Disappointed in Austrian Economics

[libertybrewcity]

WaltM reincarnated as a red peter schiff?

 

[treyfu]

"We libertarians"? Sorry to break it to you, but if you actually believe the stuff you posted, you are not a libertarian. Try again.

 

[Legend1104]

They were only 5% of GDP....

Your argument here makes no sense. Of course they would have been small by the 1930s. The tariff would have had the effect of dragging down the purchase of imports and exports. you cannot just look at were the line was at that time and say that they had no real effect. You need to look at the big picture. Your own graph shows that before 1930, imports/exports were declining drastically. The tariff brought them down and started a trade war. This would have increased prices for consumers at home.

Furthermore, your graph is incomplete. It does not show what happened before 1930. We don't know how much of a drop imports/exports took. Second, I don't know where you keep getting 5%. Certainly not from your chart. It does not show percentage. The numbers on the side indicate billions of dollars (I think...it is not actually expressed but I assume that is correct because it goes above 2000 and that certainly is not a percentage).


P.S. please someone tell me how to actually put an image into a response.

Here is a good chart about export/imports for that time period.
Notice the huge drop in imports/exports from 1929-1932.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mXz2rszFv.../Bd7sqI-l-eQ/s1600-h/GlobalTrade1920-1940.jpg

[rph-edit: nvmd... re: image insert ]

 

[revolutionary8]

Neo-Luddism and Technological Singlularity

Some argue advanced technologies are simply too dangerous for humans to morally allow them to be built, and advocate efforts to stop their invention. Perhaps the most famous for holding this viewpoint is Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who believed AI may enable the upper classes of society to "simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity". Alternatively, if AI is not created, Kaczynski argues that humans "will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals" after sufficient technological progress has been made. Portions of Kaczynski's writings have been included in both Bill Joy's article and in a recent book by Ray Kurzweil. It should be noted that Kaczynski not only opposes the Singularity but also supports neo-Luddism. Many people oppose the Singularity without opposing present-day technology as Luddites do.

Just as Luddites opposed artifacts of the industrial revolution, due to concern for their effects on employment, some opponents of the Singularity are also concerned about future employment opportunities. Although Luddite concerns about jobs were not supported given the growth in jobs after the industrial revolution, there was one effect on involuntary employment: namely, a dramatic decrease in child labor and the labors of the overaged. Thus, only a drop in voluntary employment should be of concern, not the level of absolute employment (Such a position is held by Henry Hazlitt). Economically, a post-Singularity society would likely have more wealth than a pre-Singularity society (via increased knowledge of matter and energy manipulation to meet human needs) and thus wealth distribution would be easier to solve. One possible post-Singularity future, therefore, is one in which per capita wealth increases dramatically while per capita employment decreases.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/technological-singularity/criticisms.html

Hazlitt explains this very well in his book Eco in one easy lesson

 

[Bratok]

Second, I don't know where you keep getting 5%.

according to my chart in 1st post nominal GDP in 1929 - $100 billion, exports - $5 billion

 

[Sentient Void]

It seems that RPF is increasingly becoming a forum where liberals and statists either like to come to in order to try and refute libertarianism and sound economics (where they and their 'arguments' are always debunked and refuted) , or for some that are increasingly curious as to find answers in their interest for a better and more consistent philosophy.

I've noticed these 'kinds of posts' like the OP in this thread are becoming increasingly common...

Keep it up guys! ;-)

 

[revolutionary8]

Here you go Legend

when you hit Post Reply, look at the top at your tools. Hit the picture icon then copy the address of the pic in to the box.
If that isn't working for you, simply wrap the tags

around the image address. To get the image addy, mouse over the image, left click, then hit copy image address.

 

[Legend1104]

Great thanks.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brain_Center_at_Whipple%27s

YouTube - The Brain Center At Whipple's (2/3)

YouTube - The Brain Center At Whipple's (3/3)

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree. I am not completely Austrian either, since there are a few foundational problems (from a Christian viewpoint).

One problem is that Austrian economists have never defended property from an ethical standpoint, in fact Mises said it couldn't be. They have defended it from linguistic, historical, or pragmatic grounds...but never ethically. Only Christianity provides an ethical (and therefore the only defendable) basis for property.

This is a great explanation of this-

The Only Possible Defense Of Private Property:
http://americanvision.org/656/only-possible-defense-of-private-property/

Where the Austrian school borrows from the worldview of Christianity, I agree.

What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?

 

[Sentient Void]

What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?

He clearly has not. 'The Ethics for Liberty' by Rothbard, anyone?

 

[Sola_Fide]

What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?

of course I have. I've read pretty much every major Austrian school and classical liberal book there is, from old Mises Journals to The Law to Man, Economy, And State to What Has Government Done To Our Money to Human Action to Econ In One Lesson etc etc etc. (although I've never read any Hoppe books but have listened to a lot of his lectures.

If you think that the Austrian school has defended property from an ethical standpoint, then please point it out Mises went out of his way to deny that property could be defended from an ethical standpoint in Human Action. He said:

“Private property is a human device. It is not sacred.”

To Mises, property was a pragmatic outworking of human action, not something sacred or uniquely part and parcel of a man's nature as he was created. There are some major foundational problems with a view like this. Marxists for example have the same view of property, that it is alien to man's nature, not intrinsic...Marxists are just more consistent with their presuppositions by saying that what is alien to nature must be discarded.

