tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6406372918359612751..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Who Said this About Austrian Economics?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89354437521973935022012-07-06T11:05:52.948-07:002012-07-06T11:05:52.948-07:00"Ethics and the Economic Interpretation"...<i>"Ethics and the Economic Interpretation" </i> is a paper that makes it quite clear of his position.<br /><br />I have written about Wiseman here: <br /><a href="radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/a-forgotten-austrian-jack-wiseman/" rel="nofollow">A Forgotten Austrian: Jack Wiseman</a>Isaac Izzy Marmolejohttp://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57674384378709358262012-07-06T06:47:03.927-07:002012-07-06T06:47:03.927-07:00I am not aware that Knight thought that markets w...I am not aware that Knight thought that markets were not self-correcting, though happy to be proven wrong on that point. I have not studied Wiseman.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47802999430825226422012-07-05T21:50:00.749-07:002012-07-05T21:50:00.749-07:00"... Of course those who believe that markets..."... Of course those who believe that markets are not self-correcting will likely view it as due to the lack of the required interventions."<br /><br />This is a misleading statement. For one, Frank Knight never thought of markets as self correcting, yet he was a classical liberal. Lachmann was the same way. So was Jack Wiseman. In other words, just because one thinks the markets are unstable doesn't follow that one automatically advocates intervention in itself, one may simply be questioning the self correcting process.Isaac Izzy Marmolejohttp://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-71342513700506966592012-07-05T17:46:10.962-07:002012-07-05T17:46:10.962-07:00Its obvious that many people right now are unempl...Its obvious that many people right now are unemployed who would be working if not for the state of the economy. Some get discouraged from looking for work they are actually qualified for and are then deemed "over-qualified" for less skilled jobs they seek as an alternatives.<br /><br />I'm not sure how useful the term "involuntarily unemployed" is and I am fine with defining it to mean anyone who would be employed if it were not for the fact that the economy is in disequilibrium.<br /><br />As someone who believes that free markets are essentially self-correcting it is not surprising that I see interventions into them as the main cause of such "involuntary unemployment". Of course those who believe that markets are not self-correcting will likely view it as due to the lack of the required interventions.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57531030412360895682012-07-05T17:30:44.797-07:002012-07-05T17:30:44.797-07:00I am hoping to do some kind of review of The Marke...I am hoping to do some kind of review of <i>The Market as an Economic Process</i> at least.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52490142394853203452012-07-05T10:38:46.190-07:002012-07-05T10:38:46.190-07:00"... He would find employment if he would acc..."... He would find employment if he would accept a lower wage even if had to work in a different type of job."<br /><br />This is too of a simple conclusion for capitalistic economies. For example, you'd be surprised with how much people cannot get work because they are "over qualified". There is more to unemployment and the analysis of it than just to assume that since there is work to be done, given that people are still acting in the economy , that there is still a sufficient amount of employment left for people that do want to work to work and that the only, or at least a big reason, why people can't get work is because of intervention.Isaac Izzy Marmolejohttp://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41620664466524537552012-07-05T08:51:03.271-07:002012-07-05T08:51:03.271-07:00Are you going to make chapter by chapter notes on ...Are you going to make chapter by chapter notes on Lachmann's book like Mr. Catalan did?<br /><br />And sorry to go off-topic Lord Keynes, but did you get my e-mail? If so, could you please respond to it?Blue Auroranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30185771541358939952012-07-04T11:23:02.647-07:002012-07-04T11:23:02.647-07:00Austrian's who accept the concept of monetary ...Austrian's who accept the concept of monetary disequilibrium would agree that it is possible that, if money is overvalued , then "wage stickiness" may cause workers to be unable to find work at the current nominal wage rate who would find work at that rate if the money supply increased. This is probably similar to Keynes concept of "involuntary unemployment"<br /><br />But generally for Austrians the concept would only be meaningful for situations where market intervention caused unemployment to be truly involuntary. Just because a worker can't find work at a rate that other similar-skilled workers are currently being paid doesn't make his unemployment "involuntary". He would find employment if he would accept a lower wage even if had to work in a different type of job. However if the worker was actually prevented from taking that job by law (minimum wage or entry barriers) then he perhaps would be deemed to be involuntarily unemployed.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25714520060511039682012-07-04T07:41:25.350-07:002012-07-04T07:41:25.350-07:00Some extreme Austrians like Hoppe appear to think ...Some extreme Austrians like Hoppe appear to think there would be no involuntary unemployment in their ideal system.<br /><br />Others do admit that there could be involuntary unemployment.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3480092457062535122012-07-03T21:36:42.690-07:002012-07-03T21:36:42.690-07:00LK,
