Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is mises.org a credible website?

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:21:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would say that mises.org is fairly credible. I don't agree with everything, but they are fairly good.
Their articles seem to be in depth and defend the libertarian POV very well.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:42:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

Certainly no credibility with me.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:52:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's kind of ehhish. You'd have to check the credentials of some of the authors. Some of the authors are economists or historians with PhDs.

I much prefer Cato.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:52:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's kind of ehhish. You'd have to check the credentials of some of the authors. Some of the authors are economists or historians with PhDs.

I much prefer Cato.

I know that some of the articles are better than others.

I like CATO and the Heritage Foundation. CATO is wrong on some issues in my opinion (example: immigration).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:14:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:09:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:52:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's kind of ehhish. You'd have to check the credentials of some of the authors. Some of the authors are economists or historians with PhDs.

I much prefer Cato.

I know that some of the articles are better than others.

I like CATO and the Heritage Foundation. CATO is wrong on some issues in my opinion (example: immigration).

What's wrong with their position on immigration?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:19:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like Mises as an archive for older articles by prevalent libertarians. I've never really used it for recent articles.
That being said I like Reason and CATO as well. I assume it's just because I'm a libertarian and it reinforces my point of view.
What are the liberal or conservative versions of CATO and Reason? I'd probably be inclined to look into them but most sites I've found are hatchet sites entirely devoted to attacking the other.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:26:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:14:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 10:09:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:52:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's kind of ehhish. You'd have to check the credentials of some of the authors. Some of the authors are economists or historians with PhDs.

I much prefer Cato.

I know that some of the articles are better than others.

I like CATO and the Heritage Foundation. CATO is wrong on some issues in my opinion (example: immigration).

What's wrong with their position on immigration?


increases economic inequality, creates cultural clashes, and creates a situation in which immigrants vote for bad policy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:26:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
increases economic inequality, creates cultural clashes, and creates a situation in which immigrants vote for bad policy.

That's CATO's position? I figured they would be pro-immigration. Or I figured 16k would be anti-immigration. Or both.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:35:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:28:47 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 10:26:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
increases economic inequality, creates cultural clashes, and creates a situation in which immigrants vote for bad policy.

That's CATO's position? I figured they would be pro-immigration. Or I figured 16k would be anti-immigration. Or both.

that's my position on immigration. Cato is pro-immigration. I like Cato more then mises because Cato uses neoclassical analysis and more empirical data.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:26:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:

increases economic inequality, creates cultural clashes, and creates a situation in which immigrants vote for bad policy.

I think it's like democracy, it only works with a well educated electorate and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:47:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:14:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 10:09:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:52:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's kind of ehhish. You'd have to check the credentials of some of the authors. Some of the authors are economists or historians with PhDs.

I much prefer Cato.

I know that some of the articles are better than others.

I like CATO and the Heritage Foundation. CATO is wrong on some issues in my opinion (example: immigration).

What's wrong with their position on immigration?


This website documents the most recent research. CATO is pro immigration.
http://www.cis.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:48:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes.

Better than ThinkProgress.com, MoveOn.org, Salon.com, etc.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 3:49:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

I used to like them when I was libertarian, but now I see just how lunatic they are.

http://mises.org... -defending Somalia
http://mises.org... -attacking the ethics of traffic lights.
http://mises.org... -we should feel sorry for BP, not condemn them for the oil spill

The genius of the Austrian school: http://rationalwiki.org...
Mises -http://rationalwiki.org...
Rothbard -http://rationalwiki.org...

To be honest, I've stopped taking seriously anyone who speaks their name in tones of respect.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 6:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:35:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 10:28:47 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 10:26:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
increases economic inequality, creates cultural clashes, and creates a situation in which immigrants vote for bad policy.

That's CATO's position? I figured they would be pro-immigration. Or I figured 16k would be anti-immigration. Or both.

that's my position on immigration. Cato is pro-immigration. I like Cato more then mises because Cato uses neoclassical analysis and more empirical data.

