You mis-represent things. Hayek didn't say that reason is limited, but that universal knowledge is impossible. Only if one could have knowledge of all needs, and reactions to prices could one centrally control an economy. This cannot be done, thus centralized control can never work.
I wouldn't call it anti-science from what I have read. I see it as a recognition of the current limitations, and counter to the pretense of big government claiming it can govern and control things it doesn't understand. (Not sure that my comments pertain to this thread though ;^)
actually, the Austrians are anti-science. The whole basis of Hayek's argument for capitalism is that reason is limited. The whole basis of von Mises' argument is that human decisions are subjective and therefore prices are subjective. Science is not about subjectivity and it is certainly not about the "limits" of reason. oh-and here's my fav-things are not measurable in economics. wow. you get a minor point -there is not a school of economics that is based on science. and none which are consistent with natural rights, rand or the philosophical basis for science
No. Hayek, Block, Hazlitt, Menger, von Mises, etc.
I know you have a problem with Austrians as it pertains to IP, but from a strictly economic theory perspective, they have it right. AR had the moral argument, the Austrians have the "science". I already have my own basis for why it is moral, I'm interested in how it functions.
And again, why do you keep trying to tar and feather me with the socialist/progressive brush?
Is there a reason that you want to continue to lie about me?
And there are many more, and in my estimation much better, references on Capitalism than anything that a novelist would have presented. I prefer those who actually study economic theory.
I try to avoid that word as it was coined by Karl Marx as a derisive term to describe the "evil" market system. Marx is obviously smarter than the millions of people who freely exchange value for value without ANY third party intervention in the transaction. (just kidding) Marx was describing HIS utopia and expecting others to finance the associated costs of achieving it. BTW, Marx was a true freeloader - Engles supported him for most of his life as he was not interested in having a job and earning his keep. If he had taken a job, he would have been guilty of exchanging value for value; and therefore become a capitalist!
Not exactly true. Most statistics is taught using a normal distribution and the evaluation tools for a normal distribution, but those of us who use statistics as part of our jobs know how to use non-parametric tools to properly study non-normal distributions. Thus, not all statistics analysis provides fallacious info.
As for statistical models providing accuracy better than the "assumptions," that too isn't exactly correct. There are techniques to reduce the error of data - for example increasing the sample size decreases the standard error by 1 over the square root of the number of samples. A good statistical practitioner knows how to compensate for the type and quality of data.
All that aside, that doesn't mean that gov't statisticians are any good or aren't only out to support their ideological objectives by any means necessary.
Exactly, that's the point. And by making the profit suitable for the increased costs of transporting and/or stocking the valued supplies, they are made available when needed at an overall lower cost.
I find it interesting that one of the underlying tenants of statistics is that most distributions will assume a normal (bell shaped) curve as long as the sample size is large enough. Unfortunately, that is a lie! That means most statistical projections are not believable; GIGO - garbage in garbage out. The output of any statistical model can never be more accurate than the WORST of the assumptions that were plugged into it. But, garbage is highly prized in Washington! That is why econometrics, statistical economics, is so popular with government economists.
That increased price will induce entrepreneurs to bring in more supplies since there will be enough profit to pay the additional cost incurred by transportation and the risk of not being able to get past storm-blocked roadways. That is the market system at work. IT is NOT a negative.
Be sure to include an economically sound definition of price gouging - when the free market bids up a price because of scarcity of supply coupled with a dramatic increase in demand (as was and is the case after EVERY major natural disaster) that is not price gouging; it is simply the market system using price as a rationing device. Most states call it price gouging because they are ignorant of basic economics.
Interesting. That adds another wrinkle to this. No wonder the Dems got crushed in last years election. You can mess with the numbers all you want but people know if they are doing well or not.
I am retired and now work part-time teaching at two different community colleges. I count as being out of the labor force because of my retirement status and I also count as holding TWO jobs in the governments "fuzzy math" numbers crunching.
You want an everyday example go to any gas station in NE when a storm is coming. I filled up two days ago at $1.999 per gal, today the same station is $2.069. The difference is the global warming falling out of the sky today. We have had over 50" of global warming in just over a week.
Yes. So we take all those people who have not been able to find a job and have become so discouraged and no longer even look (but would take a job if there were one to be taken) and we just remove them from the ranks of the jobless. Now that makes perfect sense.
Is there any information supplied by our government at any level that is believable? I don't think so. It's all about managing perception and controlling citizens.
Kinda proud of Gallup, calling State produced figures a lie is awesome! When I show my students how unemployment is figured out, they reacted in disbelief. But it really is pathetic. Have fun!
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
(Not sure that my comments pertain to this thread though ;^)
I know you have a problem with Austrians as it pertains to IP, but from a strictly economic theory perspective, they have it right. AR had the moral argument, the Austrians have the "science". I already have my own basis for why it is moral, I'm interested in how it functions.
And again, why do you keep trying to tar and feather me with the socialist/progressive brush?
yes, I would much rather study that "novelist"
And there are many more, and in my estimation much better, references on Capitalism than anything that a novelist would have presented. I prefer those who actually study economic theory.
As for statistical models providing accuracy better than the "assumptions," that too isn't exactly correct. There are techniques to reduce the error of data - for example increasing the sample size decreases the standard error by 1 over the square root of the number of samples. A good statistical practitioner knows how to compensate for the type and quality of data.
All that aside, that doesn't mean that gov't statisticians are any good or aren't only out to support their ideological objectives by any means necessary.
There are Lies,
There are Damn Lies,
and then there are Statistics.
There are few better ways to lie and have it believed than through statistics.
When I show my students how unemployment is figured out, they reacted in disbelief. But it really is pathetic.
Have fun!
Load more comments...