That may be a better avenue for debate then a classroom, actually. He’s in control of the classroom, so he decides when the debate begins and when the debate ends, and in a certain sense, who “wins”. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with this, it can just be a little unnerving; he is the teacher and my superior, after all.
For example, he made the claim that the buyer (or consumer, either term works) will always, regardless of the situation, want to buy a good for the least amount of money possible. I argued that this isn’t true, that consumers weigh in other decisions in deciding what good to purchase; for example, Bob sells a car for $10,000 while Larry sells the same car for $15,000. If the nonexchangle goods for both cars are the same, then I’ll go with buying the car from Bob. But if, for example, I am in a feud with Bob, I may value giving my business to Larry and paying the extra $5,000 more then getting the car for the lowest possible price from my enemy. His response was to nod in understanding and say, “Well, you have a point, but people will always want to minimize the money lost in all scenarios.” He changed the subject, and that was the end of that.
But anyways, thanks for all the replies. I think I’ll just keep doing what I’ve been doing, approaching him after class to ask honest questions in a polite matter, and only engage him in debate when the need presents itself. And I think it’ll be a better course of action for me to take my time learning Austrian economics so that I can understand it thoroughly, rather than rush through it to win some petty debate with my proctor in a classroom of a measley 20 spectators.
EDIT: Is there something wrong with the “Quote” function? I tried to quote Sieben, but it didn’t work.
Yeah there’s something wrong with it. There’s a recent-ish thread on how to quote…
Your point can be put more succintly by saying that people always prefer less costly means… cost may or may not be a function of dollars. It can also be a social function as you pointed out.
Real life debates get messy if people aren’t civil or are uneducated. You would want to do a formal debate on debate.org, so look at some good debates to get a feel for how definitions/tags work.
And a general tip: argue as little with your opponent as possible. For example…
“Public education is really good because its really cheap and well funded. All of my teachers cared about me and I learned a lot and was able to be the first in my family to attend a community college. Because of the benefits of public education, the government should continue to fund it”
So nearly every proposition has flaws. You shouldn’t waste time trying to correct people’s retarded worldviews or premises because they almost always make a non sequitur to their conclusion. In this case, public education is good therefore we should attack innocent people and force them to pay for it. If you just point this out, you might not even have to argue against it. Most people will not defend such a barbaric position.
For example, he made the claim that the buyer (or consumer, either term works) will always, regardless of the situation, want to buy a good for the least amount of money possible. I argued that this isn’t true, that consumers weigh in other decisions in deciding what good to purchase; for example, Bob sells a car for $10,000 while Larry sells the same car for $15,000. If the nonexchangle goods for both cars are the same, then I’ll go with buying the car from Bob. But if, for example, I am in a feud with Bob, I may value giving my business to Larry and paying the extra $5,000 more then getting the car for the lowest possible price from my enemy. His response was to nod in understanding and say, “Well, you have a point, but people will always want to minimize the money lost in all scenarios.” He changed the subject, and that was the end of that.
The assumption that consumers would want to pay the least amount of money for a good possible is common even in Austrian economics. You are right that there may be situations where this wont hold, but such complications are often irrelevant to the particular question being considered. As I would imagine was the case with your teacher (the question he was considering was unrelated to feuds).
Rather than assuming everything your teacher tells you is wrong because you dislike his politics, i would take a moment to consider what he was saying and why he might be saying it.
I understand that. He was saying that money was the only factor taken into account when deciding what to purchase from whom. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear in my post.
Yeah, formal debates are better for everyone involved. I have the unfortunate problem of stumbling over myself when I haven’t prepared for a debate beforehand, or have written down notes to keep my thinking straight. That’s why websites like debate.org are so great; it gives you time to think about what you’re going to say and gather evidence in your argument’s favor.
A case can be made for either approach (subtlety v. boldness). I think each person can know better in each circumtance which one is the most appropriate. In generalities, I think it also depends on how good you are at debating. Certainly more socially inept people like me find it better to be more subtle, just because we feel we’d screw it up if we tried too hard
I think (crazy, I know) that it’s good to take advantage of the opportunity to learn from someone who knows more than you do. Ask questions - real, honest to goodness questions - when you don’t understand or disagree. A question is different from an opposite assertion. For instance, consider your point about non-monetary factors. His claim was that people want to pay less for the same good. Rothbard and Mises use this assumption. The cases your present in your challenge are cases where, because of psychic income, the goods actually vary.
Essentially, other people are capable of thinking. Non-Austrians are (sometimes) capable of thinking. They don’t knowingly hold their positions because they’re evil, or because they feel like it. They hold their positions for convincing (but wrong) reasons. You have to understand them before you can refute them. I am very happy to see young people swarming to Austrian economics (at least compared to the interest seen in the past) but I see too many of them jumping to “every mainstream economist/econ teacher/etc. is irredeemably stupid.” It’s just not true. It’s the same problem as I have with people who want to refute Keynes without having read him or knowing what he actually says.
There was a kid in my high school politics/government class who was an anarchist and he always used to get into fiery debates with my teacher (a conservative). I don’t really remember much of what he said, as I wasn’t very interested in politics back then, but I always enjoyed hearing him talk and he always made me think.
I don’t think you should hold back much in school, hell I know I regret not talking up enough in high school. Don’t be outrageous for the sake of outrage though. Only attack your teachers’ statements when they are clearly false or misleading. If you don’t have an issue talking in front of people in class, then go for it.
