Please feel free to join in. There's plenty of room for all (well, most. There's a couple here that can go jump in a lake).

I think that I did. Let me know what you think.

Just posted the article on price gouging. Let me know what you think.

Oh, that's just the dance we do.

Besides the objections that kh has about how some Austrians look at IP, I haven't been able to get her to say just what about the Austrian approach to viewing economics is wrong - or even counter to Objectivism.

Liked the show with Dr. Thornton. I always like listening to him on the Mises podcasts.

So, you use one of many Austrians to support your claim, because he slighted AR? You don't identify any of his actual economic theory as flawed.

And for the life of me I cannot see anything in the second citation that has anything to do with anything. Did you even read it? Is it merely because it is titled "A Catholic Looks at Austrian Economics?" Is the linking of religion and an economic theory in any minor way sufficient to negate the economic theory?

You are very irrational in presenting these sources as supporting whatever the hell you think is problematic with Austrian Economic theory. I certainly hope that there are folks here observing this back and forth who go and actually read through the items that you link, as well as what I posted above as the principle themes of Austrian Economics.

You think that Austrian economic theory is somehow founded on religion? Or that religion supports Austrian economics over other economics? That strains credulity.

Fundamental tenets of Austrian School of Economics

Fritz Machlup listed the typical views of Austrian economic thinking.

(1) Methodological Individualism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to the actions (or inaction) of individuals; groups or "collectives" cannot act except through the actions of individual members.
(2) Methodological Subjectivism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to have and whatever expectations they entertain regarding external developments and especially the consequences of their own intended actions.
(3) Tastes and Preferences: Subjective valuations of goods and services determine the demand for them so that their prices are influenced by (actual and potential) consumers.
(4) Opportunity Costs: The costs with which producers and other economic actors calculate reflect the alternative opportunities that must be foregone; as productive services are employed for one purpose, all alternative uses have to be sacrificed.
(5) Marginalism: In all economic designs, the values, costs, revenues, productivity, etc., are determined by the significance of the last unit added to or subtracted from the total.(6) Time Structure of Production and Consumption: Decisions to save reflect "time preferences" regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future, and investments are made in view of larger outputs expected to be obtained if more time-taking production processes are undertaken.
Two important tenets held by the Misesian branch of Austrian economics may also be added to the list:
(7) Consumer Sovereignty: The influence consumers have on the effective demand for goods and services and, through the prices which result in free competitive markets, on the production plans of producers and investors, is not merely a hard fact but also an important objective, attainable only by complete avoidance of governmental interference with the markets and of restrictions on the freedom of sellers and buyers to follow their own judgment regarding quantities, qualities, and prices of products and services.
(8) Political Individualism: Only when individuals are given full economic freedom will it be possible to secure political and moral freedom. Restrictions on economic freedom lead, sooner or later, to an extension of the coercive activities of the state into the political domain, undermining and eventually destroying the essential individual liberties which the capitalistic societies were able to attain in the nineteenth century.

What the heck does any of that have to do with religion or religious thought? I think you're just throwing out red herrings to try to piss me off.

The problem that Kelley has with Hayek's description of the problems with knowledge and Socialism is that Kelley seems to think that Hayek was somehow stating that full knowledge was possible, and thus Socialism would be a moral means of running an economy. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, Hayek was stating that full knowledge can NEVER be possible, and thus Socialism must ALWAYS fail. That the conceit of those who think that they can know all and efficiently/effectively run an economy from a centralized control is inherently impossible and immoral. Only the free-market and market derived pricing are effective and moral.

What else is there? Kelley does not make any direct economic theory arguments.

Still very confused.

I'm so confused. I thought this was a discussion about economics.

What logical argument? I haven't seen a logical argument. I've told you that I read the Kelley article (actually read it quite a while ago) and reject it, and provided the reasoning as to why I find it incorrect.

I've read Kelley's critique. I've also read Hayek directly, his acolytes and contemporaries who have expounded on the issue. I take their definition and description as true, and that Kelley merely is looking to discredit Hayek. I have my suspicions as to why, but have no proof.

I have not seen any evidence from a credible economist. While I appreciate Mr. Kelley for his philosophical understanding of Objectivism, he's no more an economist than I.

The problem that Kelley has with Hayek's description of the problems with knowledge and Socialism is that Kelley seems to think that Hayek was somehow stating that full knowledge was possible, and thus Socialism would be a moral means of running an economy. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, Hayek was stating that full knowledge can NEVER be possible, and thus Socialism must ALWAYS fail. That the conceit of those who think that they can know all and efficiently/effectively run an economy from a centralized control is inherently impossible and immoral. Only the free-market and market derived pricing are effective and moral.

Thanks. They do pertain to the comment made.