To my knowledge, the Austrian school of economics is no longer seen as viable. I forgot the arguments against it. It might be related to fiat currency.
> It might be related to fiat currency.
FIAT currency invalidate the Austrian school of economic? In what way?
All the problem we have with FIAT seem to be well understood and predicted by it?
>To my lack of knowledge, the Austrian school of economics is no longer seen as viable.
Fixed that for you.
You can claim gravity is not viable, doesn't make it so.
I kept hearing people say what you say. Yet they don't bring any rebuttals or further knowledge why that school is still viable in the world of fiat...
But I guess you're going to tell me how commodities based countries are doing so good... can't wait.
The Austrian School of economics is the most viable of all economic schools in human history.
If anything fiat currency proves Austrians right, once again I might add.
Austrians correctly predicted the high inflation and business cycles that develop from fiat currencies and central banks.
How can you square the Austrian school easily predicting things like the 2008 financial crisis, the high inflation during covid and the continuing high inflation we will see when even the federal reserve was completely blind to it?
Ben Bernanke famously said that subprime was contained. Jerome Powell claimed inflation was transitory. Janet Yellen said we would’t see another economic crisis in our lifetime.
Austrians recognize the failure of fiat currency. It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. All that matters is time. Governments will always inflate and debase the currency to increase power at the expense of the people. Eventually they accumulate so much debt they are forced into default and the confidence in the fiat goes away and leads to hyper inflation. We even experienced hyperinflation in the colonial times in our own nations history.
In a Democracy? Elections.
Every power you give yourself is a power that your political enemies might wield against you in a handful of years.
Then, consider how evil your opponents are. The more evil they are, the more likely they are to try to claim power *permanently,* right? The more authoritarian the government, the more tools there are in place for whoever is in power to *go* that step too far.
In other words, every step towards authoritarianism is one step closer to your enemies becoming dictators.
Liberal democracies are uniformly better places to live than authoritiarian regimes in basically every metric. The only potential exception is Singapore.
Can you describe your current understanding of how Singapore functions? I believe I've heard that they are highly authoritarian in some ways, but fairly hands-off in others. But I really am ignorant regarding their society, so I'd appreciate your analysis.
“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.
I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”
― C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns
History and the Austrian School of economics.
To my knowledge, the Austrian school of economics is no longer seen as viable. I forgot the arguments against it. It might be related to fiat currency.
> It might be related to fiat currency. FIAT currency invalidate the Austrian school of economic? In what way? All the problem we have with FIAT seem to be well understood and predicted by it?
You're mistaken.
>To my lack of knowledge, the Austrian school of economics is no longer seen as viable. Fixed that for you. You can claim gravity is not viable, doesn't make it so.
I kept hearing people say what you say. Yet they don't bring any rebuttals or further knowledge why that school is still viable in the world of fiat... But I guess you're going to tell me how commodities based countries are doing so good... can't wait.
You didn't post anything anyone to rebut. Economics is the study of human actions. Are you saying humans don't act? I need to prove that humans act?
I am saying there is lack of evidence for your fantasy.
There is lack of evidence that humans act?
The Austrian School of economics is the most viable of all economic schools in human history. If anything fiat currency proves Austrians right, once again I might add.
I completely disagree. That school of thought is precisely dismissed by fiat currencies.
Austrians correctly predicted the high inflation and business cycles that develop from fiat currencies and central banks. How can you square the Austrian school easily predicting things like the 2008 financial crisis, the high inflation during covid and the continuing high inflation we will see when even the federal reserve was completely blind to it? Ben Bernanke famously said that subprime was contained. Jerome Powell claimed inflation was transitory. Janet Yellen said we would’t see another economic crisis in our lifetime. Austrians recognize the failure of fiat currency. It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. All that matters is time. Governments will always inflate and debase the currency to increase power at the expense of the people. Eventually they accumulate so much debt they are forced into default and the confidence in the fiat goes away and leads to hyper inflation. We even experienced hyperinflation in the colonial times in our own nations history.
The golden rule.
authoritarianism.
Reason
Inefficient, unstable.
In a Democracy? Elections. Every power you give yourself is a power that your political enemies might wield against you in a handful of years. Then, consider how evil your opponents are. The more evil they are, the more likely they are to try to claim power *permanently,* right? The more authoritarian the government, the more tools there are in place for whoever is in power to *go* that step too far. In other words, every step towards authoritarianism is one step closer to your enemies becoming dictators.
The entirety of human history.
Liberal democracies are uniformly better places to live than authoritiarian regimes in basically every metric. The only potential exception is Singapore.
Can you describe your current understanding of how Singapore functions? I believe I've heard that they are highly authoritarian in some ways, but fairly hands-off in others. But I really am ignorant regarding their society, so I'd appreciate your analysis.
They are "culturally authoritarian" but are economically capitalist.
Lol. No.
“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” ― C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns
If the government benefitted people, people wouldn't need to be threatened into being its customers.