Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does the Austrian school of economics have solutions?
#21
(06-03-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Being not business minded that link goes right over my head. I just imagine a country as if it is a business. The more you spend if you want to make a profit has to depend on several things like demand, what buyers are willing to pay, quality (and ultimately reputation). So what you will get back from what you spend which hopefully will be more than what you paid. So I can understand these matters i shrink it down to personalize it. A company that is paying for folks who do nothing is not making a profit from that. But the layabouts are. Those who can work, should. But my point is if a govt spends more it should calculate that kind of move to see if they will profit from it. If not, don't. As we know, the govt spends tax dollars on bs. I also thought tax was supposed to go on things that benefit the people like, healthcare and public services. Well, it does in my country anyway.

A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#22
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Being not business minded that link goes right over my head. I just imagine a country as if it is a business. The more you spend if you want to make a profit has to depend on several things like demand, what buyers are willing to pay, quality (and ultimately reputation). So what you will get back from what you spend which hopefully will be more than what you paid. So I can understand these matters i shrink it down to personalize it. A company that is paying for folks who do nothing is not making a profit from that. But the layabouts are. Those who can work, should. But my point is if a govt spends more it should calculate that kind of move to see if they will profit from it. If not, don't. As we know, the govt spends tax dollars on bs. I also thought tax was supposed to go on things that benefit the people like, healthcare and public services. Well, it does in my country anyway.

A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

it is however supposed to create an environment that is business friendly. Not sell it off completely which is what National is doing here and labour giving stuff to refugees.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#23
(06-03-2016, 01:41 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Being not business minded that link goes right over my head. I just imagine a country as if it is a business. The more you spend if you want to make a profit has to depend on several things like demand, what buyers are willing to pay, quality (and ultimately reputation). So what you will get back from what you spend which hopefully will be more than what you paid. So I can understand these matters i shrink it down to personalize it. A company that is paying for folks who do nothing is not making a profit from that. But the layabouts are. Those who can work, should. But my point is if a govt spends more it should calculate that kind of move to see if they will profit from it. If not, don't. As we know, the govt spends tax dollars on bs. I also thought tax was supposed to go on things that benefit the people like, healthcare and public services. Well, it does in my country anyway.

A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

it is however supposed to create an environment that is business friendly. Not sell it off completely which is what National is doing here and labour giving stuff to refugees.

I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#24
(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:41 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:22 AM)taramarie Wrote: Being not business minded that link goes right over my head. I just imagine a country as if it is a business. The more you spend if you want to make a profit has to depend on several things like demand, what buyers are willing to pay, quality (and ultimately reputation). So what you will get back from what you spend which hopefully will be more than what you paid. So I can understand these matters i shrink it down to personalize it. A company that is paying for folks who do nothing is not making a profit from that. But the layabouts are. Those who can work, should. But my point is if a govt spends more it should calculate that kind of move to see if they will profit from it. If not, don't. As we know, the govt spends tax dollars on bs. I also thought tax was supposed to go on things that benefit the people like, healthcare and public services. Well, it does in my country anyway.

A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

it is however supposed to create an environment that is business friendly. Not sell it off completely which is what National is doing here and labour giving stuff to refugees.

I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#25
(06-03-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.

I want you to understand the failure of the attempts to cartelize under lassiz-faire because this process has occurred in all nations at various times in history.  I don't have much material on NZ so this is the best that I can do.  Most Western countries these days are walking down similar paths so many lessons of US history do apply to NZ and the reverse is also true.

I do know that NZ had a much more extensive welfare state in the seventies than they do now and it nearly bankrupted them and so it was scaled back.  The only reason the US has gotten away with it this long is due to world reserve status of the dollar which will probably not last too much longer.  Then the US will have the same sort of problems NZ had only much larger.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#26
(06-03-2016, 02:53 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.

I want you to understand the failure of the attempts to cartelize under lassiz-faire because this process has occurred in all nations at various times in history.  I don't have much material on NZ so this is the best that I can do.  Most Western countries these days are walking down similar paths so many lessons of US history do apply to NZ and the reverse is also true.

I do know that NZ had a much more extensive welfare state in the seventies than they do now and it nearly bankrupted them and so it was scaled back.  The only reason the US has gotten away with it this long is due to world reserve status of the dollar which will probably not last too much longer.  Then the US will have the same sort of problems NZ had only much larger.

