odd, i’ve only ever found myself laughing at you…
The fact that he says some (very) silly things now by no means implies that he’s always been a partisan hack. Whilst I don’t really like the sort of things he advocates now, the work that he won the nobel prize for wasn’t disastreous (sp?). Of course, the nobel prize gave him the authority to go and say the sorts you criticize him for. But that’s quite besides the point.
So you did get the memo that we’re just keeping Giles around for the cheap laughs he unintentionally provides.
Now? He’s ALWAYS said shit like that, Giles. ALWAYS. He’s a big government shill. A political hack. And the “work” he did to win the “nobel prize” had been known for years before he did the work! So don’t ever think that he’s an economist; he is not. Period. He’s the court jester who tries to bamboozle the booboisie.
Hmm, I’m no Krugman expert, but from what I know, you’re correct. His work is, AFAIK, putting what came before him in regards to international trade into math (correct me if I’m wrong). But my point was that he’s got far worse since he’s won the nobel prize and that he wasn’t the worst possible option for the prize (nor was he the best).
Since? No–he was always like this, Giles. Always. And he was the worst possible option for the prize, just like Al Gore. Political skullduggery.
Giles:
From Menger:
"The aim of this orientation, which in the future we will call an exact one, an aim which research pursues in the same way in all realms of the world of phenomena, is the determination of strict laws of phenomena, of regularities in the succession of phenomena which do not present themselves to us as absolute, but which in respect to the approaches to cognition by which we attain them simply bear within themselves the guarantee of absoluteness. It is the determination of laws of phenomena which commonly are called “laws of nature,” but more correctly should be designated by the expression “exact laws.”
(Investigations Into The Method of the Social Sciences, NYU Press, 1985, page 59)
Here, two essential aspects of praxeology:
-
The determination of exact laws, as contrasted to empirical laws.
-
The idea that in the fullness of empirical reality, the laws are not discernible as absolute, but by virtue of the approach to cognition by which we attain such laws (the analytical method), the laws are guaranteed to be absolute. (Mises’s term: apodictic certainty)
So Menger is talking about the same thing. Praxeology is concerned with expressing the regularities in human action (human intentionality, human purposive activity, etc…) in the form of exact laws; laws admitting of no exception. Mises contributed several things: First, he named this “exact” approach to the realm of human action “praxeology.” And second, he repeated again and again, that economics (catallactics, the study of market phenomena) was but one realm or branch of praxeology. The analytic method at the heart of praxeology may be applied to any realm of human goal directed activity, not only market-related human goal directed activity. Any time an actor uses means toward ends, praxeology is concerned with expressing the regularities in such action in the form of exact laws. This endeavor exceeds economics proper and encompasses “ethical actions” (actions directed toward another person) and “psychological actions” (actions directed toward oneself, such as “trying to overcome one’s fears” or “trying to calm oneself down.”— “trying to” indicating an attempt at an end utilizing means. A fourth class of actions may be conceived as “simple actions,” such as the simple attempt to climb a ladder, etc… Praxeology, the exact science of all human action, encompasses all these kinds of actions, not merely “catallactic” or “economic” action.
Some Austrian economists view praxeology as virtually synonymous with economics or catallactics. But this was not Mises’s nor Menger’s view.
When Menger fought for the legitimacy of the exact theoretical approach to all human phenomena, he was fighting for the legitimacy of what Mises later termed “praxeology.”
Henry Kissinger! [:|]
Hahahhh.. [:(]
Wrong, sorry. Hoppe and Block used to be my favorite economists/philosophers. I have a signed copy of Hoppe’s Democracy: The God that Failed (I’ll sell it to you if you want).
Was Hayek an Austrian Economist? He defenitely did not subscribe to praxeology. Only the Mises Institue folk, excluding Garrison, still use praxeology. Some others (White, Selgin Rizzo, Boettke) have written about it but as far as I can tell they have never used it explicitly in their analyses and have sometimes openly rejected it.
If the message behind praxeology is that we can just formulate theories and then arbitrarily apply them to the real world, then it is joke. In a literal sense it is a joke. Economists laugh when they hear that sort of thing.
If the message behind praxeology is that we must use theories to interpret evidence and that evidence cannot “speak for itself,” then this is obviously true and is the methodology of every good economist.
Jake:
I believe Hayek did subscribe to praxeology ealier in his career. He referred to it as the “Pure Logic of Choice.” (see his essay: Economics and Knowledge, 1936)
I believe the message behind praxeology is approximately the following:
"The aim of this orientation, which in the future we will call an exact one, an aim which research pursues in the same way in all realms of the world of phenomena, is the determination of strict laws of phenomena, of regularities in the succession of phenomena which do not present themselves to us as absolute, but which in respect to the approaches to cognition by which we attain them simply bear within themselves the guarantee of absoluteness. It is the determination of laws of phenomena which commonly are called “laws of nature,” but more correctly should be designated by the expression “exact laws.”
(Menger, Investigations Into The Method of the Social Sciences, NYU Press, 1985, page 59)
When Menger refers to the theoretical exact approach, when Hayek refers to as The Pure Logic of Choice, and when Mises refers to praxeology, they are referring to the same general scientific approach.
Hayek writes:
“It is important to remember that the so-called “data,” from which we set out in this sort of analysis, are…all facts given to the person in question, the things as they are known to (or believed by) him to exist, and not, strictly speaking, objective facts. It is only because of this that the propositions we deduce are necessarily a priori valid and that we preserve the consistency of the argument.” Here he is describing the procedure of methodological individualism which characterizes praxeology.
In 1936, Hayek is arguing against the conception of equilibrium analysis which is overtaking the economics profession:
“The data which here are supposed to be objective facts and the same for all people are evidently no longer the same thing as the data which formed the starting-point for the tautological transformations of the Pure Logic of Choice. There “data” meant those facts, and only those facts, which were present in the mind of the acting person, and only this subjective interpretation of the term “datum” made those propositions necessary truths. “Datum” meant given, known, to the person under consideration. But in the transition from the analysis of the action of an individual to the analysis of the situation in a society the concept has undergone an insidious change of meaning.”
So here, Hayek is chronicling the shift away from praxeological analysis, an analysis based on theoretical methodological individualism, towards a new kind of analysis based on “the situation in a society.”
Praxeological analysis is the same analysis responsible for Menger’s discovery of the law of marginal utility. The law of marginal utility refers to, and is based on, the logical analysis of individual action, and does not refer to an aggregate or collective of individuals.
A great essay explaining the message behind praxeology is Lionel Robbins’ “An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science.”
This paragraph by Robbins summarizes the message behind praxeology:
“Economic laws describe inevitable implications. If the data they postulate are given, then the consequences they predict necessarily follow. In this sense they are on the same footing as other scientific laws, and as little capable of “suspension.” If, in a given situation, the facts are of a certain order, we are warranted in deducing with complete certainty that other facts which it enables us to describe are also present. … If the “given situation” conforms to a certain pattern, certain other features must also be present, for the presence is “deducible” from the pattern originally postulated. The analytic method is simply a way of discovering the necessary consequences of complex collocations of facts–consequences whose counterpart in reality is not so immediately discernable as the counterpart of the original postulates. It is an instrument for “shaking out” all the implications of given suppositions. Granted the correspondence of its original assumptions and the facts, its conclusions are inevitable and inescapable.”
So praxeology is concerned with discovering regularities in human action, and conceiving those regularities in the form of exact laws. But one does not have to use the term praxeology. Menger, Hayek and Robbins didn’t, though they were referring to the same approach. What characterizes praxeology is the pursuit of universally valid laws. At least, this is the way it was understood by Menger, Hayek, and Mises.
Elegantly put, an excellent point. [Y]
Another thing I didn’t see mentioned here is the fact that Austrian economics do not support “free lunches”. People want to believe that the latest health care reform or pension scheme will be “free of charge”: hey, I pay my taxes each year, I am owed more “services”! Under an Austrian-influenced model money would come either from increased taxation or from cutting expenses in other sectors: there’s no other way. But using currency manipulation and other financial alchemical concoctions allows people to be lulled in a sense of having be given a “free lunch”. Of course inflation can be blamed on oil producing countries, speculators or whoever the latest financial boogeyman is. Other accounting problems can be blamed for example on “tax evasion” and I assure you Xahrx hit it right between the eye on this when I see people salivating over the latest tax evasion scandal: they’ve been programmed (trained is not a strong enough word) to believe that because somebody tried to make an extra buck without hurting anybody else they are being robbed of food and medicine.
Sadly I am not joking and sadly speaking against socialized instruction (and I am qualified since I worked for a few years repairing the damages it wrought on young minds) is equal to stamp “social outcast” on your forehead.
To the extent that they are consistent, yes…
@ OP
Some people think they can will something into existence even if it’s not logical. They are what are called positivists. Dreamers of what can’t be - utopians beating their own metaphorical heads against the wall wondering why it can’t work but never fully contemplating the why. Throwing shi*t at the window hoping it will stick. It’s why the government doesn’t make sense. Not because a person doesn’t understand the government - it’s truly cause the government doesn’t make sense and doesn’t try to fully think through their potential actions. For instance the health care reform. Some governmental officials simply want it to work. It doesn’t matter that so far what’s on the table will not practically work. They simply like the idea that everybody can have healthcare and believe it’s more a matter of will that can make it happen. It’s Obama’s phrase in a nutshell, “Yes, we can”. They are thinking it’s a lack of motivation and political will that holds back their dreams of achievement when it’s simply not logical and can’t happen and no will power, no matter how much strength they think they need to move the mountains - the mountains will not move. It’s rooted in the god-king mentally. They believe they can simply will it into existence - acting as if they are the gods.
Maybe I misunderstood the question. I thought it was about a world leader who thought more like an Austrian than Thatcher did…not a country with “Austrian policies” - and I’m not even sure what the latter means. All policies are Austrian, are they not? For instance, consider an inflationary monetary policy. It will produce a boom and bust cycle - exactly as the ABCT says. What can be more Austrian?
Also, an Austrian symp would tend (likely) to be hands off (unless he thought like Wieser, I suppose), and so how can we say anything about him from the investment patterns in society?
No one claimed that the application is “arbitrary”.