# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Is 'Austrian Economics' a pseudo-science?

## Gadsden Flag

Have you noticed that many academic fields have a pseudo-science analogue?

Like astronomy has astrology, mathematics has numerology, chemistry has alchemy, etc?

Is 'Austrian Economics' a baloney version of regular economics? I know very little of either, except that Ron Paul has explicitly mentioned Austrian economic theory a number of times. I do, however, have a friend who is a PhD economics student at Iowa state, which is a top 50 university in that field.

I have not specifically asked him about the Austrian school of economics, but he did say that the Federal Reserve is a crucial and important part of our economy, and that people who say otherwise are kooks and don't know much about econ.

He has also said numerous times--Along with other econ students I've met--that something called _econometrics_ is one of the most central tools used in economics to test and verify models and theories. It is stated in the Wikipedia entry that Austrian economics does not use econometrics.

On the other hand, this same friend has attended some Ron Paul rallies (he lives in Iowa, after all) and has said many times how he is a free-market capitalist. Even Alan Greenspan has stated that the dollar definitely needs to adopt a gold standard.

In my very rough understanding of Austrian Economics, it seems so far that it is more related to philosophy than economics. It reminds me a bit of a book I read by David Gauthier called 'Morals by Agreement'. It is more a philosophy of free-market capitalism than a real economic model. But I still know virtually nothing about it.

Is this a correct assessment?

Please no responses about how I and non-Austrian economists are new world order controlled reptilian zombies of the mainstream media. Thank you.

----------


## AceNZ

If you compare them to something like chemistry or physics, with solid and provable rules, one could argue that all forms of economics are pseudo-sciences.

Unfortunately, having a PhD in economics doesn't mean that your friend knows anything about economics.  Universities tend to teach Keynesian.  Asking him about Austrian is like asking a doctor about vitamins.  "Not proven", "pseudo-science", etc.  But the truth is that they either aren't taught about it in school, or they're told that the "other way" is crap.

Case in point:  the Fed has only been around since 1913.  If it's such a "crucial and important part of our economy", why was the US able to get along so well without a central bank for so long?  It would be more accurate to say that it's a crucial and important part of Keynesian economics -- also known as socialism.

Austrian economics is really free-market economics.  Economists who argue against the free market are really socialists.  They believe in taking by force from one person and giving the spoils to another person, in the name of "helping" that person -- "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", be your neighbor's keeper, etc.  That's not free-market capitalism.

----------


## dvictr

good question... i am an economist 

Austrian Economics is not a pseudo-science!... any attempt to marginalize THEORY is a sign of ignorance or corruption. You have to understand that economics unlike chemistry, physics is a "soft-science"... that is Economics is the study of how humans behave in allocating the limited resources of the planet between our needs and wants... chemisty a "hard science" ...experiements always have the same results...There are certain aspects of human behaivor that you cannot test or conduct an experiement especially when ift comes to the choices made in regard to money and wealth. Emotions and fellings such as greed/feer love/hate often influence decisions. 
The laws of supply and demand are fundamental just like the laws of gravity are fundamental to physics but the vast majority of Economics is theoretical; unlike chemisty, physics, calculus.

Austrian Economics believe that the most welfare enhancing condidition to human kind.. is a free market system of allocation.. unfortunatley a truly FREE MARKET system of capitalism has never been a condition in the history of man kind.  

that is.. there are barriers to trade, gov. regulations, unnecessary global conflicts, racism..etc

so if you truly belive in Free-Markets the way Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, FA HAYEK envisions.. you must be an "Austrian Economist"... 

It is a FACT that the Austrian explanation for business cycles (ABCT) which is a topic of discussion now during the market crisis is that the central banks creates the mal investments, with artifical lower interest rates is valid theory and i would argue A FACT.. the problem with so called "main stream" academics is that they are focusing there efforts on trying to understand on how to precisely use central banks and monetary policies to always control the business cycle that their own policies create!

This is not possible. Pure libertarianism theory suggest that ALL functions of the economy are best left for the market to decide including interest rates and investments.. The keynesians which is the school of thougt that is now "main stream" believes that governments are required to play a role in the economy .. Austrians do not!

so the debate is ideological.. Capitalism vs Socialism

and BTW your friend with the PHd may never have heard about "Austrian" economics because it is not discussed in that sense of graduate material. Graduate economist are working on trying to solve the problems with the current system.. not the flawed foundation.

----------


## Tom228

From what I read about Austrian economics is that it doesn't use the Scientific Method. I'm not quite sure, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it could be debated that we are a Keynesian or Classical, it's just that since the government gets involved in the economy it's automatically assumed we're all Keynesian.

I realize that Classical and Austrian are alike in the sense that the market will correct itself without Government intervention.

----------


## enter`name`here

> From what I read about Austrian economics is that it doesn't use the Scientific Method. I'm not quite sure, correct me if I'm wrong.


I would argue that it is the more 'mainstream' economic theories that do not adhere to the scientific method.  I don't care how many graphs and data sets you preform 'econometric analysis' on, no quantifiable relationship between variables can be proven in the absence of a controlled experiment.  And controlled experiments in economics are inherently impossible due to the nature of what is being studied, acting man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_control

I'm currently working on an undergraduate degree in economics btw.

----------


## specsaregood

./

----------


## dvictr

> From what I read about Austrian economics is that it doesn't use the Scientific Method. I'm not quite sure, correct me if I'm wrong.



Think of Austrian Economics as a philosophical extension to the mathematical foundations of economics... Finance after all is Economics and tools like econometrics do work!

We Austrian Economist dont believe that the scientific method can accurately be used to understand HUMAN BEHAIVOR.  This is a quote from an Austrian Textbook, Theory and History. Rothbard




> One example that Mises liked to use in his class to demonstrate the difference between two fundamental ways of approaching human behavior was looking at Grand Central Station behavior during rush hour. The "objective" or "truly scientific" behaviorist, he pointed out, would observe the empirical events: e.g., people rushing back and forth, aimlessly at certain predictable times of day. And that is all he would know. 
> 
> But the true student of human action would start from the fact that all human behavior is purposive, and he would see the purpose is to get from home to the train to work in the morning, the opposite at night, etc. It is obvious which one would discover and know more about human behavior, and therefore which one would be the genuine 'scientist.'


the idea is that there is more to action then just behaivor and the scientific method cant define this. this is a major ideological arguement. 

if you belive in Free Markets... the actions of individuals through TRADE using prices... is the only important information.

----------


## danberkeley

austrian economics is certainly far more of a science than "race relations"

----------


## davver

Too my knowledge...

Austrian economics rejects the use of econometric data to draw conclusions about an economy.  Econometrics is the use of statistical data to analyze trends and make coonclusions (you'll do a lot of regressions in econometrics).

According to Austrian economics econometrics is far over relied upon be economists.  Because we are studying human behaivor rather then physical laws humans can behave in "irrational" way over what could be considered long periods of time to economists (years, decades).  How else can you explain people valuing the market at one level on a certain day in Oct. 1987 and then valuing it 20% lower the next.  Too often economists will take data over a period of time and extrapolate it and make bold claims based on that data.  Then later humans start to act in ways completely out of line with that data and conclusions.

Second, many modern economists use that data to reach conclusions that are logically impossible.  For instance, Keynsians will tell you that savings is bad for an economy (and other nonsense).  Using even many years of data to justify conclusions that fly in the face of logic is incorrect.

Recap:
1) It is nearly impossible to measure the scope of an economy full of human actors statistically.
2) Statistical findings can't contradict what we know to be true based on logic.
3) Therefore, central planning can't be used to "improve" and economy.

If you look at history in a broad scope, Austrian economics has been proven correct time and time again.  Keynesianism has been proven wrong time and time again.  You just have to take a long term view and cut out the short term noise.

Most economics programs teach Keynsianism or some of its principles.  They do this because Keynes advocates massive government intervention and the idea that all knowing economist can manage our economy perfectely.  People love the idea that they are super smart and can make the world better.  Getting research grants from the government to provide academic cover for thier waste helps too.

Most people who prefer Austrian economics tend to become investors or businessmen.  Most people who prefer government tend to go into academia.

----------


## silverlegacy

Austrian Economics is a valid form of Economics! Though most schools will barely touch it and the few that do aren't usually very highly regarded. At the very basics both Keynsian and Austrian Economics believe in letting the Free Market take care of things, but Keynsian has much more intervention and fiat currency. Which can be both good and bad for many reasons. Austrian wants the market to figure everything out, much more savings, stable currency, and in order for it to exist needs a perfectly free market.

Austrian Economics takes a totally different approach to looking at the economy and that is mainly why it could be called a "pseudo-science." It is very idealistic and would need reform as it was implemented to be successful. In fact, we may never see the theories given the light of day in major economies.

----------


## deanne

just to come at this from a different angle, my field is biology and while economics is a soft science, it's no more soft than keynesian economics! i don't think it can be labeled a pseudo-science as previous posters pointed out. 

i went to Hillsdale College - probably the most widely known small (~1200 students) liberal arts school. they teach Austrian economics only. even in my intro econ class the prof was citing the failings of keynesian theory. the school is so serious about their position (conservative, Constitutionalist, noninterventionist, all the good stuff)..that they don't take any gov't dollars at all, not even indirectly through government loans or grants made to students. thus they are the only post-secondary school in the country not dependant on the federal dollar. anyway maybe that will help validate Austrian economics for you.

----------


## Tom228

I know everyone likes to bash Keynesian economics and I understand why. Though I think it should still be studied, no necessarily practiced but studied for the sake of knowledge.

It's commonly thought that "mainstream" economics is Keynesian. But what is yall's take on Classical Economics, ie: Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Jean-Baptiste Say.

----------


## kyleAF

Well, it's Austrian economics that originally led me to discover Ron Paul and his candidacy.  I'm only a layman, but my two cents is this:

Austrian economics is a contextual economics.  In other words, it looks at the context of the problem and not just the problem in a vacuum.  So when one asks, "How do people interact", the Austrians first answer: "what is the nature of human action itself"?  

Then they proceed to show that certain things must be left to natural forces, because there is simply no way to predict them.  You could think of the free-market vs. controlled market as an argument for controlled chaos.  It doesn't really make sense.  Overwhelming complexity may arise from the consistent application of basic rules of behavior by millions of people.  In such complex and chaotic environments, one can't expect to control a broad outcome over a long period.  Short-term and narrow outcomes, may be understandable, though, and that's where these "econometrics" may come in play.  Or, say, investment strategies.

But when it comes to running an economy: it isn't possible.  One main reason that is offered in Austrian economics is the impossibility of economic calculation of the output of production without the use of market forces to determine pricing of production capital.  In other words, the capital MUST be owned privately for the economy to function.

Another thing to keep in mind is the subjective valuation theory, which says that nothing has an inherent value, but only a market value based on what someone is willing to exchange for it (temporally, monetarily, or through barter or labor).  Austrian economics upholds this theory of value (which is sort of the reason for the above problem of socialist calculation).

Another crucial point is the IMMENSE importance of savings of capital goods for recapitalization and growth.  The example usually given is a grain field, where if you eat up all the grain, you don't have a way to plant next year's harvest and you starve.  If you save a little and maybe have a smaller dinner, you'll survive.  Capital in the hands of those who own it, helps to encourage savings.  In a disinterested pair of hands, it tends to get depleted.

Economics in one sentence though, is this: *Economics is ultimately about energy exchange--of many forms--for the purpose of continuing to live.*  Money is a corollary, though a necessary one in large markets, but that's all most people can focus on.  A dollar won't do you any good if no one will accept it for food.  And THAT's where the problem with inflation comes in, and Dr. Paul's solution!

Hope that makes some sense.  (And any economists out there, please critique if necessary!)

----------


## kyleAF

So in short: no, it's not a pseudo-science, as it is based on simple axiomatic rules of nature, but may be called "quasi-scientific" in its approach.

----------


## Michigan11

> I should also mention Northwood University, an associate- or full-degree business school with campuses in Midland, Michigan; West Palm Beach, Florida; and Cedar Hill, Texas. Founded by Gary Stauffer and Arthur Turner in 1958, Northwood stresses free-market and Austrian economics. (Go to www.northwood.edu.)


I attended Northwood, in 1993-1994, at the time it was, Northwood Institute, the following year, it became Northwood University.

I attended my first course, "Philosophy of American Life", I believe it was called, taught under, Dr. Dale Haywood.

Originally, I planned to attend, get my degree like every other, college bound student, and start a career. This professor, at first came off as, 'kooky and strange', with ideas and things, none in the class, including myself have ever thought of or decided to examine or question. It was sort of like re-thinking and examining everything around us, that we all become so accustom to, but rarely look into.

He taught Austrian Economics, yet never really mentioned the term, that I remember, yet strangely here we are, with a presidential candidate, talking about it, hahah. While the class was a well rounded study of basically, our economic system, he taught by, breaking down the system, in order to see everything very clearly. As a side note, I was getting average grades in High School before this class, but after this class, I was able to understand systems and things so clearly, that, I was later acheiving the highest scores/grades in classes afterwords, in all studies, because I could see things very clearly.


These are just some memories that have stuck with me, there were countless books, including his own, written along with Milton Friedman, in the foreword, that we studied and examined, made notes on, and questioned, untill the understanding was clear.

Not an easy course to say the least, yet, the only course I still recall on a daily basis, this course had a lifetime impact on me, and has effectively changed my life.

At the end of the course, I continued on with my research, reading anything I could get my hands on, while examining everything with a new 'outlook'.

After a year, I went out and started a business, and have used, Austrian Economics theories to my advantage. Austrian economics, is sort of like, un-doing the mass brainwashing that has enveloped society. Hence, Ron Paul comes along, he understands systems, he doesn't have to look at the smoke n mirrors, he knows. There are many, 'professionals', that don't really understand the systems in which they work, yet they learn how to get by, or move ahead, yet never understand the root of things in which they work.

This man, Dr. Dale Haywood, was a genious in teaching, at the time, many students just didn't get it, but some had great debates after class, and I myself, at the time challenged him as well(it is hard awakening for some you know..lol), but deep down for some reason, I felt like,  damn this is the first time I have heard someone who understands and wants to really teach others, about the systems in which we live.

May God Bless this mans soul, Dr. Dale Haywood, was a gift.

He passed away in 2006, but I am so very glad that the following year after his class, I hand wrote a note telling him how very greatful I was to him. I then received a letter back from him, saying how excited and happy he was and that I made his year. Yes, this man woke me up. So here I am supporting Ron Paul!

----------


## Shellshock1918

From my interpretation, Keynesian economics is short term economics. The Austrian school makes the argument that yes, in the short term Keynesian practices work but in the long run they lead to destructionism and economic crises. The Austrian method, which centers around a stable currency, its something that is meant for long term prosperity (centuries).

----------


## diesirae

Well, it's not a science -- but no less than neoclassical economics is a science.  If you argue that Austrian economics is pseudoscience with any sort of coherent logic, then your logic can be turned on neoclassical microeconomics with ease.

----------


## brandon

Austrian economics has its flaws. Austrian economists did not like to use the tools of mathematics very much, and thus it's foundations are not completely rigorous. There is no axiomatic basis for austrian economics.  The theories are very good though.   Check this out.


http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/

----------


## jon_perez

I hope we realize that *ALL ECONOMICS IS "PSEUDO-SCIENCE"!*

----------


## jon_perez

> I know everyone likes to bash Keynesian economics and I understand why. Though I think it should still be studied, not necessarily practiced but studied for the sake of knowledge.


Keynes apparently made some brilliant observations, but there are limits to his predictions.  Friedman had to come along and take it further.

Austrian economics is the counterpoint to Keynes' theories.  I think both are valuable because they are two contrasting ways of looking at the same thing.  Both have valuable observations to offer and study from.  Event though the Chicago school ostensibly builds upon Keynes' theories, it takes a lot of ideas from classical economics if I understand correctly.

----------


## Paulitician

Well, it doesn't try to be or masquerade as science, so no.

----------


## RobotJaxxon

Here's an analogy I just made up.  Tell me if you think this is fair.

Imagine economics as the rules for a new sport.

Austrian economics would set very basic rules that never change, and let the athlete figure out a way to excel at the game.  Kinda like what we're used to seeing in most sports.

Keynesian economics would try to actively change the rules during the game to enhance some aspect of the game.   If the rulemakers wanted to maximize the entertainment value, they might write equations and crunch numbers and then adapt the rules during the game to achieve that end.  Or maybe they'd rather emphasize defensive play, or goal scoring, or whatever the rulemakers want.  This is intriguing from a mathematical and theoretical standpoint because the athletes are constantly trying to adapt to new rules... but obviously the athletes would get frustrated trying to predict what the next rule change would be.  Rulemakers might try to create the ultimate game, and research it heavily for many years, while athletes generally just want to play with basic, unchanging rules.

You could take this further... Communism has very restrictive rules, eg no running, no using your hands, keep your eyes shut, and it causes athletes to not want to bother playing.  A free market has very few rules, but just enough to keep the big guys from killing the little ones.

I dunno... does this analogy work?

----------


## RonRules

The problem with Austrian Economics is that people are not entirely rational and do not necessarily make decisions in their best self interests.  They respond to greed and fear dis proportionally to their real necessary response.

I'm starting on this book from Michael Shermer, whom I know well:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2115,n,n

I'll report on it in a few days.

----------


## apropos

If your econ professor says the Fed is an important part of our society, you should probably start by floating him the quote from current chairman Bernanake:




> Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
> At the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
> November 8, 2002
> 
> On Milton Friedman's Ninetieth Birthday 
> 
> Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.


http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDD...08/default.htm

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

Economics is for all intents and purposes a branch of psychology. And we all know how variant schools of psychological thought can be.

----------


## davver

> The problem with Austrian Economics is that people are not entirely rational and do not necessarily make decisions in their best self interests.  They respond to greed and fear dis proportionally to their real necessary response.
> 
> I'm starting on this book from Michael Shermer, whom I know well:
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,2115,n,n
> 
> I'll report on it in a few days.


Austrian Economics would hold that everyone makes decisions in thier best interests when those decisions are voluntary.  However, thier best interests may not be what you think thier best interests are.

----------


## armand61685

Can one say that econometrics is just that, mathematical tools for measuring the economy and finding out specific trends and correlations. 

Can one say that econometrics is just a tool for all theories of economics, including Keynesian or Austrian? I mean, who's to say that Austrian economics can't use statistics to pinpoint correlations and trends?

----------


## AceNZ

> Can one say that econometrics is just that, mathematical tools for measuring the economy and finding out specific trends and correlations. 
> 
> Can one say that econometrics is just a tool for all theories of economics, including Keynesian or Austrian? I mean, who's to say that Austrian economics can't use statistics to pinpoint correlations and trends?


Sure, analysis of past trends can be done in either system.  That's just statistics.

One of the key differences between the systems is that with Keynesian, they believe you can predict the future using their mathematical models.  Austrians would say that's impossible, because the models can't take human behavior into account.

----------


## RonRules

You can listen to an interview with Michael Shermer and evolutionary economics.  Here's on a book tour now.   The start of the podcast has some comments about 9/11 truthers.
http://www.skepticality.com/index.php

----------


## RonRules

You can hear Shermer's view about Ron Paul at around minute 43 in the podcast:

The book discussed is "The Mind of the Market".  I just bought it and will start it tonight.
http://www.skepticality.com/index.php

----------


## jclay2

I am not really surprised too much about the praising of the Fed. However, maybe you should show him this data from the minneapolis fed:

http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/d...c/hist1800.cfm

It basically shows that from 1800 to 1913, there was about 0% net inflation. Also, there was decent growth in gdp during this time too. Ask him about this data and see what he says.

----------


## silverlegacy

Inflation isn't 100% evil. A small amount of inflation allows economies to grow at faster paces than they would normally be allowed to do, in theory. It doesn't always work, but neither does Austrian economics. Neither system is 100% correct, or quite frankly even close. In order for stability in an economy some intervention is needed because people are inherently irrational about things. If you say something enough it becomes true, this can lead to panics and unprovoked recessions.

----------


## AceNZ

> Inflation isn't 100% evil.


Yes it is.  Inflation requires stealing from all current holders of a currency.  That's always evil, no matter what the justification.





> A small amount of inflation allows economies to grow at faster paces than they would normally be allowed to do, in theory. It doesn't always work, but neither does Austrian economics. Neither system is 100% correct, or quite frankly even close. In order for stability in an economy some intervention is needed because people are inherently irrational about things. If you say something enough it becomes true, this can lead to panics and unprovoked recessions.


