Has anyone read this critique of the Austrian School?

[Met Income]

Certainly.

But "people" should be actual participants in a forum, and not simply "drive by shooters" who post links to straw man articles and then disappear into the woodwork... that is not discussion, nor debate, it is a "hit and run."

And if you argue that it is NOT the sole post but rather that some long time RPF member has simply assumed another "new identity" in order to post this, then it is simple cowardice.

My "thoughts" were simply that this thread is an example of an instance why the privilege of starting new threads would be best limited to those who actually "stick around."

Says who? They can post how they see fit. You seem very authoritarian in your posting preferences.

 

[Met Income]

It was not a troll. The post accusing it of trolling was more of a troll, in fact. It was a legitimate question and not at all phrased offensively (unless one is extremely closed-minded, I guess).

I've been called a troll for posting threads that do not immediately bow down to Austrian economics. It's damaging to the community. We don't want a bunch of one-sided parrot heads.

If Austrian economics is key, it can withstand any and all criticisms. It doesn't have to hide behind personal and ad-hom attacks.

 

[Mini-Me]

Here's a prime example of loose reasoning by "mainstream economics" at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausgold.htm

"At low levels, inflation under fiat money is relatively harmless. However, the deflation caused by the gold standard is truly destructive. If dollars have inflated to 2 percent of their original value, and the price of gold has risen 20 times, then maintaining the gold standard would have deflated the dollar to 2.5 times its original value. That's a lot of unemployment.'

Hmmm... how in heck did deflation become unequivocally related to unemployment?!? Also, if the money I hold increases in value, then I wouldn't mind being unemployed! Duh...

I started to read the "critique" as well, but I should have already known what I was getting into, because that huppi site was in fact the very first resource I started reading from after I heard about Ron Paul and his rejection of fiat money, etc. I looked to that site to refute Ron Paul's own arguments, and on the surface, their reasoning seemed sound in certain articles (like this one). After a long while of thinking about it, I began to see the now-obvious fallacies and misconceptions on that site...and it wasn't until many months later that I finally signed up here and started posting.

The particular quote you presented is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. The huppi site is apparently assuming not only that price stickiness outright prevents price level deflation when the economy grows (and therefore causes unemployment as the economic growth cannot be sustained at the same money supply levels), it is also assuming out of hand that the subsequent unemployment and economic recession would exceed the prior economic growth that presumably led to it. Following from these debatable assumptions, they also engage in sleight of hand, pretending as though all of that "destructive" price deflation would happen at once and cause widespread unemployment, as it would during precipitous monetary deflation (widespread credit contraction...which, it is important to note, has only ever happened to us under the Federal Reserve). In reality, no real monetary deflation would occur under commodity-backed currency...in fact, slow and gradual monetary inflation would still occur as more gold is mined. Of course, as technology, competition, and other factors allow the economy to grow and become more productive, more and more goods and services will be gradually offered at lower and lower prices, causing slow and gradual price deflation. Depending on GDP growth, this growth-fueled price deflation would probably exceed the price increases otherwise caused by the infusion of new money, to the tune of a couple percent a year or so. Price stickiness under commodity-backed currency may slow this growth, but it would not actually reverse it as it would during times of sudden and severe monetary deflation, such as during the Great Depression and our current crisis. Although I have not read their full "critique" and have trouble stomaching the smug tone and overall propagandistic bias, everything I've seen so far on the huppi site is written under the assumption that gradual price deflation over years, generations, and centuries is absolutely no different from precipitous currency deflation over a short period of time. For instance, in the article I linked to, they used the Great Depression argument to highlight the destructive effects of deflation, but they failed to actually acknowledge the fact that the Great Depression did not even occur under an honest gold standard anyway. The Great Depression only occurred after the Federal Reserve came about and abused the gold standard (turning it into a fake gold standard basically), so of COURSE massive credit contraction eventually occurred, reversing the previous massive credit expansion. The idea that this was somehow the fault of the US following a "gold standard" is absolutely preposterous.

 

[jon_perez]

Certainly.

But "people" should be actual participants in a forum, and not simply "drive by shooters" who post links to straw man articles and then disappear into the woodwork... that is not discussion, nor debate, it is a "hit and run."

It doesn't matter if the threadstarter didn't stick around. The site he referred to was worth reading. There are _some_ intelligent arguments in it even if it is clearly biased towards left-wing ideas. If it were a site completely devoid of merit, then I don't think anyone would bother calling the OP a troll either, because the ideas in the site he referred to would simply be too absurd and would be dismissed outright.

Could the reason the OP was being dismissed as a troll was because the site he was pointing had some tough arguments that could not be easily refuted?

I myself came across this so-called "Liberalism FAQ" earlier (didn't bother referring to it here on rpf though) and it certainly made me rethink / reconsider some of my beliefs.

And if you argue that it is NOT the sole post but rather that some long time RPF member has simply assumed another "new identity" in order to post this, then it is simple cowardice.

Who cares about "identities"? What is important is the substance of the arguments.

My "thoughts" were simply that this thread is an example of an instance why the privilege of starting new threads would be best limited to those who actually "stick around."

Dunno about you, I think that site he referred to had some interesting arguments worth discussing, so, for me, it was a far better contribution to the forum than much of the empty parroting that goes on around here...

 

[jon_perez]

but if we get attacked by lots of terrorist trolls, starting threads on their first post, then we'll have to give up our liberty to ensure the safety and security of the forum.

"Terrorist" trolls huh? You sound like a neo-con, geez.

Read http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=32994 again, by the forum founder himself.

 

[Mini-Me]

Says who? They can post how they see fit. You seem very authoritarian in your posting preferences.

Not that this is really the thread to discuss this, but...private property rights of the forum admins are similar to private property rights of a home owner. Anyone and everyone has the right to free speech (i.e. not to be physically restrained from speaking or harmed in retaliation for speech), but if you're having a party at your house, you still have the right to set conditions on your guests' attendance, kick them out if they become unruly, etc. It's not Josh or Bryan's responsibility to literally provide everyone on Earth with an outlet for their opinions on this forum...and so WRellim's suggestions are entirely valid policies for them to implement. Of course, compared to the admin/mods on most boards, I think the admins and mods here do tend to be pretty lenient in respect for the spirit of freedom and open discourse anyway (though the howlers may nevertheless have a chilling effect ), but that doesn't mean they actually have to.

 

[WRellim]

Could the reason the OP was being dismissed as a troll was because the site he was pointing had some tough arguments that could not be easily refuted?

Nah. The article he linked to was a POS; it erects a "straw man" which it then calls "Austrian economics" and then proceeds to utilize virtually every other logical fallacy known to man to smear and destroy.

I could refute that article with one hand behind my back... but would there be any benefit? If the original poster absents himself, then who is left to dialog with?

Anyone (especially on this site) who would (still) be so easily convinced by the linked piece would also be very unlikely to understand the difference between a reasoned, logical argument, and a diatribe filled with lies and distortions.

 

[jon_perez]

^ Frankly, I think neither Austrian economics nor "mainstream" economics are both fully right or wrong. They are perspectives to consider, not dogmas to subscribe allegiance to. There are good insights as well as misleading ones to be found in writings belonging to both camps.

I am aware that many mainstream economists dismiss "austrian" economics outright (e.g. Krugman referring to it as "a theory about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire..." while the more hardened advocates of Austrian economics seem to think of Keynesianism (and even Friedman Monetarism) in much the same way [interestingly, Keynes himself, in later years, seemed to depart from his initial views, which had already coalesced into its own economic school of thought].

All these different economic theories are much like the descriptions of an elephant by the blind men. They make valid and intelligent comments and observations of specific economic phenomena but they are not necessarily able to capture the entirety of economic events (there are more things under heaven and earth than can be dreamed of by any philosophy...).

Much as the blind men ended up fighting with each other even though they were all partially right, so the same goes with the more zealous advocates of specific economic schools of thought.

The great lie which economists seem to like telling themselves is that economics can ever be a real science with the same kind of rigid predictability as, say, physics.

 

[WRellim]

^ Frankly, I think neither Austrian economics nor "mainstream" economics are both fully right or wrong. They are perspectives to consider, not dogmas to subscribe allegiance to. There are good insights as well as misleading ones to be found in writings belonging to both camps.

All of which means you probably don't have a very good understanding of either camp.

Understanding gravity, or the "laws" of thermodynamics does not require one be "dogmatic" -- but rather simply that one understands reality and attempt to describe and quantify it in as simple a fashion as possible, versus attempting to deny it via superfluous obfuscatory terminology.

 

[SeanEdwards]

That criticism piece was like a menu of logical fallacies. I'm not sure if the author left any of the biggies out. I saw numerous examples of "appeals to authority" and "poisoning the well". Just a terrible piece overall with zero intellectual merit.

 

[Paulitician]

Hehe, in http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausintro.htm we read that "Nobel economist Paul Samuelson wrote that "I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." (1) Noted economist Mark Blaug has called Austrian methodologies "so cranky and idiosyncratic that we can only wonder that they have been taken seriously by anyone."

as if mainstream economics is not just as cranky and idiosyncratic and full of unwarranted assumptions too... or worse...

Definitely worse.

I wouldn't mind the hitpiece if it actually presented arguments; alas, all I see are fallacies.

