Comments on: A Triple Whammy for Austrian Economics

By: New England Patriots

New England Patriots — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:43 +0000

I really love this informative article 100%, hope you could certainly come up with much more about this.

By: Austrian School of Economics | Bastiat Institute

Austrian School of Economics | Bastiat Institute — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:57:15 +0000

[...] that place an inordinate amount of value on graphs and statistics, Austrians understand that, “mathematics is most applicable in describing situations in which all plans are coordinated and no di….” Taking their cue from von Mises, Austrians instead rely on human interaction—i.e., [...]

By: Sandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:29:56 +0000

“Your logic is impeccable, which precisely is why it will be rejected by the elites. They prefer to believe that they are so brilliant and talented that logic does not apply to them!”

Thanks. It’s less a matter of bad logic in this case than of what Kirzner would call “sheer ignorance,” i.e., not knowing that you don’t know! Well, that’ what FEE, and hopefully this article, can help remedy.

By: Sandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:28:20 +0000

“How do you distinguish between the regulations acquired from acummulated experimentation and knowledge embodied in traditions, and the illegitimate regulations imposed in an ill-considered attempt to steer the markets?”

It’s when regulations are aimed at achieving particular ends or at benefiting particular persons that negative unintended consequences tend to arise. The problem with relying on “accumulated experimentation” to correct errors in the political process is that adjustment there is very sluggish compared to the market with its price-based profit-and-loss-system.

By: William Anderson

William Anderson — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:42:56 +0000

Sandy,

I just came up on this, and it is terrific. The problem is that reporters at the NYT are hostile to logic in all its, well, logical forms. Instead, they prefer to think that it is “logical” to pound square pegs into round holes and insist the pegs are round.

Your logic is impeccable, which precisely is why it will be rejected by the elites. They prefer to believe that they are so brilliant and talented that logic does not apply to them!

By: j2hess

j2hess — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:03:09 +0000

“Identifying the causes of the widespread poor judgment that produced this mess requires that we look for changes in the “rules of the game” that gave investors the incentive to create it. Then, having understood that, we must change the incentive structure so as not only to revive the economy in a way consistent with sound economic principles but also to ensure that we don’t wind up back here ever again…. one might call this the “Austrian view.”

And when commentators call for re-regulation of the financial sector, isn’t this trying to restructure incentives to produce better outcomes? How do you distinguish between the regulations acquired from acummulated experimentation and knowledge embodied in traditions, and the illegitimate regulations imposed in an ill-considered attempt to steer the markets?

By: adam

adam — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:13:34 +0000

Doesnt Paul Krugman have a prominent column in this very same paper?

The article is riddled with contradiction anyway, for example implying that non-free market economists are shut out of academia then sighting the opinions of “prominent economics professors” that the discipline isnt shifting..

By: Free Market-Neoclassical-Austrian-Classical Liberalism-Libertarian Economics « Those OnBoard

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:50:39 +0000

[...] “Is there an economics that doesn’t proclaim the virtues of mathematical virtuosity? Does that economics appreciate the ability of the entrepreneurial-competitive process to generate social order and cooperation? Does that economics therefore search for the causes to the present situation, not in animal spirits, but in the rules of the game that gave rise to perverse incentives? Unfortunately, [the referenced author of a New York Times article] never asks these questions, but the answer is in the affirmative: Austrian economics.” (Sanford Ikeda, “A Triple Whammy for Austrian Economics”) [...]

By: William D.

William D. — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:32:12 +0000

“conversation between Friedrich Hayek and Leo Rosen from 1978 in which Hayek presents some of his conclusions about the relationships between statistics, probability theory, and macroeconomic explanation.”

http://hayekcenter.org/?p=882