Should that not be under a different thread though? What connection does it have to my original topic? That i cannot understand. That is true regarding lessons being learned from other countries failings. Yeah our welfare system changed after national got in in 2008. I am not sure about before that. But it definitely changed after they got in. In some ways it is good as it pushes people to get a job BUT they even force people who have things such as lung cancer to even get a job. Just today i heard about a case like that. It should be for people like him. Someone who is legitimately ill. Or the elderly. But, this topic really needs its own thread. I do not see how it applies to my original topic.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#27
(06-03-2016, 03:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:53 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.

I want you to understand the failure of the attempts to cartelize under lassiz-faire because this process has occurred in all nations at various times in history.  I don't have much material on NZ so this is the best that I can do.  Most Western countries these days are walking down similar paths so many lessons of US history do apply to NZ and the reverse is also true.

I do know that NZ had a much more extensive welfare state in the seventies than they do now and it nearly bankrupted them and so it was scaled back.  The only reason the US has gotten away with it this long is due to world reserve status of the dollar which will probably not last too much longer.  Then the US will have the same sort of problems NZ had only much larger.

Should that not be under a different thread though? What connection does it have to my original topic? That i cannot understand. That is true regarding lessons being learned from other countries failings. Yeah our welfare system changed after national got in in 2008. I am not sure about before that. But it definitely changed after they got in. In some ways it is good as it pushes people to get a job BUT they even force people who have things such as lung cancer to even get a job. Just today i heard about a case like that. It should be for people like him. Someone who is legitimately ill. Or the elderly. But, this topic really needs its own thread. I do not see how it applies to my original topic.

The event I am referring to occurred in the early eighties which is probably before you were born.  I was trying to point out that the methods that work for physics and engineering do not work for soft sciences.  In medicine you can perform double blind experiments but in any realm that covers the human psyche this is not possible in the general case.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#28
(06-03-2016, 03:15 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 03:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:53 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you start with Rothbard lecturing hist students on why the cartels and the trusts of the late 19th century failed.  After that consider why J.P. Morgan funded the Progressive party in 1912.  One of the big mysteries that Eric the Obtuse will never unravel is why big business in general does not support the free market but Rothbard and Mises understood perfectly well the reasons.

I will observe what is being said as it really does not apply to the NZ govt due to it being American politics. It is actually not the topic that my thread was meant for in the first place and really should be relocated to another area. It amazes me how Americans can turn any subject into a political war zone. Must be exhausting. Luckily my country is not nearly as bad. Numbers of citizens have something to do with that thankfully.

I want you to understand the failure of the attempts to cartelize under lassiz-faire because this process has occurred in all nations at various times in history.  I don't have much material on NZ so this is the best that I can do.  Most Western countries these days are walking down similar paths so many lessons of US history do apply to NZ and the reverse is also true.

I do know that NZ had a much more extensive welfare state in the seventies than they do now and it nearly bankrupted them and so it was scaled back.  The only reason the US has gotten away with it this long is due to world reserve status of the dollar which will probably not last too much longer.  Then the US will have the same sort of problems NZ had only much larger.

Should that not be under a different thread though? What connection does it have to my original topic? That i cannot understand. That is true regarding lessons being learned from other countries failings. Yeah our welfare system changed after national got in in 2008. I am not sure about before that. But it definitely changed after they got in. In some ways it is good as it pushes people to get a job BUT they even force people who have things such as lung cancer to even get a job. Just today i heard about a case like that. It should be for people like him. Someone who is legitimately ill. Or the elderly. But, this topic really needs its own thread. I do not see how it applies to my original topic.

The event I am referring to occurred in the early eighties which is probably before you were born.  I was trying to point out that the methods that work for physics and engineering do not work for soft sciences.  In medicine you can perform double blind experiments but in any realm that covers the human psyche this is not possible in the general case.
So in other words, science cannot prove nor disprove an afterlife. I already know that. We can only experience it and opinions on what caused that experience will differ in opinion depending on the mind set of the individual. Actually sometimes it can completely change the mind set of a person depending on what happens. When they cannot explain it away rationally. Like myself. I just posted this merely to see the differences in opinion.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#29
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote: A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

Perhaps the most important delusion.

Of course the state has a way to determine what is valuable. It's what the people vote for. They express their values when they vote.

