NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mises.org/

austrian economists who know their stuff.

discuss.

discuss.
An enormously biased website of course, but one which sometimes has good ideas.

Of course, in real life Austrian economics is irrelevant, so if you really want to learn about economics, you should stay away from there.

If you want to shock your parents, and communism just doesn't cut it anymore, you can still be libertarian and sensible at the same time, by having a look at Milton Friedman and the CSE. At least they are still anchored in the real world somewhere.

Here is the deal: Learn the mainstream first. The mainstream that has allowed economists to improve their theories constantly and that has allowed them to "run" the world economy as they do now.

Once you're familiar and fluent in that, you can go along and learn about Austrians, Marxists, Greenies and all the rest of it.

But don't sidestep the discipline like this.

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
-- The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

I would also be highly suspicious of any proposal to remove laws and regulations as well, for the same reasons described above.

admittedly biased, but i've found some very interesting articles are there, particularly about the depression. i tend to stay away form the blogs though.

...particularly about the depression...
Even then you still have to remember the interest of the writers. They desperately want to find the evil government to be the reason behind everyone and everything bad that has ever happened - and their articles will reflect that.
Which leads to strange ideas like: The depression was caused by the government (seeing as to how little intervention there was, a bold claim), but not fixed by it (seeing as to how much the New Deal did for confidence, even completely ignoring the investment it created, another bold claim).

He he...

Funny how "people who know thier ****" on economics tend to be conservative...

An enormously biased website of course, but one which sometimes has good ideas.

Of course, in real life Austrian economics is irrelevant, so if you really want to learn about economics, you should stay away from there.

If you want to shock your parents, and communism just doesn't cut it anymore, you can still be libertarian and sensible at the same time, by having a look at Milton Friedman and the CSE. At least they are still anchored in the real world somewhere.

Here is the deal: Learn the mainstream first. The mainstream that has allowed economists to improve their theories constantly and that has allowed them to "run" the world economy as they do now.

Once you're familiar and fluent in that, you can go along and learn about Austrians, Marxists, Greenies and all the rest of it.

But don't sidestep the discipline like this.
clearly you have not seriously taken a look at austrian economics. dont even waste your time looking at friedman, read mises and rothbard.
austrian economics is, in my opinion, the best way to start learning economics, as it is really economic theory (mostly), and based almost entirely on deductive reasoning.
your statement about them trying to prove the government is evil is misguided, the austrians did not start with the axiom 'government is evil', what they found is through deduction as well as looking at both current and historical events, is that government intervention and statism always result in poverty, war etc.etc.
austrian economics is largely a backlash of the abandonment of 'laissez faire' government, and the move to statist nationalist regimes. a book ive been reading lately and really enjoying is 'omnipotent government: rise of total state and total war' by lv mises, and if your looking for a good easy read (doesnt require a degree in economics) then its a great book just to start off on, learn alot about interventionism, nationalism, statism, etc.

this book was written in the mid 40s and talks alot about germany, naziism etc, as well as statism in other place, a quote from the introduction
'at the bottom of all totalitarian doctrines lies the belief that the rulers are wiser and loftier than their subject and that they therefore know better what benefits those rules than they themselves'

-snip-
Modern Austrians are not arguing against Nazis these days, they're arguing against democratic governments that have worked just fine for decades.

But I stick to my theme. If you want to learn economics, start off by doing mainstream stuff. You'll learn what the discipline is about, it's tools and it's assumptions.
The mainstream contains all the good ideas from all the fringes, because that is what sciences do.

And once you know all that, you can go to the radicals.

As for "deductive reasoning" - I have yet to meet a human being which has actually changed his emotional outlook on life based on reason. If Hayek hadn't detested WWI as much, if he hadn't been so revolted with the idea of government taking freedoms off people (on an emotional, rather than rational level), he would not have written the things he wrote.
At some point, there is an emotional start for every rational action. That's what makes us Human, rather than Vulcan.

And finally: You always keep the most from what you learn first. Mainstream economics is a neutral as possible, and so starting with that gives you the best chance of coming out with an open and unbiased mind.
Somehow I don't think starting with the Austrians is going to do that.

Modern Austrians are not arguing against Nazis these days, they're arguing against democratic governments that have worked just fine for decades..
democratic governments that have worked just fine for decades like.....? obviously not the usa, not the germans, not the french...ill be honest i dont know which democracies your talking about.

As for "deductive reasoning" - I have yet to meet a human being which has actually changed his emotional outlook on life based on reason. If Hayek hadn't detested WWI as much, if he hadn't been so revolted with the idea of government taking freedoms off people (on an emotional, rather than rational level), he would not have written the things he wrote.
At some point, there is an emotional start for every rational action. That's what makes us Human, rather than Vulcan...
(unfortunatly this part has to be anecdotal, as is yours...sorry)
this has not been my own personal experience, and i simply dont agree. i was quite the socialist before i sat down, did some serious history and economics, only now its an emotional issue to me (somewhat), because i agree that the government taxing me to pay welfare for lazy people (yes, some are disabled, or have some other factor beyond their control, too small a proportion for me to make provision) IS stealing.
And finally: You always keep the most from what you learn first. Mainstream economics is a neutral as possible, and so starting with that gives you the best chance of coming out with an open and unbiased mind.
Somehow I don't think starting with the Austrians is going to do that.
unbiased mind? explain this to me....?

democratic governments that have worked just fine for decades like.....? obviously not the usa, not the germans, not the french...ill be honest i dont know which democracies your talking about.
We're still alive, right? And we're living better and longer than we did 50 years ago, right?
Contrast that to a system which has not only never been put into practise, but is not even clearly defined on paper (Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what Austrians ultimately stand for).

unbiased mind? explain this to me....?
Basic economics is neither biased towards statism, nor towards libertarianism.
It's message is pretty clear: Do what works.

I've done a normal, mainstream course recently in microeconomic policy (a contentious topic if there ever was one), and I came out with a newly discovered pragmatism which I am very happy.
Yes, it may be boring to deal with the real world - but it's a hell of a lot more useful than bitching about taxes.

We're still alive, right? And we're living better and longer than we did 50 years ago, right?
Contrast that to a system which has not only never been put into practise, but is not even clearly defined on paper (Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what Austrians ultimately stand for)..
i know this is nitpicking but i hate the word capitalist (ive prolly said this before, became popular become of marxs' 'das kapital')...sorry
free market economics is fairly well described on paper, though there are controversial issues (for example a gold standard vs market driven currencies vs 'basket value' currencies etc etc.) just like any other economic system (social democrats being the most indecisive 'pragmatic' and fickle of them all).
also yes, it has not been implemented 'perfectly' but there have been many states that have strived for (with varying success) free markets. a good example would be colonial and early america, (which generated a vast amount of wealth and high quality of living, as well as technological inovation in a very short period of time)...
unfortunatly people like lincoln coolidge wilson fdr etc. nailed and burried that coffin pretty effectivly.


.
Basic economics is neither biased towards statism, nor towards libertarianism.
It's message is pretty clear: Do what works.
i dont know what basic economics your talking about..., unless your talking things like supply and demand?

I've done a normal, mainstream course recently in microeconomic policy (a contentious topic if there ever was one), and I came out with a newly discovered pragmatism which I am very happy.
Yes, it may be boring to deal with the real world - but it's a hell of a lot more useful than bitching about taxes.
economic pragmatism....that phrase makes me sick to the stomach, and will always result in coercion, force, exploitation as its methodus

also yes, it has not been implemented 'perfectly' but there have been many states that have strived for (with varying success) free markets. a good example would be colonial and early america, (which generated a vast amount of wealth and high quality of living, as well as technological inovation in a very short period of time)...
If the Colonial Age is what you consider to be Capitalism (sorry, but that's the word), then, well I can't follow you.
You complain about oppression today - I'm pretty certain you wouldn't be any happier then.
And early America was not what you would call "free-market" either. It was to one part based on slave labour, one part on small, autocratic farmsteads (not the most innovative of places) and small industrial centres in which politicians and businessmen were one and the same thing.

