What if Austrian economists were wrong? What if Kenyesian economists were correct? What would this imply about human action?
What if you stopped asking questions at random…?
-Jon
Austrian economics isn’t wrong if we accept the premise that humans act. If we accept Keynesian economics (and thereby deny Austrian economics), we must deny that humans act.
Good luck finding a graduate school that teaches Keynsian economics. If you didn’t notice, it was pretty much completely discredited by the economic data gathered during the second half of the 20th century. Even if Neoclassical, New-Keynsian, or Austrian economics were proven “wrong”, it wouldn’t follow that one of the other alternatives are right.
Your question sounds silly to me. Perhaps you should reword it. It sounds a lot like "What if Newtonian was wrong and Cartesian physics was right? What would that mean for the Universal Law of Gravitation?"
If it was discredited, I’m curious as to what a graduate school and/or what schools generally favor in teaching (whether because it’s a new school of theory, or because it’s based on such economic data that disproved Keynsian economics) ?
Almost all of the top schools teach Neoclassical methodology. There are a few schools that teach New-Keynsian methodology, but none in the top 20 that teach orthodox Keynsian methodology. Ask a random grad student if he’s ever read The General Theory. If they have, they probably did it in undergraduate school.
This is what I don’t understand. Why are students indoctrinated with Keynesian economics as an undergrad and then if a student goes to grad school, Keynesian economics is not taught much at all?
That’s not a random question. Have austrian economists ever made a large, wrong prediction? It would be good to know.
Come on, I want to learn.
The reason I asked the question is because when I tried to explain this methodology, I got asked the question, “What if you are wrong?”
I would respectfully say IT DEPENDS. Maybe all of them are correct and we should merge everybody’s opion on Economics. Wrong or Correct in Economics depends on who is playing.
I have stopped asking this question to people “Aren’t we better off without IRS or FED???”
Years of propanda have worked in favor of today’s players. IRS=Water. FED=Sunlight.
But in practice my friend, Keynes is correct. I say so because his theory is everywhere in practice and not that of Austrian. Maybe we will get a change in the future to play.
The only reply to this is “prove it”.
“what if you are wrong” is a deliciously ludicrously ambigious question to ask
is it asking “what will happen to the economy if you are wrong?”
“what will happen to the mises institute if you are wrong?”
“what will happen to me if you are wrong?”
“what will happen to you if you are wrong?”
“what will happen to zebras if you are wong?”
make your own up
“what X if you are wrong?”
In practice, Keynes is most certaintly wrong. I think what you meant was, “In the mainstream / politics / public schools / etc., Keynes is viewed as correct…”
Then read! You need to read and learn to think for yourself.
Well, we’re not infallibilists (at least as far as I know), so I’d just respond I’d examine my premises and see what needed changing. What does it mean for Austrian economics to be wrong? Well obviously one of its axioms is incorrect (most unlikely) or one of its subsidiary postulates is wrong or a subsidiary postulate or axiom is missing or something went wrong at the deductive stage. So I’d see how I could overcome the problem and then see whether Austrian econ is wrong or merely has some errors. No school of economics is infallible. I’ve just yet to see one that is as correct and rigorous as the Austrian school.
-Jon
I thought you where joking when I read your remarks in the “Let’s discuss Keynes” Thread. Now it seems you are not.
There is economics, which is Austrian, which provides insight into human action, and then there are non-Austrians masquerading as economists who resort to statistics, mathematics, chemistry, geology, physics, metaphysics, voodoo, psychobabble, astronomy, the latest movement of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and numerous other fool’s tools in fruitless efforts to comprehend human action.
Austrian economics cannot be wrong because all of its laws, theories and postulates remain forever subject to being logically disproved and discarded by new, improved, superior knowledge and understanding of human action. Since all of its laws and theories that stand today have withstood the efforts of all challengers to logically knock them down, they are true for now and will remain true unless and until logically shown to be untrue. So if, for example, you disagree with or don’t like von Mises’ monetary theory of the business cycle, all you need do is logically show where, how or why Mises was wrong or where he went astray in his thinking. Then your improved theory of trade cycles will be accepted by Austrians as the replacement for Mises’ theory. You will of course be on your metal in undertaking and succeeding at the task, for many brilliant minds before have tried and failed. So, have at it. You have everything you need available to you since Austrian economics is entirely and perforce–understanding human action couldn’t be otherwise for a human being–an a priori discipline. But be careful, many brilliant thinkers attuned to the “scientific method” have seen their what they thought was a logically sound proposition torn assunder upon the reef of careful aprioristic reasoning.
As for Keynes being right? Impossible! For Mises and Hayek among others have clearly and logically shown where, how and why poor Lord Keynes’ logic was wrong in his analysis of, and consequently his recommendations for “treating” trade cycles.
I like this explanation. Thanks.[:)]
Because teaching IS/LM to undergraduates is easy.
But I am reading! And I am learning to think for myself (yes, I am realizing it is hard)! I just want to learn what others have learned. I need human assistance, because I need to know what past people have learned.
I figured it would be something an absurdily simple as “it’s easier to teach a poorer school of economics”.