The previous post prompted a brief debate between a Catholic and austroliberal Daniel Ballesteros Calderón and Luis H. Arroyo, who is considered an Austrian (and I would say that "Friedmanite") although it is extremely critical of the Instituto Juan de Mariana and what he considers austroliberalismo dogmas. Both economists dispense with labels (which will honor) and his principles and ideas lead them to other points of connection and conflict. Fortunately for the other, focused in the second and hopefully have time and inclination to illustrate a deeper discussion. Blog
Del Martin Wolf and Louis H. Arroyo extract some of the criticisms against EAE, intending to "get a word" (despite my limitations) on the subject.
First: Is hyperrationalism SEA, especially the doctrine Misesian?
Luis argues that rationalism as an absolute guide is the invention of an imaginary world he does in his Realism interesting entry where you answer a couple of responses (mine) to a previous post ended with the devastating phrase
"Ergo, sometimes has to intervene to correct excess power that the very freedom brings. "
This entry is the continuation of the above" No Man or I rational "and" Man II is not rational "While I understand that
referral to numerous posts difficult to follow the thread of the debate, I recommend reading the links provided. Luis indicates that SEA, especially Mises, builds a finalist rationalism that leads to constructivism, which is just what you want to fight in the form of Socialism in all its variants. understood that Hayek barely got to see that risk and get off the horse in time. Accuse fans of the SEA to consider the individual infallible , in what would be a "last brake" against collectivism (in the latter I quite agree, so I'm not anarcho-capitalist).
For his part, Martin Wolf ( chief economics commentator the Financial Times) no slouch with the following pearl:
"I have to say That, so far, the posts by Austrians Fall Into What I Have Found a Consistent pattern: the Absence of Any Rigorous argument Combined with arrogance and a conviction That Both the apocalypse is inevitable and desirable. But I am going to try to keep an open mind so long as I can. "Martin Wolf is
regular attendee at annual meetings of the club Bildelberg , which may explain the Austrian thesis will seem a risk to obvious collusion between International Bank, governments and global economic planning agencies as the IMF, OECD and the World Bank. It does not say much in its favor in the same post that the Austrians rhea cite the port Krugman, insufferable "pope" of Keynesianism or more stale :
For Those Interested (and Reasonably open-minded) Paul Krugman has waded Into this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/martin-and-the-austrians/
brand must thank the 2008 Economics Nobel your item to be brief. A pestiño, yes, but brief. accuses the "Austrians" not able to explain unemployment. No drops his head in shame of not being able to explain how unemployment has not abated in countries like Spain where they have implemented the most radical Keynesian proposals to increase the deficit and public incentives, such as the failed Plan E.
Returning to the first criticism: Does reason enthroned austroliberalismo at risk of becoming what it claims to fight?
think it is a criticism based on biased reading of the Austrians. First Menger and von Böhm-Bawerk (me too often I mess with his name, Luis;)) faced the German historicism n which reduced the economy to an appendix of history. Then Mises tried to separate the study of Economics method used for the Physical Sciences. is in this purpose which is to a legitimate use of reason to turn the economy into a major social science, autonomous and not subject to others. But few are so ideological trends as the doctrines Austrian overachieving when to use reason. Even building Misesian praxeology makes clear the limitation of reason , methodological individualism, subjectivity in valuation of means and ends (leading beyond the subjectivism of marginality in determining the value) and distrust systematically on the individual and collective beliefs.
Praxeology away to enthrone reason, seeks direct it towards the discovery of self-evident truths precisely so that any interested meander of reason to blow up the undeniable.
The distrust of human reason becomes more plausible in Hayekian theory of the dispersion of knowledge . I honestly do not know any thinker who proclaimed Austria to deny or even annotates this essential feature of austroliberalismo. "In what other schools of economic thought is as powerful antidote against constructivism , against the ordination of socio-economic life by a powerful planning body?
course, is not found in the Keynesianism. The monetarism also believes that the money supply is best determined by a central body composed by the market decisions of millions individuals. Of social democracy, not to mention, of course.
2) Another criticism is that the Austrians blindly believe in the goodness of the individual or provided above the collective. Honestly, I think that here are given a kick in the ass anarcho-capitalists from all the Austrian School. I understand and agree with many criticisms of Rothbard, then return to them.
But it should be noted here that the mainstream view of the Austrians is not an anarchist but minarchist . It relies on a minimal state, guarantor of laws and principles but little clear, orderly social life as pillars or logs after branch following the autonomy enshrined in binding contracts free. No, do not see the individual as well as being an individual "and the State" for being bad state. " It supports the government's need, but in an order much less enthusiastic than other ideologies (even other liberals). Is accepted as a "lesser evil" to which comes because of the presence of defects in human nature. Otherwise it would rebuild the myth of the noble savage dressed merchant indumentum.
But this imperfect human nature being what it is necessary to constrain especially when it takes over the very powerful state mechanisms. If we can not change human nature best not to give as a tool for their flaws, the huge state apparatus potentially liberticidal : limit the state.
"Enough to get along, we quarrel a bit.
"But do not take advantage to escape liberals" live "?
"Do not worry, when we get tired of wax give them back to herd them.
3) The "arrogance" of the Austrian School:
Fools are everywhere, no doubt. But a defect arrogance as personal as I do not know how far it can extend to an entire school of thought. That has austroliberales arrogant, I do not doubt myself and I can give examples. Because I can give of Marxists, anarcho, conservative, historicist ... I guess the fact of being a minority trend, the postulates, assume, cause Ian an earthquake in the distribution patterns of power and influence, has made it particularly reviled . The accusation of arrogance is typical of someone who does not fall to discuss the core ideas in question. "That guy is arrogant, not worth discussing what he says." certainly is useful to steal the debate. Aggressiveness may widespread suffering, many Austrians have made very little compromise, no doubt. I guess it's an allegation about which debate is quite sterile, it is best not to be arrogant against those who accuse one of being. Although these yes they are.
Indeed, Hayek's last book was titled "The fatal conceit" and dealt specifically about the offensiveness of rationalist constructivism, the fool of the man who is considered superior by the mere momentum of his imperfect reason. Curious, no? More
criticism, but I think that's enough for today. In a next post I will discuss them. Hopefully this will generate debate. Man, I suspect we will not see Martin Wolf or Paul Krugman here, but, you know what? That their loss!
0 comments:
Post a Comment