Why isn't every economist an Austrian?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took an lot of econ and did not find this to be the case. Maybe it was just the two universities I attended. Of course one of my favorite prof (and the most respected in my undergrad department) is an Austrian.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to professors outside of the economics department. I mean my econ deptartment still teaches Keynsianism, but for the most part they promote free trade and free markets. Once you step out into the rest of the humanities you get a whole bunch of crazy economic theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never really expereinced this, but I was an econ major so if one of these profs wanted to talk about econ, I would know a lot more about the subject than they did (even though I was/am a microecon person). I do know in general other departments don't "get" econ.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that ACist always come off as arrogant and cold-hearted?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the way I always feel about liberalism. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Both (social) liberalism and AC (market liberalism) come across alike. That shouldn't be a surprise, because neither system recognizes in practice the inalienable rights of the individual. One puts the collective first, while the other leads the cheer for the power of money. In an important way, the tyrannies of "one person, one vote" and "one dollar, one vote" are essentially similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, saying ACists don't recognize the rights of the individual. Obvious troll. You might find a bajillion things wrong with AC, but saying that just makes you look dumb.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why is it that ACist always come off as arrogant and cold-hearted?

[/ QUOTE ]

Human beings really aren't calibrated to fathom the macroeconomic social world (national/global markets, 9-10 figure population sizes) as they are with the microeconomic social world (cliques, families, offices, 2-3 figure population sizes). The rules that govern macroeconomics are very different from the rules that govern microeconomics, so trying to comprehend global economies in terms of the basic "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" rules that we use in our every day lives doesn't work very well. It's like trying to comprehend galaxy cluster behavior with classical physics (which is basically how we think) rather than general relativity. It just doesn't work.

As far as we know, death is the worst thing that can happen to us, and we go to great lengths to avoid it and preserve life. Yet on a macroeconomic level, deaths matter much, much less. When you die, how many people in the global economy do you think will care, or would be willing to exchange a sum of personal property/money to save your life? The answer is very, very few. Individual human lives are much more like units rather than wholes on this unthinkably large social level.

It sounds cruel and inhuman to think this way, but that's because we're dealing with concepts that can't be understood intuitively; they must be understood theoretically and scientifically. No scientist can truly comprehend the size of a galaxy, and no human being can truly comprehend a global economy.

While it does sound very arrogant and cold-hearted, the facts of the matter are as follows: humans do follow incentives. They do prefer more goods to less. They will not provide altruistically for the greater good without a gun to their heads. Individuals that consume more than they can produce are a drain on society's resources, and a system that selects against such individuals must lead to surplusses and prosperity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say humans will not act altruistically without a gun to their heads. How do you explain the large amounts donated to charity every year, then?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that ACist always come off as arrogant and cold-hearted?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the way I always feel about liberalism. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Both (social) liberalism and AC (market liberalism) come across alike. That shouldn't be a surprise, because neither system recognizes in practice the inalienable rights of the individual. One puts the collective first, while the other leads the cheer for the power of money. In an important way, the tyrannies of "one person, one vote" and "one dollar, one vote" are essentially similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, saying ACists don't recognize the rights of the individual. Obvious troll. You might find a bajillion things wrong with AC, but saying that just makes you look dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Misquoting from a post that is copied verbatim above your own text makes you look real smart. I said AC does not recognize in PRACTICE the INALIENABLE rights of the individual.

Sure, your brand of market liberalism talks a good talk, just like communism did, but it provides no actual mechanism to guarantee any of its pretended ideals. The facts on the ground you're preparing are just another brand of unchecked rule by the rich.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Misquoting from a post that is copied verbatim above your own text makes you look real smart. I said AC does not recognize in PRACTICE the INALIENABLE rights of the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? And how does statism "recognize" those same rights? I mean, in a way that is supportive of them. Saying "we recognize these rights of yours that we are willfully violating" is not very comforting.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, your brand of market liberalism talks a good talk, just like communism did, but it provides no actual mechanism to guarantee any of its pretended ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to statism which provides an actual mechanism for violating those rights.

[ QUOTE ]
The facts on the ground you're preparing are just another brand of unchecked rule by the rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, at least the rich will have to pay for it themselves.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Misquoting from a post that is copied verbatim above your own text makes you look real smart. I said AC does not recognize in PRACTICE the INALIENABLE rights of the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? And how does statism "recognize" those same rights? I mean, in a way that is supportive of them. Saying "we recognize these rights of yours that we are willfully violating" is not very comforting.

[/ QUOTE ]

By maintaining the rule of law so that violations of those rights have consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, your brand of market liberalism talks a good talk, just like communism did, but it provides no actual mechanism to guarantee any of its pretended ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to statism which provides an actual mechanism for violating those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, as opposed to a government put in place by the people to secure those rights.[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
The facts on the ground you're preparing are just another brand of unchecked rule by the rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, at least the rich will have to pay for it themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a problem. Money is just where their advantage lies.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing Austrian economics to religious beliefs? How fitting. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Misquoting from a post that is copied verbatim above your own text makes you look real smart. I said AC does not recognize in PRACTICE the INALIENABLE rights of the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? And how does statism "recognize" those same rights? I mean, in a way that is supportive of them. Saying "we recognize these rights of yours that we are willfully violating" is not very comforting.

[/ QUOTE ]

By maintaining the rule of law so that violations of those rights have consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

What consequences? The people who are supposedly maintaining these rights begin by violating them before they even begin their maintenance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, your brand of market liberalism talks a good talk, just like communism did, but it provides no actual mechanism to guarantee any of its pretended ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to statism which provides an actual mechanism for violating those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, as opposed to a government put in place by the people to secure those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overt intentions are different than actual results. I walk into a bank, pull a gun, and say "I need some money to save these starving kids in Africa." Don't pay any attention to the fact that I'm actually spending the money on hookers and blow. It's for the kids, really.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The facts on the ground you're preparing are just another brand of unchecked rule by the rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, at least the rich will have to pay for it themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a problem. Money is just where their advantage lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you figure it's better to extend that advantage, and allow them to get poor people to pay for all of the stuff they want?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing Austrian economics to religious beliefs? How fitting. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


I compared Austrian economics to atheism. And yes, it's quite fitting.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

A very poor analogy. However, a far greater percentage of scientists are atheists than in the general population.