giles,
As for doing science, then your one long sob story didn’t contribute either. Who can argue against somebody expressing their tears?..[:'(]
Honestly… who can?
Honestly, if you’re going to attempt to demonstrate the level of erudition you did on the “Sterbs Libertarian Critique”, please spare me, my brain still hurts from that last display of brilliance from you.
As for Juan, I never advocate lieing, stealing or cheating, I just said as far as acheiving ones goals is concerned, they tend to have a high success rate.
If I am not mistaken, isn’t there a Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics?
Another brilliant scientist critique! (read sarcasticly)
No, he has. He is contributing to the people who pay the bills. Austrians probably shouldn’t be sucking off the public teat of coercion. Schiff is bringing people with money to the Austrian side. He is attracting investors not students who may go on to be professional parasites while they “contribute” to journals.
Your focus is so narrow. I suspect because you haven’t reached that point where you have to thrive or die in the market. You don’t strike me as someone who understands that money is always the bottom line, even in liberty. Ron Paul raised more money than Bob Barr. That is because Ron Paul had the best ideas with the best presentation. GMU guys and someone like you might think you have the best ideas, but if you don’t have the best presentation, then it’s for naught. Again, publishing in journals is fanciful work while the public is forced to pick up the bill.
That is why most professional economists are statists. They know who pays the bills. That is why the farther you get from LvMI and the Europeans (Hoppe and Hulsmann) the more statist Austrians become. Because they are living off the state, and that is corrupting. We all know this.
So money matters, whether you are a libertarian or not. The guys at GMU are not doing anything they could not do at LvMI, except it’s possible no one within the private sphere that supports LvMI would be willing to pay for economics journal submissions, which means they might just be a state subsidized market failure.
Do you pay taxes?
Precisely. You are ok with coercion. My original point.
I get it, really LS, Peter Schiff is a great guy. He helps people pay the bills and use Austrianism to advance their own goals. That aside, I’m curious as to what contributions he has made to economic science?
Once again, you’re really letting your blatant Randian anti - intellectual side get the better of you. Peter Schiff may be doing good work over at EuroPac, but let’s not confuse that with the work done by LvMI fellows and GMU scholars who are actually furthering our knowledge of economic science. The latter are the type that deserve nobel prizes, the former are the type that deserve (and earn) money. Fact is, academia is far larger than it would be if it had to be supported by voluntary contributions, but everybody knows this. I don’t see why you’re so stuck up about this, what do you think Block, Salerno, Hulsmann, Huerta de Soto, Rothbard, Hoppe, Herbener, DiLorenzo, Woods etc haven’t benefitted from this? They have, and you can call those who are more scholarly parasites if you wish, but they’re merely taking their chances and benefitting from a sector that’s already vastly overinflated, sounds like a good choice to me.
What can I say, my parents have been willing to foot the bill for me for most of my life?
I don’t think anybody thinks that. Rather, they think that in economic science what matters is who has the best ideas. Which is true.
So your claim is that libertarians are morally superior, my oh my, Rand really has got to you.
You do realise most LvMI fellows also teach at universities right? In fact, that’s one of the biggest aims of the LvMI.
I don’t know that he has. He’s only made contributions to peoples material well being with Austrian ideas. How many lives has been enhanced by GMU publications? How much prosperity has been created? If it is funded with public money, where is the unseen?
Once again, you’re resorting to Ad Homs, in this endless game of trying to assert yourself without merit. The ironic thing, is that you are more Randian than I am. You’re pro-state, pro-coercion. You’re as much of an elitist as Rand was, maybe even a little more.
I believe Block, Hoppe and Rothbard were on private endowments. I cannot speak for the rest, can you?
By that standard, welfare is a good choice. So is working for the FED.
When you stop being a ward (assuming you don’t become a publicly funded parasite after school) then I will be modestly interested in how economic science is supported by the market, and has real value besides providing jobs for intellectuals in corners far from the center of the market and society.
The results certainly don’t bear that out, do they? I don’t think Mises’ life is a testament to the best ideas winning out.
Rand wasn’t a libertarian, she hated the word. These attempts at conflating me with Rand just expose how ignorant on the subject you are. Which again, makes you more like Rand than not.
Yes, I believe that not being coercive is more moral than being coercive.
You should pay attention to who speaks at ASC and the Mises Circles.
Austrian economics is not merely a propaedeutic for libertarianism, Austrian economics is a set of theories to describe economic phenomena, not a political ideology for improving lives. Pure economics must remain both wertfrei, and objective in respect to politics; what you are advocating is neither.
Good, you admit it, let’s not bring Schiff into a discussion concerning academic contributions then, OK?
A decent few who are interested in economic science, I daresay. Also, I think you’re forgetting the countless number of grad students who have managed to write a PhD in Austrian economic s because of the programme headed by Boettke at GMU.
Who cares? I’m talking about the contribution made by Boettke and the other professors over at GMU, I’m not engaging in a cost benefit analysis.
Well, I know for a fact that DiLorenzo taught at GMU for some time.
Why are you assuming that this discussion has anything more than economic science. If I carry this on much longer there’s a good chance that you’ll shift the goalposts back to where they were when we started. Unfortunately I don’t know if this is worth the effort in the meantime.
Mises had to run from the Nazis twice, he started off as a professor in Vienna and ended up becoming known the world over and considered one of the great economists. Same applies for Hayek, if you don’t think that’s a testament to good ideas winning out I don’t know what will convince you. What I do know is that unless you’re willing to embrace the state to the extent that it allows you to develop your (in the collective sense) ideas, Mises’ legacy will be lost.
Of course. Political economy has nothing to do with politics. It should be self-evident (you realize I’m being sarcastic I hope)
By the way, nothing is really wertfrei. If you preach Austrian economics that’s because you think AE is true and that truth is valuable. Your allegedly wertfrei theory only makes sense within a philosophical framework concerned with finding truth. And such concern is not value-free
Of course political economy is meant to describe reality, not favor one political party over another.
Economics need not contain any judgements of value; ergo, it can be wertfrei.
Yes, it is value-free because I’m interested in finding theories that explain given phenomena, I do not care about judgements of value in this pursuit.
This premise that economics can be value free is nonsense. One must establish a value system in analysis of the causes and effects of social programs in economic theory. Austrianism IS a value system.
That is nonsense. How do you look at stats alone, bring about theory without values?
- You’ve only proven that the scientist holds values, if that, not that the science supposes value or should suppose values,
- Whether or not you’ve proven that the scientist holds values is dubious, at best you’ve shown that the scientist uses theory, not that he holds values.
I think the raw truth of economic science is ‘value free’, but of course no-one who exists (therefore including no-one who studies it) is value free. so why should they keep their values out of their economics papers?. By going to the effort of publishing their works they are communicating at least that they value the work that they have done. as such some value is communicated…
Does science exist outside the human consciousness? Is there some entity floating around the universe called ‘Science’?
Mises legacy won’t be lost, because the state had nothing to do with preserving it thus far.
You’re right this conversation is a waste of effort, because you only have the perspective of a parasite, and not a producer.
Are you unable to give a more concise argument?
Scientists hold values. A good scientist acquires all the known facts and theories and learns about them. A good scientist doesn’t get closed up in a particular sector of their field and not consider the discoveries of the other sectors within their field (economics in this instance). A scientist that doesn’t consider all the varying theories and any discoveries or knowledge attained within their field is value selecting whether intentionally or not. Value selecting can happen due to time, lack of trying to keep up with the field of study, and/or arrogance, etc… Arrogance isn’t a well practicing scientists. To dismiss all the various nuances in a field of study on purpose is completely counter to sciences own inherent nature. The first two happen and sometimes can’t be avoided. There’s simply so much knowledge and discoveries being made and the scientist may be involved in a current project that is needing much attention and so it becomes unavoidable to keep up. Also some scientists have blinders on and see their field as the only true field and that scientist takes a more dogmatic approach and isn’t holding the ideals of science in high regards (to gain knowledge instead of propping up ones own self-interests for gains that may oppose the actual known and existing science being communicated in various ways: professed, journals, books, seminars, etc…). How many mainstream economists have read Austrian economics? If they reject it without looking into Austrian economics to develop an understanding of what valid contributions it may provide, then this isn’t a scientist either especially if they have the time and are aware of Austrian economics.
There’s also practicing scientists and scientists that merely read. Somebody that does some form of practice in their field is actively testing their assumptions and hypothesis. Peter Schiff does this when he puts what he thinks into practice in the real economy and the real results emerge. Those actively partaking in the economy, such as Bernanke, is a practicing scientist. He is testing his theory and newly arrived hypothesis’ in the economy, not in papers. He’s actively testing his thinking. That’s a practicing scientist or otherwise known as an experimenting scientist. Scientists that engage more with journals and debate with their peers are more scholars than active scientists. Though they might be putting forth an idea and then drawing conclusions from the field (where the active economy is) they are not putting their idea to use in the economy and testing their hypothesis or theory and watching how the economy deals with the experiment. Economists and other social engineers in the government are basically experimenting their new found theories or their age old theories and getting results. When it doesn’t work towards their valued goal, then they try something different.
Money is another big influence in what any scientist can or cannot do. A scientist may know that a certain experiment will achieve greater results and that scientist could wait ten years for such expensive technology and building of the project to happen (such as CERN in physics) or the scientist may want to test results much sooner with the less money currently within the budget. So the scientist may choose one or the other depending on what the scientist(s) values. This choice will directly impact the results due what kind of infrastructure or perceived loss. An earlier project will get the ball rolling on numerous circulating ideas to be tested so the field can progress or choose to wait longer and have more ideas tested by the bigger more expensive project in mind yet results will be on hold and the field will not progress as much for ten years.
On top of all that and much more sometimes there are more than one scientist involved in the project and so agreeing on what to do involves value and sometimes compromises might be made on somebody’s pet hypothesis to be held off for more urgent needs decided upon. Priorities occur (a value process).
There’s way more to science than looking through a microscope.
I recommend Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” for a more indepth perspective.
That is nothing but an emotion-driven statement without any reason for it being true.
Pathetic ad hominem.