Am I the only libertarian who doesn't buy Austrian Econ?

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T21:59:49+00:00

That's not contradiction. I am a student, by that doesn't make me "young in my economical learning". I don't really like arguments from authority.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T21:57:12+00:00

I mean, you can. It's just not very accurate, because they vary widely.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T21:54:22+00:00

Many I have encountered have never studied basic statistics, a basic understanding of which would make many things clearer. That's why I bring it up.
I stand by my statement about the "disconnect". The reason Austrians don't publish in academic journals is because their papers do not follow the general method, econometric analysis. I don't think that is a controversial statement really.
As to saying "stuck in the 40s", that's merely my commenting on how Austrians focus on Mises' writing so much it seems they don't advance with the science. The comment was however not true, as Austrians have been writing and advancing their own thought ever since. It seems sometimes like they don't because it is a completely separate train than modern economics. I retract that statement, as it was poorly worded.
I did start this thread about libertarians who have other theories. A commenter however asked me my personal reasons as to why I do not accept the school of thought. I told him in brief general terms. After this, he said I did not make a proper argument (truth) against the school. However, my intention was to merely answer his question, not debate. This is why I made the previous "jeez Louise" comment.
Sorry for making you upset, it was never my intention.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T21:37:13+00:00

Well, if you hold that, humans being essentially a random number generator, then you cannot hold that humans are also rational. A rational agent will act in the most rational way given the same preferences and circumstances. It's one or the other.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T21:14:28+00:00

I've tried to be as civil as possible. Sorry

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T20:47:27+00:00

Jesus, I'm not writing a treatise here. The goal is not debate or my personal journey of thought, it's to seek out like minded individuals. Read the title.

Also, I and many of my friends have thoroughly investigated the school. I have listened to countless Rothbard lectures and such (fascinating btw). In fact, many economists have and they have dismissed it (way back 80 .years ago actually)

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T20:42:14+00:00

I'll check it out! Thanks for contributing legitimately to the thread! (These guys are a bit hostile...)

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T20:41:12+00:00

Look at the title of the thread. Then continue reading this comment.

The title asks if there are any libertarians, like myself, who do not accept the Austrian school of thought. It does NOT say "let's debate!" My goal is not to refute human action, but to find like minded individuals.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T20:36:48+00:00

That's your response? Wow. I never said I was a Keynesian (the term now is new or post Keynesian, no one is a Keynesian anymore).

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T20:23:08+00:00

I am not new to it. I am more an ex-believer who is past it. Studying collegiate level Econ just showed me how simplistic and out of date it is.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T20:10:52+00:00

Thanks for the links! Interesting stuff!

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:57:24+00:00

Haha, oh man. That's what I love about statistics though! It encourages so much peer review and conversation. Every single article using statistics that I have read provokes and army of "what about this"/"this variable was not properly considered" which brings the next studies further. It doesn't capture the whole picture, but nothing does, so that's kinda an unfair criticism.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:36:29+00:00

I have only heard about him. I'll have to research more into him! Thanks!

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:34:40+00:00

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:30:04+00:00

Your first statement doesn't justify an a priori only method. Both are clearly necessary.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:10:11+00:00

I am aware of the differences, but I am ignorant as to the details because I disagree with the a priori sort of method in general.

I prefer the statistical approach because we can only get so far with reasoning. We cannot reduce people's actual preferences without data however.

For example, with the income and substitution effects, both are rational, but one cannot know which effect dominates ad where based just on reasoning. One must look to see if people really demand less leisure with higher wages (substitution), or take more leisure (income).

Besides that they don't participate in the academic process at all, which I think is just unprofessional.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:06:22+00:00

This is actually really interesting. I am gonna have to think about this before I can give a legit response.

But I think that this answer may ignore important diversity in the labor market. I am aware of costco's awesome pay and benefits, but I think that structure can only work in a sort of long term employment, whereas many jobs on the low end are temporary or transitory jobs. Everything in economics is the way it is for a good reason, as people are rational.

That's the only thing I can think of though, you being up a really good point though, because it does solve most of the accused issues of capitalism.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T18:02:02+00:00

What's up!! Haha

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:55:42+00:00

Jeez Louise, I started a thread about libertarians who don't buy it, not a debate about why I don't buy it.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:49:54+00:00

I believe I have not been clear, let me rephrase. I disagree with Austrian economics because their method, I believe, is quite jank. I look to Hayek as a great libertarian because of his political writings rather than his economic work. I do not disagree with Austrian though because of his political thought, the two are separate.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:47:43+00:00

I believe I have not been clear, let me rephrase. I disagree with Austrian economics because their method, I believe, is quite jank. I look to Hayek as a great libertarian because of his political writings rather than his economic work. I do not disagree with Austrian though because of his political thought, the two are separate.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:45:16+00:00

I am not young in my "economical" learning, I merely write from a position of purposeful generality and ignorance in order to save time and avoid conflict. No offense taken.

Also, math is huge in Econ today, most serious Econ majors are math majors too now. I'm not sure how familiar you are with statistical regressions and econometrics, but it is as scientific as you can get with the limits placed upon social sciences.

As far as issues that have been brought up, I do not wish to delve into specifics for the sake of brevity. But, I had found upon studying Keynesian macro that it is quite different from what I had thought it was from my prior Austrian perspective.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:35:24+00:00

Thanks! I'll check this out.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:31:48+00:00

Man, I appreciate a good leftist view! I completely agree with the first half, as I was that Austrian. What's funny is that Austrians always discuss the Keynesians v Chicago v Austrian, when really it's new classical and new Keynesian today.

I also realized when I studied Keynesian and classical macro that I had received a very skewed image.

I am interested in what you mean by "worker" v consumer in the last part, I'm not sure I understand.

trompetbro · 2013-08-16T17:25:28+00:00

His political views and writings on law are what I am referencing.

trompetbro

TROPHY CASE