The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: libertas7213 on March 11, 2011, 09:21:15 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2R5txO28 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2R5txO28)
-
That was horrible. What a terrible hit piece. The guy basically took two quotes entirely out of context in order to discredit deductive logic, and names his account that only has one video "Austrian School" which could easily be considered fraudulent
-
It looks accurate to me. The Austrian school doesn't seem to be about being scientific. They will tell you that gravity pulls things down, but won't drop a couple of cannonballs off a tower. The reasons why are pretty obvious, if you have libertarian conclusions, you're not going to propose violence to test a theory, nor will you tend to be trusting of government-provided statistics on anything. However explaining existing statistics doesn't do much unless one can go back in history and see a path of Austrians predicting things about the economy and being right more often than the mainstream. I don't think this would be possible to show because Austrians differ from the mainstream on so few subjects and calculating degrees of rightness without trying to enumerate non-numerical predictions is virtually impossible.
However I don't see very much coming out of the Austrian school except for support of the conclusions they went in with. It doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong, it just means their method of doing things isn't proving it right.
-
Are you an alien dolphin?
just wondering.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSIKWOQJpRZJP3UB3p8gKmKqy7v2UWYZOxxGgYO7ZShmHKxE8T)
-
This forum's divergence between smart and stupid is growing ever-greater! :shock:
-
Deeper and deeper we go, until the forums dead.
-
Then the commies win.
-
Better the commies than the alien dolphins.
Wait a second?
-
i bet they would gladly throw a coupla jews off your tower to test ANY theory.
hey-ooohhhhhh
(obligatory ed mcmahon chime-in)
-
Sometimes after I eat food, I poop.
sometimes
-
This forum's divergence between smart and stupid is growing ever-greater! :shock:
I agree 100%
Just when you think there might be some hope for this forum, some idiot comes along and posts some retarded shit and proves us smart ones wrong.
It makes me SICK
-
This forum's divergence between smart and stupid is growing ever-greater! :shock:
I agree 100%
Just when you think there might be some hope for this forum, some idiot comes along and posts some retarded shit and proves us smart ones wrong.
It makes me SICK
i go where i'm needed, negroe.
but you already knew that about me.
-
"Austrians get to critique the real world, but the real world is prevented from informing their theories...They are free to call the government bad without being held down to the statistics to verify this claim."
Because statistics cannot verify such a claim. That's a qualitative judgement rather than a quantitative one. The narrarator cannot say that "the real world is prevented from informing their theories", since the Austrian School is the only one that takes into account the reality of human nature. Every other theory is guilty of the "chessmaster fallacy".
"The problem with rationalism is that it makes the search for truth a game without rules." There are rules to logic, snotnoggin. The problem with empiricism is that it must rely on logical deduction to interpret the data collected. All hypotheses require an a priori, presuppositional framework; if one begins with false presuppositions, he will draw a faulty conclusion, no matter the quality of his observations. Copernicus observed that the planets orbit the sun; but since he was presuppositionally tied to the idea that planetary orbits were perfectly round (an idea which came from Aristotle, I believe), his models for the solar system were needlessly complicated, even though they had predictive value.
The other schools of economics have used empiricism to try to manage economic circumstances, and have all failed miserably (stagflation, anyone?). That's hardly a track record that recommends the empiricist schools.
I notice that whoever did this disabled comments. Must be frightened of people showing the silliness of his diatribe.
-
This forum's divergence between smart and stupid is growing ever-greater! :shock:
I agree 100%
Just when you think there might be some hope for this forum, some idiot comes along and posts some retarded shit and proves us smart ones wrong.
It makes me SICK
i go where i'm needed, negroe.
but you already knew that about me.
I wasnt talking about you. I was talking about me. :lol:
I'm so misunderstood.
-
Consider the difficulty of using empirical evidence to isolate the factors that contributed to the "Reagan Boom". Most conservatives would say that it was Reagan's "tax cuts". But he raised taxes as well, so perhaps the boom was due to tax increases (and I'm pretty sure I've heard progressive-types claim this). Or maybe it was the fact that Volcker raised interest rates and stopped inflation, giving businessmen the confidence to plan and invest again. Maybe it was the psychological boost that people got from Reagan's sunny optimism. Maybe it was technological factors: the computer industry was just taking off in the early 80's with home computers, Microsoft, and the rudimentary Internet, driving down costs of doing business enough to give companies extra cost savings that they could then invest. Government spending increased at a high rate during Reagan's tenure; maybe that provided the boost the economy needed.