That's wrong-headed too.  Sure, a little inflation can make an economy grow faster for a while.  But then the economy has to pay the piper with a recession.  In the years before the US had a central bank and inflation, recessions didn't exist.  Growing more slowly, but more steadily, is much healthier and leads to more long-term prosperity.

----------


## armand61685

> Yes it is.  Inflation requires stealing from all current holders of a currency.  That's always evil, no matter what the justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong-headed too.  Sure, a little inflation can make an economy grow faster for a while.  But then the economy has to pay the piper with a recession.  In the years before the US had a central bank and inflation, recessions didn't exist.  Growing more slowly, but more steadily, is much healthier and leads to more long-term prosperity.


+1

----------


## Molly1

Economics is bunk.

So is history.

----------


## RonRules

I think you need a bit of inflation in order to prevent a MUCH bigger problem: Deflation.

We are entering housing deflationary times.  House prices are dropping every month.  Will you rush to buy?  No of course not and that's why the housing market is in total collapse, in a free fall.

Now, what if all other prices would fall ?  Clothes, furniture, cars, everything.  Everybody would WAIT and WAIT to buy stuff and this quickly set up a vicious circle.

Japan has been in this situation for about 17 years and can't get out of it.  Japan's national debt is MUCH bigger than the US.  Look at their stock market over the last 17 years.  NOTHING but down since 1990
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EN225&t=my

Look at the Dow instead:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5ED...=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Look at Japan's debt:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/...06_intern.html

Hong Kong is about the same as China's debt.  Look at where they are.  Guess who's going to rule the world in 10 years ?

I'd much rather have a nice steady 3-4% inflation than risking 0% inflation and the ensuing economic precipice of deflation.

----------


## jon_perez

^ That's the Great Debate right there.  Should central banks try to reflate by increasing the money supply to prevent a slowdown, or should temporary pain be endured because it will be healthier in the long run?

Remember that Japan has been trying to reflate with little success, their central bank interest rate is at 0.5% and they are still in a recession.

While there is a lot of wisdom to be found in the classical/austrian economic viewpoint that needs to be considered, the prevailing Keynesian/monetarist view is certainly not total bull either.  If the classical/austrian economists claim that inflation is a deadly self-reinforcing spiral, why won't they accept that the same applies to deflation?

----------


## Molly1

What we are seeing now is stagflation.

Recession + increasing money supply causing inflation.

Or as someone put it, pushing against a string.

It's all bunk and the results of a decades long plan by those in power.

They can act surprised, it doesn't mean they are.

----------


## Molly1

Until you accede that everything is manipulated for the ends of a few, and this so-called 'science' of economics is all smoke and mirrors made up to hide that fact, you won't have a clue what is going on.

We need a way to barter with each other, and Ron Paul, being an honest man, has picked the most honest way to do that.

(So did our founders, by the way.)

But, what we have now, endless debt,  is a banker's wet dream.

My opinion.

----------


## enter`name`here

> The problem with Austrian Economics is that people are not entirely rational and do not necessarily make decisions in their best self interests.  They respond to greed and fear dis proportionally to their real necessary response.


You are confusing ex post (after an action is taken) and ex ante (before an action is taken) utilty.  People always maximize ex ante utility but not nessisarily ex post utility. This is because the future is uncertain and knowledge is always incomplete.  To illustrate; Suppose my scale of values is such that state A is prefered to state B and action X will lead to state A and action Y will lead to state B however suppose that for whatever reason I *beleive* that action Y will lead to state A and action X will lead to state B, then it would be rational for me (given my knowledge) to pursue action Y _even though doing so is not in my best self interest._

----------


## enter`name`here

> If the classical/austrian economists claim that inflation is a deadly self-reinforcing spiral, why won't they accept that the same applies to deflation?


Because austrians do not use the same definition of inflation/deflation as do neoclassical economists.

----------


## Freedom

Ron Paul wrote a book about his views on Austrian Economics. It's available in PDF format on the mises.org website.

The book is titled, "Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View"

----------


## Molly1

I mean, if we acknowledge that everything we think we own is debt, really owned by someone else,  and that whenever we buy something, we are really buying it with debt, maybe that would make it clearer?

Oh well, Carry on!

----------

