I have read some works by Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Adam Smith, and Ayn Rand; and they all seem to be correct!
What are the primary philosophical differences between these individuals, especially Milton Friedman and Ludwig Von Mises.
Furthermore, what distinguishes that Austrian School from classical-liberal economics, or free-market economics?
I am a thinker and a student of history, political science, trends, and international relations, but economics is my weakness. I intuitively know that free market economics is correct, and history demonstrates that. But within the very general "free-market economics," what are the different variants? What are the great debates between free market economic thinkers? What are the different schools of economics that consider themselves to be free-market oriented?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am seeking to start a private equity fund with the intent of "betting" against the commercial real estate and retail sectors in the United States. As the basis of our business plan will be rooted in economic theory to justify why betting against these sectors through short-selling etc will be feasible, I must fully understand why these sectors are doomed to collapse. I need some answers fast. I believe that economics, as with most mathematical problems, has one correct answer and many false answers. I do not view economics as matter of different opinions, but rather as a science in which there is one correct school of economics with all others being incorrect. I am a firm believer in the power of the free, deregulated market to sustain a high standard of living and elevate societies from poverty to wealth. I blame the actions of government for the current economic crisis (manipulation of interest rates, high taxes, federal reserve system, abolition of gold standard, inflationary spending etc.). What I am getting at here is this: I intuitively know that the answers to our current economic crisis can be found in the literature and philosophies that support free market economics. However, within free-market economics and/or libertarian economics are many different variants. In seeking to predict future trends one must adhere to the correct school of economics. Are there are free market economists or thinkers out there that can explain to me some of the different schools of economic thought within 'free-market economics' and give me the differences between them? Can anybody provide me with a compelling argument for a single school of economic thought within laissez-faire economics that is the most accurate school thus conceived of? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to respond to this post of just email me.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Stephen Estes
University of Southern California
AJ, yes. If there was a publicly available model that made accurate predictions about stock market prices, then--get this--investors would apply the information, thus correcting the prices!
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
nirgrahamUK: AJ:Don't many investors claim that they make their money by identifying government distortions in the market? impossible ! other investors would have already done that ... (tee hee!)
AJ:Don't many investors claim that they make their money by identifying government distortions in the market?
impossible ! other investors would have already done that ...
(tee hee!)
As absurd as that sounds, that is the point I am making!
There is an old joke, widely told among economists and one that I've already shared, about an economist strolling down the street with a companion when they come upon a $100 bill lying on the ground. As the companion reaches down to pick it up, the economist says "Don’t bother — if it were a real $100 bill, someone would have already picked it up."
its funny because its *absurd* and makes a mockery of *science*.
you aren't actually supposed to believe that there are literaly no $100 bills lying on the floor anywhere in the real world. this is what happens when you build a model to help you clarify your thinking, only it renders you completely unable to say anything that is not absurd.
we aren't in equilibrium, there is only a tendency towards reaching it.
the tendency is not mechanical/automatic, it is the result of individual agents striving to profit under a regime of private property and competition.
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
Of course I believe there are dollars lying somewhere out there.
The point is that there are very few, they won't last long, and it's complete luck to stumble upon one!
if not complete luck, since my odds are better if i go and look at many floors than if i stay in bed
Okay, now imagine if millions of other people were looking. Some of them dedicating their entire working days to it. How are your chances?
That's all I'm saying.
what you are saying is that you can sometimes be reasonable, and you can present your abstract models (thought experiments) as what they are, present with all their imperfections , qualifications, and with warnings of what should not be deduced to be true about the real world despite the seductiveness of the model.
but routinely you just say 'we are in equilibrium now and always'. you aren't being consistent.