No, never!
I am sorry, but economics, whether it be Austrian, Keynesian, or Chicagoan, are unable to predict anything with any accuracy, unlike the physical and natural sciences. Now, Austrian economics does the best job at explaining how we arrived at the results, by far.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Come now… he’s wrong, we all know it… but that type of chat is beneath this forum. We ain’t revleft.
You are being absurd. It is impossible to build a capital good without saving in current consumption. Is this phillosophy?? Just as it is impossible for man to engage in task A and B at the same time. He will have to allocate TIME between the two. This is a constraint of a physical law of the universe; TIME!!! Now according to you, this is philosophy. Why according to you? because I can’t predict exactly which task A or B will produce more value according to other human individuals, and thus A or B or both will prove to be unprofitable. Clearly this argument that any limitation in the prediction of the final outcome somehow invalidates the “time constraint” as a hard scientific fact is on the same level as the anti-logic arguments used to justify socialism.#######You are misunderstanding the science of human action. Accroding to economics (praxeology), the dependence of economic growth on time preference is a hard scientific fact! It is not philosophy. How much it will grow for a given time preference is a limitation of praxeology and that limitation is acknowledged.
And, apparently, Mises, but then again, he was a professor. I don’t think, as an aside, that we have any reason to conclude that something held to be true by professors is therefore false.
Clearly you can call people whatever you like on these forums. The proviso being that they’re religious, or more specifically Christian. So I just figured I’d make a point, if you can call people what you like because you believe them to be “irrational”, why not?
You can? Even if it breaks the forum rules? [:|] I could, but should I?
Well why don’t you call him a Schmollerite, instead of something so unscholarly…
Sure it’s scholarly: http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/06/22/how-to-get-19380-people-to-read-your-academic-work-the-f-bomb-constitutes-your-entire-title/
Rightio, whatever… you’re the mod…
And here I am thinking posts have to be civil and intelligent, where moderators lead by example… [8-)]
That’s a disheartening comment. I had a higher opinion of the conduct on these forums until recently.
Clearly, Mises is the greatest economist of his generation. What of the generation succeeding him in the Austrian school (Rothbard/Kirzner/Rizzo)? You have expressed your disapproval of Rothbard so who do you promote in your stead, if anyone at all.
I had an extended hiatus from this forum so I must ask: are you still a natural law anarcho-capitalist?
Praxeological sociology (an Austrian School of Sociology?) is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of anyone in the under-60 generation of Austrianism. Although I suspect that in the future his sociology will be revised, I can agree that this is a big step forward.
Is it similarly your view that one cannot advance economic science and liberty within the same lifetime.
OK that we can agree on. But you discount the power of intellectuals in shaping public debate. Whether the majority of economists are calling for FED intervention or not makes a difference in the layman’s political debate. The intellectual validation of Austrianism would be an event that validates a lot more pro-market argumentation in the public sphere. Wouldn’t this simultaneously aid those with moral reasons for being pro-market (libertarians) and practical support for those who believe markets help most people (AEists)?
However, the short-term option for liberty, the building of an anarcho-capitalist society on a small island would be a validation of both libertarian politics and Austrian economics, would it not? Would it not both show the success of spontaneous order and economic freedom in producing wealth as Austrians have predicted? Would it not simultaneously show the success of a stateless capitalist society?
I would much prefer a direct insult than a hidden one, which so many people love to do on the internet. Regardless, it sure seems pretty immature.
Yes. Just about everything is philosophy.
Well then, you don’t have an argument anymore. You’ve just contridicted your orginal thesis of ‘economics is phillosophy’ as opposed to sciense.
Yes, it does, despite your invalid example. Adding more dirt to one pile of dirt makes a larger-volume-and-area pile.
Yes, I have a degree in math.
Invalid question.
I understand your frustration, Giles. While we may disagree when it does come to ethics and political philosophy, the conflation of Austrian economics with a value system is worrisome. I do think this is a great forum and respect many of the users here.
I do not think you understood what I was saying. Again, pretty much any topic is philosophy, but not every topic is science. So no, I did not contradict myself. Philosophy came first, science came second. All sciences are philosophy, but not all philosophy is science.
In other words, 1+1 does not equal 2. Very good.
And math is not a science. Unless of course you use the word science so loosely that it applies to cooking, painting, automotive mechanics, and every other subject.
I have a degree in History, and I understand that there is no such thing as a “social science”. It is just plain history.
Also, I breezed through algebra and business calculus, so I know a thing or two about math.