🇦🇹 The Methodology of the Austrian School of Economics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- The Methodology of the Austrian School. How austrian economists create their theory? What is praxeology?
Learn Austrian Economics in a fun way!
LINKS
BLOG: econclips.com/the-methodology...
ANIMATIONS: toin.pl/en/
SUPPORT our project: bit.ly/2fgJR9e
Visit our website: econclips.com/
Like our Facebook page: bit.ly/1XoU4QV
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: bit.ly/1PrEhxG
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Music on CC license:
Kevin MacLeod: Home Base Groove - na licencji Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Źródło: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Wykonawca: incompetech.com/
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
Econ Clips is an economic blog. Our objetive is teaching economics through easy to watch animated films. We talk about variety of subjects such as economy, finance, money, investing, monetary systems, financial markets, financial institutions, cental banks and so on. With us You can learn how to acquire wealth and make good financial decisions. How to be better at managing your personal finance. How to avoid a Ponzi Scheme and other financial frauds or fall into a credit trap. If You want to know how the economy really works, how to understand and protect yourself from inflation or economic collapse - join us on econclips.com. Learn Austrian Economics in a fun way!
Cool. It's extremely unfortunate that neoclassical economics dominates introductory courses to economics in schools and universities. It's less an economics course than a course in basic calculus. Students don't get to learn how real markets work, but how some totally unrealistic market of perfect competition could work. But then, of course, they are told how markets in the real world are never perfect and so we need the government to fix the market failures.
*yet misallocation of resources exist*
@@eldrl001
with 0% interest rates
What you just described sounds like a totalitarian approach to an ideological view of markets.
"Extremely unfortunate"? Really? Have you ever taken such a class? It could only be 'extremely unfortunate' if the subject were never taught. Even if some questionable assumptions and strange ideas are taught (Jevons' utils come to mind), the beginning econ courses and texts do much to encourage economic thinking. Sometime after that is when to introduce dissident ideas, to those with an interest.
And very basic algebra is not 'basic calculus'.
I really wish they taught Austrian economics in schools.
aka real economics not marxist-keynesian bullshit
By its nature itis incompatible with government interventionism. So they have zero interest in recognising it and justifying their own expansionist programs.
Since they are funded by the state... Schools need to play good politics. Sorry.
Telling schools to teach that is like telling your enemy to cooperate.
That's not compatible with Post Modernism, Cultural Marxist Critical Race Theory, and Intersectionalism.
@@Avidcomp I had to comment when I saw the picture of Ayn Rand. Very nice.
us libertarians love the austrian school of economics because both are about individual freedoms
And both are founded on the use of logical, and considered research & thought to arrive at the best outcome for any given situation, and NOT on idealogical, emotional or other irrational or subjective assumptions or beliefs, that are retro-fitted on to an existing outcome, or in order to achieve a more desired one.
@@tristanchase2887 And 0 history.
So it's feelz over reelz :D. In other words, welcome to the echochamber.
@@tristanchase2887 but the Austrian economists DO make normative/subjective statements about how the economy should run
@@Stewiehleba The opposite. History can be shown to support libertarianism and Austrian economics.
Teaching my kids about Austrian economics. This was a great intro for lesson #1
teach your kids marx too
@@reedmadden354 absolutely. We do actually lessons on the horrors of marxism.
@@eM-ed5pz
Marxism by itself never caused any "horrors".
Marxism is just another sociological school attempting to deliver scientific analysies of the nature of capitalism, value, labor and class.
Marxist-Leninism and Bolshevism, the things that actually caused those horrors you speak of, are just some of the ideological conclusions that people came up with partially inspired by it. Those are not the same as marxism, just a set of conclusions and attempts at delivering solutions to problems it identified.
By itself marxism barely even advocates for any type of authoritarianism. In fact a ton of belief systems based off marxism are libertarian, anti-state or anarchist. There are even writings of his supporter Engels where he denounces the idea of a fully state-run economy as antithetical to real socialism and communism.
Even with the man himself, only a tiny fraction of Marxs writing itself was actually directly promoting communism. Maybe only 10 percent or so. the The rest were philosophy and empirical economic analysies on the nature of capitalism and preceeding systems.
If Marx' writing is somehow responsible for genocide because decades after he died some authoritarian lunatics read his books who then made up vastly diffrent ideologies and went on to cause artificial famines and mass murder, then so is every old economist.
That includes the chicago boys and the austrian school, because they provided the economic framework Augusto Pinochet used to run his country. A chilean dictator who overthrew a democratic government, installed a military regieme, and tortured political prisoners by having them raped by animals.
If Marxism caused famines and genocide, then by the same logic the Austrian school caused military coups and animal rape torture.
@@frocco7125 The delusional rantings of both marxists and socialist attempting to justify +100 years of absolute failure....
@@eM-ed5pz
I was never justifying any failures or authoritarian governments. Not once. The past hundred years of economic and social movements have repeatedly prooven Marxs critiques of capitalism right.
You just keep pushing your ideology that openly rejects the concept of evidence, amps up a system that kills millions yearly, and was designed by billionaires to defend their authoritarian power structures as much as socially possible.
th-cam.com/video/N8ba5umiqHY/w-d-xo.html
Interesting, enthralling, yet complex. Thanks for the video. Started my adventure into the only real school of economics some days ago. Awesome channel you guys have!
Thanks!
@@thotslayer9914 yet here you are; not mouthing a defense
You’re kidding?
@@thotslayer9914 you will only find nonsense here.
@@EconClips How do we know we're not the crazy ones? thx.
i have studied austrian home economics .....and i make an exceedingly good sachertorte...subscribed
I've learned so much from this channel. Thank you for the great videos!
I like. I've followed the Mises Institute, and the Austrian school, but only now been treated to this insightful introduction. Thank you.
So basically Austrian Economics is the basic principle of supply and demand and doesn't complicated any further than that because it doesn't need to be. I love it!
Thank you, so much for this!!
One quote at 11:36 pretty much destroys the axioms of neoclassical economics. Supply and demand may very well dictate price, but only for one individual at one specific point in time.
An equilibrium level. If you don’t want to exchange at that price, you don’t get to participate in the market. So no, it doesn’t destroy the neoclassical model.
@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo that’s not true at all. It is entirely a possibility that an exchange outside of the “ market price” could occur. Market prices are not absolute prices.
@@joeyc4492 you aren’t strictly wrong. But over the long run you will be precluded from participation unless you command a high enough income.
@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo i’m not sure how one’s income is relevant to the original point. Were just speaking about the formation of supply and demand schedules. It is definitely unfortunate if someone’s productivity or distortions in the value of money prevent someone from participating exchange to satisfy his needs but again that’s not relevant to what Mr. Goldilocks was saying.
Keep up the good work!
Very informative. Thanks!
This is great!
im libertarian and one of my libertarian friends told me to study Austrian economics so thats what im doing
If you support trump, the right wing populist. Then you aren’t libertarian.
