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 »

LogicExplorer wrote: Thu May 03, 2018 10:27 am OK, now, @carnap, what do you think "socialism" means? As far as I know, that's an idea that, simply put, there should be a government stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor, and preventing people from privately owning anything that could make them significantly richer than others, so that the means of production are owned by the government
You're still just talking about a straw-man. Socialism has nothing to do with "stealing money from the rich", after all, the ability of people to accumulate large amounts of wealth only occurs when governmental policies are crafted to allow for such accumulations. Socialist systems can be seen as an attempt to prevent large accumulations of national wealthy by a very small number of people.

Socialist systems do not, in general, prevent private ownership as a whole nor do they insist on income equality among every person. Also the means of production need not be by the government, it can also be by the community.
LogicExplorer wrote: Thu May 03, 2018 10:27 am . Socialism is authoritarian by definition.
Not even close, socialism can be democratic or authoritarian just like a capitalist state can be either.

LogicExplorer wrote: Thu May 03, 2018 10:27 am I think we can all agree that communism is a failed ideology because, well, if the workers own the means of production and aren't getting paid for what they do, they will simply steal the tools or not work at all.
What makes it a failed ideology? There has yet to be a state that has been able to shift away from capitalism successfully but this could be a transitional problem rather than any inherit issue with communism.

In any case, workers gain value for their labor and stealing wouldn't serve their interests. They would be stealing from themselves....
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: Sat May 05, 2018 2:36 am What makes it a failed ideology? There has yet to be a state that has been able to shift away from capitalism successfully but this could be a transitional problem rather than any inherit issue with communism.

In any case, workers gain value for their labor and stealing wouldn't serve their interests. They would be stealing from themselves....
It should be always alarming, when someone claim that something is the superior solution, yet there is not even one working example. Communism is at the one side of spectrum, and ACAP is on the other.

Ad workers and stealing. It would be each individual worker that would profit by stealing, at the expense of the community (or "resources holder", etc.). Not "group from itself". It's like you forgot that even in communism groups consist of individuals, though I need to admit that each communistic regime tries to destroy the notion (and individuals too, if that's necessary).
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: Sat May 05, 2018 3:25 am It should be always alarming, when someone claim that something is the superior solution, yet there is not even one working example. Communism is at the one side of spectrum, and ACAP is on the other.
I don't think its that alarming given that established powers have strong incentives to kill any attempt at implementing "the solution".
mkm wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 3:25 am Ad workers and stealing. It would be each individual worker that would profit by stealing, at the expense of the community (or "resources holder", etc.). Not "group from itself".
The point is that workers don't have greater incentive to steal when working in a collectively owned organization, on the contrary, they have less incentive to steal because they are at least partly stealing from themselves.
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 May 11, 2018 3:44 am I don't think its that alarming given that established powers have strong incentives to kill any attempt at implementing "the solution".
You may believe that, but around cold war it wasn't "against established powers" to like communism. The sole fact that established powers came to power without communism should be telling too.
carnap wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 3:44 am The point is that workers don't have greater incentive to steal when working in a collectively owned organization, on the contrary, they have less incentive to steal because they are at least partly stealing from themselves.
It's irrelevant. If the expected value of stealing is positive, then people will have incentive to steal. To the contrary, I would say that more clear "property structure", which is the case for more private property, than public, gives more efficiency in resolving conflicts and accurate punishing people for stealing.
If you were in eastern countries some time ago you would see that corruption and stealing was bread and butter.
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 May 11, 2018 5:41 am You may believe that, but around cold war it wasn't "against established powers" to like communism. The sole fact that established powers came to power without communism should be telling too.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say because immediately prior to and during the cold war the primary world powers were capitalist nations (the US, western Europe, etc) that had strong incentives in seeing communism fail. Communism has never been able to grow in a nation without capitalist trying to destroy it.

And which nations are currently most powerful has little to do with which nations have the best societies for its citizens. Power is gained by spilling blood not making people happy.
mkm wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 5:41 am It's irrelevant. If the expected value of stealing is positive, then people will have incentive to steal. To the contrary, I would say that more clear "property structure", which is the case for more private property, than public, gives more efficiency in resolving conflicts and accurate punishing people for stealing.
Irrelevant to what? I never argued that there are no incentives to steal when business assets are community owned but rather that the incentives are, if anything, lesser than they are in a capitalist system. The other poster was suggesting that stealing was some how an argument against community property but incentives to steal are obviously not unique to a community property system.

I don't think a system of private property is any more clear than one of community property. Also property rights are intimately connected to power which makes it a complex relationship.
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 May 11, 2018 10:50 am I'm not sure what you're trying to say because immediately prior to and during the cold war the primary world powers were capitalist nations (the US, western Europe, etc) that had strong incentives in seeing communism fail. Communism has never been able to grow in a nation without capitalist trying to destroy it.
That's some conspirational level of argument and I'm not sure whether I want to argue with it. Communism, and particularly Soviet Union, collapsed because of its economic inefficiency, nobody really needed to help. Clearly you have some romantic notion of the communism, but the level of poverty and scarcity in countries on the bad side of the wall was so hilarious, that soon there will be revisionists who won't believe it was so bad.
Has The Great Leap Forward ended with famine due to capitalists? Is North Korea so poverty ridden because of USA? We had a joke in Poland, that the potato beetle was delivered by imperialists to destroy the staple food of the soviet people.
carnap wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 10:50 am And which nations are currently most powerful has little to do with which nations have the best societies for its citizens. Power is gained by spilling blood not making people happy.
Military power is directly correlated with the economic power, and you see stronger economies and wealth in capitalist countries.
carnap wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 10:50 am I don't think a system of private property is any more clear than one of community property. Also property rights are intimately connected to power which makes it a complex relationship.
High degree of community property ceases to work beyond small communities. All complicated societies "invented" some sort of private property. Capitalists forced them to do this, or sabotaged their efforts to keep that proto-communism?
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 May 11, 2018 11:49 am That's some conspirational level of argument and I'm not sure whether I want to argue with it. Communism, and particularly Soviet Union, collapsed because of its economic inefficiency, nobody really needed to help.
There is no conspiracy theory in what I said, its all well-documented. Capitalists have obvious incentives in seeing communist systems fail as any success would risk spill over to their nation. Your statement about the USSR isn't rooted in historic fact, the US and Europe worked against the USSR in a variety of ways and these actions contributed to the collapse of the USSR. We have no way to know what would have happened with the USSR if capitalist states weren't trying to subvert its power.

But the USSR wasn't a true communist state, it was an example of state socialism which you can see as a transitional form of government from capitalism to communism. The transition from a capitalist system to communism is difficult, theorists like Marx discussed this issue in detail.

mkm wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 11:49 am Clearly you have some romantic notion of the communism....
How is that? The only thing I've claimed here is that communist states haven't been able to form without interference so the lack of examples doesn't tell us that much about the potential success of communist states.

mkm wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 11:49 am Has The Great Leap Forward ended with famine due to capitalists? Is North Korea so poverty ridden because of USA?
I'm not familiar enough on the history of the "great leap forward" to comment on it but capitalist states are filled with failures so the benchmark of success for communist systems cannot be one of being free of errors.

Though in terms of North Korea, yes, its poverty is directly related to the actions of the US. The US fought a war against North Korea destroying much of its infrastructure and then pursued brutal sanctions against the nation.
mkm wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 11:49 am Military power is directly correlated with the economic power, and you see stronger economies and wealth in capitalist countries.
Economic power is a necessary but not sufficient condition for military power. But that is besides the point, neither military ability or even economic power tells you that much about the overall well being of people in a society. In terms of GDP, the US has one of the largest economies and one of the highest military spending per capita. But the well being of people in the US is relatively low, there are huge amounts of inequality and there is a sizable fraction of the society that lacks basic care.
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: Sat May 12, 2018 1:22 am There is no conspiracy theory in what I said, its all well-documented. Capitalists have obvious incentives in seeing communist systems fail as any success would risk spill over to their nation. Your statement about the USSR isn't rooted in historic fact, the US and Europe worked against the USSR in a variety of ways and these actions contributed to the collapse of the USSR. We have no way to know what would have happened with the USSR if capitalist states weren't trying to subvert its power.
Of course, and communstic regimes tried to overpower and weaken capitalistic countries. It was the game in which communsim fortunatelly failed due to its inefficiency.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 1:22 am But the USSR wasn't a true communist state, it was an example of state socialism which you can see as a transitional form of government from capitalism to communism. The transition from a capitalist system to communism is difficult, theorists like Marx discussed this issue in detail.
Yeah, no true Scotsman. It's just doesn't come to your mind, that communism just can't and doesn't work as prescribed.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 1:22 am How is that? The only thing I've claimed here is that communist states haven't been able to form without interference so the lack of examples doesn't tell us that much about the potential success of communist states.
The point is that lack of the interference is a sily requirement, because no system forms in the vacuum. If some solutions can't hold against others, because others work better, it's not really an argument against all the other.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 1:22 am I'm not familiar enough on the history of the "great leap forward" to comment on it but capitalist states are filled with failures so the benchmark of success for communist systems cannot be one of being free of errors.
But none caused tens of millions of deaths from hunger of its own citizens due to one stupid reform.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 1:22 am Though in terms of North Korea, yes, its poverty is directly related to the actions of the US. The US fought a war against North Korea destroying much of its infrastructure and then pursued brutal sanctions against the nation.
You got be kidding. The war you speak of was 60 years ago and started by NK. All sanctions work in both ways, and besides, isn't econmical independence one of the main principles of NK? How does it work for them?
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 1:22 am Economic power is a necessary but not sufficient condition for military power. But that is besides the point, neither military ability or even economic power tells you that much about the overall well being of people in a society. In terms of GDP, the US has one of the largest economies and one of the highest military spending per capita. But the well being of people in the US is relatively low, there are huge amounts of inequality and there is a sizable fraction of the society that lacks basic care.
But still US spends only ~3% of its budget. And you are factually wrong, or just saying unmeasurble nonsense on "relative wellbeing". HDI of the USA is high, which means that it does better than most in life-span, education and wealth department. Inequalities are not bad on themselfs, since the accumulation of the capital is a normal and even necessary to have meningful big scale industries. If sizeable fraction of the society was truly without care, then it would be reflected in data, for example life-span. Yeah, US have some "first world problems", like depressions, obesity, and so on, but they are just side effects of wealth. Can you imagine obesity being a problem in a poor country?
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: Sat May 12, 2018 7:26 am Of course, and communstic regimes tried to overpower and weaken capitalistic countries. It was the game in which communsim fortunatelly failed due to its inefficiency.
Nations trying to transition to communism certainly tried to subvert the power of capitalist nations the incentives were different. For the capitalist communism represents the destruction of their power. Also since most of global power after WW2 was in the hands of capitalist nations even if you assume they were equally working against each other the capitalist send just had much larger numbers.

Given history, there is no way to isolate a reason why some nations failed to transition to a communist state. "It was due to inefficiency" is the capitalist narrative but there are far too many variables to isolate a single cause.
mkm wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 7:26 am Yeah, no true Scotsman. It's just doesn't come to your mind, that communism just can't and doesn't work as prescribed.
On the contrary, I'm merely presenting a different interpretation of world events. But if we are going to understand communism by the works of Karl Marx and similar figures, well, no...there has yet to be a nation that has successfully transitioned from a capitalist to a communist nation. All the systems failed somewhere in between and the question I've been addressing is why, again, I'm just presenting one possible interpretation. Namely that the transition from capitalist to a communist state is difficult when most of the world's powers are capitalist. Communist states are inherently "inefficient" would be another but I think its a bit vague.

Also it should be noted that while its not a pure communist state, China has been rather successful. Over the last 50 years they have achieved a dramatic reduction in poverty.
mkm wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 7:26 am But none caused tens of millions of deaths from hunger of its own citizens due to one stupid reform.
If you're going to change actions by the number of deaths you'd have to make them relative to population size. But regardless I still don't get the underlying thinking here, a misguided reform by a qausi-communist state is no more an argument against communism than the many misguided reforms by capitalist states.
mkm wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 7:26 am You got be kidding. The war you speak of was 60 years ago and started by NK. All sanctions work in both ways, and besides, isn't econmical independence one of the main principles of NK? How does it work for them?
The war significantly damaged their economy which would take decades to recover from even with ideal conditions. But the sanctions have been ongoing and, no, in this case they really don't work both ways. The Sanctions against North Korea have been designed to basically bully global businesses to avoid trading with North Korea. North Korea doesn't have a principle of being economically independent in the sense of avoiding global trade.

mkm wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 7:26 am But still US spends only ~3% of its budget. And you are factually wrong, or just saying unmeasurble nonsense on "relative wellbeing". HDI of the USA is high, which means that it does better than most in life-span, education and wealth department. Inequalities are not bad on themselfs, since the accumulation of the capital is a normal and even necessary to have meningful big scale industries. If sizeable fraction of the society was truly without care, then it would be reflected in data, for example life-span.
I'm not sure what your 3% figure is suppose to refer to but the military makes up around 55% of the US federal budget. I'm not sure why you think well-being is "unmeasurable nonsense", a measure of well-being would certainly be more fuzzy than some hard economic figures but human well-being is really the goal. HDI doesn't measure well-being, for example, just looking at life-span doesn't tell you how healthy people and how functional their lives are.

Also the numbers are starting to reflect the realities in the US, life-span is starting to decline for some cohorts in the US. Also Seniors in the US are considerably more sick than seniors in other developed nations. I think it should go without saying that being sick reduces your well-being but perhaps you consider that "nonsense".
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: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm Nations trying to transition to communism certainly tried to subvert the power of capitalist nations the incentives were different. For the capitalist communism represents the destruction of their power. Also since most of global power after WW2 was in the hands of capitalist nations even if you assume they were equally working against each other the capitalist send just had much larger numbers.
Do you think Bolsheviks tried to subvert the power of capitalists, or that they were unsuccesful? After WW2 for a couple of decades there was a balance between West and Communists, again you are factually wrong.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm Given history, there is no way to isolate a reason why some nations failed to transition to a communist state. "It was due to inefficiency" is the capitalist narrative but there are far too many variables to isolate a single cause.
It's not capitalist narrative, it's the laws of the economy and historical facts. You can point a finger at specific solutions conducted by these "transition countries" that led to disasters.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm On the contrary, I'm merely presenting a different interpretation of world events. (...)
It's not only interpretation, you dismiss facts.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm Also it should be noted that while its not a pure communist state, China has been rather successful. Over the last 50 years they have achieved a dramatic reduction in poverty.
It has been quite succesful after it allowed Western corporations to get in and became a cheap producer of all sorts of things for the rest of the world. You point at the success of China, but fail to recognize it was achieved by capitalist intervention.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm If you're going to change actions by the number of deaths you'd have to make them relative to population size. But regardless I still don't get the underlying thinking here, a misguided reform by a qausi-communist state is no more an argument against communism than the many misguided reforms by capitalist states.
Of course, because death of tens of millions doesn't matter if there are hundreds of millions more. You dodge that one because you know that there is no single case of a capitalist country that starved millions of its people to death. By the way, maybe I should refer to capitalist countries as "quasi-capitalist" and go the same route of defence? No true capitalist...
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm The war significantly damaged their economy which would take decades to recover from even with ideal conditions.
The war they started, so who is to blame?
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm But the sanctions have been ongoing and, no, in this case they really don't work both ways.
They do, it's truism. If A doesn't trade with B, then B doesn't trade with A. It's symmetric relation.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm The Sanctions against North Korea have been designed to basically bully global businesses to avoid trading with North Korea. North Korea doesn't have a principle of being economically independent in the sense of avoiding global trade.
I don't read in mind of Supreme Leader.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm I'm not sure what your 3% figure is suppose to refer to but the military makes up around 55% of the US federal budget.
3% is the figure from the avaiable data, and you are again factually wrong or lying.
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm I'm not sure why you think well-being is "unmeasurable nonsense", a measure of well-being would certainly be more fuzzy than some hard economic figures but human well-being is really the goal. HDI doesn't measure well-being, for example, just looking at life-span doesn't tell you how healthy people and how functional their lives are.
You can measure whether people are rich, how educated they are, and so on, but it's hard to measure happiness. And even if it was easily measurable, you may have people that have all they need to live and thrive, and yet unhappy, because having all these posibilities they make bad decisions.
Coefficients I invoke may not be perfect, but they are the best we have to say something meaningful on the topic. Do you think that life-span doesn't reflect in any way also the health-span? If so, why?
carnap wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:44 pm Also the numbers are starting to reflect the realities in the US, life-span is starting to decline for some cohorts in the US. Also Seniors in the US are considerably more sick than seniors in other developed nations. I think it should go without saying that being sick reduces your well-being but perhaps you consider that "nonsense".
I just value data over various bon mots.
Post Reply