One thing that I keep noticing on the forums here and in the libertarian writings and essays, is the inability or unwillingness to self critique or examine the theories from the point of a cynic or skeptic.
Keynesians do TONS of self evaluation and constantly trying to critique their own work, and find their own shortcommings. Rexamining their methodogy and acknowledging their failures and mistakes.
For example google “CBO Blue Chip prediction accuracy”. You will find TONS of papers and analysis on how accurate CBO and Blue Chip predicitions are and frank discussions about their reliability and failures. (blue chip is the #1 economic prediction publication that big businesses subscribe to. About $900 bucks)
I see very little, if any, of that here. I did notice a rigorous debate on a few issues like IP and childrens rights, but other than that everyone seems to accept all the ‘libertarian’ writings as absolute truths. With many holding to the utopian belief that a libertarian society would solve every problem.
I am currently reading the essay “Myth of National Defense” and developing a critique. Where most posters simply refer to it as a fact handed down by God. (I am an aethist)
So why is this?
A) Because you have never had your society in reality,therefore you can’t criticize it? But should it emerge you concede it might have problems, but can’t speculate because… ?
B) You choose not too, because you honestly believe it is infalible and the perfect solution for mankind?
this post is trollish, but thats fine, i can handle that. the big problem is its too broad. i can imagine responses running for pages. perhaps you could edit down to one or two statements or challenges.
The entire point of The Myth of National Defense is to tear apart the foundations of classical liberalism and the democratic state as rights-protector. If that is not a cynical re-evaluation of the theories then I don’t know what is.
If you are interested not long ago I was against FRB, now I am pro, I was NAP supporting moralist, now I am not. I do not even call myself anarchist anymore. Libertarian, mostly.
Similar I’ve lost belief in the holiness of the NAP and though I wouldn’t exactly call myself pro FRB I have come to doubts about the typical libertarian views and right now my position is undecided. I’ve also been reconsidering the possibility that extreme minarchism might be preferable in some ways to anarchism.
Similar I’ve lost belief in the holiness of the NAP and though I wouldn’t exactly call myself pro FRB I have come to doubts about the typical libertarian views and right now my position is undecided. I’ve also been reconsidering the possibility that extreme minarchism might be preferable in some ways to anarchism.
If this were true, given their stellar performances in the first half of the twentieth century, they should’ve critiqued themselves out of existence. History is not kind to the notion that large, ponderous governments can stimulate aggregate demand (spend loads of money) to quash “public ills”. Yet, despite the historical record, Keynesians of all shapes and sizes continue to advocate nothing but more of the same.
For an avowed atheist, you sure seem to lay claim to an awfully god-like power of perception, given that you know that most of the posters here regard that collection of essays as “handed down from God”. Too bad the rest of us can’t be as omniscient.
Your post is full of assumptions regarding libertarians and Austrian economics that will do you no good in your quest to understand how we think. You are a troll.
C) Because libertarians/Austrians proceed from a few logical axioms, the validity of which is uncontestable. Keynesians, by contrast, must constantly tinker with the minutiae in their models because, of course, the real-world economy cannot be modelled.
Thus, the Austrians can only point out, time and again, that monetary inflation consumes capital, it does not produce it, and the malinvestments it engenders will always eventually be lIquidated in what we call a recession. Keynesians have to roll around continually after every boom/bust cycle and churn out detailed explanations of why the government should have funded more geegaws than doohickeys, or set the federal funds rate at 2.75 instead of 2.85, or set the top tax rate a 35% rather than 34%, etc. etc. Anything, of course, but admit that a central committee can no more establish the clearing price for loanable funds or the correct amount of money than it can the clearing price or correct amount of styrofoam cups.
Also, I second Stranger’s point: libertarians are the ONLY group out there challenging government’s and the sycophantic media’s premises.
Wrong. They just blame a general fault in humans if their ideas don’t go over as planned. It can’t be that the ideas are all contrary to economic laws, oh no. It must be the fallen nature of humanity or whatever you want to call that nonsense.
The Libertarian/classic liberal/anarchist philosophy was never intended to solve every problem in the world. Any philosophy, let alone political, that attempted to so would be an excercise in absurdity. For example, physics is meant to solve the scientific problems of physical sciences. Karate is meant to help people defend themselves. Biology is intended to solve problems relating to organisms. Accounting is intended to solve the problems of managing ones money. So on and so forth.
You are totally correct that that Keynesians have to constantly tinker with their models and adapt the realities that many are flawed and fail to accurately predict economic data. For anyone that reads the peer reviewed journals, Keynesians are very hard on innaccurate models and are constantly dumping or trashing bad models to an effort to find better ones. You said “The real-world economy cannot be modelled”. I, and others, would answer it can’t be modelled with current human technology and knowledge. That isn’t to say it can ever be modelled, but there is a possiblity there is some master forumla as yet undiscovered that will be extremely accurate in predicting economic outcomes provided you have better information. (massive data crunching with near limitless information). For me its still a mystery if its possible. Where you used absolutism.
Still, “WELL DONE SIR!!”, Another great response from Byzantine. On point, answered the questions, gave a logical answer, and didn’t resort to any logical fallacies. If I ever get into corportate headhunting, I will look you up.
The rest of the responders fell into two classic strategies:
Ad hominim attacks. I said something you don’t like, therefore I am a “troll”. Very very typical responses here. Not really the fault of moderators or site owners. Its not an academic forum limited to informed posters with a body of work and credentials, so there are bound to these types. (This is where you attack me and say I am one of “those types”)
You make the assertion that Keynesian models fail to predict anything. And you provide no evidence. Its a blanket absolutist statement. (This is the part where you data dump and link 12,000 pages that is supposed to ‘prove your point’. A common strategy for those who dont have consise and specific examples)
I kind of admire you adoption of the Reagan mantra: Always stay on message, Always be on the offensive. For those “troll” posters this was your response. Rather than say “Hmm is there anything I think might not be perfect about my philosophy??? NO, I will attack him and call him names to distract” (Still no Godwin attacks yet, which is rather surprising). Politically I like it. Intellectually I think its lazy.
Prove it. Give me some empirical evidence! Otherwise it’s just another one of your baseless assertions. I want to see some facts. [;)]
That is because Keynesian theories are constantly being proven wrong and thus they need to be re-written, or Keynes needs to be re-interpreted again in an attempt to justify their previous failings. I pity the people who try to make sense of what they already don’t understand and yet fail again, again and again - without ever stopping to think about checking the foundations and ‘principles’ of their ideology. It is crystal clear they are not engaging in proper, logical reasoning.
It’s rather sad. But that’s what happens when the fundamental premises of your “school of thought” (Keynesian “economics”) are flawed beyond belief. The method is madness and nothing short of lunacy or irrationality. I guess insanity also comes too mind. What is it, “doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results?” seems pretty crazy to me? No?
By the way, there is a reason why there are Neo & New Keynesian school’s of economics. The old paradigm failed. I suggest you get with the times.
Here’s a quick question - how many economists do you need to try understand what Mises and Rothbard were trying to say?
Answer: none.
All you need is a functioning brain, the ability to read and it’s blatantly friggin obvious! [:D]
How many economists do you need to try understand what Keynes and Marx really meant?
Answer: Two.
Keynes and Marx. And they’re both dead.
Well that’s because Libertarianism is built on axioms, which are self evident. Self ownership being one. If you meant to say the Austrian school, (you do know the difference right?) then Human action is another. Anyway, socialists / communists require a change in human nature to bring about their societies. That is why they are called ‘Utopian’ aka pipe dream stuff.
Libertarianism is grounded in reality, it doesn’t require a change in human nature - just action. Not like the animal spirits, and other such delusions. [:)]
It would be sort of equivalent to physicists critiquing the basic laws of mechanics. Austrian economists are not really into predictive models because they recognize human action is unpredictable. So they devote themselves to discovering the a priori axioms that, will, at best, enable them to analyze past actions and provide a guide to the effects of future action.
More rant on modelling:
The CDO’s were based on models computed by the best and brightest but for one fatal flaw: the models did not account for the self-interest and short-sightedness of their developers. Thus, you had very sage Ph.D.'s predicted that housing prices would rise practically ad infinitum, regardless of who was buying them or where they were located. In retrospect, this was stupid: nothing goes up in price forever and ever, all other things being equal. Once you recognize this fundamental limitation of economics, then it’s pretty clear that the predictive modelling is useless. And of course it’s done almost always with the intent of controlling other people’s property. If you recognize the right of self-ownership, you’re going to find all this monkeying around with people’s lives distasteful.