@@kekfromkekistan3057 still better than biden
@@j.o.e2683 That’s like saying eating throw up is better then eating shit. It’s not much of an upgrade my guy.
@@kekfromkekistan3057 not much but something nevertheless. Biden may push some green new deal socialist shit into your country and also a tax hike is coming. Actually I think it is a big downgrade.
@@j.o.e2683 oh please. He is a neo-liberal. He doesn’t believe in that bull shit socialism. Also I checked his tax plan. I don’t really care, I don’t pay taxes anyway. His is mostly for rich people I don’t know.
Awesome video.
I paused at 3 minutes in to give you a like. Great work !
Excellent summary.
Well done, thank you!
This is amazing
Do you know from where the quote "Action implies that individuals..." in 9:24 from Murray Rothbard comes from?
Can you please do a video on the methodology of Chicago School of Economics? Your videos are great and I learn a lot from here.
I think the Chicago School of Economics, it's based around the principle of sticking a loaded gun into someone's face and demanding their phone, watch, wallet and shoes.
Why did you want to hear some incorrect answers, when the Austrian School can answer all of your questions accurately and based on the real world?
@@freeguy77 it's very important to understand why an answer is wrong, as immunity against it.
Good work on describing the Austrian method.
I notice a very interesting affinity between Jordan Peterson’s theory of psychology and Mises’ epistemology for his axioms.
I believe JP has arrived at the axiom of action independent of Mises and could lend support to the body of epistemology for it.
I was thinking the same thing as I was watching this video
And before you know it, Jordan Peterson just made an interview with one of the most prominent Austrian economists of our day.
Please give me the reference.
I wish someone made great videos like this on Austrian Physics too.
hepan
I have no idea.
If there was such a thing as Austrian Physics, it would teach you that after viewing the Zapruder film (after the fatal shot at #313), you would see Kennedy's body flung violently backwards and to the left, exactly as Oliver Stone's movie showed in "JFK" (1991) proving the fatal shot had to come (from physics and laws of motion-momentum-energy) from the front, not the rear! Absolving the blame on Oswald, instead of the shooter on the knoll, just behind the fence, where many witnesses heard at least one shot from, and saw smoke rising. Video shows those witnesses running there to get the shooter(s)!
Was this video made by Kenysians? Its a bit wordy and lofty.
What I find in myself as someone who is self deciplined in personal finance is that Austrian economics came naturrally. I can debate anyone on monetary and fiscal policy without looking at data or quoting a bunch of high priests in academic institutions. Economics is not math or science. It is common sense. The world makes sense when you make the intimate connection with how money works in ones own life. Exercising prudence with one's own money, tells you everything you need to know. The masses do not want to be responsible. A nation with 35T debt is a nation of individual debtors. A broke mindset is the prevailing voice in America.
but state intervention only causes market failure, the government does not have to intervene in the economy, it has to leave the market free
Wrong. Market failure is caused by the unregulated actions of free markets. Why is this? Because private firms have no incentives to consider negative externalities, so unregulated firms would produce where social marginal cost exceeds social marginal benefit, thus resulting in a market failure. How can the government fix this market failure? By taxing private firms such that they produce at the socially optimal quantity, where SMC = SMB.
@@vaibhavkeshari9620 they only lack incentive to consider the negatives when there is a government present that can bail them out. otherwise, that would be terrible for their profits and insurance
@@vaibhavkeshari9620 Until you can control the variable of corruption, your only hope is self-sufficiency. A business only exists as long as you buy their stuff. We have regulations now, yet everyone buys iphones when superior products exist. The government always crosses boundaries of freedom and leads to tyranny. Why are you cynical of businesses, yet aren't cynical towards governments? What's your solution to corruption?
If the free market had it's way, wed probably have more infected and dead than we do now. How many economists have begged for the government to reopen business so that they could function without restriction, at the expense of killing people off. It's a system that doesn't care about the public good.
@@vicinte it’s the governments place to protect public interest, which is to not die from a disease.
10:14 nice
No way you guys let Paul Krugman advertise his MasterClass on your video💀
It's a free market 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
The axiom of purposeful action is an axiom because if one denies it they would be acting purposefully and therefore self-contradictory. In other words, one would have to assume its validity in their denial of it.
So one question I have to you: How would praxeology explain apparent irrational collective behaviour as seen in the corona pandemic? Buying goods as noodles in masses? Is that merely because the individual simply has changed her preferences for noodles and just now wants more? Isn't that an immense distortion of reality in simply refraining from the possibility of collective behaviour?
It's not irrational to try and obtain emergency foodstuffs during a crisis. Dry noodles will preserve for a whole year meaning they can be relied upon if there is a disruption in the supply chain and there were major disruptions in the supply chain during the coronavirus outbreak. Buying only perishable foods during a crisis can invite danger.
It's because these Individuals perceive that a shortage will be taken place. Many of those Individuals recognize that if a Shortage takes place, companies will rise the cost to add to the supply, therefore the later you purchase the noodles the more expensive they're. But it's on itself paradoxical, because if people don't expect a shortage they won't buy as much, which means that in actuality buying more in fear of a shortage is what causes the shortage itself.
@@lonestarasshole584 It should also be noted that the local state governments in the US recommended stocking up on 2 weeks worth of food and supplies so it was not entirely fear of a shortage driving the shortage but rather the overwhelming of infrastructure. Even if there was plenty of meat in supply (to the point they start executing cows because they can't get them to the slaughterhouse cause it's full), if all the meat shelves are empty by the time you get to the store, then what difference does it make?
I only have one question.. When Lambo ?!???
Austrian School of Eotconomics got it right!!!
Is neo classical economist and monetarist the same?
no
I come with praxeology as the right basis of economic while not knowing it is austrian school, now after confirming it from this video, i am an Austrian Economist. The orthodox always sound fictional but good enough for some guideline to an extent, Marx and Keynesian are always the combination of envy and wishful thinking which is far from the reality. While Austrian might be complicated in the implementation but at least it is upfront about the complicated nature of reality and not give up on facing hardship to solve the entangled knot and give in to dreamland and utopian mindset. Hope should not be based on the unrealistic dream that trample reality, but rather proper path and process of hardships and struggles to ensure the quality of the outcome.
The collective serves the individual. When the individual asks more of the collective you have found the weak link.
A person who would rather have free time than be employed is not "unemployed" by any common definition of the word.
Jet Faker unemployed = not employed
False, if by 'common' you mean 'common'. But more technical (and maybe useful) definitions exclude the retiree, and some exclude the lazy pot-head with the stripper girlfriend.
To be science you need an experimental background. What is experimental background of Praxiology
Don't you see? If you decide that "human action" is an axiom and then build every theoretical addition on top of that assumption through "logical" deduction, then every deduction made is per definition correct!
