# Is the Austrian school of economics finally dead with Ron Paul's retirement? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927 "2011-12-03T04:21:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/61 "2011-12-16T15:55:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > We know they rounded up political dissidents. What I’d like to know is who from The Chicago Boys was okay with it, as **Measure for Measure** stated. Well, I don’t think anyone was saying that the Chicago boys made killing dissidents part of their economic policy recommendations. But they certainly didn’t seem to object to it a whole lot. How many of them came back refusing to deal with a murderous dictator? How many of them kept on with their econlomic experiment despite the conspicuous murder of dissidents? If thats not “being OK with it” then what is? Do they have to pull the trigger themselves? Why isn’t their glaring lack of objection and criticism not enough to paint them as “being OK with it” > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Anyway, it seems to me that my POV was anything but revisionism. I reject your assertion of dishonesty. I was able to find these citations because I was drawing upon a very old and bitter criticism of U of Chicago and not just making shit up. I trust there’s another side to this: there always is. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/09/opinion/09iht-edchas.t.html?scp=7&sq=chicago%20friedman%20chile%20pinochet&st=cse](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/09/opinion/09iht-edchas.t.html?scp=7&sq=chicago%20friedman%20chile%20pinochet&st=cse) > [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10916F83A55157085DDAD0894D9405B878BF1D3&scp=12&sq=chicago%20friedman%20chile%20pinochet&st=cse](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10916F83A55157085DDAD0894D9405B878BF1D3&scp=12&sq=chicago%20friedman%20chile%20pinochet&st=cse) I don’t know if english is emacknight’s first language so perhaps he is confusing “being OK with” the murder of dissidents with the endorsement of the murder of dissidents. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/62 "2011-12-17T01:29:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know if english is emacknight’s first language so perhaps he is confusing “being OK with” the murder of dissidents with the endorsement of the murder of dissidents. That had not occurred to me. Thank you. I guess I could have written, “Go along with”. But really Charles Maechling Jr’s 1998 quote conveys what I wanted to say. Separately, there _are_ people who come awfully close to endorsing the murder of dissidents. Pinochet apologists typically justify their rampage by implying that Allende was _just about_ to do the same, without evidence. Their language tends to be slippery though: this [1988 LA Times article](http://articles.latimes.com/1988-10-06/news/mn-4140_1_voting-tables) gives some flavor of the sort of psychology of the defenders of the regime. There are mitigating factors for Friedman, mostly having to do with _Zeitgeist_. When President Carter made human rights a central plank of US foreign policy, many conservatives were aghast. The US had relations with a number of brutal Latin American generals who were reliably anti-communist. But there were also sensible Republicans -even highly conservative Republicans- at the time who supported Amnesty International and their evenhanded investigation of those who tortured and murdered dissidents. Nonetheless on balance I would say that strong language on this issue is not inappropriate, though it may ruffle feathers. I remain open to considering caveats but I repeat that this isn’t something that I dreamed up, as shown from my quotes from 3 separate decades. Incidentally, I will be on the road fairly soon, so my posting will be sporadic. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/63 "2013-06-27T04:52:12Z")
**This is a 2011 thread: UPDATE** Yesterday I learned that Hayek made a personal visit to Augusto Pinochet, after receiving a briefing from Amnesty International, to the Austrian’s great annoyance. You see, Hayek _liked_ Pinochet. I cite [Cory Robin](http://coreyrobin.com/2013/06/25/the-hayek-pinochet-connection-a-second-reply-to-my-critics/), Associate Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center: [QUOTE=Cory Robin] He [Hayek] met with Pinochet and other government officials, who he described as “educated, reasonable, and insightful men.” According to the Chilean newspaper\* El Mercurio\*, Hayek told reporters that he talked to Pinochet about the issue of limited democracy and representative government….He said that in his writings he showed that **unlimited democracy does not work because it creates forces that in the end destroy democracy**. He said that the head of state listened carefully and that he had asked him to provide him with the documents he had written on this issue. Hayek complied with the dictator’s request. He had his secretary send a draft of what eventually became chapter 17—“A Model Constitution”—of the third volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty. That chapter includes a section on “Emergency Powers,” which **defends temporary dictatorships** when “the long-run preservation” of a free society is threatened. “Long run” is an elastic phrase… So the threats to a free society might not simply come from international or civil war. Nor must they be imminent. As other parts of the text make clear, those threats could just as likely come from creeping social democracy at home. If the visions of Gunnar Myrdal [“Swedish Nobel Laureate economist, sociologist, and politician” - wikipedia] and [John Kenneth Galbraith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith) [US economist and US Ambassador to India] were realized, Hayek writes, it would produce “a wholly rigid economic structure which… **only the force of some dictatorial power could break**.” [/quote] Emphasis added. That’s how Hayek advised General Pinochet. Allowing for some hyperbole, this differs little from my characterization: > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > So when Pinochet rounded up the undesirables into a soccer stadium and had them shot, that was ok. He meant well. After all welfare states inevitably lead to tyranny. Hayek did not merely provide Pinochet with kind words and ideological stroking. He actively campaigned for the murderous dictator (see top of page for Pinochet’s record): > [@Cory Robin](#): > > Hayek came away from Chile convinced that an international propaganda campaign had been unfairly waged against the Pinochet regime (and made explicit comparison to the campaign being waged against South Africa’s apartheid regime). He set about to counter that campaign. > > He immediately wrote a report lambasting human rights critics of the regime and sought to have it published in the _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung._ The editor of this market-friendly newspaper refused, fearing that it would brand Hayek as “a second Chile-Strauss.” (Franz Josef Strauss was a right-wing German politician who had visited Chile in 1977 and met with Pinochet. His views were roundly repudiated by both the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats in Germany.) Hayek was incensed. He broke off all relations with the paper, explaining that if Strauss had indeed been “attacked for his support for Chile he deserves to be congratulated for his courage.” In conclusion, I’d say that Austrian jabbering about freedom in no way prevents them from aiding tyrants in the real world. Sort of like the way Ron Paul cozied up with [Holocaust deniers](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/10/ron-paul-is-still-a-bunco-artist.html). h/t [Brad DeLong](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/06/corey-robin-vs-friedrich-von-hayek-in-syrakusa-augusto-pinochet-and-the-lykurgan-moment.html). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/64 "2013-06-27T16:36:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yeah, a flaming asshole named von Hayek. More accurately just “Hayek.” I dunno if he was a flaming asshole, but he was a tremendous contributor to the collection of human knowledge. Economics is a science, and all research that contributes to our understanding of it is of benefit, whether it comes from the Austrian school, Marxist economists, Keynesians, or whomever. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/65 "2013-06-27T16:50:08Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Let’s face it. Ron Paul is no economist, as an OB/GYN he merely read a few books an d held the placard until someone else came along. > > But they didn’t. > > So the Austrians have a school in the DC area (George Mason) and Lew Rockwell - not much else. > > Is the movement dead? Name one other member of US Congress committee on financial services - actually, any member of Conbress - who has ANY clue on what Bernanke is talking about when he makes an appearence in front of it? Just one, please? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/66 "2013-06-27T16:54:45Z")
On the Hayek front, I have always interpreted _The Road to Serfdom_ as referring to central planning, and not government programs or spending of all kinds. I don’t have my copy handy, but it seemed obvious to me that that’s what he was referring to, a Soviet-style command economy in which prices, wages, what’s to be produced in what quantity and by whom and whom it is to be consumed by, are all dictated by the government. At the time, it wasn’t clear whether Socialism was a viable “third way” or merely a prelude to central planning. It now seems clear that Socialism is a stable economic system in its own right, a crucial distinction being that Socialism incorporates a free market. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/67 "2013-06-27T17:00:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > At the time, it wasn’t clear whether Socialism was a viable “third way” or merely a prelude to central planning. It now seems clear that Socialism is a stable economic system in its own right, a crucial distinction being that Socialism incorporates a free market. Just curious - do you think quantitative easing is a feature of “central planning” or “socialism”? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/68 "2013-06-27T17:08:50Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Just curious - do you think quantitative easing is a feature of “central planning” or “socialism”? Either, in theory. Both have a monetary base, and quantitative easing is just increasing the monetary base to stimulate the economy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/69 "2013-06-27T17:13:20Z")
I recall **Liberal** a few years ago defending the Austrian school on the grounds that “economics is a formal science like mathematics, not an empirical science.” Actually. If that sounds brazen, bear in mind that [Austrian-school economists actually **admit** their economics is not empirically verifiable.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I tremble for the reputation of my subject… > > —Paul Samuelson on the Austrians[1] > > **Austrian economics** (or the **Austrian school** of economics) is a school of economic thought that eschews mathematical modeling and empirical testing in favor of a narrative approach termed “praxeology.”[2][3] > > As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify through empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), it is generally considered to be a heterodox approach[4] or outright pseudoscience.[5] Austrian arguments as to why statistical methods cannot adequately describe human behavior can seem intuitively compelling, but they fail to provide the mathematical proof demonstrating why normally unbiased estimates suddenly become biased simply because they are dealing with people who make decisions. Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding,[6] and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs. > > Can we take anything positive from it? Well, to start, its use can be found\* in no economy in the world\*… except Somalia.[7] > > **Praxeology** > > Murray Rothbard’s _Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics_ describes praxeology as an application of deductive reasoning, applied to a set of “unquestionable” axioms. Of course, any implications derived from these axioms are only as good as the analysis that derived them, and the axiom that they were derived from. This is where praxeology gets into trouble, as they reject less mushy formal analysis in favor of more weasely verbal analysis. Let’s look at the axiom that Rothbard refers to as the foundation of praxeological deduction as an example, the “fundamental axiom of action.” Almost immediately, the axiom wades into trouble. It states that: > > > [@](#): > > > > individual human beings act. > > The first part of that assertion is simple enough to grasp, but what does it mean to act? One possible definition of act says it is to “perform an action.” This seems to be as far as most Austrian school thinker take this. However, as an air conditioner, vacuum cleaner and TV all perform actions, it would seem this axiom places human beings in the rather large set of things that act. It would be pretty embarrassing then, to derive any economic conclusions from the fact that people are part of the set of things that act, as the conclusions deriving from being a member of the set of things that act would apply to other members of that set as well. Fortunately, Rothbard is kind enough to clarify his definition: > > > [@](#): > > > > …that is human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals. > > Note that one under-defined concept has now been replaced with two; conscious action and chosen goals. Let us ignore the validity of this assertion, and try to figure out just what chosen goals are. The word choice would seem to imply some form of conscious action was taken in forming these goals, so is the real statement of this axiom “human beings take conscious action towards a consciously acted upon set of goals?” Perhaps Rothbard meant to differentiate between “choosing” and “acting,” but that is never clearly expressed. In either case, it would seem that the definition of goal needs some work to be truly useful. Sound logic relies on clarity of definition, as many arguments are sensitive to subtle changes in meaning, and vague statements hide contradictions. > > This approach of verbal deduction also leads to a rather noticeable (ab)use of false analogies and intuition pumps. > > \ > > **Even they admit they just pulled this stuff out of their asses** > > The Austrians seem to follow the maxim “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” If you couldn’t wade through all their econo-speak and arbitrary redefinitions of commonly used terms, however, they literally do the work for you and come straight out and say they just made everything up. Ludwig von Mises himself wrote of his theory: > > > [@](#): > > > > Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience… They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.[22] > > F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can “never be verified or falsified by reference to facts.”[22][23] > > In other words, it’s economic theology. An entire (albeit minor) school of economics has published book after book and paper upon paper just to say all problems can be boiled down to “gubmint did it” and all solutions can be described as “free market always wins.” Despite this, their influence (on the internets, at least) seems to be growing, at least since 2008 and the proliferation of “Peter Schiff was right!!11!!” videos.[24] Hayek’s book _The Road to Serfdom_ also got the Glenn Beck bump when it was mentioned on his show.[25] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/70 "2013-06-27T17:18:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > At the time, it wasn’t clear whether Socialism was a viable “third way” or merely a prelude to central planning. It now seems clear that Socialism is a stable economic system in its own right, a crucial distinction being that Socialism incorporates a free market. Well, no, it doesn’t. What you are describing sounds like social democracy, not socialism whether democratic or authoritarian. (Democratic socialism, in fact, is actually the one thing that has never been tried.) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/71 "2013-06-27T17:29:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, no, it doesn’t. What you are describing sounds like social democracy, not socialism whether democratic or authoritarian. (Democratic socialism, in fact, is actually the one thing that has never been tried.) I suppose so, yes: some state-owned industries, high taxes, welfare state, etc. Clearly, this needn’t result in tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/72 "2013-06-27T18:17:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I suppose so, yes: some state-owned industries, high taxes, welfare state, etc. Clearly, this needn’t result in tyranny. It might, it might not; the important thing to keep in mind is that it would not **be** tyranny _ipso facto, pace_ the Austrians. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/73 "2013-06-27T18:42:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It might, it might not; the important thing to keep in mind is that it would not **be** tyranny _ipso facto, pace_ the Austrians. Agreed, though I don’t think that’s what Hayek meant. It’s certainly been misinterpreted, though. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/74 "2013-06-28T01:11:32Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Name one other member of US Congress committee on financial services - actually, any member of Congress - who has ANY clue on what Bernanke is talking about when he makes an appearance in front of it? > > Just one, please? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both had a decent grasp of financial policy. Ok, they’re retired, but still. Henry Waxman has a solid grasp of policy, though he doesn’t specialize in financial services. Barbara Boxer majored in economics and worked as a stockbroker and journalist. Senator Warren is a world class expert on bankruptcy law. And Ron Paul is a crackpot as far as economics is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/75 "2013-06-28T03:06:51Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Barney Frank and Chris Dodd both had a decent grasp of financial policy. Ok, they’re retired, but still. Henry Waxman has a solid grasp of policy, though he doesn’t specialize in financial services. Barbara Boxer majored in economics and worked as a stockbroker and journalist. > > Senator Warren is a world class expert on bankruptcy law. > > And Ron Paul is a crackpot as far as economics is concerned. Barney Frank on housing bubble talk in 2005: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE) Ron Paul on housing bubble in 2003: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/76 "2013-06-28T03:37:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It might, it might not; the important thing to keep in mind is that it would not **be** tyranny _ipso facto, pace_ the Austrians. What is your definition of tyranny? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/77 "2013-06-28T04:17:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I recall **Liberal** a few years ago defending the Austrian school on the grounds that “economics is a formal science like mathematics, not an empirical science.” Actually. If that sounds brazen, bear in mind that [Austrian-school economists actually **admit** their economics is not empirically verifiable.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics) My favorite example is Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal [saying](http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/the-wrong-way-to-argue-against-minimum.html): > [@](#): > > There are no empirical studies that can refute this. It is pure logic. And no empirical studies are needed to prove the argument. They can’t. > > Anyone using empirical data to try and prove or disprove logic is a quack. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/78 "2013-06-28T04:25:55Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What is your definition of tyranny? Unaccountable power/authority. In a democratic-socialist system, power would be accountable, to the rule of law and/or to the electorate; in an authoritarian-socialist system, it is not. Like I said, democratic socialism is the one thing never yet tried (unless you count the [Paris Commune](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune) or the [Spanish Revolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution), neither of which lasted long, and the Spanish Revolution was more anarcho-syndicalist anway, fucking splitters, come and see the violence inherent in the system, etc.); but Venezuela, [if it continues on its present course](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=614650), which is highly doubtful, might get there in 10 or 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/79 "2013-06-28T05:32:42Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Barney Frank on housing bubble talk in 2005: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE) > > Ron Paul on housing bubble in 2003: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc) > > :rolleyes: Why do Ron Paul fans always link to videos rather than the written word? Back in reality, housing prices after the collapse were higher than they were in 2003, according to the Case-Shiller Housing index. So we weren’t bubbling at that time _contra_ Ron, for those insufficiently starry-eyed to plow through the vid. And right-wing attempts to tie the housing bubble to Fannie/Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1978 have been refuted again and again. There are many ways to demonstrate this, one of the most dramatic being that they had a bubble in Spain and Ireland as well, without FF. Commercial loans also had a huge bubble with no FF involvement. The common thread of course was irresponsible lending, backed by an unregulated shadow banking system. FF if anything showed more restraint than non bank mortgage providers. And where’s the mention of derivatives, rating agencies and structured products? ## So Ron Paul as usual lives in his own fact-free little world. ETA: I’m an ultra-liberal, so I’ll go out on a limb and say that rounding up thousands of your countrymen in a football stadium and shooting them is basically the embodiment of tyranny. Austrians disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927/80 "2013-07-07T04:51:36Z")
More love for Pinochet from American modern conservatives. A [Wall Street Journal editorial](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324399404578583932317286550.html) comments on Egypt’s military coup: Egyptians would be lucky if their new ruling generals turn out to be in the mold of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, who took power amid chaos but hired free-market reformers and midwifed a transition to democracy. If General Sisi merely tries to restore the old Mubarak order, he will eventually suffer Mr. Morsi’s fate. That’s from 2 days ago, on the 4th of July. As [Brad DeLong notes](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/07/the-wall-street-journal-calls-for-egypts-army-to-herd-political-activists-into-soccer-stadiums-and-shoot-them.html): “Midwifed a transition to democracy” is not how most Chileans see it. Indeed they do not, which is why I detailed Pinochet’s atrocities on the top of this page back in 2011. Recall also that Chile had a 100 year history of democracy prior to the 1973 military coup. The military government held on until 1990. Calling that a “Transition to democracy” is nothing but pure ignorance advocacy, pretty much the opposite of the truth. I didn’t know that the Wall Street Journal were among the Chilean tyrant’s biggest apologists, but I’m not especially surprised. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-austrian-school-of-economics-finally-dead-with-ron-pauls-retirement/604927.md?page=3)