Caplan and Boettke debate Austrian Economics 8/13

George Mason Economics Professors Bryan Caplan and Pete Boettke debate Austrian economics

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Austrian
• Economics;
• George
• Mason

[jstreet2]

@Visfen

[Visfen]

@jstreet2 It's not socialism that is bringing these countries out of poverty, don't be a retard, it is the free trade areas in China that are seeing the growth, not the centrally planned agriculture industry on the country side. Russia is a very libertarian economy as well. At least in regards to earlier.

[Visfen]

@jstreet2 But in order for progress to continue in China and Russia there will have to continue to be libertarian reforms.

[jstreet2]

Suppose during the next 40 years that China and Russia both pull ahead of the United States which goes into a depression that makes the Great Depression look like a New Year's Eve celebration by comparison.

Suppose India follows their model and the three capture 80% of world GDP under socialism.

America could STILL not be socialist without a Stalin era bloodbath, IMO

We are too diverse, our history has too many bloody skeletons in the closet and our working class has been oppressed too long.

[jstreet2]

Questfortruth86, socialism in countries like Russia, China and India are just excuses to bring medieval societies into the 20th century, kicking and biting all the way.

Socialism in America might be horrible also because we are such a pluralistic country. I can't imagine how Mormons, Catholics, Jews and Lutherans, just to mention a few groups, could ever be herded together under an atheist/socialist banner. In fact I shudder to think what would happen.

To get really hypothetical suppose:

[Questfortruth86]

Socialism did collapse into pure mayhem when it was really implemented. When Lenin entirely controlled the means of production, there was mass starvation and the division of labor broke down.

[jstreet2]

realist-materialist arguing for too many futile hours with nominalist idealists. We seem to be saying ALMOST exactly the same thing but can hardly agree on anything.

Just imagine two economists who hold almost exactly the same theoretical views but one is a Buddhist who believes in karma and reincarnation and the other is a Catholic who believes in purgatory, heaven and hell, etc.

Comedy is the best way to view a situation like this, IMHO or during times of war, tragically.

[jstreet2]

and they don't make it easy to keep adding more comments so it's probably futile to carry on an intelligent discussion here anyway but thanks for the input.

I DO however think one's basic philosophical stance (or theological stance: Catholic, Jew, Moslem, Hindu ... etc.) is extremely important and nominalist idealists and realist-materialists have serious problems understanding each other even if their positions appear to be very, very close.

I speak with much futile experience as a

[jstreet2]

I was just summarizing what I thought they said to each other, not commenting on the content except to find the whole thing funny (marginal futility?)

Honestly, the only difference (it's a big difference however) I could detect between their views was the difference between a realist-materialist view (Caplan) and a basically nominalist-idealist view (Boettke)

I might be wrong about that however because they didn't clearly state a philosophical position.

There isn't much space here for comments

[stealthswimmer]

based on interviews, audio, articles, and video of Austrian economists, I'd have to disagree with you. From what I've seen, they readily agree with other economists on things they see as being correct but will give their own view on the things they disagree on. It's not that they try to purposely set themselves apart. It's that they just disagree on some stuff, lol.