validity.
Then what is the point of constantly studying other theories that rely completely on (alleged) empirical evidence?
I'd like an explanation of why since the Reagan administration the wealth holdings of the top 20% have skyrocketed while the other 80% have stayed relatively stagnant.
Could you define "wealth holdings?" And what data are you using to conclude this?
Neodoxy:No, it is not but it is a good starting point. As much as anything else I'm arguing that it's a different and important economic perspective.
But aside from historical interest (as in, the study of history itself) why is it important? What makes it an important perspective from an economic standpoint if it's been largely debunked? It sounds like you're arguing film students today should be learning how to use the old cut and splice machines because it's "different" way of doing things and it's important to learn how things evolved to where they are. Nevermind that they'll never in their life use that. Nevermind that while it may inform their overall understanding of the history and progression of their field, it won't really get them ahead...at least not near as much as devoting that time to learning something they'll actually be using.
Yes this is an extreme example, but I think you see my point. I do not believe that the opportunity cost of reading TGT is worth that time you could be using for something that would give you a better understanding. You yourself said the content was better presented by other people.
Even still...that doesn't sound like students "begin with Austrian economics".
Your entire point with this thread was to encourage others to seek out other viewpoints because "it's essential to understand and read about other points of view in order to avoid dogmatism" and "we could all be wrong and never know it unless we actually go out and search for truth in alternative locations." And you're telling me that not even being aware of other viewpoints (i.e. assuming yours is the only possible explanation, so much so that you don't even bother to ask if there is another theory, let alone search for any) isn't dogmatic?
Again, AE is certainly not mainstream, but I seriously don't think you have to look very hard to find it. Meltdown was on the New York Times bestseller list for months. As was Crash Proof. As was How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. And the author of the latter two is on the news all the time. Ron Paul is not exactly unheard of, and is not exactly silent about the Austrian School and its explanations of economic occurances. He offers an alternative economic viewpoint virtually everytime he's in front of a microphone...which is a lot. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for crissake.
And you're seriously going to argue that never even having heard of alternative viewpoints (which basically equates to assuming there are none) isn't dogmatic?
I forget if I knew actual names at some point but certainly the Keynesians at the time.
I guess they must not have been that good at making Keynesian theory "make a lot of sense" if we can't even come up with their names or the works in which they did it...especially considering they were apparently quite necessary since Keynes' book was so inaccessible.
Which part? You said "the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public". And I'm saying obviously it can't be too clean if the supposed mastor of the theory can't relay it in a coherent manner.
I'm also saying how can something that is "clean and sensible" be more complicated when it gets relayed to a layman? I'm asking if something has those characteristics, why does one have to engage in serious study in the field simply to gain enough understanding of it to reject it without being called "dogmatic"? That to me suggests something other than "clean and sensible".
And what's more, are you suggesting that universal health care (which, I have to assume means a centrally-planned, government administered health care industry) is possibly on net better than a free market?
Neodoxy: John James:But even if that were true, do you think that's really an issue? Is that not like saying "I don't think the average doctor fully understands the theory behind using leeches and juju beads to cure the sick?"If it were a major belief at the time and you claimed to have a knowledge of medicine then I'd expect that you would.
I don't think your expectations are really relevant. What matters is if having that knowledge is imperative to doing good medicine, or in this case, doing good economics. I'm arguing in both cases, it isn't. Do you refute this?
Marx critiqued modern economics? Or do you mean modern followers of Marxism have offered critiques of modern economics? I didn't think such critiques would need be that long...as one, Marxists don't tend to be very good economists, and two, I would think they would "debunk" non-marxist economics quite easily by claiming value isn't subjective, or something else like "money is unnecessary" like the Venus people do.
I don't really think you can compare a Marxist critique of modern economics to a Hayekian (as in, Austrian, but also ones from Hayek himself) critique of Keynesian economics. Again, I would venture to say Marxists don't exactly have a good understanding of economics in general...as in, even general microeconomic laws that are unrefuted by any school of thought...whereas I do not think the same could be argued of Hayek or anyone else who offered a critique of Keynesian theory. And more particular, I do not believe it could be argued that these critiques of Keynes I'm talking about could be said to have come from people who did not understand Keynes' theory.
In short, you're attempting to suggest one cannot gain a decent understanding of Keynesian theory from a Hayekian critique of it, by suggesting you couldn't gain an understanding of modern economics through a Marxist critique of it. In other words, economic critiques produced by Hayek and other Austrians are more or less on par with Marxist economic critiques in terms of how well they understand and relay the theory they are critiquing. In other words, I'd say your analogy is a terrible one.
So what you're saying is it is not necessarily dogmatism if one isn't constantly "going out and search for truth in alternative locations."
Neodoxy:I never claimed you did I'm saying what others believe shouldn't matter, however I think a lot of reading person X and then thinking their smart and therefore their position must be right goes on in every ideology.
There's a big difference between saying "well Mises believed X so it's true" and saying "After my reading a lot of what he's written, I've concluded that Mises is pretty smart and is a good authority on economics...so if he says something that pertains to that field, there's a good chance he's right about it."
The first is an appeal to authority fallacy. The second is simply a guess based on the available information. At worst it's an over-confident presumption. Again, big difference.
I can't be the judge of that, it's not about the same old fallacies, it's about ensuring one understands a specific ideology and set of ideas, that's a fairly large point of the sites, though not the only one. My entire point is that we must ensure that we fully and truly do understand other viewpoints in the first place. I do not claim to be an expert on any form of economics, or liberalism or conservatism, so I am attempting to improve my own understanding of their basic beliefs and then prefferably (not essential this part is personal) understand these perspectives as they continue to evolve. I am saying I doubt that 90% of people here have ever done this.
All I'm saying is the suggestion that one has to be on a constant search for "the truth" to refrain from being called "dogmatic" is asinine, which, it seems you have stated it is not the suggestion you were making, but it certainly did sound that way from the OP.
Okay I'm sorry but this is getting too long to deal with in full and with quote tags so I'm going to drop those for now.
First of all the comparison of North Korea to something approaching the kind of communism or socialism supported by any sane socialist is ridiculous, the vast majority of socialists, and especially of the Marxist and non-elitist variety. Second of all I would argue that the majority of Marxists were indeed converted although you're right that the closer they were the more likely they were to be converted.
The problem is mostly that people don't understand what libertarianism is. Every person I've explained it to has shown at very least sympathy for it, and many have considered themselves at least moderate libertarians. After discovering libertarianism I converted my friend to anarcho-capitalism, another of my friends to general libertarianhood (ended up flying somewhere between Benjamin Tucker and Max Sterner, my B :P ), reaffirmed the beliefs of someone who had already found it on his own, made my father more comfortable with both anarchism (he claimed that if anarcho-capitalism was ever to come about in the modern world and it worked he would happily support it) and libertarianism itself and I converted two other friends to mild libertarianism. Libertarianism is incredibly popular and especially with the younger generation, as soon as people understand the ideology they are at least fairly likely to support it or sympathize.
"Not only am I simply using the only viable example of an extreme and opposite end of the spectrum, I'm using your example. I really don't see how it could be said that does not follow."
When using those examples I was merely giving an analogy of how people can become compacent with an ideology and the reason why more people convert to libertarianism rather than communism, and it seemed as though you were attempting to conflate that to all statist ideologies
"How can you claim LTV is "especially false" when "there is always a chance you're wrong, however slim?"
Because the human perspective and knowledge are always inherently defective and limited. There are always things which allude us, evidence which is not taken into consideration, our perspectives are frail. With this being said it is the most we ever know or have, so we must act as if they are absolute whilst still admitting to the possibility that we are wrong, do you seriously claim that there is no possibility that you are wrong about something you're sure of. If you do then you are not only arrogant but you ignore one of the most important lessons which men can ever glean.
"But does "no passing by any alternate explanations" mean you have to be constantly seeking out alternate explanations as to what else 2+2 could equal, on a never ending quest to find "the truth"?"
As a rule of thumb you should never turn down an opportunity to understand another perspective, you should at least understand the major opposition to that which you believe, especially when there are other perspectives that can be learned about. For example I've found left-libertarianism especially problematic to libertarianism that has not examined the theory. If you say "I've examined theory X and I don't need to understand the other side" then you are obviously a dogmatist
"Then what is the point of constantly studying other theories that rely completely on (alleged) empirical evidence?"
It helps to point out factors that could have been overlooked, theorems which could not have been completed if not for the existence of a phenomenon to explain. If there was never credit expansion I doubt that any coherent ABCT could have ever have been formulated or understood to be as large a problem as it really is. Also, we both know that for the most part theories exist and then have "evidence" pulled in to justify them, not the other way around. Indeed no coherent understanding of any social behavior could have ever come into existence if one simply stared at sheets of facts and figures
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://motherjones.com/print/99036
Whilst I realize that all of these sites can be said to have some sort of bias they would have to be REALLY off if they were to be proven wrong.
"Which part? You said "the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public". And I'm saying obviously it can't be too clean if the supposed mastor of the theory can't relay it in a coherent manner."
It was at least coherent enough to change the history of economics forever as the world. I don't know who writes textbooks, they were the ones who really fleshed out the theory and I'm not sure to what extent Samuelson was involved with the initial popularization/adoption of the theory.
"I'm also saying how can something that is "clean and sensible" be more complicated when it gets relayed to a layman? I'm asking if something has those characteristics, why does one have to engage in serious study in the field simply to gain enough understanding of it to reject it without being called "dogmatic"? That to me suggests something other than "clean and sensible"
It doesn't need to be more complicated, if it doesn't make sense unless it is added to in substance and in how clear it is. One need not be a master, one should have at least heard the theory advocated by a supporter and understand the theory. I do not feel as though it is unreasonable to ask that one has an understanding before one rejects an idea.
"In other words, economic critiques produced by Hayek and other Austrians are more or less on par with Marxist economic critiques in terms of how well they understand and relay the theory they are critiquing. In other words, I'd say your analogy is a terrible one."
The reason that I chose the analogy is because Marxist economics is something be both believe to be utterly false and if one were to only read the Marxist critique one could quite possibly believe it. Just because one understands something and claims to refute it does not mean that they have, I think it's quite probable that Hayek fully refuted Keynes, but how can I understand a critique of something I don't understand in the first place? How could I claim to have understood a critique of a specific subject if I didn't beforehand understand at least something of the theory itself?
"So what you're saying is it is not necessarily dogmatism if one isn't constantly "going out and search for truth in alternative locations."
No, not if one developes a fair understanding of the views in the first place. This does not mean new evidence could not come to light, but to expect sudden new evidence is likely vein, an understanding is the full first step. I never developed a full "liberal" perspective, merely a general statist one.
"All I'm saying is the suggestion that one has to be on a constant search for "the truth" to refrain from being called "dogmatic" is asinine, which, it seems you have stated it is not the suggestion you were making, but it certainly did sound that way from the OP."
I'm saying one must develope a solid understanding of other major ideas or at least all ideas which he claims to fully reject and after that it is good to generally keep in touch to ensure that there was not error made in his first assesment.
"
The first is an appeal to authority fallacy. The second is simply a guess based on the available information. At worst it's an over-confident presumption. Again, big difference."
True, although it's very easy to fall into that trap, and there's no reason why one could not read Marx or Chomsky and think something similar. It is a dangerous presumption to be sure.
I will continue with quotes if you don't mind...
Neodoxy:First of all the comparison of North Korea to something approaching the kind of communism or socialism supported by any sane socialist is ridiculous
I would be more likely to respect people's positions if they give any reasoning whatsoever to support them.
Second of all I would argue that the majority of Marxists were indeed converted although you're right that the closer they were the more likely they were to be converted.
