Economics Questions

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

scineram — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:32:36 GMT

But praxeology is not a simply deductive.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Dingdong Pu — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:32:47 GMT

They shouldn't set their face against the monetary system. They should support the denationalization of Money and real free trade.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Dan Bloomquist — Sat, 09 May 2009 17:23:14 GMT

DD5:

Jon Irenicus:

I've noticed whenever someone is too stupid to deal with Austrian arguments they begin by whining about this chimaera called the "scientific method".

It is obvious that those who make this remark do not themselves understand the "scientific method"...

'This' argument came up in another forum. Here is a paper I cited, well worth the read...

http://mises.org/story/2200

Best, Dan.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Knight_of_BAAWA — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:57:37 GMT

And yet that says absolutely nothing at all about logical deduction itself. Tell me: do you enjoy putting forth a whole lot of nothing and doing so often?

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Vichy — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:44:35 GMT

wombatron:

Anyone who calls logical deduction "guessing" isn't worth the time to debunk.

Well, one of the problems is that Kant's formulation and defense of a priori is simply not a sufficient - or correct description - of logical deduction. I do believe there is a justification for rationcination, but it is certainly not a Kantian 'a priori'. So, if all you had reference to as far as primary philosophy was Kant or the Rationalist, you would to that extent be justified in rejecting their arguments for inferential rules.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Dingdong Pu — Sat, 09 May 2009 05:55:40 GMT

There are 5 Chinese edition published in year 1946, 1989, 1999, 2005 and 2008.

There is a post the econmical forum of Tianya. page view over 100 000, reply over 3 000

http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/develop/1/171509.shtml

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

WisR — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:38:15 GMT

Conza88:

The ONLY valuable piece of information obtained from that thread :

"Economics in One Lesson, Bestseller in China

Chinese edition 《一课经济学》.

It has entered the bestseller list from Oct 2008, which means 20,000-30,000 in less than six months."

Awesome! Why haven't I seen a blog about this?

In the biggest bookstore here in Shenzhen (the thriving border city across from Hong Kong, sometimes ranked richest per capita in mainland China), that book is the only one based on Austrian economics I've seen (with the exception of Peter Schiff's Crash Proof, which I've seen a couple of times). But one of my wife's uncles has heard of Mises and his theories, even though he isn't interested in economics more than anything else.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Thedesolateone — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:22:45 GMT

DD5:

It is obvious that those who make this remark do not themselves understand the "scientific method". Scientific method does NOT mean equations and statistics. The key to the scientific method is substantiating or refuting an hypothesis by controlled experiments. Controlled experimentation is the key to infer causation to a phenomenon.

Since it is obvious that mainstream economics do not and cannot perform controlled experiments to verify their mathematical hypothesis, they are certainly NOT using the scientific method either. And since they have completely ignored praxeology, it is the Keynesians and monetarists who are relying on a purely mystical methodology.

I think this is a very good summary of the common critique of scientism in economics.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

BobT — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:25:15 GMT

Wow I had never heard of this Venus Project thing... at least they come out and admit they are ignoring scarcity instead of just doing it. I think that pretty much debunks it right away

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

DanielMuff — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:03:02 GMT

Damn it, not the Venus project again. I debunked it a year ago on RonPaulForums.com. "Resource-based economy!" Where one can simply enter the storage room and take all food he wishe without depleting the stock of it, not unlike communism.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Tony Fernandez — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:24:12 GMT

DD5:

It is obvious that those who make this remark do not themselves understand the "scientific method". Scientific method does NOT mean equations and statistics. The key to the scientific method is substantiating or refuting an hypothesis by controlled experiments. Controlled experimentation is the key to infer causation to a phenomenon.

Since it is obvious that mainstream economics do not and cannot perform controlled experiments to verify their mathematical hypothesis, they are certainly NOT using the scientific method either. And since they have completely ignored praxeology, it is the Keynesians and monetarists who are relying on a purely mystical methodology.

Science is based on hypotheses that can be falsified. Basically, you need to be able to prove things. Well, the only way to prove things is to isolate variables, change one variable, and observe changes. That is impossible to do in the economy.

There are 2 ways to know things: deduction and induction. Austrians and most philosophers use deduction. Scientists use induction. Both are equally valid, no reason to criticize deduction. However, induction can't really be used with the economy because it's too complicated to break down.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Josiah Schmidt — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:56:06 GMT

ivanfoofoo:

Check this one...

Henry Hazlitt:
But in any case, machines, inventions and discoveries increase real wages.

And the moderator replies:

VTV:
This assumes first of all that an employer is just going to raise the wages he pays out because the workers productivity has increase.

Sure he doesn't even know what a real wage mean.

I laughed out loud when I got to that part, and I had to just stop reading.

And therein lies the key fallacy in this guy's entire argument, other than having no clue what Austrian economics is actually about.

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

DD5 — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:54:54 GMT

Arvin:

This would actually be much more fun to debunk...

Very nice, they are talking about a socialist society.

I think the only valid refutation to this nonsense is the Economic calculation problem in the absent of free markets.

You must admit, they are very ambitious:

But with their economic system, the following may be more down to earth reality:

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:44:05 GMT

Right. And without a philosophical background it's very easy to mistake what Mises (as well as Menger or Hayek or Rothbard &c.) is saying, and then all too easily to evoke the "scientific method" as a bludgeon to deal with positions regarded as undesirable (yet whose veracity it is difficult to assault logically) and brush them off as "mystical" or "religious".

Re: Critque of the book "Economics in one lesson"

DD5 — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:38:33 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

I've noticed whenever someone is too stupid to deal with Austrian arguments they begin by whining about this chimaera called the "scientific method".

It is obvious that those who make this remark do not themselves understand the "scientific method". Scientific method does NOT mean equations and statistics. The key to the scientific method is substantiating or refuting an hypothesis by controlled experiments. Controlled experimentation is the key to infer causation to a phenomenon.

Since it is obvious that mainstream economics do not and cannot perform controlled experiments to verify their mathematical hypothesis, they are certainly NOT using the scientific method either. And since they have completely ignored praxeology, it is the Keynesians and monetarists who are relying on a purely mystical methodology.