GilesStratton: John Ess: In fact, on the free market the theories espoused by Krugman would be useless to anyone. And no one would pay him for the information -- Same applies for most Austrians and libertarian thinkers in general really.
John Ess: In fact, on the free market the theories espoused by Krugman would be useless to anyone. And no one would pay him for the information --
Same applies for most Austrians and libertarian thinkers in general really.
But I thought Murray Rothbard was a god! Who wouldn't pay the godman?!
Anton Sugar:So, no tolerance law on the basis of correct answers.
No, just no tolerance for accepting things without provisions to them.
By the way, the Mises Institute is quite a little authoritarian dictatorship. I think there's a small man on top with a very big power trip going on.
That's like saying the manager at Mc Donalds is a dictator for firing the teenager because he didn't like how he looked at him. It doesn't mean it's right, but it doesn't mean it has a damn thing to do with government.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
That's all true. I wouldn't obsess over most of the details of libertarian economic theory much either. It's important to understand why Mises and Rothbard thought the way they did -- and their work is important to a development of libertarian thinking (for the individual and historically). Much more so because I think they were more abstract and not so bent on endless details to be memorized. I do not think that it is important to memorize their every argument nor to convince someone of their every argument. I personally have not read everything the Austrians have ever written. In fact, I think people could read a few Rothbard books and be fine if they could predict the best use of time beforehand (outside of maybe some knowledge about the history of economic ideas in basic form). And of course outside of the Austrian school I find that this sweating the details about the state is even further exacerbated. Are they going to tell me something I don't know? That the conclusion is that the state is evil and a bringer of mischief? Well, I already know that.
To the other person that mentioned economic forecasting: to some extent this is true. But if statism allowed one to calculate (if only people had Krugman's book) then it would hold that the state is a perfectly good planner and that it is in general just the public's lack of knowledge of how to adjust. How many Austrians, in fact, take advantage of economics degrees to run businesses exploiting knowledge about the state's subsidies? Is Krugman himself in business or in academia/article writing?
Nice job on "precious Mises and Rothbard." I lol'd at this James Bond villain impression. Mises and Rothbard are my internet girlfriends, it's true!
John Ess: Since anarchism depends on ethics and does not depend on expected results -- that is economic outcome -- why do you think economic data gathered by Krugman would be important at all?
Lol, you are a Molyneux fan boy after all with his whole "argument to morality" nonsense. Anything that contributes to our understanding of economics in general is important, whether or not it is a contribution towards anarchism. Otherwise why stop at economics? Let's stop our study of everything that isn't ethics. In any case, aside from studying economics as an end in itself, people simply aren't going to accept anarchism if they think it'll reduce the world to poverty, no matter how justified it may be from an ethical perspective.
I can only laugh at the majority of people calling Krugman partisan on this topic because that's exactly what I'm seeing on this topic. Not that I know anything about Krugman, but after reading this topic I'm all of a sudden interested in buying a copy of Pop Internationalism.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Austrian economic theory does not depend on expected results either.
Why did Murray Rothbard write the Ethics of Liberty?
What do you think is at the heart of libertarianism... collections of economics facts... or the non-aggression axiom? The fact that you think this is nonsense or worse that Stefan Molyneux has implanted in people's heads is a bit silly.
Why is "anything that contributes to our understanding of economics" important? Why is this even true? And why does Krugman's book contribute anything more than other useless knowledge.
"Not that I know anything about Krugman" ha. I see. You can pick up a book on the millions of useless mathematical models of economics too. I'm sure when you get done, it will be time well spent. And you'll have one-upped Stefan Molyneux by being able to source these facts in imaginary conversations in the future.
John Ess:Austrian economic theory does not depend on expected results either.
Who is this even aimed at?
John Ess:Why did Murray Rothbard write the Ethics of Liberty?
I don't know, but I'm sure you do and can't wait to prove that.
John Ess:What do you think is at the heart of libertarianism... collections of economics facts... or the non-aggression axiom?
The NAP, by definition. This doesn't mean consequentialist justifications of libertarians aren't important or that they can't be used to convert people. The truth is you can't seperate economic theory and the ethical justifications of libertarianism, nor is it that easy to simply dismiss it as "collections of economic facts".
John Ess: The fact that you think this is nonsense or worse that Stefan Molyneux has implanted in people's heads is a bit silly.
No, I just think you're a Molyneux fanboy. I'm suprised you haven't suggested him for all the nobel prizes this year.
John Ess:Why is "anything that contributes to our understanding of economics" important? Why is this even true? And why does Krugman's book contribute anything more than other useless knowledge.
Ok, economics isn't important. Neither is biology, chemistry or in fact any other science. Any knowledge aside from ethics simply isn't relevant.
John Ess:And you'll have one-upped Stefan Molyneux by being able to source these facts in imaginary conversations in the future.