In this case it would appear we just have a different understanding of the definition of the word "converted". But again, this should matter, as I explained what I mean when I used that word, and multiple times addressed the fact that I was talking about people going from one side of the political fence to the other...and more specifically, from one extreme to the other...as in belief in no state at all, to a belief in total state. And again, I would love to see a single example of someone doing it in that direction.
Neodoxy:The problem is mostly that people don't understand what libertarianism is. Every person I've explained it to has shown at very least sympathy for it, and many have considered themselves at least moderate libertarians. After discovering libertarianism I converted my friend to anarcho-capitalism, another of my friends to general libertarianhood (ended up flying somewhere between Benjamin Tucker and Max Sterner, my B :P ), reaffirmed the beliefs of someone who had already found it on his own, made my father more comfortable with both anarchism (he claimed that if anarcho-capitalism was ever to come about in the modern world and it worked he would happily support it) and libertarianism itself and I converted two other friends to mild libertarianism. Libertarianism is incredibly popular and especially with the younger generation, as soon as people understand the ideology they are at least fairly likely to support it or sympathize.
I don't see how any of this refutes anything I've said. In fact, it would seem to go fit right in with it...if not support it.
You mentioned Marxism and then claimed LTV was "an obviously false hypothesis" and that "there are many more issues that are not as clear cut." All I said was "I think it's pretty safe to say LTV is a pretty big part of Marxism", and you accused me of non sequitur.
Then..."How can you claim LTV is "especially false"?
Neodoxy: John James:But does "no passing by any alternate explanations" mean you have to be constantly seeking out alternate explanations as to what else 2+2 could equal, on a never ending quest to find "the truth"?" As a rule of thumb you should never turn down an opportunity to understand another perspective, you should at least understand the major opposition to that which you believe, especially when there are other perspectives that can be learned about. For example I've found left-libertarianism especially problematic to libertarianism that has not examined the theory. If you say "I've examined theory X and I don't need to understand the other side" then you are obviously a dogmatist
John James:But does "no passing by any alternate explanations" mean you have to be constantly seeking out alternate explanations as to what else 2+2 could equal, on a never ending quest to find "the truth"?"
Again, I don't see how any of that even addresses my question.
So empirical evidence is important, then.
Neodoxy: http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html http://motherjones.com/print/99036 Whilst I realize that all of these sites can be said to have some sort of bias they would have to be REALLY off if they were to be proven wrong.
I didn't really look more than 30 seconds at any of those, but right away I can spot things that are so misleading that the claims may as well be considered "wrong" (or at least unreliable). In that first link, they show pie charts that apparently show "household wealth" (which you wouldn't be able to tell just by looking at the charts...as they aren't labeled to tell you that). But something else the charts don't reveal is that there are more people in those upper division categories. For example, you want some facts? As of 2008 there were 39 million people in the "bottom 20% of households"...there were 64 million in the top 20%. So yes, a group with 25 million extra people will tend to have more money. The third link does the same thing.
"The 'household' thing is really a tipoff: whenever I see somebody quoting household income he's trying to make things look bad." -Thomas Sowell
Another thing these class-warmongers don't bother to tell you is how individuals move between these categories. For example, some more facts: Of all the people who were in the bottom 20% in 1975, by 1991, only 5% of them are still there. 29% of these people have already gotten all the way to the top. And an absolute majority are already in the top half. You don't hear things like that from these class-warmongers because it really shoots a hole in your "you're kept down by the wealthy" when you tell people that most of them will be in that wealthy bracket in 15 years. (Also it's interesting to note, on that second website you bring out...have a look at the Table 3, which shows the "Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007". Even the warmongers have to admit this "rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer" crap is nonsense.
Even considering the facts that are actually accurate, the implications and conclusions drawn by these class-warmongers are misleading at best, and downright fallacious at worst. I'm not quite sure what those links were suppose to prove other than people who promote class warfare really like charts.
It was at least coherent enough to change the history of economics forever as the world.
