A Beginner’s Guide to Austrian Economics
From the article:
The “Austrian School” of economics grew out of the work of the late 19th and 20th century Vienna economists Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek (though of course Austrian School economists need not hail from Austria). Austrians focus strongly on the analysis of individual human action. This is known as praxeology, the study of the logical implications of the fact that individuals act with purpose, from which all economic theory can be deduced. Austrians also note the correlation between greater economic freedom and greater political and moral freedom. This in part explains why Austrian economics is the intellectual foundation for libertarianism. Austrians rightly attribute the repeated implosions of mainstream Keynesian economics to the latter’s focus on empirical observations, mathematical models, and statistical analysis.
The “Austrian School” of economics grew out of the work of the late 19th and 20th century Vienna economists Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek (though of course Austrian School economists need not hail from Austria). Austrians focus strongly on the analysis of individual human action. This is known as praxeology, the study of the logical implications of the fact that individuals act with purpose, from which all economic theory can be deduced. Austrians also note the correlation between greater economic freedom and greater political and moral freedom. This in part explains why Austrian economics is the intellectual foundation for libertarianism. Austrians rightly attribute the repeated implosions of mainstream Keynesian economics to the latter’s focus on empirical observations, mathematical models, and statistical analysis.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
As for inventions and productivity not being the same thing, I mention this in the first paragraph of my first post. And I agree, they are not the same thing.
Inventions and productivity are not the same thing. And inventions always come first.
But throwing that aside, the computer was created to help people carry out more advanced calculations quicker and easier than could be done by previous inventions. It didn’t just go from the abacus to the computer we see today. In between the two were inventions of other computing devices that used mechanical pieces that performed the functions of calculations (the Babbage differential engine). It was a process of invention after invention, improvement after improvement that eventually lead to the digital programmable computers we see today. And the use of using digital inputs and programming was just an improvement from the existing technology of using analog inputs.
As everything became digital, calculations were able to become increasingly complex through the use of programming. It didn’t take long before you had people (innovative programmers) looking at other ways of using programming to create other functions with the computer. Before you knew it, people were writing programs and computer games from nothing more than advanced versions of this original technology.
And now today we are able to do so many advanced functions on these computers that no one would have imagined 100 years ago. So when we look at the computer today, it is often hard on how to see how it all came to be. Was the computer created so you could play games on it or surf the internet? Absolutely not. Its origins were for computing and number crunching but with a little bit of innovation, people were able to think of many other functions and uses for it.
And you are right in a roundabout way that inventions do not happen naturally. They occur when an individual (inventor) believes that there is a better way of doing or solving an existing problem. As it turns out this process is constantly occurring because people are always finding better ways to solve existing problems. So in a way it is happening naturally but it is only because people see a better way of solving existing problems. But this is more of a focus on specific words rather than the concept.
So you might ask why would a person invent something in the first place if they know somebody else is going to copy and sell their idea? Let me ask you, would you rather buy a knockoff or the real deal? Would you rather buy Rearden’s Metal from Hank or would you rather buy someone else’s knockoff of it? I know I would rather buy it from Hank if they were both the same price but if they weren’t the same price, then I would consider value vs. price in my buying decision. But is it that bad that people can buy the same goods for lower price? Or is it that bad that there are multiple companies competing for my money?
In order to support copyright laws you must by definition also support a restricted flow of knowledge in the economy. Copyright laws at a basic level are the creation of a legal monopoly on ideas and inventions. In order to support copyright laws you also have to support some degree of stagnation in the economy. When you prohibit ideas from flowing freely, you are slowing down technological growth in the economy. Government regulations and copyright laws have one thing in common, they both slow down growth in an economy.
Inventions do not happen naturally. There is absolutely no evidence for this point of view. The only reason we escaped the malthusian trap was because of property rights for inventions.. And only increases in technology can make use wealthier. Without Patents there is no incentive to invent, because it is always cheaper to copy other people as history shows.
Do whatever it takes to convince voters to sustain my uninterrupted political career with its great health care plan and a retirement package.
(Hey, I did not even think to use my cynical Comrade Citizen character for this baby. Well, I did after the writing).
What dbh and kh have a problem with is IP protection. As a patent attorney this is understandable, but it clouds their perspective.
Load more comments...