How did you derive this, exactly?
Since I can’t help but feel (arrogantly and possibly mistakenly) that many of these arguments are addressed to me, since some of these arguments are exactly what I argue (or a distorted version of this) I will go through this list…
“1. Rothbard really was pretty extreme, and at times his analysis makes no sense.”
Rothbard was not (IMO) extreme except from a comparison of where he stood in relation to the mainstream. I think Rothbard goes too far in some of his arguments (I.E morality and the extent of price flexibility), but I would not consider the above to describe me. I guess I have a long way to go if I am to be a Keynesian.
“2. Mises didn’t understand many things that Hayek did.”
I’m not convinced of this. I have a hard time ascertaining Mises’ level of understanding. On many of the economic topics they both wrote about Hayek was a lot more clear, but this does not mean that Mises didn’t understand these things, merely that Hayek academically elaborated upon them more clearly.
“3. If there ever were such a thing as lack of aggregate demand, it would be a real problem, not that govt intervention would solve anything, heh heh.”
I agree with this. The last two words summarize my view especially succinctly.
“4. Deflation is just as bad as inflation.”
Depends if we’re talking about govt induced or not, but I usually don’t think that it is… I guess I could see some situations where it could be.
“5. Internet Austrians don’t know it, but the whole point of the ABCT is to explain why there is a lack of aggregate demand.”
Nope
“6. Sometimes there is just not enough money in the system for the economy to run smoothly.”
If it occurs suddenly, then yes in the short term. This is correct as long as the currency is infinitely devisable. If there were only a penny wandering around in the economy right now we’d have a problem. If the government issued micropennies and so on then there would be no issue
- “Fractional Reserve Banking can play an important role in solving monetary disequilibrium.”
I suppose it can but the effects would be more negative than positive. It’s like saying that cutting off your arm would stop the unpleasantness of your arm being asleep.
- Only trivial economic questions can be decided without advanced Mathematics, which is essential for understanding real economics.
So no. So absolutely ultimately no.
- “The multiplier concept makes a lot sense.”
In the short run, within the bounds Keynesians say it does, then yes under certain situations. Once again, however, long term problems result.
“10. Shocks to the system can create all sorts of problems Austrians don’t really understand.”
These can cause problems and many Austrians overlook them, but this is not to say they are at all unknown. I consider the economics of such things just an extension of Austrian Theory.
“11. The whole point of a central bank is to smooth over shocks, obviously a good thing.”
See 6.
“12. Mises in Human Action just made assertions, but never proved anything.”
No.
“13. An increase in the money supply will increase consumer demand, which is what brings a country out of recession.”
First part yes under most situations, second part no under most situations.
“14. Although internet Austrians love Mises, it is Hayek who won a Nobel Prize, and was head and shoulders above Mises in economic understanding.”
I do think that Hayek appreciated some things more thoroughly than Mises did, and for the rest of my opinion on this you can look at the above point on the subject. However, the Nobel Prize has 0.000% to to with this.
“15. The mere act of the govt spending money increases GDP, and is therefore desirable.”
First part no under most situations, second part no under nearly all situations.
“16. Praxeology is vastly over-rated, because you cannot prove anything from that one axiom that humans act.”
Yes and no. I have conflicted views on this one. You can prove how people will act under any situation, you have a lot harder time actually knowing what situations prevail in the real world. I have sympathy with the statement I totally disagree.
“17. Mises showed how dumb he is with his silly regression theorem, which has been disproven by bitcoin.”
Neh
“18. Modern supercomputers can solve the calculation problem easily, which is not really a problem if we allow consumers to use money.”
Nay. I do think that Mises overstated the calculation problem, however. I’ve expressed this before, but I do think that if the government had a knowledge of all consumer prices and preferences that they could plan the structure of production. This is part of Mises’ claim, but since it is impossible anyway, this is a question entirely of theory.
“19. Economics is all about dissemination of knowledge, or lack of it, within an economy. Hayek understood this, which is why he is the superior economist.”
Mises did understand the importance of this, but Hayek placed a greater degree of emphasis on it.
“20. Austrian Economics is a dead subject, with no room for new research.”
Just the opposite, even though I feel that many of the traditional areas AE has looked at may have been mostly fleshed out.
“21. Austrians never leave their ivory towers to see what is happening in the real world.”
Eh, a little bit of truth with this, but the same could be said for most other economic schools to. This is why I consider myself an “intellectual anarchist” above all else
"As for someone becoming a Hayekian as opposed to a Misesian, that’s the whole point of this list, that nowadays, in the 21st century, nobody just “becomes a Hayekian”. Becoming a Hayekian, is knowingly or unknowingly, a cover up, a red herring, a step on a slippery slope. Nowadays, “Hayekian” is doublespeak for “Austrian in name only”.
Hayekians, you have been warned, or is it exposed?"
This sounds so dogmatic it’s scary.
I knew you were wrong on bitcoin but now I see you’re confused about practically everything, wow. Wow.