How did Austrian School economics come to be, and why is it still so pervasive today...

Hayek yes and he's the only credible Austrian of them all. Rothbard is a full on memester fedoralord.

>Pretty sure Hayak actually said many state programs like heathcare were not necessarily contrary to his thoughts on economic freedom

Well Hayek also said dictatorship was superior to democracy too, as long as the dictator kept the market free.

Well dictatorship is superior to democracy regardless of market policies.

It's a praxedology and any good Austrian will tell you that. It is a logical model to understand how to use economics in a free society. All theories work differently in practice

Haha nice

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

You're unable to have a debate without spouting memes? There's a great board where you'd feel at home:

>expecting someone to debate your random shitpost

Some day, we'll solve the puzzle together.

Okay define " good "

>calling people edgy and shitposters based on their political preference

Its the only school most actively in alignment to eugenics & breeding programs. Humanities superiority; the only choice.

>praxeology
In other words fuck empirical models and fuck observational evidence, we can base our economic models entirely on 'self evident axioms' aka taking refuge in our own rhetorical self-consistency (the "muh freedums" argument), leading to the common charge of it looking great on paper but unworkable in practice.

In other words, like its distaff communism it's a philosophical model that allows its adherents to easily move the goal posts by insisting that an ideologically pure model has never been implemented, though some would argue that the Confederate States of America was the closest thing to a pure libertarian society ever tried (after all, it was a society which held property enforcement as the sole purpose of government and when they copied the U.S constitution they removed all the language of providing for the general welfare.)

Maybe. For approximately one second on the historic timeline, after Jackson.

>communism
Austrian economics is more comparable to neo-keynesianism.

AE leans excessively towards a bottom-up approach, supply-side economics and microeconomics. They will ignore the role the government inevitably plays in the economy (sans any Rothbardesque ancap utopia).

NKE leans excessively towards a top-down approach, the "spending drives the economy!" meme and macroeconomics. They ignore stagflation.

>So pervasive today
>For every 1 Austrian there are 1000 Fisherites (Monetarists), For every Fisherite there are 100 Keynesians.
Moldbug, paraphrased

The difference is that Keynesian models are based on mathematics and analytics while Austrian models (and communist ones, for that matter) go out of their way to avoid empiricism at all costs, preferring rhetorical models which justify themselves with ideological consistency.

proofs?

Seriously?

>mises.org/library/praxeology-methodology-austrian-economics
>Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals. This concept of action contrasts to purely reflexive, or knee-jerk, behavior, which is not directed toward goals. The praxeological method spins out by verbal deduction the logical implications of that primordial fact. In short, praxeological economics is the structure of logical implications of the fact that individuals act. This structure is built on the fundamental axiom of action, and has a few subsidiary axioms, such as that individuals vary and that human beings regard leisure as a valuable good. Any skeptic about deducing from such a simple base an entire system of economics, I refer to Mises's Human Action. Furthermore, since praxeology begins with a true axiom, A, all the propositions that can be deduced from this axiom must also be true. For if A implies B, and A is true, then B must also be true.

etc.

Okay, now show Keynesian model as being superior because Austrian model has foundation based on the opposite of empiricism.

What?

>Keynesian models are based on mathematics and analytics

You mean new classical, right? :^)

You have said that the Austrian model is not reliable because its basis is founded upon a field which, when compared to the Keynesian model, is inferior. Now do the same thing in reverse (i.e. what you just did is say Austrian bad, better than Keyn., I want you do replicate your results and say Keyn better, Austrian bad).

That wasn't me, I just stepped into the conversation.

The "Austrian model" isn't faulty in comparison to Keynesian diagnostics; it fails on it's own terms. It starts from a tendentious definition and proceeds through specious reasoning to pre-determined conclusions, none of which has much relation to how economies and people actually "work".

Oh, oops. I thought you were the same guy.

In what way is there a conflict of interest? You say: "proceeds through specious reasoning to pre-determined conclusions".
In what way have they manipulated their results to fit what they wish?
The biggest phrase that has stuck with me, in regards to Austrian models, is the glazier's fallacy. If their model has that as its foundation (whereas a Keynesian model would state that filling up holes you just dug up is progress), then I see no issue.

I didn't say anything about "manipulating results". Do you know what the term 'tendentious' means?

You are confusing a joke about counter-cyclical spending to as some kind of lynchpin of Keynsianism. It isn't.

You are also admitting (somewhat confusedly, through a mistake) that Austrian 'model' is founded upon a fallacy. So, if you want me to give an answer to your previous request as to why Keynesian methodology is preferable to Austrian, it would be, simply, that the former isn't in it's entirety--because remember: "[t]he praxeological method spins out by verbal deduction the logical implications of [a] primordial fact"--on a fallacy.

I deliberately ignored your use of 'tendentious' because it is irrelevant if their model is against the tide or frowned upon, who cares if it is going to cause a fuss.

In what was it it merely a joke, how does it have no relationship to anything remotely Keynesian?

Please read the glazier's fallacy, it is more so a parable which the Austrian model recognizes. Just because it has fallacy does not mean you should equate the definition to the model as well.
In what way is it not a model (why do you say, 'model'?)

Again, read the glazier's fallacy. The model does not found its basis on the fallacy itself, but the cautionary teaching one ought understand after reading the example.

>"[t]he praxeological method spins out by verbal deduction the logical implications of [a] primordial fact"
As opposed to empirical deduction? Nobody has showed me any empirical deduction, or some mathematical formulae that proves the Keynesian model as being superior.
You say that the Austrian model is inferior because they just set up a bunch of scenarios with specific axioms that guarantee the preferred results, and that the other guys are some offshoot of Lady Justice, completely unbiased and dedicated to objective truths. I want to see the proof of this please.

>Austrians believe in subjective value

Sounds about right

>I deliberately ignored your use of 'tendentious' because it is irrelevant if their model is against the tide or frowned upon, who cares if it is going to cause a fuss.

Then you don't know what the term means, nor what it meant in the context of my usage.

>The model does not found its basis on the fallacy itself

I know, hence he comment about your confusion of which fallacy lies at the foundation of Austrian Economics. The real fallacy is 'argument by definition'.

>You say that the Austrian model is inferior because they just set up a bunch of scenarios with specific axioms that guarantee the preferred results,

Yes

>and that the other guys are some offshoot of Lady Justice, completely unbiased and dedicated to objective truths.

Where did I say this?

>why do you say, 'model'?

'Y=XB+U' is a model.

'Austrian economics' is not a model.

Tendentious is defined as deliberately promoting a cause that is controversial. From this definition, I claim that you use it as a negative point because the Austrian model is frowned upon. I say that it is irrelevant what a community thinks of a certain idea (rather, that what they say about the idea itself and critiques of that are more important).

>I know, hence he comment about your confusion of which fallacy lies at the foundation of Austrian Economics. The real fallacy is 'argument by definition

This ties in with your response (i.e., "yes") when I say that the Austrian model is just a bunch of guys going off of semantics with no real claims or evidence to support their ideas.

>When did I say this?
What do you agree with? You have not mentioned anything about the Keynesian model, assuming its purity (in regards to the Austrian model).

Nevermind, you just mentioned something about the model.

So are you telling me that the Austrian school is, essentially, just a bunch of guys playing with words and inventing things that, when applied to the real world, have little-to-no positive results?
Can you give me an example of its application and its, by your claims 'inevitable', failure?
Can you give me an example of the Keynesian model succeeding?

I was using the term in a more literal sense, as in 'tending in a specific direction'. In conjunction with 'pre-determined conclusions' we arrive at my meaning, being that Austrians define an axiom such that it is possible to derive the conclusions they seek.

>Keynesian model, assuming its purity

Who said anything about purity?

>So are you telling me that the Austrian school is, essentially, just a bunch of guys playing with words and inventing things that, when applied to the real world, have little-to-no positive results?

Yes

>Can you give me an example of its application

No, I can't. That's the 'failure'.

>Can you give me an example of the Keynesian model succeeding?

Keynesians have many, many models. Which one are you referring to?

It was a misunderstanding, I thought you meant something else.

Purity in the sense that it is infallible, as I have yet to hear any critiques of it.

>No, I can't. That's the 'failure'.
How do I know what you are saying is truthful if you cannot give me evidence to support how they are just playing around with words?
Are you saying it has never been applied? I have a hard time believing that, it would be only logical that, after creating the fields, they would apply it, correct?

>Keynesians have many, many models. Which one are you referring to?
I don't know, give me the most relevant and successful one, then give me the most unsuccessful one.

What are your thoughts about the arguments/models/viewpoints presented in the attached image?

For example, a big takeaway is that the Austrian school says that spending to dig yourself out is deleterious, whereas the Keynesian school says it is the solution.
What do you think about this statement, and why?

Mate, you can't just make a bunch of claims and not back it up. I will do exactly what you have done in the following example:

"The school of X is not to be taken seriously because they create vague off-shoots of accepted beliefs, corrupting what they stand for by being intellectually dishonest and manipulating results to fit their beliefs."

Now what? This is still on the realm of opinion, you haven't convinced me with a compelling case that proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that Keynesian economics is superior to the Austrian school.

Hayek's view was basically that shit gets fucked even if you prepare for it, so having a social safety net is sensible in that regard.

I'm probably off base, but I generally think of Hayek and Hazlitt as the pragmatic wing of Austrian economics/libertarianism (freedom just werks), as opposed to the first principles wing of Mises and Rothbard (taxation is theft full stop).

Keynes' models were not infallible and he recognized this.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=zb4cBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT299&lpg=PT299&dq="there is first of all the central question of methodology"

Had he lived into the 70s he might have had a different view concerning the oil crisis and stagflation, taking into account his bff's scrutiny of "a treatise on money" 40 years earlier.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=IRtplzojOyUC&pg=PA466&lpg=PA466&dq="What is wanted in order to make effective not only his efforts"

Hayek's anecdotes are not 100% reliable either. Phenomena like sticky prices, holdouts and market irrationality mean his assumptions are inaccurate, but it doesn't completely blow them out of the water. Observing how supply and demand affects an orange stand can give you insights into capital markets the same way observing 2 species of South American bird can give you insights into the theory of evolution, it won't tell you everything of course, you just have to acknowledge its limits.

>Keynes' models were not infallible and he recognized this.
Which is an attribute that makes keynesianism distinctly different from Austrianism. Austrians start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it, just like a religion. Keynes treated economics like a science, and that means continuous refinement and being able to admit when you were wrong. As he was famously quoted, "when the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?"

The though of admitting an error is inconceivable to an Austrian because no matter how out of touch the observational data is to their theories, they can always dismiss the data as the consequence of ideological impurity, and it would totally work if only they did it to the exact specifications that the individual Austrian thinks it should be. Just like Communism.

>had he lived into the 70s he...
Presumably would have done what any empiricist does when confronted with contradictory data: go back to the drawing board and fine tune.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

>Austrians start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it, just like a religion
Not true. Of course there are conclusions that have been previously drawn from the praxeological method, but these are still up for debate.

The debate differs as it is not a scientific debate inside the Austrian school, but a logical one. If you can use praxeological (logical) argument to refute a commonly held belief of many members of the Austrian school, I'm sure some of them would accept it.