NationStates Jolt Archive

The Mises Institute has a 25 question quiz (http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4) to determine where you sit on matters of economy and state. It puts people into four categories: Socialist, Keynesian, Chicago School, and Austrian School. It's a long wordy quiz and you might not be able to make sense of the answers without a little background in some form of economics. There is a also a 10 question short version (http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=5). I'd like to know how people stack up.

I'm a hardcore Austrian: 100/100.

-The Austrian school, has become the term for the economic school of thought that free markets and private property without controls are the best.
-The Chicago school feels that free markets are good, but some government control is warranted.
-Keynes was a crackpot who favored heavy control, apparently largely responsible for the economic policies of the US in the past several decades.
-I won't bother defining socialism.


I think most Americans are between mildly socialistic and the Chicago School. I'm certainly the radical one.

I wonder if there are any "Austrian" Austrians?

I got 4/100. I answered Keynesian for 4 of the questions :p

My family is all from Austria, somehow I don't think that's what you meant...

I got a score of 38, but I'm in a mild hurry and skimmed a few answers. I think it's about right, though.

My family is all from Austria, somehow I don't think that's what you meant...

I got a score of 38, but I'm in a mild hurry and skimmed a few answers. I think it's about right, though.

You make Lenin happy :D

COMMIE!

http://www.marxists.org/catala/lenin/lenin.jpg

Chicagoan

Actually, I *am* part Austro-Hungarian

I am more of a Neo-Classical but somehow I get branded a Keynesian. I am really non-mainstream and use a theory of economics from 4096 AD where I am from. I am not really human but Vilani from the planet Regina in the Imperium, were we look human. I am here to improve the world and help prevent the mistakes that almost destroyed it.

Chicagoan, but just barely (72 points).

Chicagoan, which is a relief. I'd hate to have been branded an Austrian after laughing at the theory at work, when one of our economists explained it to us. He thought it an interesting special model which needed quite a few bolt-ons to work in the real world, which sounded about right. Mainly because it doesn't addess technology or human psychology.

Which is interesting in the context of the quiz, because I kept getting frustrated at the restricted nature of the possible answers, which also lacked these perspectives. Then I saw it was written by Austrians, and the lack of perspective fell into place .....

Chicagoan, which is a relief.
[snip]
Which is interesting in the context of the quiz, because I kept getting frustrated at the restricted nature of the possible answers, which also lacked these perspectives.
Ditto.

On a slightly different topic, it frustrates me that these economic systems are supposed to work equally well no matter where you are in the world. I live in a nation which has barely 20 million people stretched across a continent, and we're supposed to need the same answers as overpopulated European nations? When an Aussie town's bus service is covering the area of their national rail system? For that matter, I would have thought an US state would be a reasonable comparison to an Euro nation, and that the EU & US should compared - making allowances for wildly different purposes, of course.

I got 19, so I'm a little bit mote Keynesian than socialist, but the test is right-wing biaised, showing off three type of economic philosphy for right to center-right and a far left choice "Proletarian Revolution"istic mind extremist with capitalist and exploitation at each two lines... honestly most of the time I would have chose something between the socialist (even if I call that marxist sight of life more communism than socialism) and Keynesian, but finding the so-called socialist answers too much heavy, I head to one of the most realistic choice between the three right-wing theories.

bah, it mostly assumes that socialism is always marxist, or at least statist. which leaves me out, without some drastic reinterpretations on my part.

Then I saw it was written by Austrians, and the lack of perspective fell into place .....


hahahaha, burn

-Keynes was a crackpot ...
Nothing like nailing your particular ideological prejudices to the mast, hey? And isn't "Crackpot" is a bit steep coming from a hardcore von Mises supporter? ;)


-I won't bother defining socialism.
I sincerely doubt you could! Or rather I doubt that your 'definition' would improve on the crude caricature embodied in the questions of this quiz.