Of course you could start arguing that that wasn't "real Capitalism", but I remember hearing that phrase before with some other utopian form of government...

i dont know what basic economics your talking about..., unless your talking things like supply and demand?
Standard, mainstream economics. The thing you learn when you do an Economics degree at university.
Supply and Demand is a part of it, government-caused inefficiencies are a part of it, externalities are a part of it - and all-the-while you learn macroeconomics as well.

economic pragmatism....that phrase makes me sick to the stomach, and will always result in coercion, force, exploitation as its methodus
Notice how you're starting to go down the same road we were talking about yesterday?
If there are no moral absolutes, then the best thing we can go with is reality. And reality is that we have a government, we are free to try and change it. There is no realistic alternative.
And if you do economics, and you end up at the Central Bank...what is going to be more useful to you: a modern mathematical model of the economy, or some Austrian critique of why the money supply should be privatised?

There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic - it's realism, no more, no less. I can still keep my own values intact, and act accordingly - but I cannot expect anyone to share my values.
In that strange niche-like aspect, I am more of an Individualist than the Austrians are, who actually expect the majority of the population, which is happy with the way things are, and who couldn't care less about libertarian ideals, to follow along and suddenly have to deal with anarchism.

Not that there is a theory on how you could go about creating a capitalist utopia.

If the Colonial Age is what you consider to be Capitalism (sorry, but that's the word), then, well I can't follow you.
You complain about oppression today - I'm pretty certain you wouldn't be any happier then.
And early America was not what you would call "free-market" either. It was to one part based on slave labour, one part on small, autocratic farmsteads (not the most innovative of places) and small industrial centres in which politicians and businessmen were one and the same thing.

Of course you could start arguing that that wasn't "real Capitalism", but I remember hearing that phrase before with some other utopian form of government....
thats largely fair, and i agree there were alot of problems, however the solid constitution and rights (which no longer exist, and i agree slavery is awful) allowed alot of people to flourish, the economy to develop etc...politicians and businessmen being one in the same wasnt a problem until subsidies etc, and i guess what im saying is that, yes america had serious problems back then, BUT, there were some very positive free market forces in its economy, until subsidies statism etc took over.


Standard, mainstream economics. The thing you learn when you do an Economics degree at university.
Supply and Demand is a part of it, government-caused inefficiencies are a part of it, externalities are a part of it - and all-the-while you learn macroeconomics as well.
ive spent a fair amount of time on what you would call 'mainstream' and i guess thats a fair term for it...but to be honest, i didnt find it interesting or useful, and also found alot of innacurate statements were passed off as fact (especially all these shit measurements of economics...theres nothing i hate more than things like GDP....well ok theres is, peanut butter, outright lies, olives)



Notice how you're starting to go down the same road we were talking about yesterday?
If there are no moral absolutes, then the best thing we can go with is reality. And reality is that we have a government, we are free to try and change it. There is no realistic alternative.
And if you do economics, and you end up at the Central Bank...what is going to be more useful to you: a modern mathematical model of the economy, or some Austrian critique of why the money supply should be privatised?.
i believe there are moral absolutes...well not absolutes, but useful moral postulates if you wanna call them that. i believe that for example, its probably good for everyone if murder is considered wrong, or that stealing is considered wrong. dont get me started on modern mathematical models of economies, because none of them accuratly reflect reality.
i think a argument with good reasoning for private money supplies is much more useful.

There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic - it's realism, no more, no less. I can still keep my own values intact, and act accordingly - but I cannot expect anyone to share my values.
In that strange niche-like aspect, I am more of an Individualist than the Austrians are, who actually expect the majority of the population, which is happy with the way things are, and who couldn't care less about libertarian ideals, to follow along and suddenly have to deal with anarchism.

Not that there is a theory on how you could go about creating a capitalist utopia.
hmmm im very individualist, and think that the austrians are as well. one of the reasons i believe their theory of economics to be so solid, is its inherently individualist nature, where one of the conclusion go something like this, 'everyone has a right and responsibility to themselves, and to no one else.'(please dont quote me on this one, as it will be time consuming for me)


how do you feel about ayn rand leonstein? (these are still the best arguments ive goten from a.....errr social democrat?)

(especially all these shit measurements of economics...theres nothing i hate more than things like GDP....well ok theres is, peanut butter, outright lies, olives)




Are you kidding? You obviously are defective and therefore unqualified to talk about economics. :D

Just kidding.

However, if you don't believe in moral absolutes, why should murder and stealing be wrong? Society concluding that they are immoral is only good for "the weak".

However, if you don't believe in moral absolutes, why should murder and stealing be wrong? Society concluding that they are immoral is only good for "the weak".
:rolleyes:

It's true. If you think that stealing, murder being wrong are only useful moral postulates, not absolutes, who are they useful to? Mainly? Those unable to protect themselves and their stuff, that's who.

I do believe in moral absolutes, so I don't have to ponder this question.

It's true. If you think that stealing, murder being wrong are only useful moral postulates, not absolutes, who are they useful to? Mainly? Those unable to protect themselves and their stuff, that's who.

I do believe in moral absolutes, so I don't have to ponder this question.
hmmm... i believe in them as moral absolutes in a human sense, not in auniversal one (this is a bit off topic for this thread), i just didnt really want to argue about this here. but while were at it i do believe in absolutes, in that i do believe in objective reality/ truth. it is part of object reality that im weaing a black tshirt right now.

Which leads to strange ideas like: The depression was caused by the government (seeing as to how little intervention there was, a bold claim), but not fixed by it (seeing as to how much the New Deal did for confidence, even completely ignoring the investment it created, another bold claim).

They didn't need to do a lot.
Allow a private company (the federal reserve bank) to print promissory notes instead of minting real money (a power reserved for the state).
Let said company use the state debt it buys with it's notes to allow for printing of more notes.
Combine with fractional accounting to amplify the effects of inflation of unrestrained creation of said notes.

I'm not to sure how that works in economy but in any system I've studied where you get a feedbackloop like this at a point it will blow.
For less technically inclined people a good example of a feedbackloop like this is holding a microphone close to the speakers (speakers reproducing the sound received by the microphone).

It would validate the claim that the new deal did more harm then good as well. Since the new deal required government debt which would be financed by selling it to the Fed which then could use it to.

I'll tell you how to create a stable, strong, and powerful economy:

Eliminate the worthless legislature system.
Take away all power from Judicial system.
Create a new Parliament/Congress/Whatever consisting of major leaders in agriculture, services, and industries.
Lower the taxes and make it a flat tax.
Put heafty trade tarriffs on nations that produce too many cheap products too quickly (i.e. China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, India, Pakistan, et cetera).
Eliminate all trade unions.
If any nation poses a danger to you, conquer them, and use their valuble resources (just do the whole imperialist thing).
Destroy any opposition through brute force.


Of course, this is the way to do it in a Capitalistic society, under the laws of State Communism, it might be different.

EDIT: Make sure you conquer some nations for their resources (especially for their labor), because this acheives three things, first, it gives you their most valuble assests (duh), secondly, it puts your economy into a war economy, with more industries producing more, and thirdly, it wastes all of the ammunition and weapons produced by Arms Manufacuting Industries, which lets them build more, keeping the economy in tact.

I'm assuming this is a spoof seeing a few of the comments. I'll fall for it though :)

Put heafty trade tarriffs on nations that produce too many cheap products too quickly (i.e. China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, India, Pakistan, et cetera).

Why?
If you don't have an ace up your sleeve (like the dollar has, being the reserve currency for the world and the denomination in which oil is traded) the exchange rate between your nation and those nations will result in the goods from those nations to be more expensive for people in your nation if there is not an equal valued flow of goods going out of of your nation.


