Economics

[MagiDragon]

Ok, so I don't really believe that [all] non-Austrian schools of economics are evil, but it's remarkable how well Austrianism (Not even sure that's a real term!) aligns itself with Catholicism on things like just war theory, and the idea that only things given freely benefit your soul.

So I set up this thread to see how much interest there was in economics, and to convert all you non-Austrians to the light!

What do you believe about economics, and why?

[Nihil Obstat]

It's interesting to note that some of the Spanish Scholastics are referred to as proto-economists (remember, this was well before economics became a subject in its own right), and their thoughts were remarkably close to what would become the Austrian school.

[Ed Normile]

What, no option for survivalists?

ed

[dairygirl4u2c]

the only absolute here is that it's never the right thing to say 'either or'. just like in political labels. modern day labels don't happen to reflect truth.

it makes sense that bits of each are at play. and arguably commendable in certain circumstances.

do people always make rational choice, or act with complete information? no. that's a major assumption of many econ paradigms. it changes things tremendously when people don'[t know what they're doing cause they lack the info. an energy developer wants to implement a mass scale algae biofuel operation, but has a catch 22. he can't get start with cars cause there's no fueling stations, and there's no fueling stations cause there's no cars. and it's too expensive to take a gamble when maybe it's a sixty percent chance your product will revolutionize it all? that's lack of info.
(maybe the goernment, via something smaller than a manhatten project should step in, hedge, and help break the catch 22, and fear per uncertainties.

it makes sense that if the government spoends money, that that's creating an ecomomy, per keynes. if you just stop spending money, you're striking a blow to the econo9my that that's created. the government gives money to doctors via medicaid, to people via social seciruty, to people via programs. that goes to buisneses which goes on and on down the line. it become more socialistic, and there's political hesitations as to how much should be done... but it's indisputeable that stopping it all would decrease economies.
[it's not hte most sensical to say that tax cuts are the ony way to create economies. itm ight be the most equitable, might be more efficient sometimes, (not always) but it's not the only way. in fact, when the rich have so much money they dont know what to do with, and hte supply side is lacking, it'd be more efficient to get things going during via government spending, (or at least targeted tax cuts to things that help us like alt fuel, instead of blanket tax cuts per bush's tax cuts but that's not about keynes so i'm jus sayin).

that's why keyes said that during a recession you should have the gov spend money. any spending would work, though pershaps there's better of coruse. eg, his classic example that one could pay people to dig holes for no apparent reason other than to pay them money. he didn't say, as people often say, that you should spend all the time, just recession. a stimulant.
with tha said, it makes sense to say people will make decisions for their self interest, and on balance supply and demand will create an invisible hand, creating economies when people make products and one up others, hire people in the process, and get the lines a movin.

it's all gotta be balanced out.

Edited April 5, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Amppax]

Can there be other options please, these seem fairly pigeon holed into capitalism/socialism.

As for what economics I would align with, I would tentatively say distributism (GK Chesterton and Co's theory) as it is based off of Catholic social teaching, however I am still exploring that school, and would not consider myself a very firm distributist.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

It's important to keep in mind that Catholics need not be distributists. For a few reasons that we don't need to explore right now, I think it's not a very good economic system.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302058893' post='2226320']
It's important to keep in mind that Catholics need not be distributists. For a few reasons that we don't need to explore right now, I think it's not a very good economic system.
[/quote]

Oh I realize this Nihil, I didn't want to make it seem that I was saying it was our only option. I just really admire the writings of Chesterton, and have decided to give distributism a closer look. I have some serious questions about capitalism as an economic system, and am trying to look into other, non-Socialist, alternatives. I agree though, I have already run into some practical problems with distributism, I think however that it does have some good ideas.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302059992' post='2226324']
Oh I realize this Nihil, I didn't want to make it seem that I was saying it was our only option. I just really admire the writings of Chesterton, and have decided to give distributism a closer look. I have some serious questions about capitalism as an economic system, and am trying to look into other, non-Socialist, alternatives. I agree though, I have already run into some practical problems with distributism, I think however that it does have some good ideas.
[/quote]
I've run into distributists who seem to think that all Catholics must be distributists, or else they're heretics. That kind of attitude bugs me a lot, but thankfully it's not the most common attitude.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302060326' post='2226325']
I've run into distributists who seem to think that all Catholics must be distributists, or else they're heretics. That kind of attitude bugs me a lot, but thankfully it's not the most common attitude.
[/quote]

yeah, everything that I have seen on distributism seems like that. They also seem like they are not developing and growing the school, it seems fairly stagnant, which is a shame.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302057114' post='2226314']
Can there be other options please, these seem fairly pigeon holed into capitalism/socialism.

As for what economics I would align with, I would tentatively say distributism (GK Chesterton and Co's theory) as it is based off of Catholic social teaching, however I am still exploring that school, and would not consider myself a very firm distributist.
[/quote]

It is rather unfortunate that I can't add suggestions after answers are already made. I think it would be far more interesting if people were to add their own definitions of their economics, but, alas, it isn't possible.

I see distributism as an interesting idea, but more of a political ideal than an economic one; it proposes changes to the economy, not merely a reading of how it functions.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Doc dump!

"Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems..."

[url="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html"]Austrian Economics[/url]

[url="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critcfm.html"]Criticisms of Neoliberalism, Capitalism, and Free Markets[/url]

[url="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/econexper.html"]Libertarian Economic Experiments[/url]

------

[url="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024311"]Some Capital-Theoretic Fallacies of Austrian Economics[/url]


Here's an interesting debate.

[url="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm"]Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist[/url]

[url="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf"]Economic Science and Neoclassicism[/url]

[url="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_2.pdf"]Austrian Theorizing: Recalling the Foundations[/url]

[url="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_6.pdf"]Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hulsmann and Block[/url]

[url="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_4.pdf"]Realism: Austrian vs. Neoclassical Economics, Reply to Caplan[/url]

[url="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_5.pdf"]Probability and the Synthetic A Priori: A Reply to Block[/url]

[url="http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_1/19_1_5.pdf"]Rejoinder to Caplan on Bayesian Economics[/url]

---

[url="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/debate.htm"]The Boettke-Caplan Debate[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

distributism is vague. like the concept of 'populist' is vague. it gives a shout out to more people owning things, but doesn't say how to get there. anyone can agree with the principles it pushes, cause they're way too vague. by far most don't disagree with many people owning things, it's just a matter of how to get there that really matters, where people disagree.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1302115568' post='2226441']
Doc dump!

"Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems..."
[/quote]

Except for the fact that the Keynesians (mainstream economics) and the Chicago School (mainstream economics) completely failed to predict the crash of '08 and dozens of other market (and interventionist) phenomena. And they [i]kept[/i] [i]it up. [/i] Austrians called it like they had a crystal ball. Cf. Peter Schiff.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 7, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1302134384' post='2226536']
Except for the fact that the Keynesians (mainstream economics) and the Chicago School (mainstream economics) completely failed to predict the crash of '08 and dozens of other market (and interventionist) phenomena. And they [i]kept[/i] [i]it up. [/i] Austrians called it like they had a crystal ball. Cf. Peter Schiff.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
"Economics has got to be the most bizarre delusion in the history of human thought." - Zeitgeist III

[Laudate_Dominum]

More delusional and insane ramblings here:

http://distributistreview.com/mag/
http://anarcho-catholic.blogspot.com/
http://mises.org/

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1302134384' post='2226536']
Except for the fact that the Keynesians (mainstream economics) and the Chicago School (mainstream economics) completely failed to predict the crash of '08 and dozens of other market (and interventionist) phenomena. And they [i]kept[/i] [i]it up. [/i]Austrians called it like they had a crystal ball. Cf. Peter Schiff.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Actually non-Austrian economists predicted the crash. Nouriel Roubini was one. Other did as well including, I believe, an economist other than Krugman who writes for the Times. You didn't have to be an Austrian to predict the crash. In fact men of different schools, Roubini, Taleb, Soros and others predicted that the housing market was a bubble and that once it popped we were going to be in a world of economic hurt.

That one Austrian economists, taking your word for it, predicted the crash as well hardly vindicates the Austrian school as a whole. It doesn't negate their general problem in making sound economic predictions or the methodological problems with the school.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1302138864' post='2226551']
Actually non-Austrian economists predicted the crash. Nouriel Roubini was one. Other did as well including, I believe, an economist other than Krugman who writes for the Times. You didn't have to be an Austrian to predict the crash. In fact men of different schools, Roubini, Taleb, Soros and others predicted that the housing market was a bubble and that once it popped we were going to be in a world of economic hurt.

That one Austrian economists, taking your word for it, predicted the crash as well hardly vindicates the Austrian school as a whole. It doesn't negate their general problem in making sound economic predictions or the methodological problems with the school.
[/quote]

There are a few other Austrians who predicted it. Not "that one." Here's a short list of 12 Austrian economists who predicted the bubble and bust, which does not include Gerald Celente and Ron Paul. And I do consider them economists. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_1_1_thornton.pdf

~Sternhauser

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1302141176' post='2226562']
There are a few other Austrians who predicted it. Not "that one." Here's a short list of 12 Austrian economists who predicted the bubble and bust, which does not include Gerald Celente and Ron Paul. And I do consider them economists. [url="http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_1_1_thornton.pdf"]http://www.independe..._1_thornton.pdf[/url]

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

And what is the argument that goes with this? I said I'd take you at your word that an Austrian economist using an Austrian epistemology could have predicted the crash. Very well. Non Austrian economists using an non-Austrian epistomology were capeable of the same thing. Looking at LD's sources it would seem that non-Austrians were able to not only predict this crash but use an epistemology capeable of greater predictive power in general. If every single Austrian in the world predicted this particular crash that in itself wouldn't vindicate the school as a whole (Even o broken watch is right twice a day). You still need empirical vindication of the larger tenents of the school and account for its general defeciency in predicting economic occurances.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1302138864' post='2226551']
Actually non-Austrian economists predicted the crash. Nouriel Roubini was one. Other did as well including, I believe, an economist other than Krugman who writes for the Times. You didn't have to be an Austrian to predict the crash. In fact men of different schools, Roubini, Taleb, Soros and others predicted that the housing market was a bubble and that once it popped we were going to be in a world of economic hurt.

That one Austrian economists, taking your word for it, predicted the crash as well hardly vindicates the Austrian school as a whole. It doesn't negate their general problem in making sound economic predictions or the methodological problems with the school.
[/quote]
"This cannot continue forever." isn't much of a prediction. Krugman thinks if only the government had printed enough money, we wouldn't have had this problem. He now believes that if the government spends enough money, it will stimulate growth. Never mind that the 'money' has to come from somewhere--just spend it!

Guessing that a bubble will burst is like guessing that cost of living will increase. The problem is no one seems able to deal with the causes or propose any that don't involve the magical green fairy of printing pieces of paper. The engineers squeeze the economy balloon in one place and then poo themselves when the part they aren't squeezing gets bigger. They cannot plan the economy at all and they've proven it. "Hey, if we keep going forward, we will eventually hit something!" Wow. Thanks.

[dairygirl4u2c]

of course the solutions are to regulation the markets, but fat chance of that happening, thanks to all those crazy far right wingers. to be fair though, i'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone on the details of how to save it, even if people accepted regulation or whatever. as usual, the real probalem is just our stracuture as government, we've established something that's meant to cause butts to head. now when we need government, its ineffectual nature will allow us to be driven to the ground.

Edited April 8, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c