I would have to say that I prefer the Cato Institute.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 3:49:56 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

I used to like them when I was libertarian, but now I see just how lunatic they are.

http://mises.org... -defending Somalia

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. Austrians don't defend Somalia, they merely note that much of the QOL standards have improved better compared with neighboring countries that haves states. Obviously Somalia is still a shithole compared to US standards, but that's a meaningless POV. The relevant question deals with how Somalia has improved in the absence of a state. Quick fact: they tripled their GDP per capita in about twenty years; GDP per capita in America during the same time frame has increased about 25%.

http://mises.org... -attacking the ethics of traffic lights.
http://mises.org... -we should feel sorry for BP, not condemn them for the oil spill

The genius of the Austrian school: http://rationalwiki.org...
Mises -http://rationalwiki.org...
Rothbard -http://rationalwiki.org...

To be honest, I've stopped taking seriously anyone who speaks their name in tones of respect.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 11:59:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like Mises.

But, I prefer CATO. CATO is generalized libertarian institute while Mises specifically defends Austrian economics. Many libertarians, particularly the more mainstream ones, are not Austrians. And, like some others here, I am not in agreement with CATO on immigration.

Still, Mises would be well served to offer more empirical research.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:26:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 10:25:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/20/2013 3:49:56 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

I used to like them when I was libertarian, but now I see just how lunatic they are.

http://mises.org... -defending Somalia

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. Austrians don't defend Somalia, they merely note that much of the QOL standards have improved better compared with neighboring countries that haves states. Obviously Somalia is still a shithole compared to US standards, but that's a meaningless POV. The relevant question deals with how Somalia has improved in the absence of a state. Quick fact: they tripled their GDP per capita in about twenty years; GDP per capita in America during the same time frame has increased about 25%.

By "defending," I did not mean espousing or advocating, I meant arguing that the decentralized economy somehow boosted growth beyond what we would expect to see under an economy controlled by the government. Countries with very low GDPs always grow extremely quickly, then slow down as they reach economic maturity (do the Austrians reject that, too?). It hasn't remotely proved that the lack of an interfering government is directly responsible for the abnormal growth.

I also note the irony in their traffic lights article when they tried to use psychological and empirical evidence to prove that the world ran the same way as their "natural rights" philosophy told them it should.

http://mises.org... -attacking the ethics of traffic lights.
http://mises.org... -we should feel sorry for BP, not condemn them for the oil spill

The genius of the Austrian school: http://rationalwiki.org...
Mises -http://rationalwiki.org...
Rothbard -http://rationalwiki.org...

To be honest, I've stopped taking seriously anyone who speaks their name in tones of respect.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:03:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.

Logic is the same now as it was 20 years ago.

The minimum wage's directional effect on employment (negative) should not be a matter of debate.

The magnitude of this effect should be and is.

In fact, I would say the empirical evidence generally supports a small, negative effect on unemployment from increases in the minimum wage of the scale the president proposes.

So, in my view, the people who say the employmeny effects of raising the minimum wage from $7.15 to $9.00 would be really large are wrong from an empirical point of view.

However, the people who say a higher minimum wage has none or positive effects on employment are wrong from a logical point of view. So, I would say this group is worse.

Still, I oppose the increase proposed because:

1.) It is a highly innefficient way to help the poor. Something like 10 to 15% of the workers affected by the increase are in poor or working poor families (the rest are in middle or upper middle income families).

2.) The effects on the composition on employment are larger and perhaps more important than the effects on the size of the workforce. Also, there is a pretty strong chance that the long term negative employment effects are quite a big larger than the short term effects.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:06:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:03:42 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.


Logic is the same now as it was 20 years ago.

The minimum wage's directional effect on employment (negative) should not be a matter of debate.

The magnitude of this effect should be and is.

In fact, I would say the empirical evidence generally supports a small, negative effect on unemployment from increases in the minimum wage of the scale the president proposes.

So, in my view, the people who say the employmeny effects of raising the minimum wage from $7.15 to $9.00 would be really large are wrong from an empirical point of view.

However, the people who say a higher minimum wage has none or positive effects on employment are wrong from a logical point of view. So, I would say this group is worse.

Still, I oppose the increase proposed because:

1.) It is a highly innefficient way to help the poor. Something like 10 to 15% of the workers affected by the increase are in poor or working poor families (the rest are in middle or upper middle income families).

