Would Ron Paul or any other Austrian Schooler actually have a chance?

[Snowblind]

I actually had a similar thread about this earlier, but I figured I'd get more specific.

Basically, I'm sympathetic to the Austrian school, as well as a lot of people on this board are. That said, do you guys think someone from the Austrian School, which let's be honest is extremely fiscally conservative, will actually win the presidency any time soon? I think that a full fledged Karl Marx socialist running on a campaign of nationalizing all businesses has a better chance to win. Barack Obama is not too far from that and he was welcomed with open arms. People will be terrified by the Democrat about the evils of the free market, the evil businesses, and how they'll starve with no handouts. I think that on the spectrum the country has clearly moved to the left. We now have the far left running against the moderate left in elections with the far left winning easily and being worshiped. We're not even moderately right it seems anymore, as conservatives like to claim. How will enough people be forced to move from the left's mindset? I also don't see any of this changing any time soon. This new economic crisis will once against be treated like the Great Depression and people will continue to tell us how Capitalism doesn't work. The only thing I can think of is if people want to actually get change rather than more of the same and listen to a different voice.

[Chuangtzu]

Sure. If they dump "subjective value." The LToV can be rationally reconciled with an opposition to fiat currency. And Obama. Is. Not. A. Socialist. Ferchrissakes. You can't oppose him properly if you insist on mislabeling him.

[SonsofLiberty]

The only chance, and it would be slim at that, woudl be for a major economic crisis to occur, but I fear even then people would expect govt to come to the rescue, dismiss capitalism and readily embrace some form of tyranny.

[Chuangtzu]

The only chance, and it would be slim at that, woudl be for a major economic crisis to occur, but I fear even then people would expect govt to come to the rescue, dismiss capitalism and readily embrace some form of tyranny.

Capitalism and tyranny are also compatible.

[Snowblind]

Capitalism and tyranny are also compatible.

Can I label that as a socialist comment? :rolleyes:

[Ninjacorpse]

As short of an attention span as people may have any more, I think they will remember what it was like before the government ramped up its manipulation of our economy. I think that will open the door for more candidates such as paul being more openly accepted.

[Chuangtzu]

Can I label that as a socialist comment?

No. You can call it a factual one.


:rolleyes:I see your :rolleyes: and raise you a :mrgreen:.

[Its any henna]

I actually had a similar thread about this earlier, but I figured I'd get more specific.

Basically, I'm sympathetic to the Austrian school, as well as a lot of people on this board are. That said, do you guys think someone from the Austrian School, which let's be honest is extremely fiscally conservative, will actually win the presidency any time soon?
No, but some of their ideas might gradually become more mainstream. I could be off base here, but isn't the currently proposed cap and trade scheme for diminishing negative externalities like pollution an idea that would be consistent with the Austrian schools faith in markets over government to optimize resource allocation? I realize Milton Friedman, the guy who came up with the idea of taxing pollution, often criticized the Austrian school, but in many ways he also recognized their importance and shared some common ideas.

[Chuangtzu]

No, but some of their ideas might gradually become more mainstream. I could be off base here, but isn't the currently proposed cap and trade scheme for diminishing negative externalities like pollution an idea that would be consistent with the Austrian schools faith in markets over government to optimize resource allocation? I realize Milton Friedman, the guy who came up with the idea of taxing pollution, often criticized the Austrian school, but in many ways he also recognized their importance and shared some common ideas.

The whole school is hopelessly crippled by Menger's original thesis of value. The Austrianoids continually **** **** up whenever they get a chance. The root assumption of absolute scientific rationality is a big secondary sign of complete crankhood.

[Ninjacorpse]

The whole school is hopelessly crippled by Menger's original thesis of value. The Austrianoids continually **** **** up whenever they get a chance.

Tzu, no. *gets the soap* :snooty:

[ChaosControl]

Freedom has no chance in America anymore, but hey we can try, we're still allowed that for the time being.

[Chuangtzu]

Tzu, no. *gets the soap* :snooty:

The core premise - the subjectivity of value - negates the primary thesis: perfect rationality of choice.

It's a self-negating tautology.

[Safiel]

Sure. If they dump "subjective value." The LToV can be rationally reconciled with an opposition to fiat currency. And Obama. Is. Not. A. Socialist. Ferchrissakes. You can't oppose him properly if you insist on mislabeling him.

The Labor Theory of Value is worthless. Only outright socialist's and labor types defend it. Most mainstream economists reject it. Rather, they go for other objective theories of value.

The subjective theory of value is the true and correct theory of value. An item only has value if a human mind attributes value to it. And value constantly changes. For example, under normal conditions, I would NOT exchange a diamond for a quantity of water. However, in the desert, if exchanging the diamond for water would mean my survival, I would give up said diamond.

The subjective theory of value is one of the bedrocks of the Austrian School and is necessary to adhere to if you hope to gain any rational understanding of economics.

[Chuangtzu]

The Labor Theory of Value is worthless.

It is the only reasonable and broad explanation which explains use, cost and price, and all corollary valuations.

Only outright socialist's and labor types defend it.

The Compleat Fiction, this. The Austrian School - latecomers to the game of fictionmongering - and more specifically, Menger and Mises, rejected the LToV (and the classic edifice built upon it, by Ricardo and Smith) because the Marxists and social democrats also accepted it, primarly because neither Marx, Bakunin or the social democrats saw any reason to abandon a useful model. The rejected it, in brief, because people they opposed used it. Not because it was wrong.

And its it place...

...offered a rankest subjectivity of value that completely undermines the working thesis of their crackpot "school": that economic actions are rational.

Most mainstream economists reject it. Rather, they go for other objective theories of value.

That is simply, plainly false.

The subjective theory of value is the true and correct theory of value. An item only has value if a human mind attributes value to it. And value constantly changes. For example, under normal conditions, I would NOT exchange a diamond for a quantity of water. However, in the dessert, if exchanging the diamond for water would mean my survival, I would give up said diamond.

And right to the classic parroted example. So, we shall use the perfect and practical rejoinder:

You can gaze upon the diamond with all the subject love and attention in the world, but it has absolutely no value until you expend calories (labor) in picking it up and applying it to your needs.

Furthermore, subjectivity does not explain price or cost. It's a stop gap, a sleight of hand.

The subjective theory of value is one of the bedrocks of the Austrian School and is necessary to adhere to if you hope to gain any rational understanding of economics.

Holy Jeebus and all the Celestial Right Angles - you actually equate perfect subjectivity with rationality.

This is rankest mysticism of "mind." Hegel - that buffoon - would be proud.

[WreckedParty]

They might have even beaten McCain/Palin, but i guess staying the course in iraq was more important...... McCain was a foreign policy hawk that made no mentions to how his team would correct the underlying CAUSES of this mess. Either way we were going to end up with the big hole that contributed most to this mess. Obama/biden was clearly trying to cover it up for partisan reasons. Congress even tries to cover the hole up to avoid being held responsible but the hole is much too big that even they cant fool the public for long. Honestly if you guys wanted to get the "moderates" it wouldve been better to prop up someone more experienced in the issue at hand and someone who wouldve at least addressed the causes.

[Safiel]

Lets approach it from another angle.

Let's use the case of the BetaMax VCR's of years ago.

As we all know, when VCR's came out many years ago, there were two distinct types, the BetaMax and the VHS. Labor costs and expenses were comparable in most cases. Same amount of labor to build and market. Labor identical. As we further know, VHS won the war. The BetaMax lost out in people's minds and its price dropped. Same labor, different prices. People subjectively valued it less than VHS, so to sell BetaMax required a significant price drop to overcome peoples subjective views. Of course, eventually BetaMax died entirely.

Labor had nothing to do with the pricing and eventual failure of BetaMax. Subjective viewpoints of the consuming public had everything to do with it. You can throw all types of labor into something. If people don't want the product, however, you ain't going to command jack for the price.

[Safiel]

In any event, you have unintentionally given me a mission. I will go off and write a Wikipedia article on the various theories of value. Just love these Wikipedia stubs. Gives me a chance to stir the hornets. :)

[Chuangtzu]

Lets approach it from another angle.

Let's use the case of the BetaMax VCR's of years ago.

As we all know, when VCR's came out many years ago, there were two distinct types, the BetaMax and the VHS. Labor costs and expenses were comparable in most cases. Same amount of labor to build and market. Labor identical. As we further know, VHS won the war. The BetaMax lost out in people's minds and its price dropped. Same labor, different prices. People subjectively valued it less than VHS, so to sell BetaMax required a significant price drop to overcome peoples subjective views. Of course, eventually BetaMax died entirely.

Labor had nothing to do with the pricing and eventual failure of BetaMax. Subjective viewpoints of the consuming public had everything to do with it. You can throw all types of labor into something. If people don't want the product, however, you ain't going to command jack for the price.

Completely failing to account for the human labor expended in the fields of promotion and advertising. Human effort (labor) can not be excised from the persuasive aspects of communication. All effort is labor, which fact Subjectivists refuse to consider.

The Mengerist assumption of subjectivity (and the isolation of the individual as a rational actor, out of all social connections) can only explain phenomena if its proponents ignore context and environment, which they have been doing since they assumed "errors" in Ricardo and Smith.

[starclassics]

Completely failing to account for the human labor expended in the fields of promotion and advertising. Human effort (labor) can not be excised from the persuasive aspects of communication. All effort is labor, which fact Subjectivists refuse to consider.

The Mengerist assumption of subjectivity (and the isolation of the individual as a rational actor, out of all social connections) can only explain phenomena if its proponents ignore context and environment, which they have been doing since they assumed "errors" in Ricardo and Smith.

I enjoyed the "all effort is labor" comment. Again, coming from someone who should value the namesake given as the s.n., it surely seems like a truly idiotic principle to bandy the mind when it plays a central role in said philosophy.

*shakes head*, Wisdom is wasted on those who think they are wise.