Economy Economics: Chicago School vs Austrian School

TigerDGC

Orange Belt
@Orange
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
488
Reaction score
0
[YT]watch?v=l2RByG_vutE[/YT]

I thought David Friedman won. He's a much better public speaker than Robert Murphy and his argument was more persuasive.

David had a convincing argument on how important empiricism is in economics.

At 24:22, David blow's up Robert's Euclidean geometry argument by arguing that tests are needed to know if whether or not the universe is flat. That PhD in physics came in handy during that moment of the debate.
 
Last edited:
I've seen this debate. Very interesting.

To Murphy's defense, Friedman was evading the principle a little bit, with a technicality. But its funny how they even ended up debating since they're both resolute anarcho capitalists.
 
Im Austrian all the way, Chicago still fall for the positivist trap, David is an exception in the Chicago School, most of them are for central planning when it comes to money and interest rates, they are plagued with the pretense of knowledge.
 
But central planning means you and all your buddies can make fortunes messing with the markets. Who wouldn't want that?
 
One school has a toe dipped in reality, the other not so much. Both suck.

tumblr_ldccxhNCcQ1qa748ko1_500.gif
 
"Give me liberty or give me a sufficient side payment."

I don't see this phrase catching on. lol
 
Funny. It's just basically a bunch of losers arguing about who should be sitting next to the throne telling the ruling class how great they are (not necessarily Friedman himself, but the people who follow these arguments--I've actually interacted with him a little and found him to be very thoughtful and gracious). In reality, both schools have taken a horrible beating through the crisis, getting almost everything wrong, and in obvious ways. But at least the Chicago guys aren't total idiots, and do occasionally offer solid insight.
 
Last edited:
Praxeology is such BS. Any discipline that expects to influence decisions made in the real world should bring more to the table than questionable thought experiments. Though frankly economics as a whole is terrible about stating hypotheses and then finding ways to worm their way out of falsifying them when presented with contrary results.
 
I give props to Austiran school, they are completely irrelevant academically and a joke methodologically, but seemed to captivate the general reddit style internet audience with rap videos and creating "School vs School" debates that don't exist in mainstream macro
 
I give props to Austiran school, they are completely irrelevant academically and a joke methodologically, but seemed to captivate the general reddit style internet audience with rap videos and creating "School vs School" debates that don't exist in mainstream macro

They're definitely effective propagandists, but how much skill does it really take to get ignorant people on board with worshipping the powerful?
 
They're definitely effective propagandists, but how much skill does it really take to get ignorant people on board with worshipping the powerful?


Haha.. Liberals were destroyed in this post
 
I give props to Austiran school, they are completely irrelevant academically and a joke methodologically, but seemed to captivate the general reddit style internet audience with rap videos and creating "School vs School" debates that don't exist in mainstream macro

There are no holes in a thought experiment. None that can't be rationalized away in any case. The trick is to never get popular enough that your predictions are subjected to the harsh light of reality by actually being implemented.
 
David Friedman...

I came across a picture of a bunch of Anarcho Caps who had lunch with him recently. They look exactly like you'd imagine.

H6s2Yt3.jpg
 
David Friedman...

I came across a picture of a bunch of Anarcho Caps who had lunch with him recently. They look exactly like you'd imagine.

H6s2Yt3.jpg

Not how I'd imagine. Surprisingly high proportion of women there.
 
Back
Top