Replies

46 out of 100 for me. I was unhappy with the selection of the choices presented on many of the questions, perhaps because I "know" too much about economics.

For example, on economic growth (per capita prosperity might be a better term), the educational/skill level of the populace is a key component, and that was not mentioned. Also, certain kinds of subsidized research that generate positive economic externalities are important (just ask the companies that hang around research factories like Stanford, Harvard, U of Texas, etc).

On equality, I would have clicked the box that stated that while equality was a desirable goal, it should be advanced through non coercive means, and by a vigorous program of facilititating equal opportunity among the young, through providing an opportunity for all to attend quality schools (subsidized for the needy), which themselves should be far more subject to market forces than they are now. Was that box available? Er, no.

I disagree with 2 of your thoughts. Subsidized research occurs through force. So, given that value is in the mind of the beholder (if you accepted that one) then regardless of the results that come from the research, the individual who was forced to support it will never value it more than what he would have used the resources taxed away from him. This also gets to the heart of what value is. And I would agree that one cannot put a number on value, only a greater/lesser relation holds. If I cannot quantify value, then how can I quantify what the results of this research are. The other part is the "what is seen and what is not seen". However much good might have resulted from sending men to the moon must be compared to what those resources might have been used for had people been able to choose freely.

Secondly, I do not value equality. To do so, would imply that the best of all worlds would be to clone me or you and have a world of identical people, with identical outcomes etc. Yes this is extreme, but I prefer everyone to be different. And the division of labor would seem to benefit by inequality.

I got 84 even though I could have scored 100, since I know the standard Austrian responses. I just don't entirely agree. I don't think that that postulate/theorm/proof logic is non-mathematical (and Austrians are always bad mouthing anything to do with math). And I especially don't trust a system where everything depends on the postulates. Since they are givens, they can be anything you want at all. They don't have to apply to anything. However, Austrians seem to take for granted that their postulates are the "right" ones for human action in the real world. But I do think they think pretty logicially, given the givens they begin with.