6 ms·

Good to see the Austrian School weirdos at the Ludwig von Mises Institute have given up real-world economics and now just play video games. Hopefully in the vir

Good to see the Austrian School weirdos at the Ludwig von Mises Institute have given up real-world economics and now just play video games. Hopefully in the virtual world their incredible track record of dead-wrong predictions will cause less harm.

digitalengineer 13y ago
(Okay, I'll bite). Von Mises was the mentor of Hayek. You know, the one who won the Nobel Price? F.A. Hayek... he has also led the way in attacking the mathematical models and the planning pretensions of the would-be "scientists," and in integrating economics into a wider libertarian social philosophy. Perhaps one reason is the evident and galloping breakdown of orthodox Keynesian "macroeconomics," which leads even the most hidebound economists to at least consider alternative theories and solutions. Everybody is drowning in debt, but hey let's just print more and we'll all get wealthy. http://mises.org/daily/4082 http://mises.org/daily/4082
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  The problem is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute don't really sell Mises. They sell Rothbardianism, mostly. It's Rothbard acolytes and a series of increasingly more-anarcho-capitalist-than-thou writers. von Mises, who was actually more sensible and more measured than Rothbard, is just the name above the door. And von Hayek, who was more sensible and more measured than von Mises, is nowhere to be seen. At all. Except possibly as the subject of jokes. These days I find the Hayekian account of economics to be thoughtful and compelling [1]. I find the Rothbard account to be a breeding ground of ivory towers and scenes from Life of Brian. [1] http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-1/ http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-...
- vwfwerwetqwerqw 13y ago
  Pointing out flaws in other analysis doesn't actually justify your own preferred explanations. See creationism.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  > Everybody is drowning in debt Wrong. The economy was fueled by unsustainable private debt before the economic crisis. Part of the recession was shifting this private debt somewhere else, so that it has largely become sustainable public debt. Your claim that "everybody is drowning in debt" is clearly a mischaracterization of what is happening in the real world. Regarding your off-the-cuff comment about "printing more": I find it incredible that Austrian types still cling to their delusions so much that they outright deny the possibility that an increase of demand can lead (and does lead, in a slow economy) to an increase of production.
javert 13y ago
Presumably you resort to grade school-level name-calling because you don't have an actual intellectual argument.
- eropple 13y ago
  Alternate Character Interpretation: what would otherwise be "grade school-level name-calling" corresponds rather strikingly to reality.
svv 13y ago
> incredible track record of dead-wrong predictions The Austrian School economics methodology does not allow for making predictions. See e.g. the note at the beginning of http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions It provides certain tools and models that one can use for explaining events and reasoning about policy options. These reasoning can be used as a basis of predictions (along with the other, non-economics-theoretic assumptions), but the predictions themselves will fall outside of the economics science in the Austrian School sense. Basically, if your analysis manages to reason away uncertainty of the future, you're not following Austrian methodology. And no, the Austrian methodology won't even let you quantify that future uncertainty in probabilistic terms: that would only be possible if it used causal explanations of human action; instead, it relies on teleological, goal-oriented explanations. Now, questioning and disputing the value, coherence and real-world applicability of the Austrian methodology is perfectly OK. (Personally, I find the Austrian economists' disregard for formal notations very unfortunate, as I've mentioned in another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647747) Your comment, however, seems to be simply misguided, based on a flawed understanding of the issue, and the sarcastic tone is unlikely to facilitate a constructive discussion. (Edited: spelling.)
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Unfortunately for the Austrian school, prediction is the heart and soul of science. You cannot claim to be doing science in any sense if you do not make predictions based on falsifiable hypotheses. As you imply, this is why teleology is not a science, though large-scale statistical studies in fields like politics and sociology have made plenty of scientific headway by ignoring the core Austrian belief system and conducting empirical studies about human actions and preferences anyway.
- n1ghtm4n 13y ago
  Austrian School economists don't make predictions, but when they do they're right 100% of the time, except when they're wrong in which case I will remind you that Austrian School economists don't make predictions. If you think I'm exaggerating, check out this unintentionally hilarious excerpt from the Ludwig von Mises Institute wiki. See if you can count how many times they flip-flop on whether they make predictions. Austrian predictions This page attempts to list various predictions made by Austrian economists about important economic and other developments. Important note: Austrian economists, as Austrian economists, or praxeologists, do not predict. They can predict not as formal economists, or praxeologists, but, rather, in their role as thymologists, or economic historians. In praxeology, A causes B, other things remaining the same. But, in the real world, other things cannot be relied upon to always remain constant. Therefore, predictions of the "A will necessarily lead to B" type are strictly prohibited. Instead, praxeologists, but not thymologists, must limit themselves to statements of the if-A then-B variety. With this in mind, it is interesting that Austrian economists have been quite successful at predicting major events.[1] http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions
davidw 13y ago
Exhibit A for why a lot of economics articles are poisonous and should be flagged for removal. Comments on this thread include lots of name calling and other inflammatory rhetoric that does not make for very good discussion. Also, people have pretty much already made up their minds about this stuff... Austrian True Believer types are not going to be swayed by being called weirdos, and the rest of us aren't going to be convinced by 'praxeology'.
- vwfwerwetqwerqw 13y ago
  Well, I've certainly learned a lot from this discussion. Although, I find myself agreeing with the guy who called them weirdos, the Austrian school, as it has been explained, does seem really weird to me.