The articles I posted deal with the issue better than what I am describing. I am on an iphone right now or else I would post more.

 

[Sentient Void]

That's interesting, AquaBuddha. I invite you to try to sleep in a bear's cave and see what happens when he comes back. Or to see how a dog responds to another dog when he comes back to see the other dog playing with *his* dog bone. Or a cat growling at another fellow household cat playing with what he clearly views as *his* toy (I see this all the time amongst my cats and their specific toys).

I could go on. There's plenty of examples of animals throughout nature exercising their defense of their Lockean sticky property. Property *is* a natural concept.

 

[Sola_Fide]

That's interesting, AquaBuddha. I invite you to try to sleep in a bear's cave and see what happens when he comes back. Or to see how a dog responds to another dog when he comes back to see the other dog playing with *his* dog bone. Or a cat growling at another fellow household cat playing with what he clearly views as *his* toy (I see this all the time amongst my cats and their specific toys).

I could go on. There's plenty of examples of animals throughout nature exercising their defense of their Lockean sticky property. Property *is* a natural concept.

This is the "is-ought" fallacy. You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be". David Hume pointed this out.


Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms. And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.

 

[Sola_Fide]

By the way SV, I agree with you that property is intrinsic in man's nature. This is where both you and I would disagree with Mises. In Mises' view, since property was merely a pragmatic result of human behavior, and came much later after man "developed", a return to nature would be a return to a state devoid of property.


Property MUST be intrinsic and sacred for it to be defended ethically. Christianity alone provides the axioms neccessary for an ethical defense of property. Property IS sacred. Property is intrinsic to man's nature because he was created to take dominion over the earth God created for him.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

of course I have. I've read pretty much every major Austrian school and classical liberal book there is, from old Mises Journals to The Law to Man, Economy, And State to What Has Government Done To Our Money to Human Action to Econ In One Lesson etc etc etc. (although I've never read any Hoppe books but have listened to a lot of his lectures.

If you think that the Austrian school has defended property from an ethical standpoint, then please point it out Mises went out of his way to deny that property could be defended from an ethical standpoint in Human Action. He said:



To Mises, property was a pragmatic outworking of human action, not something sacred or uniquely part and parcel of a man's nature as he was created. There are some major foundational problems with a view like this. Marxists for example have the same view of property, that it is alien to man's nature, not intrinsic...Marxists are just more consistent with their presuppositions by saying that what is alien to nature must be discarded.

The articles I posted deal with the issue better than what I am describing. I am on an iphone right now or else I would post more.

Well if you were accustomed to Austrian Scholar's philosophies you would realize there are two branching deviations within the School. Rothbard, Hoppe, and Bastiat belong to the rationalist Natural Law sect (E.g. non-utilitarian), & Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger belong to the utilitarian sect. I mean, Rothbard penned Ethics of Liberty & Hoppe had the Ethics and Economics of Private Property.

The Rothbardian side is the Natural Law side (E.g. morality/ethical/rationalist based, than utilitarian).

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is the "is-ought" fallacy. You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be". David Hume pointed this out.


Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms. And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.

Non-sense. Discourse ethics (E.g. self-ownership) is clearly superior to any deified sacrosanct script. Reason & Logic need no 'higher authority'. Faith is a weak argument, in fact, it holds no merit whatsoever in terms of morality and ethics. (Reason & Logic is much superior)

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well if you were accustomed to Austrian Scholar's philosophies you would realize there are two branching deviations within the School. Rothbard, Hoppe, and Bastiat belong to the rationalist Natural Law sect (E.g. non-utilitarian), & Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger belong to the utilitarian sect. I mean, Rothbard penned Ethics of Liberty & Hoppe had the Ethics and Economics of Private Property.

The Rothbardian side is the Natural Law side (E.g. morality/ethical/rationalist based, than utilitarian).

Oh I am aware

You are persuaded by natural law arguments, huh? (I thought you liked logic)

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh I am aware

You are persuaded by natural law arguments, huh? (I thought you liked logic)

Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever.

I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. I clearly pointed out that Austrian Economic scholars and the work itself, lends itself quite well and has to ethical argumentation. You are wrong to assert otherwise. I think you are trying to make some invisible divide that doesn't even exist for whatever religious reasons you hold.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever.

I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. I clearly pointed out that Austrian Economic scholars and the work itself, lends itself quite well and has to ethical argumentation. You are wrong to assert otherwise. I think you are trying to make some invisible divide that doesn't even exist for whatever religious reasons you hold.

In my previous posts I show that the Biblical axiom provides the only neccessarily ethical foundation for property.

How does an argument from nature provide a logical, non-arbitrary defense of property as ethical? What natural law philosopher has ever said property was good because it was good (not good because it is historical, pragmatic, etc)??? Besides, arguing that something is good because it is "natural" is ridiculous. Humans have shown that they are very good at murdering and oppressing each other. Is that "good" because murder and oppression are in our nature?

And my argument is not from "faith", as if you mean to suggest that I am arbitrarily picking and choosing to have blind faith in certain worldviews... My argument is from axioms neccessary for deduction. I just showed how the axioms of Christianity provide the postulate neccessary for an ethical defense of property...Arguments from nature are not sound, as Hume pointed out.