from wiki, we see how fallacies follow fallacies
Thanks for the information but that’s what I meant: People don’t attempt to maximize utility, they do so by definition. Utility is an integral part of action and you can’t separate them: One becomes meaningless without the other. As far as I understand, behavioral economics agrees with this notion of utility.
I don’t see the inconsistency, people maximise ex ante utility, saying that people attempt to maximise utility is just admitting the possibility of error. I don’t ever recall Austrians denying this. Of course one can analytically separate utility from action, unless you’re claiming that preferences only exist at the very moment of action, which doesn’t seem like a very sensible position to me.
I know behavioural econ takes issue with expected utility, unfortunately, I don’t know enough of it to say any more than that.
This borders on trolling.
Excuse me? The vast majority of Austrian economists outside of methodology and history of thought work in the field of political economy. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, basically every GMU student ever and a bunch of other people at the MI all work on political economy, which draws on political science.
I’d like some justification for calling me a troll please.
Milton Friedman wrote “Free to Choose” and “Capitalism and Freedom,” and Keynes wrote “The End of Laissez-Faire.” Does that mean that Monetarism/Keynesianism are “somewhere on the border of political science and economics?”
The fact that you cannot differentiate between AE and the political philosophy of Rothbard, Hayek and Mises implies that you are entirely ignorant of the former.
see:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/groups/memberissues/forum/t/19164.aspx
I don’t know how to respond there.
Hayek’s a bad person to use here, his work was on the border of numerous disciplines, relevantly, two of those disciplines were economics and polisci. Yes, all three aforementioned economics did work in political philosophy, but all three of those also worked in positive political economy; Socialism, ME&S and the Road to Serfdom respectively being the most indicative.
It’s a little hard to argue this, because of the dispersed nature of Austrian economists one can’t use departments or journals as a proxy. But, the major Austrian research institutes all specialise in positive political economy.
Is this seriously so unpalatable to call me a troll and an ignoramus in two successive posts?
Answer my question. Here, let me repeat it:
I’m not saying that you are an ignoramus; I’m saying that you are ignorant of AE. Stop victimizing yourself.
The fact that Friedman and Keynes wrote 3 books between them hardly means that their schools of thought are on the borders of political science and economics. I can’t testify for Keynes but I’ve read Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, they’re not research, they’re policy advocacy. This isn’t mean to be demeaning in any regard, they’re great books, definitely two books every non economist would do well to read. But, he doesn’t present anything new, he takes standard results from economics and puts them in a form laymen can understand.
This is going to be really difficult unless you start defining your terms. Do you mean UofC? Because according to this source (http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.pol.html) they’re number one department in the world for positive political economy. Of course, they’re also number one for micro theory, metrics and a whole bunch of others). Or do you mean (the now defunct) Chicago school of macroeconomics? Because the latter question would make absolutely no sense at all.
As for Keynesians they’re politically motivated ideologous, so bad example.
You’re all over the place man. I don’t even know what you’re talking about. You said that Austrian economics “borders on politics and economics” because some Austrian economists have written political books. I then pointed out the fact that many Monetarists and Keynesians have also written extensively on politics and cited a few (out of many) examples. Thus, according to your logic, the Austrian, Keynesian, and Monetarist schools of thought all “border on politics and economics.”
Are you confused or am I confused?
Let me put it this way, over half of the senior faculty of the MI have done some work in political economy. Excluding the MI, all of the major Austrian economics research universities (GMU, WVU, Suffolk) specialise in political economy.
I don’t know why you’re so hung up over this fact.
I’m not sure people here understand what “troll” actually means; no one that I’ve even seen here qualifies–there’s no spamming of bad jokes, epithets, or relentless harassment. I’ve found more hostility from uncriticized members of this community (e.g., Caley McKibbin).
Esuric, it’s okay to have multidisciplinary thinkers–whether they be Austrian or Keynesian; it’s not okay to claim one’s field is or should be left uncontaminated from the intrusion of other studies (e.g., psychology, biology, etc.). That’s all. And it’s especially not okay to claim virginal purity when one’s field is comprised of thinkers who openly venture into other areas (e.g., political philosophy).
I’m an out-and-out support of economic imperialism; of course, I also believe it’s worth tracking how other fields apply to economics.
multi-discipline is different from inter-discipline.
Yes, and I think both are applicable.
First of all, your opinion on “what’s okay” and what “isn’t okay” is entirely meaningless to me. Next, this is not what I’m talking about. He said that “AE borders on politics and economics” because many Austrian economists write about politics and political philosophy. But many Keynesians and Chicagoites also write about politics and political philosophy. Thus, if we accept his definition, then Monetarism and Keynesianism also “borders on politics and economics.”
Is my reasoning flawed? Furthermore, GMU/MI/SUFFOLK =/= AE anymore then Berkley = Keynesian economics. Economic paradigms are not research universities; they are defined by their method.
Next, this is not what I’m talking about. He said that “AE borders on politics and economics” because many Austrian economists write about politics and political philosophy. But many Keynesians and Chicagoites also write about politics and political philosophy. Thus, if we accept his definition, then Monetarism and Keynesianism also “borders on politics and economics.”
We need to make a distinction here between research and advocacy. Many, many prominent economists have published books arguing for their political beliefs, possibly invoking economics to make the point. But this isn’t equivalent to active research that draws on fields like political philosophy, political science and economics as a great deal of Austrian economics does.
I’m not talking about the Austrian paradigm, I’m talking about modern day Austrian research a whole bunch of which draws on sociology, public choice and political science. Obviously it’d be an arduous task to count the articles that are interdisciplinary in their approach as compared to those that focus on other areas, so I’m using the main fields of the research universities as a proxy.
As an aside, why you’d choose to equate Berkeley with Keynesian economics is beyond me, they specialise in public economics and behavioural economics if I recall correctly.
The top Keynesians during the “great synthesis” came from Berkeley and MIT (“saltwater macroeconomics”).
No it doesn’t.