dream_weaver Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Austrian school theory relied on a 'business cycle' that was posited by a Frenchman named Bachlier in 1906. I say 'posited', btw, because his work was not based upon data. As the name implies, cycle means 'bounce back' when performance, measured in prices,are low. Keynes attacked the cyclic model from two perspectives: empirical and... mathematical/logical. First. many slumps last, empirically speaking, far beyond that which would correspond to the low point(s) of a cyclic curve. Next, the cycle itself is liiogical because if the downward point(s) of the cycle correspond to a level of assets which would not cover liabilities, then the firm is broke--hence, no possibility of an upswing. Keynes' point is that a macro-national economy can either stay 'broke' or prime the pump with more money, to repay when productivity finally rises. But again, staying broke (austerity) does not work. So defending Austrain school would involve explaining how the cycle would upsewing by itself. OTH, a defense of Keynes isn't necessary. as he's simply saying that sdeficit spending is the least-bad of alternatives. In good times, btw, Keynes was for cutting spending & running a surplus, ostensibly to save for the inevitable rainy day. frank, Again, the Austrian economics construct was being used to illustrate a different point, not to argue its merits and or shortfalls. Try searching the economics section for conversations of that nature. I know enough about it to know I accept the Austrian position over the Keynesian one, but not enough to defend it. I occasionally read some of the materials at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Their articles have a comment section where you can discuss it with other informed participants. They would be better qualified to address your concerns about their position. I get the distinct impression I am repeating myself here, albeit with one minor correction alteration. Edited: Before, after. Edited June 14, 2014 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 frank, I get the distinct impression I am repeating myself here, albeit with one minor correction alteration. Edited: Before, after. As you wrote that you knew enough to accept Austrian over Keynes, my last response was to clarify common misunderstandings as to what keynesianism is..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 Frank, You agreed, in a round about way, that the concrete-bound mentality essentially "fails to connect the dots" is true. Are you trying to illustrate that the empiricist is related by essentially demonstrating they "fail to connect the relevant or pertinent dots"? If so, thank-you. I hadn't really considered it in that light, until recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 If you want to start a thread on Keynesian economics, we could hash it out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted June 15, 2014 Report Share Posted June 15, 2014 If you want to start a thread on Keynesian economics, we could hash it out there. Harrison, Please feel free to use my previous comments as a template. But please be 'warned' that his 1920-ish stuff, that was the basis of my comments, is not all there is to Keynes. Lots of his other ideas I find disagreeable, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted June 15, 2014 Report Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Frank, You agreed, in a round about way, that the concrete-bound mentality essentially "fails to connect the dots" is true. Are you trying to illustrate that the empiricist is related by essentially demonstrating they "fail to connect the relevant or pertinent dots"? If so, thank-you. I hadn't really considered it in that light, until recently. Yeah, i do know a lot of 'literalists' who can't connetct dots! So Rand does have an important point here, but, oth, there are those who see dots where there are none! I do believe that 'relevancy' and 'pertinenence' are linked to science only through the formation of testable hypotheses. In other words, "What I find meaningful, I test". One good example of this is Planck's testing of the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and hypothesizing his results as...particles of light. Subsequent experiments by Einstein and Compton proved that light does behave (somewhat) like particles, hence, 'photons'. That they behaved in ways not predicted by Newtonian Mechanics gave rise to its own field mechanics (matrix algebra) by Heisenberg, Jordan,and Born, labeled "Quantum' by the last member. But you must understand that this whole affair stated from less than scratch. 'Just a bunch of arrogant 20-year olds finding meaning in the results from a cheep black box , while their elders were saying. bfd'... Edited June 15, 2014 by frank harley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted June 15, 2014 Report Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Relevant and pertinent was used here to indicate that 'the dots to be connected' as in: how does your reply tie into, i.e., relevant and pertinent to, the similarities and/or differences between concrete-bound and empiricism? I can understand how my economic example led to you questioning it in the manner you did. I'm having greater difficulty grasping how the philosophical context in which I used relevant and pertinent warrants reintroducing the terms in the context of physics here. Edited June 15, 2014 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted June 15, 2014 Report Share Posted June 15, 2014 Relevant and pertinent was used here to indicate that 'the dots to be connected' as in: how does your reply tie into, i.e., relevant and pertinent to, the similarities and/or differences between concrete-bound and empiricism? I can understand how my economic example led to you questioning it in the manner you did. I'm having greater difficulty grasping how the philosophical context in which I used relevant and pertinent warrants reintroducing the terms in the context of physics here. When Planck published his results, most everyone deemed his experiment 'irrelevant' and impertinent'. The few guys (mostly young!) who accepted the importance creade QM. In other words, concretely, at high levels of energy (ultra violet), the basic thermodynamics of input=output is contradicted. The dot-connecting here involved the hypotheses of ..uhhh...real dots (particles). Not generally accepted. One way in which particles became theoretically (conceptually) supportable was by a guy named Einstein who used it to explain the already-known Lorentz modification of Maxwell's electromagnetic band. This became SR: "All Newtonian Mechanics are modified by a third coefficient, the Lorentz" Or F=MAG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted June 15, 2014 Report Share Posted June 15, 2014 Again, you missed the point. How does that tie in specifically with Rand's explanation of the concrete-bound mentality's similarity or difference to empiricism as a philosophical stance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted June 16, 2014 Report Share Posted June 16, 2014 Again, you missed the point. How does that tie in specifically with Rand's explanation of the concrete-bound mentality's similarity or difference to empiricism as a philosophical stance? Okay. I've lost the thread, Kindly re-post the Rand citation and I'll offer you a comment on that, and that alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogstar Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 It's as if you said that. 'concretely',that airplanes drop like rocks because, after all, they're objects under the influence of gravity. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "concrete" as it applies to epistemology. If I witness a particular plane lose a wing and crash, that is a particular concrete event. From that particular, concrete observation I can draw the general conclusion that all planes that lose wings will likewise crash. You could say generally that planes that lose their wings drop like rocks because the rule applies to more than that one particular, concrete plane crash you witnessed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.