http://politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125165
Looking for rebuttles on this guy’s argument.
Why debunk something so clearly a strawman? Monetarism applied to the Austrian school? Surely he jests.
That was only one section of the argument; the others dealt with the gold standard as well as free banking. Monetarism was included because this is a general defense (I’m assuming) of Keynesianism, against all detractors.
It went downhill from the initial strawman.
Why waste time reading and debating bs like this? The internet is full of supposed rebuttals of AE and anarchism, and web warriors don’t admit even the simplest of fallacies anyway.
Gonna read The Theory of Money and Credit instead, maybe you should aswell?
I would really appreciate if someone with more expertise could go through this.
I already know before even trying your link that it is a Lyndon LaRouche troll.
Says the guy with an avatar of a mass murderer.
“The Austrian Solution , allow the system to collapse and de-populate the planet.”
Personally I stopped there.
I’ve been researching LaRouche all week. If you don’t know much about this guy, check him out. He is an A class nutjob. It’s almost entertaining.
May I ask why? This is a strawman combined with histrionics and utter lack of factual content. Some people deserve to be subjected to a genocide anyway - they’re called statist trolls.
haha that was such an awesome response
Well, is the best we can do to these people yell about how they’re “statist trolls” (confirming, in their minds, their conclusions), or can we actually present a positive case for our side, show them their faults, and lessen their self-assurance just a bit?
I posted what I’m about to reiterate again in a similar thread. I personally do not feel message boards/forums are to defend or educate from the ground up someone who comes in and clearly has made no input of their own regarding new ideas, analysis, etc. or possibly no basic attempt at becoming educated in the topic they are seeking an answer to. I think it’s selfish on the troll’s part and ultimately of little value to attempt to fully address an issue presented by a poster as “insert link here” why is this wrong? If they added some of their own insight or something to indicate more commitment on their part to seriously learn other than an attitude of “explain this to me because I have no desire to spend the time to learn on my own” I might be more sympathetic.
No matter what you throw at these people, they will most always simply confirm their own opinions. Not once did that guy cite an Austrian argument, he just constructed one to attack and confirm his opinions by.
I didn’t see one valid critique in the whole post. It was simply full of conflations, and straw men. Replying to something like that is useless. DNFTT.
"I won’t get into a long, dragged out debate about the details with one of its supporters. I did this before extensively on AustrianForum; I was banned because they don’t value open discussion (I wasn’t banned for breaking any particular rules – they did not like my opinions) and I don’t want to waste my time debating crazy things with silly people. If you want to learn more, I suggest you take a basic economics course (which I have, btw), then take the basic notions of Austrian economics to any economics professor and he can give you a pretty eloquent response. RueTheDay, on here, is very good too.
The two main problems with it, though, are: praxeology is an unjustified rejetion of the scientific methodology, in favor of conjecturing and sophistry centering around the value-laden axiom (implying notions of perfect rationality, equal access to information, and free will), “humans act”. In addition to being pseudoscientific, it contradicts modern cognitive research.
Secondly, Austrian economics claims that the business cycle is caused by government. This is at odds with economic statistics over the last century… which, when pointed out, they then resort to their claim that Austrian economics can just ignore all statistics because it’s not an empirical system of analysis. Ironically, despite this argument, many of their papers and articles strangely appeal to empirical evidence… which contradicts their whole claim before that empirical economic evidence isn’t reliable."
One poster said, what do you guys think?
Alright:
-
The scientific methodology only gives true information if you can control all variables but one. In practice, this is impossible in the modern day economy. If you try to use a “simulation”, prepare to fail, as you don’t account for complexity. Praxeology, on the other hand, is logic: it works if your premises are correct and your reasoning is correct. Austrian Economists don’t say that the scientific method is invalid, thats a strawman. Rather, they realize it is impractical to apply it to Economics. Praxeology does not reject the scientific method.
-
The notion that humans act does not imply equal access to information in any way, since humans act with differing knowledge. Human action does not imply perfect rationality, since a human being can act irrationally. Human action does, however, imply free will.
-
By your logic, anything that doesn’t follow the scientific method deserves to be criticised and labeled “pseudoscience”? How do you know what hot dogs cost?
-
I need to know about modern cognitive science, but what does he think human action is? Stimulus and response? Actually, human action does not contradict cognitive science: cognitive science can establish the process of human action, but praxeology establishes it as an a priori truth.
-
I would like to know what statistics he uses when making this assertion. But first, he needs to realise that some economic statistics are often inaccurate of what they claim to measure. Second, I will need to remind him that a correlation does not imply a causitation. Third, a change in an economic statistic can have several different causes. How does he make his claim?
-
more strawman shit! Austrian economists don’t resort to that claim, they challenge it directly.