The private sector compels you to buy products because it corners markets. "Cartelization" is the natural tendency of the free-market, not a "mistake" which it committed in the late 19th and early 20th century. It has come roaring back since neo-liberal, libertarian economics assumed power in the USA and in many western-style democracies in the 1980s. We live now in a society dominated by cartels, and justified by the slogans of "free enterprise" that merely enable the cartels to dominate us. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are leaders in the movement in the USA to return control of our state to the people instead of these new-style cartels.

The private sector also compels people to obey the dictates of money and property. If people don't, they get hauled off to jail for stealing. But that means that money rules. He that has the gold, rules, is the libertarian version of the golden rule. I prefer the traditional version myself; the one upheld by all religions.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#30
(06-03-2016, 09:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote: A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

Perhaps the most important delusion.

Of course the state has a way to determine what is valuable. It's what the people vote for. They express their values when they vote.

The private sector also compels people to obey the dictates of money and property. If people don't, they get hauled off to jail for stealing. But that means that money rules. He that has the gold, rules, is the libertarian version of the golden rule. I prefer the traditional version myself; the one upheld by all religions.

Government can not do economic calculation.  Voting as a means of economic calculation is absurd for the simple reason that 50% + 1 get to override the preferences of 50% - 1.  This typically does not happen in the market for the simple reason that one producers products do not necessarily preclude the existence of another producer creating something else.  Voting only allows people to express a preference without regard to the resources available which is by no means economic calculation and tends to lead to disaster.  People keep voting for socialists in Venezuela but it is safe to say that they don't like what they are getting.

If you botthered to read Gabriel Kolko, no friend of the free market, you would know that he came to essentially the same conclusion that Rothbard did about the consequences of the progressives.  He was not very happy about that discovery.  You are an economic illiterate who has only been exposed to the comic book version of history one gets through the public schools.  Yet another example of the glaring failures of the state.

Saying that people are compelled by economic realities is a bit like saying people are compelled by physics to fall should they walk off a cliff.  Money is a medium of exchange which allow people to decide for themselves what is most important to them.  It also provides a way of allocating resource to their best use a expressed by their preferences.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#31
(06-03-2016, 12:42 PM)Galen Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 09:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 01:36 AM)Galen Wrote: A government is not a business.  Name a private sector business that can compel you to buy their product or service?  I should be very surprise if you find one.  Simply spending will not create wealth because the state has no way to determine what is truly valuable.  This is the the most important lesson that you can learn from the writings of Mises and Rothbard.

Perhaps the most important delusion.

Of course the state has a way to determine what is valuable. It's what the people vote for. They express their values when they vote.

The private sector also compels people to obey the dictates of money and property. If people don't, they get hauled off to jail for stealing. But that means that money rules. He that has the gold, rules, is the libertarian version of the golden rule. I prefer the traditional version myself; the one upheld by all religions.

Government can not do economic calculation.
Stop you right there. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you fall for this most obvious of delusions. Amazing, though! You and your libertarian buddies REALLY DO think that "value" = "economic calculation!" Total absurdity!

Quote:  Voting as a means of economic calculation is absurd for the simple reason that 50% + 1 get to override the preferences of 50% - 1.  This typically does not happen in the market for the simple reason that one producers products do not necessarily preclude the existence of another producer creating something else.  Voting only allows people to express a preference without regard to the resources available which is by no means economic calculation and tends to lead to disaster.  People keep voting for socialists in Venezuela but it is safe to say that they don't like what they are getting.
Venezuela was unfortunately not socialist, but cult worship. I would not have voted for that bozo Hugo Chavez.

People voting express their values; their priorities of what needs to be done by the state. That of course includes how much people want to be taxed. All this obviously encompasses much more than what makes the most money for somebody. If resources are needed to accomplish what is needed, then it taxes you. And I hope it taxes you until you bleed! Since that's all you care about!

Quote:If you botthered to read Gabriel Kolko, no friend of the free market, you would know that he came to essentially the same conclusion that Rothbard did about the consequences of the progressives.  He was not very happy about that discovery.  You are an economic illiterate who has only been exposed to the comic book version of history one gets through the public schools.  Yet another example of the glaring failures of the state.
You obviously don't read my posts so you are not entitled to say what I know or what I don't.

Quote:Saying that people are compelled by economic realities is a bit like saying people are compelled by physics to fall should they walk off a cliff.  Money is a medium of exchange which allow people to decide for themselves what is most important to them.  It also provides a way of allocating resource to their best use a expressed by their preferences.

Money can't buy what is most important to people, and having money does not mean that the market will supply you with what you need. Often, it only supplies what is convenient for them to make. That's why I often cannot buy what I want to buy in this economy. And money in the world does not mean that a corporate economy is going to hire you, and it certainly does not provide for fair wages or working conditions. What making the market central DOES do, is force all values into the economic calculus. And that means the abdication of all values, and the destruction of our planet.

If anything has screwed up the last century-plus, and provided a false foundation for our civilization, it is this obsession with economics, the lowest value, above all other values. If you look at previous civilizations around the world, you see people dedicated to spending enormous time and effort on making beautiful monuments and works of art that express the spirit. Money was not the motive for these accomplishments, and their value can't be expressed in economic terms. But, dummies like you think that money is the only value, and that's why we have the kind of commercial claptrap that we have in our society.

Is this discussion off topic? Not really. Those earlier civilizations understood that there's more to existence than one lifetime for one human being. What is valuable is what lasts. Economic calculation guarantees that what is created will not be any more valuable than next week's balance sheet. What a shallow view of life you have, Galen!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#32
[Galen]If you botthered to read Gabriel Kolko, no friend of the free market, you would know that he came to essentially the same conclusion that Rothbard did about the consequences of the progressives.  He was not very happy about that discovery.  You are an economic illiterate who has only been exposed to the comic book version of history one gets through the public schools.  Yet another example of the glaring failures of the state.

[Mike] I was going to bring up this point, but see you already did.  The mistake you are making is you seem to be confusing the progressives to which Kolko referred, with the New Dealers of later times. From a right pov they look the same, just as the many varieties of conservatives look the same from a left pov, but they are quite different.

Also I find your call for a mystical economics amusing.
Reply
#33
(06-03-2016, 08:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Let's bring this topic back to the alleged confirmation of life after death.

Thank you. I agree. If people want to talk about politics (and continue that conversation please create a thread about it). My interest for this thread which is mine is to talk about life after death. Something that I believe I have a shared interest of alongside Eric who has an interesting insight into it seems.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#34
(06-03-2016, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Also I find your call for a mystical economics amusing.

It isn't but the Austrian School approach recognizes that experiments are not possible.  What you have to work with is logic and deduction from actual events and human nature.  Much of what they write can be translated in Propositional Logic and First Order Predicate Calculus which are very useful tools in proving whether a statement is true.  There is nothing mystical about such this.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#35
(06-03-2016, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Also I find your call for a mystical economics amusing.

Ha ha Smile
Researchers finally confirm. There is life beyond economics.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#36
(06-04-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote: [Galen]What you have to work with is logic and deduction from actual events and human nature.  Much of what they write can be translated in Propositional Logic and First Order Predicate Calculus which are very useful tools in proving whether a statement is true.  There is nothing mystical about such this.
[Mike]The mysticism comes in the assumptions about human nature.

Not really.  People always try to improve improve their material conditions at the lowest possible cost.  It is known that people prefer some things over other and that varies from one person to another.  This is where the concept of marginal utility comes from and it helps explain many economic matters.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#37
(06-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-03-2016, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Also I find your call for a mystical economics amusing.

Ha ha Smile
Researchers finally confirm. There is life beyond economics.

Careful.  That was almost a joke.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#38
OK, Galen and others.... bring the discussion here. Many people don't like the merits and demerits of Hayek, Mises, etc., discussed in their pet forums on spirituality, culture, etc.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#39
New thread for the discussion of the Austrian school. Please take the discussion of Austrian economics (not to be confused with the glorious fount of Austrian music) there. Thank you.

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-161.html
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#40
(Says Galen)
Quote:the Austrian School approach recognizes that experiments are not possible.  What you have to work with is logic and deduction from actual events and human nature.  Much of what they write can be translated in Propositional Logic and First Order Predicate Calculus which are very useful tools in proving whether a statement is true.  There is nothing mystical about such this.


I say: no valid science so operates. Propositional logic is practically an admission of the paucity of empirical evidence. First order predicate calculus sounds impressive -- but it is capable of proving reality based upon some extant principles beyond proof.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)