3 ms·

Why? I would like to learn more.

by haolez 6y ago

neilwilson 6y ago
Full debunking of Austrian concepts here http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html?m=1 http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.h...
notahacker 6y ago
The short and relatively sympathetic response is Bryan Caplan's https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm (TLDR: most of the useful concepts from Austrian theory were incorporated into mainstream economics; what was left were some bold claims and a hostility towards maths and empiricism.) https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
- logicchains 6y ago
  >hostility towards maths and empiricism Austrian economics isn't hostile to maths; it follows a different value system based on ordinal, not cardial utility, which doesn't allow for interpersonal value comparisons. Mathematically speaking this system is actually more elegant, as it has one less assumption (no philosophical assumption that interpersonal value comparison is possible), but obviously in such a system fewer statements can be made.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    The linked article explains in some detail how Rothbard dismissed much of neoclassical theory based on simply not understanding the maths was valid for both ordinal and cardinal utility preferences. And the philosophical difference is much greater than rejection of interpersonal utility comparisons (a position shared by many neoclassical economists and ethicists) or a dislike of modern algebraic formalism shared with many economists of all stripes but Mises' insistence that economics is "not quantitative" and should instead be a set of conclusions drawn from axiomatic statements about human behaviour. Mainstream economists have written a great deal about the limitations of models, structural flaws of certain models, and identifying the circumstances in which past performance is unlikely to be a guide to future results but only Mises insisted the act of looking at the data was 'childish play with figures'

Why? I would like to learn more.

by haolez 6y ago

Why? I would like to learn more.

Full debunking of Austrian concepts here http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html?m=1 http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.h...

notahacker 6y ago

The short and relatively sympathetic response is Bryan Caplan's https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm (TLDR: most of the useful concepts from Austrian theory were incorporated into mainstream economics; what was left were some bold claims and a hostility towards maths and empiricism.) https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

logicchains 6y ago
>hostility towards maths and empiricism Austrian economics isn't hostile to maths; it follows a different value system based on ordinal, not cardial utility, which doesn't allow for interpersonal value comparisons. Mathematically speaking this system is actually more elegant, as it has one less assumption (no philosophical assumption that interpersonal value comparison is possible), but obviously in such a system fewer statements can be made.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The linked article explains in some detail how Rothbard dismissed much of neoclassical theory based on simply not understanding the maths was valid for both ordinal and cardinal utility preferences. And the philosophical difference is much greater than rejection of interpersonal utility comparisons (a position shared by many neoclassical economists and ethicists) or a dislike of modern algebraic formalism shared with many economists of all stripes but Mises' insistence that economics is "not quantitative" and should instead be a set of conclusions drawn from axiomatic statements about human behaviour. Mainstream economists have written a great deal about the limitations of models, structural flaws of certain models, and identifying the circumstances in which past performance is unlikely to be a guide to future results but only Mises insisted the act of looking at the data was 'childish play with figures'