There are a myriad of others, I'm sure. But suppose one found himself in government power, and wanted to replicate Reagan's "success". Which policies should he enact? The empiricist schools would be unable to inform the government official, because they cannot study human behavior in a vaccuum. Putting someone in a room and studying his actions and reactions cannot reliably predict what that person would do once back out on the street. There is no empirical data that could be collected on human behavior that could reliably predict what effects policies would have. The same policy at one point in time might have positive effects, while at a different point in time produce highly negative effects, because human behavior is not controllable or even, really predictable, because, as Mises said, people act according to what they perceive as their best interests. And since human perception is based partly on human emotion, there is no predictable outcome for human action in any circumstance.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8XH4BJiLvE&feature=related[/youtube]
-
The "it's impossible to know" idea never got anybody anywhere, and I hope that's not the Austrian position. People's behavior isn't unpredictable, it's just so expensive to get the information needed to determine what even one person will do that it's difficult to predict individual people. However, looking at the widespread forces you can get a good idea of what people in general will do. You can't know whether it will rain in any arbitrary location on an arbitrary day more than 2 weeks out, but that doesn't stop climatologists from using math to predict what the general climate will be in 5 or 10 or 100 years.
Like climatologists, Austrians can't experiment to test their model in anything but the smallest levels (e.g. you can test that higher CO2 levels absorb more long-wave radiation, or that people prefer present goods to future goods) and you have to build out with reasoning after that. But climatologists at least try to make predictions about how things are going to happen and how much. I've seen Austrians predicting a crash, but I didn't see anyone try to say anything like how big of a crash it would be. I'd like to be proven wrong as I'm by no means an authoritative source on Austrian economics and don't follow it very closely.
-
"Austrians can't experiment to test their model in anything but the smallest levels".
Neither can the Keynesian, Chicago, or Marxist schools. They like to pretend that they are doing empirical testing, but they are using make-believe numbers. Which information do they consider relevant, when they build their models? How can one know that the information chosen as a basis for their models is relevant? The statistics they use are usually provided by the government, which has an interest in presenting itself in the best light possible, so how can we be sure that the statistics used are reliable?
-
I said that in my first post in the thread:
The reasons why are pretty obvious, if you have libertarian conclusions, you're not going to propose violence to test a theory, nor will you tend to be trusting of government-provided statistics on anything.
Austrians seem to take the attitude that you can't, not that you just shouldn't.
They could go with the government-provided numbers and make some predictions, and try to compare that to the real data to check for consistency and get some estimate of how much the stat is fudging the numbers, try to correct for the error, and make predictions based off that. Reality is always there to verify against. It'd be a lot more work than using government-provided numbers but if you can do that and end up with substantially more reliable predictions (as you should be able to by not basing predictions on distorted information) it should show.
I've seen no effort toward anything like that. That's something worth criticizing Austrians about.
And again, I'm open to being shown that there is some effort to do this, but I haven't seen any.
-
No system is perfect, but at least with the Austrian system, when an inbalance happens in the market, it will correct itself much faster because there is no bloated central planner that always moves slowly to correct it due to its big fat bloated beaurocracy and paperwork, red tape and political favors that always slow things down.
Example: A guy opens a store selling widgets. he's selling the shit out of them. Everyone wants one.
Someone else says to himself "Hey, you know what? I'm gonna sell widgets too. I'll make tons of cash!!!"
All of the sudden, everyone wants in the widget game. Next thing you know, business slows down due to the fact that there are too many widgets being sold by too many different people. What happens? Some of them close shop, some sell something else, some lose everything they invested"
At least with this system, the person who got into a game that had too many players already in it is the only one who suffers, but learns from his mistake.
Same situation with central planning will take much longer to correct itself because governments always like to prop up a failing model because they dont want to feel the pain that is needed to correct the bubble. Good example of that is the housing bubble. EVERYONE is paying for that fuck-up. Even people who didnt play the game. Their taxes are paying for it.
