Is that a joke ? You know, considering your late attempts at humor, and the usually laughable things you say when you try to be a ‘serious’ academic, I’m having trouble telling your jokes apart from your ‘real thoughts’ …
Saying X is wrong because Y says so is typical of you. Of course, the hidden premise is “Y is the current (clueless) academic I worship”.
Ed Feser would be Vanilla Ice with that big hair.
Drop dat zee-ro n git wit da hee-ro.
In order to prove this point please: A) Cite where Long and Block make this point.
B) Explain the difference between Rothbards attack on Mises “Value Free Ethics” and economics as a value free science.
Give me a source. Is it one of your earlier posts? Then it should be easy to link it.
Why presume that you know? Once again I think you fail to make distinctions within the Austrian school, especially their respective conclusions. Just like wiith libertaraian and Libertarian, I don’t think neo-classicals claim (the more radical part of) Austrians as part of the main stream with some weird interests.
Why do I presume to know this? Because this is simply my experience from dealing with the mainstream.
If you don’t do what I’ve asked you then basically your asking me to “take your word for it” and your entire argument is, appeal to authority, and that authority is you. That is a really weak case. The burden is on you here, not me. This thread is not about convincing you it’s about convincing me. It also has nothing to with whether or not Austrians are mainstream.
So I suggest you actually answer my questions, rather than repeating “Your wrong, I’m right” (another incredibly Fail argument).
Er what about interest theory and general theory of error cycles (oh no Rothbard monopoly theory- Evil state a priori can’t have that)? So you think using a completely unrealistic concept or abandoning the use of it due to that reason was a justifiable and reasonable thing to do? Giles your continuing trend of anti-rationalism is disturbing.
What do you consider a “notable advance in economics”?
Like I said to Jon, with regards to Reisman, I’ve not read his work. I don’t really intend to read any of it any soon because the idea that equilibrium has to be realistic is beyond me (whoever said it was realistic?)
Please cite the works of economists whose work towers above Hulsmann’s from Mount Olympus?
I really don’t care about influence- I think it sad that Hulsmann hasn’t been that influential in Austrian circles. I remember emailing about the General Error Cycle piece to find any critiques of it yet and he said he was aware on none and was disappointed that the regular ABCT advocates didn’t engage with him. Now to say that I was disappointed that Hulsmann didn’t win the Nobel prize isn’t true: I forgot they were giving it out at this time of year and know that he never has a hope in hell of winning it. I only mentioned him as an example of someone who if he won it would show that the Nobel prize givers had really changed and that Austrianism was becoming mainstream. That said I do consider Hulsmann as the best living economist.
Does economics describe the real world?
If so then we can do this:
Economics describes the real world.
Old Equilibrium theory is an unrealistic concept.
Therefore equilibrium theorising has no place in economics.
In the Mengerian tradition as economics is a casual realist science and so if a concept doesn’t fit in with the methodology it should be purged. So you the conclusion you must reach is either to abandon equilibrium or to put on realist grounds. Or abandon the Mengerian methodology.
Hayek’s Prices and Production - a work that is in the field of equilibrium analysis.
This is unbearably naive. Economics describes the world, to the best of its abilities, through models, and models are necessarily unrealistic because they idealize certain portions of the economy in order to be studied. Equilibrium theory is just another model, and the idea that it should be rejected because it is “unrealistic” would result in most of economics thrown overboard because those theories also idealize in order to analyze.
Pay attention Lam. Hayek already won the Nobel Prize.
There’s really no point in paying attention when the post is outright economically illiterate.
FWIW, “ad homines” is silly (maybe deliberately so, like “ad hiphopinem” is obviously intended to be, but I suspect you’re serious); the plural of “ad hominem”, ISTM, should be “ad hominem” (the full phrase being “ad hominem arguments”, or “argumenta ad hominem”), but “ad hominems” would make more sense; “ad homines” changes the meaning…
Well, it’s been quite a while since I read their response, but I remember thinking they just weren’t connecting with the argument at all. Rereading…the thing about “arguing at a funeral” is irrelevant; the point about Aristotle arguing only with other Greeks misses the point (what distinguishes them from barbarians?) and doesn’t apply to animals as they claim:
but if polar bears and horses started (read: were capable of) arguing for their position, we would have to justify ourselves! That they don’t is not our fault. When they say “horses are never allowed to debate”, surely they don’t think we’re guilty of actively restraining them?
But they’re assuming random outsiders can set themselves up as agents of the owner and enforce his (purported) will. Sorry, but no. If the theist wants to justify the use of force to prevent suicide, he has to be able to prove that he’s legitimately acting as God’s agent (granting, arguendo, that God is in fact the owner of the would-be suicide) – i.e., God needs to step forward and say so.
Assuming this is true, they mean to imply that this “enslavement” means the criminal isn’t a self-owner. But that’s the same error made by people who think the existence of murderers “disproves” the notion that murder is wrong, etc.
Well if you put my comment in context I was talking about living economists. Also if my understanding of Hayek’s view of equilibrium is correct then his notion of it is fallacious.
Please tell me then what else would be thrown overboard for not being realistic? As is probably obvious I think we’re going to have an epistemological dispute at this point. Economics is the study of human action based on the action axiom plus a few inductive postulates from which the whole corpus of economics is deduce. It does not create “models” as such unless your following the circle cult of Vienna.
The vast majority of economic knowledge which has been based on equilibrium theory.
You didn’t actually say anything here - just because you deduce economics does not mean you eschew models; for instance, the Austrian theory of the business cycle is a model.
Then the Austrian theory of the business cycle never came from either Mises, or Hayek.
So I can kill you as long as you don’t argue your position? What if I find you asleep, in a state in which you cannot argue your position, am I justified in enslaving you, and forever keeping you in a state of sleep so that you could never argue with me?
I have never ever denied that. I said it was an obviously useful concept but had shaky foundations- Hulsmann puts it on Terra Firma hence my admiration for the piece.
In what sense are you meaning it is a model? I believe it to be an accurate description of the real world. Now obviously it can’t take into account empirical incidents in every cycle but the cause of the cycle is realistic and sound.
I never knew they drew a circle and worshipped Moloch.
Bumpity bump Lam.
I recall having a similar reaction to the quote that liberty student references above. I remember once having a brief email discussion with Mr. Shahar, sparked by the same essay from which this quote was taken. In my own correspondence, I mainly wanted to thank the author for offering potentially new ways to look at problems concerning Rothbard’s conception of human rights. However, with regard to the “taken seriously by our rivals” idea, I felt the need to explain to him my personal position on the matter:
“Indeed there is a strong need for libertarians to discover ideas that move the discussion forward and do not stifle it, just as you have said. Progress most certainly depends on it, as you also pointed out. And while being taken seriously by one’s rivals may be a possible goal, and can certainly have its advantages, I believe that being taken seriously by newcomers to philosophy who are in the market for good ideas may be even more important. Because such newcomers, while not ‘rivals’ in the sense that they already have a platform to promote, are actually those for whose benefit, presumably, the ideas were sought in the first place. I wouldn’t think of my work as being something that I do for the sake of being taken seriously by my rivals, so much as, something that may be of assistance to those who find it useful or helpful, something of possible value to those who have no agenda to push or axe to grind, but who merely want to understand things in a more satisfactory way.”
It would seem to be very easy to lose one’s initial focus on the goal of understanding, and to come to see the acceptance of established thinkers as the true goal behind the pursuit of philosophical ideas.
I largely agree with the “get 'em while they’re young & new” approach. The main problem I had with Shahar’s statement of the importance of being seriously considered by rivals is that it seemed to be reasoned more out of guilt than anything logical that has not been tried before.
Hayek is the safest choice for anyone in the mainstream to quote per the Austrian school, methinks, but I don’t remember Hayek ever saying that he purposely was trying to be accepted by rivals. The best one can do really, concerning being more seriously considered by rivals, is three simple things:
1.) Don’t take all arguments personally, emotionally, & on the defensive.
2.) Don’t assume everyone that disagrees with you are idiots.
3.) Don’t concern yourself with a moral crusade & stick to the topics at hand (i.e. don’t go off into tangential morality lectures of statism when the issue being debated is more specific than the general question of say, “Is the state moral?”. Not everyone is going to have the patience to be shot through tangents when the conversation may be about some specific issue).