Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'm starting to study the Austrian school

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 12:36:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 12:26:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anything in specific that leads you to that conclusion?

Basically this quote from Ludwig von Mises seems very strange to me.

"Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts"

http://mises.org...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 1:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 12:36:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:26:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anything in specific that leads you to that conclusion?

Basically this quote from Ludwig von Mises seems very strange to me.

"Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts"

http://mises.org...

Pretty much. I think of them more as alchemist though. They were important for developing economic thought in the 19th century, but there methods are pretty much archaic now.

I also find it really peculiar that the Austrian school rejects mathematics so easily. If they're basing their methods "a prior" then mathematics is as deductive reasoning as it comes. Unless of course, you're trying to make your school appeal more to the general public rather than taken seriously in academia. Then write away mathematics, because the general public hates equations.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 2:32:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Economics isn't a hard science though, so you can't really compare it to creationism.
I don't think you have to completely reject it because it's not based on mathematics, it's the human action side of economics which will always be important.
"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
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 2:42:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Completely agree. I used to be into it until I realized that all the other forms of economics weren't the blind idiots the Austrian painted them as and that they actually had solid answers and justifications for their methods.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.
"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
4/28/2013 12:52:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

And there's also pseudo-psychology, even if its just a soft science. From wikipedia:

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status"

Austrian Economics school of thought basically follows the definition of a pseudoscience, since the school itself states that they don't strive towards falsification.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 12:54:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To be fair, I consider soft-science to be somewhere between a pseudoscience and a real science. But there are worse methodologies and scientific practices then others.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 1:53:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Maybe your economics just needs a Viagra. We all reach that age eventually.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:02:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 1:53:39 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Maybe your economics just needs a Viagra. We all reach that age eventually.

lol (as in, I actually laughed out loud when I read that)
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:10:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.

I was a bit harsh there though... no offense intended.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 4:52:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah. I think I'm on a tangent to completely reject its theories.

But still, going through it won't be a waste of time. it challenges your pre conceived notions, so its a worthy read on your journey to find your economic footing.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:03:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:10:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.

I was a bit harsh there though... no offense intended.

Nah looked like you were trying your best to be condescending, all I did was point out economics as a whole isn't a hard science so you can't compare it to hard sciences. I also stated that Austrian economic theory has some merits, that's all.
But it's my own fault for forgetting the rules, that is you can only comment on areas you hold a Bachelor's or masters. I'm a simpleton, a year away from just a B.S. in aerospace engineering, what would I know about math or science.
"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
4/28/2013 9:06:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 12:54:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
To be fair, I consider soft-science to be somewhere between a pseudoscience and a real science. But there are worse methodologies and scientific practices then others.

What's economics?
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:11:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. "

If it's not being taught, how can you be against it so vehemently? If you say you taught yourself, then why can't he (regarding your criticism for his lack of degrees).
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You think Austrian Economics is economic creationism?

What does that make Keynesian Economics?

I would say economic paganism. They even worship animal spirits.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:24:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.

How about the simple theory of "all economic problems can be solved by the government management of aggregate demand"?

And, don't say that this is a straw man. It isn't.

Austrian economic theory has made much better predictions than keynesian theory (it isn't even close). And, unlike Keynesian theory, Austrian economics passes the test of logic.

Anyone who says that Austrian economics is "economic creationism" while at the same time worshipping the discredited, paganistic Keynesian theory is not to be taken seriously.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 3:39:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:24:43 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.


How about the simple theory of "all economic problems can be solved by the government management of aggregate demand"?

And, don't say that this is a straw man. It isn't.

Austrian economic theory has made much better predictions than keynesian theory (it isn't even close). And, unlike Keynesian theory, Austrian economics passes the test of logic.

Anyone who says that Austrian economics is "economic creationism" while at the same time worshipping the discredited, paganistic Keynesian theory is not to be taken seriously.

Lol.
Tsar of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 3:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:20:58 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
You think Austrian Economics is economic creationism?

What does that make Keynesian Economics?

I would say economic paganism. They even worship animal spirits.

That was actually funny.
"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
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 3:48:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 3:47:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:20:58 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
You think Austrian Economics is economic creationism?

What does that make Keynesian Economics?

I would say economic paganism. They even worship animal spirits.

That was actually funny.

In bald eagles we trust?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 4:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:24:43 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.


How about the simple theory of "all economic problems can be solved by the government management of aggregate demand"?

And, don't say that this is a straw man. It isn't.

Austrian economic theory has made much better predictions than keynesian theory (it isn't even close). And, unlike Keynesian theory, Austrian economics passes the test of logic.

Anyone who says that Austrian economics is "economic creationism" while at the same time worshipping the discredited, paganistic Keynesian theory is not to be taken seriously.

If Austrian economics made verifiable predictions and claimed to make verifiable predictions, then I would be in favor of Austrian school of economics.

But they don't. Instead they opt out for praxeology and a prior reasoning.

Keynesian economics do in fact use empirical data to back their claims.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 8:58:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:24:43 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.


How about the simple theory of "all economic problems can be solved by the government management of aggregate demand"?

And, don't say that this is a straw man. It isn't.

Austrian economic theory has made much better predictions than keynesian theory (it isn't even close). And, unlike Keynesian theory, Austrian economics passes the test of logic.

Anyone who says that Austrian economics is "economic creationism" while at the same time worshipping the discredited, paganistic Keynesian theory is not to be taken seriously.

I mean really, as humorism is to modern medicine, so the austrian school is to Keynesian economics.
Tsar of DDO
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:02:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 4:06:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:24:43 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.


How about the simple theory of "all economic problems can be solved by the government management of aggregate demand"?

And, don't say that this is a straw man. It isn't.

Austrian economic theory has made much better predictions than keynesian theory (it isn't even close). And, unlike Keynesian theory, Austrian economics passes the test of logic.

Anyone who says that Austrian economics is "economic creationism" while at the same time worshipping the discredited, paganistic Keynesian theory is not to be taken seriously.

If Austrian economics made verifiable predictions and claimed to make verifiable predictions, then I would be in favor of Austrian school of economics.

But they don't. Instead they opt out for praxeology and a prior reasoning.

Keynesian economics do in fact use empirical data to back their claims.

The only problem is that most empirical evidence is not kind of Keynesian theory. There are different explanations for the Great Depression and recovery. The Keynesian one is just silly and totally at odds with emprical evidence.

Keynesians can't even explain how stagflation existed. I know they can explain it in hindsight, but the fact remains that the existence of stagflation contradicts Keynes.

If the Keynesian theory were to be given a grade on predictions, it would get an F.

On the other hand, Austrians predicted the crash of 1929 pretty well. They did it again in 2008. They predicted stagflation.

After WW2, Keynesiand predicted doom and gloom. Well, it turns out that they were wrong. Of coruse, they made up an excuse "PENT UP DEMAND!", but the truth remains.

Krugman predicted massive inflation resulting from Reagan's tax cuts... how did that turn out?

The most ironic part is that Keynesians brag about their predicative power. Yet, all of their predictions were made in hindsight. The predictions they actually made were really bad...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:05:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 8:58:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:24:43 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:09:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2013 12:24:20 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 3:06:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 12:23:23 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
No offense, but it seems like the creationism of economics.

That's actually a pretty good comparison.

It's a terrible comparison, one can be proven with hard science while economics is a soft science.

Oh?

Perhaps you have a masters in finance? ...No?

A masters in economics? ...No?

A Ph.D. in economic theory? ...No?

A bachelors degree in... well... anything that involves numbers? Hmmm... Still? No?

Fascinating.

Something's just not right here...

Because the only people who talk about Austrian economics are well-wishing (but dim witted) libertarians who try to simplify something they don't understand into something moderately within the reach of a precocious 13 year old. No university other than, I believe Auburn (though I could be wrong) even bothers to teach the stuff because debating The Austrian School v. all Modern economic theory is nothing less than the economic equivalent of rehashing the Scopes Monkey Trial. I suppose you'll just inherit the wind, Louis.


How about the simple theory of "all economic problems can be solved by the government management of aggregate demand"?

And, don't say that this is a straw man. It isn't.

Austrian economic theory has made much better predictions than keynesian theory (it isn't even close). And, unlike Keynesian theory, Austrian economics passes the test of logic.

Anyone who says that Austrian economics is "economic creationism" while at the same time worshipping the discredited, paganistic Keynesian theory is not to be taken seriously.

I mean really, as humorism is to modern medicine, so the austrian school is to Keynesian economics.

^Krugman lover 4 lyfe
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:10:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YYW, if universities aren't teaching the Austrian school, how do you know it's so dreadful? From whence did this purported knowledge of yours come?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:16:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"College is a place where a professor"s lecture notes go straight to the students" lecture notes, without passing through the brains of either."

You've been Twained.