Eliminate all trade unions.

Why?
keep the unions, just get rid of most of their legislation derived powers. Like being able to prevent non-union people to work at a place when the union decides to go on strike. Or enforce that everyone working at a place needs to be in a union or else.

If any nation poses a danger to you, conquer them, and use their valuble resources (just do the whole imperialist thing).

Destroy any opposition through brute force.

I rather not do the imperialism thingie. It's so wasteful on resources. Why keep an army to conquer another nation if you can wreck their economy then buy up the nation for a bargain price by just dumping their government debt on the market.


EDIT: Make sure you conquer some nations for their resources (especially for their labor), because this acheives three things, first, it gives you their most valuble assests (duh), secondly, it puts your economy into a war economy, with more industries producing more, and thirdly, it wastes all of the ammunition and weapons produced by Arms Manufacturing Industries, which lets them build more, keeping the economy in tact.

Seeing that those weapons need to be paid for this means more taxes meaning that those companies have less profit, raising the prices (closing the loop by having to pay for those weapons).

I'll tell you how to create a stable, strong, and powerful economy:

1;Eliminate the worthless legislature system.
2:Take away all power from Judicial system.
3:Create a new Parliament/Congress/Whatever consisting of major leaders in agriculture, services, and industries.
4:Lower the taxes and make it a flat tax.
5:Put heafty trade tarriffs on nations that produce too many cheap products too quickly (i.e. China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, India, Pakistan, et cetera).
6:Eliminate all trade unions.
7:If any nation poses a danger to you, conquer them, and use their valuble resources (just do the whole imperialist thing).
8:Destroy any opposition through brute force.


Of course, this is the way to do it in a Capitalistic society, under the laws of State Communism, it might be different.

EDIT: Make sure you conquer some nations for their resources (especially for their labor), because this acheives three things, first, it gives you their most valuble assests (duh), secondly, it puts your economy into a war economy, with more industries producing more, and thirdly, it wastes all of the ammunition and weapons produced by Arms Manufacuting Industries, which lets them build more, keeping the economy in tact.

this is actually entirely ignorant of free market and austrian econimcs, the principles, and methods used to achieve them, ive numbered your points and explained why. you may be describing any of several modern 'capitalist' countries however i assure you they do not follow the austrian economic model, which was the basis of this thread so i assume hwat your trying to refute
1/2/3: in austrian economics you would never give absolute, coercive, state power of any sort over to industry leaders, nor would you sanction them uniting in any way, as this will always result in exploitation, i dont know what else to say but that these points are simply misinformed unless your actually talking about a statist system, which freemarket/austrian economics cannot support or justify.
4: guilty as charged (i dont see whats bad about this)
5:only nations trying to achieve autarky have any value for tarrifs, only nations that are statist and nationalist see autarky as desirable, hense you are not talking about the economic model in question again. tarrifs on good where you manufacture less than you consume for example, will result in the new price in your country being worldmarket prices+tarrif price, resulting simply in exploitation of the people to the benefit of the producers, same thing with subsidies which are a mainstay of 'left wing economic thought'
6:again huge misunderstanding, an austrian economic system would simply remove the sanctions these labourers now have. these sanctions cause unemployement, and lack of competitiveness with foreign firms who are notbound by these sanction. without the sanction when automotive owrked strike to get abetter wage for example, people who are unemployed and willing to work for $15phour as opposed to $22 will be able to take their jobs.
7:in the long term the theory is that austrian economics would not really make enemies, it takes two to tango. with a laissez faire policy, im not sure why someone would invade you, and you certainly invade them, again this is simply ignorant
8: see number 7, free market economis do not need autarky, what more can i say.

before you respond to a topic like this (this isnt capitalism vs socialism, its talking about economics, the study of it, and the validity of austrian economics), do some research, learn the facts (www.mises.org)

Free Misesians, I don't even have to read your post because I know that you are just trying your hardest to look cool and look like you know something.

