When gas hits $10 / gallon, we're totally [censored]

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the "mainstream" concepts are fully understood and rejected by Austrian economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly doesn't hold true for all of "Austrian Economics" - there's plenty connections between Neoclassicism and Austrian Economics. The Austrian School is anything but homogenous. See even on German universities we do have lectures on von Mises, von Hayek or Böhm-Bawerk. Obviously ignoring the "American Branch" and thus the ideas of Rothbard, teehee.

Anyways, shouldn't be hijacking this thread... which calls for an analysis within the existing economic and political system.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the "mainstream" concepts are fully understood and rejected by Austrian economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly doesn't hold true for all of "Austrian Economics" - there's plenty connections between Neoclassicism and Austrian Economics. The Austrian School is anything but homogenous. See even on German universities we do have lectures on von Mises, von Hayek or Böhm-Bawerk. Obviously ignoring the "American Branch" and thus the ideas of Rothbard, teehee. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]P

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. But his point of dismissing neoclassical concerns over "market failures" is in line with where Austrian theory deviates from neoclassical theory.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it would help if people like you had at least a basic understanding of some mainstream neoclassical economic concepts?

[/ QUOTE ] The original statement doesn't sound much like neoclassical market failure anyways:
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that markets in general should be trusted more, but markets also occasionally fail. They are not infalable.

[/ QUOTE ]Market failure simply means that the free market happens not to be the MOST efficient way to exchange goods and services in a particular case.

If you're going to accuse borodog of anything, it should be equating the phrase 'markets ... fail' to the term 'market failure.' The two do not mean the same thing as the former lacks any precise definition, instead implying that markets have caused chaos or calamity, which has very little to do with neoclassical market failure.

I understand why someone who knows economics would be tempted to make that comparison on a forum, however. People often cite the common usage of the term 'market failure' in economics as evidence that 'markets fail,' even though this is not the intended use of the term at all.

Whether you agree with market failure or not, claiming it exists is a huge burden: you not only have to demonstrate objectively that the market result is less efficient, but you have to show how consumption would be changed in order to increase efficiency and why.

This is clearly lacking in the statement in question, which is why any economist would be irked at the unfounded suggestion that 'markets fail' from time to time.

[Case Closed]

Electric cars?

[clowntable]

I feel pretty dumb now paying > 6$ per gallon for gas when there are generics for 5$ and the price for gas can never rise above that level.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel pretty dumb now paying > 6$ per gallon for gas when there are generics for 5$ and the price for gas can never rise above that level.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the government's fault (really, in this case).

[maxtower]

They probably tax the other stuff too, so don't feel bad for paying $6, as the alternative is probably $8.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
They probably tax the other stuff too, so don't feel bad for paying $6, as the alternative is probably $8.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting how some stuff that costs a certain amount ends up costing up to several times that much by the time government gets through with it.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my original comment was directed to the fact that my confidence in 95% of the participants in this forum to truly comprehend the papers at mises.org are about what your confidence would be in their ability to truly comprehend the papers at physicstoday.org.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, mises.org is incredibly transparent and accessible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either you are in the 5% or you are incredibly naive and arrogant. Why don't you whip up a quick summary of Austrian Business Cycle Theories in the Reviews of the Federal Reserve System, including an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Or, I'll give you a choice, you could also do An Empirical Examination of Austrian Business Cycle Theory. And have it back on the board within two hours of reading this.

The quality of your work will determine which group you belong in. If you are in the 5%, I'll tip my hat. But the other result will be the expected one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I find this Ac stuff borderline moronic, mises.org is actually a very good, accessible site.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I find this Ac stuff borderline moronic, mises.org is actually a very good, accessible site.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol. Mises.org = AC.