If you don't catch my sarcasm, it means that Praxiology is just: "because i made it the fuck up! - the science". Any legitimate economist views it as voodoo shit.
An act hath three branches-it is to act, to do, to perform.
This doesn't include Hayek
This isn't completely Austrian economics
"Axiom" is not "statements considered obvious", but rather the fundamental components of a system of logic. Math, for instance, is a rather prominent system of logic built on a set of multiple axioms that define the field itself. For instance, math is predicated on the axiom of equality (x=x), the axiom of natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... are sequential intregers with an equal increase of value in between - Peano Axioms) and so on. Axioms are thus the very fundament, foundation, of a system of logic. The issue with a poorly constructed axiom is thus that if anyone is able to refute it, the whole theoretical body constructed on it is per it's very definition refuted.
In other words, constructing a school of thought on the axiom of "human action": "people act purposefully to achieve their goals" in turn means that any credible evidence that people in general deviate from perfect logic or perfect self-interest in their deliberate actions would automatically and unequivocally refute the theoretical body in its entirety. This is self-evidently ludicrous, because as any psychologist would tell you there is a myriad of complex reasons to why people act the way they do, and calculated & constructive self-interest is only a small component of this.
Building a "school of economics" on such shaky ground as the presumption that 'rational self interest' is our only relevant source of action is tantamount to building wicker houses during a forest fire: regardless of how much you keep on working to perfect your wicker house it will just take a spark from the surrounding inferno to burn it all down. This is why praxeology is discounted by virtually all academic economists.
Youre not seeing the forest for the trees at all.
The axiom is quite coherent. Your critique of action first adds a parameter that "all humans must seek perfection in attainment of their goals" else the axiom be refuted. However this implicitly invokes the notion of "objectively highest goal" or "objective best end" which is not categorically sound.....Mises already makes clear that all personal preference value is subjective and echoes Menger in regard to the ordinal (not cardinal) arrangement of individual preferences....the only objective category here is that humans *are* subjective. So no, deviating from some esoteric and vague "highest good" is a non-starter.
There are other strawman-like implications here based on your critique, such as the need for temporal omnicience (knowing all outcomes for all actions at all times) which again is not a sound refutation as invoking that simply blows up economics all together which is silly. You would have better luck jumping on top of your desk and reverting to a game of ollie ollie otzenfree. Its all begging the question at that point.
Sounds like QFT vs GR
I can actually feel mi I.Q. rising every time I watch this video.
So my morning erection is a non-praxeological phenomena? Thanks for clearing that up :P
Error @11:48, if I am not being too Walrasian.
Demand, as demand is usually defined, is not reduced by an increase in price.
Demand is usually defined, in the usual textbooks, as the QUANTITIES (note the plural) of a good or service to be purchased at various price points.
The QUANTITY demanded is what lessens with an increase in price, if all else remains the same, per standard teachings.
This sort of demand can be thought of as a function of two variables, price and quantity, and can be drawn as a curve. A price change is a movement along the curve, not a shift of the curve itself, as the matter is usually taught.
This is not some obscure, abstruse, esoteric, nit-picky point. This is what is taught in INTRODUCTORY microeconomics classes.
By 'introductory', I mean the very first econ course, about 2 weeks in, IIRC.
Perhaps Menger and the Austrians define or consider demand very differently than modern textbooks do. Example or explanation would have been helpful here, if so. Otherwise, Menger sounds like Smith, if proceeding from qualitiative considerations is the main distinction, and Ricardo like Keynes, by their reliance on simple quantitative methods.
I had to downvote this vid. Mouthing some of the words does not give us the tune.
I don't know where you are getting your information but demand is not defined by quantities at all. Quantities is a variable that affects supply. Demand, simply put, is the desire to purchase. The keyword is desire, not quantity. As clear as possible, desire for a product and the quantity of the product are related but not in any way linear or proportional. Example- the demand for some products requires an almost endless demand as more than one are needed to fill the DEMAND. Other products or services that solve the problem permanently may have high demand but a customer may purchase or acquire this product or service only once which will decrease DEMAND indefinitely.
Your appeals to authority are extremely out of touch. No one has ever taught that demand IS THE QUANTITIES. DEMAND is the DESIRE for those quantities.
@@johndoe5038 Your reply is incoherent.
'In economics, demand is the quantity of a good that consumers are willing and able to purchase at various prices during a given period of time.' -Wikipedia.
Citing a definition is NOT an 'appeal to authority'.
Further, I allow for the possibility (mentioned in my comment) that Austrians may define or consider the matter differently, although I have not seen a different definition from them. I doubt you have either, but cite a source if you can, please.
Absent redefining the term, or clearly showing how the Austrian School treats it differently, the error made in the video is a very basic one. I do not exaggerate when I point out that this EXACT point is covered in the first week or two of the very first Econ class taught at the college level.
@@vincef.163 That's a fancy way of saying demand is desire to purchase. The quantity isn't the demand, the quantity represented is the amount that meets the DESIRE of the consumer not the quantity itself. I'll go with Miriam-Webster since you chose the "anyone can change the website" version.
Definition of demand
a economics : willingness and ability to purchase a commodity or service
@@johndoe5038 Reread the definition that you yourself cite, please. The word 'and' is in there for a reason. Your homework is to find out that reason. Maybe look up the word 'and' in the same place, then proceed from there.
While I can certainly appreciate an alternative treatment of economics, 'demand' is a word with a standard meaning, however much you assert that the word means something contrary to its definition.
Your suggestion that a Wikipedia page has been nefariously altered to, um, agree with textbooks you clearly have never opened is a new one to me, however.
Does economics really teach if means can be used to accomplish particular ends? That doesn't seem like what Austrian Economics is at all. That seems like some sort of game theory approach or strategy for entrepreneurship.
My psychic sees multiple possible futures, but Free-Markets are evil in all of them. So I asked her why she's not rich, and she started quoting Marx. Every time she predicts my death, Bitcoin jumps. I think she has a future in economics.
Is it possible to be libertarian but not be an "austrian"? Which other economic schools do libertarians prefer?
Chicago school
The problem with the action axiom is that there's, in fact, no such thing as purposeful behavior. At least not according to the people who actually do research on how the human brain operates. Yes, there's an experience of purpose, but there's no purposeful behavior. Hence, there's no way to distinguish action from reflexive behavior. It's all the same thing.
Isnt every action purposeful than?
@@jeffsingleton88 Yes, but only because action is defined (by Mises) as purposeful behavior. However, the point I made in my previous post was that there's no such thing as purposeful behavior. Hence, by Mises' definition, there's no such thing as action. And if there's no such thing as action, a science based on the action axiom has no relevance.
