Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 3:53 pm Thanks for the info, @carnap. Do you think macroeconomic predictions will ever be accurate?
Probably not. Not only are economic systems non-linear systems but they are also reflective. Reflectivity is hard to deal with, any model you create can change economic behavior which can potentially impact the predictions of the model. This is a case where the very way we model and observe matters impacts the very thing we are studying.

But its not logically impossible.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
teo123
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by teo123 »

carnap wrote: Its about food availability not the form of government. Free speech doesn't prevent famine.
Free speech would have obviously prevented the Great Chinese Famine, since its main cause was the illusion of superabundance created by a lack of free speech. The same is probably true for most of the famines in recent history.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by carnap »

teo123 wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 1:45 pm Free speech would have obviously prevented the Great Chinese Famine, since its main cause was the illusion of superabundance created by a lack of free speech. The same is probably true for most of the famines in recent history.
I don't think you'll find a single historian that says anything remotely like what you're suggesting here.

Famines have been common well before there were governments to restrict speech. Free-speech was the norm until modern government.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:15 pmFree-speech was the norm until modern government.
What do you define as modern government? If you mean what I think you mean, I'd be curious how you would explain Socrates, Copernicus, or Galileo.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am To say it again, winning a war doesn't magically change a country into something you want it to be. After the war there will be a vacuum of power and what happens in the country may, in the long-term, work against you.

War is always a major risk and costly. If you can subvert a nation's economy without war why would you go to war?
But clearly makes this country nonsignificant. If the goal of western countries was to destroy communistic ones (It's your claim!), going to war possessing enormous military advantage is the way to go, not waiting till the latter close the gap and creating a decades lasting struggle.
carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am Except that there isn't much that we can successfully model and referring to economic models as "laws" is really just an attempt to give economics more credibility than it deserves.
Yeah, because events in the economy just happen in random.
carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am Except that you're not. The "reality" here is human interaction but you're referring to a particular economic theory. You're trying to conflate your favorite economic theory with reality. And this would be just as problematic if you did this in physics. For example, if you tried to refute other theories in physics by utilizing string-theory that would make little sense. At best all you've shown is that the two theories aren't consistent but you haven't established one theory over the other.
It's more like comparing evolution with "intelligent" design. One is explaining well and in elegant well what we observe and the other makes all the mental gymnastics or refuse to clash with the observations.
carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am You're reasoning here still makes no sense. The "reality" here is that a particular number of people died of with certain causes of death but why exactly this occurred is a matter of theorizing where there is significant disagreement. But even if we assume the event was solely caused by a bad policy from the regime this only says something about the regime and not communism itself.
I just say that you can judge forms of governments by the outcomes. You, on the other hand, agree with that, when outcomes seemingly confirm what you say, and disagree, when they don't. So, blame capitalism for all the evil and communism can do no wrong.
carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am There weren't actually but it also has to do with natural resources and access to key technology. To grow a modern economy you need access to particular natural resources some of which have limited availability in the world and you also need access to technology which can be protected.
Well, USSR and China were/are in a very good position with regard to resources.
carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am India is for the most part a market economy, China is mostly a planned economy.
Wrong, they are very similar in that respect:

https://www.heritage.org/index/visualiz ... rc=country
carnap wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 am Except that the easily measurable outcomes don't support what you claimed. Communist nations are not, in general, the poorest nations by any measure of an economy. But these economic measures aren't the only thing that matters, in fact, they only matter in so much as they promote human well-being.
Yes they are, but first you would have to be able to recognize properly measures of economy.
carnap wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 3:25 pm I don't think economic models predict economic activity well because they've failed to make good predictions again and again. Take the "great recession" in the US that started around 2007, virtually nobody predicted that it would occur.
Peter Schiff was pretty spot on in 2006:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

and (coincidentally :) ) he is "Austrian".