-
That's not the Austrian system. The Austrian system (if it exists) is an approach to understanding economics. What you're describing is a libertarian political/economic system. Austrian economics is not the only libertarian economic movement by a long shot. Austrian economics just describes an approach to learning about the forces at work under free markets or under statism, the conclusions are not specific to Austrian economics, and the policies advocated by Austrian economics are not specific to Austrian economics.
-
That's not the Austrian system. The Austrian system (if it exists) is an approach to understanding economics. What you're describing is a libertarian political/economic system. Austrian economics is not the only libertarian economic movement by a long shot. Austrian economics just describes an approach to learning about the forces at work under free markets or under statism, the conclusions are not specific to Austrian economics, and the policies advocated by Austrian economics are not specific to Austrian economics.
Yeah, and the approach to understanding economics uses the same principal I described in the last post. It's the same idea. The free market as opposed to centrally planned economics.
You wanna split hairs.
-
golden rule - now roll that blunt
-
It's not splitting hairs, I'm saying the "Austrian system" is a method (rationalist praxeology), you're saying the "Austrian system" is the socioeconomic system that Austrians would say is optimal, which is free markets. Free markets are not Austrian anymore than they are Chicagoan or mutualist. All three share free market and decentral conclusions but what differentiates them is the way they reach those conclusions. If you're going to call a system Austrian and not simply free-market it should be contradistinct against the Chicago school approach to free markets at the very least.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k[/youtube]
-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods166.html
"We could ask Yglesias about time preference, the heterogeneity of capital, or the Hayekian triangle – all of which are fairly central to an understanding of Austrian theory – and we may as well be asking him to explain the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. He knows none of this. All he knows is that if the Austrian theory is correct, his cherished overlords are part of the problem rather than the solution. Human beings can arrange their affairs without the violent intervention of the state? That’s a world our blogger refuses even to consider."
http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/031711grant.pdf
-
http://mises.org/etexts/EconReasoning.pdf
"You might think that economists would be glad to have a common-
sense foundation for their discipline. But some of them are
not. In contrast to the Austrian School, which fully accepts the
deductive approach, many economists think that it is unscientific to
rely purely on deduction. Deduction plays an important role in economics,
no doubt; but premises ought not to be accepted just
because they are held “self-evident.” Rather, what is important is
the conclusions which these premises imply. These must be subject
to test. Whether the premises are self-evident or even true matters
little; only predictions count. As we shall see, Austrians reject this
view."
-
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/getting-it-right-or-knowing-you-got-it-wrong/
"Most standard economic models seek to demonstrate how, under certain conditions, resources will be allocated optimally by the free market. Those same models can also show that if the specified conditions do not hold, then resources will be less than optimally allocated. This generally referred to as “market failure” because free markets fail to achieve that optimal allocation. Many mainstream economists argue that government can step in and either change the conditions under which the market operates, or directly allocate resources itself, so that society reaches that optimal allocation pattern.
Notice that optimal allocation is the goal. In other words, what is valuable about markets is the degree to which they “get it right,” with the “it” being the resource allocation. Government intervention is deemed justified by people who believe that, in some cases, it can allocate resources better than markets can.
For Austrians, the fundamental issue is not whether markets get it right. True, Austrians think markets are pretty good and governments quite bad in that respect. And even though Austrians might explain things differently from the mainstream, there are plenty of mainstream economists who would agree with those general conclusions. Note, though, that the question here is still about getting it right.
Where the Austrian view differs, I would argue, is in understanding that markets are also really good at helping people to know when resources are not optimally allocated and providing the signals and incentives needed to correct the mistakes. Being adept at getting things right at a given point is of course a good thing. But it is probably more valuable — given that we aren’t likely to get things perfectly right on a regular basis — to be able both to know when we are wrong and to have an incentive to do better."
-
It's not splitting hairs, I'm saying the "Austrian system" is a method (rationalist praxeology), you're saying the "Austrian system" is the socioeconomic system that Austrians would say is optimal, which is free markets. Free markets are not Austrian anymore than they are Chicagoan or mutualist. All three share free market and decentral conclusions but what differentiates them is the way they reach those conclusions. If you're going to call a system Austrian and not simply free-market it should be contradistinct against the Chicago school approach to free markets at the very least.