@@berntengdahl1519 Mises does not define "purposeful" in a universal homogenous sense and does not ascribe to that. Purpose is as fluid here any 8 billion individuals choosing what to drink in the morning. Example:
I have tea or water on my counter in the morning. I choose the tea. The a prioristic argument is that I am better off with the tea because if I was not going to be in a more subjectively-judged preferential state at T(n+1) with having chosen the tea at T(n) then I would have chose the water. Thus I can say I have cured my state of ill-ease with a selection of tea as the curative good to relieve the immediate problem of thirst, and this good is of a "higher time-preference value" than that of the water in this moment. Thus I engaged in a purposeful choice to best ease my needs.
Keep in mind also, one may have 2 solutions presented to him to ease a situation, but would best like a 3rd option which is not availabke to him. He will then ordinally choose solution 1 or 2...which although less ordinally prefered than 3, will be ordinally segregated none the less and the one with highest time-preference will be selected to ease the issue.
@@razzberry1262 First of all, the apriori argument only says that you will choose the tea if at the time of making the choice, which is T(n), you prefer to have the tea at T(n+1) rather than the water at T(n). It doesn't follow from this you will be better off with the tea, whatever "better off" means in this context.
But in any case, the point is that there is no "you" who is choosing the tea. There is no self that is making a judgement based on preferences and engaging in action. There may be an experience of prefering the tea over the water, but this experience has no causal relation with what happens with the water on your counter.
@@berntengdahl1519 Okay, very good. All conceptions of "I" and "choice" are lost on you or philosophically "do not exist" in your world view. So this discussion is moot.
And "Better Off" as in he exercised his personal, singular preference to an obvious desired end, which was to satisfy thirst in a way that provided a "more prefereable state of affairs" as anticipated by him through his faculty of judgement. Better off again is subjective and relative, not objective and specifically universal, as it pertains to the Actor alone.
1:55 "Why did the Austrians use praxeology to study economics? Because they consider economics a social science."
Neither is this an explanation nor does it make sense. Marx is considered a social scientist too and he applied apriorism and logical deduction as well.
Apriorism and their aversion against empiricism just harmed the Austrian economics. Hayek realized this and wrote: "[W]hen he [Mises] asserted that the market theory was a priori, he was wrong; that what was a priori was only the logic of individual action, but the moment that you passed from this to the interaction of many people, you entered into the empirical field" (1994, p. 72). "To economics as an empirical science we must now turn" (1949, p.4).
As Antony Davis put it: "I don’t want to have to choose between one side and the other (praxeology versus empiricism) because neither is complete. [..] In shunning empirical arguments, Austrians miss the opportunity to push non-Austrians to the wall in the opposition’s own vernacular. [..] I do know that the quantitative analysis of mainstream economics and the logic of Austrian economics are both tools that can reveal truth."
@Rulerzful That's why I referred to empirical research.
the videos ACTUAL answer was that the methodology of the natural sciences could not be copy pasted to find truth in the social sciences, using minimum wage in germany as an example of why not.
Most of the hedge funds and large traders have huge historical databases on everything you could possibly imagine and then use statists to predict where the market will move. So maybe looking at individuals as opposed to groups is different.
@@First_Principals sure, missing all the time. Maybe they have a little advantage because of that? Probably yes, but then using this idea to illustrate that the economics should use the same thing is absurd.
tom keane Investors and entrepreneurs using economic data to predict trends and make inferences about the future is perfectly valid. What isn't valid is using data and statistics to craft economic theory itself.
damn austrian economics falls down right out of the gate huh
As I have learned more and more about the Austrian school, it has only confirmed how silly it is. The fact that they reject the use of math because "it's an oversimplification," and then every time they make an argument, they say "It's simple supply and demand," is a joke. Their rejection of mathematical modeling stems from the fact that they don't want to face the logical inconsistencies in their worldview. Their rejection of empiricism only further confirms this.
All good quant economists know fully well that predictive economic regression models fucking suck. Empiricism is science. The regression models are great for hypothesis generation, but they don’t actually tell us anything that we can know concretely. These models, after all, are just reflections of those same biases that impede our intuition, as well as oversimplify variables by not measuring them properly and with limited information. That’s stats 101.
Maybe I'm too late for someone to pay attention to this comment, but it seems to me that, at least as presented on this video, austrian economics are mere philosophical musings without real consequence, ie:
- What is the difference, in economic policy not something that goes on in their heads, between a libertarian and a austrian economist?
- How is methodological subjectivism different from the old libertarian speech that "they don't know what is best for anyone else, hence freedom is the best arrangement for society so individuals can decide for themselves"?
- How do austrian economist know if their theory is correct? when they can not compare it with the real world using experiments, nor make rigorous deductions from their axioms using symbolic manipulations. In other words, they have renounced both evidence and consistency.
- How is the "axiom of human action" different from the well established and mainstream notion of rationality? (ie game theory)
- How does their notion of "economic value" differ from simple utility?
In short: how does all of this differ from mainstream economics? other than at philosophical level.
Sophus VD Sophus VD well, I’m kinda new to this so I can’t answer all of them except the second one:
It differs from the libertarian speech because it doesn’t claim that everyone knows what’s best for them, in fact, it doesn’t even make any judgements regarding what’s best or what we as a society should choose. It (the methodology) doesn’t even define what good is. Maybe it’s better to live in North Korea idk, however, given the empirical and “commonsensical” notion that it’s not so good, most people apply this axiom in the formula to get a desirable (not objectively good) result
Ok..., Now I'm a little better. Read a book (or at least the first chapter), that I think is called "the Austrian School" in English by Jesus Huerta de Soto. It at least explains how Austrian economics differs from Neoclassical economics
Austrians use logic to derive conclusions from their assumptions. If you believe their conclusions are wrong, find fallacies in their argument or attempt to disprove their assumptions, which are iron clad statements like “human beings make conscious decisions” and “free time is finite”.
Being a philosophical true dosen't mean that there is no cisequences.
Most of the the critics of the Austrian School of Economics given by other Schools of Economy are (1) a questions about the methodology of the Austrian School, or (2) affirmations that the Austrian School is unable to predict future economic events. And as will ve proved a continuation this critics are wrong.
A common topic in the critics if the Austrian School of Economy is the scientificism or _science as ideology_ is a philosophical thesis that claims, that the empirical sciene is at least a supeior source of knowlede (Is to remark that the definition of knowledge is belief justified as true belief).
There is two types of Scientism, (1) strong scientism that claims that empirical science is is the only source of knowledge. And (2) weak scientism that claim that empirical science is a superior source of knowledge.
First of all strong scientism is self contradictis because if you assume strong scientism as true, then all belief that cannot be justified by the methods of the empirical science cannot be justified belief, but because this makes any philosophical thesis a unjustified belief, and scientism being a philosophical thesis is a unjustified and arbitary belief under their own term, therefore strong scientism is a self contradicting thesis.
And the claim of weak scientism would mean that the prepositions of the empirical science are stronger than the philosiphical prepositions used by the science to justify and rech their conclusion, and this makes the weak scientism also self contradicting because the streng of any preposition is the same as the weakest of their nesesary assumtions ans the science needs philosophy. J.P. Morealnd cite John Kekes in a strong argument agaibst cientifism: "A successful argument for the science to be able to prove itaelf as the paradigm of rationality should be based in the proof that the presumtions of the science are preferable to any other presumtion. That proof requires the sciene to proof, grounded in their presumtions, that is better solving some problems and archieving ideals than their competence. But proof this is no a task of the science. Actually is a task for philosophy. So, the company to justify the presumtions of the science proving with the help of the philosophy that the science is the best way of solve some problems and archive some ideals is a nesesary prerequisite to justify the science. Therefore, the philosophy, and no the science, is a stronger candidate for being the paradigm of the reasonability."
With Scietism out of the way we xan beign with refutation of the critics of type 1:
1a. Critics from orthodox economy schools claim that the Austrian School of Economy is a weaker source of knowledge because is no a part os the empirical science with is the exact thesis of the weak scientificism therefore makong all the critics of this kind as self-cobtradictory because depend in a self-contradicting thesis as was proved before.
With this oposition about the validaty of the Austrian School of Economics no more in the pending list. There is the need to justify the method of the Austrian School of Economy. The Austrian School of Econamy based their affirmations in the stablish and justify some base set of premises as their base axioms and trougth logical deduxtions proves all their claims, therefore makong all their claims by prepositional transitivity as strong as the weakest of their axioms. As such the only legit ways to critize the Austrian School of Economy are one criticize their axioms, or two find errors in their proofs.
1b. Critics from orthodox economy schools claim that the Austrian School of Economy is a Pseudocience, but this is trivial or difamatory.
If you consider that everything that is no a Emphirical Science pesudocience then the term has no critical meaning and there can be pesudocientific knowledge that is true knowledge as would be the mathematics. You still can try to put this definition of pesudocience some critical meaning but it just would lead to at least weak scientificism and therefore a self-contradictory thesis. Making a trivial and meaningless critic.
But if psudoscience is defined as something that is no a Emphirical Science but claims to be one, the the "critic" of the Austrian School of Economy is no more than groundless difamation of this school of economy that has never claim to be a empirical science but has called itself as a branch of philosophy forced to the deductive methods of the logic over their base axioms.
Maybe the critics that call Pseudocience to the Austrian School of Economy belive and want that pseudocience had a nesesary negative meaning but for this to be possible you have to accept philosophy as a branch of science.
1c. Some critics would attack the Austrian School of Economy because does no fit their favorite thesis of epistemiology (like positivism) but by prepositional transitivity all the claims of the Austrian Economics are as strong as their weakest axiom so unless a refutation of their axioms is given, the claaims if the School of Economy are true knowledge. And does not matter you school of epistemiology.
2. The idea that emphirical can disprove some stament that has reached veracity trought a deductive proof is false, because dedutive proofs will be always over anykind of inductive proof. (If you are no enough conviced of this argument I would hestitate you to see the Video "The most misleading patterns in methematics" by the TH-cam Channel of Mathematics Zach Star), therefore every critic of the point 3 is wrong.
If you want to prove wrong the affirmations of the Austrian School of Economy, you only can: (1) Find mistakes in the proofs of their affirmations, or (2) prove their base axioms to be wrong. The problem is that (1) All their Axioms are unquestinable unless you want to accept a heavely undesire conclusion and (2) all their proofs are already revied infinite many times. So the Austrian School of Economy is the only true Economic School.
Praxeology...?? ok, someone is trying to hide... Historic materialism... Maybe... Maybe not...
Praxeology is, to put it simply, simply the logic of human action and choice
I love how in this video they admit that Praxeology rejects empirical evidence.
@@frocco7125 Praxeology is the logic of human action. You don't refute logic with observation the same way you do with the natural sciences. Instead, what you do is look for a logical mistake in the chain of reasoning. Conclusions through sound logical deduction from sound premises are true.
@@OrthoHoppean
That's not praxeology though, that's rationalism. The philosophical belief that the truth can be found via logical deduction based off known information.
Rationalism is alright, and to some degree I believe the same about empiricism. You can find the truth via observing evidence and then drawing conclusions from known evidence and patterns. And if you empirically observe evidence later on that contradicts past conclusions, you should be able to adjust it according to the new knowledge. It's the scientific method.
Praxeology though rejects the concept of empirical evidence entirely. It takes a bunch of assumptions it refuses to justify, and draws conclusions based solely off that. And it along with its "theorists" actively try to justify not looking at real measurable evidence about the real, historical and material realities of economics, because they know it will dispute its own claims.
The scientific method sais that you should make theories, look at expirements and evidence, and then adjust your theories according to that evidence. Praxeology rejects a crucial step within.
It is an economic pseudoscience designed to not be questioned, that only serves to further the interests of the economic elite. There's a reason all the think tanks that push right libertarianism and austrian thought are all funded by huge corporate powers, CEOs and investment bankers.
@@frocco7125 Praxeology is, as Mises perceived it, the science of human action. When he named it a "science," he meant a legitimate field of study. If by science you mean being able to falsify or verify theory based on observation, then fine, praxeology is not a science. But it's still a legitimate field of study as its a branch of logic like math. You don't go out and test the conclusions drawn from math. They're simply assumed to be true because they're logically deduced.
Praxeology is not a methodology. It's a field of study. You advance praxeological theory through rationalist means. For example, the starting point of praxeology is that humans act(with purpose). This should be so obvious that it would be pointless to try and refute it. From this, you can assume that people are unsatisfied with their current condition, they imagine a better one, and they use means to attain ends(better condition). We can assume that people act to attain psychic profit (satisfaction). We can assume that because people use means to achieve ends, that they can't instantly make all their wishes come true. There is a relative scarcity of means relative to ends. Choosing which ends will be fulfilled first means that there is a marginal utility in the minds of people as to what matters most to them and what doesn't. I could go on but you get the gist. Forget about the word "praxeology" for a moment. This is just plain common sense. You don't go around testing these conclusions. You don't test the statement "incentives matter." You don't test "all other things equal, an increase in the minimum wage increases unemployment". The degree to which unemployment rises would certainly need to be observed. But through logic, it WILL happen. Mises added assumptions in praxeology based on observation such as the fact that people act under time, the "disutility" of labor, money, etc. And ultimately, the whole point of praxeology was to be able to use it to better understand reality. Praxeology goes hand in hand with thymology, which could sort of be seen as the psychology that precedes specific action. One can't go without the other and Austrians forget about it. Mises agreed with Hayek that there are limits to logic and you needed observation to better understand the world. No Austrian will ever say no to using statistics, but would say no on using statistics to create theory.
You can't use the scientific method on humans the same way you can on rocks or atoms. There are constants in the real world. You can isolate variables through experimentation. But you can't isolate certain parts of people. People aren't homogenous. The subject matter literally has a mind of its own. To try and use the scientific method on people like that is "scientism." "Scientific " mainstream economists unnecessarily bring in math into economics flipping it from a social science to just another field of math, a ridiculous one at that. They were unable to predict the Housing Bubble burst.
I took everything you said seriously until your final statement. Are you seriously saying Austrians are bankrolled by the world elite? Bro that's completely nonsense. Austrians are constantly ridiculed by mostly everyone including yourself. You would expect AE to be in every college and all economists to be familiar with Menger, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. You would expect the world to be going straight for freer markets rather than the more state control we have today. Instead, what you see is a Keynesian/neoclassical mainstream with an increase of statism over time.
Austrian Economics seem like a product of INTJ's 😁
No, economocs is not a science.
Logical deduction does not make it a science. The fact that we cannot run tests on our hypothesis means we cannot "Scientifically prove" anything.
However, logical deduction is just as powerful to establish facts, given that the premises used are correct. Premises can use logic or science to lead to one's logical argument, but not a scientific one.
This is just a translation issue, in German, we say science for almost every subject, just look it up.
@@Swift-mr5zi hey man, it's me, jeebus, can you re add me on discord? I got banned.
Economics absolutely can be a science. You need to be less broad and understand that you can systematically study the structure and behavior of markets with different stimuli and observe and experiment. The question is how acute you want your microscope to be. Are you saying that you cannot create the exact market or economy that the test can be done on? Of course that is true, but if you define the object of testing and observation as economies that have similar properties and observe that certain stimuli have the same results in similar markets then you have in fact conducted scientific study of stimuli on the markets that we call Economics.
Sorry but even philosophy is a science, everything that is able to produce knowledge must be a science. Unless you want to "pseudoscience" to be meaningless.
@@Jeebus7734 No. Actually the definition of science is disputed.
sounds like most of the foundational work comes from Adam Smith, not Austrians.
At 4:29: "One trying to refute the axiom, will only confirm its validity." Er, that's actually a fallacy. I can write an article which argues that there is no such axiom governing all human behavior, and it is true that, while I am writing that article, I am behaving as the axiom describes. Yet, that does not impose itself absolutely on all human action - there may be other times, where I or others know of no good option, or believe that they have no choice in the matter; that others' reasoning or overwhelming power or even a belief in DESTINY makes any attempt to achieve one's own goals irrelevant. So, the axiom SPECIFICALLY ignores the behavior and outcomes of dis-empowered and oppressed groups... but I'm sure businessmen and politicians see it as self-evident, finding no opposition to their wills? (Or is evidence-shunning logical positivism just doomed to enormous blind spots?) As a mathematician, I take special issue with the theft of logic and axiom - we understand that an axiom is not ACTUALLY true. Rather, we say, "IF these axioms WERE true, THEN these other statements would be true." Rothbart's statement that "...since praxeology begins with a true axiom...", demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the tools of logic and their epistemological import. A few minutes later, Mises rests on the assumption that verbal deduction is superior to statistics, because the latter can never be accumulated into a distribution, remaining forever "a unique and individual historical fact." Why is such skepticism not applied to the 'true axiom'? And, they discount the usefulness of regression toward the mean - though many other factors are at play, when we have many examples of a thing, those competing factors can cancel out. We can also simulate and perform experiments which search over very high-dimensional spaces rapidly. That's what I worked on for a few years, and neural networks are explicit proof that you can extract useful information from multivariate experiments... k. i'm done.
More specifically, if a statement proves itself true then it is a tautology and those are generally considered to be philosophically uninteresting and not helpful in determining the truth value of other statements.
*Knock knock* It's Dunning Kruger.
@@Viperzka agreed - yet, the 'axiom being proven' that I quote is not actually a tautology - I illustrated a contradiction of it, disproving it. I also pointed out that 'proving an axiom' is alarmingly ignorant of what an axiom actually is: it is something which is *assumed* to be true, and it is *never* proven... it's only a demonstration of their inability to think clearly, not any proof of their assertion.
Anthony Repetto
“There may be other times, where I or others know of no good option, or believe that they have no choice in the matter; that others’ reasoning or overwhelming power or even a belief in DESTINY makes any attempt to achieve one’s goals irrelevant. So, the axiom SPECIFICALLY ignores the behavior and outcomes of dis-empowered and oppressed groups.”
I have two major issues: the axiom of “Human Action” does not assume that an individual’s attempts will always work out as well as they wanted, or even at all.
It also states that inaction is an action in and of itself. These “oppressed groups,” as you say, do not act for fear of their own action. They *believe* it would make them end up worse than they began with and therefore inaction is preferable to action.
The very axiom of human action disproves your statement.
I’m putting a twist on somebody else’s comment when I say “knock knock it’s Dunning-Krueger here, coming for your lemons.”
@@obviouslykaleb7998 Unfortunately, Kreuger would be nodding with me. Your confusion is simple: you think that an *axiom* is something that one would *prove* . No, neither I nor Mises would have construed that; an axiom is something which you ' *suppose* as true, whether it is or not, as the foundation to an analysis of its resultant theorems.' That's why there are maths, plural - ANYTHING can be an axiom, because it's the assumption that you start with for an imaginary system. It doesn't *ever* need to match reality. The point I made originally stands. And, when it comes to actual human behavior, you may want to look into the psychology of trauma - people *shut down* their thinking. They are not "rationally choosing what they believe will generate the best average return." That doesn't match actual behavior. Further, *claiming* that any behavior *must* indicate that "they wanted it" is actually circular reasoning. That's when you use the statement that you hope to prove AS an argument in its proof. Good luck figuring that out.
Legitimate question: Are there any living economist who's views are this sensible?
Many. None are in positions to meaningfully implement "austrian" policies, though.
I would recommend Peter Schiff, he is an asset manager and runs a podcast on economic news
Bob Murphy
IAM guessing narrator of this video might be a college professor.
Cryptoblades brought me here
Everything here but the Axiom of Human Action is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. When you group enough things together which are unlike in a diverse amount of ways but similar in other ways you can draw out information about the factors they share. This isn't a statement of opinion but a mathematical fact about the universe.
This is my religion
Please no be a scientific imperialist.
Why do you make it so difficult to understand!
Well a school of economic thought that has at its core an a priori 'science' of human action ignoring the cognitive and behavioral sciences doesn't look appetizing at all
Establishing motivations is for the realm of psychology, if the outcome is the same regardless it is not an economic issue.
Excuse me, WTF?! Jakub says its not same at 13:03.
Lets see.
Smt happens, we observed before it happened and after -> he says its not praxeology.
Observe world where something happened compared to it never happening-> this is praxeology.
These are the same things!
A world where "action never happened" is the same world as "action didn't happen yet" and the world where "something occurred" is same world as in "after the action happened".
He just rephrased the same thing. WTF!
