Squeers

“Are you arguing for perpetual motion (... consumption?”

No. Unlike the neoliberals, I don’t argue in favour of growth as some kind of value in its own right.

“Marxists do not argue "that the empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action, which is subjectively motivated".

I know they don’t. I’m saying the Austrian school thinks empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action. The Marxists, in common with the neoclassicals and the neoliberals, think that economics is an empirical and positive science. The Austrians say it isn’t and can’t be. That’s one of the main reasons why the Austrian school is not neoliberal, even though it’s free-market – the methodology of the Marxists and the neoliberals has far more in common with each other, than either has with the Austrians.

“Furthermore, … how is it that you place so much faith in the former but not the latter, which is also supported by empirical science?”

1. My convictions, unlike the statists’, are as a result of reason not “faith”.
2. As to the science itself, I find the logical methodology of Austrian economics much more cogent than the climate orthodoxy’s methods of a) assuming what is in issue, b) trying to prove rather than disprove it, and c) using computer models (i.e. spreadsheets) – “garbage in, garbage out”.
3. Climate science provides no basis for value judgments in favour of policy – and neither does economics!

“Empirical science works hand in glove with the prevailing order for Christ's sake!”

Agreed. Austrian economics is not empirical science – please see my article in Forum.

“Marx, if not all Marxists, following Hegel, did believe that a priori conceptions were … valid … not merely in the quest for "truth" …. but in the quest for relevance and poignancy.”

How does that square with Marx’s view that the logical structure of mind is different with the members of various social classes?

“… you talk as though "reason", divorced from a priori human judgement, was stable ground”

No, I don’t think that. On the contrary.

“It is your neoliberal "policy" that's entrenched in "ideology"!

According to mac’s definition of neoliberal, which I accept, I am not a neoliberal.
Your own definition of neoliberal is not even a definition, nor even an attempt at honest representation, it’s just an ill-graced rant.

Chris
“I am a liberal, in that I support its values”

I know you think you are a liberal, but you don’t actually support the values of liberty at all. You constantly assume and declare *against* them. You recognize no *principle* by which the power of government should be limited, except by political expedience – the opposite of liberty. You constantly assume that freedom causes all sorts of social problems, and that the state has a magic power to fix them up, without ever proving your case against liberty, or in favour of the state. *Assuming* it doesn’t count.

You “don’t reject the observations” made by Marxists, and presumably therefore by Marx. And you haven’t the faintest idea of the complete and unanswerable demolition of Marx’s theories by the Austrian school. But it’s worse than that. You DON'T CARE, continue circulating errors refuted over a hundred years ago, and when your errors of are pointed out, you just re-circulate back, and repeat them again and again and again and again!

Why your concerns are not warranted.
Because they are based in garbled Marxism and Keynesianism, which was wrong before you got it at fifth hand from academe without thinking it through. Sorry, but it's idiotic to say “I’m only concerned with pragmatics not with theory”.

To *assume* that higher costs for food, utilities, and services come from free trade is to assume that governments magically make economic goods cheaper – i.e. use fewer resources to achieve a given end, and allocate resources to the most urgent and important wants, *as judged by the consumers of those services*.

These assumptions have no basis in reason or evidence. The only reason people think governments make anything cheaper is because governments don’t account for the payments they confiscate, and hide the cost/price difference in the general tax bill!

[Deleted for abuse.]

Chris Lewis,

Good article, questioning, examining forces at play and motivations of the players, and addressing difficulties presented by current economic and political conditions (locally and internationally).

First up, I too am a Liberal - and you and I know what we mean, so just ignore PH and his chain-pulling.

Your proposition as I see it is what is an effective way forward for Oz, and in particular for the Lib Coalition (though I'm reading in your underlying conviction in this latter regard, given that I think we may both share the view that current Labor is morally, ethically, politically and statistically bankrupt, without vision, and no longer adherent to a valid or reliable ideology - though maybe I'm being just a little harsh). I may be wrong in this assessment, but I will press on regardless. (I'll probably raise Tristan's hackles with that little outburst, but such is life.)

Two primary areas of concern: i) the political team, and ii) policies and vision - and the selling of that vision. Two main teams, with Greens and Independents playing interference. Middle ground (and moral ground) strenuously defended by all concerned. Senate hovering like you know what, waiting to hack into policy carcasses and pick over the bones. All very congested. How to make a telling break from the ruck? Or does one soft-peddle, do just enough to keep the boat on an even keel and avoid creating any bow-waves - until the whistle blows on full time (term)?

Only one way to go as I see it: Play the game hard, stick to your convictions, showing stern moral and ethical fibre and an honest concern for the spectators, show the other side up as weakling cheaters and objects to be derided and pitied (have some compassion, but not too much), and avoid any bogs or quicksands. Quality, and no prisoners.

"...I am betting that any new policy trends that emerge will have more to do with pragmatic responses ..."

I thought you rather soft-peddled, Chris. A touch non-committal.

Saltpetre,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I probably left my conclusion a little bit non-committal, but hope to build upon that in later opinion pieces