Zhwazi is right on this one. Chicago and Austrian schools are both based on Free Market ideology. Austrians come that way via deduction. Chicagoans come that way via numbers. I think most economically literate free market supporters fall somewhere in between. Principle backed by evidence. A lot of recent economists (Norberg, Skousen, DiLorenzo, DiIanni) take this approach.
-
Yeah, and the approach to understanding economics uses the same principal I described in the last post. It's the same idea. The free market as opposed to centrally planned economics.
You wanna split hairs.
If I may, he's not quite splitting hairs.
The Austrian economic analysis is "value free". That means it's not about "right" and "wrong", merely about "efficient" verses "inefficient".
For example, competition in the field of poison gas manufacture will lead to the highest quality and the lowest price, even though feeding people into gas chambers is not a "good" thing to be doing in the first place.
Listening to an entire Mises University, http://media.mises.org/mp3/MU2010/ will take a few days. Ok, several weeks of commute time in the car. Anyway, what you will get is people explaining EXACTLY the kinds of issues you and Zhwazi are bickering about.
As an example, it's not that Austrian theories cannot be tested, it's that by setting up such a test one sets up the contradictory situation of trying to plan spontaneity.
That is why the most effective means of Austrian analysis is upon events that have happened, to explain why.
Intelligent people will then use the "why" to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
The one single major problem with Austrian economics is that it directly addresses the inefficiency of central planning and coercive intervention.
Politicians, bureaucrats and other control freaks simply HATE to be told they're wrong, and thus they take every opportunity to point out how Austrian economics cannot be correct.
-
http://www.thedailybell.com/1036/Mark-Thornton-on-Lincolns-Folly-the-Civil-War-and-the-Impact-of-the-Business-Cycle.html
" Austrian economics is attractive because it is conceptual not mathematical. One does not have to be facile with multiple forms of numerical analysis to understand the main concepts of Austrian economics. In fact, one of the most important precepts of Austrian economics is that trend-analysis using various kinds of forward looking numerical analysis doesn't work. This is because of human action itself, which tends to adapt far in advance of the realization of whatever trend is being analyzed.
In fact, this is one of several elements of Austrian economics that drives statists wild. Since there are no good answers to Austrian human-action analysis, Austrian economics is simply ignored (even today) in many academic venues and certainly by most Western governments. Governments in the West are choc-a-block full of econometric economists plying their trade. The tragedy of econometrics is that it emerged AFTER the bifurcation of classical and neo-classical economics. In other words, there is no excuse for it."
-
"Human beings are not merely passive integers that sit in one place perched on a spreadsheet waiting dumbly for disaster to strike. Thus it is that those who practice econometrics (a discipline that partakes of basic flaw of classical economics) are in a sense disdainful of the marketplace – and contemptuous of the human genius for improvisation, as their theoretical approach does not truly allow for it.
In contrast to those who practice econometrics comes someone like Thornton who sees any one of a number of areas to apply the science of Austrian economics. The great Murray Rothbard practiced economics similarly. There were few if any areas that Rothbard left untouched in his omnivorous approach to economic analysis. He applied his disciplined free-market point of view to most any subject matter, yet all of his analysis was rooted in a profound understanding of economic principles including of course marginal utility, Say's law, etc.
Thornton and many others at the von Mises Institute (and other practicing Austrians around the world) are heir to the joyful Austrian/Rothbardian/Misesian approach to economics. Nothing is off limits and everything connected. That's as it should be. Such an approach is certainly an inspiration to any person, young or old, seeking to more thoroughly explore free-market economics and the generous understanding it offers."
http://www.thedailybell.com/1036/Mark-Thornton-on-Lincolns-Folly-the-Civil-War-and-the-Impact-of-the-Business-Cycle.html
-
the computer industry was just taking off in the early 80's with home computers, Microsoft, and the rudimentary Internet, driving down costs of doing business enough to give companies extra cost savings that they could then invest. Government spending increased at a high rate during Reagan's tenure; maybe that provided the boost the economy needed.
The Reagan boom was Post-Vietnam recovery. Vietnam was a technological tipping point, and brought about some heavy stuff. Transistors over tubes, medical science advancements, that sort of thing. Cable television. And HUGE military spending, which radiates out in a million directions to the private sector - the result of which is prosperity (on the kitchen-table level).