-
Actually, I agree with you on the last point. It creates cognative dissonance when some articles show empirical evidence/economic statistics, yet others reject it as inaccurate. Am I the only one who finds this weird? What should I believe?
I would also like to contact this person for some rational discussion, know how to contact him?
Sigh.
Too bad Austrian economics rejects monetarism, yet is not Revolt426 is writing a critique of Austrian economics, ergo why does he mention Monetarism as if Austrians approve of it. This is either a mark his complete ignorance of Austrian economics, or he is too lazy to read what Austrian monetar theory really says.
The error that I wish to address here is rather hiden: it is his belief in a nation as an economic unit, I understand it here that “nation” in this sense is interchangable with “state” for he is referring not to a cultural, and geographic group, but rather to an institution that can print money. The nation is not an economic unit per se, while it might be a beneficial simplification at times to think about it as so, it is nothing more than a fantasy,and Revolt426’s analysis here bases itself on that perspective. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that makes a nation an economic unit as many thing it to be other than the isolationist policies of governments in search of self-sufficieny.
Revolt 426 seems to be inventing his own terminology here. Not only does he religiously capitalize the “n” in “nation,” but he also refers to the “nation’s physical economy” as if there is some dichotomy between a “physical” economy, and a “spiritual,” or “psychic” economy; alas, the former is just a metaphor, and the latter doesn’t exist.
To pile ever more errors into his analysis, he refers to the “Greenback” (we’re obviously not intelligent enough to know what a “Greenback” is without it being either capitalized, or put into quotations) as a “debt free currency,” and then proceeds not to even elucidate what he means by “debt free.” With his penchant for creating new pieces of terminology to suit his purposes, I will not even bother to guess what he means by “debt free;” however, if currency is printed as a ticket that promises to pay the hold x amount of species when the holder so likes, as the greenbacks of the era were printed, then by definition they are a debt for they are a promise to pay.
I wonder why Revolt426 does not bother to tell you that the reason why the United States’ government was “essentially bankrupt” was that, by its own free volition, the United States government decided to fight a war rather than letting the southern states leave the union. Ergo, it was not a set of unfortunate circumstances thrusted upon the government, but rather the direct consequences of previous policies.
Again, why the unnecessary terminology: “scientific progression?” What does that even mean? I hope “scientific” is just a epithet tacked onto “progression” in a hope to decieve readers by the time-honored argument towards “progress” without actually defining what that progress is, otherwise this is just a plain terrible philosophy of history, which I will not bother rebutting since philosophies of history are merely simple minded fallacies.
His second point seems almost iron-clad, saddly the statement presumes that if the government does not improve infanstructure, then no one will. But, of course, free-enterprise takes time, and there is no point is rushing the development of infastructure if that infanstructure is not even need. Also, what population centers did the transcontinental railroad even connect? Surely it did connect the western “cities” with the eastern ones, but was that even necessary, or the government declaring that its needs, of course it wanted territorial expansion in pursuit of the treasured manifest dystiny, is the “general welfare.”
I would love to know how a single railroad from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Sacrmento, California, passing through the middle of nowhere would make the United States a industrial power. Is it not far more likely that the industrial might of the United States created through entrepreurship created its industrial might? Also, since the transcontinental passed through the middle of nowhere it did not help commerce whatsoever for there were no cities adjecent to the railroad, and large-scale commerce surely doesn’t happen spontaneously in the open praries of Kansas.
Too bad Friedman is more of a Keynesian than he is an Austrian; ergo, quoting him as if because Friedman admitted it is right has absolutely no use whatsoever. Ever more evidence that his article is designed to deceive those who have heard of individuals like Ron Paul speak the good news that is Austrian economics, but who do not have enough knowledge with respect to it to even know its basic tenents. Ergo, he quotes someone like Freidman who is both well-known, and despised by many as if Freidman is an Austrian.
Sorry to end this here, but I can’t go on. Honestly, Revolt426 is a posseur economist who mabye has taken a class, mabye read a book, knows some history, and proceeds to write rambling articles on the internet that are historically false, theoretically false, and, above all, designed to decieve, not enlighten. His use of his own terminology, and the fact he treats his audience like children when he introduces his concepts, which would only be believed by that age-group anyways, makes this artcle close to unreadable as well. There is no value to Revolt426’s critique whatsoever.
Nathyn a member of that website, go to the economcis section and find him ranting about austrain economics as drivel, should not be hard to find. Two of the first 3 posts have something to do with austrians.
Sure, go for it!
Every week, people sign up and demand or request that people here write refutations (actually a couple lazy veterans who do the same). All of the information on this site is free. Any intelligent question gets an answer where possible.
The problem is not the forum post, it’s that the OP wants to refute it but lacks the knowledge to do so.
People seem to forget what individualism is all about. If you need a refutation, BE THE REFUTATION. Own it.