interesting point you bring Jon.
by the principle of explosion i am the 2nd coming of Jesus.
Okay, good discussion and reading comprehension. I think you’ve helped to answer the OP’s question.
Why don’t more people take the austrian school seriously?
Because it cannot be scientifically proven, meaning the scientific method cannot be used.
Now, granted, the Keynesian school does not use the scientific method either, however, it has the illusion of significance because they use statistics and math. And as someone else already pointed out, they use cliches. If the mainstream started saying, “in order for us to unleash the creativity and productivity of the nation, we need more freedom and protection of property rights”, then you would probably see more people start to accept Austrian economics.
Stubborn people that worship every word that spills from the mouth of Murray Rothbard.
better to be stubborn than wrong.
Are you going to start that argument again?
the scientific method can always be used. the question of whether it could be reliable on certain issues is another.
also too whether it can be insightful etc. etc.
Well that is what I mean. There is no way to have a control group.
However, another reason it may not be so popular is a lack in ability of those in the spotlight of being able to communicate the ideas. I have been very frustrated with Ron Paul especially at not clarifying that the reason government spending does not stimulate the economy is that the government is taking money out of the economy to put it back into the economy. He just says “the Fed is bad”.
also when natural scientists theorize and experiment and re-theorize, they constantly try to gather the most accurate picture they can of what they must ‘suppose’ is actually out there. scientific realism. positivist economists do not, as far as i can judge, use a realist approach, they posit things like ‘rational expectations’ , its a simplifying assumption to make a model ‘work’, this can be played with so we abstract away irrelevancies (are they really irrelevancies?really?), and then what? this simple model is good for showing this particular point is plausible, and what comes next…?.lead me towards an understanding of actual human expectations.. you know, like a scientist wouldnt be satisfied in analysing that the moon, is a perfectly spherical rock of constant density, and lets not add in any more detail than helps to model whatever it pays our bills to say we are ‘understanding’. no, trying to actually think about human beings, would be too much like causal-realism, too much like praxeology to bother with. sheesh.
If only Rothbard were… [;)]
if only he were…wrong? … [;)]
If by “harshness” you mean realism, as in “there’s no free lunch”, than yes, people don’t like to be reminded of it.
The Austrian theory makes claims like ‘economic theory can be derived from self-evident first principles’, while mainstream economics observes behavior and attempts to make models which explain this behavior under simplifying assumptions.
Fundamentally it doesn’t make sense that anything about human behavior should be derivable a priori unless you think we’re created by God or something whose nature and choices about our nature can be derived.
you don’t know what praxeology is do you?
Have you read Human Action in the first place?
It’s because of this!
There are many reasons why people don’t take the Austrian school seriously.
I’ve seen people mention things like the lack of math, statistics, etc., that is correct.
I’ve also seen it written that mainstream media is an issue, that is also correct.
I’ve also seen it mentioned that people aren’t educated enough and don’t know the Austrian school, again, correct.
But there is one underlying factor which trumps all other factors and that is the fact that no free rights Austrian society has ever been created and maintained. Until this is accomplished the conversion of the populace is extremely unlikely to occur. It’s like trying to make lemonade without having the lemons first. We need to create such a society through a properly created constitution which can trap the leviathan in it’s place and then and only then do I believe the masses can be taught and converted to the Austrian school of economics.
Remember that the constitution is merely a piece of technology; a technology which still eludes economic thought.
Fundamentally, this is an assertion with no grounding. Perhaps you should try read up on Austrian methodology before posting on it? Would help…
People did take Austrians seriously. In fact, most of the major Austrian propositions hav already been incorporated into mainstream thinking. Hayek was considered a mojor mainstream economist. People don’t take Rothbard seriously because he was wrong. He knew he was wrong too. That is why he was eventually forced to argue on moral grouds rather than on economics. If you push any modern Rothbardian on the issue, they will eventually admit that fractional reserves are more efficient but less moral.
Even the ABCT has become mainstream now. People have know that an excess suply of money can lead to malinvestment for years, they just don’t say it the same way Austrians say it. Praxeology is a joke, sorry to say. Most Austrians don’t even believe it. Only the people who followed Rothbard still believe it, meaning th people at the Mises Instutute.
there is no such thing as an Austrian in the modern sense without praxeology. if you mean to say that most neo-classicals dont believe it, you would be correct, … boring. … but correct.