You made a strawman argument. Don’t do that again.
Keynesians are science geeks. They want to know everything about economics. I was arguing that EVEN if the only thing GDP was good for was telling us current economic conditions it would be useful. (Obviously I believe GDP is far more useful than that and that we can’ and do make predictions about what causes it to fluctuate and the underlying dynamics involved)
Wow! You play World of Warcraft and think computers best use is for online videogames. (This was an illustration of a Strawman)
Well, I admit that generalizing about physicists as I did is kind of sloppy, but bear in mind that ideas such as the Copenhagen interpretation of QM are not something that popularizers came up with, rather Bohr and Heisenberg did.
On the other hand, things like Schroedingers cat were meant as illustration of the absurd situations that would follow from a disconnect between the microscopic and the macroscopic world. Also, replacing determinism with probability is flawed. Here are some notes from Mises : The Paradox of Probability Empiricism http://mises.org/books/ufofes/ch1~6.aspx
There’s a related and more interesting passage in, I think, Theory and History, but I can’t find it now.
Well, it simply means that theories (read: forms of insight) are relevant within a certain domain or context, but become unclear when extended into new ones.
I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what many “modern physicists” believe, tbh.
This is correct, I believe.
Keep in mind that the Copenhagen interpretation is but one of many interpretations of QM. I’m more of a fan of David Bohm’s theories myself, which I think lead to some very interesting insights.
Yeah, Mises has some interesting thoughts on this stuff. Usually what I see happening is either various logical laws are confused for one another (the law of contradiction for the law of the excluded middle) or they’re confused for something they’re not (e.g. something can’t be an apple and an orange, or a particle and a wave, when what the law of contradiction says is it cannot be and not be an orange, for example) or confusion of epistemological issues (vagueness/uncertainty) for metaphysicaly issues (e.g. many repudiations of the law of the excl. middle suffer from this issue, and again they usually formulate the law incorrectly.)
Jon, yes, my example about wave/particle duality was a bit lame since it’s possible for the entities in question to have both wave/particle properties.
I read his article and he did a great job of using empirical evidence to make possible predictions. I noticed he gave himself a lot of outs with some vague language. I don’t blame him, but a more consise prediction would have been nice. (“Given the government’s encouragement of lax lending practices, home prices could crash”) Overall it was great empirical analysis, and I won’t even question if he stole his thesis and give him full credit.
I assume you will admit LOTS of Keynsians predicted the housing bubble as well. If not, here is one of the biggies :
Shiller wrote all about the housing bubble in his 2005 edition, in addtion to many scholarly articles. He was not nearly alone, as lots of Keynesians predicted a bubble.
Greenspan, predicted what your link called "Rather, the air in housing bubbles tends to leak out slowly—painfully slowly—while in commercial real estate markets there is a more noticeable hiss" This is exactly what Greenspan predicted. Not to take anything away from your article, but Greenspan reached the same conclusion only later. So your Austrian beat that 1 Keynsian to the punch for sure. (In addition to countless others he beat)
I never said it always predicts gdp within .75%. I said in several responses, that is is sometimes as bad as 2-3%.
The contradiction law keeps getting mentioned, and I only have 12 hours of philosophy, but that included basic logic.
So I looked it up and… What is your response to Dialetheism. I copied this from a wiki page. I don’t get the dialetheism, but what is the counter logic to this. I saw it called the “principle of explosion”.
Ok, the text appeared in my response but not in the posted message, so here is a link
Using some commonly accepted and intuitively plausible rules of logic, we can easily show that the formula P & ¬P implies everything; taking a contradiction as a premise, we can prove any A.
The explosion principle is simply the principle that anything follows from a contradiction (which is why they are so infectious.) The motivation of dialetheism seems to be to avoid logical paradoxes (e.g. “This statement is false.”). I do not see how asserting that contradictions exist to avoid them makes any sense as opposed to actually solving them without asserting anything as fatuous as that. Sort of like saying we know nothing to avoid the problem of sometimes being wrong. I don’t think that is quite what is going on though, because the explosion principle is not itself the law of contradiction and so rejecting it is not the same as rejecting the latter, but I’d need to read up on this; they seem to be trying to “contain” contradictions, but alone that will not sufficie to show they exist, or indeed just what that is supposed to mean. If they simply assert contradictions exist to solve paradoxes they can’t otherwise solve, I’m not going to lend them much credibility. The criticisms on the Wiki article also seem pretty sound.
Anything else you wish to add? If not, I am going to close this thread, because it has veered way off topic. You can start threads on particular things you want to discuss.
It looks like bull to me, and I would shy you against it. Only because it rests on the Stolen Concept fallacy (it attempts to refute non-contradiction principle in a non-contradictory manner).
shouldnt this be swapped out for ‘private property’ i.e. you own what you homesteaded, or received in trade, and what you transformed from inputs you owned. ‘fruits of labour’ is marxist…
adam smith had it too, right? reisman talks about it laying the foundation for marxist exploitation theory. is this an area of dispute in the austrian camp?
No, not really. It doesn’t really enter into Austrian theory, so much as libertarian theory. Reisman is right on that, but my point is the term is not Marxist: the classical liberals originated the concept, and it’s perhaps even more ancient than that.
