Economics vs. Crank Studies

[hayekianxyz]

@Lilburne

That Robbins was the first to formulate the criterion it does not imply that he was the first to adhere to it. Much of the writings of economic theorists since the scholastics did adhere to the notion of scarcity.

Once again, you’re missing my point. Before Robbins there was another definition of economic science, so I think it’s a little odd to say that what was economics 100 years ago suddenly stopped being economics once Robbins formulated his definition.

@Lilburne

Yes, Keynesians accept the reality of scarcity to some extent; but they also do not accept it to some extent. Note that I specifically said “to a greater or lesser extent” as opposed to saying that they did not accept it absolutely.

But this is as much of a concession as I needed, if they do except it to some extent, then clearly they are economists, albeit inconsistent ones. I’d agree with the latter charge, not so much the former, and much less so once we assume that if they’re not an economist they’re a “crank scientist”. Which leads me to think that your entire OP was nothing but rhetoric.

@Lilburne

BTW, since names are like talismans to you, Roger Garrison has written that in Keynes’ doctrine "the perennial problem of scarcity never comes into play. And F.A. Hayek wrote:

Yet it is some such world as this which is treated in Mr. Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, which in recent years has created so much stir and confusion among economists and even the wider public. Although the technocrats, and other believers in the unbounded productive capacity of our economic system, do not yet appear to have realised it, what he has given us is really that economics of abundance for which they have been clamouring so long. Or rather, he has given us a system of economics which is based on the assumption that no real scarcity exists…

(excerpt included in A Tiger by the Tail: The Keynesian Legacy of Inflation)

Once again, I understand this. I don’t need a lecture, nor do I need ad hominems levelled against me. Nonetheless, you yourself admitted above that Keynesian economists do to some extent realise the problem of scarcity (or else, what exactly do you think the supply curve means on ASAD diagrams?). Keep in mind, Keynes did quite some time ago, economic science has advanced since then. If you wish to restate your case to say that Keynesian macroeconomists aren’t economists, you’d be closer to the truth, but still not quite there, for the reasons noted above.

@liberty student

@GilesStratton

You’d rather adopt Hoppe’s absurdly simplistic view of “good” and “bad” scientists, which might as well be synonomous with “Austrians” and “everybody else” respectively.

We frequently compromise because we’re do not value logic over love or compassion or sensation. But that doesn’t mean logic is not simple. Logic is simple, life is not. Don’t conflate an irrational existence as a refutation of a logical existence.

What, exactly, does this have to do with anything that I just said? My point was that Hoppe’s view of economic science and those who dedicate their lives to is far too simplistic. Hoppe would have us denounced various fellow travellers for whatever reason, I didn’t even mention compassion, sensation, love, logic, irrational existence or whatever else you’re rambling on about.

@liberty student

I have refuted this with a source last week. Mainstream science is completely corrupted by the state, and actually diminished in it’s aggregate resources due to crowding out. The reality is that you and others can get a university degree due to subsidization that you may not deserve, and because you are divorced from the true costs, may not strive to earn. It’s a waste of resources. It’s inefficient. Who says we need economic science in its current form and direction? Certainly the market has made no such determination or offered any endorsement of such.

So before you and Lam argue for state science, at least have the intellectual honesty to own up to the fact that the science you argue for is insulated from, and likely never to be challenged within, the market. Then as economists, tell me how this is rational.

I’m sorry if I’m going to have to ask for some of support for these assertions, if you wish to claim that mainstream scientists are completely corrupted by the state, I expect to see proof. It seems a bit odd to say that scientists such as Becker, Stigler, Friedman, Knight, Lucas, Coase, Buchanan etc. are corrupted by the state when most of their careers were dedicated to showing its inefficiencies and explication the means by which a free market might function. It also seems a bit odd to say that scientists who have quite a great extent of academic freedom are corrupted by the state, I just don’t see how this works. Perhaps it’s more correct to just say that economics took some wrong turns in the course of its development and has suffered from them since. Not to mention the problematic aspect of your argument, namely that great economists such as Mises, Menger, Tullock and others were free market guys who nonetheless worked for the state. Of course, then there’s the countless other economists of the Austrian school who work at state subsidized universities.