 

[Met Income]

Not that this is really the thread to discuss this, but...private property rights of the forum admins are similar to private property rights of a home owner. Anyone and everyone has the right to free speech (i.e. not to be physically restrained from speaking or harmed in retaliation for speech), but if you're having a party at your house, you still have the right to set conditions on your guests' attendance, kick them out if they become unruly, etc. It's not Josh or Bryan's responsibility to literally provide everyone on Earth with an outlet for their opinions on this forum...and so WRellim's suggestions are entirely valid policies for them to implement. Of course, compared to the admin/mods on most boards, I think the admins and mods here do tend to be pretty lenient in respect for the spirit of freedom and open discourse anyway (though the howlers may nevertheless have a chilling effect ), but that doesn't mean they actually have to.

Obviously, it's not the site owner's responsibility to provide speech to others on their property. However, those looking to censor the OP are not the site owners, are they? Case closed.

He's not a troll just because people say so.

 

[danberkeley]

Obviously, it's not the site owner's responsibility to provide speech to others on their property. However, those looking to censor the OP are not the site owners, are they? Case closed.

He's not a troll just because people say so.

No one is trying to censor him. They were simply calling him a "troll". Dont people have the right to call someone a "troll"?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Obviously, it's not the site owner's responsibility to provide speech to others on their property. However, those looking to censor the OP are not the site owners, are they? Case closed.

He's not a troll just because people say so.

No, but he is a troll because he opens an account to make ONE post that is so wrong, its dumb.

There was a time the Austrian school WAS the mainstream. and back then all the Keynesians were nutjobs.

 

[Met Income]

No, but he is a troll because he opens an account to make ONE post that is so wrong, its dumb.

There was a time the Austrian school WAS the mainstream. and back then all the Keynesians were nutjobs.

Why does that make him a troll? You need to prove that he intended to provoke others.

 

[jon_perez]

All of which means you probably don't have a very good understanding of either camp.

Understanding gravity, or the "laws" of thermodynamics does not require one be "dogmatic" -- but rather simply that one understands reality and attempt to describe and quantify it in as simple a fashion as possible, versus attempting to deny it via superfluous obfuscatory terminology.

Like I said, the single biggest folly of economists (or people with pretensions to such) is to think that their field will ever somehow be like the hard sciences such as physics, for which you can come up with "laws".

Economics is part sociology and philosophy as can be so easily seen by the arguments put forth for this or that economic idea. For what it's worth, I would say that arguments put forth by the so-called Austrian school appeal far more to common sense compared to Keynesian gobbledygook taught in schools. But, historical revisionism aside, the mainstream seems to agree that Keynesianism did prove itself at some time in the past (but was eventually also proven to have its limits). If you look at that so-called Liberalism FAQ, it even does a hatchet job on Monetarism, so for those Austrians who think Friedman is as much bunk as Keynes, I guess they have something in common with its author, LOL!

 

[jon_perez]

Why does that make him a troll? You need to prove that he intended to provoke others.

He was considered a troll because he pointed to ideas that some on this forum found unpalatable.

I would say that while the site clearly has a bias, the points there are not as easily dismissed as some of the posters on this thread would like. If they were that ridiculous, it would have been completely ignored instead of being attacked as trolling.

 

[WRellim]

He was considered a troll because he pointed to ideas that some on this forum found unpalatable.

I would say that while the site clearly has a bias, the points there are not as easily dismissed as some of the posters on this thread would like. If they were that ridiculous, it would have been completely ignored instead of being attacked as trolling.

And there's YOUR "revisionism" at play.

He was called a "troll" quite accurately in this instance.

Here's the definition that Wikipedia uses for "Internet Troll":

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
​

Since this was a NEW user account -- which was used to place that SINGLE post, containing solely the LINK to the article in question... well, THAT action was one of "trolling" in the form of "disrupt[ing] normal on-topic discussion."

Therefore the use was accurate and apropos. I also think the term "coward" would be appropriate, as I am beginning to believe that the OP is actually just a second "anonymous" account for someone else who wanted to post that link, but did NOT want to directly associate it with themselves. (The admins [moderators?] could check the IP number on that account and compare it to others and confirm or refute this ...but regardless, I wouldn't expect them to finger the person publicly).




And it is NOT that the article is unrefutable (you're kidding, right?) or simply "unpalatable" -- I could refute that piece of garbage very easily. It would just be BORING to go through it from top to bottom and cite all of the logical fallacies it contains -- for it contains virtually nothing BUT logical fallacies.

 

[Dsylexic]

^^ this is the problem with us fricken ron paulites.we are an useless debating society.

 

[WRellim]

^^ this is the problem with us fricken ron paulites.we are an useless debating society.

I believe that would be "A" useless debating society.


Besides, what else is there to do at nearly 3 AM in the morning... storm the Fed?

Like that would matter anyway?