2.) The effects on the composition on employment are larger and perhaps more important than the effects on the size of the workforce. Also, there is a pretty strong chance that the long term negative employment effects are quite a big larger than the short term effects.

Um...yeah...the fallacious logic hasn't changed from the neoclassical school of economics perspective, but there have now been studies which demonstrate that it's patently false.

I've posted evidence elsewhere (thread on topic).

1968 had the highest minimum wage from a real dollar (constant - 1996 dollars) perspective and also had one of the lowest average unemployment rates in history (3.8%...almost too low by most economist's estimates). Over the next 2 years, because there was no increase in the nominal minimum wage, the real wage decreased and unemployment rose slightly both years.

Despite multiple increases from 91-07, unemployment fell. It didn't start increasing again until our most recent recession, which did coincide with another increase, but no one in their right mind would blame this increase in unemployment on the min wage hike.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:16:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, Rothbard and von Mises don't believe in the use of mathematics in economics (aka econometrics), because it does not "account for the complexities of human nature", so to turn to empirical evidence (something they also don't believe in using) to back up an assertion by Rothbard is completely asinine.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 12:26:26 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/20/2013 10:25:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/20/2013 3:49:56 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

I used to like them when I was libertarian, but now I see just how lunatic they are.

http://mises.org... -defending Somalia

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. Austrians don't defend Somalia, they merely note that much of the QOL standards have improved better compared with neighboring countries that haves states. Obviously Somalia is still a shithole compared to US standards, but that's a meaningless POV. The relevant question deals with how Somalia has improved in the absence of a state. Quick fact: they tripled their GDP per capita in about twenty years; GDP per capita in America during the same time frame has increased about 25%.

By "defending," I did not mean espousing or advocating, I meant arguing that the decentralized economy somehow boosted growth beyond what we would expect to see under an economy controlled by the government. Countries with very low GDPs always grow extremely quickly, then slow down as they reach economic maturity (do the Austrians reject that, too?). It hasn't remotely proved that the lack of an interfering government is directly responsible for the abnormal growth.

The point isn't that the economy has grown, it was in comparison with other countries of a similar background. Somalia grew after the government dissolved, that's no biggie to explain even for someone who's not an anarchist. That's why you have to actually use comparative data i.e., how has Somalia grown in comparison with.....X, Y, and Z countries in close geographic/economic proximity to them.

I also note the irony in their traffic lights article when they tried to use psychological and empirical evidence to prove that the world ran the same way as their "natural rights" philosophy told them it should.

I wouldn't know. I can understand why they don't support State roads and all that but I've always thought that rules of the road were necessary. There's no reason private road owners wouldn't institute things like traffic lights and the like in a similar way that States do. It's basically a problem of people (whether anarchist or statist) equivocating the means by which an institution sustains itself (anarchists take issue with the State in this regard) with an institution's internal organization.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:10:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.

Are you saying Rothbard is not credible? Anyway, the theories of economics change little over time. It has always been true that the minimum wage decreases the supply of labor; this is just as true now as it was 20 years ago.

Let me guess, Krugman is your hero?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:32:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:10:23 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.

Are you saying Rothbard is not credible? Anyway, the theories of economics change little over time. It has always been true that the minimum wage decreases the supply of labor; this is just as true now as it was 20 years ago.

Let me guess, Krugman is your hero?

Yes, Rothbard, because he believes in a philosophical offshoot of economics that eliminates mathematics, as well as empirical evidence, completely from the study of economics in favor of a rigid dogma, is not credible, and does not show up on any unbiased list of credible economists that other Libertarian Economists will be placed upon.

I don't know where Krugman falls on my list of faves. Stiglitz, Laffer, Hazlitt and Sachs certainly rank higher than him, though.

Stiglitz, particularly...know why? Because he's right nearly all of the time.

Behavioral Economics, Psychological Economics, Information Economics...the science changes all the time because of the inexact nature of it, and before you dismiss these offshoots as mumbo jumbo, economists who specialize in all of them have won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

I can't remember the last Libertarian who won, but regardless (as I'm sure someone will be quick to tell me), they win much less than others because Libertarianism is a philosophy, like Marxism is, which has economic overtones, and as much as people want the numbers to fit the philosophy, the numbers fit what the numbers fit because you can't build economics to work around a philosophy. You have to build a philosophy which works around economics.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:07:32 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:26:26 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/20/2013 10:25:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/20/2013 3:49:56 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

I used to like them when I was libertarian, but now I see just how lunatic they are.

http://mises.org... -defending Somalia

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. Austrians don't defend Somalia, they merely note that much of the QOL standards have improved better compared with neighboring countries that haves states. Obviously Somalia is still a shithole compared to US standards, but that's a meaningless POV. The relevant question deals with how Somalia has improved in the absence of a state. Quick fact: they tripled their GDP per capita in about twenty years; GDP per capita in America during the same time frame has increased about 25%.

By "defending," I did not mean espousing or advocating, I meant arguing that the decentralized economy somehow boosted growth beyond what we would expect to see under an economy controlled by the government. Countries with very low GDPs always grow extremely quickly, then slow down as they reach economic maturity (do the Austrians reject that, too?). It hasn't remotely proved that the lack of an interfering government is directly responsible for the abnormal growth.

The point isn't that the economy has grown, it was in comparison with other countries of a similar background. Somalia grew after the government dissolved, that's no biggie to explain even for someone who's not an anarchist. That's why you have to actually use comparative data i.e., how has Somalia grown in comparison with.....X, Y, and Z countries in close geographic/economic proximity to them.

Yeah, Somalia's government was communist. I'd be shocked if it didn't grow this quickly. Ethiopia's economy is also growing extremely fast, yet it still has a government. Again, countries that start with little always do this (go look at a list of the fastest growing economies in the world right now and most of them are poor, backward nations). I understand that importance of a free market for this process, but if Somalia were united under a stable government it would grow much, much faster than it already is.

I also note the irony in their traffic lights article when they tried to use psychological and empirical evidence to prove that the world ran the same way as their "natural rights" philosophy told them it should.

I wouldn't know. I can understand why they don't support State roads and all that but I've always thought that rules of the road were necessary. There's no reason private road owners wouldn't institute things like traffic lights and the like in a similar way that States do. It's basically a problem of people (whether anarchist or statist) equivocating the means by which an institution sustains itself (anarchists take issue with the State in this regard) with an institution's internal organization.

Did you read the article? It's even stupider than that. I can't stand it when some teenager goes on Mises, reads some articles ("oh, the free market always allocates goods perfectly, so we don't need anything else hurr durr durr") and decides he knows better than all of those silly economists and political scientists. It's equivalent to rejecting evolution because you know that tornadoes don't built airplanes out of scrap metal.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:10:23 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.

Are you saying Rothbard is not credible?

That's exactly right. Sorry.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 2:17:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:49:47 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/21/2013 1:07:32 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:26:26 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/20/2013 10:25:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/20/2013 3:49:56 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:17:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Well, I'm just wondering how credible mises.org is. I'm not talking about their free books: I'm talking about their normal articles.

I used to like them when I was libertarian, but now I see just how lunatic they are.

http://mises.org... -defending Somalia

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. Austrians don't defend Somalia, they merely note that much of the QOL standards have improved better compared with neighboring countries that haves states. Obviously Somalia is still a shithole compared to US standards, but that's a meaningless POV. The relevant question deals with how Somalia has improved in the absence of a state. Quick fact: they tripled their GDP per capita in about twenty years; GDP per capita in America during the same time frame has increased about 25%.

By "defending," I did not mean espousing or advocating, I meant arguing that the decentralized economy somehow boosted growth beyond what we would expect to see under an economy controlled by the government. Countries with very low GDPs always grow extremely quickly, then slow down as they reach economic maturity (do the Austrians reject that, too?). It hasn't remotely proved that the lack of an interfering government is directly responsible for the abnormal growth.

The point isn't that the economy has grown, it was in comparison with other countries of a similar background. Somalia grew after the government dissolved, that's no biggie to explain even for someone who's not an anarchist. That's why you have to actually use comparative data i.e., how has Somalia grown in comparison with.....X, Y, and Z countries in close geographic/economic proximity to them.