Apart from this, I can’t make out what your point is. You seem to be saying that Austrian economics is correct then proceeding to claim that the current economic science is not what the market demands. Of course, this leaves you in the place of a central planner: attempting to guess what the market actually wants. It seems you too suffer from “The Fatal Conceit”. That something is demanded on the market has no bearing on whether or not itis true or even good.

And for whom exactly is it a waste of resources? Not for me certainly, and without some sort of value judgements, you can’t get where you want to.

[Torsten]

@liberty student

We frequently compromise because we’re do not value logic over love or compassion or sensation. But that doesn’t mean logic is not simple. Logic is simple, life is not. Don’t conflate an irrational existence as a refutation of a logical existence.

Or perhaps a logical argument. And that’s not even about rational or irational. The problem is that in real life there are many possible factors that went unconsidered within the assuption and premises formulated in an argument. A perfectly logical argument can lead to conclusion one can or should not implement as decisions, because the assumption made neglected certain facts that were possibly difficult to grasp for the actor.

@liberty student

@GilesStratton

Here’s the thing, the fact that mainstream economists are pro-State has very little to do with the fact that it signs their paycheck and everything to do with the way that modern science has developed.

I have refuted this with a source last week. Mainstream science is completely corrupted by the state, and actually diminished in it’s aggregate resources due to crowding out.

I’d agree with you that state-funding has got something to do with the expressed opinions and conformity of teaching staff at Universities. This is something that we right now can observe at South African Universities right now. The oligarchies at Universities bend over to implement policies they think those having political power do expect from them. The conformity of teachers, researchers with attitudes towards the state however, has more to do with the hegemony of certain schools of thought at Universities. And make no mistake about it. For decades there is a Neo-Marxist hegemony in the humanities and social sciences at Universities in Western Countries. This is the case at most state-sponsored Universities, but I think it’s not that different at private Universities (correct me if I’m wrong).

@liberty student

The reality is that you and others can get a university degree due to subsidization that you may not deserve, and because you are divorced from the true costs, may not strive to earn. It’s a waste of resources. It’s inefficient. Who says we need economic science in its current form and direction? Certainly the market has made no such determination or offered any endorsement of such.

True, I add that someone that didn’t pay for his own studies doesn’t even value it that much. Just that the market is not an actor that “makes determinations”. It’s a bit more complex. The point is that the role-players involved don’t pay with out of their own pockets for research, development and studies. Since others have to pay, they do take it on the light shoulder and don’t really care what is taught and what the quality of teaching is.

@liberty student

So before you and Lam argue for state science, at least have the intellectual honesty to own up to the fact that the science you argue for is insulated from, and likely never to be challenged within, the market. Then as economists, tell me how this is rational.

I’d argue that one a bit different. The problem is that academic institutions aren’t independent from the centralized institution called government. What we would need is academic institutions that are funded by individuals and/or civil associations. But since the tax-funded academic institutions have dumped the market with underpriced courses, the need for private (more expensive) academic institutions doesn’t feel that strong right now.

[laminustacitus]

@liberty student

I have refuted this with a source last week. Mainstream science is completely corrupted by the state, and actually diminished in it’s aggregate resources due to crowding out.

As Gilles has pointed out above, LS conveniently leaves out the countless Austrian economists who have been employed by the state. He’s willing to give exceptions to the rule for whomever’s science agrees with his preconceived notions, I’d like to see him dismiss Mises’ Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel because at the time he was at the statist University of Vienna, and dare I mention Bohm-Bawerk’s service as Austria-Hungary’s Minister of Finance, which definately means that Bohm-Bawerk was a mere puppet of statism, and therefore we must reject his economics - thus destroying the very foundations of Austrian economics.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@GilesStratton

If you wish to denounce the entire (or most of) the economics profession as “crank scientists”, you’re going to have to provide some criteria for doing some.

If you believe that humans are reducible to mathematical equations…you might be a crank scientist.

If you believe in the labor theory of value…you might be a crank scientist.

If you believe that expanding the money supply willy-nilly will not cause inflation…you might be a crank scientist.

