What a total PoS of a moderator is going to portray Austrian bollocks as economics seriously.... getta fucking brain Tgregg...
While I don't necessarily disagree with the Austrian school, especially with some of its more fundamental premises, creating a supposedly "learned" economics forum around it seems ... well... counterproductive. The biggest problem with the austrian school is that it's more philosophy than economics. One of its basic premise is that no modern methods for analysis apply and therefore nothing need to be tested/verified. It's all talk. As someone who has had formal graduate level training in economics, it's simply not productive to work in the austrian framework. If you want to talk about incentive mechanism failures, etc, there are plenty of mainstream theories that incorporates those elements without resorting to grandoise declarative axioms.
5 stars for diplomacy... i'd say austrian diarrhea compares favorably to scientology but thats about it really....
"There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as the final and total catastrophe of the currency involved." So, this statement is incorrect? How come? Cheers.
An explanation would be long, but I believe it is essentially correct. The "efforts" of our Fed and Gummint to "stimulate", and "get credit flowing once again" are not only futile, but very likely harmful in the long run... The last "credit bubble exhaustion" America experienced was the "Roaring 20s"... it took the Great Depression to unwind it. The current credit bubble is much, MUCH larger (even in real terms) than the 20s.
What makes you think I'm keynesian. You know, modern economists aren't Austrian or Keynesian or whatever. These labels have long fell out of use because, for better or worse, economists are trying not to act like the rest of the social sciences are be dominated by fads. Why wouldn't I be serious? Like I said, I don't have a problem with most of the axioms of the austrian school - except the part that they are axioms. It's a methodological objection and a philosophical objection pertaining to their love of "deductive" reasoning. What's your problem, exactly?
The only success of the Austrian is to be critical about Keynes Economics. Without Keynes they are nothing.