Originally Posted by Seos

Right I've finished now, I'll deal with a few other things in the lecture before expanding

Ok just like people on this thread his example of using the printing press is using that printing press to buy consumer goods. Nobody does that anymore and nobody thinks that that is a good idea. He does not deal with the consequences of using the printing press as a reallocative tool for funding capital goods.

He mentions in the first half of the lecture that 'variations have an effect on the real economy.' cantion(sp?) effects he calls them. However he later says that deflation does not entail any economic problem. Surely if it does.

anticipations

He says if there was an unforeseen mass bankruptcy that is not a problem because only the owners change, bankruptcy is not bad he suggests. That is a classic case of thinking economically but not logically. This would have massive implications for workers, consumer sentiment, investor sentiment and as a result of those things for the economy, He seems to see crisis in the current system as a genuine crisis but any crisis in his system is just something that will be recovered from. He doesn't mention the world unemployment once in relation to an unforeseen mass bankruptcy.

He says deflation is only a political problem because it only changes the owners and the governments. I'll keep it short and simple: changing the owners and government changes the economy.

He says hoarding does not reduce growth, if we follow on from that logically then investing does not increase growth. That shows how ridiculous that suggestion is

He calls deflation a process of creative destruction. Those two words should never be used together in this way they can justify anything if you let them. "Creative destruction" happens because of mankind's ability to bounce back, almost anything can be called creative destruction because mankind can bounce back from almost anything.
After listening to that lecture I am more then ever against the Austrian school of thought.


Also what the fúck is with the propaganda at the start, it has no place in an academic lecture! It is disgusting and if Austrian economics was the only true economics then it wouldn't be necessary.

Originally Posted by 20000miles

Sure they do. Whenever a government needs to pay either their employees they can simply resort to "creating" the money electronically.

Originally Posted by Seos

No good physicist or chemist or evolutionary scientist would ever say that they know they are right! The whole basis of scientific progress is that they know they have got something wrong all the time!
Claiming you're right is just admitting you can't think of anything new. (hmm I like that I'll have to use it again sometime.)

Originally Posted by 20000miles

How can you be wrong when your conclusions follow from premises that are apodictically true?

Originally Posted by Seos

Nothing is apodictically true, except I think therefore I am.

Originally Posted by 20000miles

Professor von Mises would disagree.

Originally Posted by Seos

Where does he start from?

Originally Posted by 20000miles

By stating "humans act" and this action is purposeful. It's an axiom, however if you attept to refute it means you are acting and hence this happens: Performative contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leading to this: http://www.happyworker.com/files/pos...sign-brain.jpg

I think it's called synthetic a priorism. As such economics is a science like logic or mathematics. ILF knows more about the praxeological method than I do though.

Originally Posted by Seos

Ah but I might only think that I am acting. My acting could just be an illusion. So the only thing I can know is that I think and if I think then there must be an "I" doing the thinking. But I don't know that I act I only know that I think that I act.

Originally Posted by 20000miles