Are you an Austrian?

[ribozyme]

mises.org/quiz.asp

(Takes a relatively long time to take)

Out of 25 questions:

(1) Austrian
(4) Chicago
(18) Keynesian/Neoclassical
(2) Socialist
Your score is: 30 / 100.

The test scores an Austrian School answer 4, a Chicago School answer 2, a Keynesian/Neo-Classical answer 1, and socialism 0.

Personally, I thought my score would be lower as I am obviously a left-wing extremist (relative to the viewpoints in this forum). I thought I would be more socialist though. But as evinced in my posts, I have an extreme antipathy towards an ***unregulated ***free market although I do have to acknowledge that extreme versions socialist planning (e.g. Soviet Union, Cuba) fail generally. In the interests of pragmatics, free enterprise should be allowed, but controlled to prevent the flaws of human nature taking over. I do not find Austrian thinking conducive to my sense of “social justice.”

I also do not find the “libertarian” definition of “liberty” palatable as it focuses on negative liberty instead of positive liberty.

So what do Catholics think about Mises and Hayek? Or Friedman? Catholics love Friedman I guess because the government should not have ANY role in providing welfare; private charities do it best.

 

[rlg94086]

mises.org/quiz.asp

(Takes a relatively long time to take)

Out of 25 questions:

(1) Austrian
(4) Chicago
(18) Keynesian/Neoclassical
(2) Socialist
Your score is: 30 / 100.

The test scores an Austrian School answer 4, a Chicago School answer 2, a Keynesian/Neo-Classical answer 1, and socialism 0.

Personally, I thought my score would be lower as I am obviously a left-wing extremist (relative to the viewpoints in this forum). I thought I would be more socialist though. But as evinced in my posts, I have an extreme antipathy towards an ***unregulated ***free market although I do have to acknowledge that extreme versions socialist planning (e.g. Soviet Union, Cuba) fail generally. In the interests of pragmatics, free enterprise should be allowed, but controlled to prevent the flaws of human nature taking over. I do not find Austrian thinking conducive to my sense of “social justice.”

So what do Catholics think about Mises and Hayek? Or Friedman? Catholics love Friedman I guess because the government should not have ANY role in providing welfare; private charities do it best.

Too much to read for me…besides, I know I’m not an Austrian. I was born in the USA.

 

[Filius99993]

I chose the “B” answers for the most part.

Capitalist…no.
Socialist… maybe.
Austrian… what?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Dont need to take a quiz to know that I am an Austrian (I was born their)

 

[MeekoFan]

Sorry to drudge up this old thread but I’ve been in mental misery about this topic over the last week. As a lifelong Conservative, I have come to learn and love the Austrian school of economics (Mises etc.). So imagine my surprise when I found out that Mises-like teachings of laissez-faire economics have been condemned by Papal teaching for decades.

Anyone else in the same boat struggling to reconcile their Catholic and conservative beliefs?

 

[RWMorris]

mises.org/quiz.asp

(Takes a relatively long time to take)

Out of 25 questions:

(1) Austrian
(4) Chicago
(18) Keynesian/Neoclassical
(2) Socialist
Your score is: 30 / 100.

The test scores an Austrian School answer 4, a Chicago School answer 2, a Keynesian/Neo-Classical answer 1, and socialism 0.

Personally, I thought my score would be lower as I am obviously a left-wing extremist (relative to the viewpoints in this forum). I thought I would be more socialist though. But as evinced in my posts, I have an extreme antipathy towards an ***unregulated ***free market although I do have to acknowledge that extreme versions socialist planning (e.g. Soviet Union, Cuba) fail generally. In the interests of pragmatics, free enterprise should be allowed, but controlled to prevent the flaws of human nature taking over. I do not find Austrian thinking conducive to my sense of “social justice.”

I also do not find the “libertarian” definition of “liberty” palatable as it focuses on negative liberty instead of positive liberty.

So what do Catholics think about Mises and Hayek? Or Friedman? Catholics love Friedman I guess because the government should not have ANY role in providing welfare; private charities do it best.

The entire test is taxing (doesn’t that make it socialist? ) and wrongly focused. For example, question 4, “What is the economic impact of saving” all answers are focused on the effect of savings on society, not on the individual, which is the only effect that matters. If I was forced to choose (doesn’t that make it totalitarian? ) I would go with the fourth answer, but even it contains elements of government meddling. My answer may be simplistic, but so is the test.

Hey Ribo, I didn’t know you were a member of the Banned.

 

[Dale_M]

Hey Ribo, I didn’t know you were a member of the Banned.

Of course, banned members typically stop reading CAF so he is unlikely to see your comment. His profile shows he lasted visited CAF in January.

 

[Kook]

There’s a lot of good in Mises and Hayek, but you have to understand that they aren’t right about everything. You have to take the subsidiarity with solidarity and you can’t separate economics from its moral dimension. Think of it in terms of Quas Primas and the Social Kingship of Christ. Christ must reign in our politics and our pocketbooks.

I’m not a full-blown distributivist or anything but you might be able to get some good balance by reading Chesterton and Belloc on the subject. I suggest starting with Economics for Helen by the latter.

 

[RWMorris]

Of course, banned members typically stop reading CAF so he is unlikely to see your comment. His profile shows he lasted visited CAF in January.

Thanks Dale, guess I should pay attention to the dates these folk post, but I had to take one last poke at Ribo. I probably should have directed my reply to MeekoFan.

 

[RWMorris]

Sorry to drudge up this old thread but I’ve been in mental misery about this topic over the last week. As a lifelong Conservative, I have come to learn and love the Austrian school of economics (Mises etc.). So imagine my surprise when I found out that Mises-like teachings of laissez-faire economics have been condemned by Papal teaching for decades.

Anyone else in the same boat struggling to reconcile their Catholic and conservative beliefs?

I do not struggle with this issue, at least not much, and not anymore. I used to live an exiting life as a whining, demanding, loud, boorish, bed wetting, foot stomping, anti-Christ, lying, cheating, hedonistic, liberal atheist. Now I am just a conservative Catholic, and much happier. While I believe in laissez-faire economics, I also believe society, not necessarily the government, has a responsibility to make the playing field as level as possible. The capitalist system has reduced the proportion of abject poverty is this world a thousand times more than any other economic system ever devised. Jesus told us we will always have the poor. Our job is to alleviate their suffering, not to change their status. We should give the poor the tools to change their status (an education, a descent economy), but changing their status is up to them.