ok
I don’t know what you mean by this: "Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention…’
And I was asking, to put it another way, what “nature” (to use this natural law concept you provided) does Austrian economics show… “of the market system and government intervention.”?
See, this is what happens when you ignore the context of a given quotation in order to make a point. LibertyStudent and I were originally discussing whether or not it is correct that Austrians are unprincipled for working for the state. My point was that this isn’t the case, since one needn’t be a card carrying libertarian in order to be considered a member of the Austrian school. Without some sort of value judgement an Austrian economist is merely that, an economist, perhaps even one that recognizes all sorts of government inefficiency. But if one is merely an Austrian economist who makes no normative claims about the state then it is difficult to see how one can recognize their employment as inefficient, much less be unprincipled because of their line of work.
Austrian economics can show what the results will be of a given institutional arrangement. I don’t see what is so difficult to understand about this. Austrian economics can then be used by historians to determine which causal factors were in play at a given moment in time. I not once invoked natural law which is a normative ethical theory. So as far as I’m aware, you’re just confused at to the original content of my post. But if this is so I’m not sure why you proceeded to challenge me in the way that you did.
sure, he’s just an economist. then we talk about who pays him, and he might turn out to be a parasite.
but we were not talking about this or that economist, we were talking about the class of economists a huge subset of which
are state subsidised. and we were discussing the trends this would induce
Two questions before I post:
Now as for the bulk of your post, I’m going to ask that you provide some sort of criteria with which we can determine whether or not somebody is a parasite before you make such bold statements. As goes your second point, and the quotation you provided, I’d argue that it’s not really relevant. Even if you think that subsidies do slow down economic development, this is long way from proving that subsidies to intellectuals cause them to support statist policies. In any case, the economist in question is presumably speaking about adjustment in line with the desires of consumers. I’ll grant you that modern academia doesn’t meet the desires of consumers, but this has no bearing on whether or not the ideas are correct, or good, in themselves. IOW, you’re knocking down a strawman and assuming that the market for ideas is the same as the market for good ideas. The latter of which, I just don’t think is true.
So I’ve already got nirgraham to admit that Mises was a statist and socialist (although an admittedly incomplete one). Was he also a crank and a parasite?
Let’s pile it on! See how much fun these labels are?
Of course Mises was a statist and a socialist regarding defense. What’s the problem with stating facts ? Do you think Mises was god or one of his prophets ?
Parasites live by the power of government intervention. by the poltical and not the economic means…
I would argue that the first impulse it to become a worse economist and only a secondary effect would be ‘to become positively statist’
you just strawmanned me. impressive.
Don’t forget Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Kirzner and Hayek. Apparently the Austrian school is full of cranks, parasites, socialists and statists.
i’m sure you’ll find a way to deal with it. If you are emotionally mature.
Enough with the strawmen.
Obviously Mises was not a crank. I don’t believe he ever advocated the state over the market where he saw a role for the market.
But by Hoppe’s ideas on class theory, Mises when he worked for the state, would have been a parasite, even if he was performing a role we would consider valuable. The test is not utility, but morality.
Which leaves you with the following problems. To begin with there’s no way you can tell whether or not an individual and the services they render to society would be demanded on a free market and to what extent they would be demanded. So, definatively, you can’t say whether or not any given state employee is a parasite. This is of course, unless you wish to make the bold claim that you’ve solved the problem of economic calculation in a market that is not free. On a similar note, Austrian methodology also precludes the possibility of you saying whether or not a given state employee represents a net loss to society.
Finally, you’re left with the tricky implication that Mises, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and Hayek were all parasites. Do you want to admit that?
Well why don’t you argue that, instead of merely informing me of what you would argue?
I don’t really see how it is a strawman. Although, if you believe it is I’m going to have to ask for a more thorough explanation of your views and the way in which my representation of your views contradicts this. If not, I’ll merely assume that you’re “arguing like a Rothbardian”. Because, as far as I’m aware, when the argument concerning subsidies is applied to academia all it proves is that academia will be less likely to meet the demands of consumers, which is different from whether or not it will produce the correct theories. Unless, of course, you wish to state that the market for ideas is the market for correct ideas.
huh? i dont need to compare with anything. if they get their income by paycheck from the government each one is a certificate of parasitism.
sure. Though I dont know how many years Mises parasited compared to all that time he received private funding…
well why dont you tell me to do something instead of ask me why i dont do it ?
Wouldn’t this conversation be better continued in the “Does State Sponsorship Corrupt Economic Science” thread?
1). When a person refers to an objects “nature” that is natural philosophy and science. I was merely making a side note thus why the parenthesis. Not stating you were intentionally or not trying to do that.
2). I was asking what nature. What in particular or universal is this nature you are referring to. Not to only reassert the statement, but to discuss what “nature” you mentioned.
3.) I wasn’t challenging you. I was asking a question.
Not at all, in fact I’m probably more critical of Mises than many here. The point is that calling Mises a statist and a socialist makes those labels pretty useless. If someone said to you, “Oh Mises, yeah he was a statist and socialist,” do you think that is a good label?
The term socialism is not commonly used to refer to a particular function being performed by government, but by widespread government control over the economy. The same with statism. It seems clear to me that the term “statist” is most commonly used by libertarians as an insult.
:3
Wilderness, sorry for the confusion. I was perhaps using terms loosely, but I think that’s all you can accuse me of. I apologise for any confusion I’ve caused. I think that’s all you were asking to be honest. So I’ll rephrase what I original wrote and you can tell me if there’s still any issues I have, in case I’ve misunderstood your question. My point was nothing more than that economic science can tell us how things are, not how they ought to be.
nirgrahamUK, I get the feeling you’re being purposefully obtuse. Perhaps it’s because you’re being a pedant, perhaps it’s because you’re missing out and ignoring large chunks of my post. Nonetheless, I’ll indulge you.
But this doesn’t fit with the standard definition of a parasite. So whilst you may well use the term parasite in this way, it’s awefully ad hoc and perhaps not very fitting. Moreover, it doesn’t even fit the use of the term in the way that Hoppe and others here use it.
But this doesn’t fit with your definition of the word above, unless you wish to add more to your definition of the word parasite, you can’t draw anything but an arbitrary line between Mises and those who are in fact, by your standards, parasites.
Because I was hoping, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, that you’d answer it upon this comment. Instead you seem to be going out of your way not to answer it. So if you wouldn’t mind, get to it.
On the other hand, you could follow the example set by LS…
parasites are net tax consumers. ask lam if you are confused.