If you believe that spending what you don’t have will get you out of spending what you didn’t have in the first place…you might be a crank scientist.

If you believe that creating new bubbles is a good thing and then you deny ever having said that, despite having it on the internet for all to see…you’re not just a crank scientist but a lying sack.

If you believe that you can help the poor by making it more expensive to hire someone…you might be a crank scientist.

If you believe that we are all our brother’s keeper…you are a crank scientist.

How’s that for starters?

[Lilburne]

@GilesStratton

Very few academics are Keynesians, much less traditional ones.

The argument contends that anyone, Keynesian or not, who believes greater prosperity can be engendered through manipulating the money supply does not fully accept that a currency unit is neither a production nor consumption good, and therefore does not fully accept scarcity.

@GilesStratton

If Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods are still criticizing Keynes, then yes, they should stop. Because nobody is Keynesian anymore. And they should also stop because as countless Austrians have noted, there is some worth in the writings in Keynes.

Does the existence of “some worth” make someone’s work immune from criticism? Is Paul Krugman not a Keynesian? Has Keynes’ doctrines not influenced economists who are not, strictly speaking, Keynesian?

@GilesStratton

Here’s the thing, the fact that mainstream economists are pro-State has very little to do with the fact that it signs their paycheck and everything to do with the way that modern science has developed.

@GilesStratton

Here’s the thing, the fact that mainstream economists are pro-State has very little to do with the fact that it signs their paycheck and everything to do with the way that modern science has developed.

@GilesStratton

Now, do you have any proof of what you’re saying, or is it just a baseless assertion.

@GilesStratton

It’s all very well for you to assume that the layman can contribute just as much as the professional, because you’re a…

Ever heard of a proportionate response, Giles? He says you stroke your ego, and you respond with what would, in person, be fighting words.

[hayekianxyz]

Bawaa, I think those are very ad hoc criteria. I don’t think any economists really think the humans are reducible to mathematical equations, just that the picture of reality depicted by those equations does approximate the real economy. Of course, there are those economists who do think that there is no need for their models to approximate reality, and those I most certainly disagree with. That said, I’m not sure how many economists do believe that, and I still don’t think it warrants the term “crank”. Perhaps I’m putting more weight on the word crank than you are, but I think it’s a serious charge. You seem to think it’s synonomous with economists simply being wrong. Also, as regards the mathematics used by economists, I think you need a picture of the sociology of research communities, these scientists just take the use of math in economics as a given, whereas Austrians take other, albeit less contreversial things for granted, it’s a bit harsh to call them cranks because of it.

The rest I either agree with you or, don’t think are relevant, or don’t think are harsh enough to warrant the use of the term “crank”.

[quoteuser=“Lilburne”]
The argument contends that anyone, Keynesian or not, who believes greater prosperity can be engendered through manipulating the money supply does not fully accept that a currency unit is neither a production nor consumption good, and therefore does not fully accept scarcity.
[/quote]

Ah, OK, now I’m beginning to understand this. Not only are Keynesians cranks but some members of the Austrian school are cranks too. However, by your definition new classicists are not cranks (in which case your OP is wrong). Your argument is something of a strawmen, people don’t necessarily advocate expanding the monetary base / credit because they think money is a production or consumption good. Rather, some of them believe that due to money’s role in an advanced economy there may be various misallocation of resources. IOW, money must be allocated precisely because there is, to some extent, articial scarcity. Now, whether or not you think it’s sound, this argument is a long way from yours.

@Lilburne

Does the existence of “some worth” make someone’s work immune from criticism? Is Paul Krugman not a Keynesian? Has Keynes’ doctrines not influenced economists who are not, strictly speaking, Keynesian?[

I’m not aware I said such a thing, but by and large Keynesian theory is dead. Especially as Keynes conceived it, as for Krugman, yes people should stop criticizing him. He’s a crank and quite frankly not worht the effort.

@Lilburne

Ever heard of a proportionate response, Giles? He says you stroke your ego, and you respond with what would, in person, be fighting words.

