What are yall talking about?
[quote]Lowery38595 wrote:
What are yall talking about?
[/quote]
Value and how it’s determined… Pretty much.
[quote]Lowery38595 wrote:
What are yall talking about?
[/quote]
The reason why someone should be buried alive with a copy of “Human Action” until he can quote it forwards and backwards.
Greenspan is not an objectivist, but merely an objectivist sympathizer. Same as me.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Lowery38595 wrote:
What are yall talking about?
Value and how it’s determined… Pretty much.[/quote]
I am glad we can determine the value of things because we certainly couldn’t before Austrian Economics was born.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am glad we can determine the value of things because we certainly couldn’t before Austrian Economics was born.[/quote]
Your response contains a non-sequitur, sir.
[quote]orion wrote:
God, I could pick this apart, but, really, why bother.
[/quote]
Location: Austria and a photoshopped picture of a dollar as your avatar. Amazing.
To quote the paper by Bryan Caplan, which has broad circulation amongst those of us silly people who believe in some quantitative reasoning;
"I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that:
(a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.
(b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.
(c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.
(d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.
Given this, I conclude that while self-labeled Austrian economists have some valid contributions to make to economics, these are simply not distinctive enough to sustain a school of thought. The task of developing an alternate Austrian paradigm has largely failed, producing an abundance of meta-economics (philosophy, methodology, and history of thought), but few substantive results. Whatever Austrian economists have that is worth saying should be simply be addressed to the broader economics profession, which (in spite of itself) remains eager for original, true, and substantive ideas."
I’m sure you’ll find the paper and read it. And by sure, I mean I know you won’t. I am interested in behavioral economics, I appreciate the intricacies of this issue, I am well aware of the self-imposed blindness most economic researchers have when they hide behind mathematical models. Despite this, Austrian economics still sucks, and you can blame Rothbard’s ridiculous denial of the idea of unobservable preference to see how dogmatic the “school” that claims everyone else is dogmatic can be.
This thread rocks.
Yes, it is pretty good. I’d like to add my thoughts, but, I’m a little out gunned…just gonna sit back and read this one.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
orion wrote:
God, I could pick this apart, but, really, why bother.
Location: Austria and a photoshopped picture of a dollar as your avatar. Amazing.
To quote the paper by Bryan Caplan, which has broad circulation amongst those of us silly people who believe in some quantitative reasoning;
"I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that:
(a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.
(b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.
(c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.
(d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.
Given this, I conclude that while self-labeled Austrian economists have some valid contributions to make to economics, these are simply not distinctive enough to sustain a school of thought. The task of developing an alternate Austrian paradigm has largely failed, producing an abundance of meta-economics (philosophy, methodology, and history of thought), but few substantive results. Whatever Austrian economists have that is worth saying should be simply be addressed to the broader economics profession, which (in spite of itself) remains eager for original, true, and substantive ideas."
I’m sure you’ll find the paper and read it. And by sure, I mean I know you won’t. I am interested in behavioral economics, I appreciate the intricacies of this issue, I am well aware of the self-imposed blindness most economic researchers have when they hide behind mathematical models. Despite this, Austrian economics still sucks, and you can blame Rothbard’s ridiculous denial of the idea of unobservable preference to see how dogmatic the “school” that claims everyone else is dogmatic can be.[/quote]
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
This one?
First of all, much better-
Then I am back to University now to get a master in accounting and finance so, yeah, all them numbers and graphs scares me a lot. Oh, no may I never be so inconvenianced as to have to argue with numbers…
You know that at least in your summary it all boils down too that he thinks that Austrian economics has not enough to constitute a school of thought because he thinks they at least overstate some of their achievements and he thinks they do not care for neoclassical models enough which is why he thinks there is probably not enough there and so on…
I am glad he has an opinion.
If you kindly would turn your attention to the flaws in neoclassical theory, which describes a fantasy economy with rational consumers in Pareto efficient perfect markets?
Interesting:
…
My equation of Austrian economics with Mises and Rothbard rather than F.A. Hayek is bound to be controversial. The primary justification for this is simply that Mises and Rothbard clearly rejected many of the key elements of modern neoclassical economics, while Hayek did not. If Mises and Rothbard are right, then modern neoclassical economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus.[2] The secondary justification is that Mises and Rothbard spent the bulk of their careers making substantive contributions to economics, while Hayek turned almost entirely to philosophy, law, and intellectual history after the 1930’s. In consequence, there is simply much more to say about the economics of Mises and Rothbard than about the economics of Hayek.
…
edit:And you are sure you read the article you wanted me to read?
The same one that is praising Rothbard when it comes to the role government plays when it comes to monopolies, a set of ideas that directly follows from the Austrian emphasis on the link goverment/economics/freedom?
The article that concedes point after point after point like the Austrian business cycle theory?
His position is well thought out, you concentrate on a few mistakes some people made that are a lot smarter than you and think they “suck”?
Good for you.
In order to save you some time, here is the conclusion of article:
Conclusion
Austrian scholars have made important contributions to economics in recent years. I personally am most impressed by the work of Lawrence White and George Selgin on free banking and other monetary issues, though certainly other Austrians have made significant contributions too. Set in historical context, I also consider the economics of Mises and Rothbard to be a great achievement in spite of my numerous reservations about it. Yet all too large a fraction of Austrian research has not been in economics at all, but rather in meta-economics: philosophy, methodology, and history of thought. Admittedly, much of the meta-economics stems out of the work of F.A. Hayek and his numerous interpreters, whose contributions to economics the present essay did not discuss save by implication. But the students of Mises and Rothbard have done more than their fair share of meta-economics too. Neoclassical economists go too far by purging meta-economics almost entirely, but there is certainly a reason to be suspicious of scholars who talk about economics without ever doing it. Paraphrasing Deng Xiaoping, “One should not talk of methodology every day. In real life, not everything is methodology.”[59]
While the substantive contributions of Austrian economists to economics are significant, their sum from Human Action on is small compared to the progress that neoclassical economics has made over the same time period. The ten good ideas listed in section 4.3 are only the beginning of what economists have learned since 1949 - in spite of the large deadweight cost of mathematics and econometrics. Mises and Rothbard certainly produced an original alternate paradigm for economics - and applied this paradigm to a number of interesting topics. Unfortunately, the foundations of their new paradigm are unfounded, and their most important applied conclusions unsound or overstated. The reasonable intellectual course for Austrian economists to take is to give up their quest for a paradigm shift and content themselves with sharing whatever valuable substantive contributions they have to offer with the rest of the economics profession - and of course, with the intellectually involved public. In sum, Milton Friedman spoke wisely when he declared that “there is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics,”[60] to which I would append: “Austrians do some good economics, but most good economics is not Austrian.”
Here’s a post relevant to the question of becoming a professor:
[i]Graduate school advice
Tyler Cowen
A loyal MR reader asks:
[quote] I am now beginning the process of choosing classes for next year. I thought your advice might again be useful. I am in the unusual position of finding nearly all fields potentially interesting. I also feel relatively capable of pursuing most of them, with the exception of pure theory or pure econometrics…I am tempted to do economic history + something else. If I do history, perhaps I ought to do finance, micro, or metrics in order to signal technical capability?
If you were in my place, what fields would you choose? Are their particular people...at XXXX...whom you would absolutely want to take a course with/work with? Is it possible to be a macroeconomist without doing extremely technical work? Are some fields more tolerant of heterodox views than others? You told us [once] that you thought econ. grad. school should be Micro 1 - Micro 16. Does this mean I ought to take more micro next year? Given my limited ability to know where my interests will lie in the future, how should I think about this decision? [/quote]
My advice here is simple:
-
To potential academic employers you are defined by your job market paper, your letters of recommendation, and by your publications, if you have any. Your formal “fields” aren’t that important, nor are your classes per se.
-
Pick classes to learn skills and choose your classes on the quality of the professor, not on the topic per se. A quick classroom visit often reveals this quality within thirty seconds.
-
Pick a mentor that you, on a personal basis, relate to very well. This is of extreme importance. If he or she doesn’t like you, all is lost.
By the way, here is Ben Casnocha’s advice on how to be a good mentee ( Six Habits of Highly Effective Mentees – Ben Casnocha ). What other advice would you all give this person? [/i]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Lowery38595 wrote:
What are yall talking about?
Value and how it’s determined… Pretty much.
I am glad we can determine the value of things because we certainly couldn’t before Austrian Economics was born.[/quote]
Ironically your attempt to be ironic fails completely, because in very important ways what you posted is actually true.
Which you would know had you mastered the most basic economic concepts - Which is something someone that explains a need for inflation with the law of entropy has obviously not even tried.
But I am glad you have an opinion too.
I too have no idea what you guys are talking about. Cool! I get to research something!
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
I too have no idea what you guys are talking about. Cool! I get to research something! [/quote]
It is basically about the validity of a school of economic thought that is purely axiomatic while most economists today think mathematical models have at least some merit.
The question that usually leads statements like “Austrian economics suck” is at heart a misunderstanding because the Austrian school tended to include meta economic and psychological aspects from the start, which are a direct result of Joseph II attempt of having as many interdisciplinary civil servants as possible, eg he forced them not only to study law and politics but also economics and of course the climate of fin de siecle Vienna (Freud, etc…).
Hence the trend of the Austrian school to try to find out how it all works together which an attempt to do “pure economics” obviously is not able to do.
So anyone attacking the Austrian school should at least know what he attacks, the contribution to, or in fact the very foundation of modern economics or meta-economics.
However, if someone attacks meta-economics as “bad economics”, who is the one “sucking”?
This link has a bunch of advice for people pursuing a career in academia - it’s really focused on people in economics, but if you read the advice a lot of it is generally applicable: