I ask you again, where does science exist beyond the mind of man? Where does economics happen but between humanity?
Mises perhaps. Rothbard destroys the ‘Value-Free’ economic theory in Ethics of Liberty.
What, you’re acting as if you’ve just asked the same question twice. Economic science would be just as valid if no humans existed, seeing as it’s all hypothetical anyway.
I’m going on my memory here, but Rothbard attacks “value free ethical science” not economic science, in that part of the book. Elsewhere he defends value free economic science.
Because we all know how many contributions to economic science the layman has made in the past 100 years. Well, there was Hazlitt’s book on Keynes, but Hutt’s was better (guess which one was the scholar, which was the journalist). Other than that I can only think of a few introductory books, that whilst very good, aren’t the epitome of scholarship.
Look Juan, we all know that you have an ax to grind with anybody above you in the social hierarchy. What we also know is that when push comes to shove you’re still willing to splash on books by these intellectuals you pretend to dislike so much.
Hazlitt was a journalist yes. but he was also an economist. a good one. better than keynes I would say. I think perhaps you don’t know what an economist is…
and I have read Keynes General Theory in an old hardback I booked out of the library some years ago. I have read Mankiw, I have his ‘macroeconomic’ textbook on my floor. What is your obsession with ‘fully comprehending’ the minutest details of the web of fallacies and absurdities that some particular respected or renowned pseudo-economists have excreted?
Really? If humans did not exist…who would be trading?
…Re-read the chapter.
I pity you, and any science you touch.
And this statement is somehow related to mine?
No, subjective means introduces semblance into the equation, and semblance decieves, a theory being efficient is a very technical, and objective definition which, at least in the natural sciences, involves both explaining the evidence in as economical as a method possible, Occam’s razor, and being fallsifiable. Sorry, this is not history, there are very technical, objective methods one is expected to take on the path to truth in the realm of science.
As I have said before, the motives of the originator do not matter, only the theory itself.
I have never read America’s Great Depression, though, so I cannot comment any further on it.
Did Gilles ever once hint that Keynes was a better economist than Hazlitt?
Know thy enemy. Know the reasons why your enemy thinks a theory is true, mabye you might just come to grudgingy respect their reasoning rather than just rejecting them as “psuedo-economists”.
Are you making a value-judgement? I’m a historian, watch out. I could just write you out of existence. [:P]
Objectivity means a universal, singular definition or outlook. One that is acceptable by all.
I’m tired of dancing. Is economics a priori or a posteri?
Then essentially you don’t care for laissez faire economics as an ethical system. You are merely after what ‘works’ and according to you what ‘works’ is what brings the highest social utility.
Giles has said so many foolish things in this thread…His most ridiculous, baseless assertion is that academic economics is ‘science’ when it’s kinda obvious that it is mostly statist propaganda.
Of course, Giles just assumes what he needs to prove. He assumes that the establishment is composed of nice unbiased people who, maybe, just maybe have one or two wrong theories in their heads.
Or maybe they are pseudo-economists.
A.K.A. no, your statement was not at all related towards mine.
Read carefully before you try to attack me**, I was not talking about the social sciences for that exampe.**
I care about pure economic theory; in the realm of pure economic theory, I do not care about laissez-faire’s ethical consequences - an economist ought to be objective with respect to the laws of economics, and should not bring his ethical judgements of value into the mix.
So, it would be OK if a government agent jailed you for no reason?
The socialist state Mises talked about in his famous argument has never existed, his criticism still applies. I think you need to learn what Austrian economics is about. It is entirely hypothetical, the application of praxeology to actual events (thymology) makes various assumptions (that people actually do act, rather than react, nobody can prove the former).
I read it very quickly just now, what I’ll tell you is that Rothbard is attacking Mises’ utilitarian (and allegedly value free) approach to ethical theory not economic science, I’m sorry if you don’t know the difference, but one exists.
And if you wish to argue otherwise, I’ll ask for quotations. I wouldn’t bother wasting your time though, this is just an appeal to authority, and a misplaced one (assuming Rothbard did attack wertfreiheit), because there’s a very big chance Rothbard was wrong.
I think you’re putting words in my mouth, I’ve never said such a thing. I don’t think Keynes was a particularly good economist (that’s not to say he wasn’t very intelligent). He did, however, have some brilliant disciples (Hicks, Solow, Samuelson). Hazlitt wasn’t a particularly good economist either, he communicated his ideas very well to the layman, but he didn’t contribute much to economics as a science (I think Garrison hits the mark nicely in his criticism of Hazlitt).
Are you really going to dismiss the entire economics profession as pseudo-economists because you disagree with them? This includes such brilliant minds as Alchian, Buchanan, Arrow, Debreu, Solow, Friedman, Lucas, Samuelson, Hicks etc. Whilst I’ve not read much of any of these (I want to read some of Alchian soon), I can assure you if they were working within the Austrian tradition they’d have made as many contributions as most Austrians. As it happens, they were raised in the neoclassical tradition, so they’ve not.
I don’t think you can dismiss Keynes that easily either. If you’ve not got a thorough understanding of Keynesian economics (Garrison assigns The General Theory to his students) you can’t fully accept Austrianism except on faith. If you don’t understand Keynesian economics you can’t reject it, the best you’re able to do is repeat the criticisms made by Hazlitt, Hutt and Hoppe.
Also, some Austrians have found elements of Keynes they like. Some members of the GMU faculty have said that Keynes had some interesting views on uncertainty (although most scholars don’t think he could get out with an adequate understanding of price theory). But Garrison notes that he simply attached uncertainty to make his theories fit, whereas Austrians incorporate them from the beginning. Others (Ludwig van den Hauwe) appreciate his vies on probability.
On a related, but different, note, you can’t understand Austrian economics unless you understand the neoclassical system in which Austrianism is situated.
I’d be annoyed in the same sense as I am when the person on the bus has a really obnoxious ring tone, albeit to a greater extent. Here’s the thing, I intend on getting a PhD, but I’m going to have to pay for it myself. Which means I’m going to have to find employment at an institute that will pay me and look good on an application, that means I’m probably going to try and get employment at a central bank or some other similar institution.
I had a long think about this last night. I think you are wrong. I think the USSR and its gulags, and North Korea with its gulags, are exactly what happens when militarism and statism run into a resource battle with welfare. People who talk about a collapse of the system because they are doing their part to rip it off, seems disingenuous to me. To be honest, it sounds completely self-serving. Millions and millions have been slaughtered in those systems when resources ran very low.
I realize this is just the internet, and what people do offline and what they say online aren’t always the same. I also realize that there are millions of people happily ripping me off, and even though ideologically I expect the small handful of people here to be the last of them, that is also not the case.
But when someone who claims to have a peaceful ethical system, thinks that bankrupting a system (and all of the pain that will cause, not to mention potentially wiping out the human race in war) is better than secession and resistance, that really throws me for a loop.
I worry a lot about people who think that science is above values, and that science is synonymous with God. It’s a dangerous combo and has caused a lot of suffering in this world.
I think the mistake is mine. I assumed that people would see things the same way that I do. Taxes are theft, government funding is supplied by force, and if we can resist taking it, we must. I appreciate the things written in this thread to me, because it makes clear that row I have chosen to hoe is a lot longer and narrower than I had originally thought.
Any time you can remove someone’s confirmation bias, that is a kindness. Thanks.
LS, if you’re done with responding to me, I’d appreciate it if you could inform me. As far as I’m aware you’ve not addressed my previous comments.
You are quoting yourself here.
If you are not talking about economics or history then I see no point in continuing discussion with you. I care not for the natural sciences and what happens to them cannot be compared to the social sciences.
See you say things like your are not talking about the social sciences then talk about economics and objectivity like it is somehow a natural science which it is not. Therefore I ask you again is economics an a priori or a posteri discipline? Mises while a great economist was wrong in his idea that only the means by which you achieve your end goal can be questioned but not the goal itself. An ethical system is implied by Austrian economics because praxelogy pre-supposes the goals of an individual are not such goals as increasing human misery, causing food shortages, engaging in government intervention to bring about socialism. A praxelogist pre-supposes libertarian minded end goals such as freedom, prosperity, higher standard of living and happiness. You like to think that these goals are objective however like I showed in my previous statement you have no suggestion towards those who do not fit into your paradaigm therefore you assert a value judgement in implying that those things wanted by socialists, those who want food shortage and those who want poverty are irrational and illogical.
That did nothing to answer my question. My question was, [given that you said economic science can exist without humanity] who would be using economics without humanity?
Honestly you are like a petulant child.
'Thus, Mises, qua economist, may show that price control (to use his example) will lead to unforeseen shortages of a good to the consumers. But how does Mises know that some advocates of price control do not want shortages? They may, for example, be socialists, anxious to use the controls as a step toward full collectivism. Some may be egalitarians who prefer shortages because the rich will not be able to use their money to buy more of the product than poorer people. Some may be nihilists, eager to see shortages of goods. Others may be one of the numerous legion of contemporary intellectuals who are eternally complaining about the “excessive affluence” of our society, or about the great “waste” of energy; they may all delight in the shortages of goods. Still others may favor price control, even after learning of the shortages, because they, or their political allies, will enjoy well-paying jobs or power in the price-control bureaucracy. All sorts of such possibilities exist, and none of them is compatible with Mises asserting, as a value-free economist, that all the supporters of the price control—or of any other government intervention—must concede, after learning economics, that the measure is bad. In fact, once Mises concedes that even a single advocate of price control or any other interventionist measure may acknowledge the economic consequences and still favor it, for whatever reason, then Mises, as a praxeologist and economist, can no longer call any of these measures “bad” or “good,” or even “appropriate” or “inappropriate,” without inserting into his economic policy pronouncements the very value judgments that Mises himself holds to be inadmissible in a scientist of human action.18 For then he is no longer being a technical reporter to all advocates of a certain policy, but himself an advocate participating on one side of a value conflict.
