I’m a big wikipedia editor, and we’ve been doing a lot of work of the Austrian School definition lately.
Is Say’s Law generally considered a tenet of Austrian economics? If so, what are your sources.
I’ve read conflicting information on this question in the past.
Say’s law is a basic tenet of economics in general, regarded as ‘basically correct’ by practically every school of thought. Very few, if any, would doubt that it is true in the long-run.
Except Keynes.
Did Keynes dislike it in the long run?
I’m not so sure that Keynes cared too much about the long run…
Say lived before Austrian Economics, as a distinct school of thought, existed.
But all the Austrians accepted it.
Mises: http://mises.org/daily/1803
Rothbard: http://mises.org/daily/5985/Says-Law-of-Markets
Esuric:
Does anyone have a reliable source that says Say’s Law is a tenet of Austrian economics? Because that’s what I’m lookin for!
Thanks.
Pretty sure SmilingDave gave you two of them…two of the three most well known Austrian economists.
Or you could just read a significant amount of the literature on the subject and form your own fu..reaking opinion.
You could at least try.
Typing “Rothbard on say’s law” into Google gives this:
Just because it’s something Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard agree on does not make it an Austrian School tenet.
Please drink some bleach, kid. Please, assure me that the world isn’t filled with people so god damn dumb so as to say something like that.
We are talking about “intellectual history” there isn’t anything other than authorities than can be appealed to. There is no Rosetta Stone of Austrian “tenets” (as you keep referring to it/them…)
It’s like asking, “What is “the good” according to Aristotle? But please direct me somewhere other than Aristotle. Just because he defines it and recognizes it and builds his philosophy around it doesn’t mean that it “is” what I want it to be.”
You should be able to make a connection between the emphasized words there and what you are asking…if not, then fill the bath and grab the toaster.
Fuck.
Fuck.
Fuck.
Wow.
I’m trying to get a reliable source for wikipedia for definitions of the Austrian School’s tenets. So, I’m sorry, but “Hey, man, the three most famous guys who are generally considered Austrian economists agree on this, so that’s enough, because I just wrote it on a forum, so there” isn’t good enough for what I’m trying to do (which I explained on the outset). I need a reliable source (by Wikipedia’s standards) that it’s an Austrian School tenet.
So who’s the idiot now? Jesus.
Are you kidding me? What do you want? A reference from a book about the Austrian School saying that it’s a tenet? How is that more accurate than Austrian economists themselves saying that Say’s Law is accurate?
There is nothing in your OP.
You can’t cite three PhD’s? That’s not enough? What hypothetical example would satisfy this?
Ballsy move calling Jesus an idiot…
This. A thousand times. This. Res ipsa loquitur…
“Did Hitler hate Jews? No, no no. His diary and constant reference to them and their causing of problems isn’t enough.”
“Plato describes proper education in Book 6 of the Republic. Where can I get a defintion of Plato’s proper education that I can cite?”
“I’m a big wikipedia editor, and we’ve been doing a lot of work of the Austrian School definition lately.”
…“what are your sources.”
I could’ve been more explicit, but either way, unless you explain what your standard is for how we discern what the tenets of the Austrian School are, just asserting “Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard” doesn’t cut it.
Is that a bad standard? I don’t know. Maybe it’s the best one. But someone else could just as easily assert no. Maybe it’s 2/3. Maybe you also need Kirzner. Maybe you need the top 15.
“You can’t cite three PhD’s? That’s not enough?” Correct. That’s not how the site works.
THIS is the type of thing I’m talking about http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics.html
I don’t see Say’s Law there (maybe it’s implied, I’m not sure)
It’s how the site works. I’m not in charge of that. THAT’S NOT MY CHOICE.
Rothbard explicitly states it in ME&S. READ THEIR BOOKS, YOU NUMBSKULL.
**
Right there it is. Rothbard would be a secondary source of Say’s Law(s). Boom. You should leave the “educating other people” to people who are themselves educated.
I see now why you aren’t supposed to cite wikipedia in school.
You see, you can’t cite the academics…and they can’t cite you. But somehow, they have more credibility than people like you “editing” wikipedia…
FYI, Econlib.com is LESS reliable than the actual works by the actual authors.
I’ll side with the PhDs and my own perception and deductive ability over your dumbass editing on wikipedia.
Fuck it. It all gets bolded.
"Rothbard explicitly states it in ME&S." So now it’s an Austrian School tenet if just Rothbard thinks it? What about when Rothbard disagrees with Mises?
I see now why you aren’t supposed to cite wikipedia in school. It’s because it gets edited a lot (not necessarily because of its standards, although some schools might not allow citations of non-editable by pretty much anyone sites with similar standards).
I’ll side with the PhDs and my own perception and deductive ability over your dumbass editing on wikipedia. I don’t know why I have to say this again:
I don’t necessarily agree with Wikipedia’s standards. I AM interested in improving the site by ITS standards, which I’m NOT in charge of.
Also, you still haven’t explained what your standard for what constitutes an Austrian School tenet is. Is Say’s Law a tenet by any reasonable standard because all the popular ones agree with it? Okay, fine. I still think it’s necessary that a standard gets established for your irritation at Wikipedia to be justified (NOT me, I’m just trying to improve the site), because Austrian economists often disagree!
What about something where Hayek and Mises and Kirzner and Garrison think one thing, but Rothbard and Horwitz think another? Do you see my point?
I was going to say this thread is the worst one yet but Aristophanes’ Plato joke redeemed it somewhat. Is Wikipedia really that nonsensical?
Still, I’ll try to help you out. Steven Kates has written several works on Say’s Law in relation to the Austrians. Just picking a page at random, he states at p. 92 of Two Hundred Years of Say’s Law “The centrality of money to the Austrian view of the market is what enables Austrians to have an understanding of the role of Say’s Law very similar to Say’s own. From an Austrian perspective, Say’s Law is intertwined with the monetary basis of the microeconomy and the macroeconomic implications of every act of exchange involving money”
Is that good enough??