Reserve Bank of Australia raises interest rate by 0.25% (1 Viewer)

[gnrlies]

What a retarded assumption. Who do you define as an economist anyway?

Well someone who is prepared to subject their ideas / thoughts to the scientific method rather than those who go on lofty rants based on nothing other than their own musings. You are right in saying that there is no formal recognition of who is or isn't an economist. But I want to distinguish between the people who dedicate their lives towards understanding this stuff and are in a position to contribute to the literature, and those on this forum who regurgitate the select writings of a few. This is very different from what you seem to think I was saying as I have respect for Economists of the Austrian school, just not those who abuse their work.

 

[volition]

"Abuse their work"? The whole reason the "Economists of the Austrian school" wrote about this stuff in books like economics in one lesson, human action, what has government done to our money? or the road to serfdom was to educate the masses. Not to have some kind of esoteric discussion that commoners aren't allowed to discuss/know for themselves.

At the end of the day, if there's something you disagree with, it's up to you to specifically tell us why. You won't get away with generalised statements about how "anyone could be wrong because they don't really understand or haven't studied enough".

But what I do know, is that as soon as someone mounts an argument based on Austrian economics; they are completely full of shit.

oh and btw, you're a joke. No substantive argument here at all. 10/10 for effort. Keep on digging I say.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

At the end of the day, if there's something you disagree with, it's up to you to specifically tell us why. You won't get away with generalised statements about how "anyone could be wrong because they don't really understand or haven't studied enough".

-It thinks goverments are somehow 'outside' the market
-impossible to test most (if not all) of their theories, basically it's a bunch of asserted truth statments, they do not provide any models that explain the underlying mechanisms, this makes it impossible to falsify etc..

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

-impossible to test most (if not all) of their theories, basically it's a bunch of asserted truth statments, they do not provide any models that explain the underlying mechanisms, this makes it impossible to falsify etc..

The whole idea that a complex matrix of inter-related decisions made by millions of people can be captured in a mathematical model is ridiculous. We can not treat economics like the natural sciences because it is impossible for us to gain the sort of data that would be necessary to conduct such experiments.

Austrian economics is generally based on logical reasoning that follows from certain axioms. You can attempt to falsify it by arguing that the foundational axioms are wrong, or that the chain of reasoning is wrong. If you want to critique Austrian economics, I would suggest you read about it, and then make such an argument.

Generalized statements such as "it's just a bunch of asserted truth statements" is itself an asserted "truth statement", and the use of mathematical models does not make something right or wrong. As volition said, specify exactly where you think Austrian economics goes wrong or stfu about it.

 

[Sultun]

The whole idea that a complex matrix of inter-related decisions made by millions of people can be captured in a mathematical model is ridiculous. We can not treat economics like the natural sciences because it is impossible for us to gain the sort of data that would be necessary to conduct such experiments.

Austrian economics is generally based on logical reasoning that follows from certain axioms. You can attempt to falsify it by arguing that the foundational axioms are wrong, or that the chain of reasoning is wrong. If you want to critique Austrian economics, I would suggest you read about it, and then make such an argument.

Generalized statements such as "it's just a bunch of asserted truth statements" is itself an asserted "truth statement", and the use of mathematical models does not make something right or wrong. As volition said, specify exactly where you think Austrian economics goes wrong or stfu about it.

Get off Ron Pauls's lap kid, he ain't Santa.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

The whole idea that a complex matrix of inter-related decisions made by millions of people can be captured in a mathematical model is ridiculous. We can not treat economics like the natural sciences because it is impossible for us to gain the sort of data that would be necessary to conduct such experiments.

whoa ur an idiot, that's not at all what mathimatical models try and do...the point I was making was that because Austrian economics merely reverts to post-hoc analysis, it does not provide a frame work that generates testible predictions.

Austrian economics is generally based on logical reasoning that follows from certain axioms. You can attempt to falsify it by arguing that the foundational axioms are wrong, or that the chain of reasoning is wrong. If you want to critique Austrian economics, I would suggest you read about it, and then make such an argument.

Generalized statements such as "it's just a bunch of asserted truth statements" is itself an asserted "truth statement", and the use of mathematical models does not make something right or wrong. As volition said, specify exactly where you think Austrian economics goes wrong or stfu about it.

What do you think an axiom is...it is a fundemental truth statement....
It's hard to say where austrian economics goes 'rights or wrong' precisely because it is so substanceless, how can you directly point to where it is wrong if you cannot point to where it is right? bizarre.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

whoa ur an idiot, that's not at all what mathimatical models try and do...

That's exactly what they try to do, and they consistently fail.

What do you think an axiom is...it is a fundemental truth statement....
It's hard to say where austrian economics goes 'rights or wrong' precisely because it is so substanceless, how can you directly point to where it is wrong if you cannot point to where it is right? bizarre.

What is wrong with basing your reasoning on certain axioms? Most importantly, what is wrong with the axiom that the initiation of force is morally wrong?

If mainstream economics is truly value free, why doesn't it consider the use of solutions like slavery, and the slaughter of the elderly, invalids ect? These things could increase economic efficiency. At the end of the day, we accept certain things are just morally wrong, and unacceptable solutions.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

That's exactly what they try to do, and they consistently fail.

the f**k are you talking about...mathimatics provides a framework of dealing with variables, it has nothing to do with asserting people actually behave accorrding to a mathimatical formula.

What is wrong with basing your reasoning on certain axioms?

what is this 'axiom' you speak of?

Most importantly, what is wrong with the axiom that the initiation of force is morally wrong?

There is no objective measure of morality you deadbeat youtube alumni, congratulations on just making a meaningless statement.

If mainstream economics is truly value free, why doesn't it consider the use of solutions like slavery, and the slaughter of the elderly, invalids ect? These things could increase economic efficiency. At the end of the day, we accept certain things are just morally wrong, and unacceptable solutions.

How the f**k would slavery increase economic efficiency you little nazi? what a warped view of economics you have..
nauseating

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

what is this 'axiom' you speak of?

I just explained it as "the axiom that the initiation of force is morally wrong."

There is no objective measure of morality you deadbeat youtube alumni, congratulations on just making a meaningless statement.

I never claimed it was objective. But at some point we do have to make some difficult moral decisions one way or another.

How the f**k would slavery increase economic efficiency you little nazi? what a warped view of economics you have..
nauseating

Take it easy mate. It's pretty obvious I was not advocating slavery. But it is possible that you could increase GDP per capita for the citizens of a country by taking slaves.

The fact that you find the idea disgusting really proves my point. You wouldn't even consider justifying this on economic grounds because you know it is morally wrong. Sure you can't objectively prove it, but opposing slavery is pretty important and should certainly still inform macroeconomic decision making.

I am simply taking this a step further and saying not only is slavery wrong but all coercion and use of force against others (except in self defense) is wrong. Do you disagree?

 

[ComingUpForAir]

I just explained it as "the axiom that the initiation of force is morally wrong."

thats not an axiom

I never claimed it was objective. But at some point we do have to make some difficult moral decisions one way or another.

again, morality is subjective

But it is possible that you could increase GDP per capita for the citizens of a country by taking slaves.

no GDP per capita would not increase...the system would break down, there is no reason why an economic model could not factor in such diminishing returns

The fact that you find the idea disgusting really proves my point. You wouldn't even consider justifying this on economic grounds because you know it is morally wrong. Sure you can't objectively prove it, but opposing slavery is pretty important and should certainly still inform macroeconomic decision making.

what makes you think 'economics grounds' is just about money?

 

[Planck]

-It thinks goverments are somehow 'outside' the market
-impossible to test most (if not all) of their theories, basically it's a bunch of asserted truth statments, they do not provide any models that explain the underlying mechanisms, this makes it impossible to falsify etc..

The philosophy leads to recommendations and predictions that I would posit are entirely falsifiable... otherwise there would be no point?

 

[gnrlies]

"Abuse their work"? The whole reason the "Economists of the Austrian school" wrote about this stuff in books like economics in one lesson, human action, what has government done to our money? or the road to serfdom was to educate the masses. Not to have some kind of esoteric discussion that commoners aren't allowed to discuss/know for themselves.

At the end of the day, if there's something you disagree with, it's up to you to specifically tell us why. You won't get away with generalised statements about how "anyone could be wrong because they don't really understand or haven't studied enough".

oh and btw, you're a joke. No substantive argument here at all. 10/10 for effort. Keep on digging I say.

Pretty sure that if you dismount from your high horse and read my posts, or read them again, you will see that my points have been fully explained.

 

[Planck]

Pretty sure that if you dismount from your high horse and read my posts, or read them again, you will see that my points have been fully explained.

It seemed that you put a lot of time and effort into displacing helpless photons to effectively say that "Every economic theory has valid cricitisms" and "there is no one panacea to all economic ills".

With a nice load of ad-hom in there to bulk it up.

 

[gnrlies]

It seemed that you put a lot of time and effort into displacing helpless photons to effectively say that "Every economic theory has valid cricitisms" and "there is no one panacea to all economic ills".

With a nice load of ad-hom in there to bulk it up.

Well lets just say my tolerance for ignorant fools is particularly low.

 

[volition]

-It thinks goverments are somehow 'outside' the market

If by 'market' you mean voluntary interactions, yes the government is outside the market.

 

[gnrlies]

An axiom is nothing more than an assumption. Building economic theory based on axioms is only as good as the axioms themselves.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

If by 'market' you mean voluntary interactions, yes the government is outside the market.

my point was there not much use seperating some 'pure market' from goverment actions, its better to focus on the reality.

btw is someone being employed by the goverment an involuntary action? surely in most cases you would agree people voluntarily choose to work for goverment departments?

 

[volition]

my point was there not much use seperating some 'pure market' from goverment actions, its better to focus on the reality.

So can you cite where the Austrian economist talks about government as though it is not part of the entire economy?

I think you'll find that Austrian economics does talk about the government as part of the economy in that sense. for eg. the broken window fallacy and how it applies to government spending (crowding out of funds)

btw is someone being employed by the goverment an involuntary action? surely in most cases you would agree people voluntarily choose to work for goverment departments?

It's voluntary for the person choosing to work for the government, but the involuntary bit is how that is funded (taxation/theft).

 

[BBJ HATES J_WS]

anyone thought maybe its the Israeli;s idea to cripple our economy?