Anyway I scored 24, but I voted this quiz sucks, because it's a very poor quiz. Besides caricaturing rival positions the answers were so long and multi-faceted that it was difficult to find a single answer with which one could completely agree. By the same token it was easy to find statements in more than one answer with which to agree.

Nothing like nailing your particular ideological prejudices to the mast, hey? And isn't "Crackpot" is a bit steep coming from a hardcore von Mises supporter? ;)

You say "ideological prejudice", I say opinion. And I hardly consider the term too much for a von Mises supporter. I should mention, that just because someone scores heavily in that category, doesn't make them a "crackpot". Not everyone makes a career out of economics, but Keynes did.


[on not defining socialism]
I sincerely doubt you could! Or rather I doubt that your 'definition' would improve on the crude caricature embodied in the questions of this quiz.


I don't bother with the quick definition because most people are familiar with the term and socialists tend to like to define themselves. For me to define the term would be sort of like an atheist defining God.



Anyway I scored 24, but I voted this quiz sucks, because it's a very poor quiz. Besides caricaturing rival positions the answers were so long and multi-faceted that it was difficult to find a single answer with which one could completely agree. By the same token it was easy to find statements in more than one answer with which to agree.

I sort of agree. Actually, when I took this quiz the first time, I had some trouble finding the best answer for several of the questions. I still scored over 90, but that was only about 6 months ago. What I like though, is that many of the questions are not just policy matters but theoretical matters. This might make it difficult for someone who doesn't really subscribe to any particular theory, or follows a theory that isn't represented here. Anyway, most political economic debate in the US regards only policy and sort of assumes a fuzzy Keynesian basis.

Chicagoan, which is a relief. I'd hate to have been branded an Austrian after laughing at the theory at work, when one of our economists explained it to us. He thought it an interesting special model which needed quite a few bolt-ons to work in the real world, which sounded about right. Mainly because it doesn't addess technology or human psychology.

Care to elaborate? The work of Mises and subsequently Rothbard seems to be initially considered with praxeology, the study of human action/conduct. It is from observing the nature of human beings acting to achieve their own ends that the economic theory is based on. That's not psychology itself, but it's closely related. Technology isn't something covered much by Austrian economics, but I don't see how it matters. Don't get me wrong, technology matters, but it doesn't change the nature of economics.

Anyway, I'd really like to hear more on these critisims. I've never heard them before. And where do you work that you have economists?

Hm. I got a 38/100.

Considering the number of answers I read where I found myself agreeing with 9/10ths of it and absolutely hating that last 1/10th, I find the score a little hard to figure out. From what I've compiled of all the different questions though I'm strongly mixed in my economic background.

I'm a cross of Keynesian and Chicago schools with a small amount of Austrian thought and a tiny pinch of Socialism when the other answers were too clouded in meaning. Those two schools of thought seem to have much in common, and they appeal to me for the very reason that they're not ambitious, world-changing philosophies. They are based at least partially in reality.

Austrians scare me, with their blatant disregard for humanity in pursuit of "Market perfection"; they strike me as the same kind of idealistic fools who gave us the economic inverse; the no-holds barred statist theories in the 20th century that killed so many in pursuit of utopian visions.

The Chicago and Keynesian schools may not be "right" or optimally configured 100% of the time, but they seem to serve many different economies well enough to allow humanity to muddle through the 21st century with a minimum of "revolution" or "market perfection". I for one will take pragmatism and survival over ideology and perfection in death.

Care to elaborate? The work of Mises and subsequently Rothbard seems to be initially considered with praxeology, the study of human action/conduct. It is from observing the nature of human beings acting to achieve their own ends that the economic theory is based on. That's not psychology itself, but it's closely related. Technology isn't something covered much by Austrian economics, but I don't see how it matters. Don't get me wrong, technology matters, but it doesn't change the nature of economics.

Anyway, I'd really like to hear more on these critisims. I've never heard them before. And where do you work that you have economists?
Well, my entire knowledge of the Austrian model are based on a lunchtime conversation, a couple of newspaper articles and the Austrian answers in that quiz, so I probably won't get very far, but here goes nothing ...

