Hello, just joined

Miscellaneous Newbies
1

Hello

I’m Achilles and i just joined the community, mises.org has been my homepage for over 5 months now, but i just now felt the need to participate in the forums as well.

A few things about me: I’m almost 20, currently serving in my country’s army (its compulsory for 2 f*****g years)

In October i’m heading to London to study Economics at LSE. My knowledge on Economics consists of the GCE A-level syllabus plus many books i ve read on ecnomics the recent years including: the worldly philosophers, Capitalism and freedom, Empire of Debt, Globalisation and its discontents and some less important: Shock doctrine, the world is flat, the RIse and Fall of LTCM, freakonomics and some other i cant remember.

Maybe the best non literature book i ve read till now is Fooled By Randomness, which i dont consider to be economics book.

Of course i read some articles of The Economist, FT and Mises.

I’m not the guy who says i belong here ir there easily, i even may never say i belong somewhere, either this is about politics, economics, sports, religions or whatever. Most probably i’m a sceptiscist. I consider everything and try to take the best from each ideology.

Anyway what triggered my to join the forums is that the last book i read is the Joseph stiglitz : globalisation and its discontents. While i read the book it seems that what he is saying is valid and i agree, then i come to this site or other sites and they completely disagree with reasons, and i agree again. The result is i get confused and go for some beer.

A week ago i read the article on businessnessWeek i think titled: “What good are economists for anyway?”

Many times i find myself believing this is very true. I dont think there is another profession with so many fundamental differences between ideologies, imagine what if half doctors said that a medicine is cure for X disease and other saying that it is the cause…

Now my first question for this community is: Why is keynesian economics the mainstream? Why aren’t there (or why i dont know of them) Austrian school economists at Department of Treasury (not just in USA), Political Scene, IMF, World Bank, or having popular columns in newspapers?? Why haven’t i ever heard the name Mises during my A level course, instead i heard Keynes, Milton Friedman and others???

Hello again!

2

Do you think any of those institutions would appreciate an economist working for them whose theory openly contested the very soundness of their existence?

Welcome to the site by the way. If you want some help navigating Austrian materials consult the reading list on praxeology.

3

It is intuitive and has been around longer?

Part if it probably has to do with the fact that Austrian economics is fairly new. A lot of the thought behind it is not, however, the actual coming together of the ideas is.

You would need to ask your instructor(s) for the course. He or she was uneducated? Who knows?

4

Keynesianism is actually fairly counter-intuitive (paradox of thrift in particular) and Austrianism is anything but new as far as economics goes (it predates Keynesianism.)

5

Really? Then why do so many people think the government going into debt is a good thing? Intuitively, it actually makes sense, and I understand how it makes sense to the general public.

As I stated, the ideas have been around a while, they just have not been combined until more recently. I cannot remember which Austrian economist it was, but in the 70’s, he was just starting to think about privatizing money, instead of just going to a gold standard. It was reposted as a Mises daily article a month or two back.

In other words, it is fairly pretty recent that we have the “fullness of the truth”.

6

Intuitively, spending yourself into debt makes no sense whatsoever. Keynesians require additional arguments to make nonsense like that verge on plausible.

Austrian ideas can be traced back to the Scholastics, and even certain ancient philosophers for certain theories in particular.

7

Not at the individual level, no, but at the government level. You seem to be equating intuition with logic. Intuition does not necessarily have anything to do with logic. Intuitively, one would think that we need a military for protection. Intuitively, one would think we need a government to regulate big bad businesses. Intuitively, one would think that if people are not spending money, that means people are losing jobs, and that therefore someone needs to spend money to create jobs. It takes logic and thought to get past intuition. And Keynesian economics is all about intuition.

I never said they could not be traced back forever and ever, or however far back you want to go, now did I. I said that it is only recently that everything has come together, meaning within the last 30 or 40 years. Did Austrian economics as we now know it exist back in the Scholastics? If so, then why did Mises have to write anything or any of the other Austrian economists?

8

Clearly, intuition is a very subjective matter because none of it even makes intuitive sense to me, or to anyone who has not been bombarded with propaganda and who asks for terms to be defined.

And as regards the rest the point is that Austrian economics is hardly new but has very deep roots. It is Menger who consolidated much of the corpus of modern Austrian economics, with Mises structuring what is today referred to it. But the concepts evoked span centuries backwards.

9

That is because you are educated and logical. At one time, I thought that regulations were necessary to fight the greedy companies. Intuitively, it made sense, until I actually had a real discussion with others who disagreed. Also, intuitively, socialism makes sense. It sounds wonderful! I mean, everyone working as much as they can and only taking what they need! That is why the pilgrims tried it. That is why Russia tried it. That is why it will be tried again and again. I mean, you have to admit, on the surface it sounds wonderful and like it should work. Most people, it has been my experience, are unable to get past their intuition.

Exactly. It is fairly recent that it has been structured. Even Mises did not fully understand Austrian economics as we do today.

10

Dude I think you’re stuck on that left/right brain test of yours. My intuition says a government going into debt is bullshit and is counter to everyday thought. Even parents taught me better than to spend oneself into debt. Get rid of this logic trumps intuition every time argument. I think intuition had a hunch that this government was bullshit way before I ever could logically put it together. Maybe your logic is getting stuck in a fallacy that logic and intuition are forever separate and logic can only be truthful and intuition is false - which is wrong by my experience.

11

I would say your logic was flawed to think socialism and regulations to fight greedy companies would make sense or maybe it was your intuition. You might be stuck in a flawed dichotomy taking that dichotomy for reality. Reality is not based on a clear delineation between logic and intuition, as much as your logic or intuition would like to be - they are not reality and therefore reality can’t be based on that simple dichotomy. You’re molding a bias in your opinion about intuitive people that’s not valid.

12

I don’t buy that it’s intuitive on its own, without being sufficiently propagandised into believing the rubbish necessary to actually form such beliefs.

And as for Keynesianism, as a complete system is even more recent than Austrianism. Its only earlier antecedent is mercantilism to an extent but like I said Austrianism can find its roots even earlier than that. Austrianism may be newer in its most refined form but then again Keynesianism has been resurrected recently much like it has, so I don’t think that holds true.

13

That would be your logic.

Most parents teach this, is my guess. But most do not teach that government spending is counter-productive.

Your intuition is probably a hundred times better than most. Who knows?

Intuition is subjective. Logic is objective. Intuition is like gambling, sometimes you may get it right, but most of the time you will probably get it wrong. With logic, you are almost always right.

I do not know why you think of yourself as intuitive. Were you raised as a libertarian? I ask, because if you were raised as a libertarian, then your intuition would be pretty irrelevant. Most people believe what their parents teach them, even if it is not true. I base this on the fact that most people are whatever religion they were raised as. So, it would be irrelevant as to whether or not libertarianism is true, if you are intuitive and were brought up as a libertarian.

14

Well if you do not think that the idea that “government spending is beneficial” is an intuitive argument, then I do not know what you think intuitive means. I don’t think it takes a lot of propaganda for people to believe that statement. I just think it takes a lack of thinking on the part of the populace.

If Keynesianism is intuitive and Austrian economics is logical, then the fact that we have only recently come to have a fullness of Austrian economics is very relevant.

15

no, I had a feeling the government was bullshit way before I comprehended it in any logical fashion.

My family did. They all talked about how it never made sense. We talk about how even the everyday person knows better than the government when it comes to money.

That’s subjective all this talk about gambling or logic is almost always right. The schools are full of people who profess one form of logic or another. Logic isn’t always correct though.

I’m human. I don’t know.

I think I was raised in a libertarian fashion. Life was more about God and helping other people. Government wasn’t anything to take too seriously, in the sense that, governments come and go but living a good, virtuous life is what was considered more important. I ended up in my maturity when I was on my own using peace as a guide and eventually understood self-defense is good in certain occasions. Is that what you’re asking?

Intuition is based on knowledge just as logic is. To fall into a base argument about reality being either intuitive or logical and which one is more right than the other is too conflicting. There is no context to this argument for on the face of it logic and intuition each hold value.

For example, people in a society of Obama and Kenyanians will need to depend on intuitive people to think outside the Bush-Obama-Bernanke logic box. On the other hand a libertarian-austrian can outwit a Bush-Obama-Bernanke in a debate. Bush-Obama-Bernanke are still using reason, but it’s flawed and causing huge strife. People intuit something is basically going ape-shit in this culture. We all agree, or most of us do. I see it as we all intuit this one way or another, and people are looking for reasons or a logic to stop the madness. Bush-Obama-Bernanke propagandized theirs all day and night and they offer grand national promises to fill this intuitive need to stop the madness. And when things do well Bush-Obama-Bernanke take the credit when the credit is not theirs to take. People fall for it cause we all intuit on some level a lack of quality going on in this culture. On the political level Obama-Bernanke are pulling out all the party poppers and people follow their logic cause they don’t know of any other logic. It’s the age old priest standing by the king and now-a-days it’s the intellectuals standing by the politician.

Individuals could use their own logic and wake up to a life that isn’t full of this madness if they turned off the TV for instance, or tried to be creative, studied, spent time with their family and realized what’s important in a good relationship, and they could figure out that if farmer Joe doesn’t get his corn crop in the harvest isn’t going to be that great. Thus the local farm market won’t have the local healthy food as much, etc, etc, etc,… but they like Obama-Bernanke logic. They want them to take over for all their desires instead of flourishing as individuals and living a quality life. Keynianism has it’s reasoning, though flawed, but it offers a logic none-the-less - it fills something between the ears and people are bombarded by it.

16

That’s very different from logic or no logic. Lack of thinking still pertains to a presence of logic though a lack thereof and most likely depleted of quality. It is human nature to reason, but some do this poorly and others more excellent. This is all actually descriptive of what the pursuit of happiness is.

17

so not one even tried to answer my question??

18

I thought we did. Was there something more in particular you were asking maybe? I apologize if it appears otherwise.

19

Guys,

Start a new thread on the specific topic you wish to discuss.

This line of discussion should not be happening in an introductory thread.

20

Around the turn of the last century (1900) many academic economists became apologists for state intervention, and as this led to them getting government appointed positions so long as they advanced arguments in favor of government policies that increased government power, the relationship became self-perpetuating and entrenched.

Therefore, academic economics is almost entirely devoted to educating students in the various schools of Keynesianism and monetarism because those offer arguments, however specious upon close examination, for government policies of state intervention in the economy.