/liberty/ - Liberty

Yes, that's the Cato institute

Cato was basically mises inst before they had a faggot socialist take over and kicked rothbard out, look it up.

>>99736

the Chicago school is better than the Austrian school. The Austrian business cycle is a bunch of BS. Also priori arguments don't cut it. the Chicago school is more empirical and uses actual data to back up what they're claiming

>>99739

>The Austrian business cycle is a bunch of BS.

Why?

>Also priori arguments don't cut it.

Why?

>the Chicago school is more empirical and uses actual data to back up what they're claiming

My man, have you forgotten that the Chicagoans have predicted that the price of gold would plummet after the last vestiges of the gold standard were abolished for good? Instead, the price went sky-high. It was not the dollar holding gold up, but rather the opposite.

My point being, for all the talk about predictive power and empirical proof, the Chicagoans could not deliver. Their theory fell apart completely, they were humiliated, and they forgot about it a year or what later. The Austrian have never been humiliated so badly. They saw the Housing Crisis coming, they anticipated that the Soviet Union would fall, they foresaw the Great Depression. All empirical evidence aligns with it, Austrianism has the best empirical support of any economic theory and it doesn't even want it.

>>99739

>Also priori arguments don't cut it.

But that is itself an a priori statement, not a positivist one :^)

It's impossible to attempt to refute a priori reasoning without using multiple a priori arguments yourself; by the very act of dismissing the conceptual approach you only affirm its validity.

>>99743

>because they can be disproven via empirical evidence and it sounds as schizophrenic and Keynes.

They cannot be. A priori arguments, if they are logically sound, are by definition correct, and cannot be disproven by any occurence. To say that empirical evidence has disproven marginal utility is like saying that a triangle was discovered that shows Pythagoras' Theorem to be wrong.

A priori arguments still are not infallible. If you find independent reason to discard them, then you can do so. Empirical evidence, no matter how overwhelming it seems, is at best a reasonable incentive to look at what is wrong with the a priori argument. In this context, it is important to remember that there is only one reality. There can never be a genuine conflict between properly interpreted empirical evidence and logically valid a priori argumentation.

Another way to look at it is this: Every observation must be interpreted in the light of what we know without any observation. For example, the scientific method relies on experimentation, but for experiments to be meaningful, causality must be real. The validity of experimentation stands and falls with causality. Likewise, to make sense of economic data, you require a knowledge of economic laws. Otherwise, you rely on implicit laws.

As for your infopic, I'll leave that to someone else, for now, unless I find something striking in it.

>>99743

So, I looked at Friedmans graphs. I found this sentence striking:

>booms do not tend to cause recession of equal intensity, which is what would be required by the ABCT and similar business cycles

Honestly, why would they be equal? GNP is not a direct measure of wealth. For one, even blatantly unproductive transactions drive it up. Expenses by the state enter it at their nominal value, even if they were a mistake from a financial standpoint. That is for one. Meanwhile, services that clearly have value, but one that isn't expressed in monetary terms, do not enter it. It is not a perfect representation of the state of the economy. To treat it as such is wishful thinking.

Furthermore, there are, at any given moment, millions of factors driving GNP up or down. The same is true of most economic indexes. To expect a proportional relationship between two factors to be visible in the GNP, when millions of factors enter it, is not to know what GNP is.

Now, when I look at figure 1, I can see that every trough is preceeded by a peak. Certainly, the peak is not nearly as prominent, but it's always there.

I'll leave the rest of the interpretation to other anons. Perhaps some that have more of a background in statistical analysis.

>>99745

>:^)

is this emoticon supposed to show NPC or a Jew?

>>99749

jesus christ how new are you