tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post7586884797971488139..comments2023-04-03T19:10:54.088-04:00Comments on Critiques Of Libertarianism: TheLowlyPhilosopher's foolish defense of the Austrians.Mike Hubenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-62016414128763435162011-12-19T00:10:18.101-05:002011-12-19T00:10:18.101-05:00Well, the last poster mentioned that Mr Huben soun...Well, the last poster mentioned that Mr Huben sounds like a 'arrogant jerk', which does, admittedly, contain some truth, this should, as many wiser people have noted afore, not have any bearings upon his argument. Having said that, I must admit, I do agree with his basic point, or, at least, what I understand it to be, in his contention with the Austrian School, namely that it is based upon a priori assumptions, which is a very ridiculous thing to base an entire branch of science- even if it is a social science- off of, because a priori logics have certain axioms they must assume be true, build an entire school around it, when, if these assumptions, or even one of them, are proven false, the whole building will collapse.Wang Pinghuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09721434001615659327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-14428790187102132842011-10-08T00:10:51.482-04:002011-10-08T00:10:51.482-04:00OK, I can't say I've read every word of th...OK, I can't say I've read every word of this lengthy debate. But boy, does Mike Huben come across as an arrogant jerk. Really, is the endless name calling necessary? And this guy is a teacher. No wonder American students wind up being so stupid. They are being force-fed this kind of sophomoric philosophical drivel by close-minded arrogant teachers like Mr. Huben. His only goal is to create more democrat voters so Obama and his ilk will shovel more money at him and his fellow teachers. He assaults "Libertarians" because if their ideas ever became mainstream, such as vouchers, he would be out of work in a second. Really, who would want their child taught by this guy? But the government monopoly on education combined with a corrupt, powerful teachers unions gives Mr. Huben the time to somehow earn a living from the taxpayer indoctrinating their children with socialistic ideals while simultaneously managing 5 blogs, at least one of which clearly takes up a lot of his time. Shameful.Ben Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11043851529910345181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-3016787443467842992010-11-27T13:38:34.595-05:002010-11-27T13:38:34.595-05:00To sal:
Regardless of what the thermometer says,...To sal: <br /><br />Regardless of what the thermometer says, such a number cannot tell you whether a particular person will feel hot or cold when he goes outside. This cannot be measured, just as the concept of cheap or expensive cannot be measured and just as the utility that the Mother Teresa received from helping people in need cannot be measure, and how the feeling of loss of a child cannot be measured, or how the pleasure of acquiring a desired book cannot be measured, or to strength of someones desire to become or do such and such...ryuaustrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06114289960919838960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-54168031099230574032010-11-27T13:30:44.125-05:002010-11-27T13:30:44.125-05:00Is there empirical proof for the concept of opport...Is there empirical proof for the concept of opportunity cost?ryuaustrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06114289960919838960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-30440395486614724862010-11-15T09:47:48.934-05:002010-11-15T09:47:48.934-05:00Nor do we have to suspect that the math is ideolog...Nor do we have to suspect that the math is ideologically driven by statism, the bias applies to both sides. Personally I have always been a strong individualist, hence my libertarian bias. However, only Austrians actually bother to produce a unified assumptions-based-in-testable-reality logical proof for their whole economic theory (yes, you've guess it, because only individual existence can be objectively tested in reality). You say it's unconvincing, but there simply exists no alternative. Unless maybe you know some unified assumptions-based-in-testable-reality logical proof for your middle-of-the-road-collective-bias position? It's much harder than collecting even hundreds of libertarian critiques. The only thing that binds them together is common enemy, and maybe also statist bias (often not even that), but having common enemy with someone does not prove you are right.Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-13436999062833630962010-11-12T03:44:03.844-05:002010-11-12T03:44:03.844-05:00Maybe we are not talking about the same thing?
Th...Maybe we are not talking about the same thing?<br /><br />The only authority I can find in austrian economics is basic economic law. Austrians tell me these laws rule the economic relationship between me and my neighbour as well as between my country and its neighbour country, that is - they scale. <br /><br />Mainstream economics tells me that macro-economics is something entirely different and that I'm to dumb to understand it (of course never forgetting to cite nobelprize winner (!) krugman). <br /><br />Isn't that just a variation of evolution theory against {communism |socialism|cultural marxism|one-world utopia}? <br />you either believe that evolution is an ongoing process based on a few fundamental laws that will never reach a global maximum, or you construct complex theories and models to justify the claim that your beloved leftwing utopia needs only a bit more social engineering to become reality. <br /><br />I feel that austrian economics are "savers economics" and mainstream economics are "debtors economics" now. austrian economics explains the relationship between responsible people/states and irresponsible people/states in a way that is consistent with common sense. mainstream economics explains you why beeing irresponsible is as good if not better than beeing responsible. <br /><br />Although not relying on utopic theories and social engineering, austrian economics still assume there is some keind of law and order and the responsable are in charge. Then beeing a debtor is much worse than beeing a lender. But nowadays the irresponsible seem to be in charge, it's a debtors world. <br /><br />Is it science to supply them with justifying theories and models?<br /><br />PS<br />please notice my respectful style, not calling people names every 2nd sentence ;-)tjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310408941871841458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-20629897057575474472010-11-11T13:20:55.715-05:002010-11-11T13:20:55.715-05:00Joanna, it's not the same. Yes, mathematical ...Joanna, it's not the same. Yes, mathematical proofs are generally created post-hoc to test suppositions.<br /><br />But in math at least they have the decency to either:<br />(a) make a convincing proof<br />(b) make a disproof<br />(c) give up the supposition, or <br />(d) clearly state it is a supposition and no more.<br />Nor do we have to suspect that the math is ideologically driven by conservatism.<br /><br />Austrians instead bloviate with innumerable unstated assumptions and pretend it is logic.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-59759148240150481732010-11-11T12:06:31.632-05:002010-11-11T12:06:31.632-05:00Mike, as a math teacher you should know better. Vi...Mike, as a math teacher you should know better. Virtually all mathematical proofs that you teach have in fact been constructed post-hoc. Creativity is a much more complex phenomenon than a logic machine.Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-33424458598064977452010-11-09T17:24:13.013-05:002010-11-09T17:24:13.013-05:00But the basic point is that you're making conf...But the basic point is that you're making confident assertions about very low probability events happening very soon: just how many hyperinflations have there been? I'm just calling bullshit. <br /><br />I do have one of those 20 trillion dollar Zimbabwe notes on my desk as a coin collector's curiosity.<br /><br />One of the basic problems of Austrian economics is that so many of their claims are similar bullshit assertions based on their authority. They choose the right-wing result they want, create a post-hoc chain of "logic", and hope like hell we forget all the other times they've been wrong. It's like watching psychics, complete with ambiguous predictions and claims of past "correct" predictions.<br /><br />Maybe you can get away with that sort of behavior hiding behind a pseudonym. I don't think it's respectable.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-89670159646558919982010-11-09T16:41:35.953-05:002010-11-09T16:41:35.953-05:00Good Point. Really.