Michael Burry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry) became filthy rich by predicting the collapse, and he was only a bachelor of economy. You don't know what you are talking about and you just misinform @Cirion Spellbinder .
carnap wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 3:25 pm Just wanted to note that the above comments and my comments in this thread are really about macro-economics which is just one aspect of economics. Micro-economics is more predictive but it only impacts individual and business level decision making. For example, using supply/demand curves you can estimate the price at which you'll receive maximal profit.
Oh, so now there are working models in the economy for a change...
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:32 am What do you define as modern government? If you mean what I think you mean, I'd be curious how you would explain Socrates, Copernicus, or Galileo.
Probably not what you're thinking, what I have in mind are the governing bodies of civilizations. The point is that the restriction of speech requires a powerful government and these sorts of governments are recent in human history.

Of course, you can never really restrict speech entirely. You can only attempt to restrict what people say in public.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am But clearly makes this country nonsignificant. If the goal of western countries was to destroy communistic ones (It's your claim!), going to war possessing enormous military advantage is the way to go, not waiting till the latter close the gap and creating a decades lasting struggle.
I didn't say anything about "destroying" communist states rather that capitalist nations have an incentive to prevent them from gaining power. That is especially true when they are close to their scope of power. The capitalist primary worry is going to be lose of their power, not global domination.

Going to war is very risky and, as I said, doesn't always result in the outcome you want. For example the Iraq war demonstrates clearly how outcomes can differ dramatically from intent.
mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am Yeah, because events in the economy just happen in random.
No and that is never something I've suggested. Weather patterns aren't random yet we cannot predict weather beyond the short-term. Similarly there are no economic models that have been predictive long-term.

mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am I just say that you can judge forms of governments by the outcomes. You, on the other hand, agree with that, when outcomes seemingly confirm what you say, and disagree, when they don't. So, blame capitalism for all the evil and communism can do no wrong.
You replies seem to be little more than straw-man at this point. I haven't blamed capitalism for "all the evil" nor have I suggested "communism can do no wrong'. In fact, I haven't made any judgments about the respective systems and instead have discussed them neutrally.

I have no issue with looking at outcomes of governing styles but I don't agree that this should be the sole factor. Governments can succeed by happenstance and others can fail because they are being subverting.
mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am Well, USSR and China were/are in a very good position with regard to resources.
They aren't both in terms of natural resources and technology. Nations can try to "steal" technology but that has its limits and can be seen as an act of war. Also by the time china was becoming politically powerful the USSR was being dissolved. If the two achieved peak power at similar times they USSR may still be around .

mkm wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am Peter Schiff was pretty spot on in 2006:
Peter Schiff was wrong about just about everything he claimed, the only thing he got right is that there was a housing bubble. Schiff predicted hyper-inflation.....yet the opposite occurred.

But Schiff wasn't using any economic models in the first place, it was just half-backed theories and profiteering.

As they say, a broken clock is right once a day. The fact that some people have profited from betting on economic events says nothing about whether their models are predictive. After all, if everyone was just randomly guessing there would also be people that get things right.

Think of a room with 1 million people flipping coins. At each flip the people that get heads stay. After 10 flips there will be around 2,000 people that flipped heads 10 times. I reckon they may start to think they have a talent for flipping heads.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by mkm »

carnap wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:25 am I didn't say anything about "destroying" communist states rather that capitalist nations have an incentive to prevent them from gaining power. That is especially true when they are close to their scope of power. The capitalist primary worry is going to be lose of their power, not global domination.

Going to war is very risky and, as I said, doesn't always result in the outcome you want. For example the Iraq war demonstrates clearly how outcomes can differ dramatically from intent.
You brought up the idea that capitalists wants to destroy something, it's getting really tiresome when you backpedal from your own claims without conceding:
carnap wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 10:50 am Communism has never been able to grow in a nation without capitalist trying to destroy it.
carnap wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:25 am No and that is never something I've suggested. Weather patterns aren't random yet we cannot predict weather beyond the short-term. Similarly there are no economic models that have been predictive long-term.
You go much further than that. Does the fact that we are unable to model waether long term mean that there are no laws behind this phenomenon?
carnap wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:25 am You replies seem to be little more than straw-man at this point. I haven't blamed capitalism for "all the evil" nor have I suggested "communism can do no wrong'. In fact, I haven't made any judgments about the respective systems and instead have discussed them neutrally.

I have no issue with looking at outcomes of governing styles but I don't agree that this should be the sole factor. Governments can succeed by happenstance and others can fail because they are being subverting.
You don't allow it to be a factor at all, or at least when it suits you. When capitalists supposedly try to destroy communistic countries, they apparently succeed, but when communistic country fails miserably by starving its people, it's just coincidence. It's not neutrality, you're clearly biased.
carnap wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:25 am They aren't both in terms of natural resources and technology. Nations can try to "steal" technology but that has its limits and can be seen as an act of war. Also by the time china was becoming politically powerful the USSR was being dissolved. If the two achieved peak power at similar times they USSR may still be around .
In terms of natural resources they are better off than most Western countries. Oil is basically the only thing that keeps Russia in one piece right now, and China sits on the most rich source of rare earth elements. With respect technology you can't blame people for not being that inventive in such oppressive system.
carnap wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:25 am Peter Schiff was wrong about just about everything he claimed, the only thing he got right is that there was a housing bubble. Schiff predicted hyper-inflation.....yet the opposite occurred.

But Schiff wasn't using any economic models in the first place, it was just half-backed theories and profiteering.

As they say, a broken clock is right once a day. The fact that some people have profited from betting on economic events says nothing about whether their models are predictive. After all, if everyone was just randomly guessing there would also be people that get things right.

Think of a room with 1 million people flipping coins. At each flip the people that get heads stay. After 10 flips there will be around 2,000 people that flipped heads 10 times. I reckon they may start to think they have a talent for flipping heads.
You would be right, if Schiff and others hadn't given detailed explanation what was going to happen. You may believe that such predictions in the economy are worth no more than fortune teller's guess, but it's really silly believe to hold.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Is the Austrian School of Economics Pseudoscience?

Post by carnap »

mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:46 am You brought up the idea that capitalists wants to destroy something, it's getting really tiresome when you backpedal from your own claims without conceding.
Yeah, and the key here is acknowledging what "something" I was discussing. As my comment shows, I claimed that capitalist nations want to destroy the ideological of communism. That is by no means the same as wanting to destroy a country. This is why war is a poor tool, they want ideological change not to destroy the economic infrastructure of the nation. So, no, there was no backpedaling here....just straw-man.
mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:46 am You go much further than that. Does the fact that we are unable to model waether long term mean that there are no laws behind this phenomenon?
No and that isn't what I claimed. And this question really appears metaphysical in nature, I don't think many people are going to deny that weather is determined by natural forces. But that isn't the same as having a law.

Also economic systems suffer from a feature that climate does not, namely, they are reflective systems. The very models and laws we create can impact the system which can result in the models/laws failing to be predictive.
mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:46 am When capitalists supposedly try to destroy communistic countries, they apparently succeed, but when communistic country fails miserably by starving its people, it's just coincidence. It's not neutrality, you're clearly biased.
This is just your straw-man, it has little to do with what I've discussed. Part of looking at outcomes is looking at the historic content and looking at potential explanations. And that has really been my point here, there are other interpretations as to why communism didn't succeed when it was tried.

And everyone is biased, but you're the one reacting with overt hostility over someone entertaining alternate explanations for world events.


mkm wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:46 am You would be right, if Schiff and others hadn't given detailed explanation what was going to happen. You may believe that such predictions in the economy are worth no more than fortune teller's guess, but it's really silly believe to hold.
Except that Schiff's explanations were nonsense and not even rooted in economic theory. The only thing Schiff got right was that there was a bubble in real estate, all the other predictions he made were wrong.

Why is it a silly belief to hold? Approximately 80% of fund managers do worse than a simple index fund and only approximately 5% of fund managers manage to do better long-term. And this is just looking the funds that survived! What reason do we have to believe that the winners aren't just winners by chance? How do we know whether someone is a winner by chance or skill?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Post Reply