The Clinton boom was the internet boom. Naturally, the roots of that extend to the prior Reagan administration. But the actual bulk of that period occurred within the Clinton years. Obviously culminating in the DotCom crash in March 2000.
-
Bad video is bad. Seriously, by this dude's logic Computer Science isn't a science (hint: it is, if you understand that science simply means an exact ordering of knowledge per some conditions).
-
http://www.experiment-resources.com/
-
http://www.experiment-resources.com/
You'll notice that in the website Mathematics, Computer Science, and Logic aren't in there (correctly so as these don't apply the scientific method).
-
http://www.experiment-resources.com/
You'll notice that in the website Mathematics, Computer Science, and Logic aren't in there (correctly so as these don't apply the scientific method).
All science applies the scientific method. You can argue that someone's not practicing science if you want, but "science simply means an exact ordering of knowledge per some conditions" is inaccurate, at best. Science and the scientific method are inseparable.
-
http://www.experiment-resources.com/
You'll notice that in the website Mathematics, Computer Science, and Logic aren't in there (correctly so as these don't apply the scientific method).
So I assume correctly that you belong to the 1 +1 might not = 2 crowd?
-
http://www.experiment-resources.com/
You'll notice that in the website Mathematics, Computer Science, and Logic aren't in there (correctly so as these don't apply the scientific method).
All science applies the scientific method. You can argue that someone's not practicing science if you want, but "science simply means an exact ordering of knowledge per some conditions" is inaccurate, at best. Science and the scientific method are inseparable.
Nope.avi
-
http://www.experiment-resources.com/
You'll notice that in the website Mathematics, Computer Science, and Logic aren't in there (correctly so as these don't apply the scientific method).
So I assume correctly that you belong to the 1 + 1 might not = 2 crowd?
But of course. In science, we form a hypothesis and we test that hypothesis, and we report our findings. If our findings are not as hypothesized, we start over. This is science. We know 1 + 1 = 2 because it's been demonstrated, under countless conditions, to produce the same result.
Anything else calling itself science is fraud.
-
Then by your logic, Computer science isn't a science. I suggest you actually read about philosophy of science outside of Popper (I love the dude, but he got quite a few things wrong there).
-
Then by your logic, Computer science isn't a science. I suggest you actually read about philosophy of science outside of Popper (I love the dude, but he got quite a few things wrong there).
Of course it's science. A computer scientist confirms hypotheses regularly. FWIW, I have a degree from an engineering school, and they made it pretty obvious what makes science. I'm sorry your experience has been inadequate.
-
No, we don't confirm hypothesises(sp?). We focus on a proof, following the steps to make that proof to show it's correct. There's no empirical step. Even mathematical induction is only inductive within the predicate of the given equation, but not inductive (proper) in the wider world. Computer Science is a science because it follows an organizing principle that makes it exact. A natural science is a science for the same reason, but it needs to follow additional methods (what is known as the scientific method) to make it work. This is why your Positivist position is wrong. Only a handful in philosophy follow it (Dennett and company are decidedly the last remnant of the Positivist/Analytic position).
Edit: also, Computer Engineering isn't Computer Science. I have a degree in the latter, and I am working on my Masters in it at present.
-
Junk science comes from minds like these. Keep spouting bullshit like that, and you'll go a long way toward reversing the progress that brought the human race out of the dark age.
'nuf said
of of --> out of
-
Wow, two people who hold degrees in similar fields can't even agree on what science is. BTW, I think WTFK has this one. "an exact ordering of knowledge per some conditions" is called a system, and science uses those. Science is defined by its methods, not its results. BTW, Econ degree here.
-
No degree at all. Ok, Associates in Electronics. Might as well be nothing.
Science is the scientific method.
Observe phenomenon.
Form a hypothesis.
Test hypothesis.
If hypothesis fails, throw out old hypothesis and return to step 2.
If hypothesis is confirmed, pronounce it a theory and if it doesn't work for anyone else, throw it out and return to step 2.
If theory is repeatable, confirmable and consistent, it will eventually be confirmed as a scientific fact.
That's it. That's science. On to the next phenomenon.