What's wrong with the Austrian school?

[Anarchist420]

Why do people refuse to vote in Austrians when Austrian economics has never been tried before? Is it because some people don't realize that they don't have a right to take things from other people?

The Chicagoans were proven wrong after Reagan and the Keynesians have been proven wrong ever since FDR.

 

[JS80]

Because they are wrong?

 

[ayabe]

Edit - Removed comment per mod request.

 

[sandorski]

fail

 

[daishi5]

Why do people refuse to vote in Austrians when Austrian economics has never been tried before? Is it because some people don't realize that they don't have a right to take things from other people?

The Chicagoans were proven wrong after Reagan and the Keynesians have been proven wrong ever since FDR.

I don't know too much about the Austrian school, my economics history course covered it for about a week. But, one of the defining parts of the Austrian school seemed to be that they studied how the economy functions in reality, but did not try to figure out how to control it. The Monetarist, and the Keynesian theories try to figure out how to help an economy grow, the Austrians never even tried to understand how it could be changed. The Austrians study individuals, and not countries, so why should we let someone who never tried to study the economy of a country try to run a country?

 

[Blackjack200]

I think we should try the Australian school. An economy based entirely on Fosters beer and boxing kangeroos.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Why do people refuse to vote in Austrians when Austrian economics has never been tried before?

FAIL. California voted in an Austrian as governor...

 

[woolfe9999]

Why do people refuse to vote in Austrians when Austrian economics has never been tried before? Is it because some people don't realize that they don't have a right to take things from other people?

The Chicagoans were proven wrong after Reagan and the Keynesians have been proven wrong ever since FDR.

How exactly has our economic system been "proven wrong?" We have been the most prosperous nation on earth since WWII, and even now with all our troubles, technically we still are.

You're an idiot.

- wolf

 

[halik]

Why do people refuse to vote in Austrians when Austrian economics has never been tried before? Is it because some people don't realize that they don't have a right to take things from other people?

The Chicagoans were proven wrong after Reagan and the Keynesians have been proven wrong ever since FDR.

They're empirically wrong. There's a mountain of empirical evidence that contradicts what they say.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why do people refuse to vote in Austrians when Austrian economics has never been tried before? Is it because some people don't realize that they don't have a right to take things from other people?

Many people might be concerned that real laissez-faire capitalism would prove to be a huge disaster and result, not in real freedom but in various kinds of dictatorship. People would have "de jure" freedom under the law while having "de facto" dictatorship in actuality. Basically, the wealthy class would end up owning all of the wealth and would be able to dictate to the lower classes in various ways. For example:

"If you want to keep your job here you need to be a member of the New Christian Church. I won't hire anyone who is not a member. Since my business is my private property the law allows me to do this."

So, to get and retain a job now you need to have the right religion, be the right color, have the right weight, refrain from premarital sex, etc.

What if all of the business owners got together and decided to blackball someone for submitting a political or religious editorial to the newspaper they disagreed with? What if they all decided to shun this person and refused to sell him goods and services such as groceries? What if the guy who owns the road (roads are privately owned) decides not to let him leave his driveway? If he backs off of his driveway onto the road he's now violated the road-owner's private property rights.

What would prevent the nation's population from exploding to 1 billion people once the billions of poor people around the world happily immigrate to the U.S. seeking the princely wage of $3/day?

You get the picture. Basically, real laissez-faire capitalism would end up transforming us into a third world country where perhaps 5% of the population would be rich with the rest living in poverty and dictatorship.

If we lived in a world of infinite resources--infinite land and water, etc.--so that everyone could easily obtain property and sustain themselves with it or start their own businesses then it might not work out too badly. People of your religion/philosophy could simply locate to an open area and begin to produce and trade amongst themselves. Unfortunately we live in a world of limited land and finite resources where huge conflicts of interest exist among rational men.

 

[Narmer]

Because the Austrian school of economics and reality do not mix. Keep that shit in the university where it can harm no one.

 

[DaveSimmons]

New Zealand's Tapert/Raimi school is better. Whenever the models fail to predict an effect you just say "a wizard did it."

 

[totalnoob]

What's "wrong" with it is that it removes power from the hands of economists and politicians and returns it to individuals. Since economists and politicians like having power and influence, it's no mystery why they hate it and prefer the interventionist and authoritarian methods of people like Keynes.

 

[Kirby]

FAIL. California voted in an Austrian as governor...

:awe:

 

[Anarchist420]

Many people might be concerned that real laissez-faire capitalism would prove to be a huge disaster and result, not in real freedom but in various kinds of dictatorship. People would have "de jure" freedom under the law while having "de facto" dictatorship in actuality. Basically, the wealthy class would end up owning all of the wealth and would be able to dictate to the lower classes in various ways. For example:

"If you want to keep your job here you need to be a member of the New Christian Church. I won't hire anyone who is not a member. Since my business is my private property the law allows me to do this."