There are other ways besides the way I listed, but this way has been used by many nations. A good example would be Nazi Germany, closed economy, no unions, no legislature, and they had a very good economy (before the Allies and the Comintern blew it up of course, hehehe).

Of course, when it comes to wasting weapons and ammo, taxes don't affect the rich, in fact the rich are most likely to make money off of the use of weapons through stocks in defence companies.

Just watch Michael Moore... lol

Free Misesians, I don't even have to read your post because I know that you are just trying your hardest to look cool and look like you know something.

There are other ways besides the way I listed, but this way has been used by many nations. A good example would be Nazi Germany, closed economy, no unions, no legislature, and they had a very good economy (before the Allies and the Comintern blew it up of course, hehehe).

Of course, when it comes to wasting weapons and ammo, taxes don't affect the rich, in fact the rich are most likely to make money off of the use of weapons through stocks in defence companies.

Just watch Michael Moore... lol
hopefully your joking about moore, the nazi economy was not a good example of a strong economy, just because they stabilized it by no longer inflating their currency, and exploiting peoples abroad, borrowing huge amount of money, etc.etc. does not mean it was a strong economy...., if your unwilling to look at this issues seriously and see this as something personal, than dont bother debating, dont bother replying. if you actually sit down and read what austrian economics has to say (i can give you all kinds of great sources), then i would be more than willing to have a discussion with you about its merits, however what you have talked about IS NOT free market economics.

The Nazi economy could not be sustained without going out and trying to conquer other nations. You see, though, the trouble is, people tend not to like being conquered, and so they shoot back.

ive spent a fair amount of time on what you would call 'mainstream' and i guess thats a fair term for it...but to be honest, i didnt find it interesting or useful, and also found alot of innacurate statements were passed off as fact (especially all these shit measurements of economics...theres nothing i hate more than things like GDP....well ok theres is, peanut butter, outright lies, olives)
GDP isn't perfect, that's obvious. But that's just because they include things that shouldn't be included, and leave things out that should be in.
There's nothing all that wrong with the method, which is just to see how much money changed hands, in a way.

i believe that for example, its probably good for everyone if murder is considered wrong, or that stealing is considered wrong.
Most people would agree with you...but as you said, that doesn't make them abolutes.
Which is where taxes come in: Most people disagree with stealing, but most people also don't think that taxes are theft. They are fundamentally okay with the state taking some money to do the things the state does (personally I'd like to see more involvement by the people in how that money is spent though).
I'd like to believe that over time, the laws in a country would reflect the things the people can agree upon as far as morality is concerned, and that therefore (very roughly, you'll find that I disagree with a huge number of laws) what is legal is moral and vice versa.

Plus, you are still here, you still pay taxes, so at this point, you seem to value living together with others in this statist world more than your tax dollars. So that's a fair call...one could say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. ;)

dont get me started on modern mathematical models of economies, because none of them accuratly reflect reality.
Some come pretty close for practical use though.

i think a argument with good reasoning for private money supplies is much more useful.
Tell that to Ben Bernanke, who'll have to start his new job soon - I'm sure he'll love to hear about it.

how do you feel about ayn rand leonstein? (these are still the best arguments ive goten from a.....errr social democrat?)
Ayn Rand as a person? Horrible, terrible, I loathe her guts.
Ayn Rand as an author? Pretty much the same.

Ayn Rand as a philosopher...well, I agree with some of her ideas (like that reason is the only proper tool we have to look at the world - although I somehow doubt that she was the first to come up with that...) and I don't follow her in others, like her conclusion that therefore it is best if everyone is a selfish bastard.
I don't think individuals can exist seperately from others. People are formed by their environment as much, or even more so than by their own genetics and reason. To therefore renounce society, and place a cult on the individual as some sort of atomic entity is a wrong idea, IMHO.

Without the state, without the individuals around me, without the culture I grew up with, without the things people did before I was even born, I wouldn't be who I am today - and to think that my actions wouldn't have the same effects on everyone else, and not take that into account in my actions is not justifiable.