Do Austrians believe that there can be such a...LK,<br /><br />Do Austrians believe that there can be such a thing as involuntary unemployment in their ideal economy, i.e. one where the fictitious "natural" rate of interest equals the market rate?mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67149923707448255142012-07-03T18:52:53.851-07:002012-07-03T18:52:53.851-07:00I have not seen this, thanks for the link.I have not seen this, thanks for the link.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66149269802659913252012-07-03T18:52:20.547-07:002012-07-03T18:52:20.547-07:00For Lachmann, the idea of "market process&quo...For Lachmann, the idea of "market process" - without beginning or end - is how he described an economic system.<br /><br />I am not sure, frankly, whether he ever thought of himself in the "evolutionary" tradition, but he certainly emphasised the role of institutions.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72620208654275460122012-07-03T14:56:26.186-07:002012-07-03T14:56:26.186-07:00LK - have you seen this: http://neweconomicperspec...LK - have you seen this: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/07/the-mixed-economy-manifesto-part-4.html#more-2609SpiritSkillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12225172385830110611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55565850302854150382012-07-03T13:45:35.527-07:002012-07-03T13:45:35.527-07:00LK, would you say that Lachmann is an evolutionary...LK, would you say that Lachmann is an evolutionary thinker? (I don't currently have access to this book so I can't say for sure). His rejection of the notion that markets tend to equilibrium would leave me to believe that he is at least pushing in this direction (i.e., it's not a question of disequilibrium vs. equilibrium but of non-equilibrium vs. equilibrium). And I don't mean evolutionary merely rhetorically, but theoretically as in the institutional economics of Veblen and contemporary thinkers like Geoffrey Hodgson. From this perspective the economic process is one of cumulative causation with evolving institutions. The admission of cumulative causation in the economic process, for instance, rules out any tendency towards equilibrium.<br /><br />- Derek S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7568517279746659382012-07-03T07:29:36.825-07:002012-07-03T07:29:36.825-07:00Catalan,
Lachmann's claim that Keynes was mo...Catalan, <br /><br />Lachmann's claim that Keynes was more subjective than the Austrians was because Keynes specifically included expectations into some of his analysis, and especially included it when he was talking about financial markets. Keynes' writings on expectations quite obviously led him to reject the loanable funds theory. I could only imagine that Lachmann wasn't too far off this claim when he stated that the trade cycle needed some talk on expectations. <br /><br />The Keynesians have directly attacked the Austrians on the reliance of the loanable funds theory (especially on the Greg Hill/Steve Horwitz debate) in which the debates end with the Keynesians basically saying that to believe in the loanable funds theory is to reject subjective expectations. <br /><br />Also much of his career is on the Austrian capital theory... But capital theory is not ABCT.Isaac Izzy Marmolejohttp://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38238723238983265252012-07-02T22:54:06.952-07:002012-07-02T22:54:06.952-07:00Here Lachmann is claiming that Hayek's arrival...Here Lachmann is claiming that Hayek's arrival at the LSE did not cause the "big conversion" that was expected. Very few people bought his explanation of the business cycle, and thus his time there proved "deceptive." The only criticism of Austrian business cycle theory by Lachmann that I know of is that which Peter Lewin told Izzy about: an expectations based on, very close to the rational expectations argument that economists like Caplan and Tullock would use.<br /><br />I have never read anything suggesting that Lachmann was critical of the loanable funds theory of interest, although I wouldn't be surprised if he was. But, he was a defender of Austrian capital theory: apart from his book on it, there is an entire chapter in this 1986 book that pretty much mimics what he wrote in 1956. Note that two Post Keynesians he is close to and affiliates with -- Shackle and Hicks -- also adopted some version of Austrian capital theory (even if it was there own strand).Jonathan M.F. Catalánhttp://www.economicthought.net/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58575829980092348762012-07-02T20:23:34.562-07:002012-07-02T20:23:34.562-07:00??? Lachmann was an Austrian and he's criticiz...??? Lachmann was an Austrian and he's criticizing the ABCT here. Nobody is "playing" anythingNeilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43018820528276292572012-07-02T18:06:55.038-07:002012-07-02T18:06:55.038-07:00So, I take it austrians are trying to play the vic...So, I take it austrians are trying to play the victims here?Julia Riber Pitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03006439247714055292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28155409117001782782012-07-02T17:16:17.986-07:002012-07-02T17:16:17.986-07:00I can only imagine it would be similar to post Key...I can only imagine it would be similar to post Keynesian Econ but maybe with a more subjective sideIsaac Izzy Marmolejohttp://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20899846078368867672012-07-02T12:49:12.965-07:002012-07-02T12:49:12.965-07:00"At least that's better than calling him ...<i>"At least that's better than calling him what Rothbard called him, an anti economist."</i><br /><br />For Rothbard, even Mario Rizzo was beyond the pale.<br /><br />More seriously, I often wonder what Austrian economics would be like, if it was purged of its questionable business cycle theory and hostility to government macroeconomic stability.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-19846010100667769502012-07-02T12:22:02.019-07:002012-07-02T12:22:02.019-07:00I had an email conversation with Peter Lewin not t...I had an email conversation with Peter Lewin not too long ago about Lachmann and the ABCT and whether Lachmann would approve of the ABCT because it depends heavily on the loanable funds theory. <br /><br />He basically concluded that Lachmann was indeed critical of the trade cycle because it was too "mechanical" but he probably wouldn't be critical of the loanable funds theory. <br /><br />I disagreed with him stating that Lachmann was indeed critical of the loanable funds theory. In fact a big reason of Lachmann's claim that Keynes was more subjective than the Austrians was because of what he had to say about expectations, and thus rejecting the loanable funds theory.<br /><br />I think it is quite obvious that Lachmann would have rejected the current ABCT. <br /><br />And also, I wouldn't be surprised if Austrians called Lachmann an evil Keynesian... At least that's better than calling him what Rothbard called him, an anti economist.Isaac Izzy Marmolejohttp://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com