So, to get and retain a job now you need to have the right religion, be the right color, have the right weight, refrain from premarital sex, etc.

What if all of the business owners got together and decided to blackball someone for submitting a political or religious editorial to the newspaper they disagreed with? What if they all decided to shun this person and refused to sell him goods and services such as groceries? What if the guy who owns the road (roads are privately owned) decides not to let him leave his driveway? If he backs off of his driveway onto the road he's now violated the road-owner's private property rights.

What would prevent the nation's population from exploding to 1 billion people once the billions of poor people around the world happily immigrate to the U.S. seeking the princely wage of $3/day?

You get the picture. Basically, real laissez-faire capitalism would end up transforming us into a third world country where perhaps 5% of the population would be rich with the rest living in poverty and dictatorship.

If we lived in a world of infinite resources--infinite land and water, etc.--so that everyone could easily obtain property and sustain themselves with it or start their own businesses then it might not work out too badly. People of your religion/philosophy could simply locate to an open area and begin to produce and trade amongst themselves. Unfortunately we live in a world of limited land and finite resources where huge conflicts of interest exist among rational men.

The theory that laissez-faire capitalism would make 95% poor is bullshit.

People would be richer under laissez faire capitalism.

Under Laissez-faire capitalism, everyone has the ability to make money, and when you say it would work in a world of infinite resources, you defeat your own argument because there isn't an infinite amount of money either.

Your example about roads being privatized doesn't make sense either. The owner of the road would lose money if he didn't let everyone on it.

The bankers wouldn't be as rich under laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[CrackRabbit]

The theory that laissez-faire capitalism would make 95% poor is bullshit.

People would be richer under laissez faire capitalism.

Under Laissez-faire capitalism, everyone has the ability to make money, and when you say it would work in a world of infinite resources, you defeat your own argument because there isn't an infinite amount of money either.

Your example about roads being privatized doesn't make sense either. The owner of the road would lose money if he didn't let everyone on it.

The bankers wouldn't be as rich under laissez-faire capitalism.

I think you need to read some history, look up some information on urban living and working conditions in the mid to late 19th and early 20th century America.
That was as close as America has come to full Laissez-faire capitalism, and frankly it sucked for anyone that wasn't a wealthy business owner.

 

[Lemon law]

The hell with all this shit, the one thing we know for sure from the period from 2001 to 2009 when we wised up is that GOPenomics is an epic fail.

And now from the latest gallup poll, the American people are about to turn the American economy, barely pulled out of the ditch, back to the GOP.

Is the American voter the most retarded life form on the planet or what?

As we demand our unalienable American right to be doped slapped yet again.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Many people might be concerned that real laissez-faire capitalism would prove to be a huge disaster and result, not in real freedom but in various kinds of dictatorship. People would have "de jure" freedom under the law while having "de facto" dictatorship in actuality. Basically, the wealthy class would end up owning all of the wealth and would be able to dictate to the lower classes in various ways. For example:

"If you want to keep your job here you need to be a member of the New Christian Church. I won't hire anyone who is not a member. Since my business is my private property the law allows me to do this."

So, to get and retain a job now you need to have the right religion, be the right color, have the right weight, refrain from premarital sex, etc.

What if all of the business owners got together and decided to blackball someone for submitting a political or religious editorial to the newspaper they disagreed with? What if they all decided to shun this person and refused to sell him goods and services such as groceries? What if the guy who owns the road (roads are privately owned) decides not to let him leave his driveway? If he backs off of his driveway onto the road he's now violated the road-owner's private property rights.

What would prevent the nation's population from exploding to 1 billion people once the billions of poor people around the world happily immigrate to the U.S. seeking the princely wage of $3/day?

You get the picture. Basically, real laissez-faire capitalism would end up transforming us into a third world country where perhaps 5% of the population would be rich with the rest living in poverty and dictatorship.

If we lived in a world of infinite resources--infinite land and water, etc.--so that everyone could easily obtain property and sustain themselves with it or start their own businesses then it might not work out too badly. People of your religion/philosophy could simply locate to an open area and begin to produce and trade amongst themselves. Unfortunately we live in a world of limited land and finite resources where huge conflicts of interest exist among rational men.

This. Oh God in heaven, this.

My only addendum would be one of anger and revolution. When you piss off the people, they get angry and do bad things. When you piss off the American population (armed, free access to instructions on making weapons of mass destruction, etc), they WILL eventually rise up, execute everyone they perceive as having slighted them, and start over. The end result of laissez-faire capitalism is the death of the wealthy. Guaranteed.

 

[LegendKiller]

The theory that laissez-faire capitalism would make 95% poor is bullshit.

People would be richer under laissez faire capitalism.

Under Laissez-faire capitalism, everyone has the ability to make money, and when you say it would work in a world of infinite resources, you defeat your own argument because there isn't an infinite amount of money either.

