Anybody interested in talking about economic history?Also, gibe recommendations. This one is mine, top tier book.
>What school(s) of thought do you believe in?
>Do you think economics should strive to be a hard science? Can economics be a hard science?
>Should economics look at the discipline of political economy again?
>inb4 go to /lit/
>>1358851
Seems neat, is this a kind of encyclopedia?
>>1358862
Nah, it's basically a non-fiction book documenting the history and evolution of the discipline through the eyes/writings/ideas of leading economists. It basically contextualizes where each of these figures came from philosophically and lays out the strengths and criticisms afforded to each of them by their chronological successors.
Britain's biggest mistake was not electing an early Keynesian in the 1920s-1930s instead electing one government committed to Austerity, and another that was controlled by a chancellor who was committed to Austerity, who shot down every proposal for a young minister who was in contact with Keynes throughout his period in office.
Anything about Keynes by Skidelsky is good, and Skidelsky's 'Politicians and the slump' on Britain and the economic issues of the interwar period
>>1358851
That book is great.
There is only one school of thought worth listening to - mainstream economics. Everything of worth from the other "schools" has been integrated into the mainstream.
Economics should strive to be a hard science but recognise that it will never really get there.
Keynes and Friedman 4 Life ( beautiful synthesis )
What about economic history?
>>1358881
A Keynesian, nice. I like you guys. Why do you think Keynes' ideas fell out of favor in the 1970's, i.e. what do you make of the Lucas critique?
>>1358891
ooh, a mainstream neo-classical, fun as well.
>everything from the other schools has been integrated
But what about the assumptions that it makes when it comes to macroeconomic policy? And what about it's disregard of any political aspect post-Marshall? What about austerity?
>Economics should strive to be a hard science
How so? Should it become even more quantitative?
>what about economic history?
Well, because of how expansive it is given the time frame it emerged in, I was gonna ask do you think that the current school of thought is inclusive enough to be realistic enough for today's purposes, given the stakes at hand?
>>1358881
Why the hell did Churchill follow a contractionary monetary policy? What prerequisites did he have for being the Chancellor anyway?
Tbh mild fiscal Austerity is not that bad so long as an adequately expansionary monetary policy is followed ( assuming you aren't near the ZBL ).
Economics is the study of the process of "economy", as Biology is broadly the study of the processes of "nature". There is no ideal distribution of resources that can be justified from economics itself, it is always from without. The spiritual and economic are in a dialectic of sorts where the synthesis is "politics", that is the use of economy as a means to achieve higher goals outside of economy itself: "equality", "fairness", the preservation of society or "progress". These are all economic spooks effectively, they impinge on economics forcing economy to have fixed ethical goals. These have nothing to do with economics and is the reason economics is not a science atm.
There was a time where economists assumed the "goal" or end of economy was equilibrium. We now find that the economy is almost always in disequilibrium. Economy is dynamic and in constant change and (more often than not) does not tend to equilibrium. What are we to make of this? well we ought to return to the function of Economics: a study of the process of economy.
The old economics is "being" whereas the new economics is "becoming".
>>1358903
Note when I mention mainstream I include a lot of the Ideas of Keynes ( stimulus etc ) but I personally believe that fiscal policy is not as effective a tool as monetary policy. Since interest rates are so low (i.e concerns about the ZLB) fiscal policy might not be a bad idea unless if we pursue more QE or switch to NGDP targeting.
To quote Keynes- " the boom, not the slump is the time for Austerity at the treasury". Cutting back on government spending during a recession is not a good idea, unless if you have an adequately expansionary monetary policy. For places like Greece Austerity is not a good idea because they do not have their own monetary policy and must a
Suffer ECB policy.
With regards to science I meant it should follow the scientific method as closely as possible but not be over confident in its estimations.
A lot of the theory is adequate for today's purposes and problems, whether the right policies are politically feasible I'm not so confident. Things like no corporation tax, a land value tax, carbon tax, more adult retraining courses/loans, freer trade, more open immigration, deregulation ( especially with respect to housing laws ), consumption tax, that a higher minimum wage is not the way to help the poor ( and is likely to be counter productive for some ) etc
>>1358918
But couldn't you argue that politics itself has a huge role on the nature of economics itself and consequently can't be removed from it?
A lot of people, and you, by extension based on your post I assume, believe that people obey fundamental laws that consequently can enable economists to make judgement-free policy recommendations that would affect the welfare of people.
But yes, I fundamentally agree with you that economics should be the study of the economy. Not sure if you've read this or are on board with it, but I'd recommend this as well
>>1358941
>carbon tax
are you in favor or against? I'm confused.
>>1358978
Be careful with Ha Joon Chang.
For someone who claims to dislike """""free market fundamentalism"""" (I.e him strawmanning) he's a bit of an ideologue with his protectionism = growth idea. http://eh.net/book_reviews/kicking-away-the-ladder-development-strategy-in-historical-perspective/
He essentially ignores everything else (such as a large internal free market for the US ) and claims protectionism works . South Korea didn't use tariffs much Infact they gave cheap loans to companies on the basis of their success internationally, essentially speeding up their growth. However in 1997 1/3 of their big companies went bust as they had only been able to keep going thanks to the loans after their initial success. He doesn't even bother mentioning the fact that Korea had a relatively educated and cheap workforce and the role of foreign investment. His methodology is quite bad as well such as claiming that countries which liberalised did worse when he includes the data from the years of recession which caused them to liberalise in the first place!
>>1358990
I am in favour of all things listed there aside from a corporation tax and a high minimum wage.
>>1358978
well my model is essentially political economy. The Spiritual and the Economic are in a tension where neither assumes absolute authority over the other. The product of this tension is politics. Economics is not studied as a "science" because when we talk about economics we are nearly always talking about some form of politics, since political society always uses economics as a means to achieve some spiritual/ethical end. Economics is the study of the material, religion is the spiritual. Politics is the synthesis.
The conclusion of this is that economics cannot make "ought" statements about economy since it is a process of change. Once we consider economy to be anything other than an amoral process of change then we can study it on its own terms. Evolution is a natural process of change with no "goal" as such. Zoologists don't ask whether it is ethical for the lioness to kill the gazelle.
>you,[...] believe that people obey fundamental laws that consequently can enable economists to make judgement-free policy
No the failing of modern economics is that they being with a person and aggregate into "people". We have to begin with society, whether its class or occupation. We have to understand that society is more than the sum of its parts. There are no hard, quantifiable laws that govern human nature, though I believe that compassion is our highest aspiration.
I'm still only an undergrad and in the process of forming my own ideas though.
>>1359045
>Once we consider economy to be anything other than an amoral process of change then we can study it on its own terms.
oops
should be
>Once we consider economy to be anything other than an amoral process of change then we CANNOT study it on its own terms.
boy I'm tired
>>1359045
That's why there is a drive for microfoundations to Marco work.
>>1359026
Not anon, but I appreciate Ha-joon Chang for his heterodox approach and his critiques of neoliberalism and free trade; I think they're useful insomuch as he says that mainstream economic thinking is often presented as laws that must be followed, free trade helps everyone and that economics is somehow ethics-free. I agree that his argument that protectionism will lead to growth seems deficient, though; I think he attempts to defend his ethical beliefs in local democracy by arguing that this will somehow lead to growth, which I'm skeptical of.
What's the best place to start with understanding economics? One of those cheap Barnes and Nobles books that are introductions to various ideas
Austrian is the only way, as reality has shown us.
>>1359306
This is the second book on Economics you should read. Not the first, it's a little too advanced for a total beginner.
Anyone read it?
>>1359312
except it's not because your business cycle theory is wrong
Pluralism is the way to go
>>1359184
Neoliberalism is a much misunderstood thing. It's honestly not the evil thing many people believe it is.
Thttp://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31603
>The neoliberal revolution combines the free markets of classical liberalism with the income transfers of modern liberalism. Although this somewhat oversimplifies a complex reality, it broadly describes the policy changes that have transformed the world economy since 1975. Markets in almost every country are much freer than in 1980; the government owns a smaller share of industry; and the top MTRs on personal and corporate income are sharply lower. The United States, starting from a less-socialist position, has been affected less than some other countries. But even in the United States there have been neoliberal reforms in four major areas: deregulation of prices and market access, sharply lower MTRs on high-income people, freer trade, and welfare reform. Many other countries saw even greater neoliberal policy reforms, as once-numerous state-owned enterprises were mostly privatized.
>There is an unfortunate tendency to associate the term "neoliberal" with right-wing political views. In fact, the quite liberal social democracies of northern Europe have been among the most aggressive neoliberal reformers. Indeed, according to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is the freest economy in the world in the average of the eight categories unrelated to size of government.1 The Nordic countries2 have begun to privatize many activities that government still performs in the United States.
>>1359312
The Austrians don't believe in reality
>>1358893
Every attempt at micro-foundations towards macroeconomic theory has failed.
I don't think Lucas even understands that his critique is just a restatement of the problem of induction. What are we going to do, throw away all of science?
>>1358891
>Everything of worth from the other "schools" has been integrated into the mainstream.
Yeah and the mainstream really bothered to listen to Minsky right? Or bothered to pay attention to Hicks when he denounced the IS/LM?
GFC was the live test of neo-classical economics and they fucking blew it.
>>1358941
There is no point in austerity at any time. Balancing the budget is a spook.
>>1358851
>Do you think economics should strive to be a hard science? Can economics be a hard science?
Economics should strive to be a hard science yes, the problem with mainstream economics today is that it doesn't.
>Should economics look at the discipline of political economy again?
Economics that ignores politics is more political than economics that does take politics into account.
>What school(s) of thought do you believe in?
Marx and also the MMT crowd.
>>1358978
Ha-Joon Chang's anti-theory stance I think is just a ploy to be better accepted in the mainstream without being shouted down with labels.
That's good of him actually but I completely disagree with that particular stance. No knowledge is gained just by listing numbers, empty formalism does us no good when we have to make decisions. You need theory, the scientific method is all we have to guide us so don't short change theory.
>>1359026
>He essentially ignores everything else (such as a large internal free market for the US ) and claims protectionism works.
If I could be bothered I would look for the direct quote from him where he says explicitly that this isn't what he's saying. His position isn't that protectionism directly gives growth, but that without protectionism you're not in a good position to secure growth. Badly implemented industrial policy doesn't disprove him.
>>1360400
Spot the post keynesian
>>1360400
the Lucas critique is not a restatement of the problem of induction at all. Have you even read the paper itself? It's just about how different policies and expectations about policies lead to different macroeconomic results and correlations. Therefore, correlations from one policy regime won't necessarily transfer over to a new policy regime.
>>1358891
>Keynes and Friedman
You might as well say Hegel and Schopenhauer, they're complete antipodes
>>1358881
>he fell for the full employment meme
>>1358891
>Economics should strive to be a hard science but recognise that it will never really get there.
It will never be one so it should accept that but still try to adhere to rigor.
