View Single Post
Old 04-03-2013, 04:50 PM   #41
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
MVP
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jefferson City
Casino cash: $22670
Just to troll you Austrian economists:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausintro.htm

"For most of the Austrian School's history, mainstream academia has simply ignored it. Even today, none of its works are on the required reading list at Harvard. Most introductory economics texts don't even mention the school, and its economists are absent from many encyclopedias or indexes of the century's great economists. Several of its founding figures struggled to make ends meet, rejected by universities which did not view their work as sound. Even today, the movement's faculty boasts no more than 75 scholars worldwide. (4) By comparison, there are over 20,000 economists in the American Economics Association alone. Their failure to rise in academia has not been for want of publicity -- on the contrary, their leaders have been publishing books for over 120 years, all the while bumping elbows with famous economists like John Maynard Keynes. And after Hayek shared a Nobel Prize in 1974 for a contribution to monetary theory, the school received a huge burst of academic attention. But it was just as quickly rejected. Their dismal showing in academia stems from the fact that they have simply failed to make their case."

Factions aside, the general differences between Austrian and mainstream economics can be summarized as follows:
Mainstream economists use the scientific method; Austrians reject it, at least for the study of the economy. Instead, they use a pre-scientific method which deduces truths from a priori knowledge.

Mainstream economists make heavy use of statistics; Austrians claim statistics have very little value, because of their extreme limitations.

Mainstream scientists believe in both objective and subjective truth (that is, absolute truth and personal truth); Austrians believe only in subjective.

Mainstream scientists seek to explain human behavior on many different levels: the gene, the individual, the group and the specie. Austrians believe that all explanations of human behavior can be traced back to the individual.

Mainstream economists often use models that use perfect starting assumptions; Austrians claim not to.

Mainstream economists believe that monopolies can arise from a number of causes; Austrians believe that only government causes monopolies.

Mainstream economists believe in fiat money; Austrians believe in the gold standard.

Mainstream economists assert that the mystery of the business cycle is deep and poorly understood; Austrians claim the government causes it.

/and no, I'm not going to debate economic theories today. Mainly, we both know we won't agree
//or, as the article says:Perhaps the first thing to stand out about Austrian economics is its relationship to mainstream economics. The two completely reject each other, and proudly so. Their differences extend even deeper than their diametrically opposite interpretations of the economy; they even use different philosophical approaches. The two could almost be called separate disciplines, if they were not attempting to describe the same phenomena. So, then, how do they view each other?
Posts: 14,905
Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.Loneiguana is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote