Austrian Economics

[icon124]

I've been studying Austrian Economics as much as I can. I go to school full time and double major in Finance and Economics, so it's hard to devote substantial amounts of time to it, but I try. Anyway it just seems like Austrian Economics is the right answer for everything, but there has to be some kind of criticism towards Austrian Economics or we wouldn't have all of these others methods out there. It just seems like if Austrian Economics was as right as I picture it to be, then this would be the only way to look at economics.

Anyway, if any of you study Austrian Economics, what are the rebuttals to it? Why doesn't everyone study it?

Oh, and if you don't study it you should! go to www.mises.org and they have a bunch of free stuff on it. The have a new media section that has audio recording of lectures, which is EXTREMELY helpful.

[jonahtrainer]

I think the main criticism is the lack of conflict of interest Austrian Economists have. Their opponents point to the lack of 'math' type studies and evidence. Of course, the Establishment economists use the math to obfuscate and in some instances deliberately deceive. There job would be so easy if 'gold' did not exist. Keep in mind; they do not add value to society equal to their salary because their salary is oftentimes derived from state funds which are gained through robbery (taxes). Thus, most economics professors are state parasites and their obvious conflict of interest should be taken into account when evaluating their work. Of course, don't tell them that because most think they are 'advocates of the free market.' :eek:

You see, commodities are produced because they have value. Wheat, soybeans, corn are useful for food, oil for fuel and gold is produced because it has value as money in assisting humans in performing mental calculations of value. Why else do miners risk their life descending 2.25 miles into the earth to mine a metal that has over 5 billion ounces of aboveground stocks?

Economics is really just a 'soft science' and there can be endless empty pablum because the cause and effect relationships are so attenuated to the untrained eye. Economics is really more like philosophy than physics.

Once you have a solid base in Austrian Economics and understand the monetary role of gold (RunToGold.com (http://www.runtogold.com)) then you can become one very successful investor. It is as if you have Superman vision to see things as they really are .... yet it is so simple.

[bucfish]

Yeah Austrian Economists are so simple in many ways that it seems hard to believe. Basically Law of Supply and demand reigns. Yet Men tend to make things so hard. Yet really economics just like Calculus is really simple, if you just K.I.S.S. !

[shocker315]

I've been studying Austrian Economics as much as I can. I go to school full time and double major in Finance and Economics, so it's hard to devote substantial amounts of time to it, but I try. Anyway it just seems like Austrian Economics is the right answer for everything, but there has to be some kind of criticism towards Austrian Economics or we wouldn't have all of these others methods out there. It just seems like if Austrian Economics was as right as I picture it to be, then this would be the only way to look at economics.

Anyway, if any of you study Austrian Economics, what are the rebuttals to it? Why doesn't everyone study it?

Oh, and if you don't study it you should! go to www.mises.org and they have a bunch of free stuff on it. The have a new media section that has audio recording of lectures, which is EXTREMELY helpful.

Here is a pretty comprehensive rebuttal of Austrian Economics. If you want a different take on the subject. (see the myths about economics section about 1/2 of the way down).


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm



It may seem quite convincing on first read based on its comprehensiveness and some of the selected arguments he presents.... However, the author is admittedly biased in his views (see title of web page). He overlooks, with no attempt to explain, many negative elements of the the current monetary system and its effects, while trumpeting Keynesian mainstream economics as if it where a "hard science" with provable and repeatable testable experiments (which its not...its a social science). He extols the supposed virtues of big government while ignoring its obvious failures. Also, he selectively highlights other aspects to make Austrians appear as far out "cranks" who have no clue what they are talking about, and their arguments appear unworthy of acknowledgment or consideration.

However, it does give you the standard rebuttals that anyone who wishes argue in favor of less government an all aspects of social and economic life must overcome if they are to convince others and implement change. In that sense, knowing your criticisms is beneficial to improving your own understanding.

[Paulitician]

One of the main reasons it's not so mainstream/prevalent in say schools and colleges is because it's not positivist like many other economic schools of thought. It comes at economics from a much more logical viewpoint than a strict scientific one.

[Paulitician]

http://www.mises.org/story/616

[kyleAF]

http://www.mises.org/story/616

That's a good article. I haven't seen that one before. Thanks!

(and it illustrates the difference between Austrian and conventional economics, OP)