5 ms·

How does the fact that Austrian economists disagree with Cowen about his criticism of Austrian economics, translate to Cowen having no credibility?

praxeologist 13y ago
Well, we could talk about something substantive and then see... I think that anyone who is buying into Cowen's new piece should also read The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Mises especially regarding automation.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Posting things for other people to read, is not the same as having a substantive discussion. In fact, criticizing Cowen's credibility rather than his arguments is not a product way to argue in the first place.
  - praxeologist 13y ago
    The paper is a resounding refutation of Cowen's other work. Given how terrible he has proven himself in the past, I am happy to reject this new work out of hand. From what little I read, I again suggest people to read Mises' Anti-Capitalistic Mentality regarding the ludicrous notion that machines are a bad thing.
    - PeterWhittaker 13y ago
      But the fact remains that your argument against Cowen is merely and simply an appeal to authority. The intellectually honest comment to have made in the first place would have been "Certain economic theorists assert that Cowen [has no credibility|is an idiot|whatever they assert]". That might have been a useful start to a discussion. Or not. Who knows. YMMV. As it is, the comment is nothing more than gainsaying based on information you are either unwilling or incapable of summarizing and sharing. It's really not much better than "Cowen's an idiot, neeyah". In the interests of full disclosure, I know next to nothing about the OP and the topics discussed between the OP and this comment. Sadly, I don't need to in order to comment usefully on your comments, so empty of content they were. Nothing personal, eh?
      - praxeologist 13y ago
        I did not make an appeal to authority. That would be if I said Cowen is wrong merely because Block and Barnett said so. I am saying that Cowen is a joke for the reasons spelled out in Block and Barnett's paper. Those reasons are not merely "neeyah" and the arguments therein are not somehow invalid or cease to exist because I don't care to regurgitate them for you.
onebaddude 13y ago
Pity that it's the Austrian school that has little credibility left in economics, as they have a few interesting things to say.
- praxeologist 13y ago
  Non-argument; you just said absolutely nothing. The "best" economists in the world at the Fed are incapable of predicting and preventing things like the '08 collapse, yet they have credibility to you? Mainstream economists have no job prospects outside of academia or government because they are pseudoscientists a la alchemists capable of nothing more than reassurance of the king that printing ever more money will bring about prosperity the next time.

praxeologist 13y ago

Well, we could talk about something substantive and then see... I think that anyone who is buying into Cowen's new piece should also read The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Mises especially regarding automation.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
Posting things for other people to read, is not the same as having a substantive discussion. In fact, criticizing Cowen's credibility rather than his arguments is not a product way to argue in the first place.
- praxeologist 13y ago
  The paper is a resounding refutation of Cowen's other work. Given how terrible he has proven himself in the past, I am happy to reject this new work out of hand. From what little I read, I again suggest people to read Mises' Anti-Capitalistic Mentality regarding the ludicrous notion that machines are a bad thing.
  - PeterWhittaker 13y ago
    But the fact remains that your argument against Cowen is merely and simply an appeal to authority. The intellectually honest comment to have made in the first place would have been "Certain economic theorists assert that Cowen [has no credibility|is an idiot|whatever they assert]". That might have been a useful start to a discussion. Or not. Who knows. YMMV. As it is, the comment is nothing more than gainsaying based on information you are either unwilling or incapable of summarizing and sharing. It's really not much better than "Cowen's an idiot, neeyah". In the interests of full disclosure, I know next to nothing about the OP and the topics discussed between the OP and this comment. Sadly, I don't need to in order to comment usefully on your comments, so empty of content they were. Nothing personal, eh?
    - praxeologist 13y ago
      I did not make an appeal to authority. That would be if I said Cowen is wrong merely because Block and Barnett said so. I am saying that Cowen is a joke for the reasons spelled out in Block and Barnett's paper. Those reasons are not merely "neeyah" and the arguments therein are not somehow invalid or cease to exist because I don't care to regurgitate them for you.

onebaddude 13y ago

Pity that it's the Austrian school that has little credibility left in economics, as they have a few interesting things to say.

praxeologist 13y ago
Non-argument; you just said absolutely nothing. The "best" economists in the world at the Fed are incapable of predicting and preventing things like the '08 collapse, yet they have credibility to you? Mainstream economists have no job prospects outside of academia or government because they are pseudoscientists a la alchemists capable of nothing more than reassurance of the king that printing ever more money will bring about prosperity the next time.