Well what do you expect them to say? It’s clear you can’t be bothered to research what they are advocating and it’s naive for you to expect them to try and explain 100-200 years worth of economic theory over an internet chat forum.
Several people here are clearly raising points that run in direct conflict with several Austrian fundamental principles. Like the calculation problem overlooked above. These are fundamental, elementary Austrian positions. When ignoring these the only conclusion we can come to is that those individuals are not as well read about the topic as they claim to be. It’s very disingenuous to complain about it, after it was so clearly pointed out by me several posts prior.
so, since you ignored the fact that many austrians believe that the notion of market failure is meaningless in your summation of problems with the way i phrased my question, you must clearly be ignorant of that concept? that can be the only conclusion i can draw if that is how you want to “score” our responses.
hopefully, instead, you will just admit your “guess what counter argument i’m thinking of” mental exercise is bs. it doesn’t illustrate anything about my knowledge of ae. especially after i already pointed to another thread where i engaged in similar discussions on a related topic.
if you really wanted to claim that i don’t understand austrian economics, then find mistakes i’ve made and point them out. that is really the most simple and direct way of illustrating your point.
if you don’t think it is possible to actually correct someone’s mistakes in economic reasoning on an internet forum, then i can only say you’re doing something wrong.
No one is claiming expertise here but the Austrians themselves.
Clearly, EconomistInTraining, as he said himself, was sharing “some thoughts” on the topic (e.g., socialist calculation) and wanted input from other thinkers. There was nothing subversive or combative in his intent or his delivery.
These discussions are opportunities to prove your superior knowledge (if that’s your goal); you should not simply assume the other person is ill-informed and leave the debate at that.
Personally, I prefer civil discourse where all participants are presumed intelligent and ready to learn, all parties knowledgeable in some areas and needing more development in others.
The thread speaks for itself. Contemplating that government intervention could even arguably be beneficial is to deny the Austrian position of praxeology, and calculation. Or if not to deny, then to proceed in ignorance of(whicH I assumed). Two extremely elementary Austrian concepts. If you don’t understand why they are in conflict than I am sorry. I recommend reading up on the subject.
I disagree with I Ryan that it is my, or anyone elses, responsibility to attempt to teach you these complex subjects over an internet forum. I have to believe that at least part of that responsibility lies with you to do your homework. Again we aren’t going to teach people 100 years worth of economic theory over a web forum. Disagreeing with someone and pretending to take the high road is just the easy way out.
When you make comments where principles are in direct conflict with Austrian fundamentals, your going to get called out.
Whats worse is you tried to escape out of it downplaying the significance of the calculation problem, and now your tryign to play it off as if it was some little game. It was a demonstration, one that succeeded in making a point.
Not surprisingly you see it differently, so I encourage you to agree to disagree.
When you engage in debate it’s assumed that your explaining why your positions are more credible than your opponents. You are in effect assuming the roll of expert.
Sometimes I just want to bounce ideas around. Evidently, that’s what EconomistInTraining wanted to do, as well. Form an idea, throw out there, and see how it holds up.
That seems credible to me. But you’ll have to grow some skin and not take critique’s of your idea’s so personally. People are going to disagree with you. Especially if your intent is to “bounce ideas” on a public forum.
I seriously question the motive behind this post?
My response is, so what? What does that have to do with calculation/praxeology?
If you want to open a thread where calculation and praxeology are not in conflict with intervention, then I encourage you to do so. But keep the petty posts otu of this. Your asking us to take you seriously, the whole “BooyaH” thing is not the way for it.
The thread speaks for itself. Contemplating that government intervention could even arguably be beneficial is to deny the Austrian position of praxeology, and calculation.
ug, this is EXACTLY the notion i responded to in my first reply to your question. you claim that it is fundamental austrian precept that government intervention can never be beneficial. but is that really true? I don’t think so. As strangeloop and i have both noted, prominent austrians like hayek believed that government interventions could be beneficial. and you respond “so what”?
how can you even pretend you are interested in having a good faith discussion if these are the best responses you can come up with?
i think the problem here is that you are operating under a much more narrow definition of austrian economics than i am. if i had to guess, you think anyone operating outside the rothbard cannon isn’t truly austrian (and that includes hayek). and i simply do not agree. but, of course, all i can do is guess since you haven’t said much of substance in this thread. which is weird becuase you are obviously very confident in your own understanding of austrian economics. you just refuse to share your enlightenment with anyone else. i suppose you prefer to hid your light under a bushel. too bad.