The "something never happening" is the continual of the state of BEFORE. And world of something occurring is the world AFTER action was done. Really? I would dismantle rest of Mises with simple psychology but it is unnecessary as psychology superseded the one Mises had in his time, rendering praxeology obsolete.
Karl Heinrich Marx Ok... no. He meant (as I understood it): to analyze something that happened (or will happen) and it’s effects - like the introduction of minimum wage in Germany - we cannot simply observe the world before and after the change occurred, but how it would be if only that single variable changed.
This is because in the real world, multiple variables change all the time, and that’s why, as he explains, employment went up in Germany. However, if the only altered variable was the introduction of minimum wage, it would probably have happened differently, that’s why comparing the state of something before and after only a single variable related to that thing changed wouldn’t result in a very trustworthy conclusion
I guess, I’m kinda new to this
The Bitcoin rabbit hole brought me here.
How would unemployment fall even lower if minimum wage was not introduced? That’s what narrator says. That makes no sense.
Because companies could hire more people. Say the minimum wage is 20 bucks per person. If there is no minimum wage than you could hire 2 people for 10 or 4 for 5.
It makes perfect sense. The minimum wage is a price control. It's a price floor. It restricts the supply of labor by not allowing any wages below a certain number. All of the workers who would be happy with being hired below a certain wage are not able to. There is an excess supply of labor ie more unemployment
Jobs that are worth less than minimum wage to the employer aren't viable. The higher the minimum wage the fewer viable jobs, all else being equal.
Sorry, but you can't be from the Austrian school of economics and not be a libertarian. Who are Austrian economists and not a libertarian?
fred kalis1776 palaeoconservatives, ancaps, minarchist conservatives, some mutualists
Market anarchists I'd reckon, but you could call them centrist libertarians too. The issue lies with the term "libertarian" being both used to refer exclusively to right wing libertarianism as well as being used to denote a wide spectrum of libertarian (social libertarian, minarchist, market anarchist ancap, agorist etc.)
There are some conservatives who subscribe to Austrian economics. There is David Friedman, a libertarian, but follower of the Chicago School. There is Bryan Caplan, another ancap libertarian but a neoclasical. Economics is and ethics are different.
@@aichabellekhel6939
True. In fact Rothbard even admitted that "libertarian" used to refer to left wing philosophies.
I don't think Hayek considered himself a libertarian
Perfect sleeping you tube. That tone of voice zzzzzzzz
Praxeology is to Dianetics, as Austrian economics is to Scientology.
I don't understand.
@@engelsteinberg593 I'm not surprised.
@@chadmoats645 Explain it
@@engelsteinberg593 Do you know what Scientology and Dianetics are?
@@chadmoats645 Scientology is a secta, I researched the meaning of the second (just for this) but I forget it because I was unable to understand this.
There is nothing but ideology. What a naïve approach.
Your statement itself is ideological.
Adam A. Tirella, Esquire that is a trivial way to define ideology
Well, given your lack of parameters re the conceptualization of ideology, I'd say you may want to reconsider that statement and perhaps explain what you mean in a way that is punctuated correctly. Your statement is always and already ideological because it is reflexive, dogmatic, lacks an elaborated explanation or even an unelaborated explanation of why you accuse me of citing a "trivial" incantation of ideology. Is there anything beyond ideology: that's a question. And cheerleading for any economics school places you squarely within the rubric of the ideological. It's a de facto axiom. Voodoo science, my friend. Voodoo science.
@@adama.tirellaesquire6638 that is an ideological statement
@@adama.tirellaesquire6638 Aye, because the markets can't be scientific Karl?
1:00 but it doesn't. Six empty homes for every homeless person. Enough food to end hunger. It does allocate it to those wishing to expand their capital but it does not necessarily " effectively' allocate the 'scarce' resources." Capitalism is great for industrialization. But it has problems.
government intervention has always been the cause of many different issues.
@@rotam8680 im an ansyn. Trust me I know. But, currently, it's the ONLY way people have been thrown a bone in an otherwise exploitative economic system. Neither the government or capitalists gave workers rights. They fought for that shit. And when worker revolts started messing up the tax farm they stepped in and gave workers rights so that further disturbances wouldn't occur. Capitalism without state regulation sucks. State without capitalism sucks. I say we get rid of both of them. Because you leave one and the other usually exists or comes about.
Power tends to corrupt. That's why i advocate decentralized bottom up justified heirarchies.
@@nolives actually who raised workers wages without political influence, and who pretty much invented the 5 day work week that we know, it wasnt government or unions. the fact that a capatilist system is a purely "put up or shut up system" where by any small business can compete directly with a big business. And remember governmeny programs like "minimum wage" actually put people out of work as well as increasing cost of products unnaturally
Wth are you saying man? We don't live in a free society by any means. You really need to look more of this subject...
Except you ignore the regulatory capture that gov't imposes with the market. All at the behest of the Crony Capitalists that are in bed with that same state. Whose employees usually make up the members of the regulatory boards. If not for those regulations you would see more people with homes and food going to those in need of it. As free trade and free exchanges would be allowed instead of stopped to only benefit a select few.
Be it by regulation or legislative fiat that imposes protections for those connected to power, gov't is the problem. Without such power, those crony capitalists cannot use the state to their advantage or scale as fast as they have. Not to mention the central banks which is a discussion in of itself.
Seriously? This has some merit in terms of understanding how badly misguided modernist paradigms can be. Other than that, we’d be better off reading actual fiction.
Austrian methodology is just full of holes. To name just a few
- why the strong, black/white demarcation between "purposeful" and "unconscious" action? Is buying food "purposeful"? It looks more like a reflex, not unlike the example of a doctor hitting a patient in the knee: a chemical signal in the brain forces someone to do something. At the very least, there is a large grey area between "purposeful" and "unconscious" which seems to be completely ignored by austrians
- this is related to another problem: treating ends as given. This seems like a highly arbitrary delineation in science (which other science pretends other sciences don't exist or are part of some other universe?) and in fact, an ideological choice. In reality, ends do come from somewhere and any serious investigation of an economy cannot simply ignore this (sidenote: most mainstream economic schools do this too and it's stupid there too). Real world example: a conscious campaign by a pharmaceutical company to convince doctors and patients that pain had been undertreated, led to a spike in sales of opiate painkillers. This company had the power to change ends of others. How on earth is this irrelevant? It's just one example but it comes from an abysmal failure to understand humans' and human societies' actual - as opposed to a priori - functioning.
- Why choose exactly those axioms? There are plenty of others which are just as "indisputably true", but which are ignored entirely by austrians. For example: "in any given economy, someone has to work" or "any economy is part of broader ecosystem". Austrians' choice of axioms comes, I suspect, from an abysmal failure to understand what mathematics is and how it operates. Mathematicians do not judge whether their axioms are "true" or not, austrians do. This is part of a larger problem with this deductive methodology: how do you know you have all relevant axioms? How can you even assess that?
