Thread Graveyard

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Torsten — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:31:42 GMT

I don't see how he really refutes Austrianism as economic theory. He does however highlight some areas to reconsider (i.e. utility versus value).

The public goods argument is sometimes used against libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

So it was a bit funny to me that Caplan brought that up. However I will have to go through that again.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Jeremiah Dyke — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:38:24 GMT

@Torsten

You're mistaken. Caplan is as libertarian as they come as are most the faculty at GMU. His refutation is against Austrian Economics not libertarianism.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:45:57 GMT

The biases of the audience are a factor to consider. Not a hindrance to debating the existence of any actual fallacies within the school.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Wheylous — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:18:05 GMT

Excel - I like your thinking.

Torsten - Smiling Dave doesn't think so.

Plus, you're asking a biased audience whether the rejection of their views is valid. I'm not sure that's the best way to explode possible fallacies in the Austrian school.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Physiocrat — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:20:14 GMT

I don't see why new posters, before they bring up a topic, need to search the forum to see if it has been done before. If they bring an old topic up just politely direct them to the threads in question.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Torsten — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:34:47 GMT

Is there anything valid, meaningful worth debating in what caplan says. Flying over it I've seen better refutations, of libertarianism that is.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

excel — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:17:52 GMT

If you have nothing constructive to add to my threads, stay out of them.

Should we perhaps apply this profound guideline to the forums as well?

Re: Rothbard refuted!

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:45:52 GMT

Guess he sure told you, Wheylous.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Meistro — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:41:32 GMT

"After reading past threads, you can create a new one if still unsatisfied."

Oh I can? Gee thanks. Who made you the forum police? Are you guys worried about wasting digital ink or something? I'm pretty sure everything in the world has been discussed before at some point. If you have nothing constructive to add to my threads, stay out of them.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Clayton — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:12:19 GMT

I know I shouldn't throw fuel on the fire but here goes anyway.

1) Caplan equivocates on the use of mathematics in mainstream economics - one of the defining features of real numbers is that they are additive, which implies that cardinal utilities are additive. This can be "worked around" by saying that "two apples are a fundamentally different good from one apple" but then what's the point of using cardinal utilities? At that point, cardinal and ordinal are formally identical where the cardinal values are arbitrary constants chosen such that they obey the ordinal relationship. Most importantly, you cannot do calculus on such numbers because the slopes are meaningless. If there is no arithmetic relationship between the utility of one apple and the utility of two apples (utility as a function of quantity), then there can be no derivatives or integrals on such functions.

The answers that come out of analysis that takes the utility as a function of quantity is just what you put in. By choosing "nice" function such as the natural logarithm, you can make conclusions that seem very plausible but the fact is that they are gibberish because they cannot be translated back to real human preferences.

2) Caplan obscures the blatant anti-apriorism of mainstream economics. The central problem with mainstream theory is its refusal to reason about human behavior in terms of purposiveness. This is informed by a (misguided) believe that such reasoning is value-laden, as if the study itself becomes tainted by its subject. Austrian theory rejects this and takes a firm stance that it is possible to reason about human action (purposive behavior) in a value-free manner. Furthermore, this is the only useful way to reason about human behavior (see above the problem with translating from idealized preference functions back to real human preferences).

3) Caplan is confused about the role of empirical data in Austrian theory - there is a role for such data, it's just not a predictive role. Steven Levitt's (not an Austrian economist but his methodology is Austrian-compatible) Freakonomics is a good example of this kind of analysis in action. He goes back and provides an action-based theory of history, that is, explanations of specific historical events in terms of human ends/purposes. In order to do this, he applies the mathematical tools of statistics for which modern economics is so famed. But these mathematical tools are being used merely to "filter" the noise in the data, not to generate predictive models of human behavior - something which mainstream theory does not relegate to be impossible but which Austrian theory explicitly states is impossible.

There are other problems with his article but this is enough.

Clayton -

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:26:09 GMT

Allow me repeat myself:

"Slightly crude style?" Slightly?

You have to be kidding me.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:13:23 GMT

Autolykos:

"Slightly crude style"? Slightly?

You have to be kidding me.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:06:45 GMT

John James:
Hey, they guy may have 45 posts but he created his account almost a full three and a half years before I even knew about this place. I wouldn't necessarily call him a newb.

In my opinion, that still in no way justifies the unequivocally harsh response you gave him.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:05:55 GMT

Wheylous:
[John James] delivers. Don't mind his slightly crude style but do attempt to use the searchbar before posting it. After reading past threads, you can create a new one if still unsatisfied.

"Slightly crude style"? Slightly?

You have to be kidding me.

Re: Rothbard refuted!

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:05:53 GMT

Hey, they guy may have 45 posts but he created his account almost a full three and a half years before I even knew about this place. I wouldn't necessarily call him a newb.