Your example about roads being privatized doesn't make sense either. The owner of the road would lose money if he didn't let everyone on it.

The bankers wouldn't be as rich under laissez-faire capitalism.

Anybody can become rich in our system. Warren Buffet started with nothing but earnings from pinball machines. Bill Gates was a dropout with minimal seed money from his family. Michael Dell was a college student who built computers. Dr. Goodnight was a geek who created a statistical program. Michael Bloomberg was a geek who created a computer program now used by every major financial institution in the world.


You sit there pretending that nobody can be anything under the current system, which is a flat-out lie. In fact, most of those people could succeed because there is a regulatory system.

A completely free capitalist system does nothing but eventually place ALL capital into the hands of a few without hope of recourse. It has been proven wrong many times in history but is excused by Austrian economists for minor reasons.

The fact of the matter is that Austrian economics does not exist in the real world. It believes in a utopia whereby if you remove the government you remove greed/fear and human fallacies that wouldn't be tempered by a higher state of philosophy and management.

Austrian economics is the polar opposite of communism. History has taught us that polarities are far more harmful than gradiation and adaptation.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The theory that laissez-faire capitalism would make 95% poor is bullshit.
People would be richer under laissez faire capitalism.

Oh? And why is this?

Under Laissez-faire capitalism, everyone has the ability to make money, and when you say it would work in a world of infinite resources, you defeat your own argument because there isn't an infinite amount of money either.

This doesn't mean anything.

Your example about roads being privatized doesn't make sense either. The owner of the road would lose money if he didn't let some people on it.

See?

The bankers wouldn't be as rich under laissez-faire capitalism.

That depends on how much history you allow into the system, but in the long run, simply moving money around has always made some very wealthy.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think you need to read some history, look up some information on urban living and working conditions in the mid to late 19th and early 20th century America.
That was as close as America has come to full Laissez-faire capitalism, and frankly it sucked for anyone that wasn't a wealthy business owner.

Yeah it sucked, by today's standards. But back then being a factory worker with a reliable job, income, and rapidly decreasing cost of manufactured goods was a huge increase in the standard of living compared to before then.

 

[MotF Bane]

The hell with all this shit, the one thing we know for sure from the period from 2001 to 2009 when we wised up is that GOPenomics is an epic fail.

And now from the latest gallup poll, the American people are about to turn the American economy, barely pulled out of the ditch, back to the GOP.

Is the American voter the most retarded life form on the planet or what?

As we demand our unalienable American right to be doped slapped yet again.

Maybe because the Democrats didn't listen any better than the GOP, but the public is still too stupid to vote for another option.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The hell with all this shit, the one thing we know for sure from the period from 2001 to 2009 when we wised up is that GOPenomics is an epic fail.

And now from the latest gallup poll, the American people are about to turn the American economy, barely pulled out of the ditch, back to the GOP.

Is the American voter the most retarded life form on the planet or what?

As we demand our unalienable American right to be doped slapped yet again.

Is this some kind of joke or sarcastic post? The Democrats chose not to listen to the public and instead, have enacted (or attempted to enact) an agenda which many disagree with and it is therefore their (the people's) perogative to vote them out of office. The only sad thing is that the Democrat Lites (aka, the Republicans) will get voted in and the runaway spending train will continue.

We were "doped slapped" by Obama and the Democrats, right after the "dope slap" we got from GWB and the Republicans.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Yeah it sucked, by today's standards. But back then being a factory worker with a reliable job, income, and rapidly decreasing cost of manufactured goods was a huge increase in the standard of living compared to before then.

While I will agree that it was likely better than living as a peasant on a farm that was the norm up until the 18th century; working up to 18 hour days on machinery that could kill or mutilate you instantly with zero in the way of safety and no care from management as long as it made them money. Couple that with dirty, cramped, and polluted cities made living not very pleasant for a majority of them.
Those days are why we have unions, business ethics and anti-monopoly laws, OSHA, and pollution laws.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think you need to read some history, look up some information on urban living and working conditions in the mid to late 19th and early 20th century America.
That was as close as America has come to full Laissez-faire capitalism, and frankly it sucked for anyone that wasn't a wealthy business owner.

It wasn't very close to Laissez-faire capitalism, and actually, the era of Jacksonian Democracy (end of Jackson's Presidency lasted until Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff) was the closest we had to true capitalism.

Like I said before in other threads, the Federal Government intervened in banking in the time frame you're talking about. They granted land as well as patents, and they had a high protective tariff. There was plenty that the Federal Government did back then. Also, keep in mind, the workers who got taken advantage of weren't skilled enough to start their own business, or they chose not to. The number of unskilled people isn't high enough these days to make the majority poor under a laissez-faire system.

Also, have you ever heard of Henry Ford? Henry Ford started welfare capitalism.

There will always be doctors, educators, lawyers, farmers, video game makers, etc. They outnumber the number of factory workers and cashiers.