In this connection, one of Mises’s basic arguments for the free market is that, on the market, there is a “harmony of the rightly understood interests of all members of the market society.” It is clear from his discussion that he doesn’t merely mean “interests” after learning the praxeological consequences of market activity or of government intervention. He also, and in particular, means people’s “long-run” interests, for, as Mises states, “For ‘rightly understood’ interests we may as well say interests ‘in the long run.”‘19 But what about the high-time-preference folk, who prefer to consult their short-run interests? How can the long-run be called “better” than the short-run; why must “right understanding” necessarily be the long-run?20 We see, therefore, that Misesfs attempt to advocate laissez-faire while remaining value-free, by assuming that all of the advocates of government intervention will abandon their position once they learn of its consequences, falls completely to the ground.’
And blindly clinging to Mises ‘value-free’ outlook is what? Rational? Such nonsense.
Then, your entire premise is wrong - both the physical sciences, and the social sciences are sciences, and objectivity must be considered a trait of a true science.
I speak of it as a science, I just decided to use the natural sciences it that example because objectivity there is clear sine dubio. Logical deduction of praxeology is just as objective as the hypothetico-deductive method of the physical sciences that I referred to before. While there is definately a methodological dualism between the two, objectivity is ubiquitous in any discipline which desires to raise itself to the level of a science.
You serverely misinterpret Mises’ wertfreiheit since all that it dictates is that one does not make a judgement of value regarding individuals’ ends, and means in the realm of economics. It is not the position of the economist to say that a raising standard of living is “good,” it is the position of the economist to say that certain economic phenomena will result in a rise in the standard of living - the economist analyzes, he does not make ethical judgements.
No he does not. He simply does not, to do so would involve making an ethical judgement, which should not be done in the realm of praxeology.
Mind typing out a coherent sentence? What do you mean by “no suggestion?” Mind putting a qualifier onto that so I know what it is in respect to that I have “no suggestion towards those who do not fit into (my) paradaigm (sic)” because otherwise I have no clue what you are trying to assert here.
I make no judgements of value with respect to socialism in pure economic theory; what I would assert is that socialism is not a valid means towards the end of having a high standard of living, there are no judgements of value in that statement, I merely present the facts.
As far as “those who want food shortage and those who want poverty”, if that is what they desire, I, as an economist, would recommend socialism for them if that is what they want. Again, I do not make a judgement of value.
There are however qualitative and quantitative differences between the sciences. Calling history and economics a science is really an overexaggeration under my interpretation. They really can be seen as apart of the humanities. I digress, if you are willing to link natural science to social science just because they have ‘science’ on the end then I think you are making an irrational blanket statement without any regard twoards the differences each field has.
Just because there is some objectivity in the natural sciences does not infer there is any in the social sciences. No one dispusts that the solar system has several planets. However to take such a clear statement like that and apply it to a world of human subjectivity is a misnomer.
‘Logical deduction of praxeology is just as objective as the hypothetico-deductive method of the physical sciences that I referred to before’
Praxeology starts with a priori statements therefore there is no ‘objective deduction’ nor can it be used with the physical sciences. Using the example I did before, how can one make a priori statements about the solar system without actually experiencing it first hand? The physical sciences cannot be formulated a priori while praxeology can.
He most certainly does. Mises did, read my Rothbard quote concerning value-free economics that I replied to Giles only posts ago.
If they are Socialists then why not recommend them State-Capitalism or Capitalism in general for according to a Socialist capitalism will eventually lead to a polarized society in which there are only a small minority of haves and a large majority of have nots therefore food shortages could be exaccerbated or standard of living could go down. What would you say to those who want Socialism for merely the sake of having it? Those who know Socialism cannot work yet still want it? This is the flaw in your argument. You presuppose that once EVERYONE learns economics then EVERYONE will agree on the best course of action without implimenting value judgements. Its a utopian fantasy. If 51% of the country wanted Socialism and you gave them Mises’ " Economic calculations in a Socialist Commonwealth" and they still wanted it, you have nothing to say.
No, it wasn’t. And since you’ve asked this I can say you’ve now shifted the goal posts. Your original question concerned the possibility of economic science without humanity.
I wonder, did you know that Austrians economics is an a priori science?
This is a critique of Mises ethical views, which you don’t seem to be too knowledgable about, so I’ll take this as an opportunity to educate you. Mises regarded value as entirely subjective, he didn’t think it made much sense to claim that a given object has a property such as “goodness” or “badness”, in the same sense that an object has properties of “redness” and “yellowness”. He also objected to attempts to force ones values on to others, as the state does. In other words, he was consistently applying value subjectivism. However, given this, Mises was faced with a dilemma, he was an ardent advocate of laissez - faire, and yet, he couldn’t support it becasue by his own analysis, value judgement were precluded.
In order to obviate this objection, Mises claimed that since most people presumably value wealth, the best system is that which maximises wealth. Especially since the free market allows individuals to follow their own ends, whereas the state does not. He therefore claimed to be advocating liberty on grounds that were value free. He hadn’t claimed anybody should hold any particular ends.
Now go back and read the Rothbard quotations you posted above in light of this and see why you’re wrong. The whole topic is that of ethics (no wonder, it’s in which book again? The Ethics of Liberty).
Now, please, show me one instance of Rothbard saying that economics is anything more than a descriptive science. To be honest, I think you’re just a little confused.