Chart usGOLD   Chart usSILVER  
 
Food for thought
In victory you deserve Champagne, in defeat, you need it
Napoleon Bonaparte  
Search for :
LATEST NEWS  :
MINING STOCKS  :
Subscribe
Write Us
Add to Google
Search on Ebay :
PRECIOUS METALS (US $)
Gold 1293.15-0.15
Silver 20.330.00
Platinum 1462.60-0.50
Palladium 868.00-0.33
WORLD MARKETS
DOWJONES 17084-8
NASDAQ 4472-2
NIKKEI 15284-44
ASX 557710
CAC 40 441134
DAX 979441
HUI 235-4
XAU 99-2
CURRENCIES (€)
AUS $ 1.4295
CAN $ 1.4465
US $ 1.3463
GBP (£) 0.7925
Sw Fr 1.2151
YEN 137.0430
CURRENCIES ($)
AUS $ 1.0619
CAN $ 1.0744
Euro 0.7428
GBP (£) 0.5887
Sw Fr 0.9025
YEN 101.7820
RATIOS & INDEXES
Gold / Silver63.61
Gold / Oil12.40
Dowjones / Gold13.21
COMMODITIES
Copper 3.260.00
WTI Oil 104.30-0.12
Nat. Gas 3.84-0.01
Market Indices
Metal Prices
RSS
Precious Metals
Graph Generator
Statistics by Country
Statistics by Metals
Advertise on 24hGold
Projects on Google Earth
Austrian economics in 2013
Published : January 18th, 2013
555 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 7 votes, 3.3/5 ) , 1 commentary Print article
 
    Comments    
Tweet
Keywords :   Cambridge | Fail | Government | Ludwig Von Mises |

24hGold - Austrian economics i...Regular readers of my articles either have some knowledge of Austrian economic theory or at least suspect that Keynesian and monetarist alternatives are flawed. Their failures are becoming more evident, which suggests we will hear more of Austrian theory in 2013. So how is Austrian theory different? Consider the following simple propositions in accordance with Austrian theory, which we can confirm from personal experience:

  • Free market prices are always set by consumers through their choice to buy or not to buy and at prices which give them value. It follows that prices of everything in a free market economy obey this rule, otherwise product is simply unsold.
  • No economist can foresee the path of economic progress, which is only revealed by entrepreneurs correctly anticipating what people want.

Mainstream economists are confused by the whole subject of prices, concluding that production costs and marginal consumer demand between them set prices. This allows the mathematically-minded to draw supply and demand curves. They then contradict themselves by saying that falling prices discourage demand, because consumers will delay their purchases hoping for lower prices. And they fail completely to accommodate in their calculations the consumer who simply decides not to buy something at any price.

On the second proposition, since no economist can foresee progress, they substitute for it growth. Growth is simply more money in the economy, usually contrived out of thin air by central and commercial banks. It is perfectly possible, indeed more than likely, for an economy to “grow” while regressing, when for example the state decides to take money from productive citizens and spend it less productively.

Intellectual ignorance of both price theory and what constitutes economic progress leads mainstream economists into believing that their science can be dehumanised. They resort to statistical analysis, appropriate only to physical as opposed to natural science. They assume that yesterday’s prices, reflecting past supply and demand, can be projected forward to tomorrow, giving economic planners the basis to intervene to produce a better outcome. This assumption has its mere thread of validity by eliminating progress from calculations altogether.

This is behind many inconsistencies, such as how can we all be better off when 10% of the work force is unemployed. And how are we better off with government providing us with many of the necessities of life instead of the market, when our personal experience tells us of costly bureaucracy and levels of service we would not otherwise tolerate?

It is a plain fact that we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into thinking that what we know to be true is not true and that the statistics economists produce as evidence are irrelevant and self-serving. Does anyone with half a brain actually believe the politicians, backed by the cleverest economic advisors the system can produce, when they say they can improve life with someone else’s money?

Austrian economic theory tells us the truth about these and other fallacies. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises remarked with full justification that the only correct declaration to come out of the neo-British Cambridge school (Keynesianism and monetarism) was Keynes’s statement that in the long run we are all dead.

So I urge anyone who even suspects they are being bamboozled by the state to make the effort to understand the virtues of free markets, sound money and Austrian economics.

Thanks to Alasdair Macleod from www.goldmoney.com
Tweet
Rate :Average note :3.3 (7 votes)View Top rated
Previous article by
Alasdair Macleod
All articles by
Alasdair Macleod
Next article by
Alasdair Macleod
Receive by mail the latest articles by this author  
Latest comment posted for this article
Well said. I only have a problem and it is with this statement: "They resort to statistical analysis, appropriate only to physical as opposed to natural science." Economics, in this usage, is not a natural science. It is a pseudo-science. Science provi  Read more
overtheedge - 1/20/2013 at 5:45 PM GMT
Rating :  2  4
TOP ARTICLES
Editor's picks
RSS feed24hGold Mobile
Gold Data CenterGold & Silver Converter
Gold coins on eBaySilver coins on eBay
Technical AnalysisFundamental Analysis

Alasdair Macleod

FinanceAndEconomics.org is the website of Alasdair Macleod, who has a background as a stockbroker, banker and economist. Alasdair is available for seminars, speeches and interviews. Please check on Services to get further detalils.
Alasdair Macleod ArchiveWebsiteSubscribe to his services
Most recent articles by Alasdair Macleod
7/23/2014
7/20/2014
7/19/2014
7/17/2014
7/11/2014
All Articles
Comment this article
You must be logged in to comment an article8000 characters max.
 
Sign in
User : Password : Login
Sign In Forgot password?
 
 
       
Well said. I only have a problem and it is with this statement:
"They resort to statistical analysis, appropriate only to physical as opposed to natural science."

Economics, in this usage, is not a natural science. It is a pseudo-science.
Science provides the mechanism to acquire knowledge. Knowledge is tested by application. The better the knowledge base, the more predictable the outcome. Deux ex machina has no place in science and the running results in economics calls its application there into question as well.

The reason economics, as we are defining it, is not a science is quite simple. Every party to the economic system can make and apply their own rules of acquisition. All sciences are consistent. Economics isn't.

But you are correct about the application of statistics as their analytical tool of confusion.
Rate :   2  4Rating :   -2
EmailPermalink
Receive 24hGold's Daily Market Briefing in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Disclaimer