I don’t think what I said was particularly harsh, if he takes it as such, then perhaps he should stick to the topic at hand and stop engaging in ad homines himself. As far as I’m aware he’s proud of his lack of credentials and the rest was my opinion anyway.

May I ask why you’ve chosen to ignore my last, and far more relevant post?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@GilesStratton

Bawaa, I think those are very ad hoc criteria.

And I think you’re just not getting the comedy. Think Jeff Foxworthy.

@GilesStratton

I don’t think any economists really think the humans are reducible to mathematical equations

Then why do some keep trying to do just that with computer models of the economy and such?

As for your dismissal…yeah, I’m gonna hafta not really care.

[Lilburne]

@GilesStratton

@Lilburne

That Robbins was the first to formulate the criterion it does not imply that he was the first to adhere to it. Much of the writings of economic theorists since the scholastics did adhere to the notion of scarcity.

Once again, you’re missing my point. Before Robbins there was another definition of economic science, so I think it’s a little odd to say that what was economics 100 years ago suddenly stopped being economics once Robbins formulated his definition.

In the first clause of your second sentence you recognize two different definitions of the term “economic science”. The statement you find odd in the second clause would only be odd if one were using the same definition.

@GilesStratton

But this is as much of a concession as I needed, if they do except it to some extent, then clearly they are economists, albeit inconsistent ones.

How is it a concession if it was in my original post?

@Lilburne

Most “macroeconomists” today do accept that fallacy to a greater or lesser extent, and are therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, not economists.

[hayekianxyz]

@Lilburne

How is it a concession if it was in my original post?

Because that means that you’re going to have to tone down your criticism from “crank” to “inconsistent” by your own criteria, in which case I agree with you.

[Lilburne]

@GilesStratton

Because that means that you’re going to have to tone down your criticism from “crank” to “inconsistent” by your own criteria, in which case I agree with you.

It’s not just any inconsistency, though: it implies that, to some degree, the scholar is studying a hypothetical world of non-scarcity that falls outside the realm of economics. That qualifies as non-economics. I’m terming non-economics that is purported to be economics as “crank studies”. I recognize that not everyone would use the word “crank” in that way; maybe “pseudo” or “faux-economics” would be better.

[hayekianxyz]

Lilburne, perhaps I’m beginning to understand your position. I think I merely got caught up in your use of the word crank (although, the other terms you suggested are just as harsh). Whilst they may be studying a hypothetical world that does indeed fall outside of the realm of economics, I’d hazard a guess that if you were to ask them what the economic problem is, they’d give you an answer along the lines of most Austrians. Whilst it might not be any inconsistency, that’s all it is. And Austrians (including Mises himself) have been inconistent in this regard, would you be so quick as to label him a crank scientist? I wouldn’t, I consider him to be the best economist of the 20th C. The only way out of this is stipulating some arbitrary cut off point. Or, stop trying to label it “crank science” and merely point out where it is going wrong.

[liberty_student]

@Lilburne

It’s not just any inconsistency, though: it implies that, to some degree, the scholar is studying a hypothetical world of non-scarcity that falls outside the realm of economics. That qualifies as non-economics. I’m terming non-economics that is purported to be economics as “crank studies”. I recognize that not everyone would use the word “crank” in that way; maybe “pseudo” or “faux-economics” would be better.

I think you are entitled to call it whatever you would like to call it, and I wouldn’t let state apologists undermine that. It is crank science, just as so-called Misesians or Austrians defending the state subverting the market are cranks. Let’s point at and identify the cranks for who and what they are.

[hayekianxyz]

In this topic: we redefine the word crank.

[Rooster]

@liberty student

I think you are entitled to call it whatever you would like to call it, and I wouldn’t let state apologists undermine that. It is crank science, just as so-called Misesians or Austrians defending the state subverting the market are cranks. Let’s point at and identify the cranks for who and what they are.

Since Mises was not an anarchist, isn’t he also a crank then?

[hayekianxyz]

Repost of the original post that was moved for some reason:

I’m guessing you’re going to ignore this (although I wish you wouldn’t), but for any interest third parties, I’ll post my thoughts.

@liberty student

Where Mises saw the possibility of the market providing, he supported the market. He didn’t support a state alternative over a market one.

But this is no different from many other economists who see the market failing in various regards. The difference is that these economists see market failure as being more widespread than Mises did. Now, I don’t see why Mises should get a free pass whereas they other economists are held accountable to the extent of being called “cranks” and “hacks”. If you really wish to call them that, that’s OK, but you’d probably be better to provide some sort of scientific criteria for doing so.

@liberty student

I don’t think bringing up Mises’ time working for the Austrian government, or his time in Vienna is particularly relevant post-Rothbard. There are a good number of principled Austrians who do not take government money where they can help it. LvMI, a privately funded institution, seems to be the bastion of these folks.

For sure, others claim to do work under the Austrian banner while receiving state funds procured under threat of violence. As pure scientists, economic scientists, surely they must recognize the contradiction in preferring the state over the market, particularly if they are Austrians.

Why is it not relevant post Rothbard? Look, by your own standards in order to avoid being called a crank, Mises should have realised that the state is not necessary whatsoever. He didn’t, just like many other economists don’t. But even by your own standards your argument falls short of the mark, the government of Austria was not the minimal state that Mises proposed when he worked for it. So you’re left with the conclusion that one of the most influencial and profound defenders of the free market was unprincipled, I’m sorry, but I have to reject that.

Now, I don’t see why Austrians working for the government makes them unprincipled in the slightest. For somebody to call themself an Austrian, I’d say that all they need to demonstrate is some understanding of the teachings of Menger, Bohm Bawerk, Hayek and especially Mises (as well as others such as Kirzner, Rothbard etc.). But none of this entails the value judgement that “government is bad”. The belief that government is immoral and illegitimate is one held by libertarians, who often happen to be Austrian economists. But there is no a priori reason that they need be. Roger Koppl and Ludwig Lachmann are clearly Austrians, I don’t think either of them would consider themselves to be libertarians.

Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention, the desirability of either of them is up to libertarian political philosophy.

@liberty student

They must accept that their own research is being conducted inefficiently. I don’t think Mises would have disagreed with this premise.

I do, Mises was a strict advocate of value freedom in economic science, following Max Weber in this regard. Mises believed that in economic discourse only means should be discussed, now, what does this mean if not that any appeal to efficiency violates value freedom.

[wilderness]

maybe you’ll answer in this thread:

@GilesStratton

Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention, the desirability of either of them is up to libertarian political philosophy.

What nature of market system and government intervention does Austrian economics abstract?

[hayekianxyz]

I don’t think I’ve said it abstracts anything, at least, not in this post. So either you’ve not understood what I’ve said or I haven’t understood what you’ve said. If you’d like to reformulate your question in light of this, I’d be happen to answer it.

[nirgrahamUK]

@GilesStratton

@liberty student

They must accept that their own research is being conducted inefficiently. I don’t think Mises would have disagreed with this premise.

I do, Mises was a strict advocate of value freedom in economic science, following Max Weber in this regard. Mises believed that in economic discourse only means should be discussed, now, what does this mean if not that any appeal to efficiency violates value freedom.

How do you account for the fact that Mises often made appeals for laissez-faire? (and do you imagine that efficiency did not factor into his estimation of laissez-faire as the superior system).He was after all a champion of laissez-faire,

as LS is

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

How do you account for the fact that Mises often made appeals for laissez-faire? (and do you imagine that efficiency did not factor into his estimation of laissez-faire as the superior system).He was after all a champion of laissez-faire,

as LS is

Simple, Mises was, as Bohm Bawerk and Menger before him were, a classic liberal. I’ve never said Austrian methodology precludes people from being libertarians/ anarchists/ classical liberals as individuals. Just, Austrian methodology precludes economists from making value judgements, this means discussion of ends is out of bounds for Austrians qua Austrians to discuss. I would have thought you, being a self proclaimed disciple of Murray Rothbard, would have known that Rothbard critiqued Mises’ “value free” appeal to efficiency as being unsound. Perhaps not.

[nirgrahamUK]

do you remember the line of LS that you were critiquing? what premise of LS’s would Mises have disagreed with given that Mises was both a great economist and a classical liberal ?