POLITICS - Are you an Austrian?

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
PaulB
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Wyoming

POLITICS - Are you an Austrian?

Post by PaulB »

Now that our economy is starting to get attention (due to the impending crash - talk about getting worried too late to do anything about it :roll: ), you might want to find out what YOU believe. How is the economy put together, how does it work? Find out what school of economics you subscribe to, by taking this test:

http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp

The test is fairly lengthy, but you will know in the end. It'll make you think too. There is a shorter version.

Virtually all politicians are socialists, or at best Keynesians (if they bother to think about the economy at all). Interestingly, socialism has long been vanquished as not being a respectable school of economic thought among economists, and Keynsianism has also lost out since the '80's. Yet our governments operate as if they were still valid.
don Tomás
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:42 am
Location: Kalifornia Sierra Nevada

Post by don Tomás »

Ouch! I think I hurt my brain...Image
Tom :D
Tom

Image

'A Man's got to have a code...
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

-John Bernard Books. Jan. 22, 1901
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Post by Blaine »

58/100....Interesting test, indeed. I guess I'm not learned enough on the subject to understand my score......
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
Rimfire McNutjob
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
Location: Sanford, FL.

Post by Rimfire McNutjob »

Ouch indeed. That's a bit more thinking that I like to do on the weekend. I ended up with a 71. I fumbled the last several items on Globalisation, Unions, War, etc.
PaulB
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Wyoming

Post by PaulB »

Well, for us non-economists, I don't expect it's intended we understand every little bit of the thing. :D I just have read the 4 answers to each question and took a stab at each one.
Buffboy
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Gann Valley, SD

Post by Buffboy »

I got a 74.
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."

- L. Neil Smith
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27908
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

84 - and mad I scored so low! :?
Image
Idahoser

Post by Idahoser »

I got a 93/100 and I stand by the choices where I differed. For example,
24. What are the economic implications of warfare?

A. Warfare reduces economic welfare by destroying real resources. It can benefit a select few who benefit from military spending on the winning side only. For most consumers and businesses it means drastically reduced prosperity. The only justifiable reason for a war is pure self defense. Austrian answer. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1189

B. War reduces economic welfare by destroying real resources. It may benefit only a select few from military spending, but could also be important in terms of national goals. If diplomacy fails, the general welfare of society may increase as a result of attaining important national objectives via warfare. Defensive wars are always justified. Offensive wars may be good in some circumstances. Chicago answer

C. Warfare stimulates the economy by increasing demand. While wars appear to be destructive, we generate more wealth by rebuilding the things that wars destroy. This employs idle resources and makes for increased prosperity. Keynesian/Neoclassical answer

D. Warfare exists to increase capitalist profits. As competition forces profit rates for domestic ventures down, capitalists go overseas to collect profits. This leads to conflicts between capitalists in different nations. Nations go to war over such competing imperial claims. Capitalism is the main force behind wars. Warfare will end with the end of Capitalism. Socialist answer

Your answer: B
Chicago answer

For optimal results the answer must be: A
Austrian answer. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1189
This says it was wrong for us to get involved in WWII in Europe. This to me is self-evidently self-defense, proactively. If you don't stem Hitler he will eat you eventually, after he's taken over everywhere else and rests and builds, you aren't the big dog anymore. I doubt Mises would see it that way, but the link doesn't give anything but old quotes. (that I can find anyway)
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27908
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

Idahoser wrote:I got a 93/100 and I stand by the choices where I differed. For example,
24. What are the economic implications of warfare?

A. Warfare reduces economic welfare by destroying real resources. It can benefit a select few who benefit from military spending on the winning side only. For most consumers and businesses it means drastically reduced prosperity. The only justifiable reason for a war is pure self defense. Austrian answer. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1189

B. War reduces economic welfare by destroying real resources. It may benefit only a select few from military spending, but could also be important in terms of national goals. If diplomacy fails, the general welfare of society may increase as a result of attaining important national objectives via warfare. Defensive wars are always justified. Offensive wars may be good in some circumstances. Chicago answer

C. Warfare stimulates the economy by increasing demand. While wars appear to be destructive, we generate more wealth by rebuilding the things that wars destroy. This employs idle resources and makes for increased prosperity. Keynesian/Neoclassical answer

D. Warfare exists to increase capitalist profits. As competition forces profit rates for domestic ventures down, capitalists go overseas to collect profits. This leads to conflicts between capitalists in different nations. Nations go to war over such competing imperial claims. Capitalism is the main force behind wars. Warfare will end with the end of Capitalism. Socialist answer

Your answer: B
Chicago answer

For optimal results the answer must be: A
Austrian answer. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1189
This says it was wrong for us to get involved in WWII in Europe. This to me is self-evidently self-defense, proactively. If you don't stem Hitler he will eat you eventually, after he's taken over everywhere else and rests and builds, you aren't the big dog anymore. I doubt Mises would see it that way, but the link doesn't give anything but old quotes. (that I can find anyway)
I also answered "B" on that one - and agree with you - I'm standing by that answer. Stating "(T)he only justifiable reason for a war is pure self defense" is idiotic, as that precludes proactive self-defense which is almost always less costly (treasure and human lives) than waiting for the attack before defending one's self. If someone is pointing a gun at me, I'm going to shoot first if I can and not wait until he pulls the trigger to be sure of his hostile intentions!
Image
User avatar
JReed
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5509
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:17 am
Location: SoCal

Post by JReed »

I lean more towards answer C on that one but that only applies if the whole nation is put on a war time status.
Jeremy
GySgt USMC Ret

To err is human, To forgive is devine, Neither of which is Marine Corps policy
Semper Fidelis
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27908
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

Answer "C" is close to the classical "broken windows" argument. In a small town a mischievous boy breaks the window of a baker. The townspeople are all upset over the broken window and mad at the little fellow, when someone points out that this is actually good, because now the baker will hire the services of the glass man to repair the window. The glass man in turn will have money to spend on bread, enriching the baker.

Problem here is this logic does not account for the opportunity costs associated with the money the baker spent repairing the window. He might have decided to buy a suit, thus enriching the tailor. Or a pair of shoes, thus helping the cobbler. He may have invested in his own business, hired another employee, or simply saved the money in a bank earning interest, that was used, in turn, to provide a loan to another businessman to create jobs. The destruction of the window may benefit the glass maker – just as war often helps military contractors and suppliers – but that means the money can not be spent on other things. In the simple case above, the tailor or cobbler go without.

The only way war can create value is for the victor to forcibly take from the vanquished. This is why war has been so popular throughout all human history – because the victor taking from the vanquished is the norm. However, Americans don’t practice this, nor do we charge other countries who we save, thus war is always a net cost to society.

That being said, it is still needed, as the cost of not having a strong military and not being willing to fight proactive wars is much higher!

If war enriched a society, creating jobs and wealth, every time a country went into a recession or depression it would simply launch a war on a weaker neighbor. This is one of many fatal flaws with Keynesian economic theory! :wink:

Brain hurts now - too much thinking just after midnight! :shock:
Image
Bogie35
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: South Carolina

Post by Bogie35 »

I'm closer to "Chicagoan".

bogie
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 32240
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Post by AJMD429 »

I guess I'd better go buy a vintage Mauser - I must be Austrian - 96%!
I took route 'A' instead of 'C' and wound up in Chicago on # 7.

I have to confess an advantage - I have received the e-mail "Mises Newsletter" for several years. The actual issues are short essays on these kinds of topics and are really interesting (way less 'dry' than the quiz). It's free, and actually a fun read.

Here's an example about the Welfare State - http://www.mises.org/story/2888

Why Economists Tend to Oppose Gun Control
http://www.mises.org/story/2562

The Why of Gun Ownership
http://www.mises.org/story/1111

SWAT in Littleton (this one is really good)
http://www.mises.org/story/218
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27908
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

Reading for the weekend! Thanks AJMD429!!! :D
Image
TCB in TN
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:26 pm

Post by TCB in TN »

72/100 and each question I "missed" was a Chicago answer. There were a couple of question that I don't agree with their answer but hey they are certainly welcome to their opinion as they made the quiz.
Post Reply