Austrian economics

Timshel

New member
Here you go desh... Let's see if you can make an intelligent point. I don't think you know what you are talking about and you instead were throwing a fit.

In the other thread you claimed that Austrians make it up as they go. This is rather absurd and contradicts most criticisms of Austrians, including those of Krugman, Klein and other usual critics. They have argued that Austrians are too rigid and fail to change with new data.

As for your point that they are not taken seriously... Hayek won a Nobel.
 
Desh, can you take a break from spamming and trolling my other thread. Here is your opportunity to make your point on topic. Can you?

I have no idea what it is you are babbling about with the red square comments.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Criticisms


General criticisms[edit]

Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.[80]

Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, mainstream microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility.[21][81] The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them.[citation needed
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Criticisms


General criticisms[edit]

Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.[80]

Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, mainstream microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility.[21][81] The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them.[citation needed

Do you even know what that means Desh because I sure as hell don't. (Not to imply that because I don't know something you automatically wouldn't either but i'm just asking the question.)
 
It means they have to be a different school all to their own because the rest of the field knows they fudge facts.

they don't use the math.

they dream it and claim it true.

To be an Austrian school adherent you have to deny all the other schools have any vailidity
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Criticisms


General criticisms[edit]

Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.[80]

Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, mainstream microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility.[21][81] The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them.[citation needed

So you know how to upload Wikipedia. Now please interpret your cut and paste in layman’s language moron. You haven’t a fucking clue what you posted is all about!!!
 
It means they have to be a different school all to their own because the rest of the field knows they fudge facts.

they don't use the math.

they dream it and claim it true.

To be an Austrian school adherent you have to deny all the other schools have any vailidity

Yeah right moron!!!!!
 
Now where in history is a real world example of this Austrian theory shown to be valid?

Who told you to say that?

Where in history is a real world example of Keynesian theory shown to be valid? There are too many uncontrolled variables to perform a valid falsifiable test on a complete set of economic theories.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Criticisms


General criticisms[edit]

Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.[80]

Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, mainstream microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility.[21][81] The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them.[citation needed

Do you know who Bryan Caplan is? He is a libertarian who once considered himself an Austrian.
 
Besides that, all you have done is show that Caplan thinks Rothbard overstated his objections to mainstream economics, not that he made any errors.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Criticisms


General criticisms[edit]

Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.[80]

Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, mainstream microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility.[21][81] The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them.[citation needed


all other schools think the Austrians are the short bus school.

pretend its not true if you want

its still true
 
With respect Desh this is what you wrote to someone else in one of the Zimmerman threads...

""you don't seem to understand what providing evidence is.


You GO get PROOF ( documentation) of your claims.

you see that is how adults debate""


Yet all you've done here is posted a Wikipedia link and then claimed all other schools don't like the Austrian school even though you've shown no proof as you claim adults do.

I'll read what you have to say if you explain why you think the Austrian school is wrong but you have to state why you think it first.
 
Bump for Desh. Still curious to hear your complaints about the Austrian school of economics.
 
so you think its a lie?

then go prove that the Austrian school does use the same math all other schools of economics use
 
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm


this guy can point out that there is REAL differences and what they are







Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist
by

Bryan Caplan



Assistant Professor
Department of Economics
George Mason University



I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that:

(a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails.

(b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it.

(c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated.

(d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated.
 
Back
Top