Ok, this is all about Molyneux really, I know he'd tell you that, but it isn't so. I merely want to read the book to form my own opinions about him, unlike you. If what most people here have said is true the work he received the prize for is actually good, if so, why not use it?
The Austrian school is not based on statistics or the effects of policy (like that found in Krugman's work: including Pop Internationalism) but simple theories that transcend economics in many cases. In fact, the most important thing about Austrianism is that lends toward freedom... not toward understanding more things about economics for its own sake (which I think is the sort of thing people who want indefinite tenure in academia thrive on). If anything, upon reading Human Action I was more aware of what should be limited as useful and/or accurate in economic discourse besides what seemed readily apparent.
The Ethics of Liberty is not about economics per se but ... "ethics." It's not nonsense. Working out a case like morality is not any different or awkward than natural law and things of that sort that are important to other anarchists. Stefan Molyneux, even, is aware of economics. I am aware of economics and have read it and continue to read articles on this site. But there is another dimension to anarchist thinking. I would even say more important and further: important even to economists.
Biology and chemistry and all science are driven by what is useful towards obtaining some human end. Mises himself used the example of ballistics. It was a science that improved not because people had a desire to know how this worked for its own sake (which would not be useful)... but because people shoot each other. I, then, do not have the periodic table of elements memorized just for the hell of it. But someone who exploits that knowledge towards some end most definitely does.
Are you here to troll? Because so far I see no indication otherwise.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: But I thought Murray Rothbard was a god! Who wouldn't pay the godman?! Are you here to troll? Because so far I see no indication otherwise. -Jon
Do you even know what that word means?
I do, and it's a valid question, especially considering you haven't posted for a long while and appear suddenly, out of the blue, just to attack other posters.
Jon Irenicus: I do, and it's a valid question, especially considering you haven't posted for a long while and appear suddenly, out of the blue, just to attack other posters. -Jon
How was I attacking posters? Other posters were attacking another poster.
No, they were having a discussion, more or less. I'm still curious what the comment about an authoritarian dictatorship was all about, if anything at all. I think people are justified in being pissed off that Krugman got this award, as opposed to how many other talented economists out there, although they could dispense with the hyperbole. Then again, it should be taken in context just what kind of award this is. Simply blandly labelling individuals as dogmatic cultists because they oppose Krugman's being given the award is, in my opinion, childish and most likely unsubstantiated nonsense. The exchange between Niccolo and others is heated because Niccolo has on many occasions before castigated others for being insufficiently anarchist. I'll only say I agree it's irrelevant to how good of an economist one is.
Jon Irenicus: No, they were having a discussion, more or less. I'm still curious what the comment about an authoritarian dictatorship was all about, if anything at all. I think people are justified in being pissed off that Krugman got this award, as opposed to how many other talented economists out there, although they could dispense with the hyperbole. Then again, it should be taken in context just what kind of award this is. Simply blandly labelling individuals as dogmatic cultists because they oppose Krugman's being given the award is, in my opinion, childish and most likely unsubstantiated nonsense. The exchange between Niccolo and others is heated because Niccolo has on many occasions before castigated others for being insufficiently anarchist. I'll only say I agree it's irrelevant to how good of an economist one is. -Jon
Really, because devoting several blogs/topics/articles/etc. to one little old man who will likely not that many people is not childish?How is having heated discussion worth banning a member, by the way?
It'd be much more preferrable everyone did something as adult as pretending to be a character from No Country for Old Men on a forum devoted Ludwig von Mises.
If you're bored by discussion that revolves around certain people, then you're free to go elsewhere. Like a proper roleplaying fantasy forum.
Yet another thread falling to troll accusations & ad-hominems. This is getting boring to read.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Really, because devoting several blogs/topics/articles/etc. to one little old man who will likely not that many people is not childish?
Ah so he won't be taken more seriously for winning the Nobel then?
How is having heated discussion worth banning a member, by the way?
Where did I say it is?
Yes, clearly it failed because of the troll accusations and not because of the abrassive and puerile attacks on other members, right?
I've read Krugman's work on trade and I agree he does deserve some applause for his advocacy of free trade (among Western nations) and understanding trade structures - he basically showed why it was beneficial for the UK, the Japanese, the Australians and the Americans all to make the same thing - like cars - and still benefit from one another. In other words, he quantified multiple competitive advantage as it encourages choice. Seems simple, yes, but no one had really quantified "multiple competitive advantage" up to that point.
I think this is awfullly ironic because marxists argued in deontological terms or "ethical" terms (i.e. questions of intent), as do most libertarians. In other words, its premises are rooted much like those of Marxism: intent and the harmful intent of the state. I am still of the opinion utilitarian arguments - like those of David Friedman - are the way to pursade why libertarianism is a credible alternative.