"Hopefully one day we won't say Austrian economics, we'll just say economics because Austrian economics is economics. Austrian economics is astronomy and Keynesian economics is astrology. They don't have anything in common." ~ Peter Schiff
Not to suddenly become an advocate for economics as they stand, but I sometimes feel that there's a false dichotomy between Austrian economics and Keysnesian economics. They honestly share more than a few similarities and preconditions.
I don't want to sound judgmental, but a statement like that leads me to believe you either don't understand one, the other or both.
I say that with a bit of trepidation because I don't really know what you know and I don't want to cause offense. However, in as far as a minimally informed layman can say, I'd have to say that on such fundamental things as interest rates, capital formation and resource allocation they could not be more different.
In practice, you can think of them as two alternative policy approaches that have developed under a predominantly capitalist system.
Interest rates, capital formations, and resource allocation would not exist in a way that would be analogous to either school of thought in a non-capitalist system such as the Soviet Union.
It is the system itself that makes gives the two systems similarities, even if the approaches are different.
If economics is the science of human action, which I believe it is, the political system does not change the reality of market forces. They will either be allowed to operate in the open or the will operate in the dark, but they will operate regardless.
The Soviets were no more able to repeal supply and demand than they were gravity.
Poor analogy. Astrology and astronomy have plenty in common because they were same discipline for hundreds of years. Your crazy grandmother in your attic is still your ancestor.
I respectfully disagree. The only thing I see them having in common is the they both begin with lights in the sky. After that they diverge widely. One deals in the realm of myth and archetypes; the other is concerned with empirical knowledge.
ok have to say thank you I wish more people saw the star stuff that way it is like astronomers always want to put as big a space between them self’s and the crazy grandmother but in doing so they deny there past or for me it is like only having half of the whole and it really is their loss seems like they are saying the ecomics are more then same then folks are aruging her guess it's all how you look at it
Comments 15
1)Owing money is usually bad, even if it's just your parents, sometimes especially if it's your parents.
2)Keynesian economics is bad.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I say that with a bit of trepidation because I don't really know what you know and I don't want to cause offense. However, in as far as a minimally informed layman can say, I'd have to say that on such fundamental things as interest rates, capital formation and resource allocation they could not be more different.
Reply
Interest rates, capital formations, and resource allocation would not exist in a way that would be analogous to either school of thought in a non-capitalist system such as the Soviet Union.
It is the system itself that makes gives the two systems similarities, even if the approaches are different.
Reply
The Soviets were no more able to repeal supply and demand than they were gravity.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment