Os anticapitalistas: os Bárbaros chegam aos portões | Larry J. Sechrest

[VinRommel]

Excelente exemplo de "crítica" pseudocientífica ao marxismo.

Mas valeu a pena assistir, se me contassem eu não acreditaria.

Isso é ciência burguesa...!

[paunocu666]

@VinRommel é... e vc aqui usando you tube :) Isso sim é ciência burguesa seu filho de uma puta :D

[moschenjr]

o link para a tradução para portugues está quebrado

[compulsaodiaria]

I disagree about no drugs prohibition. Drugs are evil. 

[mooshieyoal]

So, please, explain to me, the answer to 2 questions, so I can really understand you and what you are doing. Because if you are not science, as the value of it is another question, I don´t really know what is the value on what you do:

-Do you think there are general laws of economy that only by an austrian method can be discovered?

-What is there in austrian theories that makes their deductions aplicable to the real world in an useful way?

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@mooshieyoal

2: The deductive method aims at analyzing the implications of conditions such as are found in the real world. Its modus is to show irrefutably through syllogistic reasoning that, wherever condition A is true, condition B, of logical necessity, must also be true. With the help of that knowledge, whenever an empirical examination of real-world conditions show that condition A obtains, we may also know that condition B exists.

-

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

In Praxeology, the first condition is the axiom of action. The implications for historical- and policy understanding cannot be overstressed.

1: I think the same conclusions could be come to by rigorous empirical observation. The problem is that such a method requires one to isolate one variable of a catallactic system at a time, something which is problematic even under laboratory conditions.

-

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

-

The pretentious fumblings of mathematical economists with the statistics of some interventionist clusterfrack, do not constitute such an unbiased, rigorous empirical examination of catallactic conditions.

That's not to say that some future examination which is mindful of these problems cannot be more successful! But for now, compared to the pitiful state of contemporary academia, Praxeology is the best tool available for understanding human action.

[mooshieyoal]

@PanzerDivisionBOM

Please. I´m not going to tell you to study some epistemology before trying a diverse field as economy. If you haven´t yet done it, you probably won´t ever, while the philosophy and even psicology students find a joke in what you just said.

The reason is very simple. The world´s economy isn´t in a lab. Not everything can be deduced from the axiom of action. And Logic isn´t something so practically useful in this world.

I won´t answer what you "asked", but think about it.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@mooshieyoal

I'm well versed in the problems of epistemology, at least as it pertains to economics.

You don't seem to be, though. If you were, you would conclude that the impetus is upon you to either show how human beings do not use means to achieve ends, or to show how the propositions popularly deduced from this pleionasm do not in fact follow from it. You see, challenging the validity of logic itself is an example of what is sometimes called a "self-defeating proposition".

-

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

-

"Not everything can be deduced from the axiom of action."

Finally, something upon which we can agree! : )

Again, I'm not challenging the usefulness or validity of empiricism per sé. If nothing else, Praxeology is limited in that it can yield only qualitative laws. I'm saying that a strictly logical, self-consistent economic doctrine, if properly deduced from real-world conditions, is superior to self-contradictory statistical fumblings such as those of contemporary mathematical economists.

[mooshieyoal]

@PanzerDivisionBOM

It seems like we might agree. Same praexology, and same statistical fumblings are simple errors: They can´t understand truth totally.

The question I ask, is when can´t quantity be considered a quality of any object. The reason is, either austrians use a pre-newtonian method, or are doing almost the same as other economists: understand the world as a serie of relationships understandable as equations and reasonings, or not doing so.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@mooshieyoal

I'm not sure I understand. Quantity could be described as a property of a set of homogenous, discrete objects, I guess. What does that have to do with economics? I'm eager to answer your questions, but you will have to phrase this one less ambiguously for me to follow your reasoning.

The Austrian method of Praxeology does aim at understanding the world through applications of its theorems, just like the neoclassical schools.