I wouldn't take that bet. ...Good Point. Really.<br />I wouldn't take that bet. <br />You can choose why:<br /><br />- too risky<br /><br />- too much to loose<br /><br />- it's such an unfair bet, imposing 100 times the risk on me than on you (not to mention the possible profits). <br /><br />Makes me think, that casino economics, where some people gamble with very little (personnal or institutional) risk but extremly high possible profits are somehow endemic now in the anglosaxon world, not only at the macro level, but even in the private life of the gamblers academic supporters. Never mind the moral hazards involved by putting all the risk on other peoples shoulders. <br /><br />At least you asked me if I want to take the bet - in contrast to the financial gamblers, who simply tranfer the costs to others if the models didn't hold their promise.tjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310408941871841458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-1880091365148243192010-11-07T14:34:40.306-05:002010-11-07T14:34:40.306-05:00zdz: You really are off the wall if you are predic...zdz: You really are off the wall if you are predicting hyperinflation.<br /><br />Why not put your money where your mouth is. Let's make a perfectly legal "bet" on hyperinflation. I'll pay you $100 today, which you can invest however you like: gold perhaps. In ten years (is that long enough?), you repay me $10,000 in US dollars. If there is hyperinflation and a dollar is worth a penny or less by today's standards, you profit. If there is less inflation than that, I profit. And in addition, if you invest wisely enough, you may profit from the loan directly.<br /><br />I will however require a lien on your house to ensure payoff 10 years in the future, just a a bank would for a loan.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-34794947705230692052010-11-07T10:46:36.834-05:002010-11-07T10:46:36.834-05:00Please don't stop commenting Mr. Huben. Though...Please don't stop commenting Mr. Huben. Though it might seem a bit morbit, it is still intellectually entertaining to debate new complicated econometric models for deck-chair arrangements while your fellow academic "Captain Bernanke" navigates the titanic full speed ahead towards that big iceberg hyperinflation. It's only frightening to realize that Bernanke, obviously assigned with the task to provoke an "assurance fraud" by the titanic owners who face bankruptsy after complete mismanagement, might actally still believe he is on the right course. Based on econometric models.tjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310408941871841458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-86139882209089873012010-11-01T01:59:14.876-04:002010-11-01T01:59:14.876-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.tjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310408941871841458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-47801226118386922052010-11-01T01:58:26.380-04:002010-11-01T01:58:26.380-04:00It's always time that tells if some opinion is...It's always time that tells if some opinion is stupid or not. Here in Europe thats very obvious, after almost a decade of 'expert'-propaganda in favor of the Euro. The actual bad situation has been forecasted exactly by a group of german economists (guess what - from the austrian school). These people were mostly ignored by the MSM, and still are, surpinsingly. German wealth after WW2 is very much related to sound application of austrian economics, and now almost all of Europe makes a living from the last real Economy in Europe. Lets see when GB is asking for a bailout. I'm afraid your so called scientific approach is entirely based on promises, and there will be a very bad sensation soon that you cannot beat basic economic laws with silly pseudo-complex econometric models.tjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310408941871841458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-14410542561551094492010-10-27T15:38:44.685-04:002010-10-27T15:38:44.685-04:00"Now the US and GB are broke..."
No, th..."Now the US and GB are broke..."<br /><br />No, they're not. If you cannot get such basics right with your Austrianism, then there's not much hope for the rest of your blather.<br /><br />A confident attitude and outright lies don't conceal your stupid argument.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-45442520987767769692010-10-27T11:58:41.008-04:002010-10-27T11:58:41.008-04:00Now the US and GB are broke, after decades that ex...Now the US and GB are broke, after decades that experts and scientists like Mr Huben lectured us about macro-economic theory and econometric models and that we, the simple minded 'island economists' from the austrian school should rather shut up. <br /><br />But it was as simple as watching your neighbour sliding into the debt spiral, desperately trying to let others pay for his own mistakes in the end. Thats perfectly explained by 'island economics', its empirically obvious, it has been forecasted by austrian economist, while all those super-smart main-stream scientists played with their econometric models like well fed little childs in their kids room.tjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310408941871841458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-40916541571055863452010-08-31T08:12:02.287-04:002010-08-31T08:12:02.287-04:00Why do philosophers and libertarians blather on so...Why do philosophers and libertarians blather on so much?<br /><br />Good grief, half of what was written here could have said in far fewer words.Bobalothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09890427022642427075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-19752423049063274342010-08-16T12:54:45.780-04:002010-08-16T12:54:45.780-04:00http://vimeo.com/13730776
Historically... the dep...http://vimeo.com/13730776<br /><br />Historically... the depression didn't ease up until midway through WWII. We inflated and spent ourselves only into worse economic slumps, instead of letting unsustainable investments get sloughed off, while resource and labor allocation was corrected. The expertise of the planners didn't work too well. Just by posting a quote from someone who agrees with you, you do not prove otherwise.<br /><br />What use do Austrians serve? They promote a model, just like any other school of economic thought. <br /><br />And what alternatives are there to empirical analysis? You know as well as I do that there are much more plausible ones than philosophical mumbo jumbo and witch doctors. <br /><br />You consistently attempt to deride opposing methodologies as philosophical. Logic is a necessary component of all branches of academic study, and a methodology of logical deductions is certainly plausible, even if you disagree with it. Your intellectual dishonesty in refusing to even admit that much is disappointing.<br /><br />The rest of your rhetoric is equally meaningless. "generally it reflects the wishes of those with money and power." Such nonsense is so non-sequitor that it needs no refutation. Source Ad Hominem. <br /><br />http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlDale Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12938274647523145138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-20804078458252859982010-08-16T12:17:29.914-04:002010-08-16T12:17:29.914-04:00Morgan:
Your first and most obvious error is that...Morgan:<br /><br />Your first and most obvious error is that you don't consider whether the alternative to science is: pure assertion on the basis of authority.<br /><br />Oh, there's philosophical mumbo jumbo comparable to the dances of witch doctors, but generally it reflects the wishes of those with money and power.<br /><br />Your second obvious error is that just because we don't know as much as we will in the future doesn't mean our current scientific knowledge is useless or invalid. Newton might not have known of relativity, but his laws of motion swept away more than a thousand years of philosophical nonsense.<br /><br />Your third obvious error is to ignore the importance of non-Austrian economics to business and government. Consider <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/08/first-draft-of-september-1-principles-of-macroeconomics-lecture-depression-economics.html" rel="nofollow">Brad DeLong's Depression Economics Lectures</a>. Scroll down to section 2.2.6. "How Well Does This Work?" His answer:<br /><i>Quite well, actually [....] There are trained professionals who do this for a living--and have high-paying jobs doing exactly this at a much more complex and sophisticated level.</i><br /><br />The primary employment of Austrian economics seems to be the construction of propaganda.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-76527391053702705822010-08-16T11:02:01.794-04:002010-08-16T11:02:01.794-04:00Mike, Ok I read all of it, I think I understand yo...Mike, Ok I read all of it, I think I understand your mistake.<br /><br />Imagine in the mid-1600's we were listening to a scientist explain the supremacy of science over philosophy as a reason to discount free markets.<br /><br />He'd basically be a barbarian, a well meaning fool, but indeed ignorant about the science that we now know.<br /><br />The philosophical and scientific critique of your current assertions is still the same.<br /><br />Economics may indeed be scientific - the problem is market is still FAR TO COMPLICATED than to put any economic faith in an ignorant madman screaming about the value of science.<br /><br />There's nothing you say ever to get around this: The market is too complicated to listen to you or anyone else manipulate correctly like pushing around atoms, that is the core idea of Austrians - you just aren't smart enough.<br /><br />And OBVIOUSLY historical scientific evidence all supports that hypothesis.Morgan Warstlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16938589106562557110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-51177604609337171232010-08-11T23:47:44.367-04:002010-08-11T23:47:44.367-04:00Peter Schiff. Schiff is president and chief global...Peter Schiff. Schiff is president and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a broker-dealer. As Austrian as they come (including the expected level of nuttiness). <br /><br />Keynesians who get hired by private sector? Ever heard of the efficient market hypothesis? They don't seem too productive.<br /><br />Unless you mean for general economic forecasts. Well, they sure did a great job predicting the recession, and keeping their employers from going bust. They sure did a flippin' fine job warning investment banks that stocks were about to take a hit. <br /><br />Market analysts in general, who used empirics, and had the profit motive backing them, didn't see the '29 bust coming either.<br /><br />Austrians saw the recession coming. http://www.mattmcgee.com/peter-schiff-predicts-the-recession-in-2006/<br /><br /> "When you see the stock market come down and the real estate bubble burst, all that phony wealth is going to evaporate and all that is going to be left is the debt we accumulated to foreigners." Peter Schiff. August 28, 2006.<br /><br />Austrians saw the depression coming. Said the Nobel Committee regarding F.A. Hayek in awarding him his Nobel prize in economics: <br /><br />"Perhaps, partly due to this more profound analysis, he was one of the few economists who gave warning of the possibility of a major economic crisis before the great crash came in the autumn of 1929. Von Hayek showed how monetary expansion, accompanied by lending which exceeded the rate of voluntary saving, could lead to a misallocation of resources, particularly affecting the structure of capital. This type of business cycle theory with links to monetary expansion has fundamental features in common with the postwar monetary discussion."<br /><br />That quote is particularly important because it details how they got to these conclusions. Logical deductivity, and historical verification of theory. They demonstrated that lower-than-natural interest rates cause unsustainable booms, which fall out in recessions. <br /><br />But let me get back to your "no one hires Austrians for business". Really now? I must ask how think-tanks like Cato and Reason are funded. The source happens to be insanely wealthy businessmen. Can you demonstrate for me that people with Austrian perspectives don't succeed in business, or that they don't get hired for business purposes? I think not.<br /><br />Furthermore, about the nature of the question itself. I believe in the power and ingenenuity of markets... not the infallibility thereof. Markets are irrational and inefficient (in the technical sense.. before you start to equivocate). Just because a stock is popular doesn't entail that it is worthwhile, any more than a popular consumer good must be high quality. Just because the market hires Keynesians doesn't mean that Keynesians are correct. This argument is fallacious in that assumes perfect rationality (i.e., ability to choose means which most probably entail given ends). Would you care to demonstrate the validity or probability of perfection rationality for me?<br /><br />Now, let's step back away from the individual economists, to their theories. Austrian theory, by definition, foresaw the '29 and '08 busts. There is nothing inherent in Keynesian theory that foresaw either, only the problematic assertion that such things were possible, and could be caused by irrational speculation. That means there are some Austrians who are wrong... particularly when they make arguments that inconsistent with their own theories. Keynesians can also be right, because not all of their assertions are logically impossible, and sometimes they can stumble upon correct conclusions even by unwarranted means.Dale Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12938274647523145138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-3338157105189944702010-08-11T23:47:09.884-04:002010-08-11T23:47:09.884-04:00And how do those predictions pan out? Generalized ...And how do those predictions pan out? Generalized behaviors fluctuate wildly, with indeterminate causes. If you can look at group A and get your "generalized behaviors", your standard of deviation, and look at your patterns (history), it doesn't mean you can predict the future. Future predictions based on the past are just inductive analogies that rely on similarity. <br /><br />Now, you seem to be begging the question by asserting that you can derive laws of human behavior from statistics (if not, do clarify). That's what you're trying to demonstrate. <br /><br />You can find an average of anything. That doesn't make it meaningful. Find the average propensity to save, given income level x, among population y, within scenario z. Great, you've got a number. Just don't go trying to apply it to population w, with non-parameterized income x, in a future scenario which is absolutely non-similar to z (different prices, different fads, different acquaintances, different opinions, different news-stories... all variables which you can't just shrug off).<br /><br />There are very-hard-to-control variables in any science. Economics if just one of the worst offenders, all these little hindrances are magnified by the fact that we are dealing with... human "action", that infinitely complex thing I've already blathered on. <br /><br />Now, I do believe this discussion goes further than whether you can find averages. No, we actually need meaning, and predictive value.<br /><br />Berkeley's critique of epistemological empiricism was that we can only observe correlations, not causes. If there really is such a thing as "causality", we can't possibly know what it is. I don't believe this discredits absolute empiricism, but it certainly does incredible value when dealing with the social sciences... which are filled with non-isolatable variables, heterogeneous and random agents, and infinitely complex (quantitatively and qualitatively) scenarios. <br /><br />You joked in another of your posts about libertarians talking about chaos theory a lot. It applies here. A small change in any initial circumstance, with less significance than the wing flap of a butterfly, can lead to extraordinarily different outcomes.<br /><br />Now, that sums it up for the logical side in this discussion. We still have the empirical side.Dale Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12938274647523145138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-36456941193767503682010-08-09T13:29:11.905-04:002010-08-09T13:29:11.905-04:00Humans act, things react.
Even if we grant this p...<i>Humans act, things react.</i><br /><br />Even if we grant this philosophical twaddle, the basic question is whether humans act predictably enough that we can apply scientific methodologies. Considering that there are substantial industries based on the predictability of human actions, I'd say yes.<br /><br /><i>Humans possess rationality. We think about our actions. We weigh moral, hedonistic, and sublime values intuitively and consciously before we act. Even if these things are the result of a completely physical causal sequence, the ultimate psychological and praxeological effects of such a sequence are irreducible to their initial physical causes (I challenge you to show my one neuroscientist who can explain all of human thoughts, emotions, values, and choices holistically from at a molecular level).</i><br /><br />We cannot explain the chemistry of proteins from their initial physical causes, but that hardly stops us from scientifically analyzing proteins. It's perfectly obvious that we don't need to understand neurology to observe and measure "buy low, sell high" as a frequent pattern of behavior.<br /><br /><i>General laws cannot be statistically derived about economic behavior, as they can about the behavior of organisms in an environment.</i><br /><br />Tell that to the very successful owners of casinos. That's how they make their living.<br /><br />For all your blather about the complexity of "acting", you have yet to show how behavior due to acting cannot be averaged out in large samples.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-24374059286447945842010-08-09T13:29:02.979-04:002010-08-09T13:29:02.979-04:00Humans are not homogeneous things, which makes a c...<i>Humans are not homogeneous things, which makes a comparison of one to another fruitless.</i><br /><br />Talk about non-sequiturs!<br /><br />Yes, human beings are homogenous some ways and heterogenous in others. And of course, that very homogeneity and heterogeneity is measurable. And where there are statistically significant numbers of humans, we can find "laws" for these, much as we find universal gas laws in chemistry (even of mixed gases.)<br /><br /><i>You can, however, look at the logical implications of a theorem, and test those against reality. [...] This, my friend, is where Keynesian economics fails miserably. The Austrian methodology, while over-focused on epistemological rationalism, is still a valid way to model reality.</i><br /><br />What an empty claim. Have you ever noticed that NOBODY employs Austrians for business purposes? They are only employed for propaganda, including subsidized seats at various minor universities such as GMU.<br /><br />Because Austrians are innumerate, they cannot make numerical predictions and then measurements to confirm or disconfirm their wild-ass claims. Not even the sorts of back-of-the-envelope calculations the Krugman example I showed made.<br /><br />(continued)Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-45485634899443821312010-08-09T13:28:21.004-04:002010-08-09T13:28:21.004-04:00Humans are not homogeneous things, which makes a c...<i>Humans are not homogeneous things, which makes a comparison of one to another fruitless.</i><br /><br />Talk about non-sequiturs!<br /><br />Yes, human beings are homogenous some ways and heterogenous in others. And of course, that very homogeneity and heterogeneity is measurable. And where there are statistically significant numbers of humans, we can find "laws" for these, much as we find universal gas laws in chemistry (even of mixed gases.)<br /><br /><i>You can, however, look at the logical implications of a theorem, and test those against reality. [...] This, my friend, is where Keynesian economics fails miserably. The Austrian methodology, while over-focused on epistemological rationalism, is still a valid way to model reality.</i><br /><br />What an empty claim. Have you ever noticed that NOBODY employs Austrians for business purposes? They are only employed for propaganda, including subsidized seats at various minor universities such as GMU.<br /><br />Because Austrians are innumerate, they cannot make numerical predictions and then measurements to confirm or disconfirm their wild-ass claims. Not even the sorts of back-of-the-envelope calculations the Krugman example I showed made.<br /><br /><i>Humans act, things react.</i><br /><br />Even if we grant this philosophical twaddle, the basic question is whether humans act predictably enough that we can apply scientific methodologies. Considering that there are substantial industries based on the predictability of human actions, I'd say yes.<br /><br /><i>Humans possess rationality. We think about our actions. We weigh moral, hedonistic, and sublime values intuitively and consciously before we act. Even if these things are the result of a completely physical causal sequence, the ultimate psychological and praxeological effects of such a sequence are irreducible to their initial physical causes (I challenge you to show my one neuroscientist who can explain all of human thoughts, emotions, values, and choices holistically from at a molecular level).</i><br /><br />We cannot explain the chemistry of proteins from their initial physical causes, but that hardly stops us from scientifically analyzing proteins. It's perfectly obvious that we don't need to understand neurology to observe and measure "buy low, sell high" as a frequent pattern of behavior.<br /><br /><i>General laws cannot be statistically derived about economic behavior, as they can about the behavior of organisms in an environment.</i><br /><br />Tell that to the very successful owners of casinos. That's how they make their living.<br /><br />For all your blather about the complexity of "acting", you have yet to show how behavior due to acting cannot be averaged out in large samples.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.com