So, austrian methodology gets a big F in my book, and is utterly disqualified as a "science"
Michiel Beelaerts Also the representation of employment and unemployment as choices. Austrian thought seems to only exclude infants and adults in a vegetative state as being able to choose inaction, without taking into account the oppressed and their inability to act. Austrian economic thought seems to only allow more freedoms to those who are already freed, the freedom to take others freedoms away. If you’re oppressed in a society that adheres to Austrian economics you are likely to become more disenfranchised as it creates larger gaps in classes.
i agree. This always seemed like a bunch of billionaire-supported bogus.
Most of the the critics of the Austrian School of Economics given by other Schools of Economy are (1) a questions about the methodology of the Austrian School, or (2) affirmations that the Austrian School is unable to predict future economic events. And as will ve proved a continuation this critics are wrong.
A common topic in the critics if the Austrian School of Economy is the scientificism or _science as ideology_ is a philosophical thesis that claims, that the empirical sciene is at least a supeior source of knowlede (Is to remark that the definition of knowledge is belief justified as true belief).
There is two types of Scientism, (1) strong scientism that claims that empirical science is is the only source of knowledge. And (2) weak scientism that claim that empirical science is a superior source of knowledge.
First of all strong scientism is self contradictis because if you assume strong scientism as true, then all belief that cannot be justified by the methods of the empirical science cannot be justified belief, but because this makes any philosophical thesis a unjustified belief, and scientism being a philosophical thesis is a unjustified and arbitary belief under their own term, therefore strong scientism is a self contradicting thesis.
And the claim of weak scientism would mean that the prepositions of the empirical science are stronger than the philosiphical prepositions used by the science to justify and rech their conclusion, and this makes the weak scientism also self contradicting because the streng of any preposition is the same as the weakest of their nesesary assumtions ans the science needs philosophy. J.P. Morealnd cite John Kekes in a strong argument agaibst cientifism: "A successful argument for the science to be able to prove itaelf as the paradigm of rationality should be based in the proof that the presumtions of the science are preferable to any other presumtion. That proof requires the sciene to proof, grounded in their presumtions, that is better solving some problems and archieving ideals than their competence. But proof this is no a task of the science. Actually is a task for philosophy. So, the company to justify the presumtions of the science proving with the help of the philosophy that the science is the best way of solve some problems and archive some ideals is a nesesary prerequisite to justify the science. Therefore, the philosophy, and no the science, is a stronger candidate for being the paradigm of the reasonability."
With Scietism out of the way we xan beign with refutation of the critics of type 1:
1a. Critics from orthodox economy schools claim that the Austrian School of Economy is a weaker source of knowledge because is no a part os the empirical science with is the exact thesis of the weak scientificism therefore makong all the critics of this kind as self-cobtradictory because depend in a self-contradicting thesis as was proved before.
With this oposition about the validaty of the Austrian School of Economics no more in the pending list. There is the need to justify the method of the Austrian School of Economy. The Austrian School of Econamy based their affirmations in the stablish and justify some base set of premises as their base axioms and trougth logical deduxtions proves all their claims, therefore makong all their claims by prepositional transitivity as strong as the weakest of their axioms. As such the only legit ways to critize the Austrian School of Economy are one criticize their axioms, or two find errors in their proofs.
1b. Critics from orthodox economy schools claim that the Austrian School of Economy is a Pseudocience, but this is trivial or difamatory.
If you consider that everything that is no a Emphirical Science pesudocience then the term has no critical meaning and there can be pesudocientific knowledge that is true knowledge as would be the mathematics. You still can try to put this definition of pesudocience some critical meaning but it just would lead to at least weak scientificism and therefore a self-contradictory thesis. Making a trivial and meaningless critic.
But if psudoscience is defined as something that is no a Emphirical Science but claims to be one, the the "critic" of the Austrian School of Economy is no more than groundless difamation of this school of economy that has never claim to be a empirical science but has called itself as a branch of philosophy forced to the deductive methods of the logic over their base axioms.
Maybe the critics that call Pseudocience to the Austrian School of Economy belive and want that pseudocience had a nesesary negative meaning but for this to be possible you have to accept philosophy as a branch of science.
1c. Some critics would attack the Austrian School of Economy because does no fit their favorite thesis of epistemiology (like positivism) but by prepositional transitivity all the claims of the Austrian Economics are as strong as their weakest axiom so unless a refutation of their axioms is given, the claaims if the School of Economy are true knowledge. And does not matter you school of epistemiology.
2. The idea that emphirical can disprove some stament that has reached veracity trought a deductive proof is false, because dedutive proofs will be always over anykind of inductive proof. (If you are no enough conviced of this argument I would hestitate you to see the Video "The most misleading patterns in methematics" by the TH-cam Channel of Mathematics Zach Star), therefore every critic of the point 3 is wrong.
If you want to prove wrong the affirmations of the Austrian School of Economy, you only can: (1) Find mistakes in the proofs of their affirmations, or (2) prove their base axioms to be wrong. The problem is that (1) All their Axioms are unquestinable unless you want to accept a heavely undesire conclusion and (2) all their proofs are already revied infinite many times. So the Austrian School of Economy is the only true Economic School.
@@johndeaf9194 The opressed can act. No for nothing they complain.
@@engelsteinberg593 Brilliant analysis.
So far Austrian economics sounds a lot like religion.
Care to explain how belief in the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge is like a religion? Is Kantian Metaphysics a religion?
@@Swift-mr5zi I don't even know what you are talking about.
@@Stewiehleba Well thanks for affirming that, Austrian econ is based off a set of esoteric philosophical reasoning, it is not religious. It doesn't even prescribe ought claims, it's purely descriptive.
@@Swift-mr5zi How did I affirm anything. I just said I don't know what you are talking about. Austrian IDEOLOGY, not economics, is crap, because it does not work. It does not care about the real world or history. It's just a bunch of morons circle jerking about crap they thought about, but have not even attempted to prove empirically.
@@Stewiehleba It’s almost like you didn’t even bother to try to learn.
Diamond are more expensive because it is a scam, but your praxeological approach limits your ability to analyze it. But if you want to know why some less valuable things are more expensive it is because they are a scam. Value and price are not same. Mind you.
Diamonds are more expensive because of perceived value. I don't value diamonds, so I'll never buy them. Other people value them so they buy them. By your definition of a scam, any food you buy outside of vitamin-infused communist gruel is a scam. You don't need a huge variety of foods to stay alive, just have your gruel.
Value is Subjective.
Damn you got owned, go and cry to your state owned home. 😂😂😂
Marxists shouldn't discuss about economy cause they want to end it,there is no "socialist economy" by definiton
@@Rhygenix
No it's not. Water will always be more valuable to the man dying of thirst than the one who is not thirsty. The price of that water might change, but the value and use changes independently.
Facts do not care about feelings. Emotions and opinions about value are irrelevant to the real, material utility of something.
game theory pseudo-science