I think you're confusing popularity and appeal to those in charge of economic policy (as well as the education system) with "coherency"
I don't know who writes textbooks, they were the ones who really fleshed out the theory and I'm not sure to what extent Samuelson was involved with the initial popularization/adoption of the theory.
So what you're really saying, is you don't really know what you were saying/have no real support for it.
Neodoxy: John James:"I'm also saying how can something that is "clean and sensible" be more complicated when it gets relayed to a layman? I'm asking if something has those characteristics, why does one have to engage in serious study in the field simply to gain enough understanding of it to reject it without being called "dogmatic"? That to me suggests something other than "clean and sensible" It doesn't need to be more complicated, if it doesn't make sense unless it is added to in substance and in how clear it is.
John James:"I'm also saying how can something that is "clean and sensible" be more complicated when it gets relayed to a layman? I'm asking if something has those characteristics, why does one have to engage in serious study in the field simply to gain enough understanding of it to reject it without being called "dogmatic"? That to me suggests something other than "clean and sensible"
It doesn't need to be more complicated, if it doesn't make sense unless it is added to in substance and in how clear it is.
I don't see how this follows with what you said or with what I said. You said "the pure theories tend to be much cleaner and more sensible than what trickles down to the public", and my question to you is, how is it that the "pure theory" that the experts deal with is actually "cleaner and more sensible" that the version the public gets? If anything, one would think the public's version would have to be the cleanest and most sensible of all.
One need not be a master, one should have at least heard the theory advocated by a supporter and understand the theory.
So, basically you're saying the majority of mainstream economists and the vast majority of laypersons do not fit your critereon for being non-dogmatic...as in, they are dogmatic.
I do not feel as though it is unreasonable to ask that one has an understanding before one rejects an idea.
This is a straw man, as I do not believe there is anyone on the other side of that argument and I have no idea where it came from.
Before, I thought you were just claiming that there was no possible way someone critiquing a theory could possibly provide a satisfactory explanation of it (meaning, they either lacked the capacity to understand it, or they lacked the capacity to explain it). This to me seemed to be nonsense, as I believe Hayek and plenty of other Austrians certainly held the capcity to understand Keynesian economics, as well as to explain it. (If you would like to claim otherwise, I would be happy to debate that. I am quite tired of people implying critics of a theory just don't understand it—which, I'm not necessarily saying you necessarily did, but it did sound as though you were getting to that point, with your constant implication that one cannot understand a theory without reading the original author's work himself.)
But now it sounds like you're just assuming a critique of a theory wouldn't provide an explanation of the theory it's critiquing. You're asking "how can I understand a critique of something I don't understand in the first place?" And again, your implicaiton is that one must read The General Theory (or at least one of these other textbooks you cannot name by one of these authors you do not know "fleshed out" the theory) before one will be able to follow a critique of the theory.
So I'm wondering, have you ever read a critique of Keynesian economics? Did you read it before having a real "understanding" of the theory, as you claim the majority of Austrians have? And if so, if you are like this vast majority of Austrians, did you get through the critique? How? And did you understand the theory afterward?
Or better yet...you claim LTV is "obviously false". Have you read Das Kapital? How can you claim to know LTV is "obviously false" if you haven't gone to the source and studied it in that context? How could you possibly understand a concept unless you read it from the main proponant?
there's no reason why one could not read Marx or Chomsky and think something similar.
Yes, there actually is. Marx was not an economist, he was a journalist. And I would argue he wasn't very smart at all. And while Chomsky may be very intelligent, he's also not an economist...his expertise is almost as far from that field as you can get: linguistics. And I would argue while he may be smart, he's quite naive. So yes, the is plenty reason why someone could not read those two and think "After my reading a lot of what he's written, I've concluded that ____ is pretty smart and is a good authority on economics...so if he says something that pertains to that field, there's a good chance he's right about it."
Now if you substituted the word "economics" for "linguistics" or "journalism in the 19th century", you might have a case.
(The important part begins at 2:14)
Also, could you address the wealth thing?...