1. The Austrian model comes across to me as being for hard-core economists. The version I've heard takes as given the essential tenets of traditional economics - that humans act rationally to maximise their individual, material utility, unmitigated by other drivers such as altruism or power. There's a general criticism of economics in there for me, but more so in the case of the Austrian model.

2. Technology is especially relevant to monopolies, which are central to Austrian thinking in that, to simplify, it doesn't acknowledge the existence of permanent natural monopolies. This is crucial when considering the role of the state in intervening to correct such market failures. For example, new technology may entail huge capital investment but very low marginal costs, so early entrants are able to kill off new competition by temporarily low prices or predatory buying up of start-ups. (See also Microsoft.) I would see potential for this in pharmaceuticals, public utilities and ICT, among others. Technology can also be used to maintain information imbalances, which will tend to produce monpolistic positions, eg in consumer finance - banks &c.

I believe, that the Austrian model assumes technology change will break down monopolies by eroding the early entrants' technological advantage. But that assumes monopolies won't stifle innovation through predatory buy-ups or whatever - that they won't use their monopolistic position to corner the market in change. Big assumption, heroic even.

And the time taken to achieve technology change is an issue. Take telephones - current mobile technology is less conducive to monopolies, but it took almost a century to develop out of capital intensive land lines. Do we really want to wait that long for competition to cut in?

For me, monopolies are the problem, I'm less interested in whether they are state or privately-owned. Both are inefficient.


In answer to your last question - I'm a UK Government statistician - there's economists crawling all over the place. Mostly right wing (quelle surprise!), ranging from Keynsian to Austrian. Largely macro-, but a fair number of micro-.

Hm. I got a 38/100.

Considering the number of answers I read where I found myself agreeing with 9/10ths of it and absolutely hating that last 1/10th, I find the score a little hard to figure out. From what I've compiled of all the different questions though I'm strongly mixed in my economic background.

I'm a cross of Keynesian and Chicago schools with a small amount of Austrian thought and a tiny pinch of Socialism when the other answers were too clouded in meaning. Those two schools of thought seem to have much in common, and they appeal to me for the very reason that they're not ambitious, world-changing philosophies. They are based at least partially in reality.

Austrians scare me, with their blatant disregard for humanity in pursuit of "Market perfection"; they strike me as the same kind of idealistic fools who gave us the economic inverse; the no-holds barred statist theories in the 20th century that killed so many in pursuit of utopian visions.

The Chicago and Keynesian schools may not be "right" or optimally configured 100% of the time, but they seem to serve many different economies well enough to allow humanity to muddle through the 21st century with a minimum of "revolution" or "market perfection". I for one will take pragmatism and survival over ideology and perfection in death.
That's also how I felt. The thrid paragraph in particular sums up how I feel about the Austrians.

I took my time and read the answers carefully and came 39/100.

I would like to think I was an Ultra-Left Leaning Chicago Schooler...

You say "ideological prejudice", I say opinion. And I hardly consider the term too much for a von Mises supporter. I should mention, that just because someone scores heavily in that category, doesn't make them a "crackpot". Not everyone makes a career out of economics, but Keynes did.

I'm sorry that my expression was a bit clumsy, but my barb was not aimed at you, but at von Mises, (and it was smileyed).

Agree with him or not, Keynes was the foremost economist of his generation, and one of the most profoundly intelligent thinkers ever to grace the discipline (which does not, of course, make him the most correct). I refered to your ideological prejudice, because you described this man as a crackpot, in introducing the quiz, presumably explaining who the man was to those who don't know. In another context, such a statement would have been more obviously a mere expression of your opinion (ideological or not).

92/100 ... four Chicago answers, straight Austrian otherwise. Interesting. I thought I would be all-Austrian, but apparently I do disagree on a few points even after looking over those answers.

The socialist answers are hillarious :headbang: