[drphil0001]

I saw that debate and thought Murphy talked much too much about praxeology. It would’ve, as an undergrad science major, been VERY off-putting for me to hear him droning on about philosophy when I came to hear about “what happened to our economy”.

Yes, I believe in praxeology and yes I believe philosophy is important for the understanding of economics. But I feel the austrians are making a mistake by making pushing action axioms front and center. Murphy would’ve done better by picking a simple topic (IMHO: the failures of the monetarists’ predictions) and repeatedly reinforcing it. Pound Friedman on his failures, again and again and again.

Here are some examples:
1. As a potential convert to ABCT would I rather watch Peter Schiff’s or Tom Wood’s versions of educational entertainment -OR- hear about action axioms and subjective marginal utility?

2. From my business: Would a new student be more interested in seeing MRI images of grotesque tumors -OR- learn about the real and imaginary components of the longitudinal magnetization (MRI) vector. Hint: If you don’t know the answer: 1. you’re a nerd and 2. the answer is the former. (Once we’ve drawn you in–then we can hit you with the boring nuts and bolts)

Hey austrians: When in a public forum SELL YOURSELVES!!! It may be beneath you…but I discovered Mises because of the charisma of Peter Schiff. Mark Thornton is a super-great guy, but seriously, (call me a Philistine), but I wouldn’t be giving away money to Lew Rockwell and buying Tom Woods’ books because I happened to find a Thornton lecture on the net.

[drphil0001]

Is there a lecture on this site that discusses the ins and outs of subjectivism?

[drphil0001]

Well, when the country is willing to put off consumption (ration cards, etc) and accept a lower standard of living, your economy can do wonders. China is a great example of the positive effects of delayed/repressed consumption. I’m sure a strong sense of nationalism makes it easier for the benevolent overlords to brainwash the masses.

As far as Krugman goes, he was roundly debunked by Hazlitt in 1946 and , by extension, Bastiat in 1850. If that wasn’t enough Hazlitt REALLY ripped Krugman a new one again in 1959.

[drphil0001]

I intend to learn more on Woods’ opinion of Catholicism. I can’t possibly see how the Catholic Church can be anything but an Uber-statist in waiting. Rothbard, himself, talks about how minority religions can indeed be promoters of (classical) liberalism. But once they are the majority it’s statist time.

[Author]

Posts