digitalengineer 13y ago

(Okay, I'll bite). Von Mises was the mentor of Hayek. You know, the one who won the Nobel Price? F.A. Hayek... he has also led the way in attacking the mathematical models and the planning pretensions of the would-be "scientists," and in integrating economics into a wider libertarian social philosophy. Perhaps one reason is the evident and galloping breakdown of orthodox Keynesian "macroeconomics," which leads even the most hidebound economists to at least consider alternative theories and solutions. Everybody is drowning in debt, but hey let's just print more and we'll all get wealthy. http://mises.org/daily/4082 http://mises.org/daily/4082

jacques_chester 13y ago
The problem is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute don't really sell Mises. They sell Rothbardianism, mostly. It's Rothbard acolytes and a series of increasingly more-anarcho-capitalist-than-thou writers. von Mises, who was actually more sensible and more measured than Rothbard, is just the name above the door. And von Hayek, who was more sensible and more measured than von Mises, is nowhere to be seen. At all. Except possibly as the subject of jokes. These days I find the Hayekian account of economics to be thoughtful and compelling [1]. I find the Rothbard account to be a breeding ground of ivory towers and scenes from Life of Brian. [1] http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-1/ http://chester.id.au/2012/12/07/review-the-essence-of-hayek-...
vwfwerwetqwerqw 13y ago
Pointing out flaws in other analysis doesn't actually justify your own preferred explanations. See creationism.
nhaehnle 13y ago
> Everybody is drowning in debt Wrong. The economy was fueled by unsustainable private debt before the economic crisis. Part of the recession was shifting this private debt somewhere else, so that it has largely become sustainable public debt. Your claim that "everybody is drowning in debt" is clearly a mischaracterization of what is happening in the real world. Regarding your off-the-cuff comment about "printing more": I find it incredible that Austrian types still cling to their delusions so much that they outright deny the possibility that an increase of demand can lead (and does lead, in a slow economy) to an increase of production.

javert 13y ago

Presumably you resort to grade school-level name-calling because you don't have an actual intellectual argument.

eropple 13y ago
Alternate Character Interpretation: what would otherwise be "grade school-level name-calling" corresponds rather strikingly to reality.

svv 13y ago

> incredible track record of dead-wrong predictions The Austrian School economics methodology does not allow for making predictions. See e.g. the note at the beginning of http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions It provides certain tools and models that one can use for explaining events and reasoning about policy options. These reasoning can be used as a basis of predictions (along with the other, non-economics-theoretic assumptions), but the predictions themselves will fall outside of the economics science in the Austrian School sense. Basically, if your analysis manages to reason away uncertainty of the future, you're not following Austrian methodology. And no, the Austrian methodology won't even let you quantify that future uncertainty in probabilistic terms: that would only be possible if it used causal explanations of human action; instead, it relies on teleological, goal-oriented explanations. Now, questioning and disputing the value, coherence and real-world applicability of the Austrian methodology is perfectly OK. (Personally, I find the Austrian economists' disregard for formal notations very unfortunate, as I've mentioned in another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647747) Your comment, however, seems to be simply misguided, based on a flawed understanding of the issue, and the sarcastic tone is unlikely to facilitate a constructive discussion. (Edited: spelling.)

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Unfortunately for the Austrian school, prediction is the heart and soul of science. You cannot claim to be doing science in any sense if you do not make predictions based on falsifiable hypotheses. As you imply, this is why teleology is not a science, though large-scale statistical studies in fields like politics and sociology have made plenty of scientific headway by ignoring the core Austrian belief system and conducting empirical studies about human actions and preferences anyway.
n1ghtm4n 13y ago
Austrian School economists don't make predictions, but when they do they're right 100% of the time, except when they're wrong in which case I will remind you that Austrian School economists don't make predictions. If you think I'm exaggerating, check out this unintentionally hilarious excerpt from the Ludwig von Mises Institute wiki. See if you can count how many times they flip-flop on whether they make predictions. Austrian predictions This page attempts to list various predictions made by Austrian economists about important economic and other developments. Important note: Austrian economists, as Austrian economists, or praxeologists, do not predict. They can predict not as formal economists, or praxeologists, but, rather, in their role as thymologists, or economic historians. In praxeology, A causes B, other things remaining the same. But, in the real world, other things cannot be relied upon to always remain constant. Therefore, predictions of the "A will necessarily lead to B" type are strictly prohibited. Instead, praxeologists, but not thymologists, must limit themselves to statements of the if-A then-B variety. With this in mind, it is interesting that Austrian economists have been quite successful at predicting major events.[1] http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions

davidw 13y ago

Exhibit A for why a lot of economics articles are poisonous and should be flagged for removal. Comments on this thread include lots of name calling and other inflammatory rhetoric that does not make for very good discussion. Also, people have pretty much already made up their minds about this stuff... Austrian True Believer types are not going to be swayed by being called weirdos, and the rest of us aren't going to be convinced by 'praxeology'.

vwfwerwetqwerqw 13y ago
Well, I've certainly learned a lot from this discussion. Although, I find myself agreeing with the guy who called them weirdos, the Austrian school, as it has been explained, does seem really weird to me.