Yeah, Somalia's government was communist. I'd be shocked if it didn't grow this quickly. Ethiopia's economy is also growing extremely fast, yet it still has a government. Again, countries that start with little always do this (go look at a list of the fastest growing economies in the world right now and most of them are poor, backward nations). I understand that importance of a free market for this process, but if Somalia were united under a stable government it would grow much, much faster than it already is.

You know Somolia's government is f*cked up when would be rebels forgo a coup d'etat in favor of being a pirate.

India has the second fastest growing economy in the world...they have nukes as well...not too third world (though some third world).

Brazil and China are right up there as well, and they're quickly pulling into "1st world" status, themselves.

It's not all Bangladesh on these lists (ok...it's a lot that, but still)


I also note the irony in their traffic lights article when they tried to use psychological and empirical evidence to prove that the world ran the same way as their "natural rights" philosophy told them it should.

I wouldn't know. I can understand why they don't support State roads and all that but I've always thought that rules of the road were necessary. There's no reason private road owners wouldn't institute things like traffic lights and the like in a similar way that States do. It's basically a problem of people (whether anarchist or statist) equivocating the means by which an institution sustains itself (anarchists take issue with the State in this regard) with an institution's internal organization.

Did you read the article? It's even stupider than that. I can't stand it when some teenager goes on Mises, reads some articles ("oh, the free market always allocates goods perfectly, so we don't need anything else hurr durr durr") and decides he knows better than all of those silly economists and political scientists. It's equivalent to rejecting evolution because you know that tornadoes don't built airplanes out of scrap metal.

Everyone is entitled to jam their head up their @ss, but they always choose the opinion entitlement. They should at least try the alternative, but so few ever do...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 12:38:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 4:06:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:03:42 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/21/2013 12:59:12 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:50:41 PM, Subutai wrote:
Yes. For example, their recent minimum wage daily was an article written by Murray Rothbard. They are very reliable.

Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Also, he was, like all of their writers one assumes, an staunch Libertarian.

At best, that article was written 20 years ago, so to say it was outdated would be a bit of an understatement.


Logic is the same now as it was 20 years ago.

The minimum wage's directional effect on employment (negative) should not be a matter of debate.

The magnitude of this effect should be and is.

In fact, I would say the empirical evidence generally supports a small, negative effect on unemployment from increases in the minimum wage of the scale the president proposes.

So, in my view, the people who say the employmeny effects of raising the minimum wage from $7.15 to $9.00 would be really large are wrong from an empirical point of view.

However, the people who say a higher minimum wage has none or positive effects on employment are wrong from a logical point of view. So, I would say this group is worse.

Still, I oppose the increase proposed because:

1.) It is a highly innefficient way to help the poor. Something like 10 to 15% of the workers affected by the increase are in poor or working poor families (the rest are in middle or upper middle income families).

2.) The effects on the composition on employment are larger and perhaps more important than the effects on the size of the workforce. Also, there is a pretty strong chance that the long term negative employment effects are quite a big larger than the short term effects.

Um...yeah...the fallacious logic hasn't changed from the neoclassical school of economics perspective, but there have now been studies which demonstrate that it's patently false.

I've posted evidence elsewhere (thread on topic).

1968 had the highest minimum wage from a real dollar (constant - 1996 dollars) perspective and also had one of the lowest average unemployment rates in history (3.8%...almost too low by most economist's estimates). Over the next 2 years, because there was no increase in the nominal minimum wage, the real wage decreased and unemployment rose slightly both years.

Despite multiple increases from 91-07, unemployment fell. It didn't start increasing again until our most recent recession, which did coincide with another increase, but no one in their right mind would blame this increase in unemployment on the min wage hike.

Fallacious logic?

You mean the logic that says that a state enforced minimum wage will force out labor that is below that state enforced minimum.

That's not fallacious logic, just plain logic.

Also, I noted that you praised Stiglitz as "having been right about everything" somewhere else. That, of course, is hilariously wrong as the opposite is true. Very few take Stiglitz serious anymore. Even Krugman has pummeled him intellectually (on his evidence and logic free claim that inequality was the cause of slow economic growth).