Appeal to authority does not grant your argument any merit. But thats a red herring. It’s not about whether it’s right or wrong, it’s about being aware of an extremely prominent modern Austrian position. It’s just taking the Misesian position to it’s logical conclusion.
Your confusing me. You think I am arguing with you that calculation debunks intervention, while I would argue that it does, thats not why I brought up the exercise above. My point was that you entirely overlooked calculation, and didn’t bother to even mention it. I gave you an opportunity to explain why some Austrians would take issue with it, you seemed oblivious to any position which may conflict with interventionism. As if no problem existed or you weren’t aware.
I was providing objective evidence that there may be room for improvement regarding your understanding of various Austrian positions. The example being above. My assumption is only that you forgot about calculation, or do not understand why calculation is in direct conflict with interventionism. How the two are fundamentally incompatible with each other. If you want to know why we’ll have to start a new thread focusing just on that.
It may be of interest to you to realize that the calculation argument has matured since Mises’s first really brought it to light. The argument is not simply valid because Mises’s said so. We do not treat Mises as our god, there is a lengthy line of reasoning behind it.
At some point you’ll have to realize that attempting to attack my character will not grant your arguments any merit.
But the problem is that you’re wrong, or at the very least, you’re entirely ignoring extremely significant facts. The fact that Hayek did not object to some degree of monetary expansion and/or public work programs during the great depression does not mean that he supports economic interventionism. It just means that given the conditions of the time, the fact that the central bank did exist and that its inflationary policies (starting in 1922) created a monumental bubble, made some degree of monetary expansion appropriate, in order to satiate the elevated demand for cash holdings. But does this mean that Hayek supports central banks and monetary central planning? Absolutely not. He supported a free banking system with competing currencies and is famous for refuting economic interventionism in general (the coordination argument). I mean, Hayek’s famous The Road to Serfdom asserts that limited government interventionism is the path to socialism. So again, we have to differentiate between Hayek’s “next best” proposals from Hayek’s “ideal” proposals; the latter completely object to economic interventionism while the former are more “pragmatic” (like Milton Friedman’s negative income tax).
Additionally, the fact that Mises and Hayek were liberals, and not anarchists, does not mean that they support economic interventionism. And finally, I’d also like to point out that this has become a 7 page discussion because you were “unsatisfied” with my treatment of asymmetric information. But you readily admit that the existence of asymmetric information can never, in itself, justify government interventionism, as the OP suggested. Thus, we are in agreement but somehow not in agreement once again. And now we’re talking about something else entirely. In other words, you have hijacked another thread.
Having a good faith discussion with someone like you is absolutely impossible. You came here with some sort of agenda (to prove that Austrian economics has been incorporated into mainstream new classicism), are extremely arrogant, and are entirely clueless of the subject matter at hand (you may find this objectionable, but it’s simply the truth). You become extremely emotional when someone challenges the narrative that you have created in your own mind, to the extent that you write belligerent private messages to those that disagree with you or don’t automatically cater to all of your needs (such as providing a citation for every statement I’ve ever made).
No they weren’t. But I must say, your bitterness is become glaringly obvious the more you participate on this forum. Your performance started out somewhat strong at first, but has deteriorated since then. You’re basically a troll at this point.
Additionally, the fact that Mises and Hayek were liberals, and not anarchists, does not mean that they support economic interventionism.
how exactly are you defining economic intervention? if you don’t believe that the market can provide national security services or law enforcement and that you need government to step in and provide those services, i am not sure what else you would call it. and no matter what you call it, i don’t see how it is is consistant with what flic is calling “austrian economics”.
In other words, you have hijacked another thread.
i never asked flic to give me a half-backed quiz and that unfortunately is what has taken most of this space.
Having a good faith discussion with someone like you is absolutely impossible… blah blah blah
lol if you think i want to have a lovers spat with you in this thread, you’ve got another thing coming. if i hurt your feeling in pm, i apologize. but you’ll forgive me if i don’t think you’re the best person to lecture others about keeping their tempers or arguing in good faith. this bit of civil discource is particuarly worth noting (and worth copying and pasting in case you delete it later after you think better of insulting people for no reason…which happened earlier in this very thread actually. haha talk about keeping a level head).
No they weren’t. But I must say, your bitterness is become glaringly obvious the more you participate on this forum. Your performance started out somewhat strong at first, but has deteriorated since then. You’re basically a troll at this point.