[mooshieyoal]

As you have expressed them, you only have austrian beliefs, but the problem is you reject any method to try to compare them to reality. No matter how smart you are, if you succeed your science will hace nothing to do with reality. The reason I asked you this, is because it is the most argued point about your school of economic thought (or economic belief). Because anyone can find causes without triying to find out if they happen on real world, and it is not science, whose point is which ever.

[mooshieyoal]

(cont) Sorry for ignoring you for over a week, but I was glad you weren´t already a profesional, or better expressed, I was glad there weren´t professionals like you.

The point, irrelevant to you but the clue for my point, is that if you ignore any scientific method (being positivist, constructivist or whatever; positivist is really old now at days) your only have speculations, which you hope are true. If your deductions are true, that must be because they happen.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

learn how to use the refresh key... its the little blue circular arrow button at the top of your browser.

[Krycek2008]

It is Portuguese from Brazil. This is very curious since the Austrian School is unknown in Brazil, even though Brazil's economists are very well regarded and the nation itself is economics obsessed . The topic is all over the news everyday and even uneducated poor people know the dollar value against the domestic currency, the effects of foreign debt, interest rates and especially, INFLATION.

[oiuoiu988]

@Krycek2008

then maybe we'll just change the name to brazillian economics!

[Krycek2008]

@oiuoiu988 Brazil's economic model is quite the opposite of what the Austrian School advocates. It had the 4th Central Bank modeled after the Bank of England, taking the monopoly of printing money from the government, in 1822. Back in the 80's we had +1000% inflation a year and it was not uncommon for the money to depreciate 50% in a month until 1994 when the currency was established. But it is fair to say that 1 real in 1994 has the purchasing power of 3 to 6 reais depending on the sector today

[oiuoiu988]

@Krycek2008

i was joking but i dont think you know enough about the austrian school to say what the opposite would be. sufficed to say i'm sure the brazillian govt bases your system on idiotic theories like the K% rule or the supernuetrality of money. have fun with that!

[capitalist4life]

Why is the title in spanish?

[salmongutter]

@capitalist4life

Usted está teniendo un sueño en el que está viendo español en lugar de Inglés.

[capitalist4life]

@salmongutter Al parecer, el título está en portugués, no en español. Pido disculpas por mi ignorancia. No puedo decir la diferencia entre español y portugués. Ni siquiera puedo hablar español, estoy utilizando el traductor de Google para escribir esta respuesta.

[salmongutter]

@capitalist4life

LOL, so am I. I had NO idea it was Portuguese, I thought is was Spanish too.

[oiuoiu988]

@capitalist4life

to reach the non english speaking population of the world.

[mooshieyoal]

I do not think YOU, in plural, are wrong. I think You, in singular, are wrong, because you take the science as something you need to have faith in. And that may be up to some point, but not to the point of taking things for absolute truth while they are simply the best some man have done until now.

[mooshieyoal]

Of course positivist sciences make errors. Of course the Austrian school makes errors. But closing ourselves to anything which does not prove we are right is not science, is voluntary blindness. Because although there are two economic different traditions, incompatible in application, both have their justification based on their structure. And if you don't care about epistemology or methodology it is okay, as long as you don't try to become a social scientist.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

watch a video on mises media called pattern coordination and the theory of interest if you really think WE are the ones who are closed off... thats just silly, you have it exactly backwards.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

The sc. method is something much earlier than the modern sciences, which has evolved since ancient philosophy, not by science. And it has been adopted to different points, on different bases by any science, which can only analise its field and not its structure. It is not nothing new which needs to be respected to be considered scientific. It is something about objectivity, which defines what a science is. If not used, you might get some good knowledge, but not scientific knowledge.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

hahaha, ok so you think the scientific method predates science? you are nothing more than an ideologue. you claim that our science is based on faith or belief because youre not smart enough to comprehend it. if youre not an economic illiterate than tell me what interest rates are and how they effect an economy.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

Depends on the theory, as usual. The price of money compared to inflation (what you might call effective I.R.), makes the price of investment, and therefore, fixes which projects might be done in some future. As now at days it is fixed by central banks, its descent through years to nearly 0% by the FED has caused years of growth and of crisis now, now on USA, as investment overextended during that period.

My turn now. I Hope I can prove you wrong. What is a science?

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

lolol @ depends on the theory, anyone who would call the price level "effective inflation rate" is utterly confused. what you just described was how central banks attempt to fix interest rates. this is not what i asked, lets take government out of the equation... (cont)

[oiuoiu988]

(cont)in the absence of government intervention in the banking system, what are interest rates and how do they effect an economy... so far you failed, this is a good example of the type of knowledge youre just not equipped with because everything youve ever learned about economics isnt really economics at all, its just the "science" of government intervention in economy. actual economy is a mystery to you people... i'll answer your question after you answer mine.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

Good answer... You avoid answering my question until I figure whatever you are thinking in and tell you that.

You think different opinions (or non-austrian opinions) are all positivist nonsense or goberment intervention. If that is what you think, I don´t think you have learned anything in the last ten years, neither you will on the rest of your life. I answered your question as I knew. If you wish to keep discussing, make the same with mine.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

interest rates are a signal to investors. in the absence of govt intervention, interest rates tell investors how much people prefer future consumption over present consumption. savings is a sign that the saver is deferring present consumption in favor of future consumption, if the savings rate is high the interest rate will be low and vice versa. this tells investors when to start projects aimed at providing goods and services in the future.

you failed. (cont)

[oiuoiu988]

this is endemic of the problem with positivist schools of economic thought, the only teach you how the government attempts to manage an economy, leaving people like you completely clueless about actual economics.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

And this is the endemic problem with no-need-to-prove schools of economic thought. You can´t just demostrate it works up to some point, so you need to have faith in it to keep it working. The problem is when you take it as a religion, and you use it to define always what is right and wrong, or what is good and evil, independently of what it may be useful for. And I supose actual economics means exactly the ones you studied. By the way, what have you studied until now?

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

the state is your religion, there is a difference between knowledge and religion. i could care less about whats right and wrong, i was an ideologue just like you until i studied the science of human action. when i set out to learn economics i was a socialist, i studied marx, then keynes, then some modern day leftist economists, then i figured out that marx didnt undserstand marginal utility or what money is and keynes was dumbfounded by the concept of interest,

(cont)

[oiuoiu988]

plus he was so obviously a statist ideologue, i realized these things before even looking into milton friedman. so i continued reading leftist economists until i came to the conclusion that they were all basing their work on keynes and marx' ignorance. so as much as i disliked it, i started reading milton friedman and thomas sowell and i thought they were great until i realized that while they seemed to have a good comprehension of the feedback mechanisms that regulate human action, (cont)

[oiuoiu988]

they were also clueless about money. light years ahead of marx and keynes but nonetheless confused. then i read hayek, which in turn led me to mises and rothbard. ive also studied music and astronomy(i am the only person i know that got through a college atronomy course without a calculator, i can do math in my head like nobody you know)

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

and just to answer your silly question even though you failed to answer mine....

what is a science?

(facepalm) a science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. whether there is any value in the "scientific method" is an entirely different question.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

Okay, it is a really silly question, althought I must say the failure was in your interpretation of what I said, as it didn´t correspond for the few books you had read. Sorry then. Keep reading, you might find it a few books later :). I am sorry that your great mathematical capabilities don´t serve on a cualitative science, so those capabilities are unused now at the austrian way of finding out truth

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

are you even challenging my answer to your question? youre so juvenile, this is evident not only from the way you argue but from your obsession with spamming the top of the page with comments every time youre here.... its hard for me to take you seriously when you cant even spell Qualitative WITH a spell checker installed in the comment... did you try k before c? does spanish even have the letter Q? if your comments are addressed to me, dont put them at the top of the page...

[mooshieyoal]

Of course statistics say what you wish them to say, and that is why you shall be careful. But not using statistics says what you wish to say, which is quite more dangerous, as you can't contrast to anything. Think of L.v. Mises: There is no use on him on making an aristotelian or kantian science if people who read him don't know what that means. For example, you are using empiric reasons to justify experience does not prove anything, so positivist science is wrong. Something unnatural with it?

[mooshieyoal]

I am no religious positivist, who will say everything he does taking into account positivist bases and faith on it. I am simply looking to a good mode to make science. May be on an aristotelian tradition, as you propose, or on a galileian base, as most sciences do. As it is a social science, you may choose between one or another, but your ignorance is what make you a religious, not a real scientist who applies a scientific method knowing what it can know and why.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

ok then since im a musicologist i'm going to declare that anyone who makes music must use "the musical method", even though music necessarily existed before my new "musical method". i bet i can get this published and maybe if i'm lucky a cult will form around it, and all of the followers will go around telling people theyre not making MUSIC because they arent following my musical method. how does that sound? i bet we would get some great music out of a system like that...

[XCritonX]

Unfortunately those people who cant chose between cans at the supermarket make up a slim majority. On the other hand they sure are good at screaming, rioting and fire bombing banks.

[mooshieyoal]

So, this science is a priori, same as most philosophy is designed, apart from any experience the subject might have had. But, the lesson with both, is that you must know as much as you can about what other ideas people have had - scientists, philosophers and even religious men-, in order to understand reality as fully as you can to be able to make the most complex decisions.

[mooshieyoal]

Sorry, double post.

I meant neoclasic economics invented the homo oeconomicus, and austrian school had a much more unrestricted belief of human beings. (even you knew exactly when I meant when I published my comment). But still, you analise what people think and assume any end you like to make your theories compatible.

So, it is not for the statistics. It is for the concept of decision making, that makes economics not a science. Even marxism or bast macroeconomics is a science.

[mooshieyoal]

Yesterday, I read Mario Bunge (a science philosopher), who explained very well that the austrian school of economics, as same as neoclasic microeconomics, are pseudosciences.

I think you are putting too much effort on demostrating how much you can demostrate facts.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

thats because you arent smart enough to understand why he is wrong. we can sit here and say any social science that uses positivism as its epistemological basis is a psuedo-science but were more grown up than mario bunge. positivism in economics and social sciences is just a way to DISAGREE with real economics, thats the whole point of it. using numbers to say the real economists are wrong. i can make statistics say whatever i want, so can they... youve been fooled.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

Okay.

But, if you wish to discuss in an "a priori" science, you must take into account that the relations that you see and asume to reality are really influenced by your culture. That is, economics is not a natural science and can't be discovered or invented by the use of statistics. It is made by people with new or unexposed ideas.

In that case, Bunge's analysis was based in the belief of economics that they can understand what people's will is acording to what they intend to do.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

so youre telling me you think humans do not act?

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988

I, personally think that humans do act.

But, for example, I don't think human being or society can be analised apart from the fact of social sciences (from political sciences to sociology), that think really differently about social interaction than "it is just obvious based on the fact that people act", with all its assumptions there and on its development, made by culture or "scientific method" applied, about the world and mankind.

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

well good for you, now go learn about marginal utility and dont stop until you understand why value IS subjective. like i said, the use of positivism in social sciences started as a way to refute the real social sciences, using statistics to say whatever you wish to say... then there was a positivist reaction to that by people who understood human action and wished to prove the original positivists wrong. (cont)

[oiuoiu988]

after years of squabling all positivist schools are coming around to the conclusion of the marginalists. this is obvious to anyone who looks at the facts objectively. you are looking at the facts through the prism of your own teenage ideology. so go ahead and argue with milton friedman about which numbers are more right and we'll be here laughing while you eventually come around to our way of thinking. i could care less about methodology or epistemological debates, its obvious who is correct.

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988 the real social sciences?

Maybe I didn't express very well myself, but you should treat people you don't know with much more respect. Because, as you just said, I might be a positivist adolescent who knows nothing about "the real science" while you area a professional economist who will finish its last exams on June, or it might simply be the other way around, and you may find out any moment.

[FightBadIdeas]

Legal! Como foi que a legenda em português foi parar no canal do misesmedia??

[oiuoiu988]

wow, i actually thought you guys should start doing this about 2 or 3 days ago. either i'm controlling the mises institute with my mind or the feedback mechanisms that regulate voluntary human (inter)action really work. someone call a marxist to test my mind for psychic powers!

[mooshieyoal]

@oiuoiu988 Why a marxist?

[oiuoiu988]

@mooshieyoal

well it was a joke about the conclusion a marxist would come to(that i must be controlling the mises institute with my mind, because they couldnt possibly think that enough feedback mechanisms are in place to incent misesmedia to change their model a couple days after i had this thought.). i understand that marx wasnt a positivist but almost all of his followers are followers of positivism today. i could have said positivist or even leftist but it wouldnt have been as funny.

[MigDanskeren]

This was a really good speech. Thank you for uploading.

[grraadd]

Great insight

Very interesting, like always :-)

[putavyraitis]

/facepalm

[UnoRaza]

Communism is the Rothschild invention to play against the corrupted CENTRAL BANKING version of "capitalism" that leverages usury to milk small nations and the masses, or "herd" as they see us.

Any system can be setup to create oppressed masses, and the "Central Banking" version allows the mordida to corrupt/control any system and Mexicans know this better than anyone.

[see Hegelian dialectic]

[321lawc]

@UnoRaza Hahahaha. That's some wonderful revisionist history right there. And let me guess, socialism was invented by the jews too.

[UnoRaza]

@321lawc Hahaha Wrong! Research Marx. One of the checks written by Rothschild to the Bolsheviks is on public display in England. They did this in India as well; it's an old trick.

Also, it's common knowledge the Bolshevik leadership was 98% Jewish, well sort of; they were then atheist, naturally.

Why do you think "Trot" traded in his Jewish "ski" for a nice Russian "sky" to become Trotsky, a nice Russian boy.

[oiuoiu988]

@UnoRaza

i think youre utterly confused and you (like marx) are looking to blame religious or ethnic differences to explain history. i would say there is a definite link between advocating labor unions and exterminating the jews, jews were the only race or group of people that had enough experience with money and economy to understand that labor unions were not good for society.

[UnoRaza]

@oiuoiu988 Religion and cultural differences are often DESIGNED 2 lever man against man, but always used by the elite.

Yes, this is true! Jewish masses were sacrificed by those that stole the Judaic identity and used same to accomplish ancient goals, [ Land theft/world takeover], using ancient techniques. [ False flags to turn large groups a/g each other.]

Land theft/world takeover.

[oiuoiu988]

@UnoRaza

cultural differences emerge, they are not designed. beyond that im not gonna argue with you, i thought you were saying the jews are responsible for all the evil in the world and we get a lot of trolls on these pages.

[UnoRaza]

@oiuoiu988 In my read of anthro both are the case.

Church of "ROMA",Catholics Church of "AMOR", Cathars

Accident?

The Jews were the tools unless Jewish=Lucifer/Baal

[TotalAnomy]

@UnoRaza Mexicans? What mexicans dude? I think you're confusing this with spanish, which it is not. It is portuguese.

[UnoRaza]

@TotalAnomy YUP!

You do not have "mordida" in Portugal?

[TotalAnomy]

@UnoRaza What is mordida? And, I'm brazilian actually.

[UnoRaza]

@TotalAnomy Payoffs to "smooth" transactions or get out of violations with police.

How do you say that in street Portuguese?

[TotalAnomy]

@UnoRaza In "brazilian portuguese" we call those propinas. They're quite common, although I never payed one

[UnoRaza]

@TotalAnomy Its funny how ppl say how corrupt Mexico/India are due to "propinas", but here they're bigger and hidden.

Freemasonry is at the heart, police/fire/judges (evidence/gang construction/destruction management)

[youngn420]

@UnoRaza i agree to some extent but the way communism has been practiced so far government is involved too deep in peoples personal lives.