Why some conservatives might dislike Austrian economics

[buritobr]

Usually, Austrian economists are even more conservative than New Classical economists. However, some conservatives might dislike Austrian economics.
Austrian theory is not based on the neoclassical Trinity rational behavior/maximization/equilibrium. So, if one accepts that an economic theory not based on the neoclassical Trinity may be good, one would accept that left-wing theories may be good, because left-wing theories are also not based on rational behavior/maximization/equilibrium.

[Murica!]

Does anyone in the world( except "anarcho"-capitalists that is) support Austrian economics?

[Ebsy]

Does anyone in the world( except "anarcho"-capitalists that is) support Austrian economics?

I was going to say the severely mentally ill, but I think you covered that base.

[AggregateDemand]

Austrian economics is for people who are too smart to get bogged down in the tribalism of neo-classical vs. neo-Keynesian.

Everyone hates neoliberal economists because they point out the boundless stupidity of the tribes.

[bedstuy]

Austrian economics is for people who think they're too smart, but are actually just sociopaths.

[King]

I like how a school of "economics" that rejects the use of statistical collection and analysis to see if their beliefs are actually working is considered the one for smart people.

[AggregateDemand]

I like how a school of "economics" that rejects the use of statistical collection and analysis to see if their beliefs are actually working is considered the one for smart people.

And it is endlessly amusing for Austrians and people who understand Austrian economics that the econometric guru still know nothing about what will happen tomorrow or the next day or the next quarter or the next decade.

[King]

I like how a school of "economics" that rejects the use of statistical collection and analysis to see if their beliefs are actually working is considered the one for smart people.

And it is endlessly amusing for Austrians and people who understand Austrian economics that the econometric guru still know nothing about what will happen tomorrow or the next day or the next quarter or the next decade.

It's not really about being able to predict. It's about continually gauging results and learning from them. You know, academics.

Nothing more useless than a bunch of a smug pipe smoking a'holes circle jerking about how they know best and always will, but are unwilling to put their feet to the fire to find out anything or adapt any beliefs if they did. The Amish school of economics is a more appropriate name.

[AggregateDemand]

It's not really about being able to predict. It's about continually gauging results and learning from them. You know, academics.

Nothing more useless than a bunch of a smug pipe smoking a'holes circle jerking about how they know best and always will, but are unwilling to put their feet to the fire to find out anything or adapt any beliefs if they did. The Amish school of economics is a more appropriate name.

Economics is about modeling. Predictive value is everything. What happened yesterday, last month, last quarter is for accountants and clerks.

Humans are creatures of habit and econometrics can help your predict the pattern of habit, but it isn't particularly useful forecasting shifting fundamentals or long term human behavior. That's why some economists give up and become political rabblerousers. Some economists smoke pipes in wood paneled cafes and talk about inductive and deductive reasoning or bounded rationality or info-gap or whatever.

[ag]

First, one has to define the terms. What these days is usually called the "Austrian School" is, basically, just a bizarre "Misesian" religious cult, which has very little to do with the historical Austrian school of economic thought. That school, of course, has been extremely important in formulation of the modern economic thinking.  Much of what one finds in basic mainstream economics texts these days, in fact, is, in fact, of undeniably "Austrian" (rather than "Neoclassical") origin and/or inspiration.

Alas, these days the word "Austrian" has become poisonous: nobody wants to be associated with a cult. The old "Austrian" economists (including, definitely, Hayek - and even von Mises himself) are not to blame for this, of course: they themselves were very much a part of the contemporary research mainstream.  

In any case, as preached by the cultists of today, "Austrian Economics" is a conglomeration of loosely thought through tautologies, formulated in a deliberately obscure language specifically designed to conceal the overall inanity of the discourse. This lack of content is viewed as a special virtue, as it is then used to provide rhetorical support to a pre-conceived ideological position.  Whether conservative or not, any thinking person - economist or otherwise - has nothing to like in it. In fact, if anything, for a good conservative it presents a special embarrassment: he may hold similar ideological views, but the superficial similarity with the Misesian cult makes them appear less intellectually respectable.

[ag]

... economics advances economics by studying human action,

Economics, by its nature, is a science of human behavior. All we study is human action. There is nothing "Austrian" about it.

[ag]

Austrian economics is for people who are too smart to get bogged down in the tribalism of neo-classical vs. neo-Keynesian.

"Austrians" being the only people in whose imagination such "tribalism" exists. The terms themselves, of course, describe only macroeconomists - and macro is not all of economics anyway (not even most of it). But even within macro these days there is a remarkable degree of methodological unity and a very active interaction and debate between different - rather loosely defined - "schools". The interactions and debate which the "Austrians" cannot even observe: for lack of common language.

[ag]

I don't think you understand Austrian Economics. The original Austrian was Menger who birthed Bawerk and a few others during that time. That transcended to Mises, and sadly, to Rothbard. Mises does follow the true Austrian tradition. It was those like Hayek that did not completely do it, and followed another person during Bawerk's era

It so happens that I am reading a book on the early Christianity right now. The story of the debates of which Gospels should belong to the canon is, indeed, fascinating. But they belong to the Religion board, not to Economics.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't think you understand Austrian Economics. The original Austrian was Menger who birthed Bawerk and a few others during that time. That transcended to Mises, and sadly, to Rothbard. Mises does follow the true Austrian tradition. It was those like Hayek that did not completely do it, and followed another person during Bawerk's era

Every true Scotsman is obviously Austrian...

[CH86]

Neoliberalism is pure nonsense, it is merely the smokescreen for the systematic looting of the country by the wealthy to facilitate their vision in which everyone would bow down to the supreme "wisdom" of globalist bureaucrats.