Skip to main content

View Diary: Familiarize Yourselves With A Liberal Hero / The Fallacies of Austrian Economic Ideology (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and blah (0+ / 0-)

    There only remains the interesting (not to you—you are clearly uninterested in any thought not already encased in the concrete of your mindscape) question as to why Mr Keynes spent so much time in correspondence with economists like Hayek. How is it that he was not so wise as you, and didn't simply dismiss them with some impossibly witty comment about phrenology? Ha, ha. How is it he didn't just say, "I will not respond to this lunacy"? Ho. Of course, you are so much wiser in simply dismissing unread the the trash that is Mr. Hayek's work, unlike, say, those fools who made up the Nobel Prize committee. Not like that stupid fellow, J.K. Galbraith, who thought it was worthwhile to study with Hayek at LSE. Happily, your wisdom is so great that you need not concern yourself with such matters.

    Of course, anyone who could state that Marxists are better economists and less crackpot than libertarians, is surely a mind worth paying attention to. But I think I'll leave that work to someone else.

    •  Keynes Did Think They Were Crackpots (0+ / 0-)

      In the 'great' economics debate of the time between Keynes and Hayek are posthumously talked up as if they were truly important: they were not. Hayek's ideas were received with a great 'thud' at the time because his idea of 'interventionism is suck' had no practical implications except for the destruction of society.

      Keynes won, but to say that he won gives Hayek credibility: his ideas were never in contest with Keynes and history remembers that well.

      Even Hayek's nobel prize (an unofficial prize sponsored by banks and cranks) did nothing to validate Austrian ideas: the school was laughed out of academia for the second time because 'doing nothing' is not science.

      Hayek is also the only Austrian I care for - his treatise on conservatism being particularly good.

      But this also has some drawbacks for the man himself, because the only reason why he is BARELY likable to mainstream academia is precisely the reason why within the Austrian community Hayek is not considered pure: because he did not go full austard as Mises would have liked.

      It's also just HILARIOUS that the best you can do is to point out an Austrian economist who only achieved fame for NOT BEING A PURE AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST!

      Guess what, academia works like this: improve, destroy, or die. If there was EVER a possibility that the Austrians were right, especially in this country which has always leaned somewhat conservative, then certainly something worth while would have been found there but it has not.

      Marx' idea about alienation is far more informed than the hypothetical examples that find no place in reality: Boehm-Bewark's theory on marginal utility, for example, was fully annihilated in Nikolai Bukharin's Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. Even today Austrian conception of marginal utility is not the same theory of marginal utility as taught by mainstream economists.

      So sorry HMI, but you're a disciple of a dead discipline.

      •  Feeble (0+ / 0-)

        You were the one who lumped the Austrian School all together as one thing, who preferred insult to engagement and even now presumes to judge, from his lofty height, that economics was a contest whose basic issues are so entirely settled that there is as little point in revisiting as there would be in revisiting phrenology. This is, to be charitable, an eccentric view.

        I must confess, though, to being alienated by your admiration for Marx (let alone Bukharin!), by which you personify the reification of consciousness. I shall bother your concrete conceptions no longer with any useless abstraction.

        BTW, if you believe that academia works along the lines of "improve or die," I suggest you avoid that sector, lest total disillusionment strike. I know—that's where I make my living. I'd say death is more evident than improvement—even in the economics dept. I am not, however, the disciple of that or any other dead discipline. All I originally said was that there is more to the discussion of the gold standard than you appear to know anything about—a conclusion that you have done much to strengthen and nothing to dispel.

        •  They ARE Settled (0+ / 0-)

          Look at any debate involving Austrians and their source material is always from 50 years ago, all of it is based on deductive logic and axiomatic 'truths' just like when Hayek was pestering Keynes.

          What cured the depression? Letting aggregate demand work itself out - as had been policy for hundreds of years before that, or did the Government deciding to spend money end the depression?

          Keynes won; do the right thing and change your worldview.

          And THANK YOU for not wasting my time with more abstraction; I get enough useless fantasizing from the Austrians and their barely related neoclassical brothers.

          To your stupid - yes, stupid, as in fully jumping over the chasm of ridiculous, claim that Academia is corrupt therefore Austrians can never win (teardrop). Prove it. Find an idea that took 300 years to find acceptance in mainstream science despite overwhelming objective evidence in its favor.

          You cannot.

          Just look at climate change: there is a reason why there is such a massive consensus on the issue and a reason why the dissenters look like cranks: BECAUSE THEY ARE CRANKS!

          though since you're in full retreat maybe I am just wasting my time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site