We know that it is hated by positivists from Friedman to Keynes. We also know it is criticized for being unscientific and deductive in its formulation. It is not derived by the scientific method, per se. It is a claim about the pretense of knowledge: of price signals, of the how interest rates work, about time preferences, etc. it seems to be that all other theories but this one claim that a man in a building somewhere can masterfully navigate a complex economy. Regardless of polycentric attitudes and increasingly changing and fluxuating interests and demands.
There is also a sense in which the anti-Fed position is in many ways all of these things. It is also criticized for 'destabilizing' markets and undoing rational planning. Both decentering and the opposition to rational schemes of discourse and planning are both hallmarks of the postmodern. It seems to me that people claim that it is modern in that it supposes the superiority of markets in determining interest rates, money supply, which commodities are valued (like gold or silver), etc. But isn't the ABCT not a positive theory, but a negative one?
In the best case scenario, i think, it could be sold to either people who want markets or people who just want a skepticism of the current pretenses in economic discourse. From there, it hardly matters which way they want to take it. Since it is better that they understand it as it is than not to do so. But it might be worth wondering if the ABCT is postmodern in itself. Or if it contributes to that conversation in philosophy. If for no other reason than shining a light on how economic conditions get to be how they are.
One last note: it would seem that the Fed itself has a sort of postmodern ambiguity to it. It seems non-ideological or so we are told. It seems to be private, but at the same time 'private cannot be trusted to do its job the same way.' It is said to be in the public interest, but is not used by the public at all. It interupts the binary discourse about private/public and state/enterprise, because of this ambiguity. Far from demonizing the public for the good of the private, it might be worth exploring the fact that there is no such distinction. But that either terms have been intentionally chosen in order to create distinct spheres. And further emphasize the need never draw a distinction and to hold both as simply aggregates of people who must have the same rules. Again, this seems to be a further decentering; from a binary into perhaps an infinite of spheres. Where each person is held accountable.
ABCT is as scientific as anything.
I never understood polylogism. How on earth can 2+2 be something else than 4 in any other culture? Same goes for alternatives to praxeology of course.
Even if you were to somehow show that 2 + 2 = 4 in various cultures is not applicable, or that 2 + 2 is ultimately a meaningless concept, it doesn't show polylogism, as you are still demonstrating with casual logic why this is the case. Actual polylogism is incomprehensible to me, it would have to deny a plane of material reality, and even if that were the case; it does nothing to help the cause of communism, social democracy, or anything that anyonecan even contemplate. Polylogism is beyond any form of comprehension, it is secular theology.
Banking on polylogism is like banking on a nuclear holocaust to solve your termite problem. It is a desperate last resort of madmen to show they are not insane.
1. No, it's not postmodern. To suggest so reveals an incomprehension of both Austrian economics and postmodernism.
2. Austrianism is Kantian, relying heavily on synthetic a priori deduction. In fact, they claim certain knowledge--yes, certainty itself. This is an outrageous contradiction to postmodernism. I mean, apodictic certainty? Really?
3. You claim that the Austrian opposition to rational schemes of discourse and planning is a hallmark of the postmodern. The point, raised most forcibly by Hayek, is that the marketplace embodies a rationality that transcends human limitations. There is a place for human reasoning, but one must not overstep those bounds. But, ultimately, what is being praised is still an emergent, "ecological rationality" (as Vernon Smith appropriately names the phenomenon).
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
"The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." -- Milton Friedman
This is coming from a guy who believed Keynes to the day he died.
Neoclassical:"The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." -- Milton Friedman
This has the potential for being an interesting discussion if you can dig up what Milton thought was the proper evidence for his case against?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Caley McKibbin:This is coming from a guy who believed Keynes to the day he died.
Huh? He was an early advocate of Keynesian countercyclical policy, but it was by no means a lifelong belief. The quantity theory of money was challenged by Keynes, for cryin' out loud!
In the Free to Choose documentary, Milton Friedman says that Keynes was one of the greatest economists.
John Ess:In the Free to Choose documentary, Milton Friedman says that Keynes was one of the greatest economists.
So?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
You have to admit such ideas are fun, creative, and hit upon ideas worth considering. Frankly, I'd like to know what he meant by "greatest" and the fuller context.
here is the clip (the whole thing is worth watching, but he talks about Keynes in the last 2 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8
Thanks!
Friedman = Keynes on money
Do you think you're going to prove the ABCT is not scientific by quoting Friedman, here of all places? Please, get a grip.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:Do you think you're going to prove the ABCT is not scientific by quoting Friedman, here of all places? Please, get a grip.
Why would Friedman have opposed the view if the evidence was available?
He had just as much incentive to believe the ABCT, given his laissez-faire ideology. Frankly, when it comes to confirmation bias, the Austrians are guiltier than most.