Skip to main content


Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes.

I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops.

I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past?

Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful.


Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview, any data showing one result to one market change actually proves nothing outside of that one case. Woohoo, that event happened, and you can show why!

But mainstream economics does not grant the inside scoop on what does and doesn't make sense now and into the future. How do I, a novice, know this? Oh, you know, just vague murmurings here and there. If all the best mathematicians and statisticians and econometricians and software and computing power all put together failed to undertake a sustainable path, well forgive me for being sceptical.

Now I'll grant you I'm not strictly blaming the economics profession for the Global Financial Crisis and the following Great Recession. Economics is part of Academia, and Academia is patronised to a large extent by the government. On top of that, a large share of jobs in economics are in the state sector. So there's little incentive to push ideas that posit the pointlessness, ineptitude, or evil of the state.

The crisis was the culmination of a business cycle, a process which, according to the Austrian School, only exists because of the state. This will be explained later, as I intend to write a series of blog posts about the Austrian School. Other schools; Monetarism and Keynesianism in particular, posit that the state is the saviour of capitalism through that same central bank.

The important thing to take away from all this is that the economic models in the textbooks and espoused by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, and governments and think tanks everywhere, actually contributed to, if not caused, the crisis.


The mere existence of central banking and fractional reserve lending can be said to be one of the two biggest reasons we had such a bad crisis, and also why it originated in the Unites States, as the Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate after 9/11, making credit cheaper than it had been before the atrocity in New York.

The other factor was the government guarantee regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which stipulated that the US government would help them financially if they ever got into trouble. When you're aware of these two factors the crash doesn't seem so impossible to predict after all.

Austrian economics is outside of the mainstream because it roundly rejects the use of mathematics and statistics in the search for economic facts, instead treating anything arrived at mathematically or statistically as historical facts.

Praxeology is where it's at for the budding Austrian, which I'll describe further in a future post. Basically it means "action studies" and assumes that humans act - that is, we do things in pursuit of goals. From there though all kinds of cool stuff emerges. And if you want to know... well you'll have to tune in again soon!


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …