>most of people in Economics are right-wing
>most of people in Sociology, History, Geography, Philosophy, Political Science and almost every humanities area are left-wing
Why?
[citation needed]
>people in a hard-science field that relies on empirical evidence and other concepts entirely divorced from human biases/emotions and are right wing
>people in a soft-science field full of memes and feelings are left wing
Golly gee I wonder why
>>1399069
Where'd you get this info?
>most
I'd say the modal economist is center-left, but you're certainly correct that economics is much more right leaning than the other social sciences. IMO this is mostly due to selection bias rather than education. What sort of right-leaning individual would even consider going into sociology? Most recoil at the notion of taking SOC 101 in undergrad never mind devoting a career to it. On the other hand, many right-leaning individuals find economics appealing.
>>1399069
>most of the people in History are left-wing
No.
t. Right-wing history major whose fellow majors are also right wing
P.S.
Don't lump us in with those sociology fuckos ever again.
>>1399105
>center-left
M8,Keynes was a capitalist pro free market economist,and he is the father of what we call the "left" economically. The real economic left died a long time ago.
>>1399080
>economics
>hard science
>empirical evidence.
>>1399080
Economics of not a hard science.
>>1399113
Are you left?
>>1399116
Unless you're talking about those lunatic "praxeology" types then yes, the field of economics is based largely on empirical evidence.
>>1399125
"Largely" is the key word. Economics also relies a lot on modelling more non-concrete concepts in the same manner as "soft sciences" which on the whole it has more in common with than say physics and such.
Because economics is based on reality.
Sociology and the other jazz doesn't need to survive in reality to be "legitimized".
>>1399120
No. But it is just how it is. The current economic left is on the right of the old one.
>>1399099
>and their debates are usually with economists.
>>1399069
The neoclassical synthesis is centrist more than anything, the idea that economists are right-wing is a meme.
For example most economists agree the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was good for the economy, hardly a right-wing view.
>>1399139
Yet we're walking onto a more and more centralized economy. How do you explain that?
Are Sociology folks taking the command in the economic bureaucracy too?
you only think right wing economists are the norm as they get the most publicity. Nobody wants a non hyperbolic article, it wouldn't get any views.
>>1399125
>Unless you're talking about those lunatic "praxeology" types
>those lunatic "praxeology" types
>"praxeology"
>lunatic
NAP's over, kid.
>>1399160
Nobody wants a crazy lunatic spewing leftist bullshit calling it "economics".
>>1399165
>crazy lunatic spewing leftist bullshit
and yet again it shows how the right is always hyperbolic to present a opinion, which is a feature most journalists like to have.
>He still buys into the left-right dichotomy meme
>>1399164
>muh magic axioms
>>>/r/harrypotter
>>1399156
>Yet we're walking onto a more and more centralized economy
Bureocratize I would say,not centralized. Most production and bussiness,if not all in most countries are privately owned. Privatization has been the norm in the last 30 years,and true centralized economies,like Cuba are transitioning to more market like economies.
Economists are interested in what works, and making sure the economy is stable.
Leftists are only interested in whining over perceived inequality. Problem is, inequity does not necessitate inequality.
>>1399198
>Economists are interested in what works, and making sure the economy is stable.
>mfw almost no one saw 08 coming
Sure
>>1399195
Not him but don't you see how the economy is less and less free every Day due to government action?
That's left economics
>>1399254
I said they are interested in it, not that they are seers that can predict the future.
>>1399139
You're wrong. The current left just shifted tactics. They realized that they were just a bunch of intellectuals and couldn't bring about a proletarian revolution as long as they didn't convince "the people", the actual people, to join them. So they now base their activism on redefining cultural norms and slowly socializing the means of production through gradual reform.
t. cultural marxism.
>>1399262
>they are seers that can predict the future.
People did saw it coming you know. Traders did. I just find it hilarious you can say what you just said with a straight face after what has happened
>>1399270
What's your point?
I doubt many people saw it coming, because stockbroker suicide spiked several-fold after the crash.
>>1399254
What are you talking about? Economists predicted 12 out of the last 2 recessions.
>>1399286
My point is that 08 proves economists are more influenced by politics than pragmatism as you so claimed
>I doubt many people saw it coming,
The problem back then was nobody wanted to see it coming. Everyone in Wall St was making money so they didn't care about what could happen. People who bothered to do the math or have the courage to recognize a bubble saw it coming.
>As long as the music keeps playing, you got to keep dancing
>>1399069
Philosophy and Political science are mostly the same as economics. Personally I don't think neo-liberals should be considered right-wing. They are disgusting.
>>1399069
>Why?
Read up on Economics and you'll find out. The very pillars of the discipline are inherently right wing in their nature in the same way that those of Anthropology are inherently left wing
I'm not even referring to any one particular School or Economist, just the entire study of economics in general
This book is a pretty basic approach to the subject, it's what I recommend most people read up on if this is a topic they haven't researched before
>Also,
Fuck Milton Friedman and fuck his retarded-ass Chicago school of economics. Hands down the most overrated "Economist" of the 20th century. I don't even call that shit economics because it's very premise disregards everything we've already established and known about Economics
>>1399301
Well I fully concede that they are influenced by politics, as are everyone.
But what I was talking about is that leftist people have a tendency to think they are authorities on economics simply because they have read some Karl Marx.
>>1399254
Friedman would, but he died only two years before.
>>1399254
>>mfw almost no one saw 08 coming
Actually they did and there were entire groups of people who redeployed to take advantage of the situation (pic related)
Plenty of people told Bush to refigure his economic plan and if he had done so 3 years earlier, we might have made a clean getaway
>>1399335
>Fuck Milton Friedman and fuck his retarded-ass Chicago school of economic
So, which's the GOAT school in your opinion?
>>1399069
>>most of people in Economics are right-wing
How's that working out for our wonderful debt-based economy?
>>1399336
>leftist people have a tendency to think they are authorities on economics simply because they have read some Karl Marx.
You have no idea how much this shit makes my blood boil
>>1399363
>economists run everything
Based retard
>>1399360
>So, which's the GOAT school in your opinion?
Behavioral Economics. Mind you, it's a comparatively new discipline but they are on to something
>>1399371
>economists don't run their own field
>>1399371
Economists run our monetary policy and create CBO projections, which at least ostensibly guide fiscal policy.
>>1399375
Is that some spin off of Public Choice?
>>1399255
>Not him but don't you see how the economy is less and less free every Day due to government action?
No. Left economies is the goverment/workers controlling the economy. Most countries are transitioning away from this,through privatization.
>>1399356
Noticed how no one in pic related are economists? Those 'plenty of people' should have been on the news warning WS instead
>>1399336
As opposed some right wingers who think they know it all when they read some obsure Austrian economists? But in all fairness I assumed you were claiming all or most economists are right wing
>>1399393
>Those 'plenty of people' should have been on the news warning WS instead
The fuck did they care? They were too busy taking advantage of the situation
>>1399388
>Left economies is the goverment/workers controlling the economy
Controlling economy isn't owning the means of production you dumb fuck. It's like saying the Nazis didn't have a centralized economocy because the owners were private.
The state is intervening and regulating more and more the economy. It is getting less free and it it socialism.
>>1399397
And the only ones who could have stopped it. At least much better than the government could
>>1399403
>Controlling economy isn't owning the means of production you dumb fuck.
Most private companies can choose their production dumbass. The goverment doesnt tell companies what to produce. All the countries have privatized things like telecom or energy companies,and those markets have been partially liberalized. The economy of the 60's was less liberalized in most sectors than it is today.
> The state is intervening and regulating more and more the economy
This is wrong moron. Sectors like the energetic or telecom have been heavily liberalized,public companies are dissapearing extremely fast,and the goverment dorsnt decide what they produce or not. Most of the economy is heavily decentralized,and no country is changing this tactic except Venezuela. Even Cuba is liberalizing the economy.
>>1399356
>plenty of people told George not to do something
He's the fucking president. Plenty of people tell them to not do everything. It's especially worthless in economics, where there are big names predicting an economic collapse every fucking month. Even putin said the USD would become worthless when China announced the gold yaun
>>1399380
>Is that some spin off of Public Choice?
Sort of but not entirely. It seeks to add a "human irrationality" variable. Essentially, it's a merger of psychology and Economics
A text I read a while back described it something like this?
>People don't follow the economic rules?
>People do things that don't fit neatly into demand and supply curves?
>People respond differently to different situations depending on stress, time, and what they see others around them doing?
>Behavioral economisst try to figure out how and why actual behavior differs from rational behavior (which would be the lowest cost, lowest risk and most profitable course of action when looking through the lense of economics)
>The answer seems to lie somewhere in the herd behavior or tendency for people to assume something is right because everyone else is doing it
That is an oversimplification but I encourage you to read up more on your own time
>>1399080
How is geography not a hard, empirical science? Rocks exist, that's empirically true.
>>1399429
Geography=/=geology
>>1399423
>Even putin said the USD would become worthless when China announced the gold yaun
Putin is not an economist
But yes, the study is very speculative in nature. At this moment in time, it's not a fully mature discipline and still somewhat in it's trial and error phase so things can only truly be understood in retrsopective.
What's important to understand is that there are multiple schools of Economics and Bush was ultimately following one (Chicago) that should be discarded as a failed experiment
>>1399069
The reason is the the difference in the basic conception of the individual.
For economics people are conceived as being driven to objects to consume them. A basic postulate is that of infinite "greed", ie. wants are never satiated. They call it the so called "homo economicus". So, in this conception, the person is an atom, and has his preferences subject to constraints, the agents is inherently free to pursue his wants. So, it's sort of like the right wing conception of an individual.
In sociology etc, the conception of the individual is different. The person and his wants are determined by society, in the so called process of socialization. So, family upbringing and society at large determine his behavior and wants and so on. So this is in stark contrast to the economics conception of the individual, and lend itself to collectivist thinking.
>>1399416
>And the only ones who could have stopped it.
What part of "The fuck did they care?" did you not understand?
>people saying that a economist job is to predict the future
>people saying a gigantic pile of shit about epistemology of economics
The core of economics science is philosophical, started with enlightment, with the same people that founded concepts such as "rational actors", individualism and social relations on a micro-level based composing the basis for society. This line of thought emerged through the centuries in some academical movements that inspired the methodology and the way that you make economics science (and science overall) today.
On the other hand, other types of social sciences also was influenced by some of this scientifical-rationalist approach,and they are more likely to be right-wingers or libertarians/classical liberals, like Max Weber in sociology.
>>1399433
shit i look like a dindu :^(
>>1399444
I think you are biased, because this is the shittiest explanation of methodological individualism that i ever seen.
>>1399421
>The goverment doesnt tell companies what to produce.
They tell them how to produce, that's almost the same.You have the FDA, the Fed, the DOE, CPSC and many others dictating what5 you can do with your own money, but the economy is more free than before?
What? You have Obamacare, the Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae, and 90% of children are in public education.
None of that exist only a century agot. America's economy is getting more and more socialist as the time passes.
>>1399447
>The core of economics science is philosophical,
Right.
> started with enlightment
Wrong. The Portuguese and Spanish from Salamanca started Econoics as we know.
>>1399447
>people saying that a economist job is to predict the future
It is.
t. Friedman
>>1399455
It's something of a myth that the USA always had a libertarian economic system. Right from Hamilton it had a policy of heavy government subsidy and intervention in industry.
>>1399069
>Libertarians
>Right-wing
Yeah, no.
>>1399455
>They tell them how to produce
They don't. They just regulate some form of productions. BMW doesnt produce the cars the same way than Audim most of the economy is mostly liberalized.
> You have Obamacare, the Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae, and 90% of children are in public education.
Social programs=/=socialism
> None of that exist only a century ago
A century ago they were more public companies in the world than there are nowadays.
> America's economy is getting more and more socialist
Can you tell me any american public company that is not a social programme? Even the military equipment is produced mostly by private companies. Habing regulations and social programs doesnt mean that the economy is socialistic.
>>1399465
If you want this type of historyline thought, economics started with the greeks. They even invented the word for, or maybe started earlier. But economics as we see today is an enlightment creation. The salamanca Priests was a great contribution on theories of value, but they did not invented a method closer to ours.
>>1399467
You're need to learn the difference between a model that corresponds to an event in reality with a nice margin of certainity (positive economics) and actually predicting the future. This type of simplification it's not accurate.
>>1399069
>>most of people in Sociology, History
most people I know who likes to read about ancient history are conservative. The people I know who have this "lol everyone in the ancient world was a retarded flat earth believing peasant" is a liberal
I don't understand this right/left labelling of economists. What is the criteria?
>>1399471
>They don't. They just regulate some form of productions
Yeah, that's socialism. The free market is the most ethical and efficient way to decide how things are going to be produced.
>Social programs=/=socialism
They are.The government is providing non-public goods, and that's socialism.
>A century ago they were more public companies in the world than there are nowadays.
In the world, maybe, but US economy was free and now it isn't.
>Habing regulations and social programs doesnt mean that the economy is socialistic.
Ok, let't change for corporativism. You
have a symbiosis between some companies and the State. Even if you don't see it as socialism (I think it is) it is far from being free, and quite less than it used to be.
And I'm not even mentioning how the Federak, government is the biggest spender and how taxes grew over the last 100 years.
Because stupid shit like sociology can only get you employed in a socialist system. It's just self preservation instinct.
>>1399490
>In the world, maybe, but US economy was free and now it isn't.
>Even if you don't see it as socialism (I think it is) it is far from being free, and quite less than it used to be.
Myths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?IR=T
>>1399364
Marxist are nothing more than wanna be smug, elitist, aristocrats who believe they are so fucking smart, they could bring about an utopia if everyone just did what they said without question. All this "le party of the workers!" talk is pure transparent bullshit.
Just say you didnt go to college and work some blue collar pleb job and watch as they thumb their nose at you. Its pretty funny
>>1399477
If your problem is about the certainty or uncertainty of the prediction, then what you say is true, but that is just a matter of degree.
>>1399445
>Implying whether they care is equal to whether they can
>>1399499
Can't you argue with your own words and not use WIkipedia?
>>1399499
Gotta laugh at shit countries with progressive tax rates thinking they have a free market. Flat rate or fuck off.
>>1399511
You mean make up untrue things, like you?
>>1399488
In economics, there's a debate even bigger than right x left. It's the orthodox x heterodox economics.Although people tends to think that orthodox = right wing and heterodox = left wing, that's wrong. Austrian economics are heterodox and they are, like, the most capitalist ever (on a insane level). But because this confusion, the criteria for political orientation of a economical theory is blurred. Orthodox methodology claims to be more impartial and strictly scientifical, so it embodies a lot of point of views. You have some marxists and keynesians using the orthodox methodology and they are definitively not right-wing.
As you have lots of governments in latin america with right wings dictatorships using left-wing economics as development economics and post-keynesianism.
Everything is a mess in economics
There might be some insights at 21:14 in https://youtu.be/szIGZVrSAyc?t=21m14s (the posed question is not that relevant to what he says)
>>1399488
Its fluctuates every decades based on american politics.
Right now the right houses the libcaps, the alt-right (authoritarian capitalists), and conservatives.
Left (democrat party) houses the socialists and the liberals.
>>1399490
>Yeah, that's socialism. The free market is the most ethical and efficient way to decide how things are going to be produced.
Did we just finish reading Atlas Shrugged? Fuck off with the Austrian Economics, that shit edgelord tier
>>1399517
>say a makeup untrue things
>don't mention which ones
kek
>>1399069
False premise. 1/2
>>1399069
False premise. 2/2
>>1399501
t. didn't understand Marx
>>1399522
Literally Ad hominem the post. The state can't pave roads, do you want them to decide wha's better for you?
>>1399527
Marx cannot be understood as it's literally nonsense.
>>1399527
>rich elitist want to trick plebs into making him and his NEET friends the new kings on the promise of utopia
I understand it perfectly
>>1399522
>Atlas Shrugged
>Austrian Economics
Why are retards like you allowed to post? It drags the overall debate quality down to utter shit.
>>1399522
Rand loathed Mises and Rothbard and Hayek said he couldn't go into Galt monologue.
>>1399525
Does this include an entire 300 samples?
>>1399526
Actually this is not real evidence. Elections are not based only in ''you vote who you like'', there's a lot of ''you vote who you hate less''. And for a economist, the american parties are not that different on their economics policy-making. the most free-trade president that usa had on the near past was clinton.
For a economist, your opinion on the president and your theories doesn't need to be sctrctly aligned
>>1399537
Those posts were so stupid I didn't even see why should I answer them.
>wikipedia link
>US wasn't a minarchy in XIX
Just kill yourself already.
>>1399545
I'll leave it there.
I think any reasonable person can see who is making the "stupid" posts.
>>1399547
You are.
t. not him
>>1399501
>Marxist are nothing more than wanna be smug, elitist, aristocrats who believe they are so fucking smart, they could bring about an utopia if everyone just did what they said without question. All this "le party of the workers!" talk is pure transparent bullshit.
Of course. It's not a well fortified conclusion they've come to after years of deep thought, research and introspection, it's just the hip and trendy thing to be doing right now. I doubt any of them even read HALF of Marx, much less all of it but again, it's not about ideas. It's about being an arrogant cunt with an unwarranted sense of self satisfaction (pic related)
>Just say you didnt go to college and work some blue collar pleb job and watch as they thumb their nose at you. Its pretty funny
I've been there and done that.
If you really want a laugh, Ask them what inflation is and why it happens and watch their pompous asses try and bullshit their way through the question
>>1399527
>t. understands Marx and literally nothing else
>>1399531
>The state can't pave roads, do you want them to decide wha's better for you?
>The state
Who are these people, Anon?
>>1399570
>that image
Every fucking time I really wish more people would read/acknowledge it.
>>1399590
>Every fucking time I really wish more people would read/acknowledge it.
>tfw I'll be the redneck putting them on their knees and shooting them in the back of their stupid head for not being dedicated enough
I feel you, Anon. I feel you
>>1399080
Almost every professor I met in the college of science (while earning my degree in physics) was a bleeding heart liberal bordering on communist, along with most of the students
>>1399570
If you read Lenins biography (hint:don't, it's shit) he was basically an edgy, moody tryhard. He pissed literally everybody off and worshipped Marx, engels and that other guy like they were kings. Took every word they said as gospel and ignored advice that contradicted it. Total fuckhead.
>>1399616
>Almost every professor I met in the college of science (while earning my degree in physics) was a bleeding heart liberal bordering on communist, along with most of the students
Because people in academia are detached from reality,and are mostly jealous of "dumber people" that earn more in the private sector.
>>1399601
>mfw I grew up in one of the worst areas of London yet at a good university with alot of wealthy/privately educated hipsters who, when I argue against communism, have no concept of where those in their position end up during a communist revolution
>mfw I would end up in the same position as you, albeit shooting those I now associate myself with because they were too idealistic to understand communism doesn't work
>>1399618
I honestly think Lenin couldn't possibly have had a triple digit IQ, he was legitimately a moron.
>>1399621
over intellectualising nonsense is a pretty good indicator that someones a fucking idiot. If you can't explain the reason why you believe the things you do, you don't understand it. Just ask any commie what the main message of das kapital is, they won't be able to tell you anything outside of rambling about inequality and oppression. At least Mussolini's doctrine was fucking concise.
>>1399626
Yeah, he would genuinely be considered learning disabled if he had to do a stanford IQ test. That's not even hyperbole, I think the chances of him being mentally retarded are pretty high.
>>1399626
That's silly.
Lenin's opinions on how economies and societies should be managed have been proven spectacularly incorrect, however he and plenty of other very smart people held those opinions during his time period.
The idea he was a sub-100 IQ thicko is laughable.
>>1399639
well he defeated the czars so where should we put them in the IQ rank?
>>1399642
I'm thinking more about the fact how he completely fucked up Russia / USSR. It wasn't until Stalin (and I'm saying this as someone who hates Stalin) when they finally got on pre-WW1 economic levels and became a relevant country.
>>1399544
Free trade is a no brainer if you're the richest and have been the most developed nation in the world for a long time.
What's more interesting is regulation and redistribution of wealth. Almost on no major issue do they sit to the right. Even on the minimum wage there's no consensus.
>>1399080
Economics isn't a hard science, and the vast majority of scientists lean democrat.
Nice b8 by the way
>>1399649
Why are so many lefties for gun control? Even fucking Marx wanted the proletariat to be armed.
>>1399645
The czars were a minority, when you whip up the idiot masses by convincing them that they are smart you can get them to do anything. A 30 second conversation with anybody who legitimately considers themselves a communist/socialist is enough to show how retarded they are.
>>1399645
They were fairly inbred.
>>1399656
why didn't the csars convinced the masses to not kill them? But not only the czars all the russian royalty. bunch of dumbs fucks.
It's true that economists are less left leaning than other disciplines(so the question is legitimate) but to say that economists are actually right wing is misrepresenting the truth.
Economists are really just centrists.
>>1399664
Because communism relies on majority over minority logic. 'we have more people who agree so we are right'. Doesn't matter who disagrees and how strong their argument is, they will be discounted as either borguise or insane. Because nobody sane would disagree with this many people, right?
>>1399672
>Because nobody sane would disagree with this many people, right?
you could say the same about capitalism
>>1399679
The people who mainly benifit from capitalism/feudalism are in the minority, jesus fucking christ. The majority of people are either middle or working class. Literally nobody who is successful in business or life in general is a leftie. Literally nobody.
>>1399654
Well firstly economists aren't lefties.
The thing people don't realise is that both parties support different business interests but business interests all the same. The Republicans are obviously in bed with gun manufacturers while the Democrats like good overlords with no other incentive simply want them gone.
Which is IMO why we are seeing so many false flag operations recently. :^)
>>1399687
I'm not asking about the establishment but about the average voter.
>>1399653
>the vast majority of scientists lean democrat.
That's because republicans are associated with religious conservatives
But what with the rise of social justice, feminism, multiculturalism, regresivism (which, lets face it, is nothing more than the liberal equivalent of the religious conservatives) I'm sure a lot of scientists feel like they are stuck between a rock and a hard place
>>1399679
>you could say the same about capitalism
Not really. You WOULD have to be insane to disagree with the masses in a communist country for fear of being sent to the gulag for having the wrong opinion
>>1399685
>Literally nobody who is successful in business or life in general is a leftie
I disagree.
Successful artists are left-minded.
That's about it
>>1399695
Liberals are brain washed by democrat control over media and their own smugness garnered from class blind intellectual posturing. It's the cancer of lesser evil voting.
>>1399080
>people in a hard-science field that relies on empirical evidence and other concepts entirely divorced from human biases/emotions and are right wing
>Economics
>>1399699
>That's because republicans are associated with religious conservatives
>But what with the rise of social justice, feminism, multiculturalism, regresivism (which, lets face it, is nothing more than the liberal equivalent of the religious conservatives) I'm sure a lot of scientists feel like they are stuck between a rock and a hard place
Unfounded assumptions.
>>1399705
That's because the world is left nowadays. Do you really think some fat dyke spurting period blood on a picture of nelson mandela would have been successful in a right wing society? No she'd be locked up.
>>1399634
>what the main message of das kapital is
Capitalism is a bad system.
>At least Mussolini's doctrine was fucking concise.
Yeah and look what happened to that.
>>1399724
Honestly, Mussolini wasn't doing too bad until Hitler dragged him into a war he wasn't ready for.
>>1399724
Are you saying that socialism is more effective than fascism just because it's still around? Communists literally sabotaged mussolinis italy whilst the world was at war with them. You literally can't say anything positive about fascism without being labelled a racist but you see leftie cunt teenagers wearing marx/lenin/che t shirts at uni all the time. Leftism is essentially a result of being over memed by commie meme speak.
>identifying with the silly concept of the political spectrum
>having biased uninformed opinions about people from either self proclaimed "group"
>not realizing we're all humans with the goal of living a good and happy life
I swear humans are ridiculous
>>1399685
yeah.. so the czars were dumb throwed out by someone less dumb like Lenin.
Glad we agree.
>>1399743
When you grow up and you realise wealth disparity is a thing you'll begin to understand what these conversations are about.
>>1399745
They weren't necessarily dumb, Lenin just changed the criteria for what dumb was. For commies dumb=people who don't understand the absolute shite I speak.
>>1399743
what if what makes happy a certain person is to fuck in the ass an other person?
>>1399718
>Unfounded assumptions.
You have one end of the political spectrum who wants to pollute science with intelligent design and of 'panda's and people' and then you have the other end who wants to pollute it with cultural Marxism, talks of social constructs, white privilege and how global warming is sexist.
It's not unfounded at all to jump to the conclusion that a rational mind looks at it and thinks to themselves that neither option looks good
>>1399743
>He doesn't even know about Red Brain, Blue Brain
>>1399735
>Mussolini wasn't doing too bad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quota_90
>>1399736
>Are you saying that socialism is more effective than fascism just because it's still around?
No.
>Communists literally sabotaged mussolinis italy whilst the world was at war with them.
What was left of it maybe.
>You literally can't say anything positive about fascism
Good, it's just a shit populist ideology.
>but you see leftie cunt teenagers wearing marx/lenin/che t shirts at uni all the time.
Sorry that triggers you so much.
>Leftism is essentially a result of being over memed by commie meme speak.
Hmmmm, fascinating arguments there.
>>1399774
>Quota 90
>Implying this appreciation didn't make imports cheaper and help bolster Italy's heavy industry for the inevitable war
Honestly if this is the worst thing you can dig up, I think I've made my point.
>>1399736
>but you see leftie cunt teenagers wearing marx/lenin/che t shirts at uni all the time
>marx/lenin/che t shirts
This kind of shit tickles me to no end. Are they not capable of grasping the Irony of putting the Visage of a Communist leader on a piece of merchandise?
I just wonder if someday, they're going to do all the math in their head.
>Wait a minute! by spending money on this merchandise, I am feeding the harmful Bourgeoisie!
>Wait a minute! by doing so, they are unethically profiting at the expense of the oppressed Proletariat!
>Wait a minute! Lenin was against this sort of thing!
>Wait a minute! Lenin's face shouldn't be on something that the Bourgeoisie use to turn profits!
Fuck it. Now I want to buy a Che shirt just as a way of mocking him
>>1399818
I understand why so many people fly into a blind incoherent rage when discussing politics with radical leftists. It's not to do with hate it's just BECAUSE THEY WON'T FUCKING LISTEN TO REASON AND JUST PARROT SHIT THEY'VE READ ON THE INTERNET.
>>1399774
Hey tranny.
>>1399425
>Essentially, it's a merger of psychology and Economics
So, it's praxeology
>>1399780
not that guy, but what do you consider to be socialism? there are clear positives of socialism the way I think of it, but it's probably not the same.
>>1399809
What heavy industry? Italy was terribly unprepared for war by 1939. Their economy was in tatters.
>leftists trying to discuss economics
Economics are a Jewish practise so I'm none surprised that the people involved in its study are greedy.
>>1399876
>Economics are a Jewish practise so I'm none surprised that the people involved in its study are greedy.
>t. man who knows nothing about economics
If you had said Lending and Investing I might have believed you, better luck next time
>>1399888
>t. Hipters Mciphone
What a waste of a fullhouse GET. I am dissapoint
>>1399876
I thought the fuckers were liberals
>>1399520
>democrat party
>left
>houses the socialists
>>1399540
Rand didn't like Mises, but Mises did quite like Rand.
Additionally her disagreements with Rothbard were chiefly grounded in views on the state rather than on economics.
>>1399654
Yah at because what you think go lefties aren't Marxists. Marxists are for arming the proletariat
>>1399649
That's way more substantial. It's curious about their social policies positions, very ambiguous.
This kind of reforces the OP's hypothesis but add remarks and exposure failures, because economically, overall they tend to be more pro-markets, but they are definetily not right wing in a sense.
>>1399520
>The Democratic Party are leftists and socialists
>This is Americans actually believe
>>1399069
Idk about you but at my uni my psy professor whom I worked under had a copy of The Bell Curve displayed in her research room and confided in me the truth about the biological realities of intelligence and mental health, and my other one posted literal meme infographs btfoing feminism outside his office and was extremely atheist and conservative cause evolutionary psychology and I swear to God he lurked /pol/.
People who search for truth still exist, they just can't talk about it openly anymore cause modern universities don't care about the truth anymore. All they care about is tuition monies and the political indoctrination required by the state cash flow.
>>1399946
Austrian economics are way infulential on the neoclassical thought. They had Menger, Wicksell, Wieser, etc.
And austrian economics is actually being taken serious on some departments like GMU, NYU and Columbia and they are excelling in economic research (GMU is also a place for this new wave of ''market monetarists'' that are reintroducing chicago school in the mainstrean of macroeconomics). Of course, they are more ''hayekian'', so to speak, as they don't get their epistemology from of von Mises, but take a more ''orthodox'' or mainstrean approach insetad.
The problem of austrian economics is the people on internet that are reading some article written by lunactics at Mises Institute and talking shit on internet.
>>1400056
Sorry for misspelling.
>>1400051
Try again.
>>1400020
Obama and hillary used to be moderates sure. But with bernie and stuff they're going full sweden, especially on borders
>>1400056
>so to speak
>>1399649
>""re""distribution of wealth
This is something that's always triggered me. As long as the country is growing in wealth, there is always going to be a larger gap. That doesn't mean that the peasants had something stolen from them.
>>1399425
>It seeks to add a "human irrationality" variable.
dude that one already exists irl. But economics is a logical model, so if illogical logic is your thing whatever bro.
just don't understand how you can relate an up market with + [ { ( A = ~A ) } T ] TT + ironylogical pseudo math
doesn't make sense
read the coming corporate state by alexander raven thomson, economically left
he also wrote civilization as divine superman
>>1399520
neo-liberals*
>>1399899
Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them
>>1399753
>YOU JUST NEED TO LIKE GROW UP MANNN
God you're such a loser
>>1399773
Holy shit kill yourself
>>1399765
Than make yourself happy with something more substantial like being a good person and living a good life.
>>1399653
>Economics isn't a hard science
neither is theoretical physics according to this trite logic.
>>1399869
No shit. Mussolini explicitly told Hitler that Italy wouldn't be ready for war in '39, I believe he told Hitler they'd be ready in '42.
>>1399335
>those of Anthropology are inherently left wing
Only the Humanities sector. Scientific anthropologists are usually no wing or right wing because they accept Inertia.
>>1399295
I kek'd tbf
>>1399743
>goal
yuh that's the problem right there
>most of people in Economics are right-wing
Citation? Wtf does "in economics" mean anyway?
>>1399069
Because much of western economics are based on the concept of unending capitalist growth. They just want to find ways to get more regardless of the human consequences or the damage it causes to society.
That would be my theory anyways, if I didn't think you were incorrect to begin with.
>>1399743
This shit right here folks.
Particularly on 4chan I see people lumped into left or right for the sake of arguments. Does no-one argue things according to context and situation? Some things are useful in some cases, other things are not.
But no, lets just assume everything is always being argued at it's logical extreme and in absolute terms according to a group ideology. That's fucking useful. Sometimes I wonder if this is just the result of Americans projecting their two-party political idiocy on everything under the sun.
I swear the real cucks are the ones that subscribe to packaged beliefs instead of working things out contextually.
>>1399080
>economics
>hard science
Isnt econ one of the 4 main fields of the social sciences?
Since when was social science a hard science?
>it uses math
>therefore its hard
Fuck outta here.
>>1399069
What is with this meme to act like economists are a monolithic people who generally support one side or the other?
Theres a joke in the social sciences: if you get two economists in the same room, you'll get three different opinions.
They're social scientists. Their works are far more subtle and nuanced than you might expect listening to mainstream politics.
Even the guy you have in your picture, Milton Friedman, along with others like Hayek, were essentially centrists. IF you were to put a label on their views it would be closest to social dems than anything else.
>>1400854
Academics are generally supposed to find the right answer to the right situation. Or at the very least determine the problem. They often do this.
Most people on this board would have you think that all of academia are either flaming SJW communists or /pol/tards though.
>>1399069
>economics
>the "study" of how to make the free market look like it's working
>>1399364
>Marx never had a job
When will this meme end?
>>1399069
>philosophy departments are usually "left-wing" No, they're usually Independant/Republican (and 90-10 male-female ration)
Milton Friedman was a communist, though. He was just smarter than your typical commie, and that made him more dangerous.
>>1399532
Makes shitloads more sense than any waffle any conservative ever wrote about misty, unscientific notions like god, culture, race, or nation.
>>1401777
Not anymore. Democrats are going to end the republican party once and for all using immigrant votes.
Then American politics will be a toss up between giving minorities welfare or giving them free cars.
>>1399348
2 years wouldn't have been enough time to fix the problem so he's guilty too
>>1401777
You don't understand what that means. If they're voting democrat that means they're not voting for the most right wing option of the only 2 options they have.
This undermines the idea that we know them to be right wing.
That's the point. How right wing democrats are doesn't mean anything because you can't vote for a more left wing party in the USA.
The statement isn't that economists are left wing, but rather that you can't conclude that they're right wing. Have some nuance.
>>1399741
Are your retarded?
>>1400099
It's interesting that you say peasants here because historically those who became peasants had their land stolen from them in order to turn them into peasants.
Anyway, no reasonable person cares about these pseudo-moral principles of meritocracy or you get what you give ethics. What matters is that everyone should be able to eat and sleep comfortably without constant stress over their future, this is why we redistribute wealth.
Also I won't argue with someone as spooked as you sound but redistributing wealth does not slow down growth, in fact not redistributing has much worse outcomes for growth in the long run.
>>1400188
Like that position will ever come to be.
Most of people in Economics are liberals and other scum, not right-wing.
Because economics studies the spooky flow if one spook into another spook using more spooks. Right wingers need their spooks
Its a shame that the Germans had to go and lose a war. Otherwise we'd know for sure whether or not state capitalism would have worked or not.
To be fair, we can look at China for example as the new model for state capitalism.
So if in 10 years they are doing great and we are licking their bungholes in the new world order of trickle down economics we can safely say that state capitalism works.
>>1399718
hah
>>1402039
Not distributing currency at all does hurt the quality of life in a country, but it most certainly won't hurt growth in comparison to the alternatives. In fact, the United States has been operating at a trade defecit for over 40 years. the 35% corporate tax rate that doesn't actually help businesses for half of those taxes is not internationally competitive.
>>1402092
>english police
this triggers me
>>1399254
peter schiff did : ) but he is just based
>>1402004
I'd like to also point out, that liberal economics will never last in a democracy.
Cycle of boom and busts are a natural occurrence (I know some say that its lessened by libertarian policies even though it happened in history when policies were very non-interventionist in the 1890's etc).
Which leads me to my point...
Anyone who says they are not going to fix the economy with government intervention is going to lose the next election and will be replaced by someone who says they will.
If they don't, then they will eventually either vote for a fascist or communist.
So no... Libertarian policies can only be implemented by a dictatorship. Say like by a guy in Chile who gave free helicopter rides.
>>1399363
blame the Keynesian's
why do Europeans get angry when the left-right spectrum is different in the us than in Europe. Of course it is going to be try not to sperge out too hard.
>>1402114
Interesting. Why did you post this?
>>1402116
Private not public debt.
>>1402144
When I mean liberal economics I mean modern right wing hands off no government intervention economics.
When the bust happens people will invariable elect someone who has left wing policies such as quantitative easing etc as they can show they are trying to fix the situation.
A government who sits on their hands and says "Its better if we do nothing. Without intervention the economy will fix itself." will get voted out every time.
So its pointless to argue for libertarian economics, because it will never last as long as there is democracy.
>>1402153
True.
>>1399672
Bullshit; Comunism relies on """"benevolent"""" intellectuals spoon-feeding Marxism to the unwashed masses with a shamelessness that would make a televangelist blush - until they can get the secret police and the politburo up and running, at which point they stop inspiring and start ordering.
>>1400188
>making a faggy hashtag on twitter is equal to violent feudal revolutions
When will they ever learn?
>>1399818
I like it. It's delicious to watch commieboos walking around wearing reminders of the victory of Capitalism.
>>1400905
it's not a meme when it's true
>>1402385
>"I was spoon-fed memes about Marxism and now I parrot that stuff on 4chan because I have autism"
>calls bullshit on others
ok, kid
Is 'left wing economist' a contradiction in terms?
>>1399535
I guarantee you have a meme level understanding of Austrian economics just like everyone else on here
>>1399069
Autistic leftists study physics/chemistry etc.
>>1399364
>>1404236
The others never made the pretenses that Marx did, though, and that was the point of the image. That image just reads as someone from /leftypol/ getting shitter-shattered.
>>1404219
A meme ideology deserves nothing more but memes. All Austrian economists should be hanged.
>>1404209
What exactly do you mean with "left wing"? There's this whole heterodox side of economics, in contrast with the more physics-like orthodox economic school of thought
>>1401777
Hi Jill. Just because you don't spout "soclialist" policies, doesn't mean you aren't left-wing
>>1404313
And all Marxists should be boiled alive
When will /leftypol/smokers go back to 8gag?
>>1399470
>libertarian is an economic policy
wew lad
>>1404458
When their board has more than 8 users.
>>1404303
They've had as much "life experience" as Marx in general and you hear their fanboys bashing Marx for being, at best, a journalist.
I disagree with Marx on many accounts(his "idea" of deterministic history is plain retarded for instance, and I'm here more for history than for humanities) but the Friedman/Rothbard/whoever worship some people around there practice is plain fucking retarded.
>>1400056
it's only really GMU where they have any influence now
not to say there aren't some credible austrians around but they really are few and far between now
>>1404547
friedman doesn't deserve to be lumped in with rothbard
>>1403971
Marx worked as a journalist for several papers. He also tried to organize workers in Germany and France before he was exiled and then moved to London to live with Engels.
>>1399080
>economics
>hard-science field that relies on empirical evidence and other concepts entirely divorced from human biases/emotions
You are retarded.
t. major in economics
>>1404463
Both you and him are very stupid.
>>1404458
8gag is more fascist than /pol/.
It has no users and the ad.in still updates the site 7 times as fast as the 4gag admin
>>1399108
>Don't talk to me or my subfield ever again
>>1404547
Ayn Rand doesn't have more "life experience" than Marx? What, she went from relative luxury to nearly starving to death in <4 years.
>>1404236
>That image
Wow! Three strawman's for the price of one! Did we eat our Wheaties today?
>>1404648
>Journalist
>job
>>1404236
>Rand was a piece of shit
>Rothbard was a piece of shit
>Friedman was a piece of shit
>But then again, Marx was also a piece of shit
There is a lesson to be learned here; Don't take economic advice from jews
>>1406017
>s-s-shut up
>i-i-it isn't a job if I say it isn't
Epic. Simply epic
>>1399069
The most influential economists and their legal ilk (read: Professor Posner the elder & the "Law and Economics" school of thought) see the world in purely economic terms, disregarding human costs and non-economic injustices.
Side note: In less formal conversations, Posner in paricular has had a tendency to slip up and contradict himself in favor of power structures.
>>1399165
Nah, you want a well dressed young man talking about the entrepreneurial spirit, dynamism and risks-taking given that he learned from getting a shitton of his father's money
>>1406046
>My theories have no explanatory power so